9 ms·

I've been a conservative since I had a minimum wage job, for one reason: I want the government out of my life as much as possible. I firmly believe nobody will

I've been a conservative since I had a minimum wage job, for one reason: I want the government out of my life as much as possible. I firmly believe nobody will care about my family as much as I do and I don't want the government's golden handcuffs. Leave me alone, let me work, and I'll happily live with whatever happens. I think this is the fundamental disconnect in left-right (economic) politics. The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.

irrational 5y ago
That’s an awfully selfish outlook, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be willing as a society to care for the poor and needy among us? So far every other group and organization has completely failed at that, except for government. I am happy to pay my taxes so that my government can take care of those who not as well off as I am.
mattwad 5y ago
> I want the government out of my life as much as possible unless it has to do with your education, gender identity, sexual preference, religion, voting, or women's rights, I assume
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  This is an uncharitable reading. Almost no one would answer that they want the government to impose positions over their personal views on those topics
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Except it's accurate. Most conservatives are fair-weather individualists who only care about "liberty" in loose terms as long as the liberty that they believe is being affected is their own. We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minorities the right to vote, or allow mixed-race couples to marry. No conservatives lost liberty in any of those instances. They lost their "special" status, which is what they're really worried about and why the populist rhetoric resonates so strongly with them.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Reread my post, I I thought I was clear emphasizing that they didn't want imposition on themselves. Nobody does
      - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        You cannot divorce their record on the rights of others with their claims of being for liberty, thus the GP's post was not uncharitable at all.
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
      Not just Republicans, though. Plenty of Democrats were against gay marriage as well - including Obama as recently as 2004.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        I don't think the parent referenced Republicans or Democrats at all. The parent was talking about "conservatives". And anyone who opposed same-sex marriage in 2004 -- Obama included -- should absolutely be counted as having (at least some) socially-conservative views. Obviously many people changed their minds since then. It is perhaps notable, though, to consider that most of the people who changed their minds since then identify as Democrat, while many more Republicans continue to hold such backward, discriminatory views.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Are you including Obama in that? He was against gay marriage until the tide turned. What about the CA Prop 8 against gay marriage that was widely supported by minorities? Were you "dragging, kicking and screaming" those minorities as well?
      - cuteboy19 5y ago
        'Minorities' are not inherently liberal or conservative. And it's possible to be conservative on one issue only
awill88 5y ago
In a idealogical vacuum, totally fair. But in a (spiritually) capitalist economy, the federated nature of government is an effective instrument when applied properly. It’s not either the left or right’s fault that government is dysfunctional, it’s that greed is the root of all evil and subversion necessitates complex regulation over time.. it’s a double edged sword. Hands off and risk irreversible damage to millions, hands on and risk irreversible damage to millions. I do not envy the job of governing (justly).
ATsch 5y ago
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic at hand but statistics show the far majority of minimim wage workers, for many of whom it is not just a short phase, will disagree with you on this.
ragona 5y ago
This is clearly a spectrum. On one hand we have Mad Max-style "might is right" anarchy, which is over-prioritizing freedom. On the other we remove all personal choice in order to "keep people safe." So the question is, "how much risk is acceptable?" Are we okay with the idea that getting sick can ruin your entire financial future? Are we okay with child labor? Personally I lean towards providing a social safety net, and I think most people actually want _some_ version of that as well -- but perhaps have not thought deeply about where exactly the balance is for them.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  There's also a question of how personal freedom interacts between people. If one person has a contagious disease, and knows it, do they have a right to put others at risk of infection without those others' consent? If so, that infringes on the personal freedom of the others. If not, then isn't their personal freedom infringed? "Prioritizing freedom" and "keeping people safe" can each claim either position!
HanShotFirst 5y ago
Without the government your minimum wage job likely would have been sub-minimum wage...
heavyset_go 5y ago
> The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. The right are proponents of right-to-work legislation that force unions to represent non-dues paying members for free, and nullifies their private contracts. That's not exactly liberty, and it minimizes risk for owners.
- stale2002 5y ago
  That's not true at all. Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization. Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.
  - hither_shores 5y ago
    The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it. In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf. What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract. So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        Workers are free to take non-union jobs if they don't want to be in a union.
avidphantasm 5y ago
This is all well and good, but we have essentially had this for 40 years where anti-trust enforcement is concerned. I don’t think anyone can honestly say this has been a good things, especially not for small businesses. There is a conservative argument for breaking up big businesses thereby enabling democratic control over our economic destiny, which has been largely lost, to the detriment of 99% of us.
krapp 5y ago
