What is conservatism?

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Such a marriage will most likely produce a sore asshole and we all know that we don't need anymore pissed off assholes bedeviling society.

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/Soonyigump/GodHasSpoken2_zpsb53ed061.jpg

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sounds like Rob.

They usta come in and almost shed tears for a boy. They always wanted the delinquents.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, but...

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/vp/image/1367/98/1367986967266.png

Go move your goalposts somewhere else.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, your insinuation that Roe v Wade didn't change anything in those "20" states was a swinish prevarication of truth.

I insinuated nothing, tubby.
That's you putting words in my mouth.

You made a material falsehood about abortion laws, I proved you wrong and now instead of having the honor to apologize, you're trying to spin.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Because this is a concept that is still evolving, still being judged by society. It still has to be reconciled in people's minds against their religious belief. Marriage to a lot of people is still a religious ceremony, not a government exercise, although it can be.

The majority of Americans still consider themselves Christians and many act, and vote, on issues within the strictures of their religion. This has nothing to do with conservatism as much as it does Christian morality.

Since antiquity this has been an activity condemned by major religions, and societies, in history. Though a judge may declare gay marriage legal, it's general acceptance however will still have to evolve within society.

Marriage however is not a religious ceremony it's a government contract and that is what is should be discussed. The rest of this goes against the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

 

[renard_ruse]

Don't feel like reading through this thread. Let me guess, the liberals on here are saying that both economic conservatism and social conservatism are bad, horrible things, but that social conservatism is even worse and is not even conservatism at all and needs to just go away and disappear completely. Am I close?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Don't feel like reading through this thread. Let me guess, the liberals on here are saying that both economic conservatism and social conservatism are bad, horrible things, but that social conservatism is even worse and is not even conservatism at all and needs to just go away and disappear completely. Am I close?

No the libs are saying everyone deserves to be treated the same under the law.

The conservatives are saying the Bible trumps everything.....because.

And vette fully supports the US government stepping on states rights, and is pro war on drugs....because Reagan.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

You're a lying piece of shit.

Stupid too.

Ishmael

 

[KingOrfeo]

Many like the Bush family, the Doles, the Fords, the Bakers, all of whom were establishment Republicans or as we called them Rockefeller Republicans, hated Ronald Reagan for his true conservative principles.

Reagan would be too liberal for today's GOP.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm still looking for the liberal philosophy that isn't rooted in Marx.

Ishmael

TVTropes again:

Liberalism

The chief objective for liberalism is human freedom. In liberalism, freedom means the ability to do what one wills with one's own life and property. Liberals stand in opposition to government restrictions on private actions, and tend to be skeptical of authority.

There have been some splits in liberalism over time. The first important split is the one between natural law liberalism and utilitarian liberalism. Natural law liberalism holds that humans, due to divine or natural law, have certain rights that no government should infringe upon. These rights are due to self-ownership, meaning that you own yourself, and no other human does (though you may belong to God, according to early liberals, you do not belong to any other person). John Locke was a major proponent for this view, which was also influential in The American Revolution.

Utilitarian liberalism grew in popularity in the 19th Century, and it holds that the best course of action is to pursue what would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Since only the individual knows what would bring the greatest happiness to himself or herself, then governments should pursue a policy of personal autonomy, letting everybody pursue their own happiness. The most influential advocate for utilitarian liberalism is John Stuart Mill.

The other great split is between classical liberalism and left-liberalism. The split between classical liberalism and left-liberalism (also known as social liberalism) is arguably due to different concepts of rights. To the classical liberals, rights are nullifications of the power of the State (i.e. the ability to legitimately initiate the use of force), meaning no individual or groups thereof can use force, fraud or threats thereof to stop any other individual from performing a specific action. For instance, if you have the right to free speech, this means that no individual or institution can start or threaten the use of force or fraud against you in order to stop you from speaking in a specific way (provided, of course, said speech constituted neither fraud nor coercion).

To social liberals, rights are seen as entitlements to the ability to perform specific actions. For instance, if you have the right to education, this means that other people (or groups thereof) must act in order to provide you an education if you cannot provide it yourself.

