# Differing assumptions that are the basis of liberal and conservative positions
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418
**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:** 7
### Author:  [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2016, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/121 "2016-04-30T23:15:12Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> 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.
Not knowing the people you describe, and not having had long discussions to ascertain their exact beliefs, I can’t say whether your description is accurate or not. That said, they would be correct in the broad outlines. People _do_ behave quite badly when there is no control, whether that’s internal or external. It’s not a question of people having instant Face-Heel turns. But all of these mechanisms are there to, basically, keep us from resorting to violence whenever we want to.
More to the point, it’s not simply that people in small-scale societies are just bad. They aren’t. But they also know they can’t rely on people outside their small circle - a circle created because a small group or tribe is about as many people as we can personally know, trust, and socially influence.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/122 "2016-05-01T03:40:29Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> Not knowing the people you describe, and not having had long discussions to ascertain their exact beliefs, I can’t say whether your description is accurate or not. That said, they would be correct in the broad outlines. People _do_ behave quite badly when there is no control, whether that’s internal or external. It’s not a question of people having instant Face-Heel turns. But all of these mechanisms are there to, basically, keep us from resorting to violence whenever we want to.
I think you miss my point.
You mentioned tribal societies having a high murder rate as evidence that we’re generally bad in the absence of some kind of policing.
The first point we can say to this is that of course high murder rate =/= majority of people raping and murdering, which was the claim I was arguing against.
But the point I was making was that there are many differences between civilization and tribal societies: in education, aspiration, understanding and many other factors, and it has yet to be shown that policing is the critical thing preventing a Hobbesian nightmare.
---
### Author:  [@chargerrich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chargerrich)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/123 "2016-05-01T03:57:05Z")
Regardless of what side of the aisle you vote, I find it amazing that with all we now know about corporate profits and tax loopholes, bailouts and the arrogance of most Wall Street CEOs (like Jamie Dimon for example) that any citizen that is not a bonafide millionaire would not recognize the serious need for “Wall Street” reform.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/124 "2016-05-01T04:03:57Z")
What is the difference between a tax loophole and an intended tax provision? Do you have an example?
---
### Author:  [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/125 "2016-05-01T04:24:32Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> I think you miss my point.
I understand what you’re saying. I just don’t agree.
Also, you’ve moved the goal posts from multiple factors to one, and confused cause with effect. The fact that we’ve developed a highly complex and stable civilization are the result of developing the right kind of culture and the institutions that stabilize and maintain it. You might be able to get away with removing one, provided the others are in order, because those factors work differently on different kinds of people. Remove more than one, and you’ve got a serious problem. Remove them all, and it takes very little time for civilization to fall into very savage form. There are multiple examples within your lifetime.
---
### Author:  [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/126 "2016-05-01T05:44:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> I don’t think this accurately characterizes the liberal position either. At least, my position is (very broadly) that almost no one will make zero mistakes growing up and getting started in life, and that society is tilted such that a poor person (and especially poor people in various disadvantaged categories) who isn’t enormously naturally talented (~ top .001% or so) must make zero or near-zero mistakes in life to have even the slightest chance at escaping poverty, while almost everyone else can make multiple mistakes while still having little chance of dipping into long-term poverty.
This is a ridiculous thing to believe if taken at face value. Poverty is certainly a risk factor for perpetuation into future generations but it isn’t deterministic at nearly that degree. I grew up in a very poor area with true poverty at 3rd world levels in rural Louisiana. Posters here frequently question why I know so many criminals and that is the reason. I grew up with them and my parents taught them.
The bad outcomes are not the majority. Most people, even from the worst and most neglectful families eventually became middle class or even much more because they wanted to get out. Some of them did it by joining the military, some worked their way up through a nursing career and yet others did it by taking a low level job with a reputable company and working their way up.
Your .001% claim is completely false and fatalistic. It would come as a surprise to my female Hispanic friend who was poor as dirt growing up but is now a vice-president of a famous national bank (her younger brother is only an orthopedic surgeon). There is also my friend that came from probably the worst and most felonious family that I have ever known. She is now a full Bird Colonel in the Air Force and the one invited to give the speech at her 20th high school reunion. Others just became things like teachers, construction workers, oil rig workers and other occupations that might not be glamorous but they aren’t poor by any definition.
