• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Four Good Reasons Why I Am A Conservative

Dr Adequate said:
Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...

What "good reason" do you or other conservatives have for outlawing marijuana?
 
Two Good Reasons Why I Am NOT A Conservative

Traditional Values
Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy,[2] is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[3]

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:

The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false.
Click to expand...

Partisanism
"Choosing a side"- any side- to me is to some degree forsaking skepticism in favour of embracing a conclusion based on other, primarily emotional, factors.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Because bigotry is not the sort of thing one should comfort.
Click to expand...

Am i bigot because i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals who have absolutely no intentions to work towards my country's welfare?
Or is it because i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people and our culture?

Perhaps its just because i note that different cultures with conflicting values will eventually clash?
 
Arcade22 said:
Actually most Conservatives i have talked to agree with my on issues like Immigration and Multiculturalism. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Which reflects on your choice of people whom you choose to talk to.
 
Arcade22 said:
Am i bigot because i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals who have absolutely no intentions to work towards my country's welfare?
Click to expand...
Since you only specified foreign "leeches and criminals", yes. Because this implies that a "stable and harmonious country" means "full of people like me".

Or is it because i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people and our culture?
Click to expand...
Yes. See "segregation".
 
The problem is what "good reason" means. One might as well say that we are all pacifists, since none of us would go to war without "good reason".
 
Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Free Markets were tried. They led to snake oil salesmen, things like mercury in the food and drink, and to unions and to corporations.
Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...


Whenever you leave people to their own devices, it always leads to a big huge tyrannical government, which is a why a government is needed to protect people's rights and liberties.
Literal Conservatism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should change some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Leaving people to their own devices is generally not a good idea either. If there is no incentive to do something, however small or large, people just will not do things such as charity or things that are good. That means some people will be left out in the cold because there will be left out in the cold. There needs to be a third option, and there's nothing wrong with government providing a third option for people. However, like anything, that ideal can be abused as well.
Opposition To Statism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should do some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...

First of all, define statism.

One of the problems that Libertarianism has is that it does not seem to acknowledge certain aspects of human nature. There are those who are envelope pushers, that is they purposefully test the boundaries of society's rules to see what they can get away with. Other people just feel that rules of society just don't apply to them.

For example, take the libertarian ideal of mediation. The only thing the people have to enforce an agreement is their word. And in the first place, if there is a conflict, and one person feels they are right no matter what, what rules and laws are there in place to handle such a situation? That's how laws are created, and that's what eventually leads to an ever more encroaching government as more and more legislation is created to micro manage a person's life.

Plus, that's a very loose definition of statism.

Added:

That in a nutshell, is the inherent weakness to libertarianism and how libertarianism is defeated. Because it cannot and will not be able to prevent a government from growing large and powerful without it's own set of rules to cover the situations that would create the new legislation that gives government its power. In order to do so, you can't just say "well, this government isn't going to get any bigger", you have to have a system in place to prevent it the government from growing bigger, and that in itself is another kind of big government.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Good reasons exist. Even Conservatives agree with them. They are called "market failures" - when goods or services cannot be efficiently delivered via free markets without harming the economy or nation at large.

Police, fire depatments, public roads, military, national parks, regulatory agents for things like public health (e.g. CDC) are all not only regulated, but fully socialized. Socialism! Oh noes!

Another market failure is long-term investment in science or technology that are difficult, if not impossible to turn a profit in human time frames, e.g. NASA, NIH.
 
Last edited:
Eyeron said:
Free Markets were tried. They led to snake oil salesmen, things like mercury in the food and drink, and to unions and to corporations.



Whenever you leave people to their own devices, it always leads to a big huge tyrannical government, which is a why a government is needed to protect people's rights and liberties.


Leaving people to their own devices is generally not a good idea either. If there is no incentive to do something, however small or large, people just will not do things such as charity or things that are good. That means some people will be left out in the cold because there will be left out in the cold. There needs to be a third option, and there's nothing wrong with government providing a third option for people. However, like anything, that ideal can be abused as well.


First of all, define statism.

One of the problems that Libertarianism has is that it does not seem to acknowledge certain aspects of human nature. There are those who are envelope pushers, that is they purposefully test the boundaries of society's rules to see what they can get away with. Other people just feel that rules of society just don't apply to them.

For example, take the libertarian ideal of mediation. The only thing the people have to enforce an agreement is there word. And in the first place, if there is a conflict, and one person feels they are right no matter what, what rules and laws are there in place to handle such a situation? That's how laws are created, and that's what eventually leads to an ever more encroaching government as more and more legislation is created to micro manage a person's life.

Plus, that's a very loose definition of statism.
Click to expand...
Well, do you remember how I always added as a caveat the phrase: "If you don't have some good reason"?

For example, I agree totally that there should be regulation of markets --- where any good reason can be provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom