In the last video lecture we explored economic conservative view. And you'll often hear in discussions of politics in the United States the distinction made between economic conservatives. That is conservatives who think that protecting and sustaining markets are central to making us a wealthy and efficient state and creating the maximum well-being to all of us. There's another point of view here which is sometimes in conflict with economic conservatives, and those are social conservatives. And social conservatives hold that we have a way of life, a way of life that has been revealed to us. Revealed to us by the structure of the planet itself given to us by God. That there's a central importance of the family. A central importance of commitment to the children that you raise, and it's valid to look after my family and my people first. And that we build up communities of endeavor, communities of connection, communities of blood. They would talk about traditional values like fidelity, thrift, temperance, discipline, responsibility. It's not that others in America wouldn't talk about these values, but they would see these values tempered by other concerns, like need or equality or freedom of expression. Whereas from a social conservative point of view, these are God given responsibilities. And a strong concern for the responsibility and the initiative of the individual. That people have to take responsibility for their own lives and work out well in that way. So, as a result, they believe strongly in small government, non interference. Not interfering with government to allow families and communities to build their way of life. Limited taxation, limited regulation. That religious institutions are central to the building of a healthy society and that they need to be protected and supported. And they need to play an active role in the shaping of a society. The social conservative view is largely that charity is a divine responsibility given to us by God. It should be left to the private sector that government does not do a good job in distributing wealth. And that when it is left to the charity, it is done in and in a way that is more satisfying, more adequate. And keeps in place the appropriate relationships between people. It should be voluntary and not forced through taxation. And taxation is viewed by some as simply the confiscation of what is mine, the confiscation of private property. So giving alms is the responsibility of all citizens, providing for those in need. And whether you're talking about a Christian, a Jewish, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a religious perspective. This notion of supporting those in need is deeply a part of ones response to God. So public transfers to the poor, therefore, government transfers to the poor are only really appropriate if they're temporary so that people can get back to their self-reliance. If they encourage self-sufficiency. If they help people get on their feet and move ahead. And if someone does not have the capacity to work. And has no role in creating that problem, then we can think about long term support. But, if they have capacity for work or if the reason that they're not working is of their own creation, then that person needs to take responsibility for their own world and move ahead. So otherwise we should provide in institutional settings that is not particularly desirable, will give people what they need in homeless shelters, in charitable works. But that the responsibility falls to the individual to look after themselves, and to take action. So this push and pull between the role of the market and the role of the individual, that is very strongly held by the social and economic conservatives. Plays a significant role in the way in which social welfare has been and is being developed in the United States.