What do conservatives think about equality ?

[Vic]

You lie.

Not even remotely do I lie. That is EXACTLY how it is. If the panic-stricken, idol-worshiping mob of ignorance and outrage that labels itself conservatism in America today had its way, slavery would still exist in America, alcohol and homosexuality would still be crimes (albeit flagrantly broken), and weekly Christian church attendance would be mandatory.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the socialist authoritarians on the left either, but social authoritarians who think they're small govt conservatives just because they support some economic freedoms are nothing but hypocrites, at best.

As for liberalism, there are very few posters on this board that know what that actually means. I could explain, but if you actually believe what spidey posted, and think that what I posted is a lie, then it would be nothing but a waste of my time.

 

[werepossum]

thanks, that's what I'm looking for. See I believe discussions are better if we understand where we start from, otherwise some positions are hard to understand.

I agree with your statement on promoting equality of opportunity, lets take a specific.

estate tax. If we both believe in equality of opportunity for young people, and if I can assume that we can agree that money or the lack of it effects opportunity, then if that was the only consideration would we both want all youngster to start out with the same funds available ?

Of course there's a conflicting right, the right to profit by one's labors. I think we both agree on that right ?

If we do, now there's a conflict between the right to amass wealth and pass that on to one's heirs, and the inequality of opportunity that creates for the children of less wealthy parents.

Where we stand on that conflict seems to me ought to be the difference between liberal and conservative.

That's a pretty good analysis, except many liberals do not agree that there is a right to profit from one's own labor, believing instead that all wealth is society's (read government's) to distribute fairly. Conservatives believe it is not right to take one person's money to give to another; liberals believe this is not only right, but necessary to have equality. This is because liberals fundamentally believe that all people are equal and interchangeable; thus any inequity in outcome must result from a systematic oppression of some sort. This is not true. The child of a brilliant and successful surgeon is much more likely to become in turn a brilliant and successful surgeon than is the child of a drugged out welfare mother. Given adequate assistance many more children of welfare mothers would become brilliant and successful surgeons, but most would not. Most people, no matter their birth or advantages, do not have the intelligence and drive to do something so demanding.

All people must be equal in the eyes of the law, but people are never equal in intelligence and drive, so no matter how much social engineering we do, outcomes will never be equal. This leads to programs that don't raise poor or minority children, but rather lower the bar so that they can compete. If you start a program where poor inner city minority children are given intense tutoring and effective education, perhaps keeping them in school for an additional year or two if necessary (perhaps keeping them on welfare through age twenty-one), then these children could compete in medical school and society would be richer. If you start a program where medical schools are given quotas of poor inner city minority children they must admit, then these children could compete in medical school - but society is made poorer, as a quota of doctors will be less well educated and thus less efficient. Both programs achieve what liberals supposedly want, but in reality we always get the second choice in which society is made poorer in the name of diversity.

I think too that you are wrong on our agreement of freedom. Freedom as conservatives think of it means freedom from interference and oppression, with all the rights and terrors of any free creature. Freedom as liberals think of it means freedom from interference and oppression, but also freedom from want and need, at least to a reasonable degree. Suppose you are born to a wealthy family, say the Huxtables of Cosby fame, and I am born to a drug addicted welfare mother whose only interest in me is that I be around once a month when the welfare lady comes to call. A conservative would say you and I are both equal; as you noted, a liberal would say we are not equal, because you have much more opportunities than do I. But a conservative would also say we were both equally free because we have equal constraints placed on us by law. But I'm betting you (and most liberals) would say you are more free than I. How can I be as free as you, when you can do anything you wish but society limits my options? Thus a conservative might offer me a helping hand because it's a moral thing to do or because it's a smart thing to do for society, whereas a liberal would offer me a helping hand because he believes both my equality and my freedom have been infringed. On the surface it seems like the same thing, but if I ignore (or bite) the helping hand then the conservative figures I've had my chance and the devil take me, whereas the liberal figures the helping hand was deficient.

Good topic and good and well-reasoned posts in it, by the way. Thanks!

 

[Zorkorist]

Some great posts in this thread, but regarding equality I will just summarize and expand on the posts that say "Equality of Opportunity," with "not of Outcome."

As long as the crack baby has a chance to better themselves through hard work, imagination, brain power, etc., we are free. As soon as that crack baybe is limited in what they can do, what they can achieve, by Government, then we are not free.

His equality is in the OPPORTUNITY to achieve.

Liberals equality is in DENYING others achievements.