It certainly doesn’t work out a lot of the time but it is doing everyone a disservice to announce things are hopeless at the probabilities you are giving because they aren’t and I believe the odds are self-determined. Otherwise, almost every recent immigrant group into the U.S. would be living in permanent squalor and we know that isn’t true.
I grew up with a single mother working as a teacher with three kids in a place where that was considered a great living even though we were absolutely dead broke and weren’t that far from the very poor line. I have bounced back and forth between every economic class ever since. I like upper-middle class best but I can make any of them work if I need to.
I really don’t appreciate the message you are sending with your statement because it is both completely inaccurate in terms of percentages and disparaging to the countless people that defy it every day. If what you say happened to be true, the whole country would be filled with starving Irish, Italians, Jews, Blacks and every other group that shows that it isn’t true.
People can and do take very basic steps to do better than their upbringing all the time. In fact, that is the expected American way. I have no idea why liberals like yourself think that is almost impossible when it clearly is not.
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/127 "2016-05-01T06:21:42Z")
> [@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. 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.
This is correct. My classmates had vast advantages over me in terms of financial resources. I had to rely on welfare for many years and many times we didn’t even have power. There were many children in my area that really never had a chance.
I don’t think most conservatives are against helping. I think they are against being compelled to help in counterproductive manners in order to benefit members of a political party or government workers in general.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/128 "2016-05-01T07:48:05Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> Also, you’ve moved the goal posts from multiple factors to one, and confused cause with effect. The fact that we’ve developed a highly complex and stable civilization are the result of developing the right kind of culture and the institutions that stabilize and maintain it. You might be able to get away with removing one, provided the others are in order, because those factors work differently on different kinds of people. Remove more than one, and you’ve got a serious problem. Remove them all, and it takes very little time for civilization to fall into very savage form. There are multiple examples within your lifetime.
No, if anyone is moving goalposts it is you. This is the view, in my opening post, that I was taking objection to, was: _That the majority of people would be out raping, killing, whatever, were it not for the police, army and fear of god’s wrath._.
This is not the same thing at all as saying we could take away society, civilization, education, everything, and everyone would still behave as they do now.
The difference is I’m arguing that it’s not just fear of punishment that keeps people in line, and you already implictly conceded this by stating there would not be a “heel face turn” if the threat of punishment was removed tomorrow.
And I note that you have not yet taken the contrarian stance…that the _majority_ of people would be out raping and killing.
I don’t dispute at all that if civilization crumbles a lot of people will be doing things like stealing / looting. That’s not the same thing as saying the _majority_ will become _psychopaths_ and abandon all morality.
---
### Author:  [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/129 "2016-05-01T08:10:16Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> 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 say the \*majority \*of people, but it is known that when there was the blackout in New York City in 1977, there was a lot of crime, violence, looting, etc. As Margaret Thatcher once commented, “The veneer of civilization is very thin.”
---
### Author:  [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/130 "2016-05-01T08:19:05Z")
To echo what some others have said, I think conservatives tend to focus on how a proposed idea could go wrong or be misused. I know one person who once proposed that parents of mentally handicapped adult children ought to be allowed to cast 2 votes on Election Day - one of which would be a vote on the child’s behalf. A conservative objection to that idea might be - how can you know that the parent is actually going to vote the way the mentally handicapped adult child would have desired?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/131 "2016-05-01T12:52:38Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> This is a ridiculous thing to believe if taken at face value. Poverty is certainly a risk factor for perpetuation into future generations but it isn’t deterministic at nearly that degree. I grew up in a very poor area with true poverty at 3rd world levels in rural Louisiana. Posters here frequently question why I know so many criminals and that is the reason. I grew up with them and my parents taught them.
>
> The bad outcomes are not the majority. Most people, even from the worst and most neglectful families eventually became middle class or even much more because they wanted to get out. Some of them did it by joining the military, some worked their way up through a nursing career and yet others did it by taking a low level job with a reputable company and working their way up.
