The Quality of Choice

Conservatives like to talk about Choice and Personal Responsibility. It is invoked as an argument against Government intervention in our lives. Intervention is the word conservatives use in describing what governments do, word choice is important because it helps frame the idea. Liberals will employ neutral words like regulation or oversight. These words imply something more akin to guardianship as opposed to oppression.
People make decisions everyday and should not be protected from bad choices or prevented from profiting from good ones. Any government policy or program that limits risks is one that enfeebles the citizen. Why save money if you employment insurance is available. EI benefits discourage job seeking, why work if the government sends you a check for doing nothing. Welfare falls into the same category as does old age pension, government provided medical care. This can, if you are of a libertarian mind extend to regulation of the labour, corporations, the environment, in effect, any interaction between citizens. By removing risk for either the citizen or corporate body we discourage choice and personal responsibility creating disadvantage in our society rather than alleviating it.
You may have noticed the theme being played out here, money. It is all about the money. Who has it who needs it. We pay taxes to support income replacement programs, regulatory bodies and public insurance. The people that pay the most in taxes are also the same people that rely the least on such programs. It is reasonable then for these citizens, in the view of self interest, to be against this kind of government spending. It is also fair to say that the more money you have the better protected you are from the repercussions of bad choices and the easier it is to assume personal responsibility. Though i think if a survey were taken it would conclude that the rich and poor seek to avoid responsibility in equal measure.
This goes towards the notion of quality of choice. The conservative does not acknowledge the difference in choice available to each citizen or does not think the difference is their job to ameliorate. A person born rich has greater opportunity for success than someone born poor, that is life. Life is the filter that separates the worthy from the unworthy, everyone rises or sinks to the level ordained by nature or God, depending on your weltansicht. This is a core conservative value, everyone has the freedom and liberty to make a life for themselves. Again we must acknowledge two things, such a system will ensure that those in authority will remain there and only the very best, define that as economically successful, will gain traction and rise in station.
This had been circumstances governing most societies throughout history. Though from a historical perspective, military prowess and economic success were integrated in a way that exist now in nations without functional democracies.. War was the way a person won or maintained authority. You gained wealth through governing and maintained authority by the application of riches and force. The advent of Representative government saw less internal violence, war was prosecuted for mostly political gain rather than plunder. Again I must point out that while governments did not actually engaged in direct plunder, they did secure regions in order that their citizens might exploit the resources therein for economic benefits. The difference is their but how different is debatable.
A fair person who is also conservative most admit that the theme of Choice and personal responsibility serves a limited few. While the idea is hard to argue against, people should make good choices and man up when they make mistakes, it is an argument that ignores reality and they know it. Until we can guarantee approximate quality of choice by reducing unnecessary impediments to success, the concept of personal responsibility and choice will trap citizens rather than setting them free to rise or fall on their own merits