”
That goes back to the conflicting views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes believed people were fundamentally bad - or at least that their self-interest would generally make them do bad things. So he felt that any government based on popular approval would fail. Hobbes said society needed a strong government that didn’t answer to the people in order to control the people for their own good.
Locke, on the other hand, believed that people were generally rational and good. Not universally but more often than not. So Locke felt you could base a sound system of government on popular approval. While some individuals might be bad or at least wrong, the majority of people would be good and make the correct decisions. So a society based on majoritarian government would function well.
---
### Author:  [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/112 "2016-04-30T18:42:13Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> One thing which shocked me a little on my recent visit to the US was how many conservatives and evangelicals have an incredibly low view of humanity. That the _majority_ of people would be out raping, killing, whatever, were it not for the police, army and fear of god’s wrath."
Given the extremely high death rate from casual violence among tribal societies everywhere in the world, their views seem to be correct. That doesn’t mean those ideas control the structure of government, but we should acknowledge that humanity has always been built on rivalry and competition, with violence simply one expression of it. Social control, whether internal or external, seems to be a necessary whether we like it or not.
Also, speaking to **Little Nemo** ’s point, you would probably find that conservatives in general prefer Locke to Hobbes in terms of philosophy, provided they’ve read either. But they wouldn’t agree with Locke about the supposed innate-goodness of human nature. Also, conservative thinkers in general seem to loathe Rousseau to the extent to which they give him and his writings the time of day. In fact, the right and left intellectuals in general seem to be deeply split about philosophy, to the point where even religious examples of both have quite different faiths.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/113 "2016-04-30T19:24:39Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> Given the extremely high death rate from casual violence among tribal societies everywhere in the world, their views seem to be correct.
There are many differences between the modern world and tribal societies. I’m arguing against the point that if you take away the police force / army or whatever, then the majority of people will rape, murder etc.
I wouldn’t. And generally-speaking, if everyone committed whatever immoral act they thought they could get away with at any given moment, chaos would result very quickly.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/114 "2016-04-30T20:55:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> I didn’t mean top .001% overall – I meant something like the top .001% in a skill (i.e. one of the very tip-top athletes, one of the very tip-top musical performers, very tip-top math skill, etc.) – that, unless someone is extremely talented at something, it may be a very difficult road out.
So the 56% who fall into poverty, and ascend out of it in less than a year, are in the 0.001% of some skill? Could you show your math?
> [@](#):
>
> But I think that, often due to circumstances mostly beyond their control, a poor person is much less likely to get married and stay married, not have children too early, be able to get a job (and keep a job), etc., and that we can do a better job of making this things relatively easy to achieve for almost everyone.
What are the circumstances beyond their control that causes them to have children out of wedlock they can’t support?
And do those circumstances not apply to the vast majority of the American public?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/115 "2016-04-30T21:06:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> So the 56% who fall into poverty, and ascend out of it in less than a year, are in the 0.001% of some skill? Could you show your math?
No, probably not. I was referring to people born into poverty.
> [@](#):
>
> What are the circumstances beyond their control that causes them to have children out of wedlock they can’t support?
>
> And do those circumstances not apply to the vast majority of the American public?
It’s not that circumstances cause them to do so, but circumstances make it less likely that they won’t. With less access to abortion, birth control, safe sex education, and the like, then even with the same discipline/motivation/hard-work/etc. as middle and upper class folks, they’re less likely to not have children out of wedlock.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/116 "2016-04-30T22:09:43Z")
I don’t think it’s particularly useful to ascribe assumptions to groups of people in general. This is because I don’t find the major party platforms to be internally consistent. Instead, I think it’s more informative to examine particular issues and the underlying assumptions that each side of that issue holds. A few examples:
**Minimum wage**
People against increasing the minimum wage beyond an inflation adjustment typically assume that the costs to the business environment, inflationary pressure, unemployment, are greater than the benefit to those earning minimum wage. Everyone shouldn’t have to pay some incrementally higher amount as a result of higher prices, lower dollar value, or increased costs of social safety net just to fund a targeted benefit. This is an example of targeted benefits and diffused costs.
I often think those in favor of increasing minimum wage beyond inflation adjustment don’t even consider there is a cost to such an action. I hear “an owner can afford to pay a few pennies more”. I find the argument in favor or raising the rate to be emotional and rarely pragmatic.
**Some Racial issues**
I personally find anything that relies on disparate impact analysis to by highly suspect. In general I assume this approach is bullshit. I think folks on the other side think this is a wonderful way to assess a given issue.
**Taxation**
People for increasing taxes on the rich typically think that the rich can afford it so because their marginal utility for each additional dollar is less, or the marginal cost for higher rates of taxation is less, then increasing taxes on this group is okay. I find that argument to be bullshit.
\*\*
On social services being cheaper than some undesirable alternative\*\*
Things like saying a social service program is cheaper and the alternative is that people will have no outlet so will commit crimes or some other bad action. I think people in favor of these services think this is a good argument, one of efficiency. I find this argument to be shitty. If it’s a good thing to do, then so be it. But as a carrot to reduce bad behavior…no. I’m fine with simply building more prisons. It may be more expensive - that’s perfectly fine with me.
---
### Author:  [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/117 "2016-04-30T22:14:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> So that’s another batch of these differing assumptions we have. In my experience, they are – I grew up upper middle class, and almost everyone I know had made at least one of these mistakes, and most of the folks I knew made several of them multiple times. At least 3/4s of the kids in my (private) high school did illegal drugs at some point (and the vast majority never got in trouble), and about half did illegal drugs multiple times. Probably at least half had unprotected sex at least once through high school and college. Same goes for occasional poor performance in school.
I think we are talking about apples and oranges, here. Occasional poor performance in school is not the same thing as failing to graduate. The latter has consequences for the next 60+ years of one’s life.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/118 "2016-04-30T22:29:32Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#):
>
> I think we are talking about apples and oranges, here. Occasional poor performance in school is not the same thing as failing to graduate. The latter has consequences for the next 60+ years of one’s life.
Yes, but the same poor performance for a middle or upper class kid is less likely to result in failing to graduate, since they’ll have better access to tutors and extra help, parents with more time and skills to help, teachers with more time to focus on each student, etc., on average. So a poor kid is probably, on average, less likely to graduate than a middle or upper class kid with _the exact same ability and effort_.
The poor kid, on average, will have to work _harder_ than the effort required for a middle or upper class kid to graduate.
---
### Author:  [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/119 "2016-04-30T22:38:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Yes, but the same poor performance for a middle or upper class kid is less likely to result in failing to graduate, since they’ll have better access to tutors and extra help, parents with more time and skills to help, teachers with more time to focus on each student, etc., on average.per class kid to graduate.
Most students don’t need tutors to graduate highschool, regardless of their parents income level.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/120 "2016-04-30T22:49:23Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#):
>
> Most students don’t need tutors to graduate highschool, regardless of their parents income level.
Some do, and many do need extra help from parents and teachers (and maybe even classmates), and middle and upper class kids are probably more likely, on average, to get extra help from their parents and teachers (and classmates) than poor kids.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418.md?page=7)