NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the best way i have been able to describe what the conservative ideology truly is. Not what extremeists have made it.

A man starts his own business in his 20s and eventually it makes him moderately wealthy. Wealthy enough to send his daughter to an ivy league school. He saends his daughter to school, and after semester break, she comes home, professing that she has become a "compassionate liberal"

She attacks her father about his business, how he shouldn;t be making money off those poeple and how he should redistribute his wealth.

father: "But this money sent you to college."

daughter: " i know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "i have a 4.0, but no social life, i work and work and work but it paid off as i have a perfect grade in every class.

Father: "how is your friend becky doing?"

daughter: "she is always out patying and drunk, but she has a 2.0."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "What are you crazy? I worked hard to get those grades, i;m not gonna give them to someoen who was lazy and irresposible."

Father: "welcome to the conservative party."

congratulations on completely ignoring the fact that many "poor" people cant help their situation because of the circumstances of their birth/the society they live in...

a more accurate one would be

daughter: "she didnt get a good education, she needs a job to support herself because she just had to pay her healthcare bills, so she only has a 2.0."

This story implies that we (liberals) only want to help the drunk partiers.

WRONG!

Nice try, though.

If it were accurate, the story would have gone like this:

A man starts his own business in his 20s and eventually it makes him moderately wealthy. Wealthy enough to send his daughter to an ivy league school. He saends his daughter to school, and after semester break, she comes home, professing that she has become a "compassionate liberal"

She attacks her father about his business, how he shouldn;t be making money off those poeple and how he should redistribute his wealth.

father: "But this money sent you to college."

Daughter: "I know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

Father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "I have a 4.0, but no social life. I work and work and work but it paid off as I have a perfect grade in every class.

Father: "How is your friend becky doing?"

Daughter: "She was not fortunate enough to randomnly be born in a wealthier family, so she has to rely on government grants, which have been reduced to pay for this war we're in, and has to work two jobs because she can't afford health care and commuting expenses, so her grades have suffered because she doesn't have as much time to study. She's only got a 2.0, but she's trying very hard to make it in life."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "Great idea! Thanks, Dad!"

Father: "Shit."

Lets play I spy..

I spy a piece of propaganda distributed by conservatives to convince weak minded individuals that they are right

This is the best way i have been able to describe what the conservative ideology truly is. Not what extremeists have made it.

A man starts his own business in his 20s and eventually it makes him moderately wealthy. Wealthy enough to send his daughter to an ivy league school. He saends his daughter to school, and after semester break, she comes home, professing that she has become a "compassionate liberal"

She attacks her father about his business, how he shouldn;t be making money off those poeple and how he should redistribute his wealth.

father: "But this money sent you to college."

daughter: " i know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "i have a 4.0, but no social life, i work and work and work but it paid off as i have a perfect grade in every class.

Father: "how is your friend becky doing?"

daughter: "she is always out patying and drunk, but she has a 2.0."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "What are you crazy? I worked hard to get those grades, i;m not gonna give them to someoen who was lazy and irresposible."

Father: "welcome to the conservative party."

Conservatives: Hard working and Boring!
Liberals: Lazy but great fun

as a liberal, I can live with that. now I gotta go lay down, this hangover is killing me!!!

I agree with both of you, Keruvalia and Auto. And, no that's not true, Liberals aren't lazy. They, unlike Republicans, think of something outside of themselves.

everyone has an equal chance of getting anything done in life, it all depends on the effort you put into it. if your not willing to put any effort into life then you should just starve to death.

I agree with both of you.

You can't use both for 5 people. It should be ALL of you. I think, I didn't pay attention at school, what with me being a liberal and all!!!

And who'd of thought all those impoverished people in third world countries are only in that situation cos they party so hard! man I'm gonna go to mozambique, they must be hardcore!!!

This story implies that we (liberals) only want to help the drunk partiers.

WRONG!

Nice try, though.

If it were accurate, the story would have gone like this:

A man starts his own business in his 20s and eventually it makes him moderately wealthy. Wealthy enough to send his daughter to an ivy league school. He saends his daughter to school, and after semester break, she comes home, professing that she has become a "compassionate liberal"

She attacks her father about his business, how he shouldn;t be making money off those poeple and how he should redistribute his wealth.

father: "But this money sent you to college."

Daughter: "I know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

Father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "I have a 4.0, but no social life. I work and work and work but it paid off as I have a perfect grade in every class.

Father: "How is your friend becky doing?"

Daughter: "She was not fortunate enough to randomnly be born in a wealthier family, so she has to rely on government grants, which have been reduced to pay for this war we're in, and has to work two jobs because she can't afford health care and commuting expenses, so her grades have suffered because she doesn't have as much time to study. She's only got a 2.0, but she's trying very hard to make it in life."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "Great idea! Thanks, Dad!"

Father: "Shit."


Remember this is an ivy league school, you either have the money, have a scholarship, or you are not getting in, no governemnt grant will pay for that.

And alot of the states now have a program where you get financial aid to a govenment funded university as a result of good grades and test scores. Yuo can get almost full tuition (about 300 plus books isn;t paid), full tuition and a 400 stipend, or full tuition and a 800 stipend.

And with student loans, you can get away with not working your ass off in college. My parents didn;t apy a thing for me, and i work, and i have a 4.0.......i ahve friends whoes parents paid for them and they have crapy grades becasue they party.

I agree with both of you, Keruvalia and Auto. And, no that's not true, Liberals aren't lazy. They, unlike Republicans, think of something outside of themselves.

Oh you edited it, now my reply looks silly(er)

You can't use both for 5 people. It should be ALL of you. I think, I didn't pay attention at school, what with me being a liberal and all!!!

And who'd of thought all those impoverished people in third world countries are only in that situation cos they party so hard! man I'm gonna go to mozambique, they must be hardcore!!!


This was an incident about being a economica conservative, welfare programs that people actually need, not because they are too lazy to work.

I am all for giving money for a single mom who is working two jobs and barely making ends meet. THat;s cool, but not for a crackwhore that can't stop squirting out babies.

I agree with both of you, Keruvalia and Auto. And, no that's not true, Liberals aren't lazy. They, unlike Republicans, think of something outside of themselves.
Yes, liberals are quite generous and giving.

With other people's money. :rolleyes:

everyone has an equal chance of getting anything done in life, it all depends on the effort you put into it. if your not willing to put any effort into life then you should just starve to death.
glad to hear that the people born into single parent families, in poor areas, with crap school systems, and who have to work when not in school to support themselves and their familes, have the same chances as those who are born into wealthy families, get paid the whole way through the best schools in the country and end up inheriting daddys company.

Apparently the daughter having no social life isn't a problem.

[slippery slope]Stress + overworked + no social life = suicide[/slippery slope].

Cool! It works both ways!

Conservatives: Hard working and Boring!
Liberals: Lazy but great fun

as a liberal, I can live with that. now I gotta go lay down, this hangover is killing me!!!
And as a conservative...so can I. :)

Remember this is an ivy league school, you either have the money, have a scholarship, or you are not getting in, no governemnt grant will pay for that.

And alot of the states now have a program where you get financial aid to a govenment funded university as a result of good grades and test scores. Yuo can get almost full tuition (about 300 plus books isn;t paid), full tuition and a 400 stipend, or full tuition and a 800 stipend.

And with student loans, you can get away with not working your ass off in college. My parents didn;t apy a thing for me, and i work, and i have a 4.0.......i ahve friends whoes parents paid for them and they have crapy grades becasue they party.


If you have to qualify your fictional story, then it isn't a good story.

Thanks for playing, though.

Originally posted by Yupeanueveryone has an equal chance of getting anything done in life, it all depends on the effort you put into it. if your not willing to put any effort into life then you should just starve to death.

