True Conservatives, (And That Doesn't Include Limbaugh or Beck.)

[ponderingturtle]

Not if it's done voluntarily, out of a sense of responsibility for one's surroundings.

And also does not actually fix the problem. It is the whole, do I want to pay 1% of some poor bastards cancer bills for month when he will no matter what not live out the year and I don't know him, or get a big screen TV. And anyway there will just be some other poor shlub in that position next month.

People donate a lot when there are big news splashes, but look at Haiti, no one cares about it anymore, donating to it is no longer the thing to do.

 

[drkitten]

Just out of curiosity, where did the money come from to make the original investment? Was it taxed? Hint: The answers are, 1) someone worked hard for it and 2) Yes.

But was that someone who worked hard for it you?

Re-read the principle:

you have your position in life because you've earned it, not because you're given it. You make it by the sweat of your own brow, and you don't do it by taking from others.

So, right there, a "true conservative" would support a 100% estate tax. And a 100% gift tax.

 

[carlitos]

I think that this is an improvement to the Politics subforum, putting the logical fallacies right there in the thread title. I support this.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

2.) A Conservative values merit above all else.

In other words, you have your position in life because you've earned it, not because you're given it. You make it by the sweat of your own brow, and you don't do it by taking from others, either through the courts or dishonest business practices.

So you are in favour of large inheritance tax?

 

[Chaos]

The thing is that these points do not do anything about the values you cited, both believe in the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, this is a very socialist ideology. So you are distinguishing how they achieve their social agenda as the main point of difference?

I call bullflop on that "socialist" thing. There is nothing socialist about that principle. You can very well believe that the greatest good for the greatest number is a good goal to strive for, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the best (or the only) way to achieve it. Very socialist, that. You people really need to stop trotting "socialism" whenever someone advocates something other than naked egoism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I call bullflop on that "socialist" thing. There is nothing socialist about that principle. You can very well believe that the greatest good for the greatest number is a good goal to strive for, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the best (or the only) way to achieve it. Very socialist, that. You people really need to stop trotting "socialism" whenever someone advocates something other than naked egoism.

I would say that is arguing over methodology not goals. Kind of like how there are many many different systems that provide universal health care in non USA developed nations. Some of them are very directly government run others are basically private. Why rate one system as more socialist than another if both are equally effective at providing universal access to health care.

It is a socialist ideal, you are just investing too much specific history and ideology in what you consider socialist. Rather the same complain many here are having with the term conservative.

And then it gets into issues of defining what is good, like is it a greater good to die free from taxes or lived because of taxes?

 

[lomiller]

You can very well believe that the greatest good for the greatest number is a good goal to strive for, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the best (or the only) way to achieve it. Very socialist, that.

Capitalism is indeed socialist at it’s heart, but modern laissez-faire isn’t capitalism by any reasonable standard as it completely rejects most of the pre-conditions Adam Smith and pretty much every mainstream economist since outlined as requirements for this system to work.

Feudalism+Mercantilism is has far more in common with what the laissez-faire crowd try to promote then anything Adam Smith wrote or anything in mainstream modern economics.

 

[drkitten]

Capitalism is indeed socialist at it’s heart, but modern laissez-faire isn’t capitalism by any reasonable standard as it completely rejects most of the pre-conditions Adam Smith and pretty much every mainstream economist since outlined as requirements for this system to work.

Where's that "lol wut?" poster when you need it?

First, you're right that Adam Smith-style laissez faire capitalism only works under certain circumstances, some of which Adam himself identified, and others were identified by later economists.

Modern economies -- especially modern large corporatist economies -- tend not to conform to those circumstances. That doesn't make modern capitalist economics not laissez faire, but it just means that the closer it is to the that "ideal," the less well it works.

Capitalism is not socialist at heart. The single-sentence definition of socialism is public ownership and control of the means of production, which is directly opposed to capitalism (which can be succinctly defined as private ownership and control).

The idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" does not belong to any one political group. Indeed, it's one of those ideas that every politician seems compelled to pay lip service to in one way or another, rather like the standard US reverence for baseball, apple pie, and Old Glory -- even if the politician himself is allergic to apples. (Do you remember "a rising tide lifts all boats"?) The key difference between capitalism and socialism -- and more generally between liberalism and libertarianist conservatism -- is whether that "greatest good" is more effectively achieved via competitive greedy optimization or collectivist cooperation.

And, finally, you're right that many modern corporatists are not really supporting laissez faire capitalism (or they'd be much happier, for example, with the elimination of protectionist tariffs and would happily allow the Chinese to spend itself into bankruptcy). But to claim that what modern corporatists are arguing for is laissez faire mercantilism.....

Well, I think we're back to LOL WUT....

 

[lomiller]

First, you're right that Adam Smith-style laissez faire capitalism only works under certain circumstances, some of which Adam himself identified, and others were identified by later economists.

Modern economies -- especially modern large corporatist economies -- tend not to conform to those circumstances. That doesn't make modern capitalist economics not laissez faire, but it just means that the closer it is to the that "ideal," the less well it works.

The term laissez faire has been co-opted to a large degree so that if you see someone identify themselves as “laissez faire” there is a pretty good chance they are at odds not just with most mainstream economists but with what Adam Smith had in mind when he first wrote about it.

In my post you should read laissez faire as “what the people who typically self-identify as laissez faire think it means” rather then what it really does or how it’s applied in modern economics.

Do you disagree that when you push Libertarians about how society “should” work if they answer at all the description looks more and more like a Feudal society they more detailed they get?

 

[Ladewig]

I'm sick of it. I tired of hearing about "conservatives" like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and their ilk. In all honesty, I don't think they understand the meaning of the word, and what it once meant. When I think of Conservative, I look more to my Grandfather, Thomas Dunn Watson, Jr., than I do anyone else. He understood what genuine Conservatism is really about than most of these folks, and he lived it for the most part.

Would you give an estimate of the number of Americans who fit this definition?

 

[Roadtoad]

Would you give an estimate of the number of Americans who fit this definition?

Given some of the responses on this thread? I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess.

This began as an inquiry. It's become something far less. I find it interesting that in threads like, where someone someone is putting an idea forth to be challenged, there are those who need to put some ugliness behind their responses. Sorry I wasted everyone's time.

 

[Mycroft]

Given some of the responses on this thread? I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess.

This began as an inquiry. It's become something far less. I find it interesting that in threads like, where someone someone is putting an idea forth to be challenged, there are those who need to put some ugliness behind their responses. Sorry I wasted everyone's time.

It was a noble effort.

Just because it's our natural tendency to lump everyone who disagrees with us into the same bin as the extremists doesn't mean we shouldn't make the effort to try to understand their points of view and to identify those areas where we might respect their opinions or even share common ground.

It's not a waste of time to try to rise above the polarization. You just gotta understand it's a difficult journey for most of those you want to invite with you.

 

[peptoabysmal]

1.) A Conservative lives as though he doesn't need the laws.

2.) A Conservative values merit above all else.

3.) A Conservative is truthful not only with others, but himself.

4.) A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number.

How about:
1.) A conservative lives as if rights and laws come from a higher source than mere men. (Natural laws? Religion? Karma? Can we agree that the laws of man are fallible?)
2.) A conservative values honor above all else (merit is a reward for duties performed, honor is personal integrity reflected in the eyes of peers - we say "Your Honor" and not "Your Merit" to a judge).
3.) A conservative is truthful.
4.) A conservative works towards the minimum government needed to ensure liberty, justice and freedom for all.

It is a story of the individual versus the collective.
We will not be assimilated.

 

[rustypouch]

I'm sick of it. I tired of hearing about "conservatives" like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and their ilk. In all honesty, I don't think they understand the meaning of the word, and what it once meant. When I think of Conservative, I look more to my Grandfather, Thomas Dunn Watson, Jr., than I do anyone else. He understood what genuine Conservatism is really about than most of these folks, and he lived it for the most part.

There aren't many points to understand in what makes someone a Conservative, so the whole concept is pretty easy to grasp.

1.) A Conservative lives as though he doesn't need the laws.

This means pretty much what it says. You don't need speed limit laws, simply because you don't overdrive for the conditions. You don't need to be told not to discriminate, simply because you already know it's wrong. You don't dump filth into the nation's waterways, because you already know someone is going to wind up drinking the filth you dump into the water.

In other words, you consider the consequences of your actions before you act, the behave accordingly.

2.) A Conservative values merit above all else.

In other words, you have your position in life because you've earned it, not because you're given it. You make it by the sweat of your own brow, and you don't do it by taking from others, either through the courts or dishonest business practices.

