• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives -- What Would Make You Happy?

SlippyToad said:
Then you win, Tony because only the super rich are. Only the top ~1% of the nation is subject to inheritance taxes, contrary to any propaganda you may have heard to the contrary. A lot of the b.s. I hear conservatives complain about is either not their business, or not really the problem they claim it to be, and it becomes more difficult for me to take you people seriously year after year because you go flying off the handle about something that isn't even real.
Click to expand...
It is morally wrong to steal, regardless of how rich or poor the person being stolen from is. I personally make no moral adjustments on theft due to the wealth (or lack of wealth) of the victim.

Much of taxation is a necessary evil. Which is why we need to be extremely careful with it. I do not think it is right to interfere with someone leaving the fruits of their life's work to their family. No one else deserves even one single penny of it.
 
Tony said:
I'm conservative in that I support the conservative principles I was raised to think (during the 90's) were conservative, ie, less government, less beauracracy, less government intrusion into private lives, personal freedom/individual rights, accountable government. The vast majority of my positions are based on these principles ...
Click to expand...
I'm conservative in that I don't want a frenetically activist government. We would surely differ on what roles government should play in society, and governments should certainly take account of societal changes and respond to enable or mitigate them. But radical should only be a badge of honour when there's a crisis.

Conservatism in this sense, which I think is close to yours, is about not fixing what ain't broke, but fixing what is. After careful consideration as to whether it's needed any more anyway.

Big-C Conservatives are, as you point out, hate-mongers. They hate what is, and wish to change, not conserve. Radicals. Change back to a better time that was vilifyed by their historical counterparts. But with the materially modern thrown-in, of course. Every age and society has them. they give small-C conservatives a bad name.
 
Dr Adequate said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Constitution as it stands in place today is not immutable.

You are spot-on here:
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.
Click to expand...

And who is it that is trying to make them believe that they are fighting for a squalid brutal tyranny?
 
Kerberos said:
So does this mean that you'd order them to shot anybody that was suspected of being an insurgent, regardless of how flimsy the evidence, or does it mean that you'd let suspected insurgents walk around unmolestered, until their insurgencyness had been established beoynd reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...
I mean if you are in a gun battle with them and they surrender, pull the trigger anyway. Yes, I know this is wrong on many levels.
 
CapelDodger said:
Conservatism in this sense, which I think is close to yours, is about not fixing what ain't broke, but fixing what is. After careful consideration as to whether it's needed any more anyway.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that deciding what is "broke" is often a value judgment. For example, conservatives might claim that the level of social acceptability currently enjoyed by homosexuality (or blacks) is evidence of a "broken" society. They would endeavor to “fix” this problem by outlawing homosexuality, homo-sex, or homo-marriage thus betraying their claims to stand for personal rights/individual freedom.

They hate what is, and wish to change, not conserve.
Click to expand...

They hate what is and wish to change things into their warped version of the "good ole days" when people went to church/were more "moral" or whatever boogyman they choose to blame for what they see as society's ills.
 
Tony said:
I've noticed that deciding what is "broke" is often a value judgment. For example, conservatives might claim that the level of social acceptability currently enjoyed by homosexuality (or blacks) is evidence of a "broken" society. They would endeavor to “fix” this problem by outlawing homosexuality, homo-sex, or homo-marriage thus betraying their claims to stand for personal rights/individual freedom.
Click to expand...
There, indeed, is the problem. To my mind, society's changing attitude to homosexuality is the sort of thing government should be adjusting to. The government is, after all, servant to society.

I hate prescriptive ideologies that design their preferred society, then set out to make it from the one they've got. These are the people walls and lamp-posts are made for.
 
Freakshow said:
I do not think it is right to interfere with someone leaving the fruits of their life's work to their family.
Click to expand...

Why not? Would you support handing over the original 13 colonies to the British royal family because the founding fathers interfered with George III leaving the fruits of his life's work to his family?
 
Tony said:
Why not? Would you support handing over the original 13 colonies to the British royal family because the founding fathers interfered with George III leaving the fruits of his life's work to his family?
Click to expand...
Not at all similar. Want to try again with the topic at hand? That being one individual giving something he currently possesses (up until his VERY recent death) to his family, wihtout some 3rd party having it first for hundreds of years?
 
