What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[PMZ]

The question of the impact of right wing extremists suddenly disappearing could be asked another way. What shape would our country be in if the GOP had remained centrist? Let's speculate.

No holy wars.

No Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts.

Regulation of mortgage backed derivatives and the avoidance of the housing boom and bust.

Business focused on liberal investment in productivity in order to grow, rather than cut costs to shrink, that resulted in the elimination of American jobs, by outsourcing to cheap foreign labor recruited here, or jobs shipped overseas.

Continuation of Clintonomics aimed at paying off the debt, with the impact predicted by the CBO of a debt free America by 2006.

A decade of progress in the mitigation of AGW with the resultant reduction in extreme weather caused catastrophies like hurricane Sandy.

Obamacare implemented with the full participation of the GOP with the resultant progress of eliminating the competitive disadvantage of an only partially healthy workforce and the pressure of another force towards reducing our 2X health care cost compared to our competition.

I see an America sitting pretty at the top of her game once again.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.

Come to the dark side Luke. I am your father.

I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.

You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said. So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.

The logical extension of fewer laws in no laws? An expert on logic are we? You're suspicious of people selling zero laws? So am I. The only time I called myself an anarchist was in high school because I was angry at my parents and my complexion was bad. Of course, these days, if you want to meet an anarchist you have to go to an OWS rally. Let's see if I can play the same game as you though. The logical extension of more laws is satanic worship requiring wife beating ceremonies for the dark one. So tell me. How long have you been a satanic wife beater? Oh, and don't you dare deny your own logic and say your innocent. I'm onto you! Nosferatu!!!!

This is your logic in favor of shrinking government to the size that Grover Norquist can take home and drown in the bathtub?

Somehow, I expected more. Or should I say, some.

Here's a little advice. You should only expect more when you give more. I'm not just talking about hookers either. I mean life in general.

 

[Circe]

IMO, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the world and it's people.

Conservatives view the world from the perspective of scarcity. Everything is in short supply so one must defend his/her stash or risk losing it.

Liberals view the world from the perspective of plenty. We can create more than enough to go around so the future is as bright as we want to make it.

I think that this worldview is pervasive. Applies to everything. Business, religion, politics, family and culture, relationships, entertainment, past, present and future.

Of course in any given situation one or the other is probably closer to reality. Civilization needs both perspectives but at different times and places and situations.

If either one disappeared completely we'd be short of a valuable set of possibilities and perspectives and alternatives.

That having been said though I'd much rather live in a world based on a worldview of plenty rather than scarcity, if I had to choose one over the other. In fact I believe that we used to be there.

Wonderful analysis.

My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.

However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.

Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.

You are right: conservatives certainly want changes in things we dislike.

I did not mean to accuse conservatives, or anyone else: I am very interested in this concept of axes of differences generally, and am analyzing these differences, and I think the very word "conservatism" does speak to a greater interest in and respect for stability among conservatives than among liberals.

Or, as I too often say, "Change: you gotta hate it."

There's a new short, cheap book out as an ebook now that, however, was reviewed this week by the Wall Street Journal, "The Three Languages of Politics" by Arnold Kling. He says we all talk past each other because we are interested in radically different axes of social existence. So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism (and that's very true of me) but liberals are on the axis of oppressed versus oppressors. So how can they possibly talk together? They can't --- they aren't in the same part of the multiverse, so to speak. They talk past each other.

I'm not sure he's entirely right about that being the only axis of conservatism -- I'd say personal responsibility versus group responsibility is an important one. And he admits there is a lot of spillover into conservatism from libertarianism, the axis of freedom versus coercion.

 

[Circe]

And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.

This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.

Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.

Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.

 

[Circe]

The one thing that Marks and Engles were correct about is that unregulated capitalism leads only to extreme wealth inequity which leads to unstable society which leads to Communism.

No, they were wrong about that, too.

There were lots of unstable societies in the 20th century and they only rarely led to communism; dictatorship and fascism were far more popular. And in the few cases instability did lead to communism, for example Russia in 1917, it quickly morphed into a dictatorship. Stalin. Well, and in China and North Korea and Cambodia, too: Mao, Kim, Pol Pot. Communism is a very quick route to the cruelest dictatorships on the planet.