>
> Your .001% claim is completely false and fatalistic. It would come as a surprise to my female Hispanic friend who was poor as dirt growing up but is now a vice-president of a famous national bank (her younger brother is only an orthopedic surgeon). There is also my friend that came from probably the worst and most felonious family that I have ever known. She is now a full Bird Colonel in the Air Force and the one invited to give the speech at her 20th high school reunion. Others just became things like teachers, construction workers, oil rig workers and other occupations that might not be glamorous but they aren’t poor by any definition.
>
> It certainly doesn’t work out a lot of the time but it is doing everyone a disservice to announce things are hopeless at the probabilities you are giving because they aren’t and I believe the odds are self-determined. Otherwise, almost every recent immigrant group into the U.S. would be living in permanent squalor and we know that isn’t true.
>
> I grew up with a single mother working as a teacher with three kids in a place where that was considered a great living even though we were absolutely dead broke and weren’t that far from the very poor line. I have bounced back and forth between every economic class ever since. I like upper-middle class best but I can make any of them work if I need to.
>
> I really don’t appreciate the message you are sending with your statement because it is both completely inaccurate in terms of percentages and disparaging to the countless people that defy it every day. If what you say happened to be true, the whole country would be filled with starving Irish, Italians, Jews, Blacks and every other group that shows that it isn’t true.
>
> People can and do take very basic steps to do better than their upbringing all the time. In fact, that is the expected American way. I have no idea why liberals like yourself think that is almost impossible when it clearly is not.
I think you’re misinterpreting my point. I don’t believe it’s impossible to get out of long term poverty for those who aren’t extremely talented, just very, very difficult, and I believe that society can and should do a better job of making it easier.
Maybe I framed things with hyperbole, and if this was confusing, I apologize.
---
### Author:  [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/132 "2016-05-01T14:39:11Z")
In other threads I have pointed to the research by Jonathan Haidt. If you want to spend the time, his TED talk is great:
> **[The moral roots of liberals and conservatives](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives)**
>
> Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.
His research is on the 6 traits that make up moral foundations. These traits are summarized as:
> [@](#):
>
> Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
> Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
> Liberty: the loathing of tyranny; opposite of oppression.
> Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
> Authority or respect: obeying tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
> Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.
> **[Moral foundations theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory)**
>
> Moral foundations theory is a social psychological theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations. It was first proposed by the psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, building on the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. More recently, Mohammad Atari, Jesse Graham, and Jonathan Haidt have revised some aspects of the theory and developed new measurement tools. The theor Its authors remai...
The research has stated that:
> [@](#):
>
> people’s sensitivities to the six moral foundations correlate with their political ideologies. While all three of the political camps studied by Haidt are sensitive to the Fairness foundation, progressives are particularly sensitive to the Care foundation, libertarians to the Liberty foundation, and conservatives roughly equally sensitive to all six foundations
This difference in perspective helps explain a lot of the inability of different groups to discuss, debate and understand each other. They truly are coming at the question from a different direction.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/133 "2016-05-01T18:40:08Z")
> [@Algher](#):
>
> The research has stated that:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > people’s sensitivities to the six moral foundations correlate with their political ideologies. While all three of the political camps studied by Haidt are sensitive to the Fairness foundation, progressives are particularly sensitive to the Care foundation, libertarians to the Liberty foundation, **and conservatives roughly equally sensitive to all six foundations**
>
> This difference in perspective helps explain a lot of the inability of different groups to discuss, debate and understand each other. They truly are coming at the question from a different direction.
Bolded part mine from the selected quote. If this is true then it must be talking about a radically different kind of conservatism from anything we see today. Case in point is [the diatribe posted here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19296812&postcount=116). Every one of those points defies multiple elements of those moral foundations. Look at the amazing last declaration, for instance:
> [@Bone](#):
>
> \*\*
> 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.**
Emphasis on the last two sentences mine.
This piece of philosophical myopia implies that people are simply born to be thieves and violent criminals, and that reducing crime and fostering a peaceful society basically consists of paying for “carrots” – i.e.- bribes – to the criminal classes so they don’t commit crimes. It totally ignores the foundational role of a person’s life experiences in shaping their character, and it totally ignores the purposes and goals of properly administered social programs to foster a healthy and peaceful society by providing opportunities for the disadvantaged and preserving the basic human dignity of all citizens.
