[Logophile]

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.

[shakeup]

OK, one wee reply...


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


Fair enough. Though I think that there are probably areas in which the government is better, and other areas where the market is better. I say use the best tool for the job!



"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."


Right. But I'm not talking about any grand scheme here, just comparatively little things like nationalized health care, welfare, free education, etc. I don't think anything like that has ever started a war.



Now off to bed... Good night.