Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
They're not mutually exclusive, but they are strongly linked.
No it doesn't. Individualists are happy to leave families starving, on the streets, without medical treatment, and in poverty because they allegedly didn't pull their bootstraps hard enough.
Yeah, somebody has deeply mislead you on that.
Which doesn't mean shit when conservatives vote to leave families starving, on the streets, without medical treatment, and in poverty. Charity is not a solution to fundamental problems with society. Charity is not a solution, because it never addresses anything other than the symptoms. At it's best, charity is a bandaid solution. At it's worst, it is scummy as fuck (blood donations).
Progressives vote to use their tax dollars, their own money, for social services. You're comparing personal donations to personal donations when you instead need to be comparing personal donations and taxes to personal donations and taxes.
It's no coincidence that red states are the most poverty stricken.
https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or-blue-states-better/
Socialized services are ultimately cheaper than privatized ones. We don't need to be shelling out never ending money to the rich middlemen of private buisness to have basic social services.
This is basically just a copy-paste of what I've already addressed. So I won't bother addressing this again.
Though I will add, it seems that the real reason for this is religious community, not political affiliation:
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/11/17/republicans-give-more-to-charity-but-not-because-they-oppose-income-redistribution/
When I say "cheaper" I don't just mean the literal cost. Servicing a mail address in the middle of nowhere is often not profitable enough. There are diseases that are not profitable to treat/cure. There are students that private institutions would treat as a lost cause.
But the cost of not having these services is huge. We need a functioning mail system, a healthcare system that heals people, and an education system that educates everyone.
But even ignoring the external, nebulous costs, the literal cost is most always cheaper.
The school one is an example that doesn't exist in a vacuum. Those private institutions have to compete with the public ones, which means they can't really fuck people over on the price too much. The other thing is that private schools don't have enough of a market share to reach their end stage capitalism levels of price gouging. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Habitat for humanity is financially supported by the government, somewhere to the tune of $21,000,000,000 according to their website.
https://www.habitat.org/costofhome/impact?keyword=promo1--home
They also extensively work with local governments to bring costs down. Again you're comparing apples to oranges.
Believe it or not, I am here to speak honestly. My above response here was not a quick one to make. Trolls don't put effort into responses.
I literally gave you a response on why your examples do not support your conclusion.
That's how a discussion works.
I am aware that it is the fact. But as I've already explained, that example does not support your conclusion.
It's like you didn't even read anything I said. I can't have a conversation with you if you're not willing to be honest.
You're also pretending that education is the only service out there, when it isn't. Even if you were right on this point on education (you're not because of my above explanation), there are still other services out there. Pointing out the exception doesn't tell you anything about the trend.