Replies

A-ha. I think this is a big difference between conservatives and progressives. We simply can't accept that kind of Darwinism in society. We have to safeguard those at the bottom. To us it's the difference between civilization and the law of the jungle.

Which reminds me: I've read "nature" a couple of times in this thread. Perhaps conservatives prefer some sort of survival of the fittest. letting the poor fizzle out in order to achieve a better society. Progressives would prefer to bring the poor up a level or two, at the expense of those at the top, and in that way, create a better world.

Again, they both have their plusses and minusses. Who is "right?" Good question.

Progressives would prefer to bring the poor up a level or two, at the expense of those at the top, and in that way, create a better world

Read "The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell.

You're one of 'em.

A-ha. I think this is a big difference between conservatives and progressives. We simply can't accept that kind of Darwinism in society. We have to safeguard those at the bottom. To us it's the difference between civilization and the law of the jungle. . . . Perhaps conservatives prefer some sort of survival of the fittest. letting the poor fizzle out in order to achieve a better society. Progressives would prefer to bring the poor up a level or two, at the expense of those at the top, and in that way, create a better world.

You have misunderstood conservatives and conservatism. Few if any of us advocate the "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest," as you aver. Most of us believe we have a responsibility to care for the weak, the sick, and the poor.

However, we do not believe that government is the best tool for meeting the needs of the poor.

Grand schemes to achieve equality at the expense of liberty result in societies that are neither equal nor free. One need only look at the bloody history of the last century to see that this is so.

Part of the problem with government versus private charity is that people involved in these systms of wealth transfer don't see themselves a being helped by someone who wants to help them; but they view help given them as something that just happens as part of the system. And those providing the help are simply cogs in the machine.

In short it's dehumanizing.

Then I guess you're one of the majority of Americans who are afraid of freedom.

I believe simply that a person is not entitled to consume more than he or she produces. If a person cannot afford housing, he can sleep in the street. If a person cannot eat, he can go hungry. This is the only motivation that can drive people into actually working/learning to be productive members of society. If welfare programs actually worked, then the past 50 years of them in this country would have eliminated the problems, right? The war on poverty is a failure, and so is socialism in all forms. Why don't liberals accept this as true? It's been tried time and again, and it always fails.