Serious and honest to God question. There are hundreds of conservative parties or right-wing parties in the world, how ever they are often at odds with one another and believe different things. What is the underlying idea of idea behind them all? What is the conservatism at it's most basic? I'm using Right-wing and Conservative interchangeably here, though I'm not sure if that's correct.
I honestly have no idea. The "conservatives" in the US have seemed pretty radical actually in the last couple decades. Not necessarily a bad thing but certainly not "conservative" by any stretch.
I don't know, what's a "consevative," Tim?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:55:45 AM
What is the conservatism at it's most basic?
Have I taught you people nothing in the decade plus I have been here? :frusty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:55:45 AM
I'm using Right-wing and Conservative interchangeably here, though I'm not sure if that's correct.
It is not.
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 02:16:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:55:45 AM
What is the conservatism at it's most basic?
Have I taught you people nothing in the decade plus I have been here? :frusty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
:lol: No seriously. There are many right-wing movements around the world that nothing to do with Burke.
They don't like change unless its back towards the way things were in their imagined good old days.
Cant answer directly Raz. I used to be solidly to the right. Not wackadoddle of the nowadays right. Half way between center and wackadoodle. (Reagan era I guess) I dont know.
I dont relate to the GOP of today. I see myself as center, listing 5 degrees to the left now.
I am a civil servant. IMO only Dems= Big Govmint, which to me equates to job security.
IDK.
Especially in Europe. Shouldn't Social Democracy be labelled as "conservative" after 50 years of it's unhindered rule?
The problem is that people will never pick labels that actually describe their opinions. Conservatives don't think that "Young Earthers" will win them elections, and Lefties don't like "Communist scum". Therefore we get these vague terms with many meanings.
Wikipedia had an interesting answer, though I'm not sure if I buy it. Would make sense though.
There have been a lot of conservatives through out history, some bad some not so bad. I'm wondering what the common string is between Sulla and Eisenhower, Churchill and Hitler.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 03:57:43 AM
Wikipedia had an interesting answer, though I'm not sure if I buy it. Would make sense though.
There have been a lot of conservatives through out history, some bad some not so bad. I'm wondering what the common string is between Sulla and Eisenhower, Churchill and Hitler.
You're not seriously claiming that Hitler was a conservative?
Quote from: The Brain on December 07, 2012, 03:59:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 03:57:43 AM
Wikipedia had an interesting answer, though I'm not sure if I buy it. Would make sense though.
There have been a lot of conservatives through out history, some bad some not so bad. I'm wondering what the common string is between Sulla and Eisenhower, Churchill and Hitler.
You're not seriously claiming that Hitler was a conservative?
Hitler was not a conservative in any way what so ever, he was a radical idealist or a radical reactionary on virtually every issue. There was virtually nothing about German Weimar society that he approved of. Everything must be changed and either returned to some magical state (often invented by hitler and rosenberg) in the past or advanced to a idealized future.
But then again, that is probably the point you were trying to make.
In the context of this conversation I'd suggest that the converse of "conservative" is "radical". Hitler was clearly a radical.
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2012, 02:06:01 AM
I honestly have no idea. The "conservatives" in the US have seemed pretty radical actually in the last couple decades. Not necessarily a bad thing but certainly not "conservative" by any stretch.
The really funny thing here is that radical and conservative are opposites. The thing is that there are many different axis in politics, many more than the right left axis of the romantic revolutionaries (or even the digital marxian system of 100% revolutionary vs 100% reactionary with the reactionaries being implicitly supported by the bourgeois majority in the middle) or even the two axis system of your online libertarian "Are you a libertarian?" internet quiz. The thing is we too easily in the marxian manner ascribe opposites to opponents. It's almost as if the two parties, one demanding that we buy apples for lunch and the other demanding we buy oranges, cause us to think that apples and oranges are opposites.
