[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do me a favor. I’d ask that any libertarian considering a reply to include in that response exactly what would replace the nanny state. [/quote]
Playing devils advocate and with all due respect to Alan Moore…
We would go through the land of take what you want and then enter the land of do as you please?
“To conserve” means “to keep the same.” Thus, conservativism does not imply a specific policy, and the meaning of the term is relative to the time period in question. I hate it when the lessaiz-faire types identify as conservatives because by doing so they just associate themselves with George Bush and the neocons.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
I think a uniting feature is the politics of decline- that somehow, the golden years exist in the past, and the polity should return to that time period by engaging in certain policies.
This, I believe, is ‘a’, not ‘the’, defining feature.[/quote]
wow - really? You obviously drank the kool-aid . . . The historical perspective of conservatism is not based on the claim that “the golden years exist in the past”, but and acknowledgement that the limited American government that was originally established should be adhered to so that our future can be even brighter and more glorious than any period in our past.
[/quote]
I don’t think you realize how hilarious this response is. Aside from the kool-aid jibe, you basically just re-stated my position that a prime element of conservative thinking is in the re-adoption of the policies of the past.
You seem to beleive these policies will somehow lead to a better future, instead of leading to the same problems of the era they existed in (1950’s, 1920’s… 1790’s) and the (often governmental) remedy the people of that time chose. This is noteworthy.[/quote]
The roaring 20’s, the great economic growth of the 50’s - what were you trying to state here?[/quote]
How the Other Half Lives, Brown vs. Board of Education? The dirty corporate deals exposed by muckracking journalists, Leavittowns and white-flight?
There are reasons the American people adopted different policies in the 30’s and 60’s than the 20’s and 50’s. Perhaps I am saying that all good things must come to an end.
But most importantly, I am saying that a primary element of conservative ideology is the politics of decline, that there was a golden age in the past, and it is appropriate to change our current policies in order to recapture that past glory.
[quote]Otep wrote:
How the Other Half Lives, Brown vs. Board of Education? The dirty corporate deals exposed by muckracking journalists, Leavittowns and white-flight?
There are reasons the American people adopted different policies in the 30’s and 60’s than the 20’s and 50’s. Perhaps I am saying that all good things must come to an end.
But most importantly, I am saying that a primary element of conservative ideology is the politics of decline, that there was a golden age in the past, and it is appropriate to change our current policies in order to recapture that past glory.
[/quote]
it is interesting that your perspective of conservativism is what it is. What you call a primary element really only exists in your POV and not in the reality of the conservatism movement.
Conservatives are very much focused on the here and now as well as what the future will be like. Our goals are to make the present and future the best that they can be for us and even better for our children and grandchildren. We hate high taxes and big government precisely because it affects our present and their future.
Our only interest in the past is to learn from past mistakes, and remain true to the founding principles of our nation. We are not under the impression that there has ever been a “golden age” that we must return to. The history of America is the history of struggle and hard work and always striving for a better tomorrow.
Yes, we do want to change current policies that we believe are detrimental to our present and future, not because we wish to return to the past, but because we want to thrive today, tomorrow, next week, next year - we see bad policy as a threat to that.
This is a common “progressive” attack that is bound up in nothing more than opinion and completely divorced from the reality of the conservative movement. It is a shallow and meaningless accusation with no basis in the concrete reality of today’s political scene.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
1 I see conservatism as being frugal with the money period. Example to live in a society that is uneducated would cost more than the tax because of crime and security[/quote]
What? You think the government is doing a good job with education right now? Why do people think that just because people don’t want the state to do something that they don’t want it to be done? Let’s try to solve our problems peacefully instead of with the force of government, please.
If you could, I may agree. However, this is not the case with most of these.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Agreed here.
Yes, FREE markets DO mean that little or no regulations are placed on it. Markets however can and do still exist with regulations, albeit in a more flawed and inefficient way. Why are you referring to the market as if it’s an entity by itself and not the result of voluntary interaction in a marketplace between consenting people?
You obviously have no clue what limited government means. Somalia collapsed into chaos, it was not transitioned into a smaller government.
[/quote]
1 I think our Government could do allot better at everything they do, but everything turns into a political football
2 I do not think our founding fathers considered the negative effects of (Democrat VS Republican) politics; The Dems will only vote for their programs (WHICH THEY WANT FULL CREDIT FOR DOING) and the Reps. like wise.
3 I believe George Bush senior made a profit on the first Gulf war. Wars are expensive and should be avoided if at all possible. CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VEIW
4 agreed
5 I agree markets do best when regulated least, but we need environmental regulations and I also believe we need consumer protection. (I KNOW YOU DISAGREE)
I do not understand your reference to me thinking the market is separate? If you explain the point maybe I can answer it.
