Can Liberalism and Conservatism be summed up thusly?

[Lobsang]

Apologies for the crudeness of this, I have good reason..

A truly liberal person wants things to be better for as many people as possible regardless of himself.

A truly conservative person wants things to be better for the few that have worked hard for it, and the rest get what they deserve.

To take it one step further... A liberal wants all things to be perfect for everyone. A conservative wants all things to be perfect for himself.

I am of the opinion that if we live in a world where all things are roughly the same for everyone then chances are that things are pretty darn good for myself. I reckon I am of the opinion that I am more than capable of creating a life for myself that is full of riches and pleasure, but I would rather live in a society where the most amount of people enjoy the fruits and there are no people with more money than they can use to enjoy themselves.

[phouka]

No, I don't agree.

As I see it, liberals believe the government is an appropriate tool for necessary social change, especially when it comes to guaranteeing fair play in the different aspects of life.

Conservatives have no problem with fair play, but do believe that government involvement should be kept to a minimum, because over-involvement prevents fair play.

It's possible to see good and bad on both sides, and political philosophies do not determine character.

[chacoguy]

I would postulate that a liberal wants the government to be less concerned with what people do in their private lives and to be more concerned with what businesses are doing.

I would postulate that a conservative wants the government to be more concerned with what people do in their private lives and to be less concerned with what businesses are doing.

[Beware of Doug]

I would postulate that a liberal wants the government to be less concerned with what people do in their private lives and to be more concerned with what businesses are doing.

I would postulate that a conservative wants the government to be more concerned with what people do in their private lives and to be less concerned with what businesses are doing.Yea!!!1!

But I personally like how George Lakoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff) draws the line: Conservatives put values before people; liberals put people before values.

[UnwrittenNocturne]

Well. Yes and No. Isn't the assumption there that values are across the board. Because although there is crossover I'm not convinced that liberals and conservatives could agree on what constitutes values. At least not completely

[RickJay]

Apologies for the crudeness of this, I have good reason..

A truly liberal person wants things to be better for as many people as possible regardless of himself.

A truly conservative person wants things to be better for the few that have worked hard for it, and the rest get what they deserve.

To take it one step further... A liberal wants all things to be perfect for everyone. A conservative wants all things to be perfect for himself.
No.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are not even necessarily competing ideologies. The terms are extremely loaded and can mean almost anything you want them to mean. What you're describing as "liberal" is often referred to as being "progressive," and "liberal" originally meant the belief in maximization of liberty.

"Conservative" can mean right wing politics of varying stripes. But it literally also means a poilitical position of not wanting to change things from their current state, or wanting to change only slowly and carefully. So, in a given political climate, is is entirely possible a person could be a liberal conservative.

For instance, a Canadian who opposes changes to the current single-payer national health insurance system is taking up a conservative position, even though when it was created the system was a progessive concept implemented by the Liberal Party. In fact, in respect to this issue, the Conservative Party of Canada is slightly liberal, while the Liberal Party of Canada is firmly conservative. They are even further apart in the issue of Senate reform, where the Conservatives are radically progressive and the Liberals are almost reactionally conservative. But in terms of criminal law the Conservatives are reactionary and the Liberals moderate. In terms of municipal infrastructure support, the Conservatives are conservative and the Liberals are liberal.

Confusing, huh?

[lavenderviolet]

... A liberal wants all things to be perfect for everyone. A conservative wants all things to be perfect for himself.

I would rephrase that as, "A liberal wants things to be mediocre for everyone. A conservative wants things to be awesome for those who are willing to work hard, and doesn't feel responsible for those who choose not to strive for greatness." :)

To try to explain further...
I would rather live in a society where the most amount of people enjoy the fruits and there are no people with more money than they can use to enjoy
themselves.
And then you would end up with an impoverished society where nothing much was accomplished, because you would have taken away the incentive to try to be successful and hardworking.
People only work hard because they expect to be rewarded for it in some way.
If I lived in your ideal society, I would immediately drop out of medical school and become the biggest welfare queen in the world. Why shouldn't I live off the tax money that poor saps like you would be putting into this system, if there is nothing for me to gain by working any harder than my neighbor does?

[Chessic Sense]

Apologies for the crudeness of this, I have good reason..

A truly liberal person wants things to be better for as many people as possible regardless of himself.

A truly conservative person wants things to be better for the few that have worked hard for it, and the rest get what they deserve.

To take it one step further... A liberal wants all things to be perfect for everyone. A conservative wants all things to be perfect for himself.

I am of the opinion that if we live in a world where all things are roughly the same for everyone then chances are that things are pretty darn good for myself. I reckon I am of the opinion that I am more than capable of creating a life for myself that is full of riches and pleasure, but I would rather live in a society where the most amount of people enjoy the fruits and there are no people with more money than they can use to enjoy themselves.

How come your liberal gets to go from "better regardless of self" to "perfect for everyone"? A more consistent summation would be "the liberal wants all things to be the same for everyone."

In my world view the (american-style) conservative thinks that a person should reap the fruits to their labor. A liberal thinks that people should reap the fruits of everyone's labor. I think you err in saying that cons think only of themselves and libs think of others. Cons (at least, ones like me) think that I get to reap what I sow but also you get to reap what you sow. Libs say we have to share.

[Bosstone]

Hey, this is the perfect thread for me to share a new on target and apt insight! Brace yourselves, y'all! ;)

Ignoring the wonkiness of the Religious Right:
The left believes benefiting society benefits the individual.
The right believes benefiting the individual benefits society.

[Vox Imperatoris]

All of these are just aspects of certain conservative and liberal groups.


Here's another one:
Liberals believe that all people are equal and that the rich in a free society somehow lucked out or don't really deserve their money and should spread it back around the community. Liberal compliment: "I love how he rose up out of his impoverished neighborhood to become a billionaire, then spent his money giving the less fortunate in his community a chance."

Conservatives believe that the rich in a free society exhibit superior values, skills, or motivation, naturally rise to the top, and deserve to keep their money. Conversely, the poor naturally sink to the bottom and should not be subsidized by the state. Conservative compliment: "I love how he rose up out of his impoverished neighborhood to become a billionaire; it just goes to show that, if he puts his mind to it, anyone can live the American Dream."

This one, I believe is even more true and fundamental:
Liberals desire a less risky society: not many people are rich, but it's very hard to be poor. Therefore, they want more taxes and social welfare.

