We're all in this together!

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

It is logically sound just in the same way that it is logically sound to state liberals (leftists in general) are thieves who steal money since technically the money we earn is our property. The problem with both arguments is its framing. Every political philosophy has its positive and negative aspects and how you view a philosophy largely depends on you personally look at it. So yes, we can look at the glass half empty and assume that the mindset associated with economic conservatism is selfish and be logically sound. Yet, that only paints half the picture. The other half is looking at economic conservatism from another way. Some people truly believe that the best way to help someone is to let them accomplish something themselves. Give a someone a rod and not a fish type mindset. This, I am the first to admit, has pitfalls but it also makes a lot of sense in many other situations. Helping people can create dependencies and there is some truth to the idea that if we let everyone on the boat, everyone drowns.

People with those of mindsets are not necessarily selfish people. Some of these are the most giving people but they would rather give on their own accord and not have government intervention.

Yeah, I agree. While I find conservatism, especially in its least compromising iterations - think Ayn Rand - more or less reprehensible, I understand that there are definitely respectable groundings of the philosophy. That's sort of what I meant by logically sound - you can defend the position logically, but not necessarily while accurately doing the other side justice. That's why I tend to stay away from attacking conservative ideology - I take after my utter idol Rachel Maddow in trying to make it a conversation about POLICY, and INSTITUTIONS, and all of that sort of stuff, without necessarily making the conversation about the foundations of the ideology.

[infinite monkey]

Right, and we weren't talking about the Joe Bob with a Job family down the street who have an inground pool.

At least I wasn't: I mean the "have to get more more more more more and don't care about your less less less less less." It's a sickness, and it's detrimental to more than just the sickie.

But those who consider themselves 1% (though really only the 40 or 50%, which is pretty funny) love to twist it around that we're all envious of Joe Bob with a Job for having that pool.

How's that twisty-turny Thing working Out for you, merc?

[Blueflare]

I think saying people who hold the views discussed above are sociopathic is to go too far. I think it's misguided and based on high-minded notions with no relevance to reality, but then so are most political beliefs.
There is one main problem with the attitude that if people want to be rich, then they should work hard, and if they are poor, then clearly they just didn't try hard enough.
Pretty much anyone can do it, if they try really hard. Margaret Thatcher came from a humble background. However, saying that anyone can do it isn't the same as saying that everyone can do it. Because that is obviously not the case. Some people will always be poor. Not everyone gets to come first in a race as long as they run as fast as they can.
This is what I think a lot of privileged people fail to grasp. Who exactly do they think will come round to clean their house if everybody lifts themselves up from the bottom? It's simply impossible.
Therefore, there will always need to be something provided for the poorest people, so they are not living in poverty.