Right because homeless people can afford to send their kids to college.

glad to hear that the people born into single parent families, in poor areas, with crap school systems, and who have to work when not in school to support themselves and their familes, have the same chances as those who are born into wealthy families, get paid the whole way through the best schools in the country and end up inheriting daddys company.

I agree that people need help somethimes, but your surroundings should not be a copout. If you work hard at something, if you possess ingenuety, if you ahve a drive to succeed you can do anything. Plus i have no respect for people whoes parents pay their way through college, most of the peopel i know that are paid through college have very liberal families.

This was an incident about being a economica conservative, welfare programs that people actually need, not because they are too lazy to work.

I am all for giving money for a single mom who is working two jobs and barely making ends meet. THat;s cool, but not for a crackwhore that can't stop squirting out babies.

A single mother has to work two shitty paid jobs, and raise her kids to qualify for assitance, that sucks!!!

Yes, liberals are quite generous and giving.

With other people's money. :rolleyes:

A wealthy liberal must just shatter your world view.

glad to hear that the people born into single parent families, in poor areas, with crap school systems, and who have to work when not in school to support themselves and their familes, have the same chances as those who are born into wealthy families, get paid the whole way through the best schools in the country and end up inheriting daddys company.

but i also think that we should get rid of money and start using communism at the same time.

And as a conservative...so can I. :)

Yeah well it's alright for you, you haven't got a hangover :)

Plus i have no respect for people whoes parents pay their way through college

But your story was about a conservative father who pays his daughter's way through college! Do you agree with the story or not?!

*slaps on his confused hat*

Originally posted by Yupeanu

Right because homeless people can afford to send their kids to college.

and their only homeless cause they didn't work to get money then? you don't need an education always to get money or a good job, you jsut have to work hard.

A single mother has to work two shitty paid jobs, and raise her kids to qualify for assitance, that sucks!!!

Why can;t liberals grasp the concept that people need to work to get helped. Why do you insist that somene sit in a puddle of their own filth and wait for the govenment to come pick them up. That is stupid. I eat becasue i work. My father hires homeless peole who are able to work, and he pays them the same as soemoen else doing the same job. If you are working to make your life better and can't, you deserve help. If your life is gtterrible and you sit around and do nothing about it. Good for you, have fun.

A wealthy liberal must just shatter your world view.
Obviously that's not 100% accurate, but this nonsense about all conservatives/Republicans being greedy, rich wealth-hoarders and all liberals/Democrats being selfless, self-sacrificing philanthropists whose highest calling is serving others, is just that -- nonsense.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003

originally posted by Yupeanu but i also think that we should get rid of money and start using communism at the same time.

And then all of your conservavtive friends are going to get pissed when the government backfires.

This is the best way i have been able to describe what the conservative ideology truly is. Not what extremeists have made it.

A man starts his own business in his 20s and eventually it makes him moderately wealthy. Wealthy enough to send his daughter to an ivy league school. He saends his daughter to school, and after semester break, she comes home, professing that she has become a "compassionate liberal"

She attacks her father about his business, how he shouldn;t be making money off those poeple and how he should redistribute his wealth.

father: "But this money sent you to college."

daughter: " i know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "i have a 4.0, but no social life, i work and work and work but it paid off as i have a perfect grade in every class.

Father: "how is your friend becky doing?"

daughter: "she is always out patying and drunk, but she has a 2.0."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "What are you crazy? I worked hard to get those grades, i;m not gonna give them to someoen who was lazy and irresposible."

Father: "welcome to the conservative party."
LOL! Although I cnosider this dialogue to be pretty accurate ( not to mention funny ), I honestly don't think it accurately answers the question.

A "true" conservative, in my book, wants to hold on to those things from the past which have been proven to work, and resists sudden or radical change. A "radical conservative" is an oxymoron.

But your story was about a conservative father who pays his daughter's way through college! Do you agree with the story or not?!

*slaps on his confused hat*

Ivy leagfue school, you have to have some sort of intellectual clout to get in. I have no respect for them, but, it is still a viable option, i beleive that people should do what they want with their money, but i also think that if young people donlt get a lesson i hard work early in life, they are in for a rude awakening wien the storms of life wash over them.

And then all of your conservavtive friends are going to get pissed when the government backfires.

well, then i'll just get them killed or fired by the government somehow. :)

LOL! Although I cnosider this dialogue to be pretty accurate ( not to mention funny ), I honestly don't think it accurately answers the question.

A "true" conservative, in my book, wants to hold on to those things from the past which have been proven to work, and resists sudden or radical change. A "radical conservative" is an oxymoron.

I should have named the thread, The definition of a true economic conservative.

originally posted by Yupeanu
and their only homeless cause they didn't work to get money then? you don't need an education always to get money or a good job, you jsut have to work hard.

You don't need education to get a job? You're dumb. You need an address to get a job and a telephone number. My mom makes less than $8,000 a year. My brother work twice as hard then some rich kid to go to college. He works and goes to school. Even McDonald's won't hire a person who's wearing rags. You have to have SOME education to get a job. List one job that doesn't require any education.`

everyone has an equal chance of getting anything done in life, it all depends on the effort you put into it. if your not willing to put any effort into life then you should just starve to death.

yep, both a texan rancher with 25000 steer and an ethiopian hill farmer with one dead goat and 20 square yards of dry desert have the same chance of getting anything done. It's just a quetion of how much effort they put in.

You don't need education to get a job? You're dumb. You need an address to get a job and a telephone number. My mom makes less than $8,000 a year. My brother work twice as hard then some rich kid to go to college. He works and goes to school. Even McDonald's won't hire a person who's wearing rags. You have to have SOME education to get a job. List one job that doesn't require any education.`

wow, which country do you live in?

Obviously that's not 100% accurate, but this nonsense about all conservatives/Republicans being greedy, rich wealth-hoarders and all liberals/Democrats being selfless, self-sacrificing philanthropists whose highest calling is serving others, is just that -- nonsense.

I think it's more a matter of to whom the money is going. You'll find that while people in Mississippi may be very generous in donating to their churches, that money, more often than not, goes to buying the Pastor's mistress a new Mercedes.

Churches in the US have a very bad track record when it comes to helping the poor and homeless - with the exception of the Catholics - and much of the conservative philanthropic ventures surround the Church.

Why can;t liberals grasp the concept that people need to work to get helped. Why do you insist that somene sit in a puddle of their own filth and wait for the govenment to come pick them up. That is stupid. I eat becasue i work. My father hires homeless peole who are able to work, and he pays them the same as soemoen else doing the same job. If you are working to make your life better and can't, you deserve help. If your life is gtterrible and you sit around and do nothing about it. Good for you, have fun.

Why can't conservatives grasp the concept that exploiting people to the extent that even working two jobs isn't enough to keep their heads above water, is simply immoral.

I agree single mothers should be expected to work, just like everyone else. But working two jobs sucks, I did it for about six months without having a kid to raise, and I would'nt want to do it again.

You don't need education to get a job? You're dumb. You need an address to get a job and a telephone number. My mom makes less than $8,000 a year. My brother work twice as hard then some rich kid to go to college. He works and goes to school. Even McDonald's won't hire a person who's wearing rags. You have to have SOME education to get a job. List one job that doesn't require any education.`

You have a vary narro opinion of what a job is. I made 25 dollars a week mowing lawns and doing other odd jobs in my neighborhood. Not to mention, if a homeless person (willing to work) walks up to a company moving van, asks if they need help, 1 out of 5 times they will say yes. The industry standard is 12 an hour. ANd the driver will pay you more if you worked for it. You don;t need to work for anyone specifically to make money.

wow, which country do you live in?

