# 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:** 6
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/102 "2014-04-30T18:09:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? You know what? I think we’re talking about two different things. Looking back through the thread, I see you’re talking about the Connecticut Compromise, which was the agreement to have two legislative bodies, one with proportional representation and one with equal representation. If so, then I’ll agree you’re right - that was over the issue of smaller states and larger states. I thought you were talking about the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was the agreement that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes. That was a slave state vs free state issue. So, my mistake. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/103 "2014-04-30T18:18:27Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > **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. I’m giving liberals the same credit I give conservatives. They’re trying to do what they think is best. Liberals aren’t advocating government assistance to make people dependent. They support these programs for the opposite reason. They feel that there are people who aren’t able to be self-sufficient in their current situation. They want to help raise these people up to the point where they can be self-sufficient. They’re trying to eliminate the problems that make people dependent. ---
**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 30, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/104 "2014-04-30T18:20:03Z")
To take this away from the diversions about race, consider Canada’s federation. In the 1970’s, the National Energy Program was devised by the federal government as a mechanism for extracting resources from the west without compensating them fairly for it. Our ‘senate’ is largely a joke, so we were at the mercy of the eastern voters. It took the threat of separation and a very aggressive stance by Alberta to stop this from happening. I remember watching on TV as a kid as our Premier in Alberta addressed the province (and the east) and said that we should shut it all down and stop the flow of resources completely if the east continued trying to push the NEP on us. The feds eventually backed down, but had it gone much farther it could have broken up the country. Even so, Canada has been close to breaking up several times in its history due to the power imbalances between the east and west. Without regional representation, you wind up with something like colonialism, where isolated regions are ruled by distant leaders. It’s also a poor way to govern, as it separates power from information - someone in Washington is much less likely to understand the needs of Montana citizens than is a governor of the state. We also have regional representation in voting districts and municipalities for similar reasons - government works best when it’s closest to the people it’s governing. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/105 "2014-04-30T18:21:49Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And you seem to ignore the fact that he already answered you, and even gave the historically correct answer. Because he wants the states to have power, and not have the more populous states control the less populous states. But why? He, and you too, don’t accept that it’s valid even to ask. > [@](#): > > The concept of the tyranny of the majority was even brought up by another conservative. And it does nothing whatever to explain why any particular factional interests deserve special protection, and why those interests are chosen over others by defenders of unequal representation. The word “tyranny” is merely inflammatory, and suggests an unwillingness to abide by democratic principles. > [@](#): > > Do you not know that his view is the prevailing view of the entire United States, and the basis on which our government was built? Of course. If you’d bother to read anything I’ve noted, you’d know that. But that too does nothing to help explain why that is the case, why we should live today with the tavern backroom deals cut in Philly over two centuries ago. “Do you not know” that the world, and the country, are very different today, and that the key issue that was compromised over back then has been dead for a century and a half already? Why do \*you \*think rural interests, whatever those may be (and you too are invited to list a few of your favorites), should have minority-veto power in a democracy? > [@](#): > > But, no, go ahead and attack **magellan** because he’s **magellan**. If you can see anywhere I’ve made a personal attack, you’re free to notify the moderators. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/106 "2014-04-30T18:23:03Z")
**Sam** , I laughed out loud at that last sentence. Did you type that with a straight face? Do they not have local governments in Canada? Anyway, we’re not talking about getting rid of governors. We’re talking about getting rid of senators - or at least allocating them differently. ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/107 "2014-04-30T18:28:57Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > In the 1970’s, the National Energy Program was devised by the federal government as a mechanism for extracting resources from the west without compensating them fairly for it. You’re using “fairly” as a given. What did Albertans do, more than other Canadians, to get that oil there? What is it that makes them more “deserving” of the resulting income? How is the oil Alberta’s and not Canada’s? Hell, how is it not Athabasca County’s (or whatever name you have for the region) and Alberta’s instead? How is spreading the wealth over the entire province “fair”? > [@](#): > > It took the threat of separation and a very aggressive stance by Alberta to stop this from happening. IOW, you threw a tantrum and got appeased. > [@](#): > > The feds eventually backed down, but had it gone much farther it could have broken up the country. When you would have told Ottawa “Now look what you made us do”, right? > [@](#): > > Without regional representation, you wind up with something like colonialism, where isolated regions are ruled by distant leaders. The question is not regional representation. Every state has representation in Washington. The question is unequal representation, and minority veto, in a democracy. But someone whose conceptual framework is that a nation is merely an agglomeration of supreme states/provinces may have trouble with that. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/108 "2014-04-30T18:39:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Anyway, we’re not talking about getting rid of governors. We’re talking about getting rid of senators - or at least allocating them differently. Initially it was about getting rid of the Electoral College, although that’s far less inequitable than the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/109 "2014-04-30T20:27:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And it does nothing whatever to explain why any particular factional interests deserve special protection, and why those interests are chosen over others by defenders of unequal representation. The word “tyranny” is merely inflammatory, and suggests an unwillingness to abide by democratic principles. For example, with modern communications you could set up a senate with sentators representing certain age groups. And then give younger demographics higher representation than older ones. After all retired voters have different interests than those just starting their careers. Older voters won’t have to live with the consequences of their decisions as long there’s always the temptation to borrow tonnes of money and let paying the bills be the youngsters’ problem. Down with the tyranny of the gerontocracy! There are lots of minorities that would love to have disproportionate electoral power, but since the voting systems were set up centuries ago we’re stuck with geographically unequal representation. I’ve never heard a good explanation for why this particular inequality is justified over any other. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/110 "2014-04-30T22:31:26Z")
While I think **BobLibDem** ’s list was a little bit hyperbolic, **magellan01** ’s is honest and real enough, and I believe disastrous in effect. > [@magellan01](#): > > - Flat or Fair Tax, which also allows us to shrink the IRS to a fraction of its current size The flat tax is not fair as others have pointed out, it is essentially the same as expecting that a twenty-year old professional athlete and an eight-five year old who walks with a cane should be expected to have the same mile time. > [@](#): > > - Voucher Schools Why not strengthen public education as other countries do rather than take even more money out of it and further ghettoize schools? > [@](#): > > - Abolishment of Minimum Wage If anything the minimum wage is not high enough > [@](#): > > - Reduce corporate tax rate to be more competitive with the rest of the world I wouldn’t mind if we compensated by raising the income and estate taxes. > [@](#): > > - Make every state a right to work state Right to work infringes on the rights of businesses to make a contract with a labour union. > [@](#): > > - Immigration Reform that is flexible and benefits the U.S. needs at any point in time > - Secure Borders This is vague. > [@](#): > > - Go after the executives whose companies employee illegal immigrants—hard Good. > [@](#): > > - Elimination of things like in-state tuition, local voting, drivers licenses, that reward illegal immigrants. Have a policy that encourages self-deportation. So the children of illegal immigrants should suffer the sins of their parents? > [@](#): > > - Visiting Worker Program (akin to Canada’s) A Guest worker’s program results in a form of a second-class work force. > [@](#): > > - Like the rest of the world, grant citizenship only to those children of legal citizens In that case I wouldn’t be a US citizen (my parents are legal residents of the US but not citizens) > [@](#): > > - Make English the Official Language I agree. - Take steps to ensure that the spirit of the electoral college is protected > [@](#): > > - Official recognition that the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Chritian principles (even though I practice no religion) What will this recognition entail? > [@](#): > > - Pass a law making it illegal for a congressperson to vote for or against a bill without reading it in its entirety. If they haven’t read it, they don’t get to vote. If they do, and are later found to have lied about it, they lose their seat. Unconstitutional and impracticable as others have pointed out. > [@](#): > > - Pass law granting same-sex federal workers who have entered into a Civil Union all the same benefits and privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts This is not a “conservative” measure. > [@](#): > > - Repeal the ACA on the grounds that the mandate is not a tax Sorry but the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Also I wonder what you will say to the hundreds of thousands of people who would have been previously denied insurance due to pre-existing coverage or the people who gained healthcare through Medicaid expansion. > [@](#): > > - Reform healthcare starting with the simplest things first: tort reform, interstate sales, outlaw recision, etc. Add more as needed. Most of these reforms are trivial and have been found to not reduce costs significantly. I think Obamacare is simple enough (in terms of the modest scale of the law) ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/111 "2014-04-30T22:42:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Treaties supersede anything else, as I trust you know. The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, sent by President John Adams to Congress, reads in part: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …” > > So get over it. I see this get bandied about quite a bit. Has anyone ever insisted that the federal government is founded on the Christian religion? We could still be considered a Christian nation simply based upon demographics without having a “Christian government”, whatever that is. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/112 "2014-04-30T22:56:28Z")
