Who favors more freedom, liberals or conservatives?

Students: Hear Antony Davies live at the Exploring Liberty http://lrnlbty.co/x5Zi3P or Scholarship and a Free Society Seminar http://lrnlbty.co/wz3Ao9 this summer

Prof. Antony Davies analyzes the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. He then proposes an alternative method of viewing political issues, which looks at policies and their respective impact on individual freedom. Prof. Antony Davies concludes that the conventional liberal/conservative dichotomy encourages us to ignore first principles, and hence, overlook contradictory views.

Want to advance liberty?: http://lrnlbty.co/ABw93P

Category:

Education

Tags:

• republican
• democrat
• left
• right
• liberty
• economic
• freedom
• social
• civil liberties
• political spectrum
• political
• spectrum
• politics
• rights
• video
• learn liberty

[RougeSamurai77]

Mandatory prayer!?? That is not a conservative issue...

[RonTakeOne]

@AesopsRetreat He isn't using the word "conservative" in its traditional sense. He is employing the modern usage of the word. We may use the word 'neocon' as an equivolent. By the traditional definition of "conservative", Bush would not qualify. But if you ask anyone today if Bush is a conservative, they will say yes. This man isn't an idiot. He is pointing out how the terms liberal and conservative are ambiguous while the phrases 'more freedom' and 'less freedom' are much more clear.

[becanshrman]

@Watcher3223 If corporations are going to demand the rights of a person, they need to expect to contribute equally to the economy. Don't say they contribute by offering their goods, that isn't good enough. It's big corporations that have written the tax code, don't tell me they aren't cheating the country.

[becanshrman]

@Watcher3223 What I'm talking about it huge corporations that don't want a minimum wage and fight against its existence. Obviously some companies don't make lots of money, but you have to cut the size of your business if you aren't breaking even, not the way you treat you workers to a point where it is exploitation.

As far as the tax issue goes, the average large publicly traded corporation only has a tax rate of about 10%. That rate is absolutely insane.

[Watcher3223]

@becanshrman

As for skimming for a smaller profit, how would you know that the profit margin isn't already thin in some cases?

One possibility, you may have a company that is reporting a high profit ... except to get this profit they had to move (sell) a huge inventory of product to earn it because of narrow margins for making each individual unit.

You can't generalize these things.

And, as for tax burden, may you please explain how and why?

[Watcher3223]

@becanshrman

If the business has competition, then it's not just competing for the customers but also for the workers if the other company offers better wages for the work (competition as well as supply and demand at work).

The only reason for a higher wage is if the value of the work demands it.

In this case, ones skill set can be likened to a service a business offers to a customer.

What makes you worthy of a higher wage compared to someone else with equivalent ability?

[Watcher3223]

@becanshrman

Workers do have some ownership in the profit, in a manner of speaking.

As insensitive as this may sound, they're paid a wage. What that means is that the company must invest the money earned from commerce back into the business to keep it productive, including paying workers a wage commensurate with the value of their work.

[Watcher3223]

@becanshrman

With regard to smaller profits, the problems would be defining what amount of profit is reasonable.

I assume you eschew free market principles that itself may dictate profit by dictating prices of goods and services according to supply and demand.

So, at the risk of a false dichotomy, who would define what is a reasonable profit and how would it be enforced? You have to admit that whomever has authority to define and enforce it wields considerable political power.

[becanshrman]

@Watcher3223 The price of goods doesn't have to go up if massive corporations were willing to skim a smaller profit in favor of the workers that make them rich in exchange for no ownership of the profit. The very least they can do is offer a decent wage, considering they are pushing the tax burden on the lower/middle (aw hell proletariat) class. Forgive my Marxist terminology, I was trying to be inconspicuous in the degree of my leftism. Shucks.

[Watcher3223]

@becanshrman

Yet another choice to maintain the number of employees for the wages: the prices of goods and services must go up, which may diminish purchasing power.

There'll be more choices that are available and more outcomes that could occur than what you're alleging when trying to do something that may seem so simple on its face.

That's the law of unintended consequences for you.

[RougeSamurai77]

@becanshrman Depends on your definition.