There is no use talking about grossly failed systems, like communism and anarchism. Or even about feudalism, which succeeded a long time but lately failed, though that one may come up again if things go to pieces badly enough; that's how it developed in the first place, very local government replacing failed central government.

Communism keeps coming back and back for 2000 years like a bad smell, but it never works and never lasts.

 

[PMZ]

Come to the dark side Luke. I am your father.

I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.

You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said. So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.

Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.

As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.

 

[PMZ]

The logical extension of fewer laws in no laws? An expert on logic are we? You're suspicious of people selling zero laws? So am I. The only time I called myself an anarchist was in high school because I was angry at my parents and my complexion was bad. Of course, these days, if you want to meet an anarchist you have to go to an OWS rally. Let's see if I can play the same game as you though. The logical extension of more laws is satanic worship requiring wife beating ceremonies for the dark one. So tell me. How long have you been a satanic wife beater? Oh, and don't you dare deny your own logic and say your innocent. I'm onto you! Nosferatu!!!!

This is your logic in favor of shrinking government to the size that Grover Norquist can take home and drown in the bathtub?

Somehow, I expected more. Or should I say, some.

Here's a little advice. You should only expect more when you give more. I'm not just talking about hookers either. I mean life in general.

Let's see. What would cause someone to take advice from a dittohead. Nope, can't think of a single reason.

 

[tjvh]

Wonderful analysis.

My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.

However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.

Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.

You are right: conservatives certainly want changes in things we dislike.

I did not mean to accuse conservatives, or anyone else: I am very interested in this concept of axes of differences generally, and am analyzing these differences, and I think the very word "conservatism" does speak to a greater interest in and respect for stability among conservatives than among liberals.

Or, as I too often say, "Change: you gotta hate it."

There's a new short, cheap book out as an ebook now that, however, was reviewed this week by the Wall Street Journal, "The Three Languages of Politics" by Arnold Kling. He says we all talk past each other because we are interested in radically different axes of social existence. So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism (and that's very true of me) but liberals are on the axis of oppressed versus oppressors. So how can they possibly talk together? They can't --- they aren't in the same part of the multiverse, so to speak. They talk past each other.

I'm not sure he's entirely right about that being the only axis of conservatism -- I'd say personal responsibility versus group responsibility is an important one. And he admits there is a lot of spillover into conservatism from libertarianism, the axis of freedom versus coercion.

Changes in things you dislike? Can you be more specific, or are you just being a partisan hack?

 

[Foxfyre]

And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.

This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.

Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.

Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.

No it is not true. The Founders were true conservatives as we define conservatism now. They called it liberalism in the mid to late 18th century--now referred to by most historians as 'classical liberalism' that bears absolutely no resemblance to modern day American liberalism.

The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people. The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility. In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that.

THAT is what true modern American conservatism is and the only groups promoting it are groups such as the Tea Party, Constitutionalist groups, 9/12ers and such.

Neither Keynesians (and JFK was basically a Keynesian at heart) nor supply siders (Reagan, GHWBush, GWB) are true conservatives as were the Founders. Keynesians are willing to run short term deficits on the theory that giving more money to the people to spend will generate spending that will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury. Supply siders are willing to run deficits on the theory that allowing the people to keep more of their own money will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.

Both theories are credible to a point and both will work for the short term to a point. Unfortunately we have had governments for a very long time now that are not willing to do anything for the short term. Government programs are given life expectancy approximating mop handles and it costs more every single year to run them. Baseline budgeting means government never shrinks or is less - 'budget cuts' are simply slightly slowing the size and scope of increases in government.

Conservatives want no more government than is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional functions. Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust. Conservatives understand government as a necessity, but also understand that unrestrained, unchecked government will always enslave the people and force them to work for and perpetuate the government and everything that an unrestricted government does will eventually be purely self serving.

That is why the Founders envisioned true freedom--a people who would not be governed but who would have their rights secured and would govern themselves.

Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals. And you will quickly have a government that will assign the people the rights they will have and there will be no more freedom.

 

[PMZ]

Wonderful analysis.

My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.

However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.

Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.

You are right: conservatives certainly want changes in things we dislike.

I did not mean to accuse conservatives, or anyone else: I am very interested in this concept of axes of differences generally, and am analyzing these differences, and I think the very word "conservatism" does speak to a greater interest in and respect for stability among conservatives than among liberals.

Or, as I too often say, "Change: you gotta hate it."