Conservatives desire a more risky society: many people are rich, but if you screw up, then you become poor. Therefore, they want less taxes and social welfare.

I came to this conclusion after reading a post by a Danish (home of the highest taxes in the world) citizen on another forum who basically said that they have few rich people and few poor people and they like it that way. I personally would rather have a society where I have a shot at the top, but with no guarantee that am taken care of by the state if I fail.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Starving Artist]

Fiscally speaking, it has always seemed to me that liberals would rather see a society where everything is crappy for everyone (as is invariably the case when government tries to enforce 'fairness', ala the Soviet Union, East Germany, China, et al.) than to have a society where things are absolutely great for 5%, super for 20%, good for 60%, and with 15% poor and stuggling.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to think that the system that works best for the most people is better.

Conservatives also feel that most of the people who have money or who make enough to live comfortably got there by dint of hard work for most of their lives. Many were conscientious students, paid attention in class and did their homework; worked hard when they got out into world; and either made it by being good, hard-working employees or by going into business for themselves, thereby putting a considerable amount of their money (oftentimes borrowed) at risk and working long, hard hours to make their business pay off.

They naturally resent efforts by liberals to take away money they have earned and give it to people who probably didn't work so hard in school, didn't do their homework, didn't strive to get ahead in the workplace, and didn't gamble money and put in lots of hard work to make it in a business of their own.

This resentment is called 'selfishness' by liberals, who want to take money away from these hard-working, productive types and give it to people who have chosen a way of life in which they're just getting by, if that.

Also, conservatives know that there's no such thing as "fair", and when you try to make things 'fair' you only create unfairness of another kind.

We also believe that government is inherently wasteful, bureauocratic, inept and unresponsive; that it can't do anything well or efficiently, and that it spends too much of the money it takes in simply operating and paying salaries, benefits and too many days off for its own bloated workforce.

Additionally, we've seen what happens when you have a society that tries to make everything 'fair' by doing away with privately owned business and corporations and having the government control everything. The communist societies of the last century are perfect examples of what is wrong with that approach, with government-assigned jobs, people standing in line for hours to get a loaf of bread, everyone living in tiny, cramped apartments, and drab, opressive lives for everyone.

And to us it seems this type of government is the logical conclusion of what liberals are evangelizing for when they gripe about small numbers of people having the most wealth, doing away with corporations, etc. (This is not to say that all or even most liberals are in favor of eliminating private enterprise. But some do and that's worrisome enough.)

I'll have to get into what I think conservatives believe is best socially some other time.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Starving Artist: While I believe you're correct in stating the results of their ideals, that's not an accurate characterization of what they want.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Great job, everyone. Let's play the "Distort what the other side thinks" game. :rolleyes: (Although to be fair--a couple of people in this thread have made an effort to fairly characterize the opposition.)

IMHO, conservatives value negative liberty. That is, freedom from coercion. (Of course, I'm ignoring social conservatives.) Redistributive taxation, burdensome regulation, etc., are all coercive because they compel you to pay money or use your resources/capital in a way you don't choose. Many conservatives are concerned about the well-being of the poor, but oppose coercive means of addressing this issue.

Liberalism can be seen in one of two ways. Liberals can either be seen as privileging welfare along side of liberty, and not allowing negative liberty to be a trump to welfare. But the way I prefer to see it is this: negative liberty is worthless without positive liberty (i.e., the means to act on your negative liberty). I may have the negative liberty to go to the doctor when I am sick, but if I can't afford the doctor, then I don't have the positive liberty, and my negative liberty is worthless. Thus, promoting negative liberty requires giving people the means to pursue their ends.

I am, of course, ignoring many complications on both sides, here. But the OP is looking for short summaries.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

While I think I understand what you're getting at with 'positive' and 'negative' liberty, you'd probably be better off using 'opportunity' and 'means'.

[Discordia]

I really hate that leftists (or progressives, gah the arrogance) stole a perfectly good word.

Also, trying to sum people's beliefs up in one word is incredibly silly. Almost everyone has a huge raft of exceptions to their "philosophy".

[Zoe]

Vox: I came to this conclusion after reading a post by a Danish (home of the highest taxes in the world) citizen on another forum who basically said that they have few rich people and few poor people and they like it that way. I personally would rather have a society where I have a shot at the top, but with no guarantee that am taken care of by the state if I fail.

In a recent study of countries, the Danes scored the highest on the happiness scale. Americans were somewhere around 23rd place.

There are many ways to measure what being "at the top" means. Now homeless on the streets or sleeping in doorways. Low crime rates. High standard of living. Excellent health care available to all. No insurance payments. An exceptionally clean environment that citizens take pride in. Pride in craftmanship, pride in production and design, pride in a job well done.

And they do enjoy that five weeks of mandatory vacation.

The family that I lived with owned a store that was a block long and four stories tall. They sold antiques and hand made furniture. People as far away as Greenland worked for them.

They were pleased to live in a country with so much freedom and such satisfied countrymen.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

While I think I understand what you're getting at with 'positive' and 'negative' liberty, you'd probably be better off using 'opportunity' and 'means'.

Mebbe. I stole the terminology from Isaiah Berlin, in any case.

[Ranchoth]

A fellow here named pestie once put it thus:

I've been sayin' it for years - conservatives want to be your father ("You'll do what I say because I'm your father!") and liberals want to be your mother ("My goodness! Put that down or you'll hurt yourself!").

I always thought that was kinda inspired. (Note, I saved that quote circa 2005, and I'm bad with names. So I might be dredging up bad memories or opening up some a can of worms, completely by accident. If so...er, my bad.)

[TheLoadedDog]

I'm not sure I agree with the OP's summation. The two best quick and dirty ones I've found are:

1. From The Simpsons:

DEMOCRATS: We can't govern!
REPUBLICANS: We're just plain evil!

2. From I'm not sure where:
Liberals are elected to make terrible mistakes. Conservatives are elected to ensure those mistakes never get corrected.

[Thudlow Boink]

A truly liberal person wants things to be better for as many people as possible regardless of himself.

A truly conservative person wants things to be better for the few that have worked hard for it, and the rest get what they deserve.So,essentially what you're saying is that liberals are selfless and conservatives are selfish? I don't buy it. I've seen claims that conservatives give more (out of their own pockets) to charity than liberals do.

There are plenty of conservatives and liberals who genuinely want things to be better for everybody. They just differ on how that can be best accomplished.