Further, you don't discriminate on any basis; if someone isn't being promoted, it's because they're either lazy, incompetent, or both. It has nothing to do with race, creed, sexuality, religion, national origin. Work hard, do good work, and you move forward. That simple.

3.) A Conservative is truthful not only with others, but himself.

In short, a genuine Conservative is more interested in facts, and is working towards eliminating bias. It means being honest about your own actions, and not trying to mitigate the impact of them simply because it's convenient, or because it supports your so-called allies. It means you're going to base your actions on rationality, rather than emotion.

4.) A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number.

A Conservative is more interested in pluralism, and in the community, rather than his/her own pockets, in short because it also benefits him/herself. A golden parachute is nice, but if it comes to the detriment of the company -- and its employees -- what's the point?

By this definition, Al Dunlap, Rush Limbaugh's buddy, is not a conservative. Likewise, neither is Limbaugh. Sean Hannity? Not a chance. Ditto Beck, and his ties with a rather suspect gold trader. Something to consider.

Your thoughts?

I don't agree.

You seem to be idealizing your view of what rebuplicans should be.

1. Some do, but why is this a good thing? Do they think they are better than everyone else? That laws should apply to everyone else, but not them?

Now matter what you think, many will do what is best for them in the short term. I just think of all the corporations willing to screw over their customers and the environment for a few extra bucks.

2.[citation needed] and is a contradiction to #4

3.[citation needed] I just need to think of the many conservative politicians who are officially homophobic, but get caught in gay sex scandals.

4. No.

The needs of the many before the needs of the few? For some reason, that seems communist to me. I thought the conservative ideal was that everyone should look out for themselves, and if they can't be bothered, or lack the resources, it's their own fault for not trying harder.

It's a cute No True Scotsman that expresses your ideals, but doesn't jive with reality.

 

[Chaos]

Given some of the responses on this thread? I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess.

This began as an inquiry. It's become something far less. I find it interesting that in threads like, where someone someone is putting an idea forth to be challenged, there are those who need to put some ugliness behind their responses. Sorry I wasted everyone's time.

I don´t consider my time wasted. Your principles would make for very good members of a community (I won´t say "good citizens" because to some this sounds too much like "good subjects to authority"), not to mention decent human beings.

I´m just far too much of a cynic to think that very many people actually adhere to these principles. The ones who are aware they fall short, some of the time or much of the time, aren´t the problem - they try, at least. The real problem are those who are comfortable in the certain knowledge that they are the very embodiment of these principles, because they wouldn´t recognize adhering to the principles if it kicked them in the nuts.

 

[Ladewig]

3.[citation needed] I just need to think of the many conservative politicians who are officially homophobic, but get caught in gay sex scandals.

The "many conservative politicians" who get caught in gay sex scandals represent less than one-third of one percent of those elected. Is it really fair to define an entire group by the actions of a very, very few? Especially when the conservative movement often shuns or expels those people (e.g. Larry Craig).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Given some of the responses on this thread? I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess.

This began as an inquiry. It's become something far less. I find it interesting that in threads like, where someone someone is putting an idea forth to be challenged, there are those who need to put some ugliness behind their responses. Sorry I wasted everyone's time.

No it began with an attempt to link moral virtues to a political ideology and the foundation of that ideology, with out any attempt of dealing with the actual underpinnings of the ideology.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

You [RoadToad] seem to be idealizing your view of what rebuplicans should be.....

I agree. And then you [Roadtoad] are disappointed that many here disagree.


I don't stereotype all conservatives, but there is a core of conservatives that do fit the stereotype depending on how general the description. To try to describe a minority of conservatives in the public spotlight and assert these are the true conservatives is a difficult case to support.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The "many conservative politicians" who get caught in gay sex scandals represent less than one-third of one percent of those elected. Is it really fair to define an entire group by the actions of a very, very few? Especially when the conservative movement often shuns or expels those people (e.g. Larry Craig).

Larry Craig was shunned? I would say it was more like ignored hoping no one would continue to notice him. Did we hear any conservative voices of condemnation of his behavior, in particular the behavior that put his unsuspecting wife at risk of HIV should he have gotten it?

 

[Tailgater]

I liked the OP. It kind of had a "what happened to the Teddy Roosevelts of the world" feel to it. Of course, you have some jerks jumping from that right into the modern right-winger in the bathroom because they can't get past the text of it and understand the feeling behind it, but don't let that get you down RT.