In defense of the Democrats, I do believe when they started working of the health care reform, I believe they tried a bipartisan approach. We have a broken system and I doubt the reform passed will do anything (WITHOUT A LOT OF TWEAKING). So now every body is playing partisan politics.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In defense of the Democrats, I do believe when they started working of the health care reform, I believe they tried a bipartisan approach. We have a broken system and I doubt the reform passed will do anything (WITHOUT A LOT OF TWEAKING). So now every body is playing partisan politics.
[/quote]
If you consider a bipartisan approach, “here is the bill take it or leave it.” Please do not kid yourself that the Obama administration tried to bring in the Republicans. Obama tried to sell his plan to the Republicans. The Republicans are the ones that tried to add an amendment that would force all congress people onto this new plan that is best for the American people. Voted down by party lines.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
1 I think our Government could do allot better at everything they do, but everything turns into a political football[/quote]
There is a reason why the government doesn’t do very well at providing services to us. It’s in part because they take on too much right now, and in part because they aren’t designed to do many of these things.
Maybe, but in reality, the Dems and Reps are buddies when it benefits them and enemies when it benefits them. That is the problem with giving government too much power. You’re only handing away freedom to people who are self-interested.
I agree, wars should be avoided, but not to the point of threatening the country’s national security or the well-being of its people.
If the government was doing its job and protecting property rights, environmental regulations wouldn’t really be needed. Regulations are arbitrary and begs the question: Who is regulating the regulator?
You said, “The market has demonstrated time and again that it is mostly irresponsible for its own actions and can be very predatory” This is not really a correct statement because it refers to the market as if it isn’t us and the result of our actions. The market is a system of voluntarily exchanged goods and services and if it is predatory or irresponsible that really just means people are predatory or irresponsible. Though I would disagree with the statement with the qualification that some people will always be predatory and irresponsible, but that the market actually limits this.
[quote]In defense of the Democrats, I do believe when they started working of the health care reform, I believe they tried a bipartisan approach. We have a broken system and I doubt the reform passed will do anything (WITHOUT A LOT OF TWEAKING). So now every body is playing partisan politics.
[/quote]
Oh trust me, it will do things, but probably not what you’re hoping for.
1 There is a reason why the government doesn’t do very well at providing services to us. It’s in part because they take on too much right now, and in part because they aren’t designed to do many of these things.
2 Maybe, but in reality, the Dems and Reps are buddies when it benefits them and enemies when it benefits them. That is the problem with giving government too much power. You’re only handing away freedom to people who are self-interested.
3 I agree, wars should be avoided, but not to the point of threatening the country’s national security or the well-being of its people.
4 If the government was doing its job and protecting property rights, environmental regulations wouldn’t really be needed. Regulations are arbitrary and begs the question: Who is regulating the regulator?
5 You said, “The market has demonstrated time and again that it is mostly irresponsible for its own actions and can be very predatory” This is not really a correct statement because it refers to the market as if it isn’t us and the result of our actions. The market is a system of voluntarily exchanged goods and services and if it is predatory or irresponsible that really just means people are predatory or irresponsible. Though I would disagree with the statement with the qualification that some people will always be predatory and irresponsible, but that the market actually limits this.
Oh trust me, it will do things, but probably not what you’re hoping for.
[/quote]
1 I think our Gov. is trying to do too much with their present operating procedure. The problem is we have two choices to every solution Dem and Rep. what happened to individual opinions. We should have hundreds of choices and work on what is best out of those choices.
2 I agree, we need a better way to control elected officials. I like Jessie Venturaâ??s Idea, a vote for none of the above. It would help communicate our point. Being from AZ it looks like our Governorâ??s race would be a none of the above as well as John McCainâ??s seat.
3 We agree
4 You could regulate the environment via property rights, I like that idea. The problem would be that DEEP POCKETS could rule the world
5 I understand, Wall Street does not normally care whether it is responsible or not as long as it does not affect their bottom line. Regulations try to guarantee that if not responsible it could affect your bottom line. I do not consider Wall Street part of the community as I do (MOST) local business
the final point is a mute point
Fascinating thread guys. It has left me utterly confused though on what “conservative”, “liberal” and “libertarian” all mean though. 
