[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe, but some ideas are worth burying and his ideas on limited government…
[/quote]
Those principles and ideas worked for a time because they, the people, WERE so religious. Bury the limited government talk. That died with the rise of secular-if-it-feels-good do it individualism, the disppearance of a large agrarian society, and the loss of an owner/operater economy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe, but some ideas are worth burying and his ideas on limited government…
[/quote]
Those principles and ideas worked for a time because they, the people, WERE so religious. Bury the limited government talk. That died with the rise of secularism, agrarian society, and the owner/operater economy. [/quote]
Ah, so the descent in to tyranny is inevitable.
So what are you trying to conserve?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe, but some ideas are worth burying and his ideas on limited government…
[/quote]
Those principles and ideas worked for a time because they, the people, WERE so religious. Bury the limited government talk. That died with the rise of secularism, agrarian society, and the owner/operater economy. [/quote]
Ah, so the descent in to tyranny is inevitable.
So what are you trying to conserve?
[/quote]
Practically inevitable. Only reversable with a widely accepted sytem of morality enforced by the expectations of society (shame, whatever). However, it is unlikely. I wish to conserve, but I doubt it’s possible. So the realistic alternative is a secular and socially liberal society with a generous welfare state, and a realistic tax burden that’ll actually pay for it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe, but some ideas are worth burying and his ideas on limited government…
[/quote]
Those principles and ideas worked for a time because they, the people, WERE so religious. Bury the limited government talk. That died with the rise of secularism, agrarian society, and the owner/operater economy. [/quote]
Ah, so the descent in to tyranny is inevitable.
So what are you trying to conserve?
[/quote]
Practically inevitable. Only reversable with a widely accepted sytem of morality enforced by the expectations of society (shame, whatever). However, it is unlikely. I wish to conserve, but I doubt it’s possible. So the realistic alternative is a secular and socially liberal society with a generous welfare state, and a realistic tax burden that’ll actually pay for it.[/quote]
But social security systems are allready collapsing.
That approach does not work in a a democracy, some slimeball always promises more of other peoples money and why wouldnt he?
[quote]orion wrote:
But social security systems are allready collapsing.
[/quote]
And yet, not even the tea pariers want their SS taken away. 20-30 years from now, it’ll be their UHC they don’t want touched. So, we’ll index it to follow life expectancy, and enact other reforms to make participation more realistic considering demographics. And, eventually we’ll add a VAT tax or some other new revenue mechanism(s) to pay for our goodies. Talk of tax cuts is going to go the way of the dinosaur.
Getting rid of SS and Medicare for folks without a loyal spouse, 3-4 children and twice as many grandchildren, 'aint happening. Those large intact families aren’t like they used to be. Yay, social liberalism!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
But social security systems are allready collapsing.
[/quote]
And yet, not even the tea pariers want their SS taken away. So, we’ll index it to follow life expectancy, and enact other reforms to make participation more realistic considering demographics. And, eventually we’ll add a VAT tax or some other new revenue mechanism(s) to pay for our goodies. Talk of tax cuts is going to go the way of the dinosaur.
Getting rid of SS and Medicare for folks without a loyal spouse, 3-4 children and twice as many grandchildren, 'aint happening. Those large intact families aren’t like they used to be. Yay, social liberalism![/quote]
It is entirely irrelevant what people want, they ARE collapsing.
[quote]orion wrote:
It is entirely irrelevant what people want, they ARE collapsing.
[/quote]
Like I said, reform and taxation will provide a long-term solvency. A couple of generations from now, if/when this isn’t good enough, the people will accept an all encompassing single-payer program. People will trust that government just isn’t allowed to do enough, yet. They’d rather believe that then swallow some bullcrap about how their highy individualistic/pleasure seeking consumer-neighbors (since they have few, if any, children to rely on) will volunteer to take care of them and their costs.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
It is entirely irrelevant what people want, they ARE collapsing.
