Reply #57: ("we Democrats"?) People v. Property ... Justice v. Privilege

[TahitiNut]

I'll take the liberty of interpreting that as "we liberals" or "we progressives."

The conservatives, particularly the neoconservatives, place property 'rights' above human rights and accord privileges to those who own property beyond that enjoyed by all people. I'll only offer one example at this point ...

The (neo)conservative right rejects the notion that there exists a "privacy right" among the non-enumerated rights that warrants a limitation of government power over a woman's reproductive freedoms and the 'ownership' of her own body. At the same time, they perceive a privilege of 'ownership' in real and tangible property affords the owner with privacy rights - privacy rights that permit the pillage of the land and the use of that property in ways that damage the planet and its inhabitants. A homeless person, in their view, does not have the security and privacy enjoyed by "a man in his castle." They do not comprehend the illegitimacy of attaching a human right to something that can be bought.

In each of the examples you cited, it seems that (neo)conservatives view those areas (education, health care, etc.) as areas in which those with property have greater privilege. It's as though they seek to enumerate the (what we'd call) injustices of privilege and entrench them by government fiat to motivate people to expend their efforts in becoming wealthy. (It's a kind of social Darwinism.)


Perhaps it all boils down to one difference in perception. Liberals believe people are inherently 'good' and will work and cooperate with one another out of a sense of self-actualization, ethics, morality, and mutual respect. Conservatives believe people are inherently evil and flawed, and must be coerced to behave in a manner that does no harm to others. They seem to be about carrots and stick - even though many proclaim a 'Christian' faith that (in my opinion) abhors such a view twords one's fellow human being.