What Hobby Lobby and minimum wage debates have in common is clashes that arise when rights are redefined from being only negative to be positive.
The classic ‘liberal’ (as in Founders, the kind of ‘liberalism’ modern ‘conservatives’ tend to associate themselves with) rights are negative. The rest of the public (via representative government) can’t tell me what to say (don’t listen or read if you don’t like it), where to worship etc. and must leave me alone in general (not search without a warrant, etc). There are of course cases where it’s hard to define where someone’s negative right starts to impinge on someone else’s. But not really so much, if you limit the concept of rights to what a majority of your fellow citizens (through the government) can’t make you do.
Modern ‘liberals’ (who sometimes like to call themselves ‘progressives’) OTOH tend to believe in positive rights. I have a right to free birth control (even if arguably abortion inducing). I have a right to a certain wage. But somebody has to provide those positive things: my right can’t be fulfilled just by leaving me alone as my right to expression can be. Somebody must be forced to provide them (by the public via the government). There’s inherently more conflict between different people’s rights in that concept of rights than the older one.
Corporations can have religious beliefs. See: Roman Catholic Church. B’Nai Brith. CAIR. Joel Osteen Ministries, inc. Now I agree that a public corporation cannot have religious beliefs, because a public corporation has a wide variety of owners(stockholders) of various belief systems. But Hobby Lobby was founded and is run by a religious family in accordance with their beliefs, and they aren’t hypocrites by any means. They treat their employees generously in accordance with their beliefs.
If Hobby Lobby’s owners shouldn’t be practicing their religion in their business dealings, then perhaps they should stop paying their employees so well.
In an amazing upset, dark horse contender puddleglum pulls ahead of Shodan in the liberal-strawman-building competition! This kind of showmanship is truly, ladies and gentlemen, what makes a great debate.
Okay, name something liberals support the government doing, but after seeing it in action, admit that maybe it probably shouldn’t be doing it anymore given how bad it’s been doing it.
The problem is not naming government failures; the problem is undoing government failures when they are entrenched in the system.
For example, Social Security and Medicare will some day go bankrupt. Rather than doing the heavy lifting of a proper overhaul, we will make piecemeal reforms to simply delay the inevitable.
Liberals then hyperbolize attempts at reform as “returning us to the dark ages.” In other words, we must accept their programs even when they show poor or unsustainable results.
I don’t think these are irreconcilable views. Conservative Christians may believe in giving charity to those who have suffered misfortunate. That does not mean they want the government to mandate how much someone should be paid for their labor.
I make the reverse challenge to you. Name something conservatives support doing but have changed their minds on based on how badly the government has been doing it. Or name something that they do not support the government doing, see how badly that is working out, and admit that maybe the government should get involved.
The conservative characterizations of the differences between liberals and conservatives are not correct. (Not that the liberal ones are necessarily better, except when defending against the conservative views.) Both groups support the government controlling certain things. We disagree about what that is.
Even libertarians support government enforcement of their political ideas. That’s pretty much what it means to have a political ideology in the first place.
This one’s easy for me. Conservatives should stop privatizing government functions. The problem isn’t government per se, it’s the incentives that are present in government monopolies. These incentives don’t change when it’s a private monopoly.
As for what conservatives believe government SHOULD do, that’s tougher because most of the stuff Republicans have enacted many conservatives oppose. The only thing we all agree on seems to be defense, and while we spend too much and there’s a lot of waste, it’s hard to argue that we’re not doing it well. But again, part of that is the incentives. If the government used similar accountability and disciplinary procedures in the civilian workforce, things would run a whole lot better.
I think a lot of the liberal/conservative difference on minimum wage comes from the starting points.
Liberals look at the minimum wage as a mechanism to ensure a certain standard of living, and as a moral issue.
Conservatives tend to look at it as something that distorts the labor market and introduces a lot of inefficiencies that ultimately reduce employment.
Both are right in their own ways, and that’s why it’s such a contentious issue. The minimum wage can very easily provide a better minimum standard of living and reduce income inequality, and it can also decrease employment and distort the labor market, causing other problems.
Not Iraq specifically. Nation-building. Our military just isn’t made for it unless we’re talking about a total war in which the enemy is bludgeoned into submission as in WWII.
Shodan, vouchers? Vouchers certainly aren’t a cure all and there are probably better ways to improve education, but I don’t know that they’ve been a failure.
Personally, I’d rather see parents have a right to send their kids to any public school they want provided they are willing to transport them there. I’ve never understood why we force kids into a public school and actually arrest parents for the crime of trying to get their kids into a better public school.
Well, yes. Outside of Lake Wobegone it is definitionally impossible for everyone to be above average.
The most famous example of an efficiency wage Ford. At one point the average worker at a Ford plant lasted four months before quitting. This was causing Ford to have to train a new work force three times a year. So Ford jacked up wages to five dollars a day. The work still sucked but paid so well Ford employees stopped quitting and Ford saved money by not having to pay to train so many workers. If everyone then responding by upping wages to 5 dollars a day to match then Ford’s workers would have started quitting and taking those jobs and five dollars a day would no longer have been an efficiency wage.
Conservatives want government controlling certain things, liberals want government controlling everything. Name one thing that liberals would agree is a problem that they do not want government involved in.
The Hobby Lobby case is a great example. There has never been a time in history where birth control is cheaper or more easily available. Any women who wants to can get a month’s worth for the equivalent of one hour’s work at Hobby Lobby. If that is too rich for your blood, condoms are available at every gas station, convenience store, and pharmacy across the nation. If even that is too expensive, Hillary Clinton could buy every female Hobby Lobby employee an IUD with just the advance she got for her last book. Yet, despite all of this, liberals agree that lack of access to birth control is at such a crisis point that the government needs to force every company that offers health insurance to its employees to provide 20 different forms of birth control for free.
I interpreted the post as a request for examples of things conservatives used to think the government could do, but have changed their minds and now believe should be privatized.
I am with you this far. But again, HL is giving their workers a raise voluntarily, so there is no question of government involvement. And it strikes me as consistent with their devout Christianity, so to me everything points to a conservative move. But the author feels compelled to remind us that these guys are not bleeding heart liberals
Maybe conservatives are expected to take sides with capital always, labor never, in the most aggresive way possible?