So, to classical liberals, rights are things others cannot use force to stop you from doing, and to social liberals, rights are things that others are forced to enable you to do. Isaiah Berlin referred to the former as "negative liberty" and the latter as "positive liberty."

Classical liberalism argues that economic activities should be treated the same way that all other liberties are (or, further, that a meaningful distinction between economic and non-economic liberties cannot be made). Thus, economically speaking, any activity that does not involve force, fraud, or threats thereof (i.e. coercion) is just as much a right as free speech. As such, classical liberals are generally skeptical and/or hostile to government intervention in economic matters. This stance is also known as laissez-faire free market economics (which some people call "Capitalism," although that term has other definitions depending on who you ask).

Social liberalism argues that negative liberty is an insufficient condition for full human freedom. Social liberals in general do accept a significant level of negative liberty is indeed a necessary component of human freedom, but they argue a certain level of positive liberty is required as well. The typical rationale that social liberals give for this position is that the proper objects of positive liberty (according to social liberalism) will not be available to everyone in the absence of positive liberties to these objects. Whilst the proper objects of positive liberty have been debated by social liberals, they are usually justified as being necessary for "human flourishing" and "human development."

Note that this division is one of means rather than ends. Both classical and social liberals believe that the kinds of things which social liberals consider proper objects of positive liberty are good things! The division is over how they should be provided; social liberals argue that the State should provide them and classical liberals argue the State should not (there are several rationales for this position; such as the State being too incompetent to do it, or that empowering the State is inherently dangerous for further liberties, and/or that it is immoral to sacrifice negative liberties for the sake of positive ones).

During the middle parts of the twentieth century, the boundaries between social liberalism and social democracy (the latter being ideologically a product of socialism (see below), even if it had a centrist political platform) began to get blurry due to the popularity of socialism amongst many of the cultural elites of the time. During these decades, a resurgence of classical liberalism began to form. This resurgence is often called "libertarianism" (see also below) and occasionally seen as a separate ideology, but this is partly due to the fact that it originated as a rebuke to the intellectual hegemony of socialist ideas. Fundamentally, it was merely a modern reformulation of the classical liberal case.

This resurgence had two separate origins, the first in academic economics. The Austrian School of economic thought gained notoriety for an argument known today as the Economic Calculation Problem which began in 1920 with Ludwig von Mises' publication of "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". In this article, Mises argued that State Socialism (defined as an economy wherein which all means of production was owned by the State, ostensibly on behalf of the Proletariat) rendered economic efficiency impossible because without market prices for capital, there was no way to make efficiency-based decisions between various methods of production for a specific item.

Socialist economist Oskar Lange argued that Mises identified a genuine problem (a lack of economic accounting), which he argued could be fixed by replicating market prices. Lange's solution was disputed by Frederich von Hayek in his article "The Use Of Knowledge In Society". Hayek argued that the preference data from which market prices are ultimately generated rests within individual human minds, and that this data only gets expressed via voluntary trades in a free market. Assuming a lack of Instrumentality, there is no way to access this data and as such any attempt to replicate market prices would fail.

In academic economics, Hayek (and by extension, Mises' initial argument) is generally regarded as Vindicated by History (although this has been disputed) and his works on knowledge and spontaneous, undesigned order have been influential in fields ranging from sociology to research on artificial intelligence. As such it is hard to overstate his importance (and that of the Austrian School in general) to modern classical liberals. In terms of the utilitarian-natural law liberalism split, Austrian School economics generally made its case in utilitarian terms, but is embraced by classical liberals from both sides of the division. At least one famous Austrian economist, the anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard, was a natural law libertarian in terms of personal political philosophy, and the strain of anarchism he inspired, called anarcho-capitalism (generally best seen as a fusion of Austrian economics with Lockean Individualist Anarchism) is very natural-law-oriented.

The second origin of this resurgence came from a surprising source; popular novelists. As stated before, the intellectual milieu of the mid-twentieth century was generally anti-individualist and against most values that liberals (both classical and social) profess. Novelists such as Robert A. Heinlein and (most infamously) Ayn Rand produced novels explicitly defending individualistic, anti-collectivist values. In the case of Ayn Rand, her work ended up becoming the basis for the philosophy of Objectivism, which has been significantly influential on many modern classical liberals. Of course, Rand's philosophy, most specifically its moral component, is a controversial and divisive subject that quite a few classical liberals do not necessarily agree with; some even reject it outright. Whilst they often acknowledged the utilitarian case and considered it true that classical liberalism produced the greatest good for the greatest number, they did not accept that the moral justification for classical liberalism was utilitarianism.