There's a new short, cheap book out as an ebook now that, however, was reviewed this week by the Wall Street Journal, "The Three Languages of Politics" by Arnold Kling. He says we all talk past each other because we are interested in radically different axes of social existence. So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism (and that's very true of me) but liberals are on the axis of oppressed versus oppressors. So how can they possibly talk together? They can't --- they aren't in the same part of the multiverse, so to speak. They talk past each other.

I'm not sure he's entirely right about that being the only axis of conservatism -- I'd say personal responsibility versus group responsibility is an important one. And he admits there is a lot of spillover into conservatism from libertarianism, the axis of freedom versus coercion.

"So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"

I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.

 

[PMZ]

The one thing that Marks and Engles were correct about is that unregulated capitalism leads only to extreme wealth inequity which leads to unstable society which leads to Communism.

No, they were wrong about that, too.

There were lots of unstable societies in the 20th century and they only rarely led to communism; dictatorship and fascism were far more popular. And in the few cases instability did lead to communism, for example Russia in 1917, it quickly morphed into a dictatorship. Stalin. Well, and in China and North Korea and Cambodia, too: Mao, Kim, Pol Pot. Communism is a very quick route to the cruelest dictatorships on the planet.

There is no use talking about grossly failed systems, like communism and anarchism. Or even about feudalism, which succeeded a long time but lately failed, though that one may come up again if things go to pieces badly enough; that's how it developed in the first place, very local government replacing failed central government.

Communism keeps coming back and back for 2000 years like a bad smell, but it never works and never lasts.

There are many things that result in societal instability. Marks and Engles addressed one in particular. Extreme wealth distribution. Where America is today and the definition of third world countries. They assumed that the result of societal upheaval from extreme wealth distribution would inherently be what they labeled "Communism". I don't think that's been born out by history.

That extreme wealth distribution has always lead to though is instability which resolves itself with chaos.

 

[Circe]

"So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"

I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.

Now, now. [

You are implying that we celebrate barbarism.

No, we dislike the barbarians: the Muslims that bomb and hack at everybody they can, the transvestites who force their way into women's restrooms, the blacks rioting in our cities and committing so much of the crime, the Occupy Wall Street types who poop for the cameras on police cars.

We'd like things a little nicer than all that. But that's just us.

 

[PMZ]

And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.

This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.

Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.

Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.

No it is not true. The Founders were true conservatives as we define conservatism now. They called it liberalism in the mid to late 18th century--now referred to by most historians as 'classical liberalism' that bears absolutely no resemblance to modern day American liberalism.

The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people. The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility. In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that.

THAT is what true modern American conservatism is and the only groups promoting it are groups such as the Tea Party, Constitutionalist groups, 9/12ers and such.

Neither Keynesians (and JFK was basically a Keynesian at heart) nor supply siders (Reagan, GHWBush, GWB) are true conservatives as were the Founders. Keynesians are willing to run short term deficits on the theory that giving more money to the people to spend will generate spending that will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury. Supply siders are willing to run deficits on the theory that allowing the people to keep more of their own money will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.

Both theories are credible to a point and both will work for the short term to a point. Unfortunately we have had governments for a very long time now that are not willing to do anything for the short term. Government programs are given life expectancy approximating mop handles and it costs more every single year to run them. Baseline budgeting means government never shrinks or is less - 'budget cuts' are simply slightly slowing the size and scope of increases in government.

Conservatives want no more government than is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional functions. Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust. Conservatives understand government as a necessity, but also understand that unrestrained, unchecked government will always enslave the people and force them to work for and perpetuate the government and everything that an unrestricted government does will eventually be purely self serving.

That is why the Founders envisioned true freedom--a people who would not be governed but who would have their rights secured and would govern themselves.

Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals. And you will quickly have a government that will assign the people the rights they will have and there will be no more freedom.

"The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people. The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility. In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that."

This is the mistaken corner stone espoused by the old anti-Federalists (who lost the debate) and modern conservatives. Those that won the dabate espoused strong central government, like the one that most Europeans can only wish for today, restricted only by the Bill of Rights. A handful of very specific areas of life over which legislation was forbidden. Other than that they opened the door through which would eventiually come democracy and goverment truly of, for, and by all of the people, rather than the ruling classes of Revolutionary times.