The wealthy are not fundamentally different human beings than the poorest and most disadvantaged. They are certainly less likely to commit petty crimes because they’re not driven by desperation, and social institutions are not perceived as an enemy but rather the extension of their own lives and values. Yet even so it’s remarkable the degree to which the wealthy, personified by their corporate institutions, engage in immoral and criminal activities on the kind of grand scale that can only be orchestrated in boardrooms and plush corner offices high above the humdrum ordinary world, from which they are largely immune to prosecution.
To suggest that the right answer to crime among the poor and disadvantaged, living in squalid ghettos as social outcasts, is to _build more prisons_ in a country that already suffers the shameful distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the entire world is so far detached from reality and so regressively myopic that it takes your breath away – a proposition even worse than 19th century Dickensian workhouses.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see how many of the stated six moral foundations this abhorrent nonsense violates. I count at least five.
And, for the record, I disagree with all the other points in that same post, too. Briefly:
> [@](#):
>
> **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.
Not sure where this “increasing” argument comes from. The minimum wage argument is that people who work full time should make enough money to live on. Simple. Once a rational baseline is established, I don’t see any persuasive arguments to support the straw man of “increasing the minimum wage beyond an inflation adjustment”.
> [@](#):
>
> **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.
Except for those things that have a disparate impact. In that case it behooves a rational assessment to recognize that fact.
> [@](#):
>
> **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.
Another straw man. The real discussion is not about “increasing taxes” on a demographic that has enjoyed a succession of massive tax _ **cuts** _ for many decades, to the detriment of society in general and the middle class in particular. The real discussion is about the relative benefits of the progressive tax system that was in place throughout most of the 20th century, and largely remains in place in most other nations.
And the sterile phraseology about “marginal utility” disguises the fact that for the middle class, this “marginal utility” may make the difference between being able to send your kids to college and living a reasonable lifestyle or living like a pauper, and for the poorer classes this “marginal utility” pertains to having a reasonably safe place to life fit for human habitation and being able to put food on the table. For the wealthiest classes it relates more to how much needs to be moved to offshore tax havens.
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/134 "2016-05-01T18:42:21Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> No, if anyone is moving goalposts it is you. This is the view, in my opening post, that I was taking objection to, was: _That the majority of people would be out raping, killing, whatever, were it not for the police, army and fear of god’s wrath._.
>
> This is not the same thing at all as saying we could take away society, civilization, education, everything, and everyone would still behave as they do now.
>
> The difference is I’m arguing that it’s not just fear of punishment that keeps people in line, and you already implictly conceded this by stating there would not be a “heel face turn” if the threat of punishment was removed tomorrow.
>
> And I note that you have not yet taken the contrarian stance…that the _majority_ of people would be out raping and killing.
> I don’t dispute at all that if civilization crumbles a lot of people will be doing things like stealing / looting. That’s not the same thing as saying the _majority_ will become _psychopaths_ and abandon all morality.
You must not watch The Walking Dead.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [May 2, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/135 "2016-05-02T01:40:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> I think you’re misinterpreting my point. I don’t believe it’s impossible to get out of long term poverty for those who aren’t extremely talented, just very, very difficult, and I believe that society can and should do a better job of making it easier.
And see, I’d argue (and I suspect several others would as well) that it’s not as difficult as it seems, but takes a sort of shift in mindset, rather than greasing the skids for the poor.
In other words, if you did an experiment, and gave a family born into poverty an annual salary of $100,000 (for a nice round solidly middle/upper-middle salary), they’d STILL act just like poor people do, except writ large. There are no guarantees whatsoever that they’d save a dime, or not spend it on absurd stuff, or give it to various mooches of their acquaintance. Or that they wouldn’t have awesome rims, or a car that’s far outside their finances even at $100,000 a year.
THAT is the difference. To get your family out of poverty, you sort of have to take the long view, and aim to get your children better off than you are. And instill that same value in your children- so that your grandchildren are even better off. And so on.
