Hacker News Reader

Comment by xupybd | Hacker News Reader

As a conservative I disagree with you entirely. In the eyes of the state all should be equal, any situation that exposes they're not treated as equal should be addressed.

It is true that most on the right don't desire equal outcomes for all but equal opportunities. That doesn't mean some have a divine right to a better life. It simply means we want to reward the most talented, hard working and advantaged because doing so results in a more productive society. But there is a balance to make sure all the wealth doesn't end up in their hands.

View on HN

Your definition of conservatism is at odds with reality. Rich people are actively trying to live their lives with minimum effort, so it is hard to argue that they are the most talented. Poor people have a hard time making their freedoms worth anything, and they're not been helped by any conservative. The main problem here is that conservative reasoning is circular: if you're rich you must in some way deserve it (explanations will be made for sure), and if you deserve you need to keep the wealth.

You're describing society at large. This has nothing to due with "conservatism".

Of course, conservative means to "conserve" the way things traditionally work.

Conservative != Conservatism. Conservatism is the dominate ideology the U.S. was founded on: you get no representation or political participation unless you're a man + white + own land. That is landed elite aristocracy, straight from old Europe. Not news.

A more recent example of Conservatism is Nixon's southern strategy as told by Lee Atwater in 1981. Today's Republican party is the same as that. No matter how you cut it, the Republican party is the political branch of neofeudalism. That is it's entire history: conserve the fact that classism is good and should be preserved, we do not serve the broader public.

Senator Grassley: Ending Estate Tax Recognizes Investors Over Spenders.

Republicans want to preserve the aristocracy they represent. That's the sole charge of the party. Liberalism fears aristocracy, it breeds contempt and unfairness in civil society, and its prevention with a simple and unavoidable tax is how a civil society is preserved.

The very fact you think there is a balance to make sure aristocrats don't end up with all the marbles suggests a distinctly Liberal perspective. That would never fly in Conservatism. You're simply confused about the meaning of these words - this is basic political science so if you haven't had that, you wouldn't know it, but if you've had even a year of undergraduate study you'd know it. It's pathetic we don't teach this stuff in grade school but it's too "political" hilariously enough, so most elected school boards in the country end up requiring the teaching of selective patriotic propaganda bullshit, rather than basic political philosophy and history.

I'm not confused about the meaning of these words, I am a conservative but peoples political leanings don't exactly fit within those definitions. But my views are representative of many conservatives.

You're not a conservative. You're either a classical liberal or a libertarian. Conservative means preserving the status quo at all costs. The rich in America do not desire equal opportunity, if they did, they wouldn't support anything short of a 100% tax on inheritance (I know that's unreasonable) and an inability to start life in debt. It's not reasonable to think that the rich should give up all their money, nor is it reasonable to think that our current system is in any way fair. Capitalism is highly biased towards those with wealth staying in wealth. It's why even though there are a lot of very well paid coders, there aren't that many people who are making it from coding to the top 10% of the income pool. It's hard for even the best and brightest to break through.

No, he's describing conservatism (at least the U.S. variation) which is largely classical liberalism. It does not mean "preserving the status quo at all costs".

> No, he's describing conservatism (at least the U.S. variation) which is largely classical liberalism.

US conservatism is not classical liberalism. It's classical conservatism in the context where the the established elites are the products of capitalist politico-economic systems rather than pre-capitalist ones.

Like classical conservatism, and unlike classical liberalism, it rejects secular rationality and empiricism and relies on appeals to nationalism, ancient religious tradition, and authority figures to protect the interests of the established elites.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com