 

[Circe]

That extreme wealth distribution has always lead to though is instability which resolves itself with chaos.

Can't agree: extreme wealth gradients last a very long time: Rome, the French during most of the Louis, all the Tudors, the long rule of the Romanoffs, America in the 19th and early 20th century. We didn't have a revolution, nor did the many of others, not successful ones. After all, very wealthy people are well-equipped to stop wars and revolts, if they care to, and that's just what they do.

Eventually EVERY situation leads through instability into chaos, but nothing in particular is the trigger, just various issues. Barbarian invasion; collapse of the economies; slavery and its ending; grossly failed wars, as in 1917 Russia. Even strange things, like Rasputin. A cycle of revolution and stability is natural to human society, history repeatedly shows. It's not spun around by any one given issue.

 

[Trakar]

"So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"

I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.

Now, now. [

You are implying that we celebrate barbarism.

No, we dislike the barbarians: the Muslims that bomb and hack at everybody they can, the transvestites who force their way into women's restrooms, the blacks rioting in our cities and committing so much of the crime, the Occupy Wall Street types who poop for the cameras on police cars.

We'd like things a little nicer than all that. But that's just us.

So the take away is?

...that while not all conservatives are racist, there are a lot of racist sounding bytes coming from people who claim to be conservatives.

?

 

[PMZ]

"So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"

I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.

Now, now. [

You are implying that we celebrate barbarism.

No, we dislike the barbarians: the Muslims that bomb and hack at everybody they can, the transvestites who force their way into women's restrooms, the blacks rioting in our cities and committing so much of the crime, the Occupy Wall Street types who poop for the cameras on police cars.

We'd like things a little nicer than all that. But that's just us.

I think what you need to consider more is the essential issue of our times. Extreme wealth distribution. What you are observing is that that is a condition favored by the halves, who therefore have no reason to want change. Like the aristocracy of French Revolution times. Change comes from the have nots, whose power comes only from their numbers. As the haves have whittled away the middle class, they have, by ignoring history, created more societal instability. Which will have to resolve itself.

The one wrinkle somewhat new to mankind is modern media, the influence of which allows the extreme wealthy to build a terra cotta army of synchophants, that create the illusion of numbers.

If this is to end happily, it will be through the actions of people like President Obama, recreating the middle class. Which I think that he will do and therefore go into history as a modern Lincoln.

If 2008 had resulted in the continuation of the GWB policies of the dismantlement of the middle class, today would be dark indeed.

 

[PMZ]

That extreme wealth distribution has always lead to though is instability which resolves itself with chaos.

Can't agree: extreme wealth gradients last a very long time: Rome, the French during most of the Louis, all the Tudors, the long rule of the Romanoffs, America in the 19th and early 20th century. We didn't have a revolution, nor did the many of others, not successful ones. After all, very wealthy people are well-equipped to stop wars and revolts, if they care to, and that's just what they do.

Eventually EVERY situation leads through instability into chaos, but nothing in particular is the trigger, just various issues. Barbarian invasion; collapse of the economies; slavery and its ending; grossly failed wars, as in 1917 Russia. Even strange things, like Rasputin. A cycle of revolution and stability is natural to human society, history repeatedly shows. It's not spun around by any one given issue.

I agree that instability can result from many causes, that lead to the same result. Chaos that ultimately but painfully resolves into order.

I disagree that history hasn't taught us that extreme wealth inequity is not among those causes.

 

[Circe]

I disagree that history hasn't taught us that extreme wealth inequity is not among those causes.

Can you give an example? Because I'm not coming up with an historical example of wealth disparity resulting in societal collapse.

In the case of Russia it was certainly the direly failed war, plus the Germans sending in Lenin, in a sealed train so he would not infect Germany.

In the case of Southern American slavery, that was certainly wealth disparity but never resulted in meaningful revolt by the slaves. The Civil War was a result of extreme hostility by abolitionists and reaction to laws ending slavery by Southerners, but not wealth disparity.

Even the French Revolution was not a product of wealth disparity, but of severe government collapse because of gross economic malfeasance and of several years of remarkably bad weather that resulted in bad harvests all over.

I can think of many examples of wealth disparity, but none that resulted in societal collapse, revolution, or chaos. I don't think that's where it's at.

 

[Foxfyre]

However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

This is something conservatives understand. Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.