Words have meaning and these meanings have consequences. First, regarding Burke. Burke was not a conservative he was a liberal in the classical sense. He coins the term and defines it not in order to preserve (or conserve as the origin of the term suggests) but rather to establish a methodology by which the liberal can dismantle authoritarian society and replace it with an improved ideal without happening to fall into revolution and terror as he saw in France. A Burkeian Conservative is a Liberal that doesn't overthrow a traditional institution because it is bad, but because he can replace it with something better.
But, to lean on Burke in defining the term. A conservative is somebody who places the burden of proof on the person advocating for reform and in the case of uncertainty defaults to the existing institution, even if he thinks it is flawed.
The opposite of Conservative is Radical, though a Radical is often also somebody who has accepted that the case for change has been made.
Just goes to show the impossibility of trying to shoehorn everyone into one of two categories.
Hitler was radical as was Reagan, Thatcher, Lenin, Mao, Attaturk, FDR
Churchill was a conservative as was Eisenhower, Brezhnev, Bismark
It would depend on the circumstances for most people I would suggest. I'm fairly conservative living as I do in the UK, if I was a Greek citizen I would be far more tempted by radical potential solutions.
If I had to list a few of the axis I suggest
Conservative vs. Radical
Authoritarian vs. Liberal
Communitarian vs. Individualist
Traditionalist vs. Progressive
Idealist vs. Empiricist
Libertarian vs. Collectivist
Redistributionist vs. Non-redistributionist
Mercantilist vs. Free Trader
Nationalizer vs. Property Rights Advocate
etc. However, since so many of these terms are closely related or are often 100% overlapping (how often do you find a libertarian mercantilist?). The entire Right-Left distinction started after the 1815 Restoration in France where there was a sitting chamber of deputies in an amphitheatre style semi-circle (as opposed to the opposite facing benches of westminster). The King opened the chamber and made speaches and the royalists assembled at the king's right hand, the traditional place of honor, while the bonapartists and republicans assembled on the left making the point that they didn't want or need the kings favor.
All of this due to cowardly greek hoplites drifting left to hide behind the next man's shield resulting in the bravest soldiers standing on the far right demanding and getting glory for this brave task. Either that or the king wiped his arse with his left hand and the place of honor was the one next to the king but not on the dirty hand side.
Libertarian Socialism will prevail. It is known.
Mentioned it several times before. US conservatism is composed of two elements: prohibitionism and libertarianism. Don't think it's properly Burkian.
Open question: what's the difference between classical liberal and libertarian?
One wore a toga?
The word conservative, like the word liberal, has been misused so often that it has become devoid of meaning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2012, 08:59:45 AM
The word conservative, like the word liberal, has been misused so often that it has become devoid of meaning.
Yeah, great contribution there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2012, 05:38:34 AM
Mentioned it several times before. US conservatism is composed of two elements: prohibitionism and libertarianism. Don't think it's properly Burkian.
Open question: what's the difference between classical liberal and libertarian?
I read those elements as opposites, is that fair?
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 02:16:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:55:45 AM
What is the conservatism at it's most basic?
Have I taught you people nothing in the decade plus I have been here? :frusty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
This.
Liberalism is Mill/Locke and socialism is Rousseau. Period.
Quote from: Viking on December 07, 2012, 09:09:37 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2012, 08:59:45 AM
The word conservative, like the word liberal, has been misused so often that it has become devoid of meaning.
Yeah, great contribution there.
He's got a point, though. This entire thread has been and will be a debate over semantics.
Quote from: Viking on December 07, 2012, 04:50:02 AM
Burke was not a conservative he was a liberal in the classical sense.
That's totally not true. He was a conservative in the classic sense. J.S. Mill and J. Locke were liberals in the classic sense. The discourse between Burke and Mill/Locke is what informs much of Anglo-Saxon (or indeed Western) political thought to this day.
What people are missing in this discourse is the third leg of the tripod - Rousseau with his collectivism (and its "godly" version in the form of the Catholic Social Science), which informs much of continental European thought (from communism to socialism to social democracy to fascism to nazism) but is largely alien to Anglo-Saxon mindset which leads them to fail to understand Hitler or German Christian democracy, for example.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2012, 10:10:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 07, 2012, 04:50:02 AM
Burke was not a conservative he was a liberal in the classical sense.
