“We're staunch defenders of individual rights,,,” Points up the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives certainly believe in individual natural rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) but also believe any rights beyond these three come with significant individual RESPONSIBILITIES attached - responsibi…
“We're staunch defenders of individual rights,,,” Points up the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives certainly believe in individual natural rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) but also believe any rights beyond these three come with significant individual RESPONSIBILITIES attached - responsibilities which you cannot assign to others. Medical care is not a right, for example, because as soon as you make it so, you make the person required to provide it into a slave. Many other examples exist.
Agreed! Social programs absolutely limit individual freedoms. They are compromises with risks and benefits. It's our responsibility to decide which ones are ultimately beneficial.
My point is social “programs” also limit individual responsibilities. (I don’t need to give it to charity… Government will do it). This effect is corrosive on humanity and eventually destroys society. Therefore, social programs need to be extremely limited.
People who rely on the government to replace their charitable giving are more than happy to vote to raise taxes on others to pay for it. When I point out that is not the same as giving yourself, it is virtue signaling with other people's money, they get angry.
“We're staunch defenders of individual rights,,,” Points up the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives certainly believe in individual natural rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) but also believe any rights beyond these three come with significant individual RESPONSIBILITIES attached - responsibilities which you cannot assign to others. Medical care is not a right, for example, because as soon as you make it so, you make the person required to provide it into a slave. Many other examples exist.
Agreed! Social programs absolutely limit individual freedoms. They are compromises with risks and benefits. It's our responsibility to decide which ones are ultimately beneficial.
My point is social “programs” also limit individual responsibilities. (I don’t need to give it to charity… Government will do it). This effect is corrosive on humanity and eventually destroys society. Therefore, social programs need to be extremely limited.
The be honest I think we'd all be better off without most of them.
People who rely on the government to replace their charitable giving are more than happy to vote to raise taxes on others to pay for it. When I point out that is not the same as giving yourself, it is virtue signaling with other people's money, they get angry.