jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (53 posts)

Conservatives are for small government? Yeah, sure.

  1. innersmiff profile image78
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Modern conservatives claim that their ideology rests on these principles: individual liberty, small government, fiscal conservatism, a strong national defence and the rule of law. I'd just like to focus on the small government part, seeing as that may as well not be in there considering the policies conservatives advocate. And with that, individual liberty and fiscal conservatism can go as well, but that's beside the point.

    Modern conservatives, or neo-cons, are so statist these days that they simply provide a different flavour of leftism rather than a real ideological alternative.

    They all seem to be in favour of medicare and medicaid, social security - in the UK, they're all fundamental supporters of the NHS. These are all massive government programs.

    They are all in favour of the police state - grabbing the 'terrorists'  by any means necessary, even if that means violating individual liberty. This incentivises government growth.

    They more or less subscribe to the Keynesian dictum that government spending drives the economy. This incentivises government growth.

    They support any government program that supports their views on drugs, prostitution, sexual behaviour and religion.

    And finally they support military interventionism abroad, everywhere. This, above all things, incentivises government growth.

    Is there anything to conclude but that conservatism is a non-ideology?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Would that be the same Conservative party that is intent on destroying the NHS?

      BTW, have you heard that the Royal Mail is finally being privatised?

      Though I do agree that Conservatives are not for small government, look at the powers Thatcher took into government control.

      1. innersmiff profile image78
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The NHS doesn't need any help from the Tories, it is unsustainable, and we're beginning to see that now. I bet if you ask every single Tory you'll find that 90% are fundamentally in favour, even if they want it cut.

        Yes, I heard. Good.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why is it unsustainable?  Our health service costs a little more than half the American system and covers everybody, not just the ones who can afford it. Again, why is it unsustainable?

          Why are you so pleased that so many people are going to be put out of work and business?

          1. innersmiff profile image78
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            With reduced incentive to keep healthy, people become dependent, thus requiring the state to spend more on healthcare. At some point you run out of other people's money and it goes belly-up. It's no surprise.

            It's inevitable jobs were going to be lost considering our reduced reliance on the postal service for communication. Those people should be put back to productive work in the market, but thanks to the government this is not a certainty.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If that were true privatized care would cost less. Instead it is significantly more expensive. The cost under a private system in the US was more than twice the cost of the NHS  for example and the UK has the most expensive public healthcare system in the world compare it with say Australia and the cost is like a quarter.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why?  Why is it more expensive?

                Is a sum equal to 8 times the per person cost of medical care in Australia going to insurance companies in the US as profit? 

                Compared to the UK, does Australia pay their doctors and nurses a pittance, insufficient to live on?  Are the hospitals wooden shacks, ready to fall down?  Do the Aussies not have modern equipment - no MRI, no CAT scan, etc.?  Do the Aussies refuse long term care - radiation for cancer, maybe?  Do they refuse expensive care - no heart transplants or saving a 6 month preemie?  Where does the other 3/4 of the money go in the UK?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Considering that Australia has better life expectancies on life and all treatments except for cancer obviously it's not from lower quality care. Australia does pay it's doctors significantly less, they are still very high earners but not to the same extent as in the US, on the other hand doctors in Australia have higher job satisfaction so it can't be too bad.

                  Obviously there is also the profit margin not just on treatment but also on pharmaceuticals, most crucially is the fact that Australians go to the doctor much more often because it's very cheap/free depending on your income and that makes prevention easier and prevention or early treatment is MUCH cheaper than late treatment or cure. It also means that doctors can play an active role in keeping their patients healthy throughout their lives through treatment and advice which again is cheaper.

                  etc.

                  PS: In case I was not clear the Australian system is slightly more than a quarter of the American system in cost.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I did misunderstand that the Aussies are 1/4 the cost of the US; I thought you meant 1/4 the cost of the UK.

                    Cost of doctors; outside of top specialists (and private practice plastic surgeons no doubt) most doctors aren't getting rich in the US.  I don't think you could cut their income by very much and still have doctors around.