But that takes something other than instant gratification, and it takes saving, thrift and a bunch of things that the “windfall” mentality of poverty actively plays against, and no amount of money will change that.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [May 2, 2016, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/136 "2016-05-02T04:10:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> This piece of philosophical myopia implies that people are simply born to be thieves and violent criminals, and that reducing crime and fostering a peaceful society basically consists of paying for “carrots” – i.e.- bribes – to the criminal classes so they don’t commit crimes. It totally ignores the foundational role of a person’s life experiences in shaping their character, and it totally ignores the purposes and goals of properly administered social programs to foster a healthy and peaceful society by providing opportunities for the disadvantaged and preserving the basic human dignity of all citizens.
It’s not an either or situation. I don’t believe people are born to be thieves and/or violent criminals and I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion. A person’s life experience has a great and vast role to play in their behaviors among other things. All that is true - and if or when a person commits crimes, they should pay the penalty. I am speaking specifically about arguments that focus on the costs of imprisonment as a reason certain things shouldn’t be crimes. To those, I say the cost is largely irrelevant and I’d gladly support building more prisons. And simultaneously folks should be encouraged to live healthy productive lives.
> [@](#):
>
> I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see how many of the stated six moral foundations this abhorrent nonsense violates. I count at least five.
Are you assuming these six foundations are shared, or even recognized?
> [@](#):
>
> Not sure where this “increasing” argument comes from. The minimum wage argument is that people who work full time should make enough money to live on. Simple. Once a rational baseline is established, I don’t see any persuasive arguments to support the straw man of “increasing the minimum wage beyond an inflation adjustment”.
Have you perused the $10 min wage thread? Read any of the $15 min wage proposals? That’s increasing no? I don’t mean to argue either point, simply identify assumptions that I hold, and that I think people on the other side of the issue holds. See, I don’t think there should be a minimum wage at all. But yes, I understand that folks on your side of this issue think that full time work should = a living wage. I think it’s nuts, but I accept that’s your position. Characterizing this as a strawman is strange since this thread is about assumptions from folks - and my assumption is accurate as to at least your position.
> [@](#):
>
> Except for those things that have a disparate impact. In that case it behooves a rational assessment to recognize that fact.
Confirmation! My assumption was correct again.
> [@](#):
>
> Another straw man. The real discussion is not about “increasing taxes” on a demographic that has enjoyed a succession of massive tax _ **cuts** _ for many decades, to the detriment of society in general and the middle class in particular. The real discussion is about the relative benefits of the progressive tax system that was in place throughout most of the 20th century, and largely remains in place in most other nations.
More with the strawman accusations. So what is this relative benefit? Is it something along the lines of society in general will be better off?
> [@](#):
>
> And the sterile phraseology about “marginal utility” disguises the fact that for the middle class, this “marginal utility” may make the difference between being able to send your kids to college and living a reasonable lifestyle or living like a pauper, and for the poorer classes this “marginal utility” pertains to having a reasonably safe place to life fit for human habitation and being able to put food on the table. For the wealthiest classes it relates more to how much needs to be moved to offshore tax havens.
Marginal utility is a widely recognized term in economics. I assume you believe your emotional appeals are persuasive? They may be to people who agree with you. To me, they are without merit.
---
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [May 2, 2016, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/137 "2016-05-02T05:06:13Z")
> [@octopus](#):
>
> I don’t think most conservatives are against helping. I think they are against being compelled to help in counterproductive manners in order to benefit members of a political party or government workers in general.
Similarly, conservatives are in favor of regulations as long as they’re _good_ regulations. But not the regulations designed to benefit big donors to the Democratic Party.
Liberals, OTOH, are a coalition of those too stupid to see their party’s corruption, and those who benefit from that corruption.[/sarcasm]
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [May 2, 2016, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/138 "2016-05-02T05:48:08Z")
> [@septimus](#):
>
> Similarly, conservatives are in favor of regulations as long as they’re _good_ regulations. But not the regulations designed to benefit big donors to the Democratic Party.
>
> Liberals, OTOH, are a coalition of those too stupid to see their party’s corruption, and those who benefit from that corruption.[/sarcasm]
Exactly. Explain to me if government was so effective at providing solutions why does it seem like every War on Poverty or Drugs or whatever makes the problem worse?
