Conservatives -- What Would Make You Happy?

[Regnad Kcin]

As we happy few knock heads in this forum day after day, pretty much to little effect, I'm curious.

Let's say you've been given a blank slate -- although the Constitution, as it stands today, is in place. History, too, is unchangeable. And the current major players on the national as well as world stage are all in place.

In essence, I wonder what you would alter to bring about a more utopian state of affairs by your estimation if you could, in effect, will it so. What would make you happy? Seriously.

Complete freedom with regard to private firearm ownership? A Constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage? No term limits for anyone, including the POTUS? A moment of silence to begin each school day? Anything is up for grabs, as long as it's not too fanciful.

I am sincere in starting this discussion and will hope it stays on topic, even as others of a similar viewpoint, and certainly those opposed, debate your suggestions.

This is a companion piece to the one I've started for the opposite end of the political spectrum (as commonly accepted in the U.S.), and I invite your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[Tmy]

Trick question!!! CONSERVATIVES ARE NEVER HAPPY! They always need an enemy/scapegoat.

 

[jj]

As we happy few knock heads in this forum day after day, pretty much to little effect, I'm curious.

Let's say you've been given a blank slate -- although the Constitution, as it stands today, is in place. History, too, is unchangeable. And the current major players on the national as well as world stage are all in place.

In essence, I wonder what you would alter to bring about a more utopian state of affairs by your estimation if you could, in effect, will it so. What would make you happy? Seriously.

Complete freedom with regard to private firearm ownership? A Constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage? No term limits for anyone, including the POTUS? A moment of silence to begin each school day? Anything is up for grabs, as long as it's not too fanciful.

I am sincere in starting this discussion and will hope it stays on topic, even as others of a similar viewpoint, and certainly those opposed, debate your suggestions.

This is a companion piece to the one I've started for the opposite end of the political spectrum (as commonly accepted in the U.S.), and I invite your thoughts.

Thanks!

I'd like to get the word "conservative" back from the revolutionary reactionaries who want to force us all back to the dark ages.

 

[CapelDodger]

Trick question!!! CONSERVATIVES ARE NEVER HAPPY! They always need an enemy/scapegoat.

Because what they want to conserve is how it was, but isn't now, even though it never was anyway and ain't gonna be.

 

[Tony]

A government that doesn't interfere with the individual's private life. A government committed to abolishing the income tax. A government committed to limiting it's size and power.

 

[CapelDodger]

A government that doesn't interfere with the individual's private life. A government committed to abolishing the income tax. A government committed to limiting it's size and power.

How do you feel about inheritance tax?

 

[Tony]

How do you feel about inheritance tax?

In principle, I'm against it. I think the person dying should dictate where his/her money and possessions should go. However, I recognize the threat posed to freedom by hereditary power. I think only the rich, say those worth over 5 million, should be subject to inheritance tax.

 

[WildCat]

In principle, I'm against it. I think the person dying should dictate where his/her money and possessions should go. However, I recognize the threat posed to freedom by hereditary power. I think only the rich, say those worth over 5 million, should be subject to inheritance tax.

Except that any estate planner worth a damn can protect all of that from the tax man. Just ask the Kennedy's, and think about it next time you hear Ted's populist class-envy BS.

 

[CapelDodger]

In principle, I'm against it. I think the person dying should dictate where his/her money and possessions should go.

The right of bequest is not as influential as the right to inherit. Given the death involved. The right of inheritance is what I have the problem with. Is there not already an old-money aristocracy in the US? Where else did Bush Minor come from? "Old" might be younger than European "old", but after a couple of generations the effect is the same, especially given the accelerated trajectory of the US.

Don't let the odd star like Bill Gates or Sam Walton fool you, old money far outstrips them.

 

[CapelDodger]

Except that any estate planner worth a damn can protect all of that from the tax man. Just ask the Kennedy's, and think about it next time you hear Ted's populist class-envy BS.

The Kennedy family is a prime example of old-money. Originally a Reiver-clan of the Borders their numbers were so depleted by flight and transportation to the New World after the Stuart accession that the Kennedy bosses took their money and remaining clan out there. (The Nixons, a neighbouring clan, did the same.) The opportunities were staggering, while the good ol' days of a lawless Border were gone.

 

[balrog666]

Legalize all drugs. Let people sink or swim or their own.

 

[CapelDodger]

Except that any estate planner worth a damn can protect all of that from the tax man.

Any estate-planner works with the legal and tax-system that is defined by ... those who have the power to define these things. Tony and I are talking outside the box of actuality, practicality or details of implementation.

And I think $5m is far too much. Not including family home, which can suck up a lot these days. And not including credible heirlooms - but try selling or raising money on them and wave goodbye. That should depress the art market, which is a good in itself.

 

[CapelDodger]

Legalize all drugs. Let people sink or swim or their own.

There's much to be said for that, from a practical point of view, but it has to be coupled with better options to choose. Drug production and distribution would be taken out of the hands of criminals by large, legitimate corporations, such as are found in the alcohol and tobacco industries. Demand would remain in the same hands, and a career-path out would be eliminated.

 

[Freakshow]

The Kennedy family is a prime example of old-money. Originally a Reiver-clan of the Borders their numbers were so depleted by flight and transportation to the New World after the Stuart accession that the Kennedy bosses took their money and remaining clan out there. (The Nixons, a neighbouring clan, did the same.) The opportunities were staggering, while the good ol' days of a lawless Border were gone.

I know this is WAY off-topic...but I can't help but quote one of the most brilliant comics working today: Chris Rock

"Some of the most wealthy and powerful families in this country got their money from drug dealing. The Kennedy's got their money from drug dealing. They called it 'bootlegging', but 'bootlegging' is just a white word for 'drug dealing.'"

