On the side of the worker

The most effective way to put a (definite) end to institutional unemployment and galloping inflation is to convince workers to accept that nominal wages can diminish at times and that avoiding the proscription of such declines is ultimately beneficial for they themselves. The elaboration and polish of an explanation as clear and simple as possible, prepared not for the academician but for the masses of workers is probably one of the most important tasks of economics.

Just to be clear

One thing is the moral obligation to help the needed. This is on what Christian love for others is based on.

Other thing is the right to demand the help of others. This is on what the State usually is based on.

On the one hand, the Christian teaching compels to help others, but doesn't promote any right to demand the help of others. Quite on the contrary, from its very origin, Christianity instructs to stoically put up with in facing need, without even trying to resort to others help, not to speak of doing it by force.

On the other hand, according to Bastiat, the State is a fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Government is usually the means through which majorities organize themselves in order to abuse from minorities.

Teenage motherhood

Currently in Costa Rica there's a policy which looks for teenage mothers to remain in school.

By lowering the oportunity cost of teenage motherhood, this policy is encouraging teenage motherhood.

The more you help a teenage mother, the more you promote teenage motherhood, ceteris paribus.

Costa Rican policy on teenage mothers is a subsidy to irresponsibility.

Gini as an envy coefficient

Gini coefficient of incomes can be interpreted as a measure of envy.

If it's high, people don't ask if there are some lazier and others more diligent. It's bad anyway because some earn more than others.

If it've risen, it doesn't matter if that occurred because some went farewell or the arriving of wealthy people. It' bad anyway because some earn more now than others.

In usual interpretations of the Gini coefficient, it doesn't matter poverty, it doesn't matter effort. The one thing it matters is inequality. And the more inequality there is the worse. What can be that but pure and blatant envy?

What is conservatism to me

This post is about definition. Therefore, in the core it can't be judged as right or wrong from a scientific view point although it can be assessed from a logic perspective, especially in order to analyze its utility. Agreeing with its assertions only could ultimately achieve a convention but not, per se, to find the truth.

In his essay Why I am not a Conservative, Friedrich Hayek supplies reasons for not to regard himself as a conservative. This way, he was attempting to refute the perception which many had about him. Nevertheless, even after the publication of the essay in 1960, conservatives as conspicuous as Robert Nisbet continued considering him a conservative. There are reasons for this: Hayek was a declared foe of coercion; this is: of changing the distribution of rights. (As a matter of anecdote, I became a conservative thanks to Hayek.)

Conservatism of rights can collide with the fundamental classical liberal dogma of freedom only in a society allowing for legal slavery. In that unique scenario, the liberal would fight for changing the distribution of rights while a coherent conservative would defend the current distribution of rights.

What does a conservative conserve
There are several kinds of conservatism because there are several issues which may be desired to conserve. Two main kinds of conservatism are norms conservatism and moral conservatism.

A norms conservative pursues to conserve rights (or being redundant: property rights). Obviously, the existence of such rights has to have a refference to a concrete rules structure.

A moral conservative wants to conserve moral values: specific uses of freedom (i.e. property on oneself) and after all advices on how not to use freedom which transgression does not imply coercion (this is: violation of another's property). It is important to take into account, nevertheless, that to a norms conservative this conservation only can be done through moral means and not through coercion.

Conservatism as political ideology
Conservatism is an political ideology (an ideology which can be used by, say, a political party in order to guide its program) consisting in defending rights legitimately established in a concrete rules structure.

In the parliament, the conservative congressman radically defends the current rules structure and fiercely attacks bills looking for changing the rights frontiers but only fixing new frontiers where there were not. The conservative congressman typically proposes few laws and makes a lot of political control. In particular, this person never will propose a bill to re-distribute rights and will always analyze carefully bills which he presents to discard such re-distributions. Bills developed by him will pursue sanctioning and clarifying frontiers already draft.

In the executive branch, the conservative administration follows a tame obedience to the parliament. If it offers a bill will be exclusively to fine tune the State management.

The judiciary is called to be the most conservative of all political powers.

The Church versus social justice

In a world without the so-called "social justice", there would be many people who couldn't survive without the help of others. At difference of our current interventionist world, values like compassion, generosity, and solidarity would be unavoidable. In such a world, the Church would have the responsibility of uniquely teaching those values and organizing the core of charities, v. g. gratis food, health, clothing, dwelling, and education.

By claiming for more government intervention, clergy begs for being substituted in its major roles in society. By praising "social justice", the Church erodes itself. The day the government have complete dominion in matters of redistribution, the Church can be disposed of.

Blame parents for poverty

Many people feel they are poor. Who’s to blame for this? The ultimate responsible for the existence of an individual is their parents. They are, therefore, responsible for the conditions in which the child is brought into the world. Other people can live with a much higher standard of living but, to be sure, the existence of such a child is not their responsibility.

So, blaming the State, the society or any other allusion to people beyond parents is overruled.

What is referred to by such terms as "unfair world" is usually a euphemism for "irresponsible parents".

Lender of last resort

The ultimate lender of last resort is the taxpayer.  Through this, he is compelled to pay for the moral hazard of some privileged bunch of his fellow citizens.