That's totally not true. He was a conservative in the classic sense. J.S. Mill and J. Locke were liberals in the classic sense. The discourse between Burke and Mill/Locke is what informs much of Anglo-Saxon (or indeed Western) political thought to this day.
What people are missing in this discourse is the third leg of the tripod - Rousseau with his collectivism (and its "godly" version in the form of the Catholic Social Science), which informs much of continental European thought (from communism to socialism to social democracy to fascism to nazism) but is largely alien to Anglo-Saxon mindset which leads them to fail to understand Hitler or German Christian democracy, for example.
"Totally not true" ?
He was a Whig in favor of Free Trade and tolerance for Catholics. His objection to the French Revolution which he initially supported was that it hadn't been liberal enough and the not worth killing the king for. He was a liberal that objected to violent revolution. His conservatism was limited to the process and his defense of institutions was always related to their value for liberty.
At least we agree Rousseau was a scumbag, that he was the fountainhead for both nazism and communism and that nothing good ever came out of geneva.
A better question: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Viking, did you receive any university degree formal education in history of ideologies and political ideas? If so, how was Burke presented? In my class he was considered the father of conservatism, on the same footing as the other three I mentioned for liberalism and collectivism, respectively.
Quote from: Viking on December 07, 2012, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2012, 10:10:34 AM
What people are missing in this discourse is the third leg of the tripod - Rousseau with his collectivism (and its "godly" version in the form of the Catholic Social Science), which informs much of continental European thought (from communism to socialism to social democracy to fascism to nazism) but is largely alien to Anglo-Saxon mindset which leads them to fail to understand Hitler or German Christian democracy, for example.
At least we agree Rousseau was a scumbag, that he was the fountainhead for both nazism and communism and that nothing good ever came out of geneva.
Absurd misreading of Rousseau and theorization of the origins of nazism.
Rousseau's political thought is firmly in the Enlightenment tradition and has nothing to do with fascism.
Try something like this:
QuoteWe children of the future, how could we be at home in the present ? . . .we are not at all " liberal," we do not labour for " pro- gress," we do not need first to stop our ears to the song of the market-place and the sirens of the future— their song of "equal rights," "free society," "no longer either lords or slaves," does not allure us ! We do not by any means think it desirable that the kingdom of righteousness and peace should be established on earth (because under any circumstances it would be the kingdom of the profoundest mediocrity and Chinaism); we rejoice in all men, who like our- selves love danger, war and adventure, who do not make compromises, nor let themselves be captured, conciliated and stunted; we count ourselves among the conquerors ; we ponder over the need of a new order of things, even of a new slavery — for every strengthening and elevation of the type " man " also involves a new form of slavery. Is it not obvious that with all this we must feel ill at ease in an age which claims the honour of being the most humane, gentle and just that the sun has ever seen ?"
That is a current of thought fundamentally at odds with Rousseau.
Well the definition I found in Wikipedia that I alluded to earlier is that conservatism and right wing politics is the importance and acceptance of social hierarchies and inequalities.
QuoteT. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."
From one of the sources.
This is an interesting idea, and it does transcend many political movements across time and space. The hierarchy could be racial like in Germany or the US in the past, or religious "America is a Christian nation", or social like aristocracies of old Europe, or Linguistic "English as the National language", or simply by skill and wealth like with the modern American "aristocracy of talent".
Or Soviet style Party hierarchy.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2012, 04:55:48 AM
It would depend on the circumstances for most people I would suggest. I'm fairly conservative living as I do in the UK, if I was a Greek citizen I would be far more tempted by radical potential solutions.
Contrary to what many here argue, conservatism does not require cautious change in all circumstances. When a situation is unjust, and at odds with those traditional values and morals, sometimes radical change is required.
Burke himself wrote quite favourably on the American Revolution, stating that colonists were being their rights as Englishmen. He was also initially in favour of the French Revolution. Both of these were quite radical changes of course.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
Viking, did you receive any university degree formal education in history of ideologies and political ideas? If so, how was Burke presented? In my class he was considered the father of conservatism, on the same footing as the other three I mentioned for liberalism and collectivism, respectively.