 

[Freakshow]

Except that any estate planner worth a damn can protect all of that from the tax man. Just ask the Kennedy's, and think about it next time you hear Ted's populist class-envy BS.

So why have the tax at all, then? (I wasn't quite sure from your post which side of the issue you were coming down on.)

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Thanks for the on-topic replies so far.

Again, my conservative friends, what items and/or policies would give you the feel-goods?

 

[peptoabysmal]

What would make me happy is if the government would become serious not about the bogus "budget deficit" but about the entire national debt in general. I would like to see more fiscal conservatism in the government. I am in favor of a strong military, however. I would like to see the trend of government growth taper off, rather than heading towards becoming a larger portion of the economy than the private sector.

It makes me want to puke when I read stories about illegal aliens supporting their drug habits on SSI benefits. I will admit that these aren't the norm, but still...

I am conservative in the sense of "if it's not broken, don't fix it." I wouldn't be one to make sweeping changes, just little things gradually where it would do the most good.

That being said:

In my world, we would be a lot more fierce about defending the borders of Iraq while eliminating the use of torture. We owe this to the Iraqis. I may order the troops not to take any prisoners, kill them where you find them. I might consider a plan to offer illegal aliens citizenship in reward for a 2 year term in the military, after they complete an english language course.

I think I would order the Democrats to shut up for the next 3 years under penalty of death. Although I know it is one of our great freedoms to have freedom of speech, I think the Democrats trash talking the war effort from a very early stage has cost us unnecessary lives and given great encouragement and comfort to our enemies. Give peace a chance, let the soldiers do their job.

I think there needs to be some work done and changes towards reducing global warming and pollution in general, but in my world we will never sign a tainted treaty like Kyoto to get there. The solution has to make economic sense as well as actually make progress towards the goal. Kyoto does neither of these things.

In my world the business environment would be so profitable and plentiful that it wouldn't be necessary to talk about helping the poor or free healthcare because everyone would be successful and managing their own lives.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, I would like to see a return to virtue.

Liberalism did enormous harm in two ways: a). make people put themselves first--their own (apparent) happiness and fulfillment desires over their duties to their families, community, and country; and b). considers all non-legal social sanctions, such as public disapproval of someone's behavior, as "opressive".

For example, the "removal of the unfair stigma" from divorce and bastardry (euphemistically known as "illegitimacy", and now as a "different type of family") had not led to a society of happy people who are no longer have to suffer from unfair stigmas. Instead, it led to a society (especially among the underclass) where growing up with a succession of step-fathers, and having sex or babies with numerous virtual strangers, is the norm.

The reason for this mass growth of bastardry is easy to see: on the one hand, most people--at one time or another--felt a strong desire to leave our family, with all its trouble, and "start again". That is part of the human condition. But one cannot very well make it illegal to divorce or force you to live with someone. So only two things stop people from doing acting on this impulse: a). The social stigma of divorce and illegitimacy, and b). the idea that one's desires often have to be supressed for the greater good of one's family or society.

But once you legitimize divorce and bastardry as merely "different", on the one hand, and consider fulfillment of one's own desires and happiness paramount, on the other, what do you expect, except for enormous increase in both divorce and illegitimacy? When selfishly doing wrong became "expressing oneself" by merely being "different",far more people selfishly do wrong.

The essence of conservatism, as I see it, is to take morality seriously. The removal of morality from public life, making it into a matter of personal taste where nobody can tell anybody else what to do (let anybody be "opressed" or have their "self-esteem" hurt, God forbid) had led in many cases--especially in the underclass--to a society of atomized individuals, of a war of all against all. For if your desires and self-fulfillment are paramount, no matter how they hurt others, other's desires and whims are paramount to them, no matter how they hurt you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The removal of morality from public life led ... to a society of atomized individuals, of a war of all against all. For if your desires and self-fulfillment are paramount, no matter how they hurt others, other's desires and whims are paramount to them, no matter how they hurt you.

Ah yes. "There is no such thing as society, just individuals and their families." --- Margaret "arch-liberal" Thatcher.

Suddenly conservatives are against the atomization of society? That's good. A few years ago y'all decided to be "compassionate" as well, though I can't say I noticed the difference.

Do you have any specific plans for healing the wounds in your society other than stigmatizing "bastardry"? I'm fascinated, I really am.

Flippancy aside, you may have noticed that some countries are more conservative than others, e.g. the USA. And some countries have more of the social problems which you lament than others, e.g. the USA. I would not for a moment imply that correlation implies cause, but on the other hand, it is almost invariably the case that cause implies correlation. If "liberalism" causes divorce and "bastardry", then surely there should be some correlation between them?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think I would order the Democrats to shut up for the next 3 years under penalty of death. Although I know it is one of our great freedoms to have freedom of speech, I think the Democrats trash talking the war effort from a very early stage has cost us unnecessary lives and given great encouragement and comfort to our enemies.

Well, I can see one or two teensy problems with that.

The first, and this perhaps is a minor technical detail, is that Rengad did stipulate "the Constitution, as it stands today, is in place."

The second is that I'm not certain this would improve the morale of your troops.

A: "Good news! There'll be no more criticism of our CinC now!"
B: "My morale's lifting already! Why not?"
A: "Because all criticism's been made illegal. That shows that everything's going well. In fact, the Constitution's been suspended and the Democrats are being rounded up and shot."
B: "That puts new heart into my desire to fight for liberty and democracy in Iraq. After all, if we don't deserve it, they do!"
A: "Do you mean that, or are you just saying it to avoid being shot for your opinions?"

Perhaps in the long run it is better for morale to believe that one is a citizen of, and is fighting for, a great and free republic; and not some squalid brutal tyranny.