Liberals look to impose least common denominator standards on everone, denying many of their rights to opportunity and freedom.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Finally, any discussion along these lines must mention "The American Dream."

It's a dream of succeeding through hard work and perspiration.

It's not a dream that relies on Governement, or community, but rather, it is founded in individuals; an American's Dream.

-John

 

[Patranus]

Some great posts in this thread, but regarding equality I will just summarize and expand on the posts that say "Equality of Opportunity," with "not of Outcome."

As long as the crack baby has a chance to better themselves through hard work, imagination, brain power, etc., we are free. As soon as that crack baybe is limited in what they can do, what they can achieve, by Government, then we are not free.

His equality is in the OPPORTUNITY to achieve.

Liberals equality is in DENYING others achievements.

Liberals look to impose least common denominator standards on everone, denying many of their rights to opportunity and freedom.

-John

Well said.

 

[Zorkorist]

Thanks.

 

[Vic]

The ignorance of basic political theory on this board is sometimes astounding.

 

[Zorkorist]

Educate us Vic... I have a nice buzz going.

 

[Vic]

Educate us Vic... I have a nice buzz going.

The basis of liberal ideology is that rights are inherent and that is people who give govt its powers.

For example, the founder of liberal political theory, John Locke, said is his book Two Treatises of Government, which itself is the foundation of liberal ideology:
"To understand political power aright, and derive from it its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. "
and...
"If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom?"

The answer, of course, is the social contract. But it is we, as individuals as equals, who give this power to the governing body to enforce the contract. And not the other way around. The governing body gives us nothing but what we give it.
This is the very fucking foundation of liberalism.

So yeah yeah, ideals lose their way and names and labels are easily confused. And yeah, the American public since about 1980 has become confused as to what the word "liberal" means. I get that. But that doesn't mean I have sit around and watch it quietly.

 

[shadow9d9]

Finally, any discussion along these lines must mention "The American Dream."

It's a dream of succeeding through hard work and perspiration.

It's not a dream that relies on Governement, or community, but rather, it is founded in individuals; an American's Dream.

-John

This dream was very possible.. especially with slavery, women without the right to vote, no ability to form unions as workers... monopolies... child labor... Got hurt on the job? Just get fired, so they could hire your replacement! What a dream!


They required no government intervention... because they all fixed themselves through the will of the people and freedom!

 

[Zorkorist]

Love the Locke quotes, Vic, but as you hinted, there is no liberalism like John Locke posted.

Today, while we still have representative rule, it is more or less rule by the masses. The Societal Contract is a failure.

The only thing that really makes sense in the long run is Locke's naked man.

This requires that Man is good, but I have always argued that he is.

 

[Tom]

I don't know any liberals that ascribe to the view that there should be equality of outcome. I don't ascribe to that.

 

[PJABBER]

BTW, in seeing your background I fully understand why you post what you post and why you have the attitudes you do. Your parents escaped governments just like the one that many here see as ideal. A form of government we may very well end up with here if those that recognize what's happening don't remain vigilant and fight back against it. My parents did not experience what yours did. But I was fortunate enough to get an education before history books were re-written. Altered to show that the liberators were the agressors and so on. You almost can't blame younger people today because they received a rather thorough brainwashing.

How people could so fully embrace a form of government that has failed in every instance before is beyond me. Of course their history lessons taught them otherwise. Duh!

You are right in that perspective is both a generational thing and a consequence of the indoctrination most seem to get in school.

Like a lot of idealistic and dare I say intellectual kids, I spent time exploring the wonders of socialism. So many promises, so little delivered. I was even a Democrat for for a couple of years when I was in college since I grew up in a Democrat run town. I went Independent after Carter was in office for a little while. I think I registered as a Republican while Reagan was in office. I supported Steve Forbes for President (yeah, still an idealist after all those years!) After that I was always Independent and anyway working overseas a lot over the years I just didn't really follow American politics all that closely.

As the oldest of the five kids I tend to be the most to the right I guess as a classical liberal, but then I went to a Jesuit college, took an interest in geopolitics and philosophy and had that chance to examine and reject a lot of the theory, getting a more practical bent when I started running businesses and being in the Army kept me from living in dreamland as well.

To give you an idea of the contrary effect of modern education, being exposed first to liberal educations after high school and then only to liberal media where they lived, my siblings' politics run from an anarchist to a social liberal San Francisco Democrat to a fanatical anti-Bush Hollywood Democrat to an "I don't care who is in office so long as I don't get killed with taxes and why are you arguing so much about this stuff anyhow?" middle of the roader. The arguments when we get together are much tougher than anything I see here. Hehehe.