[Oakminster]

Liberals--don't want you to have any guns or money.

Conservatives--don't want you to have any sex or dope.

[Sarahfeena]

So,essentially what you're saying is that liberals are selfless and conservatives are selfish? I don't buy it. I've seen claims that conservatives give more (out of their own pockets) to charity than liberals do.

There are plenty of conservatives and liberals who genuinely want things to be better for everybody. They just differ on how that can be best accomplished. I think that this is really the crux of it all. I have friends of all different political stripes, but they pretty much have the same basic values, and none of those values involve hoping that people starve or suffer, or hoping that they will get ahead at the expense of someone else. I think that both "sides" believe that their plan will achieve the most success for the greatest number of people. And I think that both sides have legitimate reasons to believe that their philosophy is superior in that regard.

[BrotherCadfael]

The left believes benefiting society benefits the individual.
The right believes benefiting the individual benefits society. Speaking as a moderately conservative guy, this seems about right.

Liberals--don't want you to have any guns or money.
Conservatives--don't want you to have any sex or dope. So does this! :D

[AHunter3]

Going back to the juxtaposition posited in the OP...

Bracketing off for the moment the historical meanings of "liberal" versus "conservative", and also whatever other factors may play a major role in the modern US incarnation of the political meaning of those terms...

I do think there is a central difference in attitude towards competition.

There exists an attitude that economic strife is a fair contest, the rules are adequately spelled out, and that there is plenty of opportunity to get ahead and 'win' if one applies one's self, and that if one fails to do so, not only does one deserve no better than economic ruin and failure for that reason alone, one also deserves no better because, by failing to strive and compete, one has deprived the rest of society of one's best efforts. I would call that attitude conservative.

There exists a very different attitude, that economic strife is an unfair contest, that the rules are not adequately explained, that the starting line is not identical for all participants, that the struggles of economic competition do not, in fact, reward the hard worker, the conscientiously responsible, the brilliant inventor, or the important contributor to society; instead, the rules reward the winners of the last round and gives those winners such an enormous boost over any other competitors in this round that quality of work and quantity of work and works of genius have only a negligible effect on the outcome. And that beyond a certain threshold, for the winners, it is almost entirely their money making their money and not anything that they do aside from investing their money, and at a certain threshold beyond that it becomes so effortless to concentrate yet more money with one's money that one would have to actively conspire at losing it to keep from making a substantial profit. Therefore, with the economic system making as little sense as that in terms of who ends up suffering in poverty and need, it is important to take care of each other, and at least minimize the hardships of having lost out in economic competition, and quit blaming the victims of it. I would call that attitude liberal.


The conservative attitude towards the liberal is that such attempts to ameliorate the mechanisms of the economic system have the effect of throwing sand in the gears; that, rather than simply help out the less fortunate, the redistributive policies of liberals take away the assets of the winners and hand them over to the losers, thus dulling the lure of reward from the activities that might lift them out of their backwaters into a more successful situation; instead, they get rewarded for giving up and awaiting handouts, which are not sufficient grants to impel them out of poverty yet remove the prod of scarcity enough that they are not motivated to make the difficult initial effort. Yes, say the conservatives, it is a much harder slog when you are poor to make the same dollar as when you are rich, and perhaps that is a bad thing, but whatever unfairnesses may lurk in capitalism, redistributing the winnings as the liberals are wont to do is not a very good solution.

The radical attitude towards the liberal is roughly identical: putting Band-Aids on the free market system isn't gonna fix the problem. The entire system of rewards for effort and contributions to society and distribution of goods and property et al needs to be scrapped and replaced with something different, the free market is entirely based on competition, and unlike playing soccer or poker or grand-theft auto, real competition in a game you can't walk away from is not fun, it's dog-eat-dog and it is aggressive and is intrinsically calculated to hurt other people as a means of improving matters for one's self.

Me, I consider myself a conservative radical. My response to the radical would be: "I agree. Let's see your design. Let's test your design and verify that it works and would yield a pleasant life, with freedom for everyone (at least no less than we have now), trains still running on time (at least as much so as they do now), but with more equality than the free market system provides. THEN, if it does, and ONLY then, we start thinking about ripping down what we've got." Somehow recycled Marxism doesn't cut it, and doesn't look much different to me than the liberal Band-Aids. So I can see the wisdom and the foolishness in both sides of the conventional liberal-conservative argument.

[Blaster Master]

Ignoring the wonkiness of the Religious Right:
The left believes benefiting society benefits the individual.
The right believes benefiting the individual benefits society.

As someone else said, I think this is about as good as it gets for describing the general mindsets, while ignoring some of the fringe groups (like the religious right). Props to Bosstone.


For my own contribution, my dad use to love quoting Winston Churchill saying "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." While perhaps a little harsh in how it is stated, I think it's another fundamental difference between liberalism and conservativism.

To give an example of what I mean, lets look at the common argument about taxation. In general, liberals favor progressive taxes that make the richer people pay more. Everyone deserves to live a good quality of life, and because taxation hits poorer people harder, it effects the quality of life of the rich less. Thus, it's fair because it effects the quality of life for the poorest people the most while still not having much of an impact on the quality of life of the rich.

On the other side, conservatives tend to favor less progressive, or even flat taxes that have the rich paying closer to the same percentage of taxes as the poor. Everyone deserves to reap the fruit of their labor, and so people should not be punished by having heavier taxes just because they're more successful. Thus, it's fair because the people who work harder get the better quality of life they deserve, and the people that don't work as hard have incentive to work harder.

Of course, the criticisms are obvious. The liberals accuse the conservatives of being heartless because it effectively punishes people just for being poor and doesn't account for any number of special cases where people are poor for reasons beyond their control. The conservatives accuse the liberals of being idiots, because their taxation doesn't provide any incentive for people to work as hard and it damages the economy by putting more tax burden on the people that own the businesses and invest to create jobs and such.

I think this approach also helps explain a number of other key issues like why liberals are more concerned with the rights of minorities and universal healthcare and why conservatives are more concerned with things like gun rights and business.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that liberalism and conservativism aren't opposite concepts, they're orthogonal ones that come to opposing points of view through completely different lines of reasoning. Or maybe I'm just digging too deeply into it.

[Pleonast]

I would describe the difference between liberals and conservatives this way.

Imagine two nations. In the first nation, everyone earns $1000 a week. In the second nation, the poorest earn $2000 a week, the middle class earns $20,000, and the richest earn $200,000. Liberals prefer the first nation over the second, valuing equality. Conservatives prefer the second, valuing opportunity.

[sciurophobic]

Liberals believe government should focus on helping those likely to fail. Conservatives believe government should focus on not hindering those likely to succeed.

[Figaro]

I'll take a stab...

Liberals want to feel socially unrestricted and economically secure.

Conservatives want to feel socially secure and economically unrestricted.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Since we've brought up Scandinavia, I thought I'd mention that, apparently, Sweden does not give government funded kidney dialysis to people over 55 (out of cost/benefit analysis). However, they also will not let people pay for it out of their own pockets because they believe that "wealth should not be a factor in longevity." As a conservative, I found this viewpoint completely foreign and disgusting. I simply could not understand why anyone would come to the conclusion that the rich should not be able to use their money to help themselves as much as possible. Why else would they value being rich?

Not only that, but it just felt wrong on a gut level. It also reminds me of reactions over the issues of euthanasia and abortion and the point that aborted babies would otherwise have been a drain on society.

So perhaps conservatives value extending human life over the good of the community, and liberals value the good of the whole over the life of an individual, coupled with the liberal viewpoint that the wealthy are just the same as the poor and deserve no extra privileges.

Actually, I think that's the single most important underlying issue: conservatives think the wealthy in a free market society are "better" people, and liberals think the wealthy are either soulless and greedy or simply poor people in different circumstances.

More broadly, conservatives think a man in a free society defines his circumstances, while liberals think the circumstances defines the man.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: I was thinking of the issue of capital punishment and why conservatives support it, but oppose other "life-taking" measures: conservatives place a distinction between guilty life and innocent life, thinking guilty life has become subhuman and forfeited its right to exist. Liberals do not make this distinction, or at least, not as often. This also explains why conservatives are generally more hawkish.

[Crafter_Man]

Liberals view the world as they wish it were.

Conservatives view the world as it is.

[RickJay]

This is one of the most embarrassingly ignorant threads in the history of the SDMB, really. I mean, I know it's IMHO, but it's telling how virtually the entire thread is nothing but US-centric partisan baloney.

[Pleonast]

This is one of the most embarrassingly ignorant threads in the history of the SDMB, really. I mean, I know it's IMHO, but it's telling how virtually the entire thread is nothing but US-centric partisan baloney.Politics is inevitably local. General terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are going to mean different things in different countries. And mean different things to different parties. For such a subjective topic, there's very little that's objective.

Feel free to add your own opinion instead of complaining about ours.

[Captain Amazing]

This is one of the most embarrassingly ignorant threads in the history of the SDMB, really. I mean, I know it's IMHO, but it's telling how virtually the entire thread is nothing but US-centric partisan baloney.

<sigh> Ok. Fine. The conservative/liberal divide comes out of differing approaches to the Enlightenment; specifically, the questions of whether rights are universal or specific, and whether societal relationships are organic or mechanistic.

Liberals, like Locke in England and Rousseau in France argued that rights were universal...people had rights simply by being people, and that society was mechanistic...people's relationships were based on rational self interest and implied social contracts.

Conservatives, like Ireland's Edmund Burke, said that rights were particular and customary...a group had rights because they were traditionally allowed to exercise those rights...so we could talk about "The rights of Englishmen" or "The rights of the city of whatever", but talking about universal human rights was a meaningless statement. Further, society was organic: human beings naturally form societies, there are naturally people fit to govern and those unfit, and everyone has a place.

These two philosophies both developed (and in English speaking countries, tended to develop into the Liberal and Conservative Parties, respectfully).

Time passed, the American and French Revolutions (both sparked by liberal revolutionary movements in those countries) happened, industrialization happened, the liberal revolutions of 1848 happened, and some liberals got concerned with the the state of affairs under capitalism and industrialization. Capitalism, which was, according to liberal thought, supposed to raise the standard of living and reduce inequality, was leading to, as they saw it, more inequality, as the lower socioeconomic classes were suffering at the hands of industrialization, and the living conditions for factory workers were, at best, minimal. This led to the growth of yet another political movement, socialism, and along with it, trade unionism, which sought to organize industrial workers, and to improve their condition and correct the flaws of capitalism through both collective bargaining and government action to help the poor and limit the powers of buisnesses. This movement led to the development of the Labour parties in most English speaking countries, the NDP in Canada, and the Socialists and Social Democrats in most of Europe.

The United States, meanwhile, lacked a traditional conservative party after the fall of the Federalists. An independent Socialist party never really developed for various reasons, and so trade unionists tended to gravitate to the Democratic party (in part, because the would be socialists and trade union leaders were largely immigrant, and the Democrats, who tended to be strong in the cities, were more friendly to immigrants than the more nativist Republicans). It's more complicated than that, obviously, and the story's a lot more nuanced, but it's late and I'm tired. :)

[Czarcasm]

This is one of the most embarrassingly ignorant threads in the history of the SDMB, really. I mean, I know it's IMHO, but it's telling how virtually the entire thread is nothing but US-centric partisan baloney.You know it's in IMHO, but you are totally incapable of making an appropriate post for this thread, posting this type of post in The BBQ Pit, or refraining from posting altogether?
Next time, try harder.

[Belowjob2.0]

This is one of the most embarrassingly ignorant threads in the history of the SDMB, really. I mean, I know it's IMHO, but it's telling how virtually the entire thread is nothing but US-centric partisan baloney.

It stems from the association between moral virtue and financial success which has been embedded in American culture from the time of the Puritans.

In What's the Matter with Kansas, and The Wrecking Crew, Thomas Frank explores in depth the contradictions between the the government policies conservatives think they're voting for, and the government policies they actually get.

According to Frank, when Republicans are in power, at least at the national level, they never actually deliver on the promises of conservative government. They always end up increasing government spending, running budget defecits, and using the public treasury to enrich well connected private individuals.

They talk a good game about patriotism and military strength, but they repeatedly fund useless weapons systems, and underfund resources for the actual troops. It goes without saying that the Republican establishment sees actual military men as fools and poor white trash.

Their social conservatism tends also to be fraudulent, the do as I say, not as I do, variety. They get divorces, use drugs, have gay sex, use prostitutes, don't attend church, etc. They just participate in the charade because it gets them votes.

[jsgoddess]

Conservatives: Pretty much everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Those who don't succeed are generally not taking advantage of those opportunities. "If I succeed, it's probably because I'm good."

