ALBERTA: Provincial Elections!

[crazy canuck]

BB, we really are not going to get anywhere if you keep asserting the only other comparitor is social libertarianism.

[Barrister]

BB, we really are not going to get anywhere if you keep asserting the only other comparitor is social libertarianism.

But you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

As I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

[Valmy]

Social Libertarianism is the only sane choice.  Otherwise you have valuable state resources being wasted on thought and behavior control and I am not convinced any tangible results result besides people in prison for victimless crimes.

[Jacob]

But you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

As I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

Your point seems to be that "social conservatism" is the status quo, so I'm not sure how anyone could wish for a more socially conservative government.

[Oexmelin]

I would venture that the main difference is not - precisely - on the "conservative" aspect of it, but what you pour into the "social". It is how much value you put into individualism, and how much value you put into the community. For many people, on both the left and the right, the ideal is that individuals should have very little accounts to give to any one, very little social obligation, so to speak, outside of their own whims and desire, and should be bound mostly by their consent. Social left and social right, on the other hand, believe that there is such a thing as a community, and that a community is not reducible to simply an aggregate of individuals. It is the idea that the individual owes something to the community (notably a certain confirmity to shared values), and that the community owes something to the individual (notably a place within the community). Left and right, social and individual will, of course, disagree with both the means (government? co-op? family?) and the values to be enforced. But that is precisely why I often repeated that while I disagree with BB on almost everything, he and I at least share a basic understanding of the value of community - as opposed to libertarians or liberal left, or fiscal conservatives.

Now, most of our celebrated theorists of classical liberalism wrote at a time when the community was such a truism that to gain a small measure of freedom from it, they devised systems which exalted the individual. They triumphed in the west, so the latter view is much more unpopular to state - even if it is still held as an admitedly elastic value amongst many. I see, and admire the appeal in individualism - but I fear the celebration of tolerance is, in a way, a celebration of indifference towards our fellow citizens. Do what you want, as long as I don't have to care about it.

[crazy canuck]

But you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

Truth is on my side.

As I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

I dont though.  The hot button social conservative issues of the day are abortion and gay rights.  At least here in Vancouver they are.  As an example there is a social conservative group that is taking a local school board to court over a decision to expressly include descrimination regarding sexual orientation as prohibited conduct in schools.

I have heard their arguments and cant quite make sense of it, but it has something to do with an assertion that the policy gives preferential treatment to gays and lesbians.

I am not sure where that kind of absurdity falls on your chart.  But I do know that intolerance of gays and lesbians is at the heart of the matter. 

[Valmy]

why I often repeated that while I disagree with BB on almost everything, he and I at least share a basic understanding of the value of community - as opposed to libertarians or liberal left, or fiscal conservatives.

Why does valuing community mean using state resources?  I do not think any Libertarians or Liberals have any problem with voluntary associations that are not controled or defined by state power.

[Barrister]

Social Libertarianism is the only sane choice.  Otherwise you have valuable state resources being wasted on thought and behavior control and I am not convinced any tangible results result besides people in prison for victimless crimes.

But you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

As I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

Your point seems to be that "social conservatism" is the status quo, so I'm not sure how anyone could wish for a more socially conservative government.

Well as a conservative conservative, I'm not real interested in any particular dramatic changes.

[crazy canuck]

- but I fear the celebration of tolerance is, in a way, a celebration of indifference towards our fellow citizens. Do what you want, as long as I don't have to care about it.

That is why I largely question the social/individual analysis you and BB ascribe to.

Tolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance.  But tolerance cannot be mandated by criminal laws which try to make everyone conform to a particular behaviour - eg though shalt not be gay. (the social conservative route) Nor can tolerance be enforced by making everyone economically the same - eg wealth shall be redistributed so we are all functionally the same (the socialist route).

[Oexmelin]

Why does valuing community mean using state resources?  I do not think any Libertarians or Liberals have any problem with voluntary associations that are not controled or defined by state power.

But their associations need to be bound, in their view, by a near-contractual consent, and hence, easily disbanded at the slightest whim. Communities do not need to be the 21st century state, but they can't be corporations. They have to have a kind of projection in the past, and in the future. Liberals went around the issue through the fiction of the social contract. Libertarians ignore the issue through the fiction of a neutral enforcer of contract (or a private one).

[Barrister]

Social Libertarianism is the only sane choice.  Otherwise you have valuable state resources being wasted on thought and behavior control and I am not convinced any tangible results result besides people in prison for victimless crimes.

I've spent the last year doing docket court - think the old TV series Night Court.  All the fresh arrests, all the shopliftings, the public intoxications, the prostitutes, the knife play.

These are people who do not have any social supports, and who we as a society (if not as a government) owe a real social duty to try and assist and help.

These are also people who remind me on a daily basis that "victimless crimes" very quickly turn into victim-filled crimes.  The drunk who randomly mugs passerbys.  The drug addict who robs the pharmacy to get more oxy.

Sorry.  I can absolutely not wash my hands of other people and say "well as long as the state doesn't bother me I'm fine".

[Josephus]

I want a government that will be fiscally conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

The Liberal Party?

[Valmy]

Sorry.  I can absolutely not wash my hands of other people and say "well as long as the state doesn't bother me I'm fine".

What exactly are you doing for these people by outlawing things?  Throwing people in prison is assisting and helping people?

In that case Texas is a humanitarian mecca everybody should aspire to measure up to.

And my State is run by crazy nutcases so that sort of shapes how I view this issue.

[crazy canuck]

I want a government that will be fiscally conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

The Liberal Party?

You missed the fiscally conservative part....

[Oexmelin]

Tolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance. 

That seems to me a cop out. Of course, communities need tolerance - but they always have a varied tolerance to varied things. Communities are usually pretty intolerant of a large variety of behaviours; are pretty open to forgiveness on some and are willing to be voluntary blind to other infractions. The question remains: what kind of tolerance is our individualistic society is celebrating? The short version we have all heard, and often repeated, is "anything that does not infringe upon the liberty of others" - but that is hugely circular, and never truly addresses the kind of liberty our social context is liable to give us. To even get at that point in a conversation, you need to recognize the existence of social limits on liberty and therefore, to discuss what these limits are or should be... In other words: what should we be intolerant about?

And then, you run into another problem, which is that of social change. Obviously, values change and have changed, and I do think it would be difficult to say that regulations and, judgements arrived at by the play of courts and governments haven't had any impact - in other words, they cannot dictate change (what human force can?), but they certainly can steer it by broadcasting a plain message of what we should celebrate, and what we should shun. And thus we return to a discussion of what these norms and values should be. And this is something no fixation on fiscal conservatism (government as corporation), liberal left (anything goes!), or libertarianism (me & my consent) can solve on its own.