Conversation with a Young Conservative

The previous post opened with a bewildered statement about the existence of young Bay Area Republicans, but wasn't actually about them. This one was sparked by a conversation I had with one such person, but I certainly am not about to restate my bewilderment.

How I understand it:
Fiscal conservatism is a philosophy that at its core is about liberty (which is why the most staunch proponents of this theory call themselves libertarians). They believe people who earn their money should be allowed to decide how it is spent rather than forced by the government to sponsor programs that don't directly benefit them.

My friend posed a question to me: how do you feel about lazy people who don't contribute to society being supported by the money of hard-working people?

It was a hard question to answer, since socialism works on the principle that people contribute bits to the society to create a greater whole. The best answer I had was a counter question: what about people who live on dividends of the money they already have, and don't do anything useful for society? In the pure free market system where they pay little in taxes, these people aren't helping the society in any way. Think: Paris Hilton.

We sort of came to a stalemate at that point, but this post is in the result of "staircase revelations" -- when you continue thinking about something, long after the conversation is over.

I guess there are holes in any philosophy. I guess "lazy people" are the downfall of any Utopian society (barring fancy sci-fi technology ^_~). The reason I'm (what some would call) a socialist, rather than a libertarian, is quite simply because I have more sympathy for poor lazy people than rich lazy people.

Because for every lazy person who's living off the system, there are probably three hundred hungry students who need health care. For every person who supposedly has another baby to receive more welfare, there is are a hundred single moms who need to feed their kids.

I could end the post there, but I just want to add this: I read an article recently that lamented the $500,000/yr salary cap Obama wants to give CEOs of financial institutions who took bail-out money. And I quote,

"Five hundred thousand dollars... seems like a lot, and it is a lot... But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast... Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard. But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue."

Would you excuse me while I find a kleenex? I feel so sorry for these guys!

Look, this is just another reason why I don't feel sorry for the rich irresonsible people: they're the ones that got us into the financial crisis that we're in. I'm not saying the irresponsible poor people didn't contribute by buying houses they couldn't afford, but the educated rich people should've known better than to give them the loans. So then why are we giving all the money to the rich people? My socialist heart is fuming with righteous indignation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. I also, in my heart of hearts, believe that when most of the lowest rung of society is living above the poverty line, the whole society does better as a whole. That's all, folks!