[Ben Ainsworth]

How do Conservatives tackle the accusation that their ideology encourages an 'every man for himself' approach and discourages social unity for the better good of the country?

[enLight]

Well you have libertarian-oriented conservatives (every man for himself), authoritarian conservatives (social unity) and then moderate conservatives, who are somewhere in the middle.

Conservatism is not an "ideology" that bends one way for another - towards libertarianism or authoritarianism. It is a philosophy. If you want a more complete definition, check out my first post in the "Objective Question" thread.

Any person who makes the accusation like the one you've presented does not understand conservatism.

[christianfundamentalist]

Any person who makes the accusation like the one you've presented does not understand conservatism.

Good point! Can I ask you what your signature is about and what is it?

[Mark]

Any person who makes the accusation like the one you've presented does not understand conservatism.

Good point! Can I ask you what your signature is about and what is it?

It denotes that he is a member of the Conservative debate team for the formal debates (which are currently on hold).

There are 4 of us: Demosthenes, EnLight, Tex and myself.

[Noumenon]

Even though I'm not a conservative, libertarians get this all the time. This is what I say: Wealth redistribution, such as what liberals champion, encourages social disunity. It creates two opposing classes: the tax-payers and the tax receivers. The tax receivers fight to have the government confiscate more money from the tax-payers, and the tax-payers fight to have less taken. It is an antagonistic relationship. You can't create peace and harmony through institutionalized theft, which is what taxation is. The best way to achieve that goal is through peaceful, voluntary, and productive means, such as charity and trade. Charity encourages social unity because when someone gives money to the poor, both sides leave the transaction satisfied. The poor know that this money isn't "free," and thus they value it more and will use it more wisely. The charity giver gets the satisfaction of having helped someone in need, knowing that his money will be used wisely. Compare this with welfare. The taxpayer is pissed off when the government takes a good fraction of his paycheck, without his consent, not knowing who exactly that money is going to. The tax-receiver thinks its great that he gets "free" money, and soon starts to believe he's entitled to it. Then he demands more, and the taxpayer becomes increasingly angry. This is not social unity. It is a parasite/host relationship.

Libertarians do not champion "every man for himself." They believe in the neccessity and goodness of society. They believe cooperation is a good thing. However, this society must be free from aggression of all sorts, including taxation.