Liberals: Many people have not had the opportunity to succeed. Those who do succeed are generally advantaged in some way. "If I succeed, it's probably because I'm fortunate."


The precise wording would vary from person to person, but I think this is the gist of it for me.

[AHunter3]

This is one of the most embarrassingly ignorant threads in the history of the SDMB, really. I mean, I know it's IMHO, but it's telling how virtually the entire thread is nothing but US-centric partisan baloney.

Really? :dubious:

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I would describe the difference between liberals and conservatives this way.

Imagine two nations. In the first nation, everyone earns $1000 a week. In the second nation, the poorest earn $2000 a week, the middle class earns $20,000, and the richest earn $200,000. Liberals prefer the first nation over the second, valuing equality. Conservatives prefer the second, valuing opportunity.

I don't think it's fair to attribute this view to liberals. If you want to get technical, the intellectual father of modern welfare liberalism, John Rawls, explicitly allows inequalities if they benefit the least well off, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice#The_Second_Principle_of_Justice) as they clearly do in your hypothetical scenario. And you'd be hard-pressed to find someone more liberal than Rawls.

[Autolycus]

I read somewhere that one basic divide between liberals and conservatives is the issue of personal responsibility. If you think that the state of a person's life is by and large a result of their own actions, then you'd be a conservative. If you think that it's because of external circumstances, then you'd be a liberal. That's an oversimplification, but there you have it.

[mbh]

My favorite definition of the terms centered around one's tolerance for change and reform.

Radical: wants to overthrow the existing system and start over from scratch.

Liberal: does not want to completely overthrow the system, but wants to speed up the pace of change.

Moderate: thinks things are progressing nicely, as is.

Conservative: thinks things are changing too fast; wary of unintended consequences, and wants to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease.

Reactionary: thinks changes have gone too far, and wants to go back to "the good old days".

[Pleonast]

I don't think it's fair to attribute this view to liberals. If you want to get technical, the intellectual father of modern welfare liberalism, John Rawls, explicitly allows inequalities if they benefit the least well off, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice#The_Second_Principle_of_Justice) as they clearly do in your hypothetical scenario. And you'd be hard-pressed to find someone more liberal than Rawls.You're right. But some self-identifying liberals complain against inequality as if the inequality itself were a problem, instead of the level of wealth of the poor. Perhaps I should have made my case 1: $1000 for the poor, $2000 for the middle class, and $4000 for the rich.

[Figaro]

You're right. But some self-identifying liberals complain against inequality as if the inequality itself were a problem, instead of the level of wealth of the poor. Perhaps I should have made my case 1: $1000 for the poor, $2000 for the middle class, and $4000 for the rich.I don't know any self-identifying liberals who think financial inequality is wrong (I guess I don't know any communists), but I know quite a few who think it's wrong to allow a subset of the population to starve and suffer in an otherwise wealthy nation. I think that's more representative of mainstream liberalism, at least in the U.S.

[control-z]

This quote appears in various forms attributed to various authors:

If a young man is not a liberal, he has no heart. If an old man is not a conservative, he has no head.

[Diceman]

Liberals trust the government. Conservatives trust the government to fuck everything up.

Seriously, it seems to me that liberals view the government as a flawed, but basically benevolent, entity. (Assuming you live in a modern Western society.) Conservatives view government as a necessary evil, and the less the average citizen has to interact with government, the better.

[sunacres]

I really have to join RickJay in being astonished at the desire for trite oversimplification that is being exhibited here. The SDMB is becoming a very different world.

In order to avoid mod rebuke, I'll contribute this question: if a theme of conservativism is that a person's success flows from their own effort and should be rewarded accordingly, why do conservatives allow, indeed demand tax exemption and/or tax reduction for, inheritance?

[Der Trihs]

As I see it, liberals are decent, largely rational people who realize we are all in the same boat together, and that co-operation, civil rights, and sharing the wealth ultimately makes life better for essentially everyone. Conservatives are sociopaths and fanatics who want to exploit, enslave or kill everyone else. In other words, "conservative" is just a polite code word for "evil" or "crazy".

[control-z]

I really have to join RickJay in being astonished at the desire for trite oversimplification that is being exhibited here. The SDMB is becoming a very different world.

In order to avoid mod rebuke, I'll contribute this question: if a theme of conservativism is that a person's success flows from their own effort and should be rewarded accordingly, why do conservatives allow, indeed demand tax exemption and/or tax reduction for, inheritance?

A complex concept can still be largely described by generalizations. You've got to start somewhere.

As far as inheritance, a large part of wanting to succeed is wishing to pass on whatever wealth you can accumulate to your children once you're gone. If 20% of that goes to taxes, there is less incentive to save. If you leave $100,000 behind to 3 kids, that's $33,000 per child. But if taxes take 20%, that's only $26,000 per child. And does the government really deserve part of money that passes from you to your children?

[control-z]

As I see it, liberals are decent, largely rational people who realize we are all in the same boat together, and that co-operation, civil rights, and sharing the wealth ultimately makes life better for essentially everyone. Conservatives are sociopaths and fanatics who want to exploit, enslave or kill everyone else. In other words, "conservative" is just a polite code word for "evil" or "crazy".

Heh, and a conservative will look at your location (California) and say "Yep, that's what I figured." Nothing against you personally, your attitude is just a common CA one.

Sharing the wealth is Socialism, and is largely against human nature IMO. Why work hard if all you get is the same piece of the pie that you'd get if you slacked off?

[Der Trihs]

Heh, and a conservative will look at your location (California) and say "Yep, that's what I figured." Nothing against you personally, your attitude is just a common CA one.Not really.

Sharing the wealth is Socialism, and is largely against human nature IMO. Why work hard if all you get is the same piece of the pie that you'd get if you slacked off?There's little connection between hard work and reward. The majority of hard workers die poor. And there's a lot of room between mandating the same rewards for everyone, and the "Lie, cheat, steal; grab what you can and screw everyone else, if they suffer it's because God hates them" attitude of the conservatives.

And as for it being against human nature, so what ? Humanity in the state of nature isn't admirable at all. Should we allow rape and murder because it's part of human nature, and eliminate tolerance and laws because they are against human nature ? Of course not.

[control-z]

Not really.

There's little connection between hard work and reward. The majority of hard workers die poor. And there's a lot of room between mandating the same rewards for everyone, and the "Lie, cheat, steal; grab what you can and screw everyone else, if they suffer it's because God hates them" attitude of the conservatives.