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Fascinating thread guys. It has left me utterly confused though on what “conservative”, “liberal” and “libertarian” all mean though. :P[/quote]
IMO it means conserving the dollar, I think the social aspects are bull shit , which most end up costing us money
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Fascinating thread guys. It has left me utterly confused though on what “conservative”, “liberal” and “libertarian” all mean though. :P[/quote]
Unless directed at a libertarian, calling someone a ‘liberal’ in the US is often misguided. While it has become traditional to refer to Democrats as ‘liberals,’ both of the major parties have liberal planks in their platform. One is socially liberal, while the other is economically liberal. Now, the libertarian adopts both spheres of liberalism.
Both parties, Republican and Democrat are ultimately big government parties. Championing opposite hemispheres of hyper-individualistic ideology, they both have decimated the decentralizing power of civic life/institutions. And so, we look to a central power to fill in, or cover over, that which liberalism has destroyed.
From one of your own countrymen, Jab. Phillip Blond.
"We live in a society of decreasing circles. More and more of us know fewer and fewer of us. We live alone and eat by ourselves, often with a TV or computer rather than a human being for company. If we do marry, the time an average relationship lasts decreases with each passing year.
In the Anglo-Saxon world, we abandon our old and increasingly care badly for our young. Our grandparents can recall a vivid life in which aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces wove together the social fabric of a stable, mutual society. Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, some without any loving parent at all. The young people emerging from this background, denied any real education in public and private virtues, are easily seduced by glamorous dreams that promise consumption they cannot afford. Untouched by ideals of love and fidelity, they operate free of commitment, discipline, and responsibility. These unreformed teenage idioms become adult habits and ruin lives by creating people unable to bond or relate.
For men, especially those at the bottom of the social scale who are increasingly losing out in education and career advancement, an emasculated life at the margins of society awaits. For successful young women, having a degree is fast becoming an indicator of a childless future. No one would choose this outcome nor wish it upon anyone else, not least because it drains the energy from domestic life and compounds the terrifying fate of getting old alone. Everywhere we look, the ties that bind are loosening, and the foundations of a secure and joyful existence are being undermined.
What is the origin of this degradation? Looking back over the past 30 years, we could blame longer working hours that families must put in, a situation itself compounded by the financial necessity that in most households both adults must work, higher levels of personal debt, job insecurity, distrust of institutions, and fear of each other. Our society has become like a ladder whose rungs are growing further and further apart so it is increasingly difficult to ascend. Those at the top have accelerated away from the rest of us by practicing a self-serving and state-sanctioned capitalism that knows no morals and exists only to finance its own excess. Those in the middle are being crushed by bureaucracy and the effort of squaring stagnating wages with higher demands. Those at the bottom are more isolated and despised than ever before.
But decisive as these factors are, they do not add up to the social disaster that we are living through and that many, perversely, increasingly regard as normal. A healthier society could have resisted these trends. A society that still had strong families could have ensured a lifestyle that secured rather than undermined the economic base of the household. A society that still had neighbors who knew one another could have created trusting communities, and they could have produced institutions that served the needs of people rather than the bureaucratic demands of a distant and hostile state.
But through the privileging of alternative lifestyles, the prioritizing of minority politics, and the capture of markets by monopolies, we have destroyed the sustained and sustaining society. Little wonder that in a world in which binding norms, civil behavior, and notions of the common good have ceased to exist, frightened, isolated individuals call upon an increasingly authoritarian state to impose the order that we can no longer create for ourselves.
The loss of our culture is best understood as the disappearance of civil society. Only two powers remain: the state and the market. We no longer have, in any effective independent way, local government, churches, trade unions, cooperative societies, or civic organizations that operate on the basis of more than single issues. In the past, these institutions were a means for ordinary people to exercise power. Now mutual communities have been replaced with passive, fragmented individuals. Civil spaces have either vanished or become subject-domains of the dictatorial state or the monopolized market.
Neither Left nor Right can offer an answer because both ideologies have collapsed as both have become the same. Those who construe the libertarian individual as the center of current rightist thought actually draw upon an extreme Left conception that finds its original expression in Rousseau, who held that society was primordial imprisonment. It was Rousseau whose social theory forced the diversity of the world to conform to the general will–which was but this same individualism writ large–thereby sponsoring the rationalist and secular red terror of the French Revolution. In fact, any anarchic construal of the self requires for its social realization an authoritarian statism to control the forces that are unleashed. Collectivism and individualism are but two sides of the same devalued and degraded currency. And this has been the history of recent modernity–an oscillation between the state and the individual that gradually erodes civil association, which is in reality the only check on the extremes of either…"
Rest of it is here;
http://www.respublica.org.uk/articles/shattered-society
Thanks for the article, very interesting. The author writes well but seems confused, and part idealistic and part whatever the opposite of that is.
