Hacker News Reader

Comment by thin_carapace | Hacker News Reader

it sounds like youre saying that protecting a group in the conservative mindset must arise at cost to others , is that right ?

View on HN

> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

> There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...

ive seen this quote posted many times and never understood it. thanks for linking the original (?) essay, things make sense now. i do disagree with the author though; his statement is plainly defensible.

If the person takes into account the needs of other groups to assess what "works", we no longer call them conservatives but "centrists".

ok , so does this imply that the opposite of conservatism is to protect an out group at cost to the in group ?

In a sense, yes. That one's usually called 'fairness'.

A corollary is that people tend not to be conservatives when they belong to the less well-off ingroup. Suddenly bringing about change becomes more important.

ok. so if its fairness to protect an outgroup by costing an in group, how would you label protecting both an ingroup and an outgroup ?

Two instances of the same principle

thanks for helping understand your perspective , all the best

You're welcome. It's great that your questions came from a genuine desire of understanding. Though to be honest, that interaction - a sequence of short direct questions without further context - seemed to me like you were testing me, trying to lead me into a contradiction. I assumed less-than-good faith, I'm glad I was mistaken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com