>The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. The right (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders, in other words the exercise of violence, whereas the left also believes the government has a duty to provide for the social welfare of its citizens in exchange for the power granted to it by social contract. And when the right says it wants liberty, what it tends to mean is that it wants liberty from the social obligations that the left tend to want government to support.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  > The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. I think you're close here, but I don't think that's the root of it. That difference in position is important, but it comes from even deeper philosophical differences. I think this boils down to the argument over positive vs negative rights (freedom to vs freedom from). A worldview built on negative rights has to have a much smaller legitimate role for the government than one built on positive rights. In the former, the government can never make anything better, only potentially rectifying wrongs (usually via punishing the offender). Within that framework, the goal of the government becomes to rectify the worst of the wrongs while disturbing things as little as possible. A worldview built on positive rights inherently leaves a bigger space for the government to behave legitimately, because this worldview sees the government as having a role in making things better. Of course, there are very few people who adhere 100% to either of these, so reality is a bit more complicated.
- watwut 5y ago
  > (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders People who support police when police breaks laws are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it increasingly hard to prosecute and investigate cop when those are suspect of breaking law are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it legal for police to use escalating aggression are not pro law enforcement either. These people are pro state violence people. Simple as that. Whether it is happening in Russia, America or elsewhere.
majormajor 5y ago
Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome. This is why we don't see a mass migration from tech jobs to welfare... But for catastrophe prevention... you don't have to think the government will care as much about your family as you do to want there to be a support system in for your family if you die, become unable to work, etc... And "liberty" alone is so undefined as to be meaningless for these purposes. Is "paying less taxes so that the disabled don't have as much help" an example of liberty? For you? For them?
- kelnos 5y ago
  > Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome. Right. It's weird to me to see so many people framing it in the ensures-good-outcome sense. A "safety net" is literally a thing that catches you when you fall. That's it. It doesn't push you higher in general; it just helps you avoid the lowest of the low.
vmladenov 5y ago
Most Americans aren’t even at liberty to leave their jobs as they risk medical bankruptcy from a hospital trip.
jdmichal 5y ago
In my early 20's, I would have agreed 100% with your stance. But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying about how they're going to keep a roof over their head and a meal on the table. Without worrying that they're one medical emergency away from losing everything they've worked for. You want people creating small, lifestyle businesses? Give them a safety net and let them take that step without risking everything.
- umvi 5y ago
  I'm not convinced. There are plenty of countries with social safety nets galore, and all of them seem to have fewer freedoms and fewer small businesses created per capita than the USA.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Most "businesses" created in America are shell corps designed to push money around and limit liabilities. They don't produce anything.
  - jdmichal 5y ago
    If this is any indication, the US is certainly not winning that race: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micro/Small-and-medium-enterprises/Number/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr... I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here. EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing. https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2... So, based on those two sources, your assertion seems straight up incorrect.
    - knubie 5y ago
      I'm not sure where that first link is getting its numbers, or why they're so outdated, but the US Small Business Association puts the number of small businesses in the US at around 31.7 million [0], or just over 100 per 1,000 people, which would top that list (excluding Indonesia, which, BTW why is it so high?) [0] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/05122043/Small-Business-FAQ-2020.pdf https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0512...
ahevia 5y ago
I recently moved from a conservative state to a liberal one. The government at the former was far more controlling then my new home. I’ve never understood this argument. Conservatives are just as invested in intervening in our lives. See recent legislation limiting medical access, voting rights, environmental protections in the Southeastern US. In my new home. I have better access to medical care, the outdoors are better funded, voting is simple and easy. Both parties want control over the populace. The idea one party is advocating for more “liberty” is a reductive way of viewing politics
idontwantthis 5y ago
I also want government out of my life as much as possible. I don't want them controlling what I do with my body or who I love, or how I present myself. Who should I vote for?
- 0x7E3 5y ago
  Libertarians.
watwut 5y ago
I don't think people ask for social support from goverment as "emotional" support or "expression of deep love" - the way you seem to interpret it. It is way more about practical down to earth "do I get health care or not" thing. It is also about what kind of environment is build - both social and physical. Also, golden handcuff means enough money so that you don't want to leave. I don't think such high govermental support exists all that often.
sumedh 5y ago
> The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. Why did the republicans bail out the banks then? The right wants you to think you should be responsible but the guys at the top will happily give and take govt money.
orestarod 5y ago
Is bailing out banks and huge corporations a left wing or a right wing thing to do? Clearly the second, judging from reality. Your second paragraph is a ridiculous tale of the right that has gotten to the minds of many. "Liberty together with the risk" only concerns non rich people. Look at all those entities getting saved when in a pinch by sweet government money, and tell me if they have liberty or not. Is there a reason EVERYONE cannot be bailed out the same way? US government just threw 3 billion and counting in a heartbeat at Ukraine but somehow a safety net for its own citizens is non feasible?

irrational 5y ago

That’s an awfully selfish outlook, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be willing as a society to care for the poor and needy among us? So far every other group and organization has completely failed at that, except for government. I am happy to pay my taxes so that my government can take care of those who not as well off as I am.

mattwad 5y ago

> I want the government out of my life as much as possible unless it has to do with your education, gender identity, sexual preference, religion, voting, or women's rights, I assume

s1artibartfast 5y ago
This is an uncharitable reading. Almost no one would answer that they want the government to impose positions over their personal views on those topics
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Except it's accurate. Most conservatives are fair-weather individualists who only care about "liberty" in loose terms as long as the liberty that they believe is being affected is their own. We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minorities the right to vote, or allow mixed-race couples to marry. No conservatives lost liberty in any of those instances. They lost their "special" status, which is what they're really worried about and why the populist rhetoric resonates so strongly with them.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Reread my post, I I thought I was clear emphasizing that they didn't want imposition on themselves. Nobody does
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      You cannot divorce their record on the rights of others with their claims of being for liberty, thus the GP's post was not uncharitable at all.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
    Not just Republicans, though. Plenty of Democrats were against gay marriage as well - including Obama as recently as 2004.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I don't think the parent referenced Republicans or Democrats at all. The parent was talking about "conservatives". And anyone who opposed same-sex marriage in 2004 -- Obama included -- should absolutely be counted as having (at least some) socially-conservative views. Obviously many people changed their minds since then. It is perhaps notable, though, to consider that most of the people who changed their minds since then identify as Democrat, while many more Republicans continue to hold such backward, discriminatory views.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Are you including Obama in that? He was against gay marriage until the tide turned. What about the CA Prop 8 against gay marriage that was widely supported by minorities? Were you "dragging, kicking and screaming" those minorities as well?
    - cuteboy19 5y ago
      'Minorities' are not inherently liberal or conservative. And it's possible to be conservative on one issue only

awill88 5y ago

In a idealogical vacuum, totally fair. But in a (spiritually) capitalist economy, the federated nature of government is an effective instrument when applied properly. It’s not either the left or right’s fault that government is dysfunctional, it’s that greed is the root of all evil and subversion necessitates complex regulation over time.. it’s a double edged sword. Hands off and risk irreversible damage to millions, hands on and risk irreversible damage to millions. I do not envy the job of governing (justly).

ATsch 5y ago

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic at hand but statistics show the far majority of minimim wage workers, for many of whom it is not just a short phase, will disagree with you on this.

ragona 5y ago

This is clearly a spectrum. On one hand we have Mad Max-style "might is right" anarchy, which is over-prioritizing freedom. On the other we remove all personal choice in order to "keep people safe." So the question is, "how much risk is acceptable?" Are we okay with the idea that getting sick can ruin your entire financial future? Are we okay with child labor? Personally I lean towards providing a social safety net, and I think most people actually want _some_ version of that as well -- but perhaps have not thought deeply about where exactly the balance is for them.

SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
There's also a question of how personal freedom interacts between people. If one person has a contagious disease, and knows it, do they have a right to put others at risk of infection without those others' consent? If so, that infringes on the personal freedom of the others. If not, then isn't their personal freedom infringed? "Prioritizing freedom" and "keeping people safe" can each claim either position!

HanShotFirst 5y ago

Without the government your minimum wage job likely would have been sub-minimum wage...

heavyset_go 5y ago

> The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. The right are proponents of right-to-work legislation that force unions to represent non-dues paying members for free, and nullifies their private contracts. That's not exactly liberty, and it minimizes risk for owners.

stale2002 5y ago
That's not true at all. Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization. Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.
- hither_shores 5y ago
  The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it. In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf. What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract. So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      Workers are free to take non-union jobs if they don't want to be in a union.

avidphantasm 5y ago

This is all well and good, but we have essentially had this for 40 years where anti-trust enforcement is concerned. I don’t think anyone can honestly say this has been a good things, especially not for small businesses. There is a conservative argument for breaking up big businesses thereby enabling democratic control over our economic destiny, which has been largely lost, to the detriment of 99% of us.

krapp 5y ago

>The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. The right (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders, in other words the exercise of violence, whereas the left also believes the government has a duty to provide for the social welfare of its citizens in exchange for the power granted to it by social contract. And when the right says it wants liberty, what it tends to mean is that it wants liberty from the social obligations that the left tend to want government to support.

