# Differing assumptions that are the basis of liberal and conservative positions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 29, 2016, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418 "2016-04-29T12:53:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/221 "2016-05-04T17:59:37Z")
Freedom is not freedom if someone has to subsidize it for you. That’s a benefit, not a freedom. Besides, the concept of the welfare state breaks down completely if people are allowed to not contribute if they are able. At least in that one area, the communists had more sense than the softer social democrats: able-bodied people had to work if they wanted to eat. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/222 "2016-05-04T18:10:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I thought we were making economic arguments, not constitutional ones. > > If you want to make constitutional arguments, then I think you are probably on even shakier ground. > > Or are you saying that you would have written and interpreted the constitution differently than our founding fathers and the supreme court? I think you’re confused as to the nature of the thread. I may be - it’s already happened. I am not making any specific argument - this thread is about stating and correcting assumptions. So you are right that I would interpret the constitution differently in some areas than has been already. I have ideas as to the proper role of government. Those ideas are motivated by personal beliefs and assumptions. I do not conflate those with reality as it is. > [@](#): > > So you think its bullshit to prohibit the fire department from using a swimming test to determine who they hire to firefighters if the swimming test has a disparate impact on minorities? I don’t know - what is the justification being presented? Does the area the fire department service contain lots of floating buildings on many small islands where swimming is the only means of ingress? I gave two real world examples with real fact patterns. > [@](#): > > Trump is the likely nominee for that party. Am I to take everything HE says seriously? If the criteria is “does the person believe what they are saying” then you should take what the person actually says seriously. Your original assumption was that conservatives generally support a graduated tax rate. I produced a poll that shows that not to be true. In other words, your assumption faces counter evidence. > [@](#): > > How are they hostage takers? They aren’t demanding the money, we are giving them a carrot. Do you see the difference? “pay me or I will commit crimes” is very similar to “I will pay you if you do not commit crimes”. They are different, but I don’t care about the difference. > [@](#): > > OK, I may or may not agree with that depending on which inmates are getting early release and how it is being done. But in the context of our discussion of paying criminals not to commit crimes, what crime is going unpunished? The ones the people were imprisoned for. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/223 "2016-05-04T18:48:17Z")
How do you determine which students are at risk of committing crime, and therefore should be paid not to commit crime? What’s the exact qualification criteria and where’s the precise line to qualify one student and disqualify another? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/224 "2016-05-04T21:28:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m saying that a basic income removes the incentive of hunger. You don’t work because you need to eat, you work because you are willing to trade your labor for what the market is paying for that labor. If that means that you spend your time on leisure instead of labor until the price of labor creeps up to an acceptable level. Hunger can lead to a fire sale on labor. The flip side is why should the general public be compelled to foot the bill for that? It’s entirely within someone’s control to be able to set themselves up to have valuable labor, so if someone chooses, in some fashion (bad grades in school, lazy, ignorant, etc…) to not make themselves valuable enough in the job market so as not to have hunger be an incentive, why is it anyone else’s problem to foot the bill to prevent that? If anything, that should be a very powerful incentive to not only get a job, but to get a better job or training to get that better job, etc… ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/225 "2016-05-04T23:05:34Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Punishment is a much higher priority than rehabilitation. I realize this is from way back on the first page, but I wanted to respond… I agree that most liberals place a high premium on rehabilitation. But I think that it’s for a far more pragmatic reason than you might think. That is, it’s not “oh, woe is me, these poor misunderstood people were probably only guilty of being mistreated by society, we must throw tax dollars at them and give them training in aromatherapy and Reiki healing”. Rather, it’s “this guy is a criminal. He’s in jail. As he does not have a life sentence, at some point he’s going to get out of jail. At that point, he’ll be walking around free breathing the same air as the rest of us. At that point, don’t we all benefit if he is able to find a job and live a productive life as a reformed member of society? Isn’t it worth spending some capital to help that happen?” Note, by the way, that another very important value for me, and I’d like to think most liberals, is being willing to let research guide our views. That is, I strongly suspect that a dollar spent on rehabilitation does more to reduce crime in the long run than a dollar spent on punishment… but if I see sufficient research that proves otherwise, I’m perfectly willing to change my mind. Of course I’m stubborn and arrogant so it might take more evidence than it really _should_, but that’s just being human. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/226 "2016-05-05T01:40:59Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Maybe not, but if push came to shove, and you had a limited amount of money to spend, either on unwanted pregnancy prevention programs, or on stuff like helping existing single mothers, but not both, which would you spend it on? > > I suspect most liberals would spend on the latter, and most conservatives would pick the former. That’s kind of a distilled version of what I’m gettin gat. This would be a better analogy if conservatives as a class were in favor of any form of “unwanted pregnancy prevention program” other than telling people “don’t have sex” (which doesn’t work), “get married” (which is at best a stop-gap that doesn’t address the underlying problem, and at worst is using financial necessity to force women into hasty marriages), or “give the child up for adoption” (which condemns the kid to the foster-care system, because adoption rates are miserable). As a liberal, I would say that liberals see unwanted pregnancies as a social issue, which means that we are on the side of both “prevention programs” (sex education, access to contraception, access to abortion) as well as “aid to single mothers” (financial assistance, child care, anti-discrimination laws). Conservatives seem to see this as a moral issue, where the treatment is “shame and punish the mothers to put the fear of god into them”. Which at least has the benefit of being free. And furthermore, I’m sick and tired of the whole “why should I give my hard-earned money to good-for-nothing welfare queens” argument; [the middle and upper classes get 70% of all entitlement benefits, and more than 50% of all entitlement benefits go towards retirees. If you consider _all_ tax expenditures that directly benefit individuals, the bottom 20% of the population receives only 3% of your tax dollar, while the top 1% get 24%.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/) You hard-working self-made small business owners are giving your tax money primarily to the rich, and secondarily to your future selves, not to the poor. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/227 "2016-05-05T01:49:00Z")
> [@JR\_Brown](#): > > This would be a better analogy if conservatives as a class were in favor of any form of “unwanted pregnancy prevention program” other than telling people “don’t have sex” (which doesn’t work), “get married” (which is at best a stop-gap that doesn’t address the underlying problem, and at worst is using financial necessity to force women into hasty marriages), or “give the child up for adoption” (which condemns the kid to the foster-care system, because adoption rates are miserable). > > As a liberal, I would say that liberals see unwanted pregnancies as a social issue, which means that we are on the side of both “prevention programs” (sex education, access to contraception, access to abortion) as well as “aid to single mothers” (financial assistance, child care, anti-discrimination laws). Conservatives seem to see this as a moral issue, where the treatment is “shame and punish the mothers to put the fear of god into them”. Which at least has the benefit of being free. > > And furthermore, I’m sick and tired of the whole “why should I give my hard-earned money to good-for-nothing welfare queens” argument; [the middle and upper classes get 70% of all entitlement benefits, and more than 50% of all entitlement benefits go towards retirees. If you consider _all_ tax expenditures that directly benefit individuals, the bottom 20% of the population receives only 3% of your tax dollar, while the top 1% get 24%.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/) You hard-working self-made small business owners are giving your tax money primarily to the rich, and secondarily to your future selves, not to the poor. No kidding. Since 2 of the more expensive entitlements are earned via a life of work. Imagine that getting back a fraction of what was confiscated! ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/228 "2016-05-05T03:12:12Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > No, 1% doesn’t control 99%. I can’t be bothered to look up the actual number because the point of this thread doesn’t seem to be about arguing which side is correct. I don’t think the fact that the US has high wealth inequality is in dispute. The Liberal position is that extreme wealth inequality is a bad thing. The Conservative position would seem to be that wealthy people unequivocally deserve their wealth through their hard work and that “expanding the pie” is better than making the slices more even. > [@Velocity](#): > > Assuming you’re referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m not sure what was objectionable about the operations in Afghanistan after 9/11. They were much more justifiable than Iraq and I’m not sure what you proposing that the US do otherwise. Afghanistan may have been more justified than Iraq, but it didn’t seem to be any better planned out in terms of exit strategy. And what did it even accomplish? But again, this is a conservative way of thinking that we can just send in the Marines and kick ass. A more nuanced response might actually be more effective (or at least not as damaging), but to conservatives in appears “weak”. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Note, by the way, that another very important value for me, and I’d like to think most liberals, is being willing to let research guide our views. That is, I strongly suspect that a dollar spent on rehabilitation does more to reduce crime in the long run than a dollar spent on punishment… but if I see sufficient research that proves otherwise, I’m perfectly willing to change my mind. Of course I’m stubborn and arrogant so it might take more evidence than it really _should_, but that’s just being human. Certainly both sides are guilt of confirmation bias, but it definitely seems worse on the side of conservatives. Again, by definition, “conservative” tends to promote the status quo and favors structure, order and gradual change (if at all). So by their nature, they will tend to resist change by poking holes and finding flaws. So while a liberal might be persuaded by evidence that estimates that a course of action is 80% likely to produce a positive benefit, a conservative will focus on the 20% as justification to leave things the way they are. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/229 "2016-05-05T12:33:34Z")