I wasn't taught Burke I found him myself. First I just want to remind you that earlier in this thread I said that I don't see a conflict between liberalism and conservatism. I also implied that burkian conservatism wasn't a position rather it was a methodology for change, not an alternative to liberalism, but rather an alternative to revolution. His actual political positions were in his time very liberal. His pamphlets are (fortunately) reasonably short, he didn't have a ghost writer and he was a politician so he knew how to communicate.
Modern self-styled conservatives advocate a position which is liberal, free trade, free markets, freedom of religion and conscience and free disposal of ones property, though with some social traditionalist bents here and there. He is indeed the father of modern self-declared conservatism, but that is because they too are ultimately liberal.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2012, 11:21:45 AM
Absurd misreading of Rousseau and theorization of the origins of nazism.
Rousseau's political thought is firmly in the Enlightenment tradition and has nothing to do with fascism.
Bertrand Russel, The History of Western Philosophy.
Quote
Ever since his [Rousseau's] time, those who considered themselves reformers have been divided into two groups, those who followed him and those who followed Locke. Sometimes they cooperated, and many individuals saw no incompatibility. But gradually the incompatibility has become increasingly evident. At the present time, Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, of Locke.
I'd make a snarky comment on how he gets everything wrong... There is a red line from Rousseau, through Herder and Hegel to Heidegger and Nazism. The primacy of the group or nation or people vis a vis the individual. The very idea of the General Will implies not only that there is a best way of ruling and that if only the leader can discover it and implement it then all will be good. Those who do not agree must be made to agree to it since it is to benefit of all even if they are tricked into opposing it by the minority which seeks to oppress the rest of society.
Rousseau may not have wanted dictatorship and terror, but that is what happened every time his ideas were tried.
I'm in good company here with not only his contemporaries like Burke and Constant savaging him but also the thinkers that experienced nazism like Russel, Popper and Berlin.
Not an absurd misreading but rather a commonly held objection to his horrific ideas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2012, 11:21:45 AM
Absurd misreading of Rousseau and theorization of the origins of nazism.
Rousseau's political thought is firmly in the Enlightenment tradition and has nothing to do with fascism.
At least somebody around here gets it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:46:58 PM
Well the definition I found in Wikipedia that I alluded to earlier is that conservatism and right wing politics is the importance and acceptance of social hierarchies and inequalities.
QuoteT. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."
From one of the sources.
This is an interesting idea, and it does transcend many political movements across time and space. The hierarchy could be racial like in Germany or the US in the past, or religious "America is a Christian nation", or social like aristocracies of old Europe, or Linguistic "English as the National language", or simply by skill and wealth like with the modern American "aristocracy of talent".
It is an interesting idea, and fits quite well with some of your examples. With others, like the Christian nation, less so. With the aristocracy of talent, not at all.
It's also interesting that the modern progressive/civil rights movement, in the name of combating privilege and oppression, typically demands the granting of group privileges.
Quote from: Viking on December 07, 2012, 01:42:40 PM
Bertrand Russel, The History of Western Philosophy.
Oh please.
QuoteEver since his [Rousseau's] time, those who considered themselves reformers have been divided into two groups, those who followed him and those who followed Locke. Sometimes they cooperated, and many individuals saw no incompatibility. But gradually the incompatibility has become increasingly evident. At the present time, Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, of Locke.
Ditto. This is a grotesquely crude analysis. And a terrible misreading of the history of western thought. The route to Marx is through Plato and Hegel.
The route to Hitler is through Nietzsche, crude Social Darwinism, racialist pseudo-science, and mid-to-late 19th century chauvinistic nationalism. None of those currents are compatible with Rousseau.
QuoteThe primacy of the group or nation or people vis a vis the individual.
A principle Rousseau rejects.
QuoteThe very idea of the General Will implies not only that there is a best way of ruling and that if only the leader can discover it and implement it then all will be good. Those who do not agree must be made to agree to it since it is to benefit of all even if they are tricked into opposing it by the minority which seeks to oppress the rest of society.