ByteJockey 5y ago
> The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. I think you're close here, but I don't think that's the root of it. That difference in position is important, but it comes from even deeper philosophical differences. I think this boils down to the argument over positive vs negative rights (freedom to vs freedom from). A worldview built on negative rights has to have a much smaller legitimate role for the government than one built on positive rights. In the former, the government can never make anything better, only potentially rectifying wrongs (usually via punishing the offender). Within that framework, the goal of the government becomes to rectify the worst of the wrongs while disturbing things as little as possible. A worldview built on positive rights inherently leaves a bigger space for the government to behave legitimately, because this worldview sees the government as having a role in making things better. Of course, there are very few people who adhere 100% to either of these, so reality is a bit more complicated.
watwut 5y ago
> (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders People who support police when police breaks laws are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it increasingly hard to prosecute and investigate cop when those are suspect of breaking law are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it legal for police to use escalating aggression are not pro law enforcement either. These people are pro state violence people. Simple as that. Whether it is happening in Russia, America or elsewhere.

majormajor 5y ago

Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome. This is why we don't see a mass migration from tech jobs to welfare... But for catastrophe prevention... you don't have to think the government will care as much about your family as you do to want there to be a support system in for your family if you die, become unable to work, etc... And "liberty" alone is so undefined as to be meaningless for these purposes. Is "paying less taxes so that the disabled don't have as much help" an example of liberty? For you? For them?

kelnos 5y ago
> Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome. Right. It's weird to me to see so many people framing it in the ensures-good-outcome sense. A "safety net" is literally a thing that catches you when you fall. That's it. It doesn't push you higher in general; it just helps you avoid the lowest of the low.

vmladenov 5y ago

Most Americans aren’t even at liberty to leave their jobs as they risk medical bankruptcy from a hospital trip.

jdmichal 5y ago

In my early 20's, I would have agreed 100% with your stance. But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying about how they're going to keep a roof over their head and a meal on the table. Without worrying that they're one medical emergency away from losing everything they've worked for. You want people creating small, lifestyle businesses? Give them a safety net and let them take that step without risking everything.

umvi 5y ago
I'm not convinced. There are plenty of countries with social safety nets galore, and all of them seem to have fewer freedoms and fewer small businesses created per capita than the USA.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Most "businesses" created in America are shell corps designed to push money around and limit liabilities. They don't produce anything.
- jdmichal 5y ago
  If this is any indication, the US is certainly not winning that race: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micro/Small-and-medium-enterprises/Number/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr... I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here. EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing. https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2... So, based on those two sources, your assertion seems straight up incorrect.
  - knubie 5y ago
    I'm not sure where that first link is getting its numbers, or why they're so outdated, but the US Small Business Association puts the number of small businesses in the US at around 31.7 million [0], or just over 100 per 1,000 people, which would top that list (excluding Indonesia, which, BTW why is it so high?) [0] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/05122043/Small-Business-FAQ-2020.pdf https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0512...

ahevia 5y ago

I recently moved from a conservative state to a liberal one. The government at the former was far more controlling then my new home. I’ve never understood this argument. Conservatives are just as invested in intervening in our lives. See recent legislation limiting medical access, voting rights, environmental protections in the Southeastern US. In my new home. I have better access to medical care, the outdoors are better funded, voting is simple and easy. Both parties want control over the populace. The idea one party is advocating for more “liberty” is a reductive way of viewing politics

idontwantthis 5y ago

I also want government out of my life as much as possible. I don't want them controlling what I do with my body or who I love, or how I present myself. Who should I vote for?

0x7E3 5y ago
Libertarians.

watwut 5y ago

I don't think people ask for social support from goverment as "emotional" support or "expression of deep love" - the way you seem to interpret it. It is way more about practical down to earth "do I get health care or not" thing. It is also about what kind of environment is build - both social and physical. Also, golden handcuff means enough money so that you don't want to leave. I don't think such high govermental support exists all that often.

sumedh 5y ago

> The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk. Why did the republicans bail out the banks then? The right wants you to think you should be responsible but the guys at the top will happily give and take govt money.

orestarod 5y ago

Is bailing out banks and huge corporations a left wing or a right wing thing to do? Clearly the second, judging from reality. Your second paragraph is a ridiculous tale of the right that has gotten to the minds of many. "Liberty together with the risk" only concerns non rich people. Look at all those entities getting saved when in a pinch by sweet government money, and tell me if they have liberty or not. Is there a reason EVERYONE cannot be bailed out the same way? US government just threw 3 billion and counting in a heartbeat at Ukraine but somehow a safety net for its own citizens is non feasible?