# Neither welfare-state nor property-owning democracy. What do conservatives want? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 7, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831 "2011-08-07T16:10:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/21 "2011-08-09T13:26:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK, I gotta ask. What the heck does “property owning democracy” mean? As far as I can tell from this thread, it means that conservatives are poopy-pants. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/22 "2011-08-09T14:01:12Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The line between ‘conservative’, ‘Republican’ and ‘Tea Partier’ seems to blur depending on the situation, so I hope we don’t fall into quibbling over that particular distinction. > > Ok then, rationally we might expect conservatives to go the other way, in favor of a property-owning democracy. That is the other choice, right? See here: > > But that doesn’t sound like what conservatives want at all! Take a look around and it seems conservative politicians will do just about anything to dismantle education/education funding for instance, which isn’t going to lead to a society of free and equal persons. They don’t seem terribly keen on preserving institutions supporting the ‘full value of political liberties’- see their efforts to deprive the poor of voting rights in many states. AFAICT, conservatives are gung-ho about placing control of institutions and ‘productive means’ precisely in the hands of a few, and not at all in the hands of ‘citizens generally’. I can’t see conservatives accepting any theory that includes the phrase ‘dispersal of capital’, unless that phase is always preceded by ‘no’. And the lower taxes -\> smaller government theme seems intended to destroy public institutions generally, excepting perhaps the military. Unless you count corporations as institutions I guess. > > So if conservatives are opposed to a welfare state, but their actions reveal they are not going for a property-owning democracy either, then what exactly are they trying to accomplish? And: is their goal just? > [@](#): > > Obviously the right has a problem with this. The right’s hobbies include ranting about ‘excessive entitlements’ and ‘welfare queens’, promoting a theory of freedom in which taxes drop forever and everyone is on their own, assistance should only take the form of charity and not government aid, and so on. ‘Welfare state’ is a dirty word for them AFAICT. (And I hope I am being fair here. If I’m not, let me have it.) Note that Rawls’ definition of the welfare state doesn’t spell the end of economic and political inequality altogether, but merely promotes a minimum standard of life. Well, you may not have accurately characterized the position of the “right.” Part of the problem with your approach, so far in this post, is your aggrandization of a philosophy possessed by some on the right as a philosophy “of the right”. This makes as much sense as equivocating some on the left’s desire of a Marxist state as the left-wing’s goal. But, I digress, as we can assume, arguendo, some of the the “right’s hobbies” include their incessant “ranting about 'excessive entitlements and ‘welfare queens’…” I stopped here because I want to address these two points. I think you have confused obsessively criticizing “exessive entitlements and welfare queens” with absolutely being opposed to any and all social welfare programs. This equivocation you commit is part of the problem. You should not confuse condemnation of “welfare queens” and excessive entitlements with opposed to any and all social welfare programs. The remarks of “welfare queen” and “excessive entitlements” are criticisms of a system, not demands for its dissolution. The right-wing looks at the social welfare programs and in its estimation perceives abuse, corruption, inefficiency, and promotion of lethargy, at the expense of taxpayers. They are demanding revision of those programs to address these issues. I think most of the right-wing realize some social welfare is inevitable, indeed necessary, if not practical. Where they disagree with Democrats and others on the left, however, is with the size of these programs, and the ostensible inexorable expanding number of people in these programs. The right-wing wants the programs as minimal as possible, whereas the left-wing wants them to expand. > [@](#): > > everyone is on their own, assistance should only take the form of charity and not government aid, and so on. ‘Welfare state’ is a dirty word for them AFAICT. (And I hope I am being fair here. If I’m not, let me have it.) Note that Rawls’ definition of the welfare state doesn’t spell the end of economic and political inequality altogether, but merely promotes a minimum standard of life. This is a reference to another group of people on the right. To be sure, there are some on the right aspiring for a government completely devoid of social welfare programs, and any redistribution of the wealth, what some may call a “libertarian” position, or a Robert Nozick utopia. It is this group, those advocating for a Robert Nozick “night watchman state” I think is the probably the proper focus of your post. However, do not confuse this group within he right-wing as “The right-wing.” Now, here is where your argument makes a rather intriguing point in regards to these people. > [@](#): > > Ok then, rationally we might expect conservatives to go the other way, in favor of a property-owning democracy. That is the other choice, right? See here: **The problem with this reasoning is the fact it suggests there is no other direction but the “other way” of a “property-owning democracy,” where such a phrase is defined, not surprisingly, in a manner people in this group will find objectionable.