This thread is in the spirit of trying to understand people who we often disagree with, sometimes with anger and even hate. If you wish to argue... go somewhere else . I'm curious to know how much you guys understand where I'm coming from... and how well I really understand others. I disagree with practically everything I write here... but I think it's important to know that the other person isn't necessarily evil, or even less noble... they want the best too, usually, and just come to different conclusions. merely a thought experiment that I find interesting. So, here's what I think the "best justification" is for conservatism. People are responsible for their own actions. Wealth redistribution, excess taxes even for "good" causes, and excess government control just serve to eliminate personal accountability. Not only is that bad for those who do well on their own, but it creates a culture of entitlement that only serves to perpetuate the poverty and failure of the unsuccessful. While we can't really know what's absolutely true, there are certainly some things that we all agree are wrong. Things like child p*rnography should be regulated, because they're exploitative and of no value to almost any remotely main-stream perspective. Moreover, allowing such things makes access tooeasy for people who might be vulnerable. While freedom of speech is good, it's primary value is in preventing truly valuably information from being suppressed. Liberals like to talk about "slipper slopes" when discussiong censorship - but this is ridiculous, and even they don't really believe it. For example, if anybody really believed the "slippery slope rationale," then liberals would be all for allowing ANY speech, even if it involves a man screaming profanities in the middle of a courthouse at the top of his lungs during the entire business day. Sensible people no how to distinguish between the necessary and spurious. In international policy, liberals do mean well. However, their ideas only work if everyone acts equally well. Most nations will always act for their own interests. Hence, if we don't... well, we're going to get taken advantage of, and since we'll be the only ones acting "honorably," then it won't even do much good. The US has made mistakes, but is generally a very humanitarian nation with noble principles. Our lifestyle has certainly worked well for us, and allows for individuals to *choose* what *they* want... so if we're a bit heavy handed in spreading it, it's still best in the long run. Concerning the environment, people fail to see that it's all really a question of lifestyle. Sure, we could have a pristine environment: but we'd all have to live in caves and eat raw meat. To support the lifestyle we now enjoy, we have to make some compromises. And most Americans certainly seem to enjoy tvs and cars more than the spotted owl and wetlands. In fact, probably fewer than 1 in 10,000 doesn't. As for global warming... well, even if it is occurring, it's a global problem, that other nations aren't willing to be fair about. If we're going to sacrifice our industry, everyone should have to equally since we'll all benefit equally. About abortion... while it's true that people may disagree about whether a fetus has a soul, the mere possibility can't be ruled out... and isn't it far, far worse to murder an innocent soul than to not allow a woman to avoid the inconvenience of 9 months? Even if the odds are 1/10000 that the fetus has a soul, isn't this still true? While it's certainly possible that liberals are right that capitalism isn't always completely fair, and that some people start out with inherent advantages... it maximizes productivity and affluence for everyone to behave as if the system did work perfectly. After all, if one does treat a criminal from a "hard" back-ground more easily, then it's not treating him as an equal member of society. And besides, at least a few people are going to succeed where they would have failed if we don't allow excuses. So even if the liberals are right, society still operates better if we behave as if they're wrong. Concerning homosexuality and religion... while the US does protect minority rights, such rights should not come at the expense of everyone else. If people want to engage in activities that most find offensive, then they should be allowed to do so... but it shouldn't be taught in teh schools, etc, since that impedes majority rights. And, incidentally, isn't the right to express one's religion publicly equally denied if it's not allowed as if others express it publicly when one doesn't want it to be so? And since people in the US are overwhelmingly mono-theistic... isn't it only fair that the MOST people should have their rights not violated? Someone doesn't get their way. In a democracy, that shouldn't be the majority.
To me conservatism is upholding the Constitution. I mean what is in the four corners of the document, not the bastardization the left has made of it. In order to really understand what the four corners mean you have to think about the history surrounding its writing. For example...they wrote the First Amendment because they didn't want people to go to prison for not subscribing to the Anglican church, or the church de jour. They didn't really envision having God taken out of our society. You have to look at what was happening to them that they wanted to never happen here. This is what the courts and the left have forgotten all about. But this is just my opinion. Thanks for the opportunity.
Ah, if you're a conservative, you're supposed to present the *liberal* point of view, as you think it is most nobly represented. I'm trying to encourage mutual understanding and discourage people from thinking of the other side as somehow dastardly/stupid/insidious. Pick another thread to argue and state your point. There're plenty of them.
