Conservatives, for what reason exactly are you against social services for minorities?

[Anonymous]

I was once a liberal and I could not understand why anyone would be against social services for minorities.

I simply assumed that conservatives merely hated those people. And I'm sure that is exactly what liberals still believe today.

As of today I am no longer a liberal. I no longer believe in the government intervening in every little thing. I believe in a limited government.

And I have very good reasons for that. But when a liberal sees someone being against social services, they have only one choice, to believe it is racially motivated.

However I have taken a libertarian view. Which I have seen is drastically different than the conservative view.

Conservatives will say things like "mcdonalds workers don't deserve to make 15 and hour. They can't even get my order right!"

Is that an idea you agree with?

[AviatorTom]

To make it clear, I'm middle-of-the-road with some conservative beliefs. One of them deals with social services. I am not against social services per se. What I am against is social services that provide no incentive to change, and those that reward the status quo.

[Asker]

What is an example of a form of social service that helps people but also gets them to change and in what ways would they change?

[AviatorTom]

Example #1: Government-funded child support for single women who have children. There are reports of many teen girls having multiple children just to get free child support. That's wrong.

Example #2: Long-term unemployment benefits that encourage the recipient to just stay out of work rather then find a job. That's wrong.

[Asker]

I mean to say how would you structure the social program so that it helps people and also gets them to make a change. And what changes are those that they would make exactly?

[AviatorTom]

IMHO, effective social programs require the recipient to do somethign to earn the benefits of the program. In my example #2, limit unemployment to 6 months, no longer, and require the recipient to actively search for a job they are qualified for in order to get their monthly check.

[exitseven]

Giving people more welfare benefits for having more illegitimate kids is what started this whole mess. You stop rewarding bad behavior and you will have less bad behavior.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Asker]

It gave it to you automatically. I think your comment is bad sorry.

[exitseven]

It is a. bad but true. Bad because of the way the welfare system was devised. It was set up to create a whole underclass of people who will be dependent on the government. They will always vote for democrats

[Asker]

That is true lol.

My question is how do you think it should be structured? I've seen some conservstives say they are OK with welfare as long as it works a certain way.

[exitseven]

There should be a time limit to collect welfare. The state can provide job training and other programs but after two years they are cut off. Everyone gets a fixed mount and having more kids does not mean more benefits.

[gorydetails]

How do you see the libertarian view vs. the conservative view as different?

[Asker]

I don't know what the conservative view on economics is.

They seem to somewhat claim to be pro free markets. But don't seem to understand the nature of rights and how they would work in a free market.

For example, conservstives were trying to have laws put in place preventing businesses from requiring a mask to enter the building.

That is THEIR business. They own it. They Get to do what they want with it in a free society. That is not an infringement on your rights.

Conservatives have a warped view of what anything free market related is.

I think that conservatives only adopted the free market perspective in order to fight against the liberals.

A real free market perspective is not compatible with conservative beliefs.

Conservatives believe in government intervention in order to enforce morality. It is the same whether liberal or conservative.

A libertarian view is really a radical view. It advocates for a market separated from the state.

That is not reconcilable with conservative views. That is a radical liberal idea. It is not left nor right, it is radically libertarian.

And those ideas are not compatible with any kind of authoritarian perspective.

[gorydetails]

That's not really related to "social services". But let's investigate your example. Requiring a mask is a violation of a person's body autonomy. Your "libertarian" view puts the power in a corporation's hands, not an individual's. If you follow that policy as a principle, there's no limit to what a corporation can do to you because it's "their business". Should a business be able to violate your 4th amendment rights?

Free markets are absolutely key to a free people, but there has to be a checks and balances to it.

[Asker]

You asked me what the difference between conservative and libertarian views are.

And you got it exactly right. Conservatives and libertarians do not believe the same thing.

Conservatives do not even understand the libertarian view.

No a business is not allowed to violate your rights.

In a libertarian society it works much differently and I'm not here to have a debate about liberatianism. If it doesn't make sense to you, that is OK. You aren't suppose to understand things that you haven't learned about yet.

If you want to hear their views, read Mises or Rothbard.

It's a completely different way of seeing things. The only way to understand it is to read about it.

I cannot explain it to you.

But otherwise I would like to hear your ideas on social services. From whatever perspective it is that you have, I want to hear what you think and why.

So tell me. How would your conception of social services change from what they are now?

[gorydetails]

Don't overestimate my knowledge of libertarianism. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. Yes, my question was framed among social services because that is your topic you started with. Do you believe conservative and libertarian views on social services are aligned and if not, what are the differences?

[Asker]

Trust me I am not overestimating your knowledge of libertarianism lol. I'm sure you don't know anything whatsoever it doesn't matter if you voted.

Like I said it is OK to not know everything.

The libertarian perspective on social services is that there should be zero social services whatsoever.

I don't know what conservatives want. They all say very different things.

[gorydetails]

I’ll tell you this, Libertarians will never win major elections, which is why it’s chilled my opinion of the party.

First, they have a cult-like adherence to dogma. They’ll shit on folks like Justin Amash and Rand Paul when they are arguably the most liberty-minded politicians in national office.

Second, you’re an idiot if you think “I’m going to cancel all social services” will ever get you more than a marginal % of votes. There are 1000 libertarian positions you could take to encourage support from the general population before that issue.

[gorydetails]

And you can fuck off with your superiority complex

[Asker]

I don't have a superiority complex at all.

I know that people do not understand the libertarian perspective. It is not a superiority thing.

If you want to learn something, you read about it right?

Anyways you're right that libertarians are not going to be elected. Additionally libertarianism is not just a party. If anything the party is an offshoot of something greater which is the general libertarian perspective.

I have zero doubts that a libertarian view will ever be voted in.

But I would argue part of why is that people don't want to go ahead and learn the libertarian perspective on economics and such.

But liberals I have found are the most afraid to read about something they don't understand like libertarianism.

I suppose that conservatives are the same way.

Thats why I have no hope of a free society coming into being obviously. Nobody would ever try to challenge their views and learn something new.

I know that for some reason that makes you think I have a complex. But I see that every political perspective is like that.

Everyone thinks they are correct, but none of them ever challenge their views and try to learn a different view.

[gorydetails]

Again, I’ve been a part of the libertarian party for years.. so this bullshit that I don’t understand libertarian positions is just a dumb assumption on your part.

If they threw their support behind Rand Paul, even if he occasionally votes against party ideology and folks in that vein, it’d go a lot further.

And the party needs to get rid of the leftists who are only in the party because they want legal weed.

[Asker]

The libertarian party does not represent libertarianism.

They are different things.

[gorydetails]

Then you’re really fucked.

[Asker]

If you didn't know that libertarians advocate for zero government intervention than you never knew anything about libertarianism.

That is the most fundamental belief.

The libertarian party literally cannot run on libertarian principles. Nobody would. vote for it.

Now my question is, what is the conservative position on social welfare?

On one side you have libertarians with none. The other side, liberals with endless social welfare programs.

What is the conservative perspective on social welfare programs?

[gorydetails]

They absolutely do not advocate for zero government intervention - that’s called anarchy. You’re showing your ignorance.

Conservatives would like to see many social programs eliminated as they don’t help people in the long run and are rife with fraud.

[Asker]

Well there is anarcho capitalism which is a form of libertarian anarchy. But most libertarians are more of minarchists which means they want a state with courts which protects our rights and protects people from the use of force against them.

Their primary principle is the non aggression principle.

Additionally, Anarchy, as in true anarchy, is a left wing communist idea where people work together to dismantle all forms of power structure.

I could school you all day. You are the ignorant one.

I am done here. This was never meant to be some kind of argument but you are literally so low IQ that despite my best efforts, you keep saying stupid things and keep being antagonistic.

Because I hurt your pride I guess. You thought you know everything and I forced you to realize there is at least one thing you have zero clue about because you never bothered to read one ounce of libertarian literature.

Good bye dumb dumb.

[Anonymous]

What is your definition of a minority?

[Asker]

Just choose your own. I'm not a liberal anymore so I'm not here to try to have a debate.

I want to see what people think.

[Opinion Owner]

Answering a question isn't having a debate. You are another anon troll.

[Asker]

I'm not having a debate. If you read my post I clearly stated I am no longer a liberal.

This is not a debate. This is a request to hear your thoughts and views on the topic.