plenty of Libertarians who don't believe in property. The Austrian school as a whole is against intellectual property. Property rights are just a "convenient social mechanism for distributing scarce resources" that's hardly a definition of a right.

libertarians are all over the map. You are not including the libertarians who are for social controls and financial freedom
and does your definition of financial freedom mean freedom from property rights?

I would say it is much more accurate to view the two based on their proposed origins of law. Liberals declare that government and the ruling body is the source of law - that what they say goes no matter how irrational or absurd it may be. Liberals ensconce themselves as the supreme rulers and find no problems with having rules that only apply to certain situations or people. To them, law is mutable and subject to the whims of the ruling class.

Conservatives believe that laws are universal and that governments are instituted to uphold these universal truths. They hold that every valid law applies to everyone equally.

I'll just toss in Libertarians here, because the main difference I see between Conservatives and Libertarians isn't in the principle of universal law, but rather the Source of universal law: conservatives generally attribute a divine source to law and Libertarians generally attribute reason as the source of law.

Well, the course name is “Introduction to Social Work Profession and Social Welfare.”...
What else would you expect anyway?

that 's kinda funny, cuz I think liberals want to punish people for just being people. Tax this, fine that, make it illegal to walk and chew gum at the same time because it 's possible you 'll fall and hurt yourself. I agree conservatives can be law and order types but progressives are the ones saying there needs to be a law!

I wouldn't call it outrageous, but it seems a little contradictory: One one hand conservatives supposedly see people as lazy but OTOH they see them as perfectly capable of caring for themselves. I guess they're saying they capable but too lazy to do it.

What's up with the primarily domestic functions thing!? I'd love to follow the parenthetical source.

I esp reject the claim that it's useful to have poor people. I don't know anyone who says that.

Rather easy to do. Write math problems about climate change, organic farms, solar power generation, and so on.

LOL

Maybe they thought it could be done while explaining irrational numbers.

Glad to see someone else point out the obvious error in logic. Did no one rational bother to proof read the book, or would a rational approach have interfered with the slanted propaganda message?

I reject the whole conservative/liberal model, BUT if I *had* to describe it I would say conservatives want gov't to focus on punishing evildoers and liberals focus on helping people.

If we *have* to describe this model (we really don't), this textbook does not seem outrageous. It all sounds right to me except for the things about people being incapable of charity and wanting to have an underclass.