Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahtihn | Hacker News Reader

I've never seen anyone else define conservative vs liberals like that. Conservatives aren't against rules, they are against changing rules.

Why are conservatives against abortion, gay marriage and drug legalisation if they don't want to be told what they can do on their "own 200 acre farm". All those issues are about enforcing a worldview on others.

View on HN

This is the general perspective on conservatives and I agree with the sentiment. If you extrapolate this out, people who live happily in rural areas do not want someone (government) to tell them about new changes. Small government and less regulation is a big part of their ethos.

"All those issues are about enforcing a worldview on others."

This seems to apply to everyone involved. Liberals want to impose their worldview on others just as much as conservatives. I think that's ok. We all want to pursue what is best.

> Conservatives aren't against rules, they are against changing rules.

That doesn’t ring true to me. Both liberals and conservatives want to change and preserve rules according to their viewpoints.

Conservatives want to change rules to get back to their view of what was good about the past. Liberals want to change the rules according to their view of what should be good about the future.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect"

https://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/12/frank-wilhoit-the-tr...

That is not the definition or description of "conservativism". That is a strawman.

This seems like a bizarre definition. As someone who would accept a label of "conservative", and growing up and living in a world of mostly "conservative" people, I struggle to think of a single such person who wouldn't be appalled to find out they they were living under a single such law, let alone many such laws.

Could you be so kind as to identify even a single instance of such a law?

It's possible to craft laws that don't explicitly fail to bind one group, but do in practice. Other times, it's more explicit.

A recent example of the former would be some of the voting security laws that have been popular lately. A recent example of the latter would be disparities in crack vs. cocaine sentencing (I think this is no longer the case? God, I hope not. But was not that long ago) and that's just the de jure part—in all cases, the de facto enforcement is what matters.

Historical examples abound, obviously.

[EDIT] another example is mentioned by someone else in this thread, as abortion laws, but it's worth noting why those are an example: the rich never have trouble obtaining abortions, and there's a history of pro-life advocates doing so when they "need" to, for themselves or for family members (I'm sure their case is different, of course eyeroll). In fact a major factor in the Republican legislature of New York passing early abortion rights laws was precisely this disparity, which was that anti-abortion laws in effect only existed for the poor.

Nearly any instance of a cop interacting with a black man compared to interacting with a white man.

The law isn’t like to explicitly favor one group over another, but the the systems of law have shown they do favor one group over another.

"The law" in gp's quote is not referring to codified (abstract) laws, but rather their application in reality. To wit: we refer to police officers as "the law" because they represent, and wield, the law, and in the moment it doesn't matter what the codes say, the living breathing officer ("of the law") takes precedence.

You need to broaden your view from American political culture. Conservatives exist in many different types of governments and many different cultures. This explanation makes no sense.

The rules on abortion have been around for decades.

Conservatives seemed pretty dead-set on changing them.

Pretty sure it goes deeper than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com