Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Aliantha, I'd say you don't know any conservatives: this theory you've constructed doesn't describe me or any conservatives I know (who run rather to libertarians rather than authoritarians anyway).
The main thing about conservatives is they recognize the Welfare State as an expensive failure that makes the cost of employment too great for an employer to bear. They count it among the unendurable and unnecessary intrusions of state power to distort an economy until, malformed beyond sustaining, it collapses. Thus, they reject socialism and all its works.
It is not right to say they have no room for compassion, as the Left would have it. Conservatives' style of compassion, though, is of the latter clauses in the "give a man a fish..." aphorism. Alms, they reckon, are not a cure for the problem. Creating an ability, that's their idea of the ticket. Conservatives understand the idea of creating wealth, and embrace it. Leftists never did, not deep down. Lip-service should be given only lip-service's due.
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life. Teach a man to make fishnets and he gets to work sitting down, under a roof, and other people bring him fish, in trade."
|
There's no one who would argue the logic of your fish quote. We've heard it plenty of times before. The biggest problem with this thought is that things don't always go according to plan, and not everyone can fix things by themselves.
That's why there are social services. The state benefits from the citizens, so in return, the citizens are entitled to benefit from the state. The state takes taxes from the citizens. Most citizens do this because they recognize that the state needs a contribution from all citizens to provide services for the citizens.
If a citizen doesn't benefit from the state, then the citizen will possibly leave.
Now ask yourself, what countries do most immigrants come from, and why are they comming to your state? The answer is invariably because the state will help them more than in their country of birth.
This is good and bad of course. For one thing, you have the issue of illegal immigration etc. Refugees. Political asylum seekers. The list goes on.
You wouldn't have that problem if 'the state' didn't offer social services. That'd be a plus, however, if a country is pretty much founded on immigration, then I wonder where that leaves you in the end?
You can't have it both ways i don't think.