> [@JR Brown](#): > > … “get married” (which is at best a stop-gap that doesn’t address the underlying problem, and at worst is using financial necessity to force women into hasty marriages)… Given that a stable marriage confers massive emotional and financial benefits (as compared to unwed motherhood), I don’t see how marriage is “at best a stop-gap that doesn’t address the underlying problem”. Single parenting correlates with higher levels of practically every social pathology known to science - crime rates, poverty rates, poor school performance, emotional disturbances in children, chemical abuse and addictions, etc. If unwed parenting is a problem, and it is, I don’t understand how marriage fails to address the problem. Unless I don’t understand you. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/230 "2016-05-05T14:32:22Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I agree that most liberals place a high premium on rehabilitation. But I think that it’s for a far more pragmatic reason than you might think. That is, it’s not “oh, woe is me, these poor misunderstood people were probably only guilty of being mistreated by society, we must throw tax dollars at them and give them training in aromatherapy and Reiki healing”. Rather, it’s “this guy is a criminal. He’s in jail. As he does not have a life sentence, at some point he’s going to get out of jail. At that point, he’ll be walking around free breathing the same air as the rest of us. At that point, don’t we all benefit if he is able to find a job and live a productive life as a reformed member of society? Isn’t it worth spending some capital to help that happen?” This is an argument for rehabilitation, but not an argument as to how it ranks as a priority relative to punishment (which is what you were responding to). The thing about punishment is that it has a deterrent affect on people who are not yet criminals. Rehabilitation does not. (The opposite, if anything.) > [@](#): > > Note, by the way, that another very important value for me, and I’d like to think most liberals, is being willing to let research guide our views. That is, I strongly suspect that a dollar spent on rehabilitation does more to reduce crime in the long run than a dollar spent on punishment… but if I see sufficient research that proves otherwise, I’m perfectly willing to change my mind. Worth noting that you’re not claiming to be aware of research that supports the effectiveness of rehabilitation. You’re relying on your strong suspicion, and putting the onus on others to dispute this with research. Of course, others may strongly suspect the opposite and feel the onus is on people with your viewpoint to come up with evidence to disprove them. Not that there’s anything wrong with either side, of course, but I don’t see why this gets your side any “important value” points. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/231 "2016-05-05T14:57:22Z")
Just want to comment on these items, though they weren’t addressed to me. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is an argument for rehabilitation, but not an argument as to how it ranks as a priority relative to punishment (which is what you were responding to). > > The thing about punishment is that it has a deterrent affect on people who are not yet criminals. Rehabilitation does not. (The opposite, if anything.) Isn’t the objective of both exactly the same, namely to reduce the crime rate? Would you prefer a policy that was exceptionally tough on criminals because it gave you a sense of satisfaction or moral righteousness even if it was ineffective at reducing crime, or would you prefer a policy that actually and measurably reduced the chances of you being robbed? I know I would prefer the latter. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Worth noting that you’re not claiming to be aware of research that supports the effectiveness of rehabilitation. You’re relying on your strong suspicion, and putting the onus on others to dispute this with research. Of course, others may strongly suspect the opposite and feel the onus is on people with your viewpoint to come up with evidence to disprove them. > > Not that there’s anything wrong with either side, of course, but I don’t see why this gets your side any “important value” points. There certainly are statistics and studies that suggest that rehabilitation is an effective strategy at reducing crime. Just looking at some simple facts and overall numbers suggests this, in fact. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world and, compared to many other first-world countries, some of the longest sentences and toughest rules on parole eligibility. [Yet its recidivism rate is also very high](http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics/). The recidivism rate in Sweden and Canada is 35% and in Japan it’s 38.8%. In the US it’s 67.5%. Something clearly isn’t working, and the answer certainly isn’t to incarcerate even more people or making exceptionally long and tough sentences even longer and tougher. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/232 "2016-05-05T15:01:52Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Isn’t the objective of both exactly the same, namely to reduce the crime rate? Would you prefer a policy that was exceptionally tough on criminals because it gave you a sense of satisfaction or moral righteousness even if it was ineffective at reducing crime, or would you prefer a policy that actually and measurably reduced the chances of you being robbed? I know I would prefer the latter. This does not address the point I was making. MaxThe Vool did not address the relative effectiveness of punishment versus rehabilitation. > [@](#): > > There certainly are statistics and studies that suggest that rehabilitation is an effective strategy at reducing crime. Just looking at some simple facts and overall numbers suggests this, in fact. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world and, compared to many other first-world countries, some of the longest sentences and toughest rules on parole eligibility. [Yet its recidivism rate is also very high](http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics/). The recidivism rate in Sweden and Canada is 35% and in Japan it’s 38.8%. In the US it’s 67.5%. Something clearly isn’t working, and the answer certainly isn’t to incarcerate even more people or making exceptionally long and tough sentences even longer and tougher. This is overly simplistic. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/233 "2016-05-05T15:21:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is overly simplistic. I agree, it’s just a simple high-level snapshot, but fairly startling facts, don’t you think? [Here’s a more comprehensive meta-analysis](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffcts-prsn-sntncs-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx#exe) of 50 studies that supports much the same conclusions on the counter-intuitive and negative effects of prison sentences, particularly as applied to low-risk offenders. And [this book](https://books.google.ca/books?id=q7QdWy1nlp8C&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239) cites studies showing that the more painful prisons are, the more likely they are to increase recidivism. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/234 "2016-05-05T15:28:47Z")
But they’re not measuring the deterrent effect on potential criminals, which is - as mentioned - a big part of the reason for punishments. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/235 "2016-05-05T15:37:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > [Here’s a more comprehensive meta-analysis](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffcts-prsn-sntncs-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx#exe) of 50 studies that supports much the same conclusions on the counter-intuitive and negative effects of prison sentences, particularly as applied to low-risk offenders. No offense, but the analysis to which you linked didn’t discuss effects, it discussed correlations. Maybe putting the offenders in prison vs. community-based sentences made them worse offenders. Or maybe that they were worse offenders meant that they went to prison instead of some other sentence. IYSWIM. Rehabilitation of criminals is much like treatment for chemical dependency - there is rather little evidence of any program that works consistently, and most of the studies are subject to the usual drawbacks - they don’t count people who dropped out of the program, and they are designed (like AA) to assist people who have decided to get rehabilitated on their own. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/236 "2016-05-05T16:05:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s all true, but MF doesn’t define conservatism. As indicated by your very cites to RR & MT. They may have admired and been influenced by MF, but that doesn’t mean they supported a guaranteed basic income. MF does not define conservatism but he was the intellectual engine behind conservative economic thought. > [@](#): > > As above, a conservative idea is one that had significant support in conservative circles (at least as compared to liberal circles), not one for which you can point to this or that conservative supporter. Would you consider Freidrich Hayek a conservative? How about Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford? Mike Huckabee? I think Nixon put the conservative case for a basic income best: “We face an urban crisis, a social crisis — and at the same time, a crisis of confidence in the capacity of government to do its job. … Nowhere has the failure of government been more apparent than in its efforts to help the poor and especially the system of public welfare. That is why tonight I therefore propose that we abolish the present welfare system and that we adopt in its place a new family assistance system. Initially, this new system will cost more than welfare. But unlike welfare, it is designed to correct the condition it deals with and thus to lessen the long-range burden and cost. For a family of four now on welfare, with no outside income, the basic Federal payment would be $1,600 a year. States could add to that amount and most states would add to it. In no case would anyone’s present level of benefits be lowered. This new system establishes a direct link between the government’s willingness to help the needy and the willingness of the needy to help themselves. It removes the present incentive not to work and substitutes an incentive to work; it removes the present incentive for families to break apart and substitutes an incentive for families to stay together. It removes the blatant inequities, injustices, and indignities of the welfare system. It establishes a basic Federal floor so that children in any state have at least the minimum essentials of life.” > [@](#): > > That depends on how you define freedom. > > To the extent that you define having to work to support yourself as a lack of freedom, then I have no problem at all with not having “freedom”. If “_people are compelled by hunger, perhaps into accepting trades for their labor that they would not make if their children were not going hungry_” that’s perfectly fine with me. And it’s certainly a lot preferable to “_people are compelled by [the need to pay taxes to support other other people who sit around and enjoy their leisure], perhaps into accepting trades for their labor that they would not make if [they didn’t have this tax burden]_”. I define freedom in this case as a lack of compulsion. Noone is compelled to work to pay taxes. They may work MORE to achieve an aftertax income that corresponds to a standard of living they want but considering that nearly half the country doesn’t pay income taxes, it is hard to say people are being compelled to work to pay taxes in the same way that people are compelled to work to prevent their children from going hungry. If you can’t see the difference between the two compulsions, then I really don’t know what to say. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/237 "2016-05-05T16:06:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Freedom is not freedom if someone has to subsidize it for you. That’s a benefit, not a freedom. Besides, the concept of the welfare state breaks down completely if people are allowed to not contribute if they are able. At least in that one area, the communists had more sense than the softer social democrats: able-bodied people had to work if they wanted to eat. And experiments in basic income showed that the employment rate dropped about 5% mostly in the form of stay at home moms and teenagers who no longer had to help support the family. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/238 "2016-05-05T16:25:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think you’re confused as to the nature of the thread. I may be - it’s already happened. I am not making any specific argument - this thread is about stating and correcting assumptions. So you are right that I would interpret the constitution differently in some areas than has been already. I have ideas as to the proper role of government. Those ideas are motivated by personal beliefs and assumptions. I do not conflate those with reality as it is. OK, I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion. I thought we were making economic arguments for and against a minimum wage not philosophical ones. IOW I thought our positions on the minimum wage were based on assumptions about the economic consequences. I didn’t realize that philosopical didferences fell into the category of differing assumptions. > [@](#): > > I don’t know - what is the justification being presented? Does the area the fire department service contain lots of floating buildings on many small islands where swimming is the only means of ingress? I gave two real world examples with real fact patterns. OK, and I gave two hypotheticals showing what I meant by valid criteria. > [@](#): > > If the criteria is “does the person believe what they are saying” then you should take what the person actually says seriously. Your original assumption was that conservatives generally support a graduated tax rate. I produced a poll that shows that not to be true. In other words, your assumption faces counter evidence. I think there is a difference of definitions here. By serious I mean these people are not to be taken seriously any more than supporters of assault weapons bans are to be taken seriously. I have no doubt that these people are serious about meaning what they say and they may one day even be able to bring it to pass. They just aren’t serious people on tax policy. > [@](#): > > 'pay me or I will commit crimes" is very similar to “I will pay you if you do not commit crimes”. They are different, but I don’t care about the difference. The difference is critical if you are talking about hostage taking. If you want to walk back that comment and simply say you don’t like it for personal reasons, that’s fine but its not hostage taking. > [@](#): > > The ones the people were imprisoned for. We were specifically talking about paying people NOT to commit crimes not letting people out of jail. You injected the factoid about early release without any discussion about how it relates to paying criminals not to commit crimes. So once again, what does your latin saying have to do with paying criminals not to commit crimes? I think I initially described it as paying a little now to prevent a larger cost later on and you brought up the latin saying and it just seems a bit like a non sequitor. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/239 "2016-05-05T16:27:03Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > How do you determine which students are at risk of committing crime, and therefore should be paid not to commit crime? What’s the exact qualification criteria and where’s the precise line to qualify one student and disqualify another? No. This is two different programs. one program pays any student for perfect attendance and staying out of trouble. The whole school gets this. the other program selects ex-convicts based on some algorithm that determines who is most likely to respond be able to stay out of trouble if they were paid to do so and pays them. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/240 "2016-05-05T16:30:23Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Isn’t the objective of both exactly the same, namely to reduce the crime rate? No, the objectives aren’t exactly the same. The objective of rehabilitation may be to reduce the crime rate. One objective of punishment may be to serve as a deterrent and reduce the crime rate. But another objective of punishment is punishment. Rehabilitation doesn’t serve this objective. In any case, comparing straight recidivism rates isn’t very informative because of the War on Drugs. That should be abandoned because it’s stupid. There should be much fewer things that are crimes, and the ones that remain should be punished much more harshly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418.md?page=13)