Luckily my Latina wife is more conservative and traditional than I am and watches that our kids don't get their minds twisted around by propaganda, not that there is much in the Catholic schools. None of the hmm, hmm, hmm Obama stuff, so maybe they will turn out OK.

 

[Zorkorist]

This dream was very possible.. especially with slavery, women without the right to vote, no ability to form unions as workers... monopolies... child labor... Got hurt on the job? Just get fired, so they could hire your replacement! What a dream!


They required no government intervention... because they all fixed themselves through the will of the people and freedom!

Shadow, what is the Government, but the will of the people, with taxes...

It doesn't take a Government to impose civility, respect, obedience... these are all principals established by individuals.

 

[Vic]

Love the Locke quotes, Vic, but as you hinted, there is no liberalism like John Locke posted.

Today, while we still have representative rule, it is more or less rule by the masses. The Societal Contract is a failure.

The only thing that really makes sense in the long run is Locke's naked man.

This requires that Man is good, but I have always argued that he is.

Of course he is.

This is my personal summation of all political theory:
If everyone was perfectly educated, ethical, and honest, liberalism would work and we'd all be happy. If such a thing as the all-powerful State/Church were real, socialism/fascism/monarchism would work and we'd all be happy.

 

[PJABBER]

The basis of liberal ideology is that rights are inherent and that is people who give govt its powers.

For example, the founder of liberal political theory, John Locke, said is his book Two Treatises of Government, which itself is the foundation of liberal ideology:
"To understand political power aright, and derive from it its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. "
and...
"If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom?"

The answer, of course, is the social contract. But it is we, as individuals as equals, who give this power to the governing body to enforce the contract. And not the other way around. The governing body gives us nothing but what we give it.
This is the very fucking foundation of liberalism.

So yeah yeah, ideals lose their way and names and labels are easily confused. And yeah, the American public since about 1980 has become confused as to what the word "liberal" means. I get that. But that doesn't mean I have sit around and watch it quietly.

You are absolutely right, Vic. That is some of the foundation of classical liberalism. And that is the meaning of liberal all over the world but here.

But the use of the word "liberal" in the U.S. has changed and now refers to modern, or welfare, liberalism. Something completely different and something alien to the founding principles and principals of the country. Liberal here really means some form of socialism.

I guess progressives as they define themselves would have been called communists a few years back, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, they don't want to use that word for fear of being dated.

And, I apologize for saying that you lied earlier. I didn't put my American thinking cap on fast enough to get your point and your definition of the terminology.

 

[Zorkorist]

werepossum-

you make many good points, however I don't know any liberals that ascribe to the view that there should be equality of outcome.

Tom, you will have to help me with this, but earlier in this thread it was argued that two young men going off to College should be equal.

Doesn't that imply that no matter what the circumstances of their youth, they should be equal in that outcome?

Extraapolate that to being 25 years old, and of couse you should be paid what 25 year olds are paid, __never mind your apptitude, or lack of.

The very premise of this thread was arguing that equality means, equality of outcome.

 

[Tom]

The value of the kind of work you do, even the kind of work possible, is most certainly derived from the level of the society.

Being a nuclear physicist in a destitute village in Somalia won't make you a contributing member of that society. But Man is almost infinitely adaptable, so, if willing and physically able, the physicist can, in extremis, become a subsistence farmer, so long as he is supported through that education by a kind sponsor, in lieu of family.

It is unlikely the Somali farmer's son will have the overriding vision to aspire to being a scientist much less have ready access to the years of specialized education required, but there are some surprisingly easy ways to access education and opportunity even in the most desolate areas for the brilliant and determined few. Talent does have a way of outing itself. And there are many that seek to support those who might aspire to greatness.

I work with two guys, war orphans and refugees, who did not get more than the most cursory educations as kids. Natural geniuses, they started formal schooling in their late teens in missionary settings and were PhDs by their mid-20s.

The idea of economic freedom is moderated or channeled necessarily from the circumstances one finds oneself in by birth or, in more fortunate cases, by choice as in the case of a mobile international executive or engineer trained to function outside a strict geographical boundary.

The idea of freedom in work is a simple one - you still need to function at the level of the society you are born to, at least at first, but your achievements should only be limited by your own abilities and not those of others. All should have a chance but none are guaranteed success.