As for social liberalism, it is arguable that (in recent times) the doctrine has been replaced by or assimilated into various forms of social democracy. Some even argue that social liberalism was always a front for socialistic ideas but this is a highly controversial claim. Since the division between social liberalism and social democracy is primarily one of values rather than political program (and the division between social and classical liberalism being one of political program rather than values), the categories can get muddled. Additionally, political programs contain matters of degree; social liberals can advocate either relatively moderate amounts of government intervention (arguably, some of the more moderate libertarians fit here) or similar levels of government to a social democrat, depending on what the liberal believes is required to enable full human flourishing.

It is also worth pointing out that while classical liberals are often painted as being opposed to all government intervention in the marketplace, this is not strictly true. Adam Smith, for example, actually supported subsidies to the unemployed as well as fledgeling businesses (although he was uneasy about the latter due to his fears that businesses would lobby against being removed from the subsidy rolls), as well as progressive taxation, while Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek proposed replacing the existing welfare programs and minimum wage with negative income taxes that would provide living wages to all citizens, not the complete elimination of welfare. Where Friedman and Hayek stopped short of social liberalism was in opposing redistribution of wealth for the sake of bringing living standards closer together, although they have been criticised by others further to the right economically for supporting any redistribution at all.

See also:

Social democracy

Social democracy is basically a kind of compromise between capitalism and democratic socialism. While socialism proposes that all industries come under state or cooperative ownership and control, social democracy instead proposes the nationalising of only certain essential services while still allowing private enterprise for the rest. The rationale is that certain services do not operate in the interests of the public good in a for-profit environment and inevitably result in inequality, but free enterprise is still necessary for innovation and competition (and indeed, social-democratic systems can and do involve private enterprises acting in direct competition with the nationalised services). Essentially it's democratic socialism within a capitalistic framework.

"Essential services" can refer to education, public transport, health insurance, welfare, water, electricity, and so on. In fact, the truth is that most government systems which self-identify as capitalist are also social-democratic in some way or another, with most services above nationalized: even the USA, which is infamously wary of socialism as a nation, has such programs as Medicare (nationalized health insurance for citizens over 65) and so on.

 

[jeninflorida]

Oh I love how the KingifTards is a mislead mindless sheep going off to the slaughter house...

If only ignorant fools like him would get a job and off welfare!


Sucess is the best cure for those afflicted with the socialism diseases

TVTropes again:



See also:

 

[dan_c00000]

I frequently see liberals on the internet try to deflect from their own hypocrisy by claiming that "conservatism" is "hypocritical" (they always put "conservatism" in quotes for some reason, I guess to show an extra level of contempt for it).

Generally, they attempt to pit economic conservatism against social conservatism, usually claiming that social conservatism isn't the true conservatism and is illegitimate because in their "argument" it sometimes contradicts the laissez faire attitudes of economic conservatism.

What is the relation between economic conservatism and social conservatism? Which is the true basis of the ideology?

Keep in mind many people who try to pit the two against each other have an ulterior agenda, they are often wealthy socially liberal rich people, gays, angry young "libertarians" who don't want "anyone to tell me what to do," or are DNC activists trying to disrupt their opponents' political coalition.

This sounds like a shitty paper you'd get assigned at Liberty University.

 

[jeninflorida]

This sounds like a shitty paper you'd get assigned at Liberty University.

Yet u love the socialist msnbc .... a ny libotard, clearly it sucks 2 b u

 

[KingOrfeo]

What is the relation between economic conservatism and social conservatism? Which is the true basis of the ideology?

Perhaps they are simply two different ideologies. (Or two different political traditions/positions, if you don't like the word "ideology.") They are not incompatible, but neither implies the other.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Conservatism is not an ideology.

That's pretty much what TVTropes says.