And as for it being against human nature, so what ? Humanity in the state of nature isn't admirable at all. Should we allow rape and murder because it's part of human nature, and eliminate tolerance and laws because they are against human nature ? Of course not.

I would say that some would be perfectly happy in a Socialist environment, and some would not. Those that are willing to work hard and work smart expect more in return.

Anyway, this is getting way OT.

[Starving Artist]

Sharing the wealth is Socialism, and is largely against human nature IMO. Why work hard if all you get is the same piece of the pie that you'd get if you slacked off?Exactly.

Wealth doesn't just fall from the sky and land on a certain number of lucky people. People who have money, by and large, have earned it...either through hard work or investment, or both. The idea that the nation's wealth is just a giant pot of dough that should be shared more or less equally with everyone is ludicrous.

There's little connection between hard work and reward. The majority of hard workers die poor. That's because they work hard at menial jobs instead of working hard to make money. Making a lot of money is hard and it's risky and not everyone wants to try it, so they choose instead to live a wage-slave-by-day/couch-potato-by-night lifestyle. And while there's nothing at all wrong with that, it doesn't mean they are being treated unfairly if the government doesn't take money away from the producers and risk-takers and give it to them.

[Starving Artist]

And besides, all that wealth isn't just sitting there in a giant vault like Scrooge McDuck's. It is put to work and it creates jobs.

Take Donald Trump for instance. He's supposed to be worth several billion dollars. But that money isn't just sitting in a bank account somewhere. It's tied up in buildings and real estate and construction and banking. He employs well over 25,000 people, most of whom earn a very good living.

And how many people are living nice lives because of the produce of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and the markets (and aftermarkets) they've created?

And Joe Blow down the street who owns five auto parts stores, works 60 - 80 hours a week, and makes a couple hundred thousand a year? His money and his hard work is providing salaries for 35 to 40 people. Why should it be all right to take some of his money and give it a guy who drives a delivery truck for minimum wage 40 hours a week and spends his evenings watching television and drinking beer, just because Joe has more?

Doesn't sound 'fair' to me.

[Sage Rat]

The search function working sporadically made it take a few days for me to find this, but here's a post I wrote a while ago on the basic differences between the parties:

I don't think a single sentence description would be possible (and be meaningful enough) without separating things out a bit. So arbitrarily I'm going to say that there are three separate areas that the government deals with (and sort of a forth.)

Economy:
Republicans feel that you are better to help productive people be more productive to make the nation overall a better place.
Democrats feel that you are better to make sure that even the least productive are living comfortably.

Social Issues:
Republicans feel that if something is wrong, it should be punished fully as people don't learn otherwise.
Democrats feel that punishing people for something they aren't going to stop just makes them do it more.

Of course, both parties may be rather pschyzophrenic in following these when it comes to any particular issue.

International Relations:
Republicans generally are more willing to use military force and political pressure to police the world and get our way.
Democrats will generally be more concerned with international opinion and cooperation, though they will still use military force to police the world (though more bombing than ground troops.)

And theoretically there is also the fourth issue (which I am not sure anyone actually takes very seriously other than when it suites their own purpose.)

Federalism vs. State Government:
At current, in general the Republican party would rather see more things handled at the state level.
And Democrats would (theoretically) rather see more things handled at the Federal level. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=392384)

[sunacres]

Take Donald Trump for instance. He's supposed to be worth several billion dollars. But that money isn't just sitting in a bank account somewhere. It's tied up in buildings and real estate and construction and banking. He employs well over 25,000 people, most of whom earn a very good living.Starving, what do you think happens to all that money in bank accounts?

[Vox Imperatoris]

Starving, what do you think happens to all that money in bank accounts?
What the heck do you think happens to money in bank accounts?

The banks lend it out, in a much greater ratio to what they take in.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[usar_jag]

I've always been partial to this oversimplification of the liberal/conservative ideology:

Liberals believe that people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

Conservatives believe that people are too lazy to take care of themselves.

[Sage Rat]

I've always been partial to this oversimplification of the liberal/conservative ideology:

Liberals believe that people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

Conservatives believe that people are too lazy to take care of themselves.

Heh, that must be why I think both parties are in error. People are both stupid AND lazy. :D

[Myrrajh]

I read somewhere that one basic divide between liberals and conservatives is the issue of personal responsibility. If you think that the state of a person's life is by and large a result of their own actions, then you'd be a conservative. If you think that it's because of external circumstances, then you'd be a liberal. That's an oversimplification, but there you have it.
So many great definitions here, but this one stood out. I'm always on a soap box for personal responsibility. The liberal drive to tax and spend and throw money at problems to make them go away drives me insane. People need to accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences, good or bad, then be willing to make positive changes if they need to. There is nothing stopping anyone in this world from being a success and creating their own happiness.

Let me harp on just one example: Okay, I get that drug addictions are a disability. There are lots of programs out there to help you kick the habit. You made a decision all by yourself to take that first hit. You made that choice, you chose your path. Don't whine to me about how awful your life is because you can't feed yourself or your kids, but amazingly you always have enough money for crack and smokes. Take responsibility for yourself, get off your butt and get your life in order. I chose to not take drugs, to get an education and work to provide for myself. How does that entitle you to any of my earnings to support your lifestyle?

[sunacres]

There is nothing stopping anyone in this world from being a success and creating their own happiness.Hyperbole, anyone? There are some kids in Darfur who would really appreciate your perspective.

The simplemindedness of this thread is very depressing, illustrating as it does the thought processes of our citizenry. Reality bites.

[grey_ideas]

As far as inheritance, a large part of wanting to succeed is wishing to pass on whatever wealth you can accumulate to your children once you're gone. If 20% of that goes to taxes, there is less incentive to save. If you leave $100,000 behind to 3 kids, that's $33,000 per child. But if taxes take 20%, that's only $26,000 per child. And does the government really deserve part of money that passes from you to your children?

Inheritance has always confused me as a 'conservative' agenda item. If the conservative viewpoint holds that it's the individual that is wholly responsible for their own fate and that you succeed or fail based on your own abilities, then why should they pass any money onto their kids at all? Surely in that way they are not passing on the values that they held in life because they are giving their kids a 'head start' that may be entirely independent on their own abilities?