[/quote]
Like I said, reform and taxation will provide a long-term solvency. A couple of generations from now, if/when this isn’t good enough, the people will accept an all encompassing single-payer program. People will trust that government just isn’t allowed to do enough, yet. They’d rather believe that then swallow some bullcrap about how their highy individualistic/pleasure seeking neighbors (since they few if any children) will volunteer to take care of them and their costs.[/quote]
That would mean to
a) end American hegemony because you cannot afford both.
b) taxes that come somewhere close to Swedens and
c) the crowd who appeared at the Beck rally to silently accept all this.
This would actually tear your country apart.
[quote]orion wrote:
a) end American hegemony because you cannot afford both.[/quote]
It will
Yep.
They will. I bet for all the limited government atmosphere these folks generate, the significant majority would rather shoot you than let you take their SS check away. In 20-30 years it’ll be their universal retirement AND universal healthcare programs such ‘limited governmnet’ folks won’t let you touch. They will begrudgingly accept steep tax raises in exchange for their safety nets. They will even accept some reform and limitations on participation in the programs. What they won’t let you do is ‘phase out’ their safety nets.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
We, as a species, do not so much progress by convincing our elders of new ideas, but by burying the old ideas with them, one by one.[/quote]
Someone highlight this, and John S., read closely. You won’t find a mission statement more diametrically opposed to conservatism than what Orion wrote above on behalf of “libertarianism”.
Conservatives want to conserve eternal truths and institutions that act as the architecture of a hard-won civilization and the humus of human liberty. Libertarians want to throw them off in hopes of liberating themselves from these things, thinking them nothing more than chains. Never again get confused as to the distinction.
[/quote]
This.
Libertarianism is a modern form of Romanticism. All this reminds me of three G.K. Chesterton quotes:
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”
“A new philosophy generally means in practice the praise of some old vice.”
What exactly do the conservatives have against libertarians? We both support a free market system, so we agree on that. Is it the social issues? As a libertarian, I believe that the government should stay out of matters such as marriage and reproduction. For me, the issue is not whether abortion or gay marriage are right or wrong (and for the record, I do think abortion is wrong except in certain cases), but rather, do we want Big Brother sticking his nose in the bedroom and the uterus. For me, the answer is a definitive “no.”
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[Conservatives assume that life is a certain way because it is that way now, without ever realizing that history is dotted with periods of real human liberty. I’m guessing you won’t agree with this description, but I don’t agree with yours of libertarianism either.[/quote]
I actually don’t understand this description.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
a) end American hegemony because you cannot afford both.[/quote]
It will
Yep.
They will. I bet for all the limited government atmosphere these folks generate, the significant majority would rather shoot you than let you take their SS check away. In 20-30 years it’ll be their universal retirement AND universal healthcare programs such ‘limited governmnet’ folks won’t let you touch. They will begrudgingly accept steep tax raises in exchange for their safety nets. They will even accept some reform and limitations on participation in the programs. What they won’t let you do is ‘phase out’ their safety nets. [/quote]
I actually agree with this, especially your comments as to part c. It’s like the idiots who cried “I don’t what the government messing with my Medicare.” Hello, anyone home?
Social Security needs to go away and people should be allowed/encouraged to save for their own retirement. But I realize this will never happen because SS is now entrenched in our lives. The problem with it was that the retirement age was never adjusted. The retirement age of 65 was determined at a time when the life expectancy was something like 70 - and that’s being generous. So you’re looking at an average payout of 5 years. Today, it is quite common for people to live well into their 80s, even 90s. I think they just recently adjusted the retirement age - mine is now 67. I bet that by the time I retire, it will increase to around 80, and we may even see a needs-based test to receive benefits.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
We, as a species, do not so much progress by convincing our elders of new ideas, but by burying the old ideas with them, one by one.[/quote]
Someone highlight this, and John S., read closely. You won’t find a mission statement more diametrically opposed to conservatism than what Orion wrote above on behalf of “libertarianism”.
Conservatives want to conserve eternal truths and institutions that act as the architecture of a hard-won civilization and the humus of human liberty. Libertarians want to throw them off in hopes of liberating themselves from these things, thinking them nothing more than chains. Never again get confused as to the distinction.
[/quote]
This.
Libertarianism is a modern form of Romanticism. All this reminds me of three G.K. Chesterton quotes:
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”
“A new philosophy generally means in practice the praise of some old vice.”
[/quote]
Again, I find myself agreeing with the conservatives here. These quotes DO describe conservatism. They show the unflinching dedication to age-old institutitions simply because they are, without questioning their origin or their place in society.
They romanticize and act as if these institutions are necessary and just simply because they exist, and have so for a very long time.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
We, as a species, do not so much progress by convincing our elders of new ideas, but by burying the old ideas with them, one by one.[/quote]
Someone highlight this, and John S., read closely. You won’t find a mission statement more diametrically opposed to conservatism than what Orion wrote above on behalf of “libertarianism”.
Conservatives want to conserve eternal truths and institutions that act as the architecture of a hard-won civilization and the humus of human liberty. Libertarians want to throw them off in hopes of liberating themselves from these things, thinking them nothing more than chains. Never again get confused as to the distinction.
[/quote]
This.
Libertarianism is a modern form of Romanticism. All this reminds me of three G.K. Chesterton quotes:
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”
“A new philosophy generally means in practice the praise of some old vice.”
[/quote]
Again, I find myself agreeing with the conservatives here. These quotes DO describe conservatism. They show the unflinching dedication to age-old institutitions simply because they are, without questioning their origin or their place in society.
They romanticize and act as if these institutions are necessary and just simply because they exist, and have so for a very long time.[/quote]
Not at all. It’s rather this: just because something (an idea, a law, a princple, an institution) is old doesn’t mean it’s obsolescent.
And it’s this: that you should first understand what you wish to pull down.
And conversely, just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s useful, good, or valuable, etc.
The libertarians are the Romantics - they hope to break from the past, to throw off its “shackles,” and live more “naturally” and without the accoutrements of civilization - it’s the very definition of Romanticism. And it’s, well, naive.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
But social security systems are allready collapsing.
[/quote]
And yet, not even the tea pariers want their SS taken away. 20-30 years from now, it’ll be their UHC they don’t want touched. So, we’ll index it to follow life expectancy, and enact other reforms to make participation more realistic considering demographics. And, eventually we’ll add a VAT tax or some other new revenue mechanism(s) to pay for our goodies. Talk of tax cuts is going to go the way of the dinosaur.
Getting rid of SS and Medicare for folks without a loyal spouse, 3-4 children and twice as many grandchildren, 'aint happening. Those large intact families aren’t like they used to be. Yay, social liberalism![/quote]
So you’re going to deny Medicare to someone just because they left a spouse who was abusive, an alcoholic, or both?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
But I do know this: organized religion is a bunch of bullshit. [/quote]
Not at all. No more than being a member of a gym is wrong. Or, being a member of a gun club if you like to shoot. It’s a place where those who do believe in God can congregate and worship together. Furthermore, the many Christian churches in the US have fed, clothed and helped in many other ways millions of people.
It’s okay if you don’t want to believe, but don’t fall into the trap of becoming one of those hate filled atheists. Stay open to the possibility that God is real and that the church is part of his plan.
[/quote]
Zeb, I am and always will be open to the possibility that God exists. But I just think organized religions have become too much like bureaucracies.[/quote]
And all bureaucracies are bad? Also, how do you run a worldwide religion without a bureaucracy? For that matter as soon as you have even a handful of organized Churches you have a bureaucracy. To have any organization of any type, for any reason there is usually bureaucracy. That perfect utopia that we’d all love to see is only portrayed in Hollywood movies.
[/quote]
The problem with bureaucracies is that they become corrupt, especially when they are not accountable to anyone. All I have to say is this: priests molesting children. I win. The problem I have with the priest molestation scandal wasn’t the molestation itself - even I can forgive transgressions no matter how bad. The problem I have is the massive cover up. Cover ups are the hallmark of a corrupt bureaucracy. IMO, the entire Catholic Church is guilty of a conspiracy under RICO - the same statute that is used to prosecute the Mafia and other organized crime syndicates. Ratzinger truly is the ultimate “godfather.”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Again, I find myself agreeing with the conservatives here. These quotes DO describe conservatism. They show the unflinching dedication to age-old institutitions simply because they are, without questioning their origin or their place in society.
They romanticize and act as if these institutions are necessary and just simply because they exist, and have so for a very long time.[/quote]
Not at all. It’s rather this: just because something (an idea, a law, a princple, an institution) is old doesn’t mean it’s obsolescent.
