What Is A Conservative?

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1426559' date='Nov 28 2007, 10:03 PM']Liberal = Atheisticly extreme, Pro-Communist, Pro-poverty (IE: Maintaining and increasing a government-dependent welfare-class), extreme left-wing on moral issues to the point of ignoring the most basic moral principles, trying to subject believers against their will and rights as a religious human beings to a form of radical secularist politically-correct immorality they don't hold. [/quote]

Bwa ha ha that is hilarious.

[Spamity Calamity]

Ok time to be serious. I can’t talk in large blocks of text like these others can but if I had to boil down what I think it means to be a conservative is this:

[size=4]The rights of the individual trumps everything else.[/size]

This is why I’m against abortion (because it violates the rights of the unborn individual).

This is why I’m pro second amendment (because I have the right to defend myself from criminals and the government).

This is why I believe in limited government (because the government’s sole purpose should be to protect the rights of the individual and we don’t need such a big government to do that.)

That is why I am against the government dictating how I should live my life. It is my right to decide how I should live and if that means screwing up my life or hurting myself that is my right ( I don’t need the government to protect me from myself, I know whats best for me).

That is why I reject the notion that the government can enforce morality and it is up the responsibility of the individual. Religion plays an important part here

That is why I believe the only way to get ahead in life requires that the individual has to work hard and succeed on their own merits.

These are just a few things that to me are what it means to be a conservative. That was the whole point of our constitution. It says that the individual has guaranteed god given rights and it forces the government to recognize and respect them.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Spamity Calamity

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Political terms like conservative and liberal are difficult to define because they evolve over time and mean different things in different countries. Conservatism in Britain is not the mirror image of conservatism in America, for example - not because Britain is a left-leaning country, as was suggested in another thread, but because as a nation it has had to face different social issues from those that predominate in the US. Any definition has to be fluid enough to take these two things into account.

I do not see liberalism and conservatism as polar opposites - that artificial dichotomy has been created by people who specifically define their political stances [i]in opposition[/i] to other viewpoints. Some people will use the supposedly negative traits of conservatism (or, more frequently, of particular conservatives) as a way of justifying their own liberal politics - and [i]vice versa[/i]. Not enough effort is made to define conservatism without using a cariacature of liberalism as a whipping-boy.

In reality, overlaps between the two political philosophies do exist. That much is undeniable. If I were to try to pinpoint myself on the American political map, I would have great difficulty with it. To take the pro-life movement as an example, I oppose abortion. (That gets me a tick in the conservative box.) I oppose the death penalty. (This is where I get accused of being a bleeding-heart liberal.) The categories are meaningless as soon as we start treating them like this, and this is how they invariably get treated.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1426715' date='Nov 29 2007, 03:35 PM']Ok time to be serious. I can’t talk in large blocks of text like these others can but if I had to boil down what I think it means to be a conservative is this:

[size=4]The rights of the individual trumps everything else.[/size]

This is why I’m against abortion (because it violates the rights of the unborn individual).

That is why I believe the only way to get ahead in life requires that the individual has to work hard and succeed on their own merits.[/quote]

These points appear to contradict each other. An unborn child is incapable of defending itself, so we go out of our way to defend it - and rightly so. It can't save itself 'on its own merits'. What, then, are we to make of people who may not be facing murder but whose quality of life is severely hampered by long-term illness, disability, or poverty? These things can affect the individual's access to education and to employment, often profoundly, and without support (which they may not be able to afford) they will fall down. The unborn child may be the picture of helpless innocence, but helplessness exists beyond the womb as well. I don't think that the particular strain of conservatism that you're advocating takes this into account.

[Mercy me]

Conservative has less to do with government than it does in the belief in people to succeed on their own when given their opportunity. That opportunity does not come from government. Government gets in the way.

