There's another perspective that takes parts of both: we're a lot less likely to have a few days of disaster and revolution, and get through it faster and better if it happens, if the maximum number of people have what they need to survive. Think of how many people die because they can't afford to evacuate ahead of a hurricane (if there's enough warning to begin with), or suffer greater loss because they can't afford a home built to a sufficient standard. Guillotines look a lot less friendly under a less precarious lens.
So who are these people that take the "both" perspective because that does not represent the conservative ideology at all -- which is based upon "personal responsibility" aka you get what you deserve. There is no call from conservatives for government intervention to make the poor less vulnerable.
Personal responsibility is just a convenient excuse for selfish behavior. It's about constructing an elaborate story about why you shouldn't or don't have to help other people.
When you just throw out "personal responsibility" people stop thinking about the topic from a problem solving perspective and instead think about it from a moral perspective.
It's especially true when people call each other lazy. Most of the time they are the ones who are too lazy to figure out the real problem. For example. Just assume everyone has a credit card. Then you can blame people for taking pay day loans. The real problem is that they don't have a credit card meanwhile everyone will tell you an elaborate story how stupid you are e.g. for not having friends that lend you money.
> people stop thinking about the topic from a problem solving perspective
Individual rando citizens shouldn't be the ones "thinking about" infrastructural problems. That's what government and experts are for.
> Just assume everyone has a credit card
Not everyone who has a poor credit score/rating is stupid/irresponsible/to-blame, but I'm sure the majority are. But the majority will probably also claim to be blameless.
The problem is there are two problems - the major one is the irresponsible. The minor one is the unfortunate. But protecting yourself from the irresponsible usually distancing yourself from the unfortunate as well. That said, most of the unfortunate you are likely to meet are at least a little irresponsible too, confounding the issue.
Most people are irresponsible in some way, but the consequences scale exponentially with misfortune in countries without a functional social safety net. The vast underclass this creates is what leads to the revolutions feared upthread.
Someone who spends $10 on a lottery ticket because he doesn't understand what $10 can become or believe he can do better is no more irresponsible than the rich person who tips the $500 change in his pocket because he doesn't understand money anymore, but the latter is not likely to face any consequences for long enough that it probably won't matter.
It's arguable that those who live with high risk (no safety net) need to therefore be less irresponsible.
I'd argue revolution in these environment happen less due to the irresponsible poor, but rather the irresponsible bureaucrats whose corruption allows them this behaviour.
> Someone who spends $10 on a lottery ticket..
I don't think measures of "irresponsible" are independent of consequences. If the consequences are low, is it no longer (personally) irresponsible since that take into account the results. On the contrary, the most irresponsible acts are those that are small or easy, but of great consequences - such as agreeing to a high-interest loan.
AFAIC someone wasting money they can afford to waste is not irresponsible, they are just wasteful.
I wasn't talking in terms of some vague "conservative," whatever that means in this age of failed coups led by, participated in, and defended by self-described conservatives in positions of power and influence.
There are things that lead to disasters and revolutions. There are differing circumstances that lead to better or worse outcomes in these situations. Whatever ideological lens goes in front of that is not my concern or business as long as its aims are pro-social and inclusive. I care about good outcomes, who experiences them, and who doesn't.