Sorry...my bad...I'll comply now. I think that many liberals see a lot of injustice in the world. The injustice is simply unacceptable and must be dealt with in order to give everybody a fair shake. The best way to do this is to have the powerful ensure that it be done. The powerful are the government. Therefore government is in the best position to effect positive change for all. In order to get this done we must have higher taxes than we ordinarily would. This will fund the programs necessary to achieve our goals. The poor will have access to the necessities of life and children will not go without. I know that my analysis is pretty short, but it's the best I can do off the top of my head at 3 am.
I'm pretty nocturnal. But I couldn't really understand your post. I'm probably too young to. Though I do have the highest GPA in my grade. (I just had to mention that. ) Though I won't be nocturnal for long. August 19 is when I start school. Well, I'll try to put it back on topic and say I agree with what both of you said. (I hope I did that smoothly.)
<b>...In international policy, liberals do mean well. However, their ideas only work if everyone acts equally well. Most nations will always act for their own interests. Hence, if we don't... well, we're going to get taken advantage of, and since we'll be the only ones acting "honorably," then it won't even do much good. The US has made mistakes, but is generally a very humanitarian nation with noble principles. Our lifestyle has certainly worked well for us, and allows for individuals to *choose* what *they* want... so if we're a bit heavy handed in spreading it, it's still best in the long run...........</b> That does bring up a related question. How often do the liberals find that <i>everyone acts equally well</i> in international relations? In regards to the heavy handed part, the French actions on the world's stage are your ideal for international relations? If not France, then what country? If there is massive reluctance to be the <i>lead actor</i> in international affairs, then Pat should be the Sec of State. To get something moved/changed, then a certain amount of effort is required and the alternative is an <i>undershoot</i> which leads to failure. It is a difficult choice between too much and too little, but <i>undershoot</i> in international policy is often quite messy (as is sometimes an overshoot).
haven -- excellent post...while i don't agree with all of the things related to conservative thought in that post, i agree with a lot of it. particularly the abortion part...that to me is the strongest argument...the "what if you're wrong" argument.."what if you really are killing a baby?" is quite troubling to me. And I have a hard time with those on the other side of that fence, because I can't imagine justifying anything that MIGHT lead to that. I have to say I am much more comfortable with people to the left of me than people to the right of me, for the most part. I used to lean to the left myself...a lot of that was born out of my theology, particularly on welfare issues...I mean, why shouldn't we be doing EVERYTHING we possibly can to help others who are less fortunate? Isn't that what's right? And how can all these people who profess to be Christians support anything less than that, given Christ's attitude toward the poor? Are they not falling into the same traps of the Pharisees that Jesus criticized? Foreign affairs...why do we look to war first? why are we so quick to jump the gun and use our military might to make our own way in the world? the world is a global community...the consequences are felt by all of us in the world. The cavalier attitude of the right is demeaning our place in the world. Capitalism simply does not do the job. While it has its merits, it can not be left unchecked or it will rape a society...particularly those born into poor environments. Environment...seems to me the strongest liberal argument is my same one regarding abortion..."what if you're wrong...what if global warming is real...how long can we wait to find out?" you can try and protect your job, but what if we have a world that we make inhabitable? then your job doesn't mean squat...and your industry is worthless.
Sorry, haven, but I can't comply. I don't know if I'm conservative or liberal. In some ways I lean heavily to the left, in others far to the right. I think trying to represent an opposing view, especially on the number of subjects you chose, would be too confusing. In fact, I think this exercise might be better for everyone if it were confined to a single subject. But, alas.... A professor of Russian history told me a theory he had heard of defining liberals and conservatives (by an international reckoning). Liberals believe man is fundamentally good and conservatives believe man is fundamentally evil. The theory appears to have flaws, or at least idiosyncracies, since I have heard plenty not meet the definition. What's more, in this country it seems that conservatives often rely on man's goodness (like in charity, for example) while liberals don't trust it (and thus government aid). But, I still like it. I have always maintained that the source of any disagreement in philosophy, politics or any other subject cannot be addressed until the two debaters compare their beliefs about God. From what one believes about God, everything else flows (this is why we argue and argue on the BBS without anyone ever convincing anyone else of anything -- it's because we don't talk about God enough). My approach, as a result has been to consider one's theological standpoint to really understand why they have the stupid, whacked-out ideas they have.
i think this is a fairly accurate analysis...and your further points about religion help to explain why you see so many Christians vote en masse for conservative candidates...given Christianity's concept of original sin and the fall of man.
