One of the things I like about being left wing is how often the best moral decision is also the best economic decision.Irish Bill here insinuates that only left-wingers support giving to the poor and right wingers do not. The problem is that this claim is false. As I pointed out here, evidence suggests that religious conservatives actually give significantly more money to assist poor people than secular liberals do.
Take economic stimulus for example. In a recession it’s the most vulnerable such as beneficiaries, low paid workers and youth that are hit worst because they are the ones least likely to have any financial backstop. The good thing is the best way to ameliorate the effects of a recession on society as a whole is to help these people out.
The difference between the left and right is not about whether or not financial assistance should be provided to the poor. Contrary to the false moral superiority (and slander) propagated by left wing activists, the difference is that the left primarily believe in taking other peoples money by threats of violence and giving it to the poor and in practice they give very little of their own money voluntarily. Conservatives, on the other hand, give generously of their own money and take others by force only when as a last resort.
The Standard can con themselves into thinking that the former is the more moral stance, but I think that is fairly questionable.
Other differences of belief of the right wing include
ReplyDeletepeople should work (if they are able), it is acceptable to watch a lazy person be hungry. You are allowed to give them food but it is not wrong to expect them to work
helping extends to food, clothes and shelter. Expensive clothing, own home (ie. refusal to live with others), entertainment, vices, are even less the domain of the government
Government welfare has actually created the problem of the welfare state. It is an option chosen by many.