And it’s this: that you should first understand what you wish to pull down.
And conversely, just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s useful, good, or valuable, etc.
The libertarians are the Romantics - they hope to break from the past, to throw off its “shackles,” and live more “naturally” and without the accoutrements of civilization - it’s the very definition of Romanticism. And it’s, well, naive.
[/quote]
No one is saying that old, traditional institutions are necessarily “obsolescent”. Rather, we are saying that questioning these institutions’ necessity is a good thing. You’re setting up a strawman. I don’t necessarily believe that old things are bad or that new things are good.
On the contrary, libertarians recognize the failures of conservative governing and its lack of an ability to restrain the state.
“…they hope to break from the past, to throw off its “shackles,” and live more “naturally” and without the accoutrements of civilization” This is just absurd. The naivete belongs to the conservative, who believes that “civilization” somehow arises from an all-wise central planner and not the spontaneous nature of society.
You’re going to have to back up your claim that libertarians are romantics and conservatives aren’t when it was not a large group of libertarians, but conservatives who gathered around the holy temple of Lincoln in order to romanticize about the past. I’m not even condemning it, in fact I really like Glenn Beck, but don’t kid yourself here.
And I will leave you with some quotes from Friedrich Hayek’s brilliant essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative” (It should be noted, of course, that when he says “liberalism” he is referring to classical liberalism, although it would nowadays be considered libertarianism.):
“As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about…The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change “orderly.””
“Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.”
“Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
For starters not every idea needs to be buried simply because it’s been around a while. In fact, many of them are very good and a great nation was founded on ideas such as these.[/quote]
I don’t think that is what he was saying.
But there are ideas that definitely need to go.
Superstition being one of them.
[/quote]
That’s funny and some people think big mouth atheists should go. See why freedom is important? You have the right to sit around all day, be bitter, and pretend that there is no God. And I have the right to worship God. It’s America, and if guys like you were in charge that would be a very bad thing.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
But I do know this: organized religion is a bunch of bullshit. [/quote]
Not at all. No more than being a member of a gym is wrong. Or, being a member of a gun club if you like to shoot. It’s a place where those who do believe in God can congregate and worship together. Furthermore, the many Christian churches in the US have fed, clothed and helped in many other ways millions of people.
It’s okay if you don’t want to believe, but don’t fall into the trap of becoming one of those hate filled atheists. Stay open to the possibility that God is real and that the church is part of his plan.
[/quote]
Zeb, I am and always will be open to the possibility that God exists. But I just think organized religions have become too much like bureaucracies.[/quote]
And all bureaucracies are bad? Also, how do you run a worldwide religion without a bureaucracy? For that matter as soon as you have even a handful of organized Churches you have a bureaucracy. To have any organization of any type, for any reason there is usually bureaucracy. That perfect utopia that we’d all love to see is only portrayed in Hollywood movies.
[/quote]
The problem with bureaucracies is that they become corrupt, especially when they are not accountable to anyone. All I have to say is this: priests molesting children. I win. The problem I have with the priest molestation scandal wasn’t the molestation itself - even I can forgive transgressions no matter how bad. The problem I have is the massive cover up. Cover ups are the hallmark of a corrupt bureaucracy. IMO, the entire Catholic Church is guilty of a conspiracy under RICO - the same statute that is used to prosecute the Mafia and other organized crime syndicates. Ratzinger truly is the ultimate “godfather.”
[/quote]
I understand your point, but you have to understand that corruption first begins within every human being. It matters not if they are part of a large institution, or a mere lone wolf. Even in Christ’s day there was corruption and also disagreements with in the church. Paul wrote about his disagreement with Peter. People have lied, covered things up, and sinned long before there was what you and I call, organized religion.
Try to remember what’s really important. It’s not which denomination is better, or trying to find an organization that isn’t corrupt (by the way they are out there, probably in the form of a small church on a street corner, or in the country somewhere). It’s about you and your eternal soul. In the end that’s all that really matters. We will all be held accountable for the decisions that we make here on earth. Don’t let what you call corruptible keep you from finding out who God really is.
Zeb