That's because they work hard at menial jobs instead of working hard to make money. Making a lot of money is hard and it's risky and not everyone wants to try it, so they choose instead to live a wage-slave-by-day/couch-potato-by-night lifestyle. And while there's nothing at all wrong with that, it doesn't mean they are being treated unfairly if the government doesn't take money away from the producers and risk-takers and give it to them.

I've always been more of a reader than a poster and I have to admit that I don't think we share similar viewpoints but I've always been interested in a discussion of them

From your quote above, how do you feel about the recent investment banking issues in the US? I'd break this down into two main points;

- should the "risk takers" for these banks, the CEO, CFO's etc, be able to walk away from the issues with their wealth (generated through the risk they took) intact or should they have personal responsibility for these issues? It seems to me that some "risk takers" take very few risks indeed. If the conservative holds a "sink or swim" viewpoint (excuse my simplification but I hope you see what I mean) shouldn't these people be basically reduced back to zero? The risk they took failed and therefore they should share or be wholly responsible for that risk occurring.

- should the US government be involved in helping these financial institutions out of their current issues? This could be tied in with the above point, maybe it should be (a) yes, but only after the risk takers have had their personal wealth returned to the company that they took the risk with, or (b) no, because the risk takers should be free to persue further revenue generating opportunities that could benefit the country. I'm not limiting you to these choices, they are just a couple of options that I could see from different stances. To equate this with your comment above, why should the government help the risk takers by taking money from the rest of society to help the risk takers now that the risk has occurred?

[grey_ideas]

So many great definitions here, but this one stood out. I'm always on a soap box for personal responsibility. The liberal drive to tax and spend and throw money at problems to make them go away drives me insane. People need to accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences, good or bad, then be willing to make positive changes if they need to. There is nothing stopping anyone in this world from being a success and creating their own happiness.

Let me harp on just one example: Okay, I get that drug addictions are a disability. There are lots of programs out there to help you kick the habit. You made a decision all by yourself to take that first hit. You made that choice, you chose your path. Don't whine to me about how awful your life is because you can't feed yourself or your kids, but amazingly you always have enough money for crack and smokes. Take responsibility for yourself, get off your butt and get your life in order. I chose to not take drugs, to get an education and work to provide for myself. How does that entitle you to any of my earnings to support your lifestyle?

Personal responsibility is all well and good and I wouldn't take away from your comments above as I do share them to a degree. But what about situations beyond your control? Let's say you are hit by car tomorrow that leaves you in a state where you are no longer able to work. In your view, what should happen?

If you are in the US and you have diligently paid your medical insurance for x years you would expect that you would receive medical treatment for your condition and some financial help from that insurance to live on. Does that insurance last throughout the rest of your life? If not, what should happen when it runs out?

As I mentioned above I do share the viewpoint from your arguement to a degree, but I also believe that everyone deserves a second chance. I consider government help as a seeing someone in trouble and lending them a hand and a shoulder to lean on until they can help themselves. Everyone can fail, everyone can have problems...I don't think someone should be thrown to the wolves because of it.

[control-z]

Inheritance has always confused me as a 'conservative' agenda item. If the conservative viewpoint holds that it's the individual that is wholly responsible for their own fate and that you succeed or fail based on your own abilities, then why should they pass any money onto their kids at all? Surely in that way they are not passing on the values that they held in life because they are giving their kids a 'head start' that may be entirely independent on their own abilities?

Simply put, what good is wealth if you can't use it to help your family? The average inheritance left to children isn't going to sustain anyone for that long, it just helps them pay off a house or go to college or whatever.

[grey_ideas]

Simply put, what good is wealth if you can't use it to help your family? The average inheritance left to children isn't going to sustain anyone for that long, it just helps them pay off a house or go to college or whatever.

Oh I'm not arguing that particularly, just the viewpoint expressed that "all you need to make it big is work hard and take some risks"...of course it helps if Mum and Dad left you $50,000 to pay off your mortgage. Or alternatively if Mum and Dad could buy the whole house for you.

Do you see what I mean? If we are going to say that conservatism believes in ultimate personal responsibility then you would need to take into account what the person's starting point was. Maybe the guy who's working a standard office job now and enjoying an "average" life has improved on his original lot by 200% but the person who started life with lots of privileges has only improved by 50%.

A little off topic, but I hope you see where I'm going.

[jsgoddess]

Oh I'm not arguing that particularly, just the viewpoint expressed that "all you need to make it big is work hard and take some risks"...of course it helps if Mum and Dad left you $50,000 to pay off your mortgage. Or alternatively if Mum and Dad could buy the whole house for you.

You're thinking like a liberal.

Seriously, though, according to my very conservative brothers, having parents who paid for every cent of education and who willingly supplement income up to and including paying all household bills during any unemployment doesn't mean that they are lucky or not self-sufficient. Essentially, my parents' successes are my brothers' successes, while my brothers' successes are only my brothers' successes. One brother sends letters to the editor constantly railing against people who don't "take personal responsibility" for their fates. This brother, his wife, and their two children are living off my mom while he tries to get a start-up off the ground. It's easy to take risks when you aren't risking anything.

I and one of my sisters, on the other hand, view my parents' successes as wonderfully lucky for me and view our own successes as having built on that good fortune. I wouldn't be where I am without the advantages given me by my parents. I have less stress in my life because of the support and safety of my parents. I did nothing to earn my parents, did nothing to earn the sizeable inheritance I will come into upon the death of my mom (I hope it's a hundred years away), and consider myself lucky every day that they could afford to send me to college, could afford to give me a down payment on my house, and have always been willing to rescue their children when they get in over their heads.

I used to think like they do. I remember what it was like.

[BwanaBob]

What the heck do you think happens to money in bank accounts?

The banks lend it out, in a much greater ratio to what they take in.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

I think his point was that the money isn't the bank's - it belongs to the so-called couch potatoes. Banks can't exist without depositors.

[Myrrajh]

Hyperbole, anyone? There are some kids in Darfur who would really appreciate your perspective.

The simplemindedness of this thread is very depressing, illustrating as it does the thought processes of our citizenry. Reality bites.
I suggest that a person's potential never be underestimated, no matter what their circumstances. Here is an example.

Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/turning-rage-into-reconci_n_103656.html).

A child was separated from his family during genocidal attacks in Sudan. He walked 1000 km (this article claims 100 miles a day, but I really doubt that) with no food or water, surviving on what he could find every day. He made it out, got to Canada and is well on his way towards improving life for others back in Sudan, and for himself.

