Are Republicans inherently selfish?

[u/SignificantCrow]

Not referring to every individual obviously but as a whole, compared to democrats/independents they seem to really only care about themselves or their immediate family and pretty much have a “f**k em” attitude towards literally everyone else. Does anyone else feel this way?

This would explain why so many are against social policies but have no issue dumping much more money into the military instead, for example.

[u/Particular-Ad2748]

lol supporting high taxes and a cradle to grave welfare states does not make you morally superior to those who don't.

You'll never get solidarity though shame tactics.

[u/No-Carrot4267 → u/Particular-Ad2748]

Dw about the taxes buddy, you're with us poors anyways

[u/Particular-Ad2748 → u/No-Carrot4267]

Sorry dude. no rich man ever called me a fascist because I believe hardcore in Capitalism. Plenty of upper middle class white liberals have. I know who my class enemy is and it's not the rich.

[u/No-Carrot4267 → u/Particular-Ad2748]

Do you like slavery? It's best profitable business model you know

[u/Particular-Ad2748 → u/No-Carrot4267]

Actually it's a very inefficient and wasteful system. Lincoln pointed that out in 1859 in his speech in Milwaukee.

"The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor -- the just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all -- gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune. I have said this much about the elements of labor generally, as introductory to the consideration of a new phase which that element is in process of assuming. The old general rule was that educated people did not perform manual labor. They managed to eat their bread, leaving the toil of producing it to the uneducated. This was not an insupportable evil to the working bees, so long as the class of drones remained very small. But now, especially in these free States, nearly all are educated -- quite too nearly all, to leave the labor of the uneducated, in any wise adequate to the support of the whole. It follows from this that henceforth educated people must labor. Otherwise, education itself would become a positive and intolerable evil. No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small per centage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive. From these premises the problem springs, "How can labor and education be the most satisfactory combined?"

By the "mud-sill" theory it is assumed that labor and education are incompatible; and any practical combination of them impossible. According to that theory, a blind horse upon a tread-mill, is a perfect illustration of what a laborer should be -- all the better for being blind, that he could not tread out of place, or kick understandingly. According to that theory, the education of laborers, is not only useless, but pernicious, and dangerous. In fact, it is, in some sort, deemed a misfortune that laborers should have heads at all. Those same heads are regarded as explosive materials, only to be safely kept in damp places, as far as possible from that peculiar sort of fire which ignites them. A Yankee who could invent strong handed man without a head would receive the everlasting gratitude of the "mud-sill" advocates.

But Free Labor says "no!" Free Labor argues that, as the Author of man makes every individual with one head and one pair of hands, it was probably intended that heads and hands should cooperate as friends; and that that particular head, should direct and control that particular pair of hands. As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth -- that each head is the natural guardian, director, and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated, and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word Free Labor insists on universal education.

I have so far stated the opposite theories of "Mud-Sill" and "Free Labor" without declaring any preference of my own between them. On an occasion like this I ought not to declare any. I suppose, however, I shall not be mistaken, in assuming as a fact, that the people of Wisconsin prefer free labor, with its natural companion, education."

[u/No-Carrot4267 → u/Particular-Ad2748]

Did you even read his speech yourself? This is about morals of slavery

Nowhere does it talk about efficiency or wastefulness.

Slavery is the most profitable business model because it's free labor. You cannot get better than that. As a capitalist, it would be dumb to turn down free labor.

[u/Particular-Ad2748 → u/No-Carrot4267]

It's not free labor. One is required to feed, house and maintain slaves and that's a lot more expensive than a cattle bier.

[u/No-Carrot4267 → u/Particular-Ad2748]

So 1. You didn't read the speech you copy pasted

1. You're delusional

The fact that slavery existed means that it was highly profitable. Livestock aren't worked to death, slaves were. If they're were so expensive then why were they being worked to death.

They were fed the bare minimum to survive. That costs almost 0 compared to the profit margins of the labor they provide.

Cattle requires a lot of land. Slaves can fit 20 into one building.

If they have children, that's an appreciating asset. Free money

If you believe hardcore in capitalism then you should like the idea of slavery. It's free money