** _“By contrast, in a property-owning democracy the aim is to carry out the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation over time among citizens as free and equal persons. Thus, basic institutions must from the outset put in the hands of citizens generally, and not only of a few, the productive means to be fully cooperating members of a society.”_ Of course this reasoning rests upon a very contentious assumptions. One assumption is “productive means” cannot be in the “hands of a few” for citizens to fully be cooperating members of society. Another assumption is a “fair” system of cooperation is one which “basic institutions…put in the hands of citizens generally, and not only of a few, the productive means to be fully cooperating members of society.” Of course certain right-wing members are going to denounce this perception of “property-owning democracy,” in part becaus they reject these assumptions as true, and more importantly, because the scheme, as defined above, is redistribution of the wealth, something they are opposed to at all. You have conveniently set them up for failure by giving them two options, and only two options, both of which they find objectionable. You were remissed to ignore a third possibility, which is their philosophy, a Nozick “night watchman state.” > [@](#): > > equality of opportunity secured by provisions for education and training, > and the like, as well as on institutions that support the fair value of the > political liberties. To see the full force of the **difference principle** it should > be taken in the context of property-owning democracy (or of a liberal > socialist regime) and not a welfare state: it is a principle of reciprocity, or > mutuality, for society seen as a fair system of cooperation among free and > equal citizens from one generation to the next. Emphasis mine. The difference principle is one of Rawls distributive approaches, essentially one method for redistributing the wealth. Rawls, in his work, examines a few distributive methods, strict egalitarianism being one, and the Difference Principle being another. The Difference Principle allocates material goods, wealth, money, etcetera, in an unequal manner so long as the inequality does not produce the effect of the least advantaged in society would not be inferior to their position under strict equality, i.e. strict egalitarianism. Of course they are going to reject this notion of “property owning democracy” since it is conveniently conceptualized as a redistribution of the wealth scheme, and their philosophy results in them having an aversion to governmental redistribution of the wealth. > [@](#): > > if conservatives are opposed to a welfare state, but their actions reveal they are not going for a property-owning democracy either, then what exactly are they trying to accomplish? And: is their goal just? Well, they are not in favor of “YOUR” understanding of “property-owning democracy,” or Rawls notion of “property-owning democracy.” What are they tyring to accomplish? Perhaps they want a smaller government, a government constrained by the U.S. Constitution, which arguably does not permit federal efforts to redistribute the wealth, labor laws, etcetera. Perhaps they want a Nozick style of government articulated in the book, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” of a “night watchman state.” Maybe they are sick and tired of having what they labored for taken from them and given to someone else to pay for diapers, food, etcetera. Have you considered these options, are did you actually think your false dilemma was the only game in town? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/23 "2011-08-09T14:08:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK, I gotta ask. What the heck does “property owning democracy” mean? He provides the answer but the answer itself requires explication. > [@](#): > > _in a property-owning democracy the aim is to carry out > the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation over time among > citizens as free and equal persons. Thus, basic institutions must from the > outset put in the hands of citizens generally, and not only of a few, the > productive means to be fully cooperating members of a society._ > > The emphasis falls on the steady dispersal over time of the ownership of > capital and resources by the laws of inheritance and bequest, on fair > equality of opportunity secured by provisions for education and training, > and the like, as well as on institutions that support the fair value of the > political liberties. _To see the full force of the **difference principle** it should > be taken in the context of property-owning democracy (or of a liberal > socialist regime) and not a welfare state: it is a principle of reciprocity, or > mutuality, for society seen as a fair system of cooperation among free and > equal citizens from one generation to the next_. Emphasis mine…I have italicized and bolded the most important parts. Essentially, in a “property owning democracy” the “productive means” are to be in the “hands of citizens generally” and not only of a few and the Difference Principle plays a very important role in achieving this goal. It is a regime relying upon a redistributive method, in which the productive means are redistributed from a few to citizens generally. Translation, in the crudest understanding, we are talking about redistribution of wealth, with the Difference Principle operating as Northern Star to guide this redistribution. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/24 "2011-08-09T14:10:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As far as I can tell from this thread, it means that conservatives are poopy-pants. Right. I can’t count the number of posters above who are making the most basic political errors - such as counting every bit of public spending or public works as socialism. This is a broadening of the term so wide as to make it meaningless - and is a mistake whether libertarians or liberals make it. Socialism has always been properly understood as public ownership of productive works. This does not include schools or bridges. Also - Republicans and Democrats alike will from time to time cut education budgets. [See here](http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8221657) [or here.](http://www.dailyorange.com/news/new-york-budget-cuts-funds-to-education-1.2139815) As for what conservatives want, well, we want what anyone else wants - what Ronald Reagan described as, “the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.” I have never found a better description than that. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/25 "2011-08-09T15:03:07Z")
Perhaps it takes a Canadian (and a very leftish one at that) to give the answer: > [@Leonard Cohen](#): > > It’s coming to America first, > the cradle of the best and of the worst. > It’s here they got the range > and the machinery for change > and it’s here they got the spiritual thirst. > It’s here the family’s broken > and it’s here the lonely say > that the heart has got to open > in a fundamental way: ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/26 "2011-08-12T05:50:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK, I gotta ask. What the heck does “property owning democracy” mean? I think it is easiest to understand in relation to some other examples. An oligarchy will concentrate most of the capital in just a few hands. In this case a welfare state is just because it provides people with at least the minimum standard of life. Most people can’t really be responsible for themselves under such conditions. You could have a socialist (democracy) economy and distribute the capital to society itself. In this case Rawls is going to be more concerned with political justice, as other systems obviously aren’t as even-steven as socialism. btw Rawls is neutral on the capitalism/socialism question. He lets the citizens decide that for themselves, and devises a theory of justice applicable to all cases. In property owning democracies the capital (or ‘productive means’) is also more widely distributed, but it is owned and to a point earned by individuals. > [@](#): > > The emphasis falls on the steady dispersal over time of the ownership of capital and resources by the laws of inheritance and bequest, on fair equality of opportunity secured by provisions for education and training, and the like, as well as on institutions that support the fair value of the political liberties. The real point is to notice how conservatives seem to agree with none of this. At a time when the concentration of capital is reaching aristocratic levels, they full-throatedly denounce the welfare state. Their actions could be considered to be undermining education too, and ‘institutions’ generally- so long as they are government institutions. It doesn’t look like conservatives want economic justice. Or consider this bit from section 36: > [@](#): > > The principle of equal liberty, when applied to the political procedure defined by the constitution, I shall refer to as the principle of (equal) participation. It requires that all citizens are to have an equal right to take part in, and to determine the outcome of, the constitutional process that establishes the laws with which they are to comply. It may not be clear what conservatives want, but whatever it is, considering the numerous voter-restriction laws passed in conservative parts, the participation principle ain’t it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/27 "2011-08-12T06:06:41Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The real point is to notice how conservatives seem to agree with none of this. Nonsense, I already demonstrated at length that they agree with it exactly s much as Leftists do. > [@](#): > > At a time when the concentration of capital is reaching aristocratic levels, they full-throatedly denounce the welfare state. Just as Leftists do. > [@](#): > > Their actions could be considered to be undermining education too, and ‘institutions’ generally- so long as they are government institutions. It doesn’t look like conservatives want economic justice. I proved to you at great length that this is bollocks, and you repeat the same old nonsense. You clearly do not want a debate on this. You just want to rubbish people you don’t agree with. You are making no attempt at constructing an argument or addressing the arguments of other posters. All you want to do is sling baseless ad hominems. Good luck with that. I will know better than to waste my time addressing your posts in future. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/28 "2011-08-12T14:06:32Z")
