Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
It has happened, in cases like that of Ted Haggard. These few cases of a conservative who is anti-gay and actively homosexual (hypocrite) are conflated with cases of conservatives who are gay and do not advocate for "gay rights" as liberals see them. I am drawing a distinction between the two because of this.
Ah. Valid point then. It wasn't clear from your initial post.
Quote:
Certainly, the conservative position is that enlightened self interest, working unhindered in a free-market system, is preferable to government meddling, but this hardly equates to a condemnation of altruism, as many conservative advocate giving to charity and believe doing so helps people. The contention is that forced giving - that is, government taking - does not help as much, as monolithic and unwieldy bureaucracy that can be as inefficient as it wants, as it has no competition and cannot fall, and the harm it does do, depriving people of their freedom, is greater than any good it does do.
Precisely. Government imposes and is not judged based on direct effect, but rather public opinion. If I invest money in something that no one wants to buy, my investment will fail and I'll lose money. But if I don 't invest in anything, I wont be able to increase my wealth. Thus, my selfish desire to earn money encourages me to both invest and to invest wisely. Assuming the market isn't rigged in some way (ie: no government stepping in to provide rewards to industries which produce less value then they gain), a wise investment gains money because it produces some new or better product or service. And it often results in employment along the way. My selfishness not only helps me, and is directed towards fruitful actions, but tends to help others as well.
If I'm poor, I might support a government program designed to provide me with financial assistance. I will do this because right now, it benefits me more to have the program than to not have the program. However, in order to pay for the program, the government has to take the money from some other portion of the economy, presumably the same portion which might have employed me. Thus, my selfishness ends out harming my long term outcomes. Worse, even if I realize it and decide to oppose such things, most of the people around me will continue to support programs which benefit them. This effect is made worse when there are many different groups all competing for the same limited government funding. If I don't support the program which benefits me, that money taxed from a potential future employer will still be spent, but perhaps on something which doesn't benefit me directly. So I'll fight to get my share, and everyone else in need will as well. The net result of this is harmful to everyone.