CapelDodger said:
There, indeed, is the problem. To my mind, society's changing attitude to homosexuality is the sort of thing government should be adjusting to. The government is, after all, servant to society.
Click to expand...
There is value to both progressive and conservative approaches to society. Too much change too quickly can seriously effect cohesion. Societies should be slow to change except when the status quo is so egregious as it was in the civil rights area. Societies that are not flexible enough to change are also in danger of failing. People change. Societies need to be responsive to that change without effecting the social fabric too greatly.
 
RandFan said:
There is value to both progressive and conservative approaches to society. Too much change too quickly can seriously effect cohesion. Societies should be slow to change except when the status quo is so egregious as it was in the civil rights area. Societies that are not flexible enough to change are also in danger of failing. People change. Societies need to be responsive to that change without effecting the social fabric too greatly.
Click to expand...
It's a tricky business, finding a balance. It's not a terribly fine line, IMO, it's more of a saddle-shape. I'm not a catastrophist, which I suppose goes with not being a prescriptivist, but catastrophe will occur without a sense of balance and appropriate adjustment.

It wasn't really US society that was slow to act on segregation - a century of it - but the US government that was slow to react. When it was made a Presidential issue, society had long been ready. Had Johnson dealt with the Great Society alone, rejecting activist intervention in other societies, the US would be better for it. IMO.
 
Freakshow said:
Not at all similar. Want to try again with the topic at hand? That being one individual giving something he currently possesses (up until his VERY recent death) to his family, wihtout some 3rd party having it first for hundreds of years?
Click to expand...
You accentuate the giving, but not the receiving. The recipient currently possesses the inheritance, and can pass it on. This is how the centuries build up, and how aristocracies emerge.

We could try a different system. One where inheritance is received, but subtracted from the legacy passed on. That encourages added-value, if one is motivated by the well-being of others post one's own mortem.
 
Roadtoad said:
On that note from American:
... I can't help but think that gays and lesbians are probably tired of hearing how they're all headed for Hell, especially when some of them behave with greater compassion and mercy than many of those who are condemning them ...
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
CapelDodger said:
You accentuate the giving, but not the receiving. The recipient currently possesses the inheritance, and can pass it on. This is how the centuries build up, and how aristocracies emerge.

We could try a different system. One where inheritance is received, but subtracted from the legacy passed on. That encourages added-value, if one is motivated by the well-being of others post one's own mortem.
Click to expand...
I don't care if aristocracies emerge (we have them already, actually...the Kennedy's, the Bushes...), as long as they emerge from hard work and good decision making, and they don't emerge due to having a different set of rules apply to them than to everyone else. I'm thinking along the lines of medieval Europe, with totally different sets of laws applying to nobility and to peasants.

But if the same laws apply to everyone, let the chips fall where they may. I'm more concerned with the process than I am the results.
 
CapelDodger said:
It's a tricky business, finding a balance. It's not a terribly fine line, IMO, it's more of a saddle-shape. I'm not a catastrophist, which I suppose goes with not being a prescriptivist, but catastrophe will occur without a sense of balance and appropriate adjustment.

It wasn't really US society that was slow to act on segregation - a century of it - but the US government that was slow to react. When it was made a Presidential issue, society had long been ready. Had Johnson dealt with the Great Society alone, rejecting activist intervention in other societies, the US would be better for it. IMO.
Click to expand...
Ok, but bear in mind I wasn't simply taking about segregation but civil rights in general including the rise of social conscious, women's rights and migrant farm workers.
 
jj said:
It's coming up election time in 3 years, what do you expect, Dr. Adequate? They have to start the big lies and disinformation really early this time if they expect to win the next election.

Repetition is the lynchpin of propaganda - Joseph Goebbels
Click to expand...

And you repeat your assertion that "big lie" tactics are used every day. You have learned well.
 
hammegk said:
Your posts usually seem rational. Do you stand by that wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth comment that defines the pc'liberal position?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a PC or liberal position at all.

Example: I am against affirmative action. I think it is discrimination. AA is concerned not with the process (a proper process would be treating all candidates equally), and is instead concerned with the results (looking at what percentage of each race ends up in certain positions, and ignoring how anyone gets to where they are.)
 
Freakshow said:
I don't think it is a PC or liberal position at all.

Example: I am against affirmative action. I think it is discrimination. AA is concerned not with the process (a proper process would be treating all candidates equally), and is instead concerned with the results (looking at what percentage of each race ends up in certain positions, and ignoring how anyone gets to where they are.)
Click to expand...

So basically you assume that, with the correct process, the correct result with come more or less automatically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom