A question for conservatives and classical liberals
January 14, 2012 | 9 Comments
Many of the Canadians I’ve talked to who define themselves as conservatives and classical liberals have, at one time or another, have made clear to me that while they’re not fans of big government spending programs, they do support at least some government support for disadvantaged groups of citizens. This is also one of the Conservative Party of Canada’s founding principles:
A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;
My question to the people who hold such a belief is as follows: Exactly how and when can and should the government get involved to help these people in need? Are there specific policies that you would favour over the solutions that someone on the left would prefer? How would you limit them to the people in genuine need, rather than allowing people to simply leech off the system, which is a common conservative critique of programs favoured by the left?
I ask this out of curosity as much as anything. From what I’ve seen, the left has frequently justified government social programs for the same reasons as cited in the Conservative Party’s principle above-namely, to respond to those who require assistance and compassion-but these same programs have been criticized by conservatives and classical liberals. Hence I’d like to know what kind of policies conservatives and classical liberals would implement in their place, and how they’d provide necessary support and compassion while avoiding the pitfalls of the programs favoured by the left.
Comments
9 Responses to “A question for conservatives and classical liberals”
Leave a Reply
January 14th, 2012 @ 7:11 pm
I may not directly address the nature of your inquiries, as I do not subscribe to the Liberal or Conservative manifesto. Simply, the policies that should take precedence are: affordable housing, education, and health care. How can we quantify the eligibility of disadvantage individuals? Currently, this is determined by the assessment of an individual’s income, so to weed out ‘leachers’ the threshold to obtain assistance must be lowered, or exclude certain sectors of the population – refugees, immigrants, etc. I am also curious what policies or programs should be augmented to compensate for any perceived waste; Canadians should bear in mind that with an already
burdened middle-class tax base – that is rapidly shrinking to support an aging population – the implementation of new measures must not result in more taxes. How else are we suppose to support the wars, drones, and deterioration of our environment?
[Reply]
January 14th, 2012 @ 7:38 pm
Exactly how and when can and should the government get involved to help these people in need? Are there specific policies that you would favour over the solutions that someone on the left would prefer?
At the very least, I think everyone needs to have access to decent medical care and have a place to live. In rich societies, the continued existence of homelessness and people dying of treatable diseases represents a real failure of the population to treat our fellow human beings with a basic amount of compassion.
How would you limit them to the people in genuine need, rather than allowing people to simply leech off the system, which is a common conservative critique of programs favoured by the left?
I don’t think many people will lose the will to go out and do things because they won’t lose the basic necessities of life if they are unemployed at length. There may be a few cases where someone who would have worked for minimum wage at Blockbuster doesn’t take the job because they are no longer in such dire poverty, but I think the great majority of people helped out by a decent social safety net are those who for whatever reason cannot compete in the workplace at the moment. Those people don’t deserve to live in abject poverty, especially in a society as rich as ours.
[Reply]
January 14th, 2012 @ 9:57 pm
If one looks at the Harper Conservative government, the last five years give one clues to answering your question. The policies and solutions tend to be relatively broad in effect for Canadian citizens and easy to grasp by Canadian voters.
Economists continue to debate the usefulness of GST@5; voters understood. The various tax credits for parents or entrepreneurs may be big or small; anyone eligible can apply for them with their tax returns.
With respect to assistance and compassion, where the federal government acts or plans to act in areas where it has responsibility. In disaster relief and emergency preparedness, there had been funding for those affected by floods and tornadoes. In aboriginal affairs, a few things were started, e.g. on residential school, and a lot more needed to be done. If there is a grand scheme of things, one should not expect the Harper Conservative government to carry out “national” programs on daycare, education or housing, all of which are provincial responsibilities.
[Reply]
Milan Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Speaking of the responsibilities of the federal government: I do expect them to live up to their obligation to play a constructive role in the international community.
By ignoring climate change, Canada is contributing to a dangerous phenomenon. Left unchecked, it could be a major threat to international peace and security, and a major detriment to human welfare globally.
[Reply]
Kingsley Arnold Kwok Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Paraphrasing what the parliamentary secretary of the minister of the environment had said in previous question periods: America, China and India are ignoring climate change; Canada’s contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is a fraction compared to those from the three countries.
[Reply]
Milan Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 8:56 am
I have written a response to this general criticism.
[Reply]
Adnan Gilani Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:56 am
While it is important to ensure practical sustainable development initiatives are implemented, it must not be under the auspices of directives compiled in Copenhagen or Durban. Any or all ‘credible evidence’ attributing the rise in temperatures, via carbon emissions has been proven to be false. Such claims have served to lend weight to population reduction measures, as well as increase profits for the myriad of players involved in the promotion of Climate Change policies. In response to the Climate Vulnerable Forum’s meeting in Dhaka last November, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) initial draft stated:
While it is “likely” that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only “medium confidence” that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and “low confidence” in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183
Prior to the United Nations climate summit in Durban, Professor Richard Muller declared to have irrefutable proof that the planet has been continually warming, since the 1950’s. This was ‘hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, proved you should not be a sceptic, at least’. However, Prof Judith Curry (member of Muller’s team), stated ‘the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cNogqKLR
Now onto Al Gore, who made Climate Change sexy; simply, his efforts can be surmised as follows:
First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn’t immediately act
Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore’s views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore’s group has already invested in
Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
I do not believe ignoring climate change is a major threat to international peace and security; illegal invasionary wars that seek to eliminate governments, which do not adhere to Imperial tenets of central banking, are the real cause for concern:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/are-middle-east-wars-really-about-forcing-world-dollars-and-private-central-banking
[Reply]
January 15th, 2012 @ 7:44 pm
I don’t actually think that classical liberals and conservatives are in agreement over that principle. But that’s beside the point of your question.
The child-care rebate versus a national child-care program is, perhaps, a good example. Providing money directly to families allows those families to benefit from assistance in keeping with conservative beliefs that individuals have the primary responsibility for ensuring their own adequate childcare, and not the state. Conservatives are not, however, opposed to income-tested child-care subsidies where families cannot afford to stay home (single-parents, for instance).
Conservatives and classic liberals are likely to support policies that encourage equality in opportunity, but less likely to support policies aimed at establishing equality of status. Simply having a lower quality-of-life is not enough, true hardship must exist.
All humans naturally feel pity and empathy. It’s not dependant on one’s political stripe. There is more common ground between the left and right on these sorts of issues than on other ones.
[Reply]
January 16th, 2012 @ 10:28 am
Also related: Ironic liberal / big government libertarian
[Reply]