I saw George Will on Colbert and was intrigued by his discription of the difference between consevative and liberal
paraphrased
How accurate is this discription?
It occurs to me that in the areas of womens rights and gay rights conservatives are certainly willing to restrict the freedom of others. Maybe he’s just talking economics.
I want a society where poeple help each other but I’m also an advocate of personal responsibility. My question here is about the proper balance. How do we strike the proper balance that rewards people for hard work and innovation and also helps people without creating a sense of entitlement and interfering with the motivation that consequences for choices provide.
Should the government be doing it or should we be stressing more charity in the private sector?
Last but not least, I’m very curious how the conservative free market concept proposes we deal with cooperate greed, political manipulation and the emergence of near monopolies.
Not accurate at all. For example, you can’t honestly be for equality of opportunity if you oppose attempts to give people an equal opportunity. Pretending that poor people have the same opportunities as the rich is ridiculous and dishonest, yet conservatives do it all the time. For another example, if you allow people to be hired or fired due to gender, religion, sexuality, race and so fourth, you can’t rationally claiming that people have an equal opportunity to succeed. The political right has always stood for the protection of privilege, not equality of opportunity or any other kind.
And consistently, the “freedoms” that conservatives support include the freedom to oppress and control others. Gay rights, as you point out, is a classic example; conservative support for state’s rights vanishes when it comes to gay marriage; THEN it’s the job of the Federal government to get involved.
Mostly, trial and error. Much of the problem is the unwillingness of people to admit when some ideologically driven position isn’t working; such as the insistence that the free market will magically solve a problem if we just wait long enough and ( punish people enough ) that it shows no sign of fixing.
The government. If the private sector was willing or able to solve social problems, they’d have been solved long, long ago.
Either support them under the “The Market Is Always Right”, and “The Weak Shall Perish” principles, or simply deny that they have any other cause than The Evil Government. I often hear these people insist than the sole source of monopolies is the government, for example.
What exactly have conservatives done to prevent people from bettering themselves and advancing in the workplace. It does happen doesn’t it?
Do you have any specific examples?
I agree it’s contradictory to talk about valuing freedom when you actively seek to suppress the rights of others. I do have several conservative friends that have no problem with gay marriage and woemn’s right to choose.
I’d like to hear from any conservative who wants to address that contradiction , but I think Will might have been speaking mainly about economics.
I understand the basic principles of free market and IMO that’s not what we have here. When big business can buy policies and laws that favor them it’s not a free market. One of my conservative friends admits there needs to be regulation. Once that acknowledgement is made it begins the question of how much. Comapnies are run and owned by people. In the same way I don’t want a support system that pays people’s bills while they continue to make irresponsible choices, I don’t want companies to be able to create greedy immoral policies that harm others while being protected from consequences.
Realistically, the goverment hasn’t done it either so as a point of logic this doesn’t hold up.
I mentioned regulation before. There are laws in place for consumer protection but it appears to me that there is a constant struggle to manipulate the laws and regulations in favor of business. For example, the recent change in bankruptcy laws making it harder to file bankruptcy should be combined with closer scrutiny of credit practices by banks. One addresses the other pretty directly.
The famous ‘glass ceiling’ immediately comes to mind. And on a border scale beyond the workplace, such things as the general opposition from conservatives to everything from school lunches to public education in general. Their constant attempts to shift the tax burden from the rich to everyone else. And so on.
It’s done a far better job that the private sector ever did. How many people do you see eating bark and grass because they are starving ? None, unlike the good old days of the private sector “taking care of” the needy.
By conservatives. Conservatives hate any regulations or laws that limit what businesses can do to people. It wasn’t liberals who wanted Blackwater immune to all laws in Iraq, including murder.
I don’t see the glass ceiling, racial or gender inequality as strictly conservative issues.
To clarify the OP , I don’t see the current admin as representing typical conservative values and ideals and I think many conservatives feel the same way. In the same way a corrupt liberal doesn’t honestly represent the average liberal attitude.
I don’t know any average conservatives against school lunches or public education. What they might be against is the concept that tenure allows bad teachers to be immune from firing. They expect students and parents to work hard to make the most of educational opportunities. The conservatives I know feel that too many government programs that they foot the bill for reward or encourage a half hearted effort by removing too many natural consequences under the guise of “helping” That premise is has some merit. They do not have a “screw em let em starve” attitude. They just think as a general principle, people should earn their way rather than have it handed to them. In that respect I think workfare [requiring some effort or contribution from people who are able to contribute. ] is superior to welfare.
That’s your opinion. You haven’t shown it to be factual. No doubt welfare programs have helped a lot of people but there are problems. Huge charities exist today that help millions without government control or direction.
Conservatives believe a free market will regulate itself through fair competition. If a company screws people then they eventually go out of business and a better company that offers fair service for a price will prosper. The principles are sound, but the application to reality is much more complicated.
I repeat, I’m not equating the corruption of the currant admin with average conservatism. As far as I’m concerned they are criminals who deserve to be in prison, but that’s not the discussion at hand.