Is it just me, or was there basically just a short stone’s throw between BobLibDem’s list and what actual conservatives later on showed up and posted? He may not have been batting 1000 with that list but he sure got damn close. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/113 "2014-05-01T02:06:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Really? This is your problem with progressive taxation? That the executive making $5 or $10 million a year spends “more days working for the government” than the burger-flipper at McD’s who also has to deliver pizzas at night to be able to feed his family? :rolleyes: That would be a pointless bit of ideological fluff even if it were true, but the reality is that the wealthy have the ability to save and invest such a large proportion of their excess income that it’s debatable how much of their income they work for at all, but more importantly, the regressive taxation policies that have come into force in recent decades have been major contributors to the vast and growing income disparity and social inequality in America, and the consequent social ills. The reality is that if you’re going to talk about “fairness”, then you have to talk about the fairness of a tax burden that prevents a low-income earner from being able to feed and clothe his family in comparison to a tax burden that a high-income earner doesn’t even notice or, as Dave Barry once put it, uses the money from tax cuts to buy sun hats for his race horses. It’s interesting that through most of the 20th century the US (and Britain) were leaders in promoting social egalitarianism and individual liberty in part through progressive taxation, where marginal tax rates for the highest income earners were at times on the order of 90% – deliberately and with targeted intent the highest in the industrialized world. This changed drastically in the Reagan era of the 80s. One of the immediate consequences of the post-Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy was a dramatic and continuing rise in the astronomical salaries of top executives, a salary rise that has more to do with incestuous self-determination of pay scales than with any change in productivity whatsoever, and which is one of the major contributors to the growing income disparities and growing social divide. A recent OECD economic study reported that on the order of about 40% of total economic growth among its 28 member countries was captured by the financial gain of the top 1% of its wealthiest citizens. America was once the land of liberty and an absence of economic class distinctions; today, you may as well take the plutocracy with their multi-generational wealth and assign them aristocratic titles and dynastic privileges. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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? There is a huge difference between a good and fact-based education and the ability to pass a standardized test. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Yes, and just about every one of them opposed by conservatives because they were “anti-business”. Conservatives pine for Dickensian times when workers could be exploited – see “right to work laws” below. Gotta love the ironic name cons always give their laws, too – these are more like “right to be exploited” and “right to be fired for no reason” laws. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Corporations also find it beneficial to operate overseas due to ability to pay workers 10 cents an hour. There are legislative ways to deal with that, too, but conservatives think it’s terrific. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Yes, I’m aware. Roughly aligned with Republican governors and legislators. I’m also aware of at least one study that concludes that workers in these terrific states make an average of $5,300 less than workers in the other states. Even if the argument that more jobs were created was true, it might not be very persuasive if the strategy only creates crappy jobs or temporary ones, but the reality is that while it’s conclusive that workers in the so-called “right-to-work” or more accurately “right to be exploited” states are indeed being exploited and paid less, it’s been hard to show any employment changes that can be statistically attributed to that law. For instance it’s been claimed that after Oklahoma enacted “right-to-work” in 2001, manufacturing grew 2% a year. Terrific, except that it grew 7% in New Mexico right next door, which had no such law. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/114 "2014-05-01T03:40:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > For instance it’s been claimed that after Oklahoma enacted “right-to-work” in 2001, manufacturing grew 2% a year. Terrific, except that it grew 7% in New Mexico right next door, which had no such law. If there aren’t good statistics then why do you make assumptions like the workers are automatically being exploited? Also, what are the bases of those statistics provided? Just doing a quick lookup on the population and Oklahoma had [89% more people](http://bber.unm.edu/demo/US_States_00-10Rev.xls) than New Mexico in 2001. And joining a company without being forced to join a labor union or, as some right to work states have gone, not having to give cause for termination is not oppressive to workers like you intimate it is. Most employers act rationally with their employees. Instead of pretending that these laws are somehow leading to employees being used as railroad ties, how about you look at corporations that actually abuse their employees, like WalMart? They do actual worker oppression and are shit to work for simply make the lives of the employees hell in a way just short of the line so that the labor board never bothers them and the employee leaves. But you may notice that companies that do this do it everywhere, not just Right to Work states. Heck, a company I worked for did it in an Illinois facility represented by teamsters and the union did nothing to protect the five or so employees that were being flushed in this way. (Reference: That facility hosted about 30 employees) The reason they operate this way? Because even in right to work states, if you let someone go without cause you have to pay unemployment. And if, for any reason, you let someone go for cause, you need documentation for that cause. If it turns to he-said/she-said the labor board will generally default to the employee getting unemployment. That’s actual worker oppression. And it has little to do with whether a state forces you to join a union at a job or not. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m also aware of at least one study that concludes that workers in these terrific states make an average of $5,300 less than workers in the other states. Was that study a direct comparison of income or cost of living adjusted? ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/115 "2014-05-01T11:09:04Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > A conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, does a country ranking list. [Here](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)is the list of countries ranked by economic freedom. The highest ranking country in the world is Hong Kong. Fourty years ago Hong Kong had a GDP per capita of $1,891, now it has a GDP per capita of $37,777, an increase of 1897%. The United States GDP per capita has increase 664% during that same time. Hong Kong has an unemployment rate of 3.2% which is less than half of the US unemployment rate. > Looking closer to home their is a ranking of states by economic conservatism done by [ALEC](http://www.alec.org/publications/rich-states-poor-states/). Late to this. I grew up in Hong Kong. There are many things in Hong Kong that a conservative would not like: half of the population live in government housing; \>100% taxes on cars, gasoline, and alcohol; universal health care; heavy government fiscal involvement including purchase of stocks using public funds to prop up the market; government mandated school curriculum and heavy testing, even for private schools, etc. There are things that probably few Americans would accept: lack of any meaningful democracy, very small living quarters (we lived in a 150 sq ft government unit as a family of 5. Currently a 400 sq ft condo costs 10 years the median household income), insanely long work hours (24% more than Chicago and #4 among 72 major world cities surveyed [here](http://www.static-ubs.com/global/en/wealth_management/wealth_management_research/prices_earnings/_jcr_content/par/columncontrol/col1/linklist/link_0.1393999310.file/bGluay9wYXRoPS9jb250ZW50L2RhbS91YnMvZ2xvYmFsL3dlYWx0aF9tYW5hZ2VtZW50L3dlYWx0aF9tYW5hZ2VtZW50X3Jlc2VhcmNoL1BfTF8yMDEyX2VuLnBkZg==/P_L_2012_en.pdf)). One can get very very rich in Hong Kong, no doubt about it. And the lack of capital gains tax certainly makes it attractive for the wealthy. But apart from the freedom to work a lot for barely enough income for shelter nevermind luxuries, “economic freedom” is fairly elusive for most Hong Kong residents. The “everyone is richer” part is definitely a lie. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/116 "2014-05-01T11:35:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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.’" It’s funny, somehow I have a feeling that conservatives who would like to make Christianity the official religion of the country would not like to make the above official policy. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/117 "2014-05-01T13:33:32Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > While I think **BobLibDem** ’s list was a little bit hyperbolic, **magellan01** ’s is honest and real enough, and I believe disastrous in effect. Just a bit? He lists 17 items. As a conservative, I agree with one of them. The rest are mostly insane things that I’ve literally never heard any conservative say. ---
**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:** [May 1, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/118 "2014-05-01T14:25:49Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > 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. And I’m really curious, especially to hear from the ‘conservative’ side. Since all I seem to hear from the conservative side is about the evils of regulation etc, what keeps the environment liveable? In the real world, please, not some magical place where the CEOs act beneficently because they’re such good guys and always act primarily in the public interest. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/119 "2014-05-01T14:29:28Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Just a bit? > > He lists 17 items. As a conservative, I agree with one of them. The rest are mostly insane things that I’ve literally never heard any conservative say. They may not say it, but deep in the cockles of their heart they may love to see some of them come to pass. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/120 "2014-05-01T14:58:18Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > And I’m really curious, especially to hear from the ‘conservative’ side. Since all I seem to hear from the conservative side is about the evils of regulation etc, what keeps the environment liveable? In the real world, please, not some magical place where the CEOs act beneficently because they’re such good guys and always act primarily in the public interest. Speaking for myself, I’m not anti-regulation. I think some regulation is necessary. Absolutely. Particularly those that protect our environment that we all depend on. It’s one thing for some hypothetical economic interest spoil what he owns that are confined to his four walls, or his acreage, but once it bleeds into the air and water we all depend on, I’m in favor in having very clear, limited regulations that come with stiff penalties. If you make it in someone’s interest to not pollute (for instance) they won’t pollute. But the guidelines to to be simple and clear. One shouldn’t have to hire a team of lawyers to understand what they can and can’t do. In short, I think that protecting our vital and limited resources is a very, very conservative thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019/121 "2014-05-01T15:00:30Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > They may not say it, but deep in the cockles of their heart they may love to see some of them come to pass. Hey, I’m a mind-reader, too!!! So know what lies at the heart of you posting such drivel. That’s why it’s so easy to ignore. Cool, huh? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-conservatives-get-whatever-they-want/687019.md?page=7)