If you tell someone they're too poor or ignorant to make anything of themselves, they will most likely prove you right.

[control-z]

If you tell someone they're too poor or ignorant to make anything of themselves, they will most likely prove you right.

And they will become subservient to the welfare system that supports them.

If you want true security in this world, don't take anything that you don't earn. Otherwise whatever you get is on their terms, not yours.

[Myrrajh]

Personal responsibility is all well and good and I wouldn't take away from your comments above as I do share them to a degree. But what about situations beyond your control? Let's say you are hit by car tomorrow that leaves you in a state where you are no longer able to work. In your view, what should happen?

If you are in the US and you have diligently paid your medical insurance for x years you would expect that you would receive medical treatment for your condition and some financial help from that insurance to live on. Does that insurance last throughout the rest of your life? If not, what should happen when it runs out?

As I mentioned above I do share the viewpoint from your arguement to a degree, but I also believe that everyone deserves a second chance. I consider government help as a seeing someone in trouble and lending them a hand and a shoulder to lean on until they can help themselves. Everyone can fail, everyone can have problems...I don't think someone should be thrown to the wolves because of it.
I never said we had to throw them to the wolves. In the example I gave I stated that there are lots of programs available for those who wish to overcome their addictions and improve their lives. Help is there. But they have to acknowledge that it was their choices that got them where they are, and they have to decide to do something about it. Make a choice to change. Being able to make your own decisions is very empowering, and that agency to choose for ourselves can never be taken away.

As for the possibility of medical insurance running out, it happens. We have social systems set up to help those who need it, but it is so open to abuse that it hardly seems worth maintaining. I have a friend who worked in a social assistance program and the abuses she saw just made her blood boil and she had to quit her job or risk having a stroke. It infuriated her that people were so able, and too willing, to unfairly take the assistance so desperately needed by others.

I know disability insurance is expensive but if the situation ever arises that you can't work again, it is worth every single penny and then some. We have to prepare for the worst but hope for the best. And we can hope that our social networks of family, friends, and religious communities will be there to offer some assistance as well.

[Fish]

People who have money, by and large, have earned it...either through hard work or investment, or both.
They earned that money by being a part of society that includes workers, managers, suppliers, bankers, investors, customers, and a whole web of interconnected businesses.

It's very telling that a conservative says "I earned that money." Very probably, thousands of people helped him earn that money.

To me, a person should first and foremost think of the factors that went into his success: he succeeded because there were customers with money to spend, educated and healthy workers, favorable conditions for trade, willing suppliers, sufficient resources, and a stable economy for all. When you have poor customers struggling to make ends meet, incompetent and ailing workers, trade imbalances, bankrupt suppliers, and so forth, the atmosphere for business is less good. Why more businesses don't take an interest in factors like education and healthcare is beyond me.

[grey_ideas]

I never said we had to throw them to the wolves. In the example I gave I stated that there are lots of programs available for those who wish to overcome their addictions and improve their lives. Help is there. But they have to acknowledge that it was their choices that got them where they are, and they have to decide to do something about it. Make a choice to change. Being able to make your own decisions is very empowering, and that agency to choose for ourselves can never be taken away.

As for the possibility of medical insurance running out, it happens. We have social systems set up to help those who need it, but it is so open to abuse that it hardly seems worth maintaining. I have a friend who worked in a social assistance program and the abuses she saw just made her blood boil and she had to quit her job or risk having a stroke. It infuriated her that people were so able, and too willing, to unfairly take the assistance so desperately needed by others.

I know disability insurance is expensive but if the situation ever arises that you can't work again, it is worth every single penny and then some. We have to prepare for the worst but hope for the best. And we can hope that our social networks of family, friends, and religious communities will be there to offer some assistance as well.

Whilst all systems are open to abuse, personally I think there are bigger abuses to tackle (see above comments on the US investment bank issues), my personal opinion is that I would rather a few people abuse the system than someone who has worked hard all their life but not earnt riches is left behind by society.

Your comment of "We have to prepare for the worst but hope for the best." is a slight twist on the one I use at work "Plan for the worst, Work for the best". I think it's preferable to have a system in place to catch people when they fall rather than a system that depends on friends and family to help them. Depending on friends and family could just lead to ending up crippling them with financial burdens as well...which just develops a spiral of debt.

Not specifically directed at you Myrrajh but you control-z and Starving Artist have expressed similar ideas, in an 'idea conservative world' (please bear with me, it's about the best expression I could come up with) where anyone can and does raise themselves up and become a millionaire or at least very wealthy...who does the menial work? Who sweeps the streets, cleans the toilets, serves burgers, etc? If everyone is capable of becoming a millionaire and choses to do so, who does the rest of the work? Is there a lottery to decide or is it just that since no one wants to do that work the people who chose to do so are very well rewarded for it?

[Vox Imperatoris]

To me, a person should first and foremost think of the factors that went into his success: he succeeded because there were customers with money to spend, educated and healthy workers, favorable conditions for trade, willing suppliers, sufficient resources, and a stable economy for all. When you have poor customers struggling to make ends meet, incompetent and ailing workers, trade imbalances, bankrupt suppliers, and so forth, the atmosphere for business is less good. Why more businesses don't take an interest in factors like education and healthcare is beyond me.
Don't you see that this is exactly the difference between you and him: between liberals and conservatives?

He think that people are successful because they're better or work harder. You think they're successful because of circumstances and assistance from others.

Also, on the issue of inheritance, conservatives support it because they view the right to make life better for one's children as part of personal freedom. To them, if the government took that away, it would be just like stealing their cars. Liberals value equality more, and so they think that it's unfair for someone to benefit from money someone else earned, if no one else gets the opportunity for this money. Conservatives focus on the viewpoint of the parent, and liberals on the viewpoint of the inheritor.

After all the point of this thread is to find the difference between liberals and conservatives, not to be a catch-all debating spot.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: grey_ideas, in a pure conservative mindset, the people who would do the menial jobs would be those who are lazy, lack the will to apply themselves, or who just have no ability would do the menial tasks.

[Beware of Doug]

The simplemindedness of this thread is very depressing, illustrating as it does the thought processes of our citizenry. Reality bites.Liberals believe reality bites too much as it is.

Conservatives believe reality should be allowed to bite to the fullest extent possible.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Liberals believe reality bites too much as it is.

Conservatives believe reality should be allowed to bite to the fullest extent possible.

Personally, I think Janeane Garofalo is a twit.:p