For me, I just can’t identify with a large amount of what he is saying; the idea of a “broken Britain” or “shattered society” just doesn’t resonate with the vast majority of people I know, and also according to our last election, the majority of voters. People think stuff is wrong, even fucked up, even disgusting. But most people think society is still working, and most people are doing fine. Maybe my background skews my perspective; I basically have/do everything he is saying people don’t have or do.
Some things he says left unsaid; "Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, "
To me, that is implying that these things are bad. But I know plenty of families that work very well in these situations!
To me that article is doing what someone in here earlier said is a common theme in conservatism; harking back to “the good old days”, or a time of clearer thinking, greater moral authority, etc.
It’s funny because I found myself reading it and agreeing with something, but then immediately disagreeing with his reasoning, or something else. His apparent experiences are just nothing like mine.
I also don’t really understand the idea that liberalism can be to blame for anything, because I can’t think of a time when, to my mind, we have ever actually lived in a truly liberal society. I get the idea that idea of liberalism changed various ways of thinking though, and maybe that’s all you/that author mean by that.
I find the whole debate very interesting. In the past I would have flat out called myself a left wing person, but didn’t really understand what it meant! Now I have no idea what to call myself, I don’t really feel like I fit in to any way of thinking I’ve encountered so far. I see elements in most positions that I can identify with…
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Some things he says left unsaid; "Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, "
To me, that is implying that these things are bad. But I know plenty of families that work very well in these situations!
[/quote]
How many of those rely on state assistance? Or, were they wealthy(ish)? Otherwise, I encourage you to take a look at statistics relating to crime and violence, governmental dependency, education, and generational poverty in regards to single parent households. Just something to consider.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
From one of your own countrymen, Jab. Phillip Blond.
"We live in a society of decreasing circles. More and more of us know fewer and fewer of us. We live alone and eat by ourselves, often with a TV or computer rather than a human being for company. If we do marry, the time an average relationship lasts decreases with each passing year.
In the Anglo-Saxon world, we abandon our old and increasingly care badly for our young. Our grandparents can recall a vivid life in which aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces wove together the social fabric of a stable, mutual society. Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, some without any loving parent at all. The young people emerging from this background, denied any real education in public and private virtues, are easily seduced by glamorous dreams that promise consumption they cannot afford. Untouched by ideals of love and fidelity, they operate free of commitment, discipline, and responsibility. These unreformed teenage idioms become adult habits and ruin lives by creating people unable to bond or relate.
For men, especially those at the bottom of the social scale who are increasingly losing out in education and career advancement, an emasculated life at the margins of society awaits. For successful young women, having a degree is fast becoming an indicator of a childless future. No one would choose this outcome nor wish it upon anyone else, not least because it drains the energy from domestic life and compounds the terrifying fate of getting old alone. Everywhere we look, the ties that bind are loosening, and the foundations of a secure and joyful existence are being undermined.
What is the origin of this degradation? Looking back over the past 30 years, we could blame longer working hours that families must put in, a situation itself compounded by the financial necessity that in most households both adults must work, higher levels of personal debt, job insecurity, distrust of institutions, and fear of each other. Our society has become like a ladder whose rungs are growing further and further apart so it is increasingly difficult to ascend. Those at the top have accelerated away from the rest of us by practicing a self-serving and state-sanctioned capitalism that knows no morals and exists only to finance its own excess. Those in the middle are being crushed by bureaucracy and the effort of squaring stagnating wages with higher demands. Those at the bottom are more isolated and despised than ever before.
But decisive as these factors are, they do not add up to the social disaster that we are living through and that many, perversely, increasingly regard as normal. A healthier society could have resisted these trends. A society that still had strong families could have ensured a lifestyle that secured rather than undermined the economic base of the household. A society that still had neighbors who knew one another could have created trusting communities, and they could have produced institutions that served the needs of people rather than the bureaucratic demands of a distant and hostile state.
But through the privileging of alternative lifestyles, the prioritizing of minority politics, and the capture of markets by monopolies, we have destroyed the sustained and sustaining society. Little wonder that in a world in which binding norms, civil behavior, and notions of the common good have ceased to exist, frightened, isolated individuals call upon an increasingly authoritarian state to impose the order that we can no longer create for ourselves.
The loss of our culture is best understood as the disappearance of civil society. Only two powers remain: the state and the market. We no longer have, in any effective independent way, local government, churches, trade unions, cooperative societies, or civic organizations that operate on the basis of more than single issues. In the past, these institutions were a means for ordinary people to exercise power. Now mutual communities have been replaced with passive, fragmented individuals. Civil spaces have either vanished or become subject-domains of the dictatorial state or the monopolized market.
