# Resolved: Conservatives get whatever they want **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2014, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019 "2014-04-26T03:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/62 "2014-04-29T20:22:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Here, let me fix that for you: > > “Yeah, it was part of the Great Compromise, giving the less populated states a way to not be overrun by the more heavily populated northern ones.” In what way would they be “overrun”, and _why_? :dubious: You’re forgetting that code words were in regular use even back then, and even today some users of code words don’t even realize it. > [@](#): > > Don’t mention it. Glad to help. Back atcha. Now, perhaps you can tell us why you think institutionalizing unequal representation is worth preserving today. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/63 "2014-04-29T20:44:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You can’t possibly be serious. So everything that is “Christian” is also “Judeo-Christian”? The church down the street is a “Judeo-Christian” church? Pat Robertson’s religion is “Judeo-Christianity”? Come on. That phrase itself is only a few decades old, and an obvious PC-esque nod. Sorry, you need to check your fallacies at the door. You’re drawing conclusions from thing I’ve said that do not necessarily follow. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As you said, Jefferson rejects many of Christ’s teachings, as well as many teachings of Christianity itself, including the most important one – that Jesus was the son of God. Nope, not what I said. I said that Jefferson adhered to the teachings of Jesus. I also pointed out the stuff he had a problem with. Please read again. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Most early Americans were Christians. That doesn’t mean the country was founded on Christianity. That’s correct. Good thing that is not my argument then. Whew. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Is that the best you’ve got? With all his genius, if he meant it to be a Christian-themed document, don’t you think he would have put something other than the common format for dates that was linked somehow to Christianity? That’s the way dates were written – “In the Year of Our Lord” is like “A.D.” – it doesn’t mean the user of the phrase is Christian. :rolleyes:So, if I can show you a date from that era not written in that form, will you concede the point? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, refer to any “one and only Creator”. Creator, okay. But “one and only”? No. So this is certainly shared with other philosophies, including Greek and Roman. Ahem. Emphasis mine. Note the lack of an “s” after “God”: > [@](#): > > When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, Notice the lack of an “s” here, too: > [@](#): > > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Christianity does not have these last two tenets either. “All men are created equal” is self-evident, according to the Declaration. It’s not derived from the Bible or any Christian texts. Wait—are you really trying to say that the teachings of Jesus do not say that all men are created equal? Really?!! REALLY! Sorry, chum, you are completely and utterly wrong. And I have better things to do than correct such flagrant and astounding ignorance. But here are a few quick drops in the hopes that they will increase your thirst for facts: John13:16—Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Mark 12:31—The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mathew: 25:41—They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.’" > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Again, ridiculous. How is “Judeo-Christian” separate from “Christian”? If they’re the same, then why use two phrases? Because some of the tenets of Christianity were born out of Judaism. For instance, the belief in one, and only one, all-powerful God. This really isn’t as hard as you’re making it out to be. As I’ve said numerous times, I do not practice ANY religion, but that doesn’t blind me to the facts. You know, this is turning into a major hijack on a very interesting subject. You can have the last word if you’d like. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/64 "2014-04-29T21:52:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > In what way would they be “overrun”, and _why_? :dubious: > > You’re forgetting that code words were in regular use even back then, and even today some users of code words don’t even realize it. > > Back atcha. Now, perhaps you can tell us why you think institutionalizing unequal representation is worth preserving today. :rolleyes: Sigh. The (southern states, agrarian and less densely populated), didn’t want the northern states (big cities, manufacturing) to have all the say in the country. There was a proposition that the 13 colonies would become one large country. And the many factions each had their own interests. Do you think that odd? Do you think there should have no compromising? If that were the case, do you think all the states would have agreed to form the USA? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/65 "2014-04-29T22:05:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > _- Flat or Fair Tax_ > This is regressive taxation that apparently assumes that 10% of a billionaire’s income has the same impact as 10% of a poor family’s income. But for the poor family, living hand to mouth, it may mean they can no longer afford adequate food or clothing; for the billionaire, it may mean one less race horse in his stables (not that he would likely even notice). To the conservative this apparently qualifies as “fair”. It would actually be the biggest driver yet of the growing gap between the 1% and most of the rest of society, contributing to growing social destabilization. I see no reason what Someone should spend 2 or 3 days a week working for the government when another needs to work only one. It’s simply unfair. But I’d be happy to have poorer people contribute with labor instead of work. But is you believe that we’re all equal under the law, then we all need to contribute “equally” in some way. Also, the tax code is just plain out of hand. > [@wolfpup](#): > > _- Voucher Schools_ > This means the government should basically abdicate responsibility for secular and scientifically sound education. The basic idea of vouchers is to allow some factions the “freedom” to educate their kids according to their own standards, which as we’ve already seen in some conservative initiatives, in Texas and elsewhere, includes rewriting science on subjects like evolution and climate change to indoctrinate the politically correct viewpoint that these things don’t exist, and even some creative revisionist history celebrating conservative heroism. The idea of vouchers, in other words, is that ideology is much more important than facts. No, we can still have—and should have—federal standards and testing. And if there is standardized testing, who cares what else they teach after they get down the reading, writing, math, science? > [@wolfpup](#): > > _- Abolishment of Minimum Wage_ > Apparently it would be great to go back to 19th century Dickensian England and establish workhouses again. Those were the days! Come on, this is ridiculous. You act as if there are not a butt load of laws in place now that weren’t back then. > [@wolfpup](#): > > _- Reduce corporate tax rate_ > There **is** such a thing as a corporate tax rate that is too high. There is also such a thing as one that is too low. When some major corporations manage to pay no taxes at all, or even get net tax credits, I’d say the **effective** corporate tax rate might be too low. It might be appropriate to lower the nominal tax rate while eliminating many of the outrageous loopholes, but I’d hardly adopt reduction of the corporate tax rate as a permanent mantra. (I’ve actually heard some conservatives suggest that, since corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer, all corporate taxes are consumer taxes and therefore the only correct corporate tax is zero!) I’d say that if many corporations find it beneficial to operate overseas due to the tax code, it’s too high. Theory goes out the window and is replaced with the real world situation. > [@wolfpup](#): > > _- Make every state a right to work state_ > Another wish for the 19th century, which conservatives seem to be obsessed with (except when they’re pining for the 18th century) – this one aimed at abolishing unions. Combined with eliminating the minimum wage, this ought to be terrific for the working poor. What could possibly go wrong? Surely, you are aware that there are right-to-work states, right? The Minimum Wage discussion is a more com[plicated one. But it was just discussed here not too long ago. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/66 "2014-04-29T22:17:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > In what way would they be “overrun”, and _why_? :dubious: Look up the phrase “The Tyranny of the Majority”. Also read up on the history of the United States and why it broke away from England and what informed the constitution. The states at the time were worried about a federal government taking power away from them. They were also worried about more populous states essentially writing federal laws that benefited them against the interests of the smaller states. Thus the Senate was created and the constitution written to ensure that the majority of economic decision-making was the domain of the states and not the federal government. I’m really surprised that you don’t understand this issue, as it’s at the core of civic debate and history. There have been many occasions in the past where distant regions have been basically by run central powers against their wishes - even if they technically have the power to vote. Without the protection of some kind of regional limitations, it’s far too easy for a populous section of the country to loot the less populous areas or to force them to conform to the demands of the distant majority. This has nothing to do with racism or slavery or conservatives vs liberals. If you can’t think about American politics without seeing it through the lens of race and partisanship, it might help you to study other countries and how they’ve attempted to resolve these problems. Suffice it to say that the issue of regional representation vs simple majority voting is a core issue of civic policy, and if you get it wrong it can break up your country or it can lead to tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/67 "2014-04-29T22:36:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sorry, you need to check your fallacies at the door. You’re drawing conclusions from thing I’ve said that do not necessarily follow. I’m saying that the phrase “Judeo-Christian” is nonsensical as applied here. If