Tacit assumptions of the welfare system, at least when originally conceived, are that most people are responsible, and of fairly equivalent abilities. Bad things might happen to good people, but good people have the desire and the ability to become self supporting as soon as possible. This assumption was disappointed during the late 1960s when welfare rolls increased, even though unemployment declined. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of the working poor decided that because the good life was out of reach for them, they would opt for the easy life of leisure and welfare checks. There was even a welfare rights movement that encouraged this. This was not politically sustainable. It helped to destroy the New Deal coalition. Blue collar workers had been an essential part of that coalition. The great majority of these earn fairly small incomes doing work that is not intrinsically enjoyable. Nevertheless, they get up every morning and go to work. Although most blue collar workers exaggerate the cost and provisions of welfare, it is true that most getting the checks could have performed the work illegal Hispanic immigrants perform, and choose not to. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/29 "2011-08-12T14:16:16Z")
Wealthy conservatives want what they have received since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980: government provisions that make it easy for them to grow and preserve their wealth for future generations. Populist conservatives - who better might be called “reactionaries” - are motivated by various angers, some of which seem unfocused. They do not like directions the United States is moving in, and wish a restoration of a previous time when life really was better for people like them. The teabaggers recognize that economic growth is coming to an end in the United States, and that the United States has probably entered a period of economic decline that has no obvious stopping point. With few exceptions they have reasonably secure jobs or retirements. They know that millions of Americans face long term unemployment. They do not want their taxes to be raised to help them. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/30 "2011-08-13T23:33:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You are not being fair: it’s a blatant strawman combined with an undivided middle > > Name one Conservative who has ever said that taxes should drop forever and that there should be no entitlements of any kind. > > Then name one Leftist who has said that there should be no limits whatsoever to entitlements, including unlimited farm subsidies, and that taxes should be infinitely high. You get off the track right here. Grover Norquist, to name a conservative, seems to be saying that taxes should drop to zero and there should be no entitlements of any kind. I’d say ‘drowning the government in a bathtub’ pretty much spells the end of taxes and entitlements, because it is the end of government. I don’t think I imply the opposite in the case of ‘Leftists’. (As an aside I don’t know what you mean when you use the term ‘Leftists’- it makes me think of South American socialists in a thread where I want to talk about American conservatives. Yes, Rawls’ theory of justice can be applied to those systems too- not much point asking questions about a welfare state when you’re a socialist, no?- but we aren’t going to have socialism here, and I think you’ll see that viewed in Rawls’ terms, it is unreasonable for the right to cast accusations of ‘socialism’ at the current administration.) The goals of ‘the left’ in America I think align much more closely with Rawls’ goal of satisfying the conditions of justice that conservatives’ demonstrated goals, which to me appear to starkly contrast the theory of justice. The left isn’t shooting for the horizon, simply seeking to satisfy the requirements of justice. At least that’s how I’m arguing. I hope you’ll have a little bit of a sense of humor- it is a debate where we can explore these ideas. This isn’t Congress if you see what I mean. > [@Blake](#): > > So if the right does not support a welfare state because it wishes to limit tax-funded healthcare to emergency procedure, then the left likewise does not support a welfare state because it does not support taxpayer funded nose-jobs or farm subsidies. > > The right has all the same problems as the left has. The only difference is in degree, not in kind. You just don’t understand what I’m saying. The welfare state is just in conditions where you see an aristocratic-style distribution of capital. The right certainly seems to be supporting _that_, and so it is unjust for them to _also_ oppose the welfare state. The left doesn’t support the welfare state because it would rather have a property-owning democracy, which if the right succeeds in dismantling, will create conditions under which the left will have to support a welfare state (unless they want to join the party of unjust intentions). The welfare state has nothing to do with nose jobs, that is welfare-queen bullshit and you know it. The welfare state provides for a minimum lifestyle and not much more. > [@Blake](#): > > Well, it’s one other choice. It’s not a dichotomy. Right. Another choice is an aristocratic-style distribution of capital, only without any support for the disenfranchised. > [@](#): > > Really? Can you name a single Conservative politician who has said that all education funding should be dismantled? Hmm, there’s Scott Walker, there is Chris Christie, and Gov what’s-his-name from Ohio share the motive of trying to destroy teacher unions in order to cut education spending. All of it? Well again Grover Norquist- government can’t be floating in your tub And funding education at the same time now can it? > [@](#): > > Or can you name a single Leftist politician who believes that education funding should be increased _ad infinitum_? What an absurd assumption. > [@](#): > > Because if you can’t you are once again engaging an undivided middle. Both sides agree that education funding must be limited and necessarily cut at some point. The difference is in degree, not in kind. Nope. The right wants an aristocratic-style distribution of capital while at the same time reducing education- an unjust choice of questionable motive. OTOH, when the results of education satisfy the conditions of justice, why then you can stop. There is no need to go to infinity. > [@Blake](#): > > Really? Conservatives don’t support Libertarian institutions? Or institutions that give people the freedom to bear arms? Or freedom of corporations to make campaign contributions? In your world all those institutions are only supported by the Left? > > Once again, you have engaged a blatant undivided middle. Both sides are keen on preserving some institutions that support the ‘full value of political liberties’, and keen on dismantling others. > > The only difference is that you don’t feel as if firearm ownership or Corporate campaign donations or racist expression are worthy political liberties, so its OK when the Left opposes the NRA or political expression by Exxon. But it’s terrible when the right doesn’t want to preserve institutions that support liberties that the Left believes in. First of all it isn’t clear at all that the Libertarian view satisfies the conditions of justice. Handing everything to the wealthy and cutting off the rest hardly seems likely to result in a just society. But look, there is more to this theory that would make this point easier to understand. Rawls’ original edition of the theory of justice received plenty of criticism, the main reason a revised edition exists at all. But he went on to clarify and refine his views further in Political Liberalism. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#Political_Liberalism) provides a nice summary of the overall goals of the theory: > [@](#): > > In Political Liberalism Rawls introduces the political conception of justice that people with conflicting, but reasonable, metaphysical and/or religious views would accept to regulate the basic structure of society. What distinguishes Rawls’ account from previous conceptions of liberalism is that it seeks to arrive at a consensus without appealing to any one metaphysical source - hence the idea of “political liberalism,” contrary to John Locke or John Stuart Mill, who promote a more robust cultural and metaphysical liberal philosophy. Rawls’ account is an attempt to secure the possibility of a liberal consensus regardless of the “deep” religious or metaphysical values that the parties endorse (so long as these remain open to compromise, i.e., are “reasonable”). The ideal result is therefore conceived as an “overlapping consensus” because different and often conflicting accounts of morality, nature, etc. are intended to “overlap” with each other on the question of governance. See how the overlapping consensus in a pluralistic society works? Under Rawls’ system, even groups with incompatible views can nonetheless arrive at political compromises which all can agree are just. This is how I got interested in Rawls in the first place- the Tea Party position of ‘give in to our demands or we’ll crash the economy’ simply weren’t reasonable. It seems impossible that the Tea Party can be acting from the foundation of a reasonable, comprehensive doctrine (see the wiki article), or else how could they not notice that they are effectively racketeering? Their behavior really isn’t appropriate for any system. Meanwhile, whether or not the left really agrees with views on gun control or campaign finance, they have not mounted a campaign to establish the logical extreme of their views. Nope, in a compromise with the rest of society both firearm ownership laws and campaign finance laws are more liberal than ever. Hardly the destruction of any institution. > [@](#): > > Once