But that is not the idea of the General Will as expressed in Rousseau's work; it is both a gross misreading and an anachronistic one - that is, the reading of Rousseau that views him as a proto-totalitarian relies on reading his work in light of our own historical experience and understanding of totalitarianism, including the latter's propangadistic manipulation of language.
QuoteRussel, Popper and Berlin.
All pragmatists whose opposition to Rousseau is fundamental - they oppose the continental Enlightenment tradition generally in favor of Hume. Which is fine and justifiable - Rousseau's political philosophy can be fairly criticized as naive, muddled or incoherent. But to brand him with responsibility for totalitarianism - a charge with great rhetorical power at that time and since - is neither justifiable or fair. They would not have dared to similarly accuse Kant (that step was left to likes of Ayn Rand) and yet logically they should since there are considerable similarities between Kant and Rousseau on this central issue of constraining "natural" freedom to universal laws. Rousseau is the softer target because his expression was less precise and thus more vulnerable to misconstrual.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2012, 05:10:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:46:58 PM
Well the definition I found in Wikipedia that I alluded to earlier is that conservatism and right wing politics is the importance and acceptance of social hierarchies and inequalities.
QuoteT. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. Pp 30. "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."
From one of the sources.
This is an interesting idea, and it does transcend many political movements across time and space. The hierarchy could be racial like in Germany or the US in the past, or religious "America is a Christian nation", or social like aristocracies of old Europe, or Linguistic "English as the National language", or simply by skill and wealth like with the modern American "aristocracy of talent".
It is an interesting idea, and fits quite well with some of your examples. With others, like the Christian nation, less so. With the aristocracy of talent, not at all.
It's also interesting that the modern progressive/civil rights movement, in the name of combating privilege and oppression, typically demands the granting of group privileges.
What is wrong with the aristocracy of talent? It seems like a natural fit. Not all men are created equal, some men are brighter and more diligent then others. Those ones should be allowed to rise to the top of the social ladder and government shouldn't stop them.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 05:34:32 PM
What is wrong with the aristocracy of talent? It seems like a natural fit. Not all men are created equal, some men are brighter and more diligent then others. Those ones should be allowed to rise to the top of the social ladder and government shouldn't stop them.
Right. How is that a privilege?
It's not necessarily, though it can be. It certainly does fall under hierarchy. The first sentece from the Wiki article was
QuoteIn politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality.[1][2][3][4] Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[2] whether it arises through traditional social differences[5] or from competition in market economies.[6][7] It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Sounds like a weird way to describe right wing.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 07:15:31 PM
It's not necessarily, though it can be. It certainly does fall under hierarchy. The first sentece from the Wiki article was QuoteIn politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality.[1][2][3][4] Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[2] whether it arises through traditional social differences[5] or from competition in market economies.[6][7] It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
It can be, but it mostly is not. It does not at all fall under hierarchy. Donald Trump can't tell me what to do.
Your article writer is conflating economic inequality and social inequality. That's moranic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2012, 07:29:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 07:15:31 PM
It's not necessarily, though it can be. It certainly does fall under hierarchy. The first sentece from the Wiki article was QuoteIn politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality.[1][2][3][4] Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[2] whether it arises through traditional social differences[5] or from competition in market economies.[6][7] It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
It can be, but it mostly is not. It does not at all fall under hierarchy. Donald Trump can't tell me what to do.
Your article writer is conflating economic inequality and social inequality. That's moranic.
:huh: It's not a command Hierarchy, it's one of social class. Donald trump can't tell you what to do, but he does live better then you and with money comes more power and status.
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2012, 07:26:16 PM
Sounds like a weird way to describe right wing.
Right wingers are weird bunch.
:rolleyes: Keep forgetting it's impossible to have an objective conversation with you.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 07:53:06 PM
:huh: It's not a command Hierarchy, it's one of social class. Donald trump can't tell you what to do, but he does live better then you and with money comes more power and status.