Which country do you live in? I've been to quite a few countries but I've never been to one where homeless people worked in macD's.

The UK currently has almost not job opportunities for people who can't read, but we're working on it. If you don't mind moving from one end of the country to the otherr every 2 weeks and living in a dorm (which you cant do if you have a family) you can earn about USD7 an hour picking vegetables legally, or maybe USD5 doing it illeaglly.

Why can't conservatives grasp the concept that exploiting people to the extent that even working two jobs isn't enough to keep their heads above water, is simply immoral.

I agree single mothers should be expected to work, just like everyone else. But working two jobs sucks, I did it for about six months without having a kid to raise, and I would'nt want to do it again.

I used that as an example, it isn;t a definite, i am jsut trying to make the point that there should be a need before welfare is given. I think people should have to work like anyone else. I know people who have been on welfare for 25 years. There is nothing wrong with that family. They go bowling every tuesday noight, and i play basketball with their son. They are all perfectly hel=althy, able bodied individuals. He hurt his back 15 years ago, lost his job, got better, and never got off welfare. That is wrong. He is perfrectly able to work.

You have a vary narro opinion of what a job is. I made 25 dollars a week mowing lawns and doing other odd jobs in my neighborhood. Not to mention, if a homeless person (willing to work) walks up to a company moving van, asks if they need help, 1 out of 5 times they will say yes. The industry standard is 12 an hour. ANd the driver will pay you more if you worked for it. You don;t need to work for anyone specifically to make money.

If I was unloading my truck and a homeless came up to me and asked if he could help, I might give him some bread but I wouldn't want him carrying my stuff, or my clients' stuff, or my boss's stuff.

Furthermore, with USD25 a week what are you going to do? live in a cardboard box? how would you wash?

Originally posted by Yupaenu

well, then i'll just get them killed or fired by the government somehow.

Wrong!! when the government turns Communist, you die not them. You should be more friendly to LIberals their fighting for education funding. Obviously, you could benefit. :)

I used that as an example, it isn;t a definite, i am jsut trying to make the point that there should be a need before welfare is given. I think people should have to work like anyone else. I know people who have been on welfare for 25 years. There is nothing wrong with that family. They go bowling every tuesday noight, and i play basketball with their son. They are all perfectly hel=althy, able bodied individuals. He hurt his back 15 years ago, lost his job, got better, and never got off welfare. That is wrong. He is perfrectly able to work.

I agree, If someone is able to work, then they should work and help should only be given when it is needed, what I'm against is people being exploited by employers, and having no chance of escaping poverty no matter how hard they work, which happens way to often!

Which country do you live in? I've been to quite a few countries but I've never been to one where homeless people worked in macD's.

The UK currently has almost not job opportunities for people who can't read, but we're working on it. If you don't mind moving from one end of the country to the otherr every 2 weeks and living in a dorm (which you cant do if you have a family) you can earn about USD7 an hour picking vegetables legally, or maybe USD5 doing it illeaglly.

i don't think that we even have any macdonolds here. not shure though. i know when i went to the u.s. to visit my cousin there was to on the way to his house.

Which country do you live in? I've been to quite a few countries but I've never been to one where homeless people worked in macD's.

The UK currently has almost not job opportunities for people who can't read, but we're working on it. If you don't mind moving from one end of the country to the otherr every 2 weeks and living in a dorm (which you cant do if you have a family) you can earn about USD7 an hour picking vegetables legally, or maybe USD5 doing it illeaglly.

TYOU DON:LT HAVE TO WORK IN MCD's...YOU DON:T NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ TO GET A JOB THAT PAYS WELL!!! TEACH YOURSELF TO READ, I KNOW SEVERAL PEOLE WHO HAVE, THEY NEVER USED HOOKED ON PHONICS OR ANYTHING!!!!! DON:T BE LAZY!!!!!!

people move in the uk right. Go work for the driver of a moving truck, in any developed country. Don't need to have any education. I know poeple who work at the moving company i work at periodically who never had any formal education and they bring home ~$400 a month. it' just requires hard work. ANd you usually get done by about 5 every day.

I should have named the thread, The definition of a true economic conservative.
IMHO, the definition would still hold. A conservative, economicly, would support a limited capitalism because ( from his/her standpoint ) it has been shown to provide the "only workable means to provide the best economic living standards for the greatest number of people by taking into account such aspects of human nature as desire for security, and greed." [ I don't remember the author of this quote, but I suspect it was Richard M. Weaver, author of "Ideas Have Consequences." ]

If I was unloading my truck and a homeless came up to me and asked if he could help, I might give him some bread but I wouldn't want him carrying my stuff, or my clients' stuff, or my boss's stuff.

Furthermore, with USD25 a week what are you going to do? live in a cardboard box? how would you wash?

Liberals of all people should be more trusting. WORK THAT"S ALL...IF THEY BREAK SOMETHING TAKE IT OFF WSHAT THEY MAKE..

Obviously, you're not homeless Auto. I don't where you live, but here, in America, many people refuse to be served by Mexicans who have homes, are educated, wear nice clothes, and shower everyday. Realistically in the US, a homeless man would not be offered a job that easily.

Once again in the US auto, you have to a license to drive. Furthermore, you have to have a special driver's license. Where are you from?

Obviously, you're not homeless Auto. I don't where you live, but here, in America, many people refuse to be served by Mexicans who have homes, are educated, wear nice clothes, and shower everyday. Realistically in the US, a homeless man would not be offered a job that easily.
IMHO, that's not "conservative," that's just plain stupid.

Liberals of all people should be more trusting. WORK THAT"S ALL...IF THEY BREAK SOMETHING TAKE IT OFF WSHAT THEY MAKE..

how am I going to take the cost of a USD5000 piece of equipment off of what a bum is going to make unloading my truck for 3 hours?

Why are you calling me liberal?

TYOU DON:LT HAVE TO WORK IN MCD's...YOU DON:T NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ TO GET A JOB THAT PAYS WELL!!! TEACH YOURSELF TO READ, I KNOW SEVERAL PEOLE WHO HAVE, THEY NEVER USED HOOKED ON PHONICS OR ANYTHING!!!!! DON:T BE LAZY!!!!!!

people move in the uk right. Go work for the driver of a moving truck, in any developed country. Don't need to have any education. I know poeple who work at the moving company i work at periodically who never had any formal education and they bring home ~$400 a month. it' just requires hard work. ANd you usually get done by about 5 every day.

how many moving trucks are there in the world? What makes you think moving trucks are always hiring?

Do you know that in the 1980s in the UK, the government had a policy of deliberately keeping the unemployment rate at about 10% in order to keep inflation down? So whenever the unemployment rate got below 10% they hiked up interest rates to make companies with investment loans unable to pay them back so they'd go bust? The theory is called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemplyement or NAIRU. Some people estimated the nairu to be as much as 12 or 15%. You can read about it: http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?TERM=NATURAL%20RATE%20OF%20UNEMPLOYMENT#NATURAL%20RATE%20OF%20UNEMPLOYMENT

In the UK we now have a government that has shown that this is nonsense, but the US government, apparently, thinks the NAIRU is 5%, ie they will try to keep at least 5% of people unemployed in order to keep inflation down.

Yes, liberals are quite generous and giving.

With other people's money. :rolleyes:
I spy...misinformation!

I spy a smart cow!

I spy a smart cow!

a laser guided homing cow?

sure?

duck

ok.

This story implies that we (liberals) only want to help the drunk partiers.

WRONG!

Nice try, though.