Also, success is often the result of many attempts and failures. It is how we learn and how we grow. Liberals don't believe in failure. There is not a person alive that hasn't learned from their failures. those lessons are not the most fun but they are often the most valuable.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1426494' date='Nov 28 2007, 09:05 PM']The first dimension is often called "classical liberalism". Yes, it sounds odd, yet the term "liberal" was not synonymous with "leftist" or "progressive" up until modern times. Classical liberalism contends that laissez-faire capitalism is the most efficient, most productive, and most beneficial economic system extant. Well known advocates of classical liberalism are Dr. Milton Friedman, Dr. Thomas Sowell, and the Heritage Foundation. Much to the confusion of leftists, classical liberals view socialism and fascism to be virtually the same, and to be avoided at all costs.[/quote]
What you've described is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism"]neo-liberalism[/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism"]Classical liberalism[/url] is a direct output of Enlightenment thinking with its emphasis on human reason the belief that humankind is capable of improving itself. From an American perspective, the ultimate expression of classical liberalism is the Declaration of Independence, which declared that the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were "inalienable." While "happiness" replaced "property" from an earlier draft of the Declaration, the focus of classical liberalism is primarily individual liberties such as those set out in the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights"]US Bill of Rights[/url].

[Socrates]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1426715' date='Nov 29 2007, 10:35 AM']Ok time to be serious. I can’t talk in large blocks of text like these others can but if I had to boil down what I think it means to be a conservative is this:

[size=4]The rights of the individual trumps everything else.[/size]

This is why I’m against abortion (because it violates the rights of the unborn individual).

This is why I’m pro second amendment (because I have the right to defend myself from criminals and the government).

This is why I believe in limited government (because the government’s sole purpose should be to protect the rights of the individual and we don’t need such a big government to do that.)

That is why I am against the government dictating how I should live my life. It is my right to decide how I should live and if that means screwing up my life or hurting myself that is my right ( I don’t need the government to protect me from myself, I know whats best for me).

That is why I reject the notion that the government can enforce morality and it is up the responsibility of the individual. Religion plays an important part here

That is why I believe the only way to get ahead in life requires that the individual has to work hard and succeed on their own merits.

These are just a few things that to me are what it means to be a conservative. That was the whole point of our constitution. It says that the individual has guaranteed god given rights and it forces the government to recognize and respect them.[/quote]
Individual rights may be important, but they are not the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else.
Liberals too would say that individual rights trump all else, such as a "woman's right to choose abortion," the "right" to publicly engage in obscene behavior or display pornagraphy, or the "right" not to be offended by a storefront creche display. Of course, most of these so-called "rights" are bogus, and many situations beg the question of where one person's rights end and another's begins.
This is where moral law comes into play.

The key is that the government must be beholden to the moral law, not the other way around.

This said, the government must never take away the legitimite rights of citizens, such as the right to private poverty, the right to freely practice one's religion and raise his family as he sees fit, and the right to bear arms and to self-defense.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1426727' date='Nov 29 2007, 12:02 PM']These points appear to contradict each other. An unborn child is incapable of defending itself, so we go out of our way to defend it - and rightly so. It can't save itself 'on its own merits'. What, then, are we to make of people who may not be facing murder but whose quality of life is severely hampered by long-term illness, disability, or poverty? These things can affect the individual's access to education and to employment, often profoundly, and without support (which they may not be able to afford) they will fall down. The unborn child may be the picture of helpless innocence, but helplessness exists beyond the womb as well. I don't think that the particular strain of conservatism that you're advocating takes this into account.[/quote]
The problem is that much of contemporary socialistic liberalism treats able-bodied adults like helpless babies. There is, of course, nothing wrong with treating a helpless baby like a helpless baby.