there is anything “Judeo-Christian” about the founding of America, there’s certainly nothing “Judeo” but not “Christian”… so the word “Judeo” adds nothing but a handy political nod. > [@](#): > > Nope, not what I said. I said that Jefferson adhered to the teachings of Jesus. No he didn’t, at least not all of it. He may have adhered to some of it, but then, so do I. I’m not a Christian in any sense of the word. > [@](#): > > I also pointed out the stuff he had a problem with. Please read again. He had a problem with some of what Jesus taught. As do I. > [@](#): > > That’s correct. Good thing that is not my argument then. Whew. Then why did you mention it? > [@](#): > > :rolleyes:So, if I can show you a date from that era not written in that form, will you concede the point? If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not used in secular documents, then yes I would. > [@](#): > > Ahem. Emphasis mine. Note the lack of an “s” after “God”: That certainly doesn’t necessarily imply ‘one and only’. > [@](#): > > Notice the lack of an “s” here, too: And notice the word “Nature”, which pretty strongly seems to imply a different sort of deity than the Biblical one. > [@](#): > > Wait—are you really trying to say that the teachings of Jesus do not say that all men are created equal? Really?!! REALLY! Sorry, chum, you are completely and utterly wrong. And I have better things to do than correct such flagrant and astounding ignorance. But here are a few quick drops in the hopes that they will increase your thirst for facts: > > John13:16—Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. > > Mark 12:31—The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” > > Mathew: 25:41—They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.’" While there are phrases in the Bible (like these) that are at least sort of close to “all men are created equal”, there are also many, many phrases that say the opposite. At the time, Christianity, especially in America, was not even close to unanimous in a teaching close to “all men are created equal”, or that all men have inalienable rights like liberty. Considering that we could find phrases in the Koran that are just as close as the ones you mentioned, it’s no more accurate to say “all men are created equal” is inspired by Christianity than to say it’s inspired by Islam. And on top of this, the Declaration states explicitly that these truths are “self-evident” – they do not come from some other document like the Bible. > [@](#): > > Because some of the tenets of Christianity were born out of Judaism. For instance, the belief in one, and only one, all-powerful God. This really isn’t as hard as you’re making it out to be. As I’ve said numerous times, I do not practice ANY religion, but that doesn’t blind me to the facts. And the facts are that the phrase “Judeo-Christian” was not used until a few decades ago. You’re right, this isn’t that hard. Your argument is that the USA was founded on Christian principles. You’re using the phrase “Judeo-Christian”, but there’s nothing “Judeo” about your argument that’s not also “Christian” – so the only purpose of that phrase that I can think of is a political PC nod. > [@](#): > > You know, this is turning into a major hijack on a very interesting subject. You can have the last word if you’d like. Thank you 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/68 "2014-04-29T22:41:59Z")
Considering the use of “Creator” and “[Nature’s God](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature%27s_God)”, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Declaration of Independence was at least partially inspired by [Deism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). But there is _absolutely nothing_ about the D of I (or any other founding document), that is Christian (or “Judeo”) but not also Deist – and there are indeed parts, like “Nature’s God”, that are Deist but not Christian. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/69 "2014-04-29T22:47:08Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > … If a modern conservative could get whatever he/she wanted, what would the country look like? The two conservatives who have responded have mostly described their legislation without predicting its effects. (19th century America is often used as a paradigm.) > [@Debaser](#): > > … > Abortion is one example of many things that should be decided by amending the constitution. Enough people are in favor of it, including conservatives like me, that we could pass an amendment and not need Roe. > > Cut foreign aid way down to almost nothing. Only use it when it’s needed, such as paying off former nuclear powers to give up their nukes. > > Privatize social security. Wean us off the program by a combination of means testing and privatization to make it welfare for old people. Nitpicks: I’d be happy to leave abortion up to each state, but _might_ support the idea of an abortion amendment … _ **if only women were allowed to vote on it** _. However, I’d hate to see a precedent where a wide variety of questions are submitted to such national plebiscites. Most U.S. foreign aid is military related. Aid to fight hunger or malaria is a niggardly pittance. (The conservative obsession to privatise Social Security is misplaced.) ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/70 "2014-04-29T22:56:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Drum God > … If a modern conservative could get whatever he/she wanted, **what would the country look like**? > [@septimus](#): > > The two conservatives who have responded have mostly described their legislation without predicting its effects. (19th century America is often used as a paradigm.) Ever read _The Handmaid’s Tale_? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/71 "2014-04-30T00:10:35Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Look up the phrase “The Tyranny of the Majority”. Begging the question. > [@](#): > > Also read up on the history of the United States and why it broke away from England and what informed the constitution. Please. :rolleyes: You’re in _no_ position to give lectures about American history or its meaning. > [@](#): > > The states at the time were worried about a federal government taking power away from them. Etc. for several paragraphs. More specifically, the slave states feared a federal government that had the ability as well as the will to abolish slavery. The rest was all code, as it is today. But even today, not all users of code, which is what the rest of your post consists of, even recognize it. Every single one of the code words you’ve used, about the “interests” of local government, had its origins in the protection of slavery. Every one. That’s it. There are many fine texts on the subject if you are interested in ignorance-fighting. > [@](#): > > I’m really surprised that you don’t understand this issue, as it’s at the core of civic debate and history. The evidence is that I understand it far more thoroughly than you do, thank you. You really do need to learn more about the history of slavery in the US if you plan any more lectures on the subject. > [@](#): > > This has nothing to do with racism or slavery or conservatives vs liberals. Do you know what rationalization is? > [@](#): > > If you can’t think about American politics without seeing it through the lens of race and partisanship, it might help you to study other countries and how they’ve attempted to resolve these problems. Unfortunately for your claim, whose ignorance is exceeded only by its condescension, the US history on slavery, particularly in how it defined our founding as a state, _is_ unique. Pretending that wasn’t the issue at all is not helpful to anyone’s understanding, and is particularly crippling to your own. > [@](#): > > Suffice it to say that the issue of regional representation vs simple majority voting is a core issue of civic policy, and if you get it wrong it can break up your country or it can lead to tyranny. “Tyranny” - that word again. :rolleyes: No, being in the minority on a democratic decision does not constitute “tyranny”. That’s another code word you first need to recognize is code before you use it again. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/72 "2014-04-30T00:15:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: Sigh. The (southern states, agrarian and less densely populated), didn’t want the northern states (big cities, manufacturing) to have all the say in the country. Yes, the slave states had a strong interest in not permitting the federal government to be strong enough to abolish slavery, but they did have a strong interest in gaining the benefits of being in the same country as large economic-engine states. > [@](#): > > And the many factions each had their own interests. And you know what those were, don’t you? > [@](#): > > Do you think there should have no compromising? If that were the case, do you think all the states would have agreed to form the USA? Was that a serious question? It’s not always easy to tell with you. Now: You were asked why, as a self-described conservative, you support unequal representation even today. Do you have something more cogent to offer than some vague handwaving about factional interests, which by definition you wish to be treated unequally? Do you want the government to be of/by/for something other than the people, and if so, what and why? Have you thought this through at all? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/73 "2014-04-30T00:58:44Z")
Based on what I have seen, conservatives get whatever they want… until the tapes are released. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/74 "2014-04-30T01:08:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Here, let me fix that for you: > > “Yeah, it was part of the Great Compromise, giving the less populated states a way to not be overrun by the more heavily populated northern ones.” > > Don’t mention it. Glad to help. Really? So you’re saying the Great Compromise was designed to give New Hampshire proportionally more votes than Virginia? Could you explain how that worked? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/75 "2014-04-30T02:52:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, the slave states had a strong interest in not permitting the federal government to be strong enough to abolish slavery, but they did have a strong interest in gaining the benefits of being in the same country as large economic-engine states. You’re problem is that you’re assuming that slavery was not only an issue, but THE issue. It certainly was not the latter and probably wasn’t even the former. You have to remember that slavery was a fact of daily life. It got very little notice until the Quakers made an issue of it. But when the concept of forming one country came up, that was hardly a mainstream issue. You seem to forget that most of the north had slaves into the 1790s. And even as they became “free states” there was noting like universal desire to end slavery through all the states. In fact, the invention of the cotton gin in 1794 created a huge demand for cotton from The South. Most in The North were interested, like families during all times, becoming more prosperous. The fact is (regrettably) that for most people in the colonies slavery was a fact of life, part of the times they lived in. Honestly, I think you’re involved in a bit of revisionist history, and ascribing to people in the 1770s and 1780s knowledge and sensibilities that they simply didn’t broadly have. Remember, plenty of the Northern states allowed slavery during the push to ratification of the Constitution. [Perhaps you should start your reading here.](https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/slavery-freedom-and-the-struggle-for-empire-1750-1763/slavery-and-empire/slavery-in-the-north/) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/76 "2014-04-30T04:17:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Really? So you’re saying the Great Compromise was designed to give New Hampshire proportionally more votes than Virginia? Could you explain how that worked? Well that’s not what I said. But I’m not sure where New Hampshire, specifically, stood on the issue, but it would make sense that any smaller state would advocate for more power rather than less. No? Do you assume differently. Know differently. Tell me, what do you think was the purpose of the compromise. Why did it come up and how did that states align? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/77 "2014-04-30T04:58:26Z")
The big state/little state divide wasn’t just about slavery, or even primarily about it. Some people seem to suggest in this threat that it was the southern slaveholding states who sought a legislature where every state had the same representation and it was the northern ones that wanted states to have a proportional one, when, in fact, the “Proportional” congress was proposed by Virginia, and the “each state gets one vote” congress was proposed by New Jersey. The small states weren’t concerned that the Federal government would get rid of slavery so much as that their interests as states wouldn’t be respected and that they’d lose their independence; the needs of their people disregarded by the population as a whole. The old joke about democracy is that it’s two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, and states like New Jersey, or New Hampshire, and Delaware were concerned that, with a proportional representation plan, they’d be the sheep. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/78 "2014-04-30T05:36:19Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The big state/little state divide wasn’t just about slavery, or even primarily about it. Some people seem to suggest in this threat that it was the southern slaveholding states who sought a legislature where every state had the same representation and it was the northern ones that wanted states to have a proportional one, when, in fact, the “Proportional” congress was proposed by Virginia, and the “each state gets one vote” congress was proposed by New Jersey. > > The small states weren’t concerned that the Federal government would get rid of slavery so much as that their interests as states wouldn’t be respected and that they’d lose their independence; the needs of their people disregarded by the population as a whole. > > The old joke about democracy is that it’s two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, and states like New Jersey, or New Hampshire, and Delaware were concerned that, with a proportional representation plan, they’d be the sheep. Precisely. And thanks for the info about Virginia and New jersey. I didn’t know that. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/79 "2014-04-30T06:31:30Z")
That all men are created equal is hardly limited to “Judeo-Christian” belief - it also present in Buddhism at the very least. And weren’t slaves explicitly allowed in the bible? Doesn’t that kinda throw the whole idea of “created equal” out the window? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/80 "2014-04-30T07:25:32Z")
Sadly, the environment seems sure to take a beating from the lack of regulation, and eventually the Cuyahoga burns again as industry returns the rust belt to it’s former glory. Potable drinking water becomes rarer and rarer as fracking and unrestrained dumping of pollutants into the ecosystem become the norm with nothing to prevent business from raping the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/81 "2014-04-30T12:49:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m going to give conservatives credit for generally doing what they think is right. They believe that if the government stopped interfering and enacted deregulation and tax cuts, private businesses would grow. This would create job opportunities and this would mean there would be a greatly reduced need for public assistance programs. > > So conservatives aren’t advocating letting poor people starve. Their argument is their plan would make it possible for poor people to be able to feed themselves. **Little Nemo** has hit the nail squarely on the head here. And he has also pointed out why liberals hate conservative concepts like this; enabling people to be self-sufficient means that they are no longer dependent upon government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019.md?page=5)