again, the only difference between Left and Right is in degree, not in kind. Neither side is completely committed to all forms of political liberties, and both sides actively oppose institutions that protect political liberties. Your claim that Conservatives don’t support political liberty is just absurd. What institutions has the left destroyed? And how are the conditions of justice met with an increasingly aristocratic-style distribution of capital and simultaneously decreasing public aid? You are engaging in a false equivalency methinks. > [@Blake](#): > > I have no idea what you are referring to here, but how favourably does it compare to the efforts of the left to \*directly \*stifle the political expression of people who control corporations. I’ll find you some cites later if others don’t beat me to it. There are a number of initiatives either being enacted now or stongly promoted to deny voting rights to specific groups of (statistically) poorer people. The rationale has been clearly stated that ‘they don’t vote right’- again, I’ll find you a cite sometime. That compares horribly with Citizen’s United. The people who control corporations can express themselves politically just fine. They don’t need a super-sized ability of political expression any more than they already enjoy. > [@Blake](#): > > Really? Can we see some evidence for this? Because I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion. Um- cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations while labeling any form of redistribution or even aid as ‘socialist’? How clear can it get? > [@](#): > > So you think that Conservatives support the notion of heriditary peerage tied to title and land? Seriously, you think that conservatives oppose the ability of people to divide their wealth amongst numerous descendants? That they oppose “the laws of inheritance and bequest” that enable such a thing, and they support the medieval laws that compelled title and land to be bequeathed to just one heir? > > Can we see some evidence? Maybe I screwed up. Of course conservatives support inheritance. Rawls doesn’t treat inheritance practices as inherently unjust. > [@](#): > > Well why wouldn’t you count corporations? If the right achieves their goals of zero regulations via drowning the government and corporations are among the only institutions remaining, it will create an unjust set of circumstances. Meanwhile I don’t think you can find non-wingnut lefties who promote destroying the institution of the corporation. > [@](#): > > And can you explain how lower taxes would destroy the following institutions: > > Marriage? > The Sierra Club? > The Roman Catholic Church? > Network Television? > The Family? > > Seriously, can you explain how the vast majority of institutions are affected \*at all \*by taxation levels? I don’t know. The institutions which are the most able to promote economic justice are the ones taking the heat. > [@](#): > > What is interesting to see how closely your rhetoric matches that of the Right. They likewise decry the Left’s policy of “Interfering Big Government”, “Excessive Taxation” and “Nanny State Totalitarianism” for destroying institutions such as marriage, hunting and free enterprise. The left isn’t out to destroy institutions, the right only portrays it that way, employing false claims. Seriously, “The institution of marriage will be destroyed by gay marriage rights, therefore we must stop the spread of these rights and instead institute right-wing policy X,” isn’t rational. The right, however, clearly expresses the intention of destroying the institutions they target. > [@](#): > > Your “strive for inclusiveness and social responsibility” is their “oppressive tyranny of the common man”. And vice versa. The left promotes pluralism. The right is closer to “our group will make all the rules, or else”. Seriously, who humors the evangelicals? Billionaire-friendly libertarian economics- for all? No rights for these, no votes for those? > [@](#): > > Leftists are likewise opposed to a welfare state, but their actions also reveal they are not going for a property-owning democracy either. How so? I don’t think you have made that point at all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831/31 "2011-08-13T23:44:24Z")
Some of us on the left don’t actually have “goals”, as such. Myself, I’m not at all sure what the ideal society will look like, I concentrate on making what we’ve got better. As it gets better and better, the outlines will become more clear. And I can see considerable value in consumer choice as a driving force in our economy, it promotes quality. But for such an economy to work, the consumer must be adequately funded, otherwise it fails. This means we lean towards the generous. Regretably, some lazy assholes will benefit unjustly, but, right now, ambitious and greedy assholes are benefiting enormously. As for property, sure, property is a human right, and deserves its place in the pantheon of gifts we give each other. But it is not the core human right, the gem in the center of rights for which the other human rights are merely grace notes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neither-welfare-state-nor-property-owning-democracy-what-do-conservatives-want/591831.md?page=1)