[XIX]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1427056' date='Nov 29 2007, 11:35 PM']The problem is that much of contemporary socialistic liberalism treats able-bodied adults like helpless babies. There is, of course, nothing wrong with treating a helpless baby like a helpless baby.[/quote]
*chortle*

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1426727' date='Nov 29 2007, 11:02 AM']These points appear to contradict each other. An unborn child is incapable of defending itself, so we go out of our way to defend it - and rightly so. It can't save itself 'on its own merits'. What, then, are we to make of people who may not be facing murder but whose quality of life is severely hampered by long-term illness, disability, or poverty? These things can affect the individual's access to education and to employment, often profoundly, and without support (which they may not be able to afford) they will fall down. The unborn child may be the picture of helpless innocence, but helplessness exists beyond the womb as well. I don't think that the particular strain of conservatism that you're advocating takes this into account.[/quote]

Naw I dont think they contradict each other really. I believe in across the board government support for the unborn. I believe in total government support for people that are genuinely disabled/mentally ill . I would also include orphans till they are 18. Im talking housing, food, bills everything. I dont mind my taxes going to people who honestly cannot support themselves at all. Poverty is another issue. An able bodied person can get themselves out of poverty if they want to. If you are able bodied and you are poor it is your fault and there should be no government help, none, nada zip. In my world alot of people that are currently on welfare would not receive it while at the same time there would be more state paid mental institutions and orphanages and homes for the genuinely disabled.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1427054' date='Nov 29 2007, 10:29 PM']Individual rights may be important, but they are not the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else.
Liberals too would say that individual rights trump all else, such as a "woman's right to choose abortion," the "right" to publicly engage in obscene behavior or display pornagraphy, or the "right" not to be offended by a storefront creche display. Of course, most of these so-called "rights" are bogus, and many situations beg the question of where one person's rights end and another's begins.
This is where moral law comes into play.

The key is that the government must be beholden to the moral law, not the other way around.

This said, the government must never take away the legitimite rights of citizens, such as the right to private poverty, the right to freely practice one's religion and raise his family as he sees fit, and the right to bear arms and to self-defense.[/quote]

Lotta good points there and I mostly agree with you. I love the Big Lebowski avatar. But let me just zero in on one thing real quick.
[quote name='Socrates' post='1427054' date='Nov 29 2007, 10:29 PM']Liberals too would say that individual rights trump all else, such as a "woman's right to choose abortion[/quote]
In my world this wouldnt be an issue because a no other person has the right to decide if another lives or dies. (bye bye capital punishment!) The woman cannot violate the individual rights of the unborn. I think this is a good example of how the liberals try to hide behind individual rights in order to push their agenda. The good part about this though is that these "rights" (and the others you mentioned like pornography) quickly dissipate under even the smallest amount of scrutiny.

Now I am not convinced the government should be there to enforce morality which is what I think you are saying. I think that is religions role myself. But yeah I mostly agree with you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you should look at popular conservatism to really define it. no government. against abortion and gay marriage. against the iraq war. thinks global warming is factually a hoax. and many details of legal areas like insurance lending etc are favored for the business. these are just the tip of the ice burg for what congress deals with.

sure, there are some conservatives who are against iraq, want to "conserve" the environment. etc. really, those show that the labels can allow greyness and aren't that great other than for general reference.
or at least should be for gneral reference.. some people actually conform to certain typologies, and that's the problem inherent in this thread.

it doesn't prove each individual positions is wrong but they should consider that their pop conservatism might just a passing fad. yesterday conservative meant something else and tomarrow it will too.
of course, you'd have to debate such a pop conservative on each issue, so he doesn't think you're ignoring his arguments by calling him a pop conservative.
i think that's my new word now, pop conservative. not status quo. i'll try to temper my use of it since it upsets soc tho. if he don't like any use well...

**They are the type to base their logic on unanswered questions and assumptions. **
reality is not black and white. it's based on things that need measured by empiracal studies. only extreme principles don't need studies for basis.
the ability to see ambiguity and speak to it shows a wise man. of course, claiming ambiguity when there's none or really none isn't wise either. it's a balance but.... again you have to look at each issue to reach a collective whole as talking in these vague terms are such that no one would disagree with.

Edited November 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

there are extreme liberals and they are just as guilty.

reality exists somewhere in the middle.


of course a hardcore conservative would say pop conservatives would bea neocon. i'm referring to what everyone thinks of hwen they think of conservatives. maybe i should just say hardcore coservatives.

if you fit a stereotype, an artificial social convention, you should really consider whether your beliefs are artificial too.

Edited November 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c