Haven, this is a very tough one, but I'll try. I may also end up reiterating a lot of what you said. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. They believe it's best for everyone, and that it ensures people giving their all which makes society more efficient and productive. Where the economy is involved they believe in doing as much as they can to make corporations profitable. They believe this will help the country's economy as a whole, and that once profitable the corporations will create more jobs and help people on an individual basis. Foreign policy- Concservatives believe that democracy and capitalism is the best because it's the most free. It will also make it easier for American companies to trade and thus is most beneficial for the U.S. Socially - They see the easy smoothe way a society would get along and be productive with traditional values. It was productive and a possible sense of pride in the era when Ike was our president, and might cure a lot of the country's ills if people held to those values now. There I did it(or at least gave it my best try.) Now I feel like I have to go shower and wash my fingers really well because of all that I've just typed.
People are not responsible for there own actions. They are a product of their environment. It is not fair to expect someone who grew up in a broken home in a poor neighborhood to respect the rule of law. They are more than likely only going to be kept down by the elite. It is not fair to expect someone who grew up in a poor neighborhood to do well in school because the schools are under funded. It is not fair to expect someone born without advantages to climb the ladder and work themselves out of the ghetto. Because of these inequities it is our moral obligation to help these underpriviledged members of our society. We must provide for social welfare programs so that single parents can attend school while still being able to feed their families. We must allow abortions so that young girls are not trapped in a life of poverty because they grew up in an environment that did not teach them to avoid pregnancy through the use of various contraceptives. It is the responsibility of those born into privledge, and those lucky enough to rise to positions of power from poverty, to make sure that everyone is brought up to their level. As human beings, all of us are equally valid. No one person's moral philosophy is better than anyone elses. With that in mind, how can we say that our laws, our rules, our society is better than anyone elses. To impose our way on others is imperialism at its worst. We cannot condemn our neighbors because their system of justice does not offer a fair trial by jury, or if their laws demand that a person cover all of their body save the area around their eyes or pray five times a day. That is their belief system and it is just as valid as ours. If we say that one custom is wrong, where does it end. Sure, most of us in America agree that a girl should not be gang-raped because her brother was seen with a girl of higher station, but where will it end. Soon all of them will be forced to by big homes and drive around in SUVs, and be puppets of the American government. Speaking of SUVs, they and other things owned by people of influence are killing the world. Nothing dramatic will happen in our lifetime of course, but that doesn't mean everything is okay. Our great great great grandchildren need a world to live in too. We cannot wait for advancement in technologies to progress. Saving the world begins now with you and me. Ride a bike, put up solar panels, but don't just sit back and hope for the world to change because the capitalists wont let it. Ah, the capitalist. Scourge of the working man. We finally outlawed slavery, but this is the next worst thing. They will try to pay people as little as possible to do as much as possible, and get rich doing it. 25% of the country's wealth is in the hands of the top 1%. Any new or innovative idea is kept down by these people to maintain the status quo. There is no real way to break into this top tier, so we must do our best to bring them down a bit. To level the playing field. The two pronged way to accomplish this is through the use of unions and taxation. Lest you think we just hate the rich and love the poor, we even support unions for multimillionaire ballplayers against the owners that would exploit them. We don't want anyone to have special rights and privledges, just for everyone to have everything the same.
Some need to be careful not to fall into caricature. Hmm...I wonder why haven would bring up a thread about "arguing the other (or another) side"...how perplexing. Is this really "understanding" the other side, or is it just generalizing?
So this is not your view is it haven? If it is I'm sure many of us here, conservatives and liberals, could explain a few things about sustainable energy and development, certain new technologies, organic agriculture and other things. The only conservatives I've met that feel this way are really old and really ignorant. Most people understand that with industrial progress and new technology we can have tv's and cars and other things and still not trash the Earth. If you gave people a choice between having clean air, water and food or polluted air, dirty water and toxic food they would choose the cleanliness every time. Except if they're lining their pocketbooks with lots & lots of dirty money, which justifies everything for them.
Caicature? Me? Noooo. Caricature would be if I had said something like, "We support the right to choose because we certainly don't want a bunch of babys all over the place. That would eventually lead to starvation and we would need to allow limited hunting of humans to control the population."