                    There is no profit on the care itself, but if the Aussies aren't making a profit on drugs, they aren't producing many new ones.  That's where the cost is, not in making a pill, and without a profit drug companies can't do the research to find drugs.  Not, anyway, under testing requirements in the US - do the Aussies not require stringent testing?

                    Preventive care will absolutely cut costs, even as it requires lots more doctors; doctors you say aren't paid much.  It takes a LOT more physician time to see and counsel someone twice a year for life than to, say, replace a heart ruined by smoking.  But because of that, costs aren't going to be cut by anywhere near a factor of 4 by providing quality preventative care.

                    I think you're swallowing the "estimates" of Obamacare - the only way the US could ever cut its medical care costs by a factor of 4 is to reduce the care, not double (or quadruple as people are expecting) it.   That and the claims from governments; I tend to take the accounts from patients that end up in the US because they can't get the care they need at any cost as at least as indicative of the true status of health care as government claims.

              2. innersmiff profile image78
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The US hasn't had a private system of healthcare for nigh-on 80 years. Even before Obamacare, it was one of the most regulated, subsidised and fettered with industries in the country.

                Health fraternal societies however, were paid for with a week's wages for a year, before they were essentially banned thanks to doctor license-ship.

            2. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then how come the general health of the nation has improved since the formation of the NHS?
              And who are these "other people" that are paying for the NHS - the French perhaps!



              Well it's heartening to know that you think I'm not engaged in productive work! What is it that you do exactly?

              By the way, Royal Mail posted greatly improved profits for last year, not bad for reduced reliance. In fact it is many years since RM made a loss, although the bottom line isn't the be all and end all of a public service.

              1. innersmiff profile image78
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The general health of the nation was improving before the NHS too, thanks to the joys of the market making medicine cheaper and more abundant. It continued under the NHS but we've hit a kind of wall where people have been born under it and know that almost any health problem can be solved for free. Of course other people are paying for it. If it was true that we all got together and chipped in, it would not be necessary to enforce taxation. Let's call it what it is: healthcare funded by theft.

                Is it or is it not true that there has been less reliance on the postal service since the expansion of the internet and email? A business can still be profitable whilst being too expensive, especially in a statist system where it's hard to know whether you're providing a real service. In a free-market, you know you're providing a public service if it is profitable.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I contest your claim that the nations health was improving as rapidly before the NHS as it has since.

                  And who are these other people who are paying for it? We all benefit and we all pay, even little kiddies spending their £1 pocket money pay.

                  Is car insurance protection by theft? Everybody who drives has to have it.

                  No, it is not true that there is less reliance on the postal service since the expansion of the internet and e mail. The pattern of use has changed but it is only in recent years when the postman has had to start using a hand cart to carry his daily walk - many fewer letters, but many more packages.

                  As for knowing that you are providing a public service if you are profitable, I take it you think drug dealers and con men and the like are providing a valuable public service!

                  1. innersmiff profile image78
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Here's government statistics:
                    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm … 99-111.pdf
                    Use Crtl + F to find 'Infant Mortality' and you'll see that from 1900 to 1950, infant mortality dropped from 140 deaths per thousand to around 30, and from 1950 to around 2000 it dropped to around 10. The NHS was founded in 1948. In your universe, what magical force allowed this astonishing increase in the health of the populace without a government health service in place?

                    John, if taxation is enforced, that is proof in and of itself that there are some people that would not pay it otherwise. These are the 'other people'.

                    So what is your explanation for the privatisation of the post office?

                    Yes, drug dealers do provide a valuable public service. Drugs are valuable to many people, and drug dealers supply them. Con men are not free-marketers.

    2. HollieT profile image88
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They are all in favour of the police state - grabbing the 'terrorists'  by any means necessary, even if that means violating individual liberty. This incentivises government growth.

      It incentives private sector growth. They get the contracts, your beloved freemarketeers!

      1. innersmiff profile image78
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is fascism, not the free market. The free market is not made so by the presence of some private businesses with special government privileges. The free market is absolute respect for property right and competition.

        1. HollieT profile image88
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You appear to view the "free market" as some form of entity which is above mere mortals. The free market is made of individual men and women, each with flaws and also an agenda. The agenda is profit, that's it.

