For what? For assuming you would respond to a challenge in exactly the way you already responded to exactly the same challenge? Or for successfully cattle-prodding you into doing what you would have already done back in post #12 without needing to be cattle-prodded, if you'd had any serious interest in a substantive discussion, and weren't just preaching to your choir and telling yourself strawmen about your enemies in order to keep convincing yourself of what a superior life-form you are?
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/miron-nationalaffairs-1-5-11.pdf
In looking at the drawbacks of anti-poverty programs, it is important to consider both the direct costs and the less tangible, but still potentially serious, indirect costs. One of the chief direct costs is the way anti-poverty spending alters incentives: Such programs reduce the reasons for potential recipients of income transfers to work and save; the availability of aid — and particularly of aid that is available only as long as one remains below a certain level of income — can discourage people from striving to rise above that income level.
Thank you. Now let's compare that with your caricature of it.
the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?
So you misrepresented Miron. (Or whoever it is you meant by "the typical conservative" that you're offering Miron as a stand-in for.) You painted him as having a double standard for the rich and the poor, as proposing to get people to be productive by reward if they're rich and by punishment if they're poor.
But he said nothing of the sort. He's saying if we want poor people to be productive we have to make it worth their while, which means we need to pay them more if they're productive than we pay them if they're unproductive. He says the poor require an incentive -- exactly what you say conservatives say about the rich. So going by what you've produced so far, "the typical conservative" is applying the same standard to rich and poor.
The only double standard here is
your double standard. When we pay a rich person more to be productive than unproductive,
you label that an incentive, and when we pay a poor person more to be productive than unproductive,
you label that a disincentive. Why the difference? Evidently, because in your world-view the default state -- the zero-point on your scale -- is a point where the poor person is being paid enough to satisfy your tastes, by the rich person, whether the poor person produces anything or not. So if what the rich person pays the poor person is less than enough to satisfy you, even though the rich person gets nothing in exchange, you perceive a payment
from the rich person
to the poor person as the poor person being punished.
Beggar: One kopek? Last week you gave me two kopeks.
Butcher: I had a bad week.
Beggar: You had a bad week, so I should suffer?
That's not a punishment.
Of course, if the poor person pays something to the rich person and gets nothing in exchange, you would not perceive that as the rich person being punished. Your perceptions of the two situations are asymmetrical, because you have a double standard, because you are a tribalist. The poor person is in your ingroup, the rich person is in your outgroup, and, like tribalists everywhere, you judge everything you see through the lenses of ingroup bias.
People who apply the same standard to a tribalist's ingroup and outgroup are automatically perceived as being partisans of the outgroup, biased against the ingroup. There is no neutral ground in a tribal worldview -- you're with us or you're against us. When a tribalist encounters a non-tribal viewpoint, he can't grok it. His only mental recourse is to choose an enemy tribe and convince himself that the non-tribal viewpoint is tribal, is partisan favoritism for his chosen enemy tribe.
