Or, and maybe this highlights yet another difference between liberal and conservative thought: Lower/eliminate the fence. Then, it doesn't matter who is taller or who has a box. Shocking solution. I know.
If the conservative movement did that they would be in competition for my vote. They don't, though. In fact they often erect fences to ensure a competitive advantage or an opportunity for box sales for some.
I disagree. To me (speaking economically, although we could make a similar social analogy), the fence represents some kind of "minimum cost" to live a good life. Someone's height is their natural ability to earn a living. The Liberal solution to short people is to give them boxes to stand on, thus making them higher (analogous to various social programs designed to make up the difference between what people can afford and what people need). And that may appear to be a quick and easy solution to the problem. But to a Conservative, it's counter productive. We believe that what makes the fence taller is the cost incurred by paying to build the boxes to help people see over it. Also, while putting someone on a box allows them to be higher, it doesn't actually make them taller
. As I mentioned earlier, you're treating the symptom, but not the actual problem.
Assuming we agree that the problem (different statistical status aligned by race) exists because of an historical set of actions which intentionally drove down (shortened) certain groups, then the solution needs to involve helping them grow taller. But you can't do that by putting them on boxes (yes, this is where the analogy breaks down, cause people can't choose to get taller). We believe that people get taller (again, this is just an analogy for improving their base condition) when they strive to do so. If you put someone on a box, and thus provide them the benefits of being taller without having to actually grow, they're not going to spend the effort to do so (or at least, do so slower and to a lesser degree than otherwise). So while in the short term you will see what appears to be good results, in the long term you are retarding the economic growth of the group(s) you are helping.
And in the case of social spending, it's a double whammy because every dollar you spend paying for someone's food, or housing, or whatnot, is a dollar that isn't floating around in the economy as an opportunity for true economic advancement *and* a dollar that has to be paid somehow (increasing cost of living, aka "raising the height of the fence"). That negative affects all of us, but obviously affects groups that are "short" the most. If you are already having a hard time earning enough money to live on, anything that increases the base cost of living is going to hurt you. In an ironic way, the "help" ends out mostly ensuring that those you've helped will continue to require help in the future.
That's the conservative view on this at least. You're free to disagree, of course, but then what you do think we're doing that is raising the height of the fence? You mentioned "competitive advantage or an opportunity for box sales", but I'm not sure how that translates to a higher fence. Competition tends to lower costs, not raise them. And "box sales" only makes sense in the context of a system in which we're using boxes to adjust people's natural height. The conservative answer is to not have them at all. Let everyone stand on their own two feet. Edited, Jul 16th 2014 5:24pm by gbaji