          Perhaps when you view the free market for what it is; a collective of individuals with one aim, you'll be more realistic. Free marketeers are not morally superior to govt. reps or private enterprise.

          1. innersmiff profile image78
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't at all. The 'free-market' is no entity, but a state in which property rights are largely respected, and is made up of voluntary transaction only. That's all it is.

            But your point about self-interest is exactly the point I try to make to statists: what makes you think politicians are more altruistic than the average person? The truth is that individuals are largely out for their self-interest, so we have to create a system that makes self-interest beneficial to society rather than a detriment. Government, as a monopoly of aggression, makes that self-interest more dangerous than the market ever would. In the market, individuals have to provide for consumers in order to survive and thrive.

            Think about it. Businesses cannot, by themselves, regulate smaller businesses out of the market, declare war for resources, force people to buy their products and ban competing substances/products to get an advantage. At the moment, all they need to do is lobby the government to do that for them. With no government to lobby, advantage can only come from making better products and services that consumers willingly buy. And what's wrong with that?

            Leftists are all about reducing corporate power, but have little to no interest in cutting government. Why not? You'll be surprised how much you have issue with is down to government enforced corporate privileges. The free-market does not produce corporate subsidies, enforced monopolies, bail-outs and large-scale wars of aggression that only benefits the munitions industry. Why is that? Simply because most people don't want that, and therefore there is no market for businesses to exploit. Only by force can they succeed in this regard.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do you never take any notice of what I, and many others, say?

              1. innersmiff profile image78
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You claim that you're not about big government, but are in favour of every regulation under the sun, central banking, government healthcare, education and military. I'm afraid that means you are for big government.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As I thought, you haven't read a word I've written.

                  I'm opposed to central banking, credit unions would be fine by me.
                  I'm for state education, an educated nation is far less open to exploitation.
                  Military should be used for national defence only, not offence.

                  I am for government by the people which is the opposite of big government.

                  1. innersmiff profile image78
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's right, Josak is the one who wants central banking.

                    Other than that, my point stands. State education, state healthcare and state military require big government to function, there's no way around that.

            2. HollieT profile image88
              HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't at all. The 'free-market' is no entity, but a state in which property rights are largely respected, and is made up of voluntary transaction only. That's all it is.

              But your point about self-interest is exactly the point I try to make to statists: what makes you think politicians are more altruistic than the average person? The truth is that individuals are largely out for their self-interest, so we have to create a system that makes self-interest beneficial to society rather than a detriment. Government, as a monopoly of aggression, makes that self-interest more dangerous than the market ever would.

              The free market is made up of individuals! What makes you think that the free market are more altruistic than govt, or the average person? Because you clearly do, you believe that the free market should have free reign without any restrictions whatsoever, and we should trust implicitly this "state"

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      For crying out loud is everyone really that blinkered.
      Playing the partisan game is fun and all but it genuinely seems like people don't understand the other side at all.

      Libertarianism says it wants liberty and freedom, the truth is every single major system (before being corrupted anyway) strives for exactly that. The question is what provides more freedom.

      Anarchists believe that liberty is achieved by having no oppressive non voluntary state, however states with such oppressive governments can easily overwhelm them militarily due to their superior military machine and can enslave or simply oppress the conquered people thus no liberty and the breakdown of law is a serious concern for liberty in an anarchic system as proven by many small and larger scale example throughout history. The person being murdered or raped has no liberty

      Libertarians claim that most freedom is achieved by having a state to manage the military, the legal system and other such essentials but nothing else with a minimum of the tyranny of taxation. However this system has several problems, first it actually doesn't fix that problem since corrupting a military or police force is very achievable and from the force they wield total tyranny is possible. Second because of the disadvantaged, the child born into an incredibly poor family who is given up at birth with no state system to support it has no freedom either, in such systems children are given to private charities who raise them past infancy and then there is nothing to do, they end up street children and rarely live past the age of twelve. I was born into exactly that situation and was saved from such a fate only by the opening of a state funded orphanage, the child dying at twelve on the street certainly has no liberty.

      To address that problem we get Conservatism, it argues that the state should do what the libertarians state does plus also look after children, schools and also provide some moral legislation on who people can marry etc. but keep the tyranny of taxation to an otherwise minimum. This now has a tax burden which is a pretty hefty burden on the idea of liberty, it still has problems with the lack of liberty for the poor (in as for example it's hard for a poor person to get through college in such a system) and now it has the problem of an oppressive state that legislates morality.

      Skip all the way to socialism

      Socialism attempts to achieve liberty by creating equal opportunity and removing the lack of freedom that is generally borne by those born poor, no one starves, medical bills are cared for so no one becomes subject to the tyranny of a disease and generally people have a lot more freedom on what to do with their lives in the main (as in it's easy to go to the free college where accommodation and food are paid for etc. and even a very poor person can quite easily become say a doctor.) But Socialism still has the taxation problem and it's larger state has a perhaps greater chance of becoming tyrannous (although all of these states do since they control force ie. police and military.).

      All of these systems attempt (amongst other things) to create freedom and liberty and all do but with problems that also limit liberty, which has been the most successful? Well I am sure everyone will have different opinions and proofs on that and there is no solid answer.

      So there is no ideology of freedom or liberty and conservatism is n ideology of midling government, with the aim of creating the greatest liberty, on a relative scale it's neither big nor small.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    They also believe that only the rich are people, and they alone should have nice things.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, this is exactly what we believe.  Exactly!  LOL

      1. innersmiff profile image78
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'd honestly like to hear your retort.

        As well as Wilderness' - WHERE ARE YOUUUUU

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "They also believe that only the rich are people, and they alone should have nice things."

          Your statement is an extremist's stereotype, assuming only wealthy people are conservative or that poor conservatives look down upon themselves.  Would you care to provide a source, or shall we file this in the opinion column?

          Jack Cafferty, of CNN, bashed republicans by saying that most of the poorest 10 states voted   republican in the last presidential election.  Why would the voters within these states believe that they are not people and that they should not have nice things?  Your statement is ridiculous at best.

          I'm a conservative republican who is not rich.  I'm a teacher.   I believe I deserve nice things, and the last time I looked, I was a person.  What are you thinking?

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I hate to break it to you, but you've been trained by the Religious Right to vote against your own best interests.

            If you're not rich, why would you vote for the party that backs only the rich?
            If you believe you deserve nice things, why would you vote for the party that constantly places the tax burden on you--the middle class--instead of onto the rich, who can afford to bear that burden?
            If you are, indeed, a person, why would you vote for the party that tries to tear away your freedom of speech, your freedom from self-incrimination, your freedom of privacy, and your freedom of expression?

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your argument is ludicrous.  Shall I tell you that you have been trained by the Lazy Left.  They want wealth redistribution for doing nothing.

              No, I did not get trained.  Republicans and conservatives do not need to be re-educated.  Nice try.

              Obama doesn't place the tax burden on the middle class?   Yeah, right.  Both republicans and democrats place the burden on the middle class. 

              Neither side seems too interested in freedom of speech, privacy, and expression.  Don't put the blame on one side.  Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act.  He flies drones over his own people, and has a kill list with Americans on it.  I bet the press really feels its freedom of speech is safe.  Remember the AP scandal?  Neither democrats nor republicans can claim their side is really great when it comes to protecting first-amendment rights.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Your training is through and complete.

                1. 61
                  Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And correct!

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, but I see your training is well on too.

                2. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, coming from a socialist, thanks comrade.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    At least get the terms right, comrade is the communist term, socialists call each other brother and sister.

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Republicans don't need to be re-educated because most of them haven't had an education to begin with

                *Bazinga*

                Oh and remember when a reporter went to jail during Bush's watch? Makes the AP scandal look like an interesting story by comparison.

                1. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The funniest part of your "joke" is when you used "bazinga."  If you have to have a cue to tell people it's a joke, it probably wasn't that funny in the first place.  Still, "bazinga" is funny.

                  Yeah, I don't remember the Bush incident.  IF it happened under Bush, it wasn't right then either.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I thought it was funny

 
working