Neither Left nor Right can offer an answer because both ideologies have collapsed as both have become the same. Those who construe the libertarian individual as the center of current rightist thought actually draw upon an extreme Left conception that finds its original expression in Rousseau, who held that society was primordial imprisonment. It was Rousseau whose social theory forced the diversity of the world to conform to the general will–which was but this same individualism writ large–thereby sponsoring the rationalist and secular red terror of the French Revolution. In fact, any anarchic construal of the self requires for its social realization an authoritarian statism to control the forces that are unleashed. Collectivism and individualism are but two sides of the same devalued and degraded currency. And this has been the history of recent modernity–an oscillation between the state and the individual that gradually erodes civil association, which is in reality the only check on the extremes of either…"
Rest of it is here;
http://www.respublica.org.uk/articles/shattered-society[/quote]
Alot to wrap your head around but very good
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Some things he says left unsaid; "Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, "
To me, that is implying that these things are bad. But I know plenty of families that work very well in these situations!
[/quote]
How many of those rely on state assistance? Or, were they wealthy(ish)? Otherwise, I encourage you to take a look at statistics relating to crime and violence, governmental dependency, education, and generational poverty in regards to single parent households. Just something to consider.[/quote]
Well I guess I’m one person who relies on state for some assistance; I get a loan from the government so I can go to university. My parents are in the top 5% of earners, but we still wouldn’t be able to send me to uni without this loan.
But that’s my choice, and I didn’t have to go to uni; I undertook that knowing what I was getting in to. None of the families I was thinking of off the top of my head rely on the state for subsistence which I guess was more your point? For example, one of the families I know without a present father has… Two mothers. They are plenty well off enough, and are one of the most loving, warm and family orientated bunch of people I know.
There are a lot of cohabiting couples who are far more successful than many married couples I know in terms of providing stable homes for children.
I’m just saying, that the implication that these situations are defacto bad is just wrong. Of course there are a lot of times when it’s right though, just as a lot of unhappy married couples and nuclear families are terrible environments for those children concerned!
In the UK it’s pretty hard to say that no one is dependant on the state. Most of the (relatively) wealthy people still use the NHS! But I guess the point is they don’t have to if they don’t want to, but they pay for it so use it.
I take your point about statistics though, this is all just anecdotal. I’ll have a look in to it, do you have anything to hand?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Why I did not vote for John McCain is because he admitted to not knowning how to operate a computer. McCain has no idea what it is like to be what I call middle class[/quote]
Are those two separate unrelated sentences? Or are you suggesting that not knowing how to operate a computer means that McCain was an elitist? Because such a notion is silly. John McCain is >70 years old. Most 70 year olds don’t know how to use a computer.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
I’m just saying, that the implication that these situations are defacto bad is just wrong.[/quote]
Because in the general case these situations are flat out bad. Look I’m sure I can think of a case or two where a teenager having a baby at 14 is a good thing…but it is also clear in the general case it isn’t.
Likewise two mothers looking after a child…well the child will in all likelihood turn out fine, after all it has happened in one form or another for thousands of years, however it isn’t an optimal situation. A man is not the same as a woman. And having a child exposed to both in an intimate manner (i.e. like with a mother and a father) is an important aspect of development.
Now I’m sure you can have cases where it works very well, for instance if there is a close male relative who acts as the father figure. However, a woman cannot take this place.
So in the sense that they adopted a baby, well then they have done a great service for society. They have just given a no-hoper baby a chance at life. On the other hand using artificial insemination to bring another baby into the world should be discouraged because it isn’t an optimal situation to be raised by two women.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Why I did not vote for John McCain is because he admitted to not knowning how to operate a computer. McCain has no idea what it is like to be what I call middle class[/quote]
Are those two separate unrelated sentences? Or are you suggesting that not knowing how to operate a computer means that McCain was an elitist? Because such a notion is silly. John McCain is >70 years old. Most 70 year olds don’t know how to use a computer.[/quote]
I disagree about most 70 year olds . McCain is out of touch with the rest of humanity and does not stand a chance on reconecting ,his age , his income , his lack of computer skills are too much for him to over come
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Some things he says left unsaid; "Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, "
To me, that is implying that these things are bad. But I know plenty of families that work very well in these situations!
[/quote]
I would have said the same thing when I was in college, as these children will at least have a roof over their head, clean clothes, adequate food (thanks to the welfare state). But after having watched some of these children grow into massively fucked up adults I have to agree with the writer’s unstated premise that a child being born out of wedlock and growing up without a father is a very bad thing.