If it were accurate, the story would have gone like this:

A man starts his own business in his 20s and eventually it makes him moderately wealthy. Wealthy enough to send his daughter to an ivy league school. He saends his daughter to school, and after semester break, she comes home, professing that she has become a "compassionate liberal"

She attacks her father about his business, how he shouldn;t be making money off those poeple and how he should redistribute his wealth.

father: "But this money sent you to college."

Daughter: "I know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

Father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "I have a 4.0, but no social life. I work and work and work but it paid off as I have a perfect grade in every class.

Father: "How is your friend becky doing?"

Daughter: "She was not fortunate enough to randomnly be born in a wealthier family, so she has to rely on government grants, which have been reduced to pay for this war we're in, and has to work two jobs because she can't afford health care and commuting expenses, so her grades have suffered because she doesn't have as much time to study. She's only got a 2.0, but she's trying very hard to make it in life."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "Great idea! Thanks, Dad!"

Father: "Shit."

You see, in this example both dad and daughter are wrong and selfish. Dad is the typical conservative, who wants Becky to just work harder to try to make it. In spite of the fact that she has so much working against her he blames her for her problems.

The daughter, however, is the typical liberal. She has some moral sense that she should have compassion for her friend, but she's going about it in the laziest and stupidest way possible, i.e. trying to get an authority to change a fairly meaningless number, which really won't help her when she graduates. The daughter's claims of being "compassionate" are a lie.

The truly compassionate thing would be to actually help Becky directly. Maybe the daughter can offer to help with her studies to try to make them more productive, or offer a ride to and from school so she doesn't have to worry about commuting expenses. Maybe dad can assist Becky financially so she doesn't have to work so much. Maybe they can really care and act out compassion, instead of loudly complaining that other people are doing it for them.

congratulations on completely ignoring the fact that many "poor" people cant help their situation because of the circumstances of their birth/the society they live in...

a more accurate one would be

daughter: "she didnt get a good education, she needs a job to support herself because she just had to pay her healthcare bills, so she only has a 2.0."

the implication of this story is that becky is young right ? she shouldn't have healthcare bills.. health coverage is not nessesary for the young. Im a post graduate and have no healthcare coverage.. it only becomes nessesary in the face of extreme circumstance. She has the choice to go un-insured as so many other people do.. she can always show up in a public hospital and get treatment there in the face of extreme circumstances. Even if she is not young, her education should come before her healthcare coverage.. because it is that education which will be getting her out of her current situation.

the implication of this story is that becky is young right ? she shouldn't have healthcare bills.. health coverage is not nessesary for the young.
why not?

the implication of this story is that becky is young right ? she shouldn't have healthcare bills.. health coverage is not nessesary for the young. Im a post graduate and have no healthcare coverage.. it only becomes nessesary in the face of extreme circumstance. She has the choice to go un-insured as so many other people do.. she can always show up in a public hospital and get treatment there in the face of extreme circumstances. Even if she is not young, her education should come before her healthcare coverage.. because it is that education which will be getting her out of her current situation.

healthcare is not necessary for the young?
and you know this because you are young and have no healthcare coverage?

what are you postgradding in, paralogism?

Are you telling me that you have never heard of a sick kid, ever?

If I was unloading my truck and a homeless came up to me and asked if he could help, I might give him some bread but I wouldn't want him carrying my stuff, or my clients' stuff, or my boss's stuff.

Furthermore, with USD25 a week what are you going to do? live in a cardboard box? how would you wash?

I did it on saturdays genuis. I was a kid, i had to go to schol, i worked every saturday, and i could only do one thing at a time cause i had to be home for other things.

I did it on saturdays genuis. I was a kid, i had to go to schol, i worked every saturday, and i could only do one thing at a time cause i had to be home for other things.

there are about 7 million unemployed people in the us right now. do you think they could all get saturday jobs as removal men?

Furthermore. I am in the US. I know about moving companies becasue my father has worked for a moving company for 12 years!!! I have worked with him every summer since i was 12. I know what goes on. There are thousands of owner operators in the moving business. You aren't hiring people to drive, you are hiring people to run boxes to and from a house. No pieve of equpment on the moving truck costs 5k usd. A refrigerator cart, the most expensive pice of equpment, cost 75 USD, that is easy covered, and the thing is virtually unbreakable.

You can make a good living off working like that on weekdays. I know a man, he had no formal education, he makes 500 a week working in moving. He doesn;t live in a house, he lives in a motel. He by definition is homeless. He lives in this hotel and has everything he needs. Why is he any different than any other homeless person. I know. He actually tried to make his own life better. And he succeeded.

Why can;t other people do that. Why must the governemnt hold everyone's hand and give them things they could get themselves. If you are trying to make your life better thant's one thing, but if you want to make excuses, that's another.

there are about 7 million unemployed people in the us right now. do you think they could all get saturday jobs as removal men?

I am giving one of thousands of examples in which an unskilled worker can start. I was a child and i was working neighborhoiod jobs, no real formal eduacation. I know the moving business, that is why i am using it as an example.

healthcare is not necessary for the young?
and you know this because you are young and have no healthcare coverage?

what are you postgradding in, paralogism?

Are you telling me that you have never heard of a sick kid, ever?

Until you are out of college, you can be under your parent's healthcare, and health insurance through a university (@ least here in the US) is relatively inexpensive (comparitively)

He's homeless by choice. $500 a week equals to $24,000/per year.

everyone has an equal chance of getting anything done in life, it all depends on the effort you put into it. if your not willing to put any effort into life then you should just starve to death.
Hahahahahahahahahaha

How naive are you?

Are you telling me that if Bill Gates had a kid, this kid would have to try as hard as everyone else to make it? If this kid's parents could avoid spoiling him rotten, then the kid is set for life.

Also, there's a walk in institute for the mentally challenged near my house, I walk by it every day. Are you saying that these people have an equal chance of getting somewhere as everyone else based on their natural abilities?

He's homeless by choice. $500 a week equals to $24,000/per year.

He was homeless before he got the job. He got the job, and he deosn't want to live in a house. Which means....OMG PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR LIFE WITHOUT GOV'T HELP!!!!!

ARMAGEDDON!!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahaha

How naive are you?

Are you telling me that if Bill Gates had a kid, this kid would have to try as hard as everyone else to make it? If this kid's parents could avoid spoiling him rotten, then the kid is set for life.

Also, there's a walk in institute for the mentally challenged near my house, I walk by it every day. Are you saying that these people have an equal chance of getting somewhere as everyone else based on their natural abilities?


You re missing the point I have put forward. If you CAN work, you should, if you can;t make it by working to the best of your ability. you should be eligible for a govt program

You re missing the point I have put forward. If you CAN work, you should, if you can;t make it by working to the best of your ability. you should be eligible for a govt program
Does this government program cover dyslexics? It makes it harder to succeed academically if you have a reading disability.
Does it cover victims of child abuse? Again, those who suffered child abuse often have social adjustment problems as well as low self esteem and thus are less likely to succeed in the real world.
Does this government program cover people whose parents were too poor to give them proper nutrition growing up and thus did not necessarily develop properly?
Does this government program cover people who either with aid from their parents or on their own, happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were unable to find sufficient work to put themselves through higher education and they did not qualify for loans because they had no credit rating?

I look at it this way, last year I needed a summer job. The only job I found that lasted me the entire summer was one that gave me 10 horus a week. I lucked out when an election was called and I worked for elections canada. At the end of the summer, one of the agencies I had applied to at the beginning of the summer called and said they found me work. Finding a job isn't always easy when you're relatively unskilled. I worked three different types of job last summer... food service, office work and manual labour... not everyone can do all of those and thus not everyone has as much chance at getting employed, let alone at a good job. Quite frankly, there aren't really enougn good jobs out there for everyone to end up succeeding... so even if everyone tried really hard, there would still be people unemployed and there would still be people in shitty jobs at mcdonalds.

