Hippies: liberal or conservative movement?
It's true that a lot of people in the 1960s got on the hippie bandwagon because it was fashionable, but at it's core, the hippies (not a term they would have self-applied in the 1960s) were part of a counterculture movement, and there is nothing conservative about the counterculture. They supported racial equality, equality of the sexes, and in many cases they studied eastern religions, and adopted eastern and native american spiritual practices. All of these things were antithetical to 1960s conservatives, if not modern conservatives. Conservatives certainly don't have a monopoly on supporting personal freedoms. Mainstream conservatives in the 1960s bore little resemblance to the modern right-wing libertarians that many consider to be ultra-conservative. The mainstream of the Republican Party today isn't libertarian either by the way. While the baby boom generation is more conservative now in general than the younger generations, you have to remember that not all young people in the 60s were hippies, or even wannabe-hippies. Most people don't really think that deeply about ideology anyway; they make decisions about politics because of instinctual, emotional reactions. The fact that most "hippies" were not intense, ideological theorists isn't that surprising, or unique to that subculture.
Why have conservatives traditionally been anti-union?
Because it ruins business, and in more ways than simply “profit”.Imagine you’re a small business owner. You have a good relationship with all your employees. You know their families, and they know yours. You don’t have much in the way of “profit”, but you always go above and beyond to make sure your workers have every benefit you can possibly manage to give them. You stay behind after everyone goes home in order to clean the place and make sure working conditions are safe.Then one day, some people show up and tell you that you need to be “unionized”. They fill your employees heads with lies about unfair wages and unsafe working conditions, and that they apparently “deserve more”. Your employees go on strike, friendships are broken, and your business is on the rocks. The Union itself may even leave threatening calls to my family and vandalize my property and business in order to “convince” me to join them (and of course, it’s not like I can PROVE that they’re the responsible party, so I can expect no justice for this).You know that if you become unionized and raise your wages, it will cut back on overtime hours (which some employees may desperately need to make ends meet), not to mention the fact that you’ll need to lay off some (or many) skilled employees in order to cope with the added expenses. But under US Labor Laws, this is seen as an implicit threat, and I cannot legally warn them about any of this, no matter how pure my intentions may be.I’m sure that there are situations where unions have their proper place in society, but as it stands, they have way too much power over businesses, and the owners of businesses should be free to choose whether or not they will join any Union for any reason. Maybe they lack the funds to join, or maybe they don’t WANT to join. The Union should not have the power to strong-arm anyone under the very Marxist notion that “everyone is using you, and we can take the unearned wealth of the bourgeoisie and give it to you, the proletariat.”
The inventor of the Wheel..conservative or leftist liberal?
Ha, I love the answers in here. I would say he was a moderate conservative, man being tribal, yet selfish at time, the guy probably made it to make life easier on himself, he saw an opportunity and started making some for other tribe members. He traded them for other goods, including food, etc. His family was well taken care of. The tribe was now moving along with chores at a faster pace. Life was good for everyone. Then the chief came along, he saw how much wealth the inventor had accumulated and decided this was not fair to the rest of the tribe, especially the one's who did not have enough self discipline to gather up goods and food to trade for wheels. So the chief had his men take 75% of the inventor's goods and redistributed them trough out the tribe. Now every one was on a level playing field. Soon the inventor no longer had the drive to make new things, the poor did not want to excel like the inventor had in the past because the chief was taking care of them. The tribe became fat and lazy. The tribe's enemies came and destroyed the tribe. A conservative made it, and a liberal jacked it from him.
Do ant colonies and beehives prove that communism works?
Conservatives say that communism "sounds good in theory" but will never work. However, ant colonies and beehives prove the opposite. Ants and bees contribute their fair share and everyone is equal. If a creature as simple as an insect can adopt communism, why can't humans do the same?
Why are so many Republicans trying to roll back EPA regulations that protect our climate, waters and atmosphere?
What is upsetting is that much of this effort is driven by anecdotal stories of regulatory excesses. Clearly, when regulations are enacted and enforced there are going to be some excesses - so why aren’t these people trying to stop the excesses? Republicans hold every office in the federal government.Regulations are usually enacted to interpret Congressional laws that have been passed. Those regulations are usually vetted through various means. Perhaps some of these folk who hate these regulations could figure out how they can be fixed to meet environmental and human health requirements, and work harder to not adversely affect those who are regulated. Throwing out regulations in their entirety is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Those who simply oppose regulation entirely are not effectively reviewing what is good for the United States and it’s citizens.There have already been some crazy turnarounds at EPA. A chemical that causes brain damage, particularly in infants, had it’s cancellation voided. This administration is working hard to simply negate science and regulatory decisions without any sound balancing of issues. A price will be paid.President Richard Nixon in proposing EPA in 1970 said the following:“Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action. Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system...”Let us not forget how badly we need some controls to protect ourselves from ourselves.