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [May 2, 2016, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/139 "2016-05-02T13:26:28Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> Are you assuming these six foundations are shared, or even recognized?
Not at all. Nor do I want to rehash all over again the critiques I previously made. The point that got my attention was this quote pertaining to the work of Jonathan Haidt _et al_ where again, the emphasis is mine:
> [@](#):
>
> people’s sensitivities to the six moral foundations correlate with their political ideologies. While all three of the political camps studied by Haidt are sensitive to the Fairness foundation, progressives are particularly sensitive to the Care foundation, libertarians to the Liberty foundation, and **conservatives roughly equally sensitive to all six foundations**
It struck me that one could interpret this as meaning that conservatives have a balanced view of all six moral foundations, which is unmitigated bullshit. Since you had recently finished your diatribe outlining conservative views on various issues, and it seemed to me a fairly accurate characterization, your post made a convenient target for showing how poorly conservatism actually aligns with those moral foundations. I almost felt bad for singling you out in this way – it’s really this strange view of conservatism as allegedly morally balanced that I’m attacking.
In an early study with five foundations, Haidt seems to have observed that liberal extremes value “care” and “fairness” most strongly, conservative extremes value “authority” and “sanctity” most strongly, and as one moves from left to right there comes a point where the foundations more or less converge before spreading out in opposite directions. Haidt pegs the crossover point as “conservative” while “moderate” still holds much of the liberal-side divergence – which is the kind of nonsense that makes me despair that social psychology will ever accomplish anything useful. There are very few people in this ideological space and they’re certainly not “conservative”.
I think **Algher** is right that “this difference in perspective helps explain a lot of the inability of different groups to discuss, debate and understand each other. They truly are coming at the question from a different direction” but at face value Haidt’s work only shows why liberals and libertarians are at opposite ends of the spectrum. He seems to completely mischaracterize conservatism. To quote social psychologist John Jost, “Haidt ‘mocks the liberal vision of a tolerant, pluralistic, civil society, but, ironically, this is precisely where he wants to end up’.”
> [@Bone](#):
>
> Marginal utility is a widely recognized term in economics. I assume you believe your emotional appeals are persuasive? They may be to people who agree with you. To me, they are without merit.
Just one small point on this nit. I’m aware that “marginal utility” is a term used in economic theories of consumption. But you have misappropriated it and used it to try to objectively rationalize a dysfunctional society divided between wealth and poverty in which the wealthy are presumed to have no burden of responsibility for anyone but themselves, or for the world they live in. Moral values like caring and empathy fundamentally _ **are** _ emotional, because we are a human society.
This fundamental dichotomy is why conservative social schemes are always such abysmal failures. We’ll reluctantly have social assistance of sorts, we’ll just make sure that it’s inadequate, painful, and degrading. We can’t possibly have universal health care because it’s socialist, but having hospitals chuck dying patients out into the street offends even conservative sensibilities (if only because conservatives have to use those same streets), so let’s have a scheme that doesn’t work, doesn’t actually provide health care, and wastes atrocious amounts of taxpayer dollars, but lets us assuage our moral conscience with false sanctimony.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [May 2, 2016, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418/140 "2016-05-02T13:55:08Z")
> [@octopus](#):
>
> Exactly. Explain to me if government was so effective at providing solutions why does it seem like every War on Poverty or Drugs or whatever makes the problem worse?
Governments can’t do anything right except put men on the moon, explore every planet in the solar system, build the international space station, make all the most important advances in basic science and medicine, build a national highway and railway and air traffic system, more or less keep the country together, and directly or indirectly administer universal health care systems in every civilized country in the world, just to cite a few examples.
I think you’ll find that the failures of the War on Poor Black People Who Use Drugs are mainly due to the fact that conservatives like to throw them in prison. The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, which is an amazing fact when you think about it. The trouble with throwing all these people in jail is that eventually they come out again, generally with all the same problems. Yes, the US also features a particularly bad recidivism rate.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418.md?page=6)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/differing-assumptions-that-are-the-basis-of-liberal-and-conservative-positions/753418.md?page=8)