Does this government program cover dyslexics? It makes it harder to succeed academically if you have a reading disability.
Does it cover victims of child abuse? Again, those who suffered child abuse often have social adjustment problems as well as low self esteem and thus are less likely to succeed in the real world.
Does this government program cover people whose parents were too poor to give them proper nutrition growing up and thus did not necessarily develop properly?
Does this government program cover people who either with aid from their parents or on their own, happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were unable to find sufficient work to put themselves through higher education and they did not qualify for loans because they had no credit rating?

I look at it this way, last year I needed a summer job. The only job I found that lasted me the entire summer was one that gave me 10 horus a week. I lucked out when an election was called and I worked for elections canada. At the end of the summer, one of the agencies I had applied to at the beginning of the summer called and said they found me work. Finding a job isn't always easy when you're relatively unskilled. I worked three different types of job last summer... food service, office work and manual labour... not everyone can do all of those and thus not everyone has as much chance at getting employed, let alone at a good job. Quite frankly, there aren't really enougn good jobs out there for everyone to end up succeeding... so even if everyone tried really hard, there would still be people unemployed and there would still be people in shitty jobs at mcdonalds.


First of allm, you missed my pint again. If you are working and can't sufficiently support yourself, or if you physically can;t work, i think everything you put down applies. Secondly, you don;t need a credit score to qualify for a student loan. most people appliyng don't have credit anyway.

why not?

as a general rule, young people are in better health and do not require medical attention to the degree by which warrents health care coverage. The biggest need for healthcare coverage is in the event of hospitalization, and a young person in realitivly good heath can expect no need to attend a hospital with the exception of extreme circumstances (and even then public hospitals are required to admit all paticents). Most young people wont even visit a doctor more then once or twice a year, which may total near a couple of hundred dollars if even near that (including medication). A far cry from the nearly 10,000 which an individual may pay out through private coverage

Health care coverage is more of a concern for those middle aged to older individuals who require more frequent doctor visits and who are on a mirade of medications nessesary for their health. This is not to say no young person meet these criteria, but the average young person, even student, really has little need healthcare coverage. It is one thing if your parents plan covers you or if your job gives it to you, but there is no real reason to persue private coverage. Even then most schools give coverage at reduced rates.

Yes, liberals are quite generous and giving.

With other people's money. :rolleyes:
And the least compassionate Christian on earth enters the discussion.

healthcare is not necessary for the young?
and you know this because you are young and have no healthcare coverage?

what are you postgradding in, paralogism?

Are you telling me that you have never heard of a sick kid, ever?

yes im young and have no healthcare coverage.

Not every sickness requires medical attention you know.. If your young.. you can survive the flu without running to the doctor. +Even if a kid gets sick, even if he/she goes to the doctor, once twice, maybe even three times in one year.. that may amount to several hundred dollars.. a far cry from the thousands you will be paying for annual healthcoverage y ou will generally never use. Its one thing to get coverage through a job, or a school... but privately its unsound economically..

Hahahahahahahahahaha

How naive are you?

Are you telling me that if Bill Gates had a kid, this kid would have to try as hard as everyone else to make it? If this kid's parents could avoid spoiling him rotten, then the kid is set for life.

Also, there's a walk in institute for the mentally challenged near my house, I walk by it every day. Are you saying that these people have an equal chance of getting somewhere as everyone else based on their natural abilities?

if bill gates had a kid, they should still be required to work for what they want. and one of my friend's brother is mentally ill, but he's also wealthy and mad a good living for himself. and if someone is physically unable to work then they should die, cause it's nature's will. humans still are animals, nomatter how hard they try to avoid it, and do apply to natural selection.

also auto, I would like to see you explain to homeless person on the street that your father was "homeless" and living in a hotel. A government definition of "homeless" does not hold to people who have NO shelter, heating, plumbing, or food.

And, Yupeanu, honestly. Natural selection? Obviously, natural selection doesn't mean much in your argument because your mentally-disabled friend has a job, is still alive, and has a better chance then you at procreating. What a friend! Yes, let's be communist and have captilistic ideas like killing off people who can't work. If we kill off the people who can't work, then why don't we kill off the ignorant, too. :rolleyes:

and, by the way Bill Gates does have kids, and they are recieving 0.02% of his inheritance when he dies. Just some food for thought.

and if someone is physically unable to work then they should die, cause it's nature's will.
Hmm, in that case, I suppose I should pop off and shoot myself.
:rolleyes:

In this case, I'd have to say killing them off is even more stupid. How bright would our days be with out Neo-Anarchists? Not too bright.

This is the best way i have been able to describe what the conservative ideology truly is. Not what extremeists have made it.

A man starts his own business in his 20s and eventually it makes him moderately wealthy. Wealthy enough to send his daughter to an ivy league school. He saends his daughter to school, and after semester break, she comes home, professing that she has become a "compassionate liberal"

She attacks her father about his business, how he shouldn;t be making money off those poeple and how he should redistribute his wealth.

father: "But this money sent you to college."

daughter: " i know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "i have a 4.0, but no social life, i work and work and work but it paid off as i have a perfect grade in every class.

Father: "how is your friend becky doing?"

daughter: "she is always out patying and drunk, but she has a 2.0."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "What are you crazy? I worked hard to get those grades, i;m not gonna give them to someoen who was lazy and irresposible."

Father: "welcome to the conservative party."

What kind of fucked up Orwellian argument is that?

Not everyone has the right to good grades, but everyone has the right to basic living conditions. Come on!

Not to mention the fact that you can redistribute wealth, but you can't redistribute grades!

What kind of fucked up Orwellian argument is that?

Not everyone has the right to good grades, but everyone has the right to basic living conditions. Come on!

You have the right to earn it yourself. No ones denying you from that.

Also, how is that Orwellian?

Not to mention the fact that you can redistribute wealth, but you can't redistribute grades!

Correct. It's called charity.

I thought I may as well post these two papers involving conservatism since this is the conservative thread;)Please be kind in your assessments and try and point out my errors in a way which lacks flames.;) Thankyou

Outline and assess the major Conservative arguments against rapid change

Introduction

Conservatism, defined as 'The disposition to preserve what is established... the tendency to prefer an existing situation to change' (The New Penguin Compact English Dictionary: 178) as a modern political philosophy can mostly be traced back to Thomas Hobbes, one of the earliest modern conservative philosophers. In his book Leviathan he outlined his theory of man in a state of nature, a natural state prior to the construction of a social structure with rules and regulations, where man was naturally violent, aggressive and vicious, he had 'No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short' (Hobbes, T: in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 378). With this idea being a cornerstone of modern Conservative philosophy it is easy to see why Conservatives see the role of government as the suppression of human lawlessness and anti-social activities, but it also means that to Conservatives society as a whole is the pinnacle of all mankind's achievements and thus the repository of all that has been learned. Therefore rapid changes are not desirable to conservatives as these changes may go against all that was previously known to have worked in society leading us into the unknown rather than building upon the stockpile of wisdom embodied in society.

One problem in critiquing Conservative resistance to rapid change is that there are many types of conservatives each believing in different ideas and holding different values, even within these factions there is no unanimous agreement, but rather a broad collection of overlapping ideas that for the most part tend to agree on fundamental ideals. Conservatism as an Ideology is most dominant in first world nations that have had continuous development, 'Such countries are usually historically dominant 'First World' core countries' (Conservatism 2004: 2), but that is not to say that conservatism is non-existent in other parts of the world, although it certainly is not as dominant. In the course of this paper rather than listing individual conservative factions and the reasons they give for their adversity to rapid change conservatives will be discussed as a general body of political thought. There are many reasons why Conservatives are opposed to rapid changes, such as; a fear of the unknown that change may bring; some proposed changes may be contrary to the established experiences of society; a fear of breaking God's natural ordering of the world; the natural selection of institutions; the sense of security gained from knowing one's place in the world order or even as a knee-jerk reaction to something not totally understood. Yet that does not mean that conservatives are opposed to all changes that occur within a society.