Conservatism

Problems immediately arise when attempting to define "conservatism" because the term does not refer to any specific single ideology. The word has been used by many different political groups in many different ways, usually peddling wildly-divergent and often flatly-contradictory political programs. Of course, this has to do with the fact that "conserving" the current state of society does mean a different thing in different countries and, more important, different times. Restoring society as it was in the past is a different thing altogether; that would be reactionary.

Historically, in British political philosophy, conservatism does have a fixed definition, although it doesn't refer so much to a political ideology as much as it refers to a skeptical attitude towards political ideologies.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Perhaps they are simply two different ideologies. (Or two different political traditions/positions, if you don't like the word "ideology.") They are not incompatible, but neither implies the other.

I'm not sure if I buy the "They are not incompatible" statement.

Social conservatism, at least the toxic stew bandied about nowadays, seems to be predicated on an ever-increasing "big brother" government dedicated to policing peoples bedrooms and establishing social norms via an intrusive federal bureaucracy.

Fiscal conservatism, on the other hand, seeks a return to "wild west" days of minimal government and social darwinism, i.e. "contribute or die".

Both are shoddy, immature political ideologies promoted by shoddy, immature political ideologues.

 

[Liar]

See also:

Social democracy

Weeelll, it's not unfair to say that Social Democracy and various other Labour movements are all at least influenced by Maxist economic theory. I doubt however that those who use a phrase like "rooted in Marx" understand the difference between that and Maxist ideology, or that Social Democracy is at it's core a direct rejection of the latter.

 

[Ishmael]

Weeelll, it's not unfair to say that Social Democracy and various other Labour movements are all at least influenced by Maxist economic theory. I doubt however that those who use a phrase like "rooted in Marx" understand the difference between that and Maxist ideology, or that Social Democracy is at it's core a direct rejection of the latter.

You'd loose that bet.

Ishmael

 

[Liar]

You'd loose that bet.

Ishmael

Fair enough. When you said "rooted in Marx", what part of Marx's work were you referring to?

 

[KingOrfeo]

You'd loose that bet.

Ishmael

Then you understand -- see post #88 -- that left-liberalism, no less than classical liberalism/libertarianism, is part of a political and intellectual tradition completely independent of Marx.

 

[Liar]

Then you understand -- see post #88 -- that left-liberalism, no less than classical liberalism/libertarianism, is part of a political and intellectual tradition completely independent of Marx.

I wouldn't say completely independent. Modern day liberalism and soc dem in particular is very based on the premise of societal structures, a very Marx-y idea. They agree with Marx that strucures exist and that they matter. Maybe to a fault, just like libertarians and (some) conservative tend to pretend they don't exist at all. They disagree with Marx what to do about them though. Their end goal is pretty similar to that of a libertatian - individual empowerment and general prosperity - but since a Soc Dem and a Libertarian don't see reality the same way, they can't agree what the obstacles are and therefore how to overcome them. One see Government as a tool against structures. The other don't see the structures and wonder what the hell all this Government is supposed to be good for.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're a lying piece of shit.

Did you or did you not cheer the threat of impeachment of Holder and crew for not enforcing federal drug laws in states that voted them the fuck down?


Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and 10 other House Republicans — including Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Florida Rep. Ted Yoho — have drafted four articles of impeachment against Holder. These include allegations that Holder violated federal law by refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena over the botched Fast and Furious gun-walking program; “failed to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986,”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/house-republicans-eric-holder-impeachment-99845.html

"The resolution was introduced by Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, who claims Holder has committed “the offenses of lying to Congress, refusing to comply with a subpoena, and failing to fulfill his oath of office.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...esolution-to-impeach-attorney-general-holder/

You never supported this?? REALLY? I'm pretty sure we all saw you cheering on FEDERAL DUTY!! FUCK THOSE VOTERS!! NO GAY MARRIAGE AND NO WEED!!!

I'm pretty sure you said conservatism only supports the tried and true...which would make the drug war tried and true in your opinion yes?

Sounds like support to trample voters, ones voting for more individual liberty no less and states rights to me....I seriously can't think of how it could be any more direct than "I lost so now I'm going to support holding the fed's feet to the fire to come do their federal duty to bulldoze the voters of your state. "

Yea you're a real freedom lover vette