A good article, but I would say that conseervative political orientation goes beyond moral concerns. Despite whatever “help” the government might provide, a large number of people simply do not want government intrusion in their private lives. And they wisely perceive welfare as a loan, a debt that can never be repaid, rather than the commission of charity.
The author correctly points out that many of the things our culture regards as “wrong” are in fact mere custom (not eating dog meat, for example). Every culture has customs, and the fact that an act is outside of custom (though not immoral) does not mean that it is any less repugnant to that culture.
But the welfare state is hardly an instrument of unalloyed social good, and there is an element of immorality (and not simply transgression of custom) in a provider state. To make the system work, wealth must be taken away from those who produced it, and given to those who did not (usually the recipients are in some politically favored group). Hayek showed that private human action more efficiently distributes capital than central planning. So under a welfare state, everyone is less well off so that less productive people are better off. The producers of wealth have their assets expropriated for uplift programs that are rarely,if ever, exposed to rational scrutiny.
It is difficult to justify the welfare state under either a consequentialist or a utilitarian moral system. So leftists resort to a Rawlesian system of natural rights. Of course, Rawles had to ignore property rights as a human right to make his system work. History shows us that human rights are not long tolerated by the state when there are not strong property rights.
Further, to quote the author, “If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. “ This is also true of those on the left. Do government programs actually help their intended targets? If so, are the benefits received greater than the social costs? Let’s use the construction of large-scale housing projects in the 50s and 60s under the aegis of the FHA as an example. Nearly two trillion dollars were spent on projects such as Cabrini Green and Stateway Gardens, and on Section 8 vouchers, for which we have little to show today except empty lots where the buildings stood, and a black underclass.
Leftists usually ignore unintended consequences, while avoidance of unintended consequences is a central feature of conservative and libertarian political philosophy. Perhaps working class people accept the existence of unintended consequences, and align themselves with the more conservative of the two parties as a result? Leftists really are more “intellectual” than those on the right, in the sense that when ideas clash with reality, leftists cling to their theories, and try to force the world to conform to them.
——Leftists really are more “intellectual” than those on the right, in the sense that when ideas clash with reality, leftists cling to their theories, and try to force the world to conform to them.——
Thus the phrase “communism has never worked because it has never been applied completely”