Disobeying the divine

Traditionally Conservatives have believed that the world has been made by God, thus what exists in this world must therefore be a product of God. Edmund Burke, a European religious conservative philosopher was one of the first to attach the divine to tradition. This belief in a creationist God has meant that Conservatives regard traditions and customs to be part of a natural order created by God. Therefore if humans challenge or alter what has already been established, some Conservatives see this as challenging the will of an omnipotent God who has set the world up in a particular order for a reason, thus the result of these changes may be unnatural and are much more likely to adversely affect human life and society. In the modern age however it is more difficult to accept this argument as we are clearly surrounded by man made institutions such as democracy, and new factors are always being added such as modern technology; despite this some Conservatives still argue against change on the basis that it is against the will of God.

The natural selection of institutions

Another major conservative argument against rapid change is the natural social selection of institutions and practices. Similar to Darwin's theory of natural selection it propounds that those institutions that are still in existence today are worth keeping because they have worked in the past which is the only reason why they still exist. This appreciation for institutions which have been tried and tested by time means that Conservatives feel these institutions should be saved and revered. This also helps to explain why conservatives venerate tradition and national customs so much, they believe that something that has been able to withstand the test of time has proved itself worthwhile and as a result should be saved because it has worked in the past. This limited point of view however does not take into account the possibility of these institutions being obsolete in the modern world and thus makes no attempt to create modern institutions to counter modern issues which the institutions in the past have never had to deal with, this is because conservatives believe that society is to complex and vast to be altered by the state which should not attempt to change things unless it is absolutely necessary. The conservative elements of society generally tend instead to attempt to adapt change to the old institutions that have proven themselves to be workable in the past, while sometimes ineffectual this method usually allows for the combination of past experiences and modern development.

Change adapting to the established order: Changing to conserve

While it is true that Conservatives are opposed to rapid change, it is not true that they oppose all change. Conservatives tend to be accepting of pragmatic change arising from, or adapting to the established order. An excellent example of this is Conservative Edmund Burke's reactions to the American and French revolutions. While sympathetic to the changes being wrought in America, that is replacing the British government with a local American government of similar inclinations, he was a very strong critic of the French Revolution as it had replaced its monarchical government with an utterly different type of government, 'Burke was deeply opposed to the attempt to recast French politics in accordance with abstract principles such as liberty, equality and fraternity, arguing that wisdom resides largely in experience, tradition and history' (Heywood 2003: 74). Despite this he did not hold the revolutionaries solely responsible for the French Revolution, he recognized that the monarchy was also partly responsible because of its stubborn refusal to change at all, thus in his 1790 publication Reflections on the Revolution in France he wrote 'A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation' (The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 163) as a direct observation of the French royal family.

Changes contrary to the established experiences of society

Because of the way conservatives view man in a state of nature (as outlined by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan) conservatives tend to view society as the accumulation and pinnacle of all previous wisdom, knowledge and experience. This means that if a change is proposed it may be seen to be contrary to the established experiences of society simply because it is new and not yet proven. The result of this is that some conservatives may oppose proposed changes regardless of whether or not it may be beneficial to society simply because they do not want to risk disaster stemming from rapid changes. An excellent example of this is Edmund Burke's attitudes towards the French Revolution as it demolished the established order of monarchy and aristocracy and instead replaced it with ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity.

Involuntary opposition to change: A knee-jerk reaction

There is even now a limited number of conservatives who will oppose any proposed change simply because it is a change from the established order. This type of reactionary conservatism offers little or no justification for its opposition to the proposed changes it opposes in all fields of life, but instead tends to resort to 'mysticism such as 'the nation's way of life' or 'God-given morality'' (Conservatism 2004: 1). John Locke commented on this in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding saying 'New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common' (The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 471).

Fear of the unknown

One pragmatic reason Conservatives give for resistance to rapid change is that unchecked and excitable change will lead society into the unknown and may create more adverse effects for a community than positive. There is common sense in this, after all you don't want to try and fix something that is not broken only to find that you have damaged it beyond repair, however this limited view may sometimes prevent beneficial changes from being implemented as well. Due to this fear of the unknown that exists within conservative elements some conservatives will occasionally argue for the retaining of outdated systems and institutions that no longer work but have worked in the past in an attempt to prevent the world from changing.

A sense of security gained from stability

Another, but more obscure reason for some Conservative resistance to rapid change is the belief that steadiness in society makes people feel more secure because they know their place within society. This steadiness is reduced each time a change is introduced in the eyes of the conservatives because traditionally conservatives have viewed society as naturally hierarchical characterised by a set social boundaries. Therefore changes, especially those that promote social equality are opposed as undesirable as conservatives feel that they are unworkable and will upset the delicate balance in society creating insecurity. Conservatives see society as having 'an existence outside the individual, and in a sense is prior to the individual; it is held together by the bonds of tradition, authority and a common morality' (Heywood 2003: 80).

The Conclusion

In conclusion there are many reasons why conservatives oppose rapid change, some of them are dubious at best such as those that rely on mysticism and those who oppose any change simply because it is different than the established. However some reasons for conservatives' opposition to rapid change are well based and the implementation of these ideas serves an important function by stabilizing society and preventing unbalanced and unchecked change taking the established order into the unknown. This building upon the established order is very important within our societal culture because it allows us to combine the wisdom of the past with the progress of the modern world. This is certainly the opinion expressed by the English Liberal philosopher Mill in his work On Liberty in which he stated, 'A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life' (The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 508).

What are the major ways in which conservatism differs from liberalism?

Conservatism, defined as 'The disposition to preserve what is established... the tendency to prefer an existing situation to change' (The New Penguin Compact English Dictionary: 178) is always, by its own nature, counter to liberalism which is 'Not strict or rigorous, favouring individual liberty, free trade and moderate political and social reform' (Oxford English Reference Dictionary: 825). These two forces are both needed in a healthy government for without there is either no change resulting in stagnation, or unchecked change abandoning the lessons of the past. This is supported by the English philosopher Mill's comment, 'A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life' Mill, J. S. On Liberty Ch 2 quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 508).

Conservatives and liberals have fundamentally different views of mankind. They disagree in their assessments of man in a state of nature and as a result disagree about the best way in which to organize society. This in turn gives them different perspectives on the role of government, reflected in the different duties the government and citizens have under the different ideologies' social contracts. Owing to their dissent over mankind's true nature, conservatives and liberals have different ideas over what is needed for a utopian society, thus both ideologies have different social agendas. However this difference is not just limited to social structure, economically conservatives and liberals view the world differently. In conservatism more emphasis is placed upon private enterprise and it is generally thought that the state should not intervene in the economy, except to break a monopoly. Liberalism however put more emphasis on free trade and feels a need for government intervention to remove extremes of poverty and sometimes prosperity.

Thomas Hobbes (one of the earliest modern conservative philosophers), in his book Leviathan put forth the notion of a state of nature. This state of nature was man before the creation of a social structure with rules and regulations. In this state of nature man was selfish and vicious, violent and aggressive, he had 'No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short' (Hobbes, T. Leviathan Pt 1, Ch 13 quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 378). As man in a state of nature man is so vicious, conservatives see the main role of government to suppress human aggression and lawlessness. Conservatives also see society as the culmination of everything mankind has achieved and therefore the repository of all that we have learned, this is why conservatives have a tendency to resist change. This also explains why conservatives venerate tradition so much, they believe that something that has been able to withstand the test of time has proved itself worthwhile. Hobbes' idea of an ideal government was absolute submission to an absolute power, in his case a monarch (Charles II). This absolute power was necessary in order to create order for 'During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man' (Hobbes, T. Leviathan Pt 1, Ch 13 quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 378). This absolute power had a social contract with the population, a social contract that meant that the state would ensure that lawless elements would be suppressed while the population would ensure it obeyed the state.