Will has made a career out of pretending that there is some philosophical and intellectual basis for the conservative “movement”. He’d rather not say its about those who got money and power keeping money and power. Like the “big government” boogeyman, they twist a pretty straightforward agenda into intellectual macrame, when government is the primary means by which the conservatives obstruct progress. Its not about some deep intellectual principle that abhors “big government”, its about controlling what that government does, and does not, do.
All rights are inherently in conflict, to some degree: the right to bear arms, the right not to get shot. The right to free speech, and the need to promote equality of access. Property rights and environmental concerns. The list goes on and on, the trick is in the balance, and the argument is about that balance.
George knows who signs his checks, his function is to use big words and philosophical digressions to feign intellectual complexity and principle to a matter of sheer power: who’s got it, and how long can they keep it.
It’s just interesting that the high-minded idealists of the 18th Century saw no conflict between equality and liberty. There is, and you have to strike a balance. The Communist countries sacrificed liberty to equality and only succeeded in making everybody but the Party elite equally poor. In America we have too much liberty and not enough equality. Most European countries seem to have found a happy medium, lately.
Good points. I agree that touting idealistic principles that don’t really reflect reality is bogus. I think this applies to liberal idealists as well. The discussion needs to be how those principles apply to the reality we’re in now and how to strike the proper balance.
Agreed. All choices have consequences including the choice to say “tuff luck” to the poor or the choice to create a program to help them that results in unforeseen negative consequences.
It occurred to me in thinking about this that the whole concept of sacrificing freedom for equality is a bit bogus in this context. Since we have the freedom to give voice to alternative solutions and vote for leaders who will implement them , and have made our choice to live in this democratic republic, then government programs are not really a violation of anyone’s freedoms. We collectively decide what will be and are free to apply our energies in changing what we don’t like.
But government programs have to be paid for, and Libertarians consider taxes to be violations of people’s freedom – and likewise practically anything else where a collective policy decision by the majority is enforced on individual members of a dissenting minority. Proto-Lib Barry Goldwater, for instance, believed that while desegregating public facilities might be tolerable, forcing Southern restaurants to serve black customers was an intolerable violation of their freedom of association, etc.
Interesting. So how do we pay for things like education, salaries for public servants? Police , Firemen? The Military?
I’ve worked for a lot of business owners over the years and we’ve talked about intrusive regulations. Such as, shouldn’t the business decide it’s on rules for smoking and let the cash register dictate if it’s a good idea or not.
If a restaurant retains the right to not serve a particular race there might be other workable ways to progress beyond that kind of racism rather than federal law. Picketing the restaurant, encouraging a boycott, etc.
It’s interesting because on the one hand we do try to preserve the rights of individuals but yet seem compelled to violate them for the good of society as a whole. Struggling to find the balance is something we can’t avoid.
I can imagine a sliding scale in which money directed to those in need. As we increase the amount of money and make access to that money easier we simultaneously increase the opportunity for abuse of the system, dependency on the system, and lack of motivation. As we decrease the amount of money and make access more stringent we increase the number of people who need help and can’t or don’t get it. At no point in the scale will there be any ideal achieved.
We can alter the number of those in need by trying to create opportunity for people to become self reliant and making the essentials of life within reach for more people.
No, but it is a core issue of theirs; not so for the opposition.
Well, I do see them that way. They got elected twice for a reason. As for corruption; conservatism is corrupt by it’s nature, it’s largely about maintaining and creating privilege. It IS corruption, to a large extent, simply corruption given the facade of being a political philosophy.
Just read history. Before government aid, we have people starving. After, we don’t. The private sector had thousands of years to do something and failed miserably.
No, the principles are stupid; they ignore reality and history. People are not omniscient perfectly rational consumers, who always know when and who they are being cheated by. Companies often cooperate instead of competing; often there is no choice but to buy from the companies providing bad products. And big companies can squash little companies that produce superior prodcuts. And if a good idea isn’t profitable, the free market won’t do a thing. And so on.
As well, competition often produces inferior products; planned obsolescence is an example of this. The original Corningware and nylon stockings were greatly superior to what we have now; you can’t buy the original versions ( except for some of the original old Corningware, online ), because no one makes it.
The conservative answer for most public services is either to have the private sector do it, or have people do without. If you burn because you can’t afford fire protection, well you deserve it because if you are poor, you are evil. They do want the government to pay for the police and military, so they can engage in tyranny and conquest.
No. First, because that doesn’t WORK; you just end up with smoking businesses that refuse to ban smoking regardless of the cost. Second, because employees shouldn’t be forced to expose themselves to smoke. And third, non-smokers should have a choice between breathing carcinogens and staying home.
And if they ignore it ? If ALL the restaurants in the area ignore it ?
Part of the problem with conservative competition-wanking is that they assume that there will BE competition.
Employees don’t have that option. And no, employees can’t just walk away that easily. And no, employers shouldn’t have the right to poison their employees just because they pay them money, or to otherwise injure or kill them.
And regardless of that, some people walking away didn’t produce many smoke free places of business. It took laws to do that. It is an example of the failure of competition to solve a problem.
Yeah, those waiter and waitress jobs are pretty hard to come by.
When you cam point to a waiter or waitress who suffered serious health problems because of second hand smoke you may have a point. So far. Not so much.
There are lots of things that are bad for us. Maybe we can outlaw them all and solve all our problems.