Of course, I am only expressing the "conservative" position here. Others can and do argue that those who excel do so only unfairly/unjustly on the backs of others that achieve less or differently.

Extrapolating here, those who excel must then, of societal necessity, be disallowed special recognition or reward or such reward must be used for the benefit (ie money) of those less successful or capable to allow all to achieve at least the most modest level of mediocrity. After all, feelings will most certainly be hurt if one does better than another.

The jealousy thing is something most people never outgrow. And the excuses for a failure to strive are legion.

I don't think that's just a conservative position, being a liberal to me doesn't have anything to do with communism.

My comments aren't about denying people's right to succeed or profit however much they can, they're about acknowledging the value of being part of a society which therefore justifies paying for that society, ie paying taxes.

I can see the value in keeping taxes low, encourages invention and investment. But I also can see the value in an orderly, rational, generous society; improved productivity, increased opportunity for education which improves odds of finding the brightest who will invent, discover, the things that move us forward.

 

[Zorkorist]

This dream was very possible.. especially with slavery, women without the right to vote, no ability to form unions as workers... monopolies... child labor... Got hurt on the job? Just get fired, so they could hire your replacement! What a dream!


They required no government intervention... because they all fixed themselves through the will of the people and freedom!

I'm man enough to apologize when I am wrong, and change my behavior.

Your storm troopers, help, of course.

So, when are you going to send your storm troopers into Dafar?

 

[shadow9d9]

Shadow, what is the Government, but the will of the people, with taxes...

It doesn't take a Government to impose civility, respect, obedience... these are all principals established by individuals.

I disagree. The government was created in a way that hopefully the more intelligent people will overrule the stupidity of the masses on occasion for the greater good... of course, this is only the theory, not necessarily the reality.

 

[Tom]

Tom, you will have to help me with this, but earlier in this thread it was argued that two young men going off to College should be equal.

Doesn't that imply that no matter what the circumstances of their youth, they should be equal in that outcome?

Extraapolate that to being 25 years old, and of couse you should be paid what 25 year olds are paid, __never mind your apptitude, or lack of.

The very premise of this thread was arguing that equality means, equality of outcome.

the premise of the thread is asking conservatives about their views on equality. Nothing about those views being right or wrong, or even different than a liberal's view. It's a question.

I wouldn't say that going to college is an outcome, it's an opportunity. But even given that, I don't think equality means everyone gets to go to college, but i do think it's a reasonable goal that economic inequality shouldn't be deciding who goes to college and who doesn't.

 

[Zorkorist]

I don't think that's just a conservative position, being a liberal to me doesn't have anything to do with communism.

My comments aren't about denying people's right to succeed or profit however much they can, they're about acknowledging the value of being part of a society which therefore justifies paying for that society, ie paying taxes.

I can see the value in keeping taxes low, encourages invention and investment. But I also can see the value in an orderly, rational, generous society; improved productivity, increased opportunity for education which improves odds of finding the brightest who will invent, discover, the things that move us forward.

Tom,

Are you haappy with our current budget and deficit?

Is it moving us foward properly?

Everythinf hunky-dory in liberal land?

 

[Zorkorist]

the premise of the thread is asking conservatives about their views on equality. Nothing about those views being right or wrong, or even different than a liberal's view. It's a question.

I wouldn't say that going to college is an outcome, it's an opportunity. But even given that, I don't think equality means everyone gets to go to college, but i do think it's a reasonable goal that economic inequality shouldn't be deciding who goes to college and who doesn't.

The only way to achieve what you want, that economic inequality not be a factor in who goes to college, is to strip everyone of their money.

Put it in the collective,for the greater good.

And that, is un American.

 

[Zorkorist]

I disagree. The government was created in a way that hopefully the more intelligent people will overrule the stupidity of the masses on occasion for the greater good... of course, this is only the theory, not necessarily the reality.

It was meant to be that way, Shadow... America's great Representative Government experiment.

It's turned into 1st class whores selling themselves to the highest bidder.

 

[Tom]

Tom,

Are you haappy with our current budget and deficit?

Is it moving us foward properly?

Everythinf hunky-dory in liberal land?

I'm happy with the people in charge. I think the budget is as good as it can be given the circumstances. I wouldn't have bailed out AIG and the banks the way it happened, but that decision was made last year. I wouldn't waste more money in Iraq, but experts say it takes time to pull out. I'd increase spending on military personnel at the expense of unnecessary weapons systems, but Obama's doing that as much as possible.

If the deficit can be cut to $400 billion in his 3rd year that will be good progress.