John Locke (a classical liberal philosopher), in his Treatise on Government had a different view of man in a state of nature. He believed that man was basically good and that in a state of nature people would work together to achieve a common goal. Due to this he viewed the role of government differently than Hobbes and thus believed in a different social contract. His idea was that the government should do more than suppress lawlessness, that government had a duty to ensure its population had natural rights 'Man... hath by nature a power... to preserve his property – that is, his life, liberty and estate – against the injuries and attempts of other men' (Locke, J. Second treatise of Civil Government Ch 7, Sect 87 quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 472). If the state did not perform its duty then the population had a right to overthrow the government as being illegitimate.

Edmund Burke, a religious conservative philosopher expanded upon the conservative ideology of resistance to change by attaching the divine to tradition. Conservatives already tended to be adverse to change 'New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common' (Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 471). Believing that the world was shaped by God (natural law) traditional customs, institutions and practices were seen as 'God-given' and to change them may be against the will of God resulting in disaster. Despite this Burke still recognized that change was at times necessary, 'A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation' (Burke, E Reflections on the Revolution in France quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 163).

Jean Jacques Rousseau amid the French Enlightenment and the French Revolution put forward the notion that individuals surrender their rights to the collective general will, which he implied was the sole source of legitimate sovereignty and by definition represents a general good. Jeremy Bentham furthered this idea and was the first to propose the principles of utilitarianism. Rejecting the ideas of natural rights he asserted that in a state of nature man acted only out of self-interest. According to utilitarianism thought the government should act to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However acting only for the greatest good of the greatest number allows for marginalization and repression of minorities leaving both individual liberty and the minority rights subject to what French conservative Alexis Tocqueville called a 'Tyranny of the majority' (Heywood 2003: 44). This tyranny of the majority may promote good for the greatest number but it allows no countability to those who are in the minority.

John Stuart Mill developed utilitarianism after Bentham, however he focused more on individual liberty then his predecessor. His new individual utilitarianism limited the way government could infringing upon a person's rights, 'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others' (Heywood 2003: 30). Thus in Mill's mind people had the right to do anything they pleased, so long as it did not adversely affect others, 'The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people' (Mill, J. S. On Liberty Ch 1 quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 508) which was why the government should only act against a citizen to prevent harm. Mill's individual utilitarianism also addressed the problem of tyranny of the majority, 'If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind' (Mill, J. S. On Liberty quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 2001: 508).

Marxism, an exceptional form of liberalism was a revolutionary concept at its time, explaining social change and societies, both past and present, in terms of economics and class struggle. Karl Marx believed that through applying scientific methods (dialectical materialism) one could change the world to a utopia, a working man's paradise through a Marxist revolution arising from class struggle. Workers would have collective ownership over the means of production, thus there would be no more social classes (Heywood 2003: 126). While most liberals would disagree with the idea of Marxism, especially the corrupted form which was utilized by the Soviet Union, there are those that even now believe we are headed towards a Marxist revolution. Naturally conservatism deplores the notion of a Marxist revolution because it strikes at two of their most fundamental ideals; the right to property, and; a resistance to change.

In conclusion conservatism and liberalism are fundamentally different; they view man in a state of nature differently, thus they have inverted ideals about society and the role of government within that society meaning they have different social agendas. They have different objectives when it comes to government intervention in the economy and when the government is right to violate individual liberty. Despite this, the two ideologies need each other to evolve and expand for without both there is an upset in the balance resulting in either no change which would cause stagnation, or unchecked change abandoning the lessons of history.

The truly compassionate thing would be to actually help Becky directly. Maybe the daughter can offer to help with her studies to try to make them more productive, or offer a ride to and from school so she doesn't have to worry about commuting expenses. Maybe dad can assist Becky financially so she doesn't have to work so much. Maybe they can really care and act out compassion, instead of loudly complaining that other people are doing it for them.

True wisdom, Upper Cet. Helping others yourself is the thing to do; you, as an individual, shouldn't expect other people to do it; not the government, not the churches. Unfortunately, human beings are naturally selfish and greedy, and tend to rationalize this greed so they can live with themselves. So the government has to step in where the individual man fails to meet his obligation as a moral human being.

You re missing the point I have put forward. If you CAN work, you should, if you can;t make it by working to the best of your ability. you should be eligible for a govt program

This isn't economic conservativism, I would point out. True economic conservatism is based on laissez-faire economics, or as close as we can get in today's global economy. People are, to steal from NS, allowed to rise or fall based solely on their merits. What you're describing is the stance of the liberal [relatively speaking] Democratic Party of the United States; your "party of conservatives," the Republicans, are the ones indulging in the Military-Industrial Complex, giving out subsidies to corporations large and small that do not need [and sometimes never even spend!] them, and attempting to dismantle Social Security [note: see Latin America].

There is no party of true economic conservatism in America that holds any significant amount of power. Don't fool yourself. You're just a tool if you say otherwise.

P.S. I forgot. The reason why is because laissez-faire economics sucks for things that are alive.

You have the right to earn it yourself. No ones denying you from that.

Also, how is that Orwellian?

The flaw in the whole "I'm a conservative because I earn everything I own myself and don't expect handouts from no one" argument is that we're still going to have a government and that governments basic functions are going to decide how easy any given business are going to be.

If government would get off my back I could go into business tomorrow as a drug dealer. Whether you like it or not a governments job is to redistribute wealth.

It gets redistributed to pay for police, sanitation, road construction, etc.

Did the hypothetical businessman pay for the construction of the roads that customers use to arrive at his place of business, or did he rely on government "charity?"

If all of a sudden someone comes up with a way to make his business obsolete and this talented hard working man goes out of business through no fault of his own is his business failure natural selection?

everyone has an equal chance of getting anything done in life, it all depends on the effort you put into it. if your not willing to put any effort into life then you should just starve to death.
so what your saying is ...
George WIlkerson III Esquire born to an affluent family with his own stock portfolio at age eight had the exact same cahcne of making it in life as


Joe Snuffy born too a blue collar family wo barely keep the bills paid? But even he has it better than

John Dough Born to a crack whore who died shortly after he was born of an overdose ( or a million other scenarios that coudl lead to a kid becoming an orphan) and is raised by the state in the abysmal conditions that often foster career criminals?


lets rethink your logic for just a moment. WE will not even get into genetic potential dispairities as a nurture VS nature arguement woudl get off of the point.

This was an incident about being a economica conservative, welfare programs that people actually need, not because they are too lazy to work.

I am all for giving money for a single mom who is working two jobs and barely making ends meet. THat;s cool, but not for a crackwhore that can't stop squirting out babies.


Are that crack whores children any less in need??????

I just have to say: moderatly wealthy and ivy league don't match.

Wealthy beyond all belief and ivy league match.

My family is in the 'moderatly wealthy' class and here's what they can do for me next year: first year paid for, every year after that: 20,000 USD for school, post-grad not included.

Now, how can someone in my ranking possibly afford 45-50 K a year? You have to be very wealthy to do that.

Does this government program cover dyslexics? It makes it harder to succeed academically if you have a reading disability.
Does it cover victims of child abuse? Again, those who suffered child abuse often have social adjustment problems as well as low self esteem and thus are less likely to succeed in the real world.
Does this government program cover people whose parents were too poor to give them proper nutrition growing up and thus did not necessarily develop properly?
Does this government program cover people who either with aid from their parents or on their own, happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were unable to find sufficient work to put themselves through higher education and they did not qualify for loans because they had no credit rating?

I look at it this way, last year I needed a summer job. The only job I found that lasted me the entire summer was one that gave me 10 horus a week. I lucked out when an election was called and I worked for elections canada. At the end of the summer, one of the agencies I had applied to at the beginning of the summer called and said they found me work. Finding a job isn't always easy when you're relatively unskilled. I worked three different types of job last summer... food service, office work and manual labour... not everyone can do all of those and thus not everyone has as much chance at getting employed, let alone at a good job. Quite frankly, there aren't really enougn good jobs out there for everyone to end up succeeding... so even if everyone tried really hard, there would still be people unemployed and there would still be people in shitty jobs at mcdonalds.
on a further note if you ahve any kind of criminal record it is nearly impossibel to find a job even if that record has nothing to do with stealing or being a danger too potential customers/employees. All teh money we spend too rehabilitate those who are incarcerated only too make them second class citizens who cannot work. No wonder they go back to prison .

OF course the typical neocon shitbag woudl say " they buttered there bread now they can sleep in it". WEll thats fine and dandy but i ahve 2 questions for you.
1. How does that change the fact that what is done is done let these peopel get on with their lives?
2.What woudl Jesus ( yeah that guy you hypocrits invoke every other word) do in that situation?

Father: "welcome to the conservative party."


I don't know what the conservative are anymore.

The responses you have received are bs, frankly. So I'll comment on them.

I grew up in a poor house, with a liberal father. As I grew older, I held on to the liberal values that made sense (mostly social), and tossed the rest away. While I can understand the working class liberal, I don't understand their logic in that it's wrong to impose on one religiously/socially, but it's right to do it economically.

I didn't have any government helping hands, and I would have refused them. I made it with my own effort and mind; and I didn't make another man my slave. There's no way to go around that when it comes to politics. There's voluntary association, and there's force and slavery. Socialism and Fascism are just that. Any man that supports these ideas into action, is imply that he lacks the reason to influece others, and only his mob can influence you.

Their morality of force is so aptly described by hip-hop...as 'haters'. They hate to see someone successful on voluntary association. They don't understand that we don't need them. 'Oh but we make the labor.'...so, does that give you a right to threaten me with force? What makes you think that millions wouldn't want your position in life...your opportunities? Yet you squash it on your own 'mind-created morality of a better world.'


How much objective/non-partisan info do you have on these:

Economics
Banking

The two most critical things in society.

If you don't know enough, then shut the *uck up. Once you can convert your lame morality into mathematical proof, then open up to the world. The same goes to the religious freaks out there. I'm sick of you devils in disguise.

Liberals don't hate people who want to be successful. They just want people, like you, to realize that there are people who work and rely on government help. Don't get pissed off at Liberals. They're apart of the same governement that allows you to be "successful".

I'm just like Becky, I get drunk all the time and then wonder where my handout is.

Liberals don't hate people who want to be successful. They just want people, like you, to realize that there are people who work and rely on government help.
I wasn't targetting all liberals in general....

I don't think all liberals are that extreme, and some do have views on economics that make sense.

My father does make sense (generally), but in an odd way. Although as he's getting close to death, and he's slowly realizing how wasteful it is to debate.

I understand that there's people on government help (and I don't believe in just cutting people off), but I also think there's a few things that must be considered:

1)Is there a better way to do it?
2)Is it moral to steal wealth to do something good for another?
3)Is it mathematically correct, in the long-run?
4)Is it constitutionally legal?...American context of coarse.


Don't get pissed off at Liberals. They're apart of the same governement that allows you to be "successful".

They allowed me...lol. They had no part in it. I'm not pissed at 'Liberals'. I don't want ANYONE to bring their 'mind-created realities' into politics. Bring proof and reason.

I'm glad to hear that you don't have the views of an extreme consevtive. I do agree that there has to be a better way. Maybe healthcare instead of social security? Or universal education? A lot of people say it wil take someone's will to be the best they can be in their profession. But, from what I have heard it seems to be working quite well for Canada. :)

I'm just like Becky, I get drunk all the time and then wonder where my handout is.

Me too! And then I get high then have promiscuous sex.

Me too! And then I get high then have promiscuous sex.

I support my lifestyle by combining my welfare check with the money I get from selling my prescription narcotics.

I support my lifestyle by combining my welfare check with the money I get from selling my prescription narcotics.
Why do you think I'm studying medicine? :D

That's an interesting combination: narcotics, medical majors, promiscous sex, welfare checks...

That's an interesting combination: narcotics, medical majors, promiscous sex, welfare checks....

And now that you've read the propaganda, here's how things happen in the REAL world:

father: "But this money sent you to college."

daughter: " i know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "I have a 4.0, because I use your money to pay some of my friends to do all my work for me. They need the money to get themselves through college, you see. Meanwhile, I go to parties and enjoy myself."

Father: "how is your friend becky doing?"

daughter: "she is working her heart out, but she only has a 2.0, because she also has to work a part-time job to pay for college."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "What are you crazy? I'm better than Becky; I deserve higher grades. It's not my fault that silly bitch can't cheat like I do."

Father: "welcome to the conservative party."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply put, conservatism is based on the idiotic and naive belief that the rich are actually hard-working and the poor are lazy (a modern version of the old myth that the aristocracy was "better" than the common people). In reality, it's the other way around: poor workers are the ones who work their hearts out to support the rich, and capitalism is nowhere near a meritocracy. (a meritocracy is logically impossible, since "merit" cannot be objectively measured)

You couldn't have said it better Constantinopolis. :)

And now that you've read the propaganda, here's how things happen in the REAL world:

father: "But this money sent you to college."

daughter: " i know, but it is wrong, redistribute it."

father (seemingly changing gears): How are your grades?

Daughter: "I have a 4.0, because I use your money to pay some of my friends to do all my work for me. They need the money to get themselves through college, you see. Meanwhile, I go to parties and enjoy myself."

Father: "how is your friend becky doing?"

daughter: "she is working her heart out, but she only has a 2.0, because she also has to work a part-time job to pay for college."

Father: "okay, why dont;t you go talk to the dean of students and try to convince him to give becky one of your grade points so you both have the same?"

Daughter: "What are you crazy? I'm better than Becky; I deserve higher grades. It's not my fault that silly bitch can't cheat like I do."

Father: "welcome to the conservative party."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply put, conservatism is based on the idiotic and naive belief that the rich are actually hard-working and the poor are lazy (a modern version of the old myth that the aristocracy was "better" than the common people). In reality, it's the other way around: poor workers are the ones who work their hearts out to support the rich, and capitalism is nowhere near a meritocracy. (a meritocracy is logically impossible, since "merit" cannot be objectively measured)

as untrue, ignorant, ludicrously overgeneralized, and bigoted as the first post of the thread. congrats, you just provided further evidence that the liberal-versus-conservative squabbling is like a school yard fight between tantrum-throwing 5 year olds.

but hey, he started it! right?

I'm glad to hear that you don't have the views of an extreme consevtive. I do agree that there has to be a better way. Maybe healthcare instead of social security? Or universal education? A lot of people say it wil take someone's will to be the best they can be in their profession. But, from what I have heard it seems to be working quite well for Canada. :)

That's because I'm a leaning-libertarian. I didn't even know what libertarian meant when I first felt that way.

In Canada, you have to work 18 years of your life to pay off the taxes you'll owe in your lifetime. So if you start working at 20, you'll be free by 38. Get going Canadians.