It's Marxist agitprop. The fact that the maitre d' (sp?) at Chez Snob and the head of fundraising at the Metropolitan Opera both kiss Donald's ass is due to Donald throwing money around; not because he's a member of a group that is granted special privileges.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2012, 07:29:37 PM
Your article writer is conflating economic inequality and social inequality. That's moranic.
A common fallacy of the left, though perhaps more understandable in, and applicable to, 19 and early 20 century Europe.
Quote from: dps on December 07, 2012, 09:51:43 PM
A common fallacy of the left, though perhaps more understandable in, and applicable to, 19 and early 20 century Europe.
Right. I thought Raz's buddy had a good point about conservatism being a defense of the privileges of the aristocracy. The Catholic Church fits well too. Then this nonsense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2012, 08:42:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 07:53:06 PM
:huh: It's not a command Hierarchy, it's one of social class. Donald trump can't tell you what to do, but he does live better then you and with money comes more power and status.
It's Marxist agitprop. The fact that the maitre d' (sp?) at Chez Snob and the head of fundraising at the Metropolitan Opera both kiss Donald's ass is due to Donald throwing money around; not because he's a member of a group that is granted special privileges.
It doesn't require specified granted privileges, just being the increased status, or do you believe we really live in a classless society? I'm not sure where you get the idea that being upper class means you have to have certain privileges set in stone. I imagine Trump does have command authority in his own company though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2012, 05:24:16 PM
Oh please.
OK, I can accept the argument that he may not have been evil, just stupid. Though, given his personal behavior I'll add con-man to acceptable answers.
I don't attack the man or his intentions I attack his ideas.
OK, I attack the man as well, with the relationship morals of newt gingrich and mastered the height of parental hypocracy by shipping multiple byblows to a foundling hospital only to later write a book on parenting. The thing is that his personal depravity doesn't necessarily negate his malevolent ideas.
Quote from: dps on December 07, 2012, 09:51:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2012, 07:29:37 PM
Your article writer is conflating economic inequality and social inequality. That's moranic.
A common fallacy of the left, though perhaps more understandable in, and applicable to, 19 and early 20 century Europe.
And a common fallacy of the right is to ignore the connection between the two. Since people are slaves to basic material needs at the very least, economic inequality in practice translates to social inequality.
In American context, when someone pounds his chest and proclaims himself a staunch conservative, what it translates to is being contrarian to common sense, but only when common sense is actually largely on point.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2012, 12:10:24 AM
It doesn't require specified granted privileges, just being the increased status, or do you believe we really live in a classless society? I'm not sure where you get the idea that being upper class means you have to have certain privileges set in stone. I imagine Trump does have command authority in his own company though.
Most of these are true statements. Now the trick is to tie them back into the the original thesis that conservatism is the defense of privilege.
A good restaurant table and jumping the line are not privileges reserved for a certain group. Anybody who slips the maitre d' a c-note will get the same treatment.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 12:53:49 AM
And a common fallacy of the right is to ignore the connection between the two.
No it's not.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 03:10:13 AM
It is.
You're making stuff up. You will be unable to find an example of a person, conservative or otherwise, who claims that there is zero connection between wealth and status, or treatment, or popularity, or fame, or whatever.
Your retort to dps sounded really cool when you typed it but it has zero basis in fact.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 03:41:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 03:10:13 AM
It is.
You're making stuff up. You will be unable to find an example of a person, conservative or otherwise, who claims that there is zero connection between wealth and status, or treatment, or popularity, or fame, or whatever.
Your retort to dps sounded really cool when you typed it but it has zero basis in fact.
If it sounded cool, I'm glad. However, that wasn't my primary intention behind it.
Nice. Defend your point or concede it. Fish or cut bait.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 04:15:30 AM
Nice. Defend your point or concede it. Fish or cut bait.
That point, while not stated explicitly, flows naturally from the policies conservatives advocate. They claim to be all for freedom, and yet they also advocate policies accentuating the income inequality (in the name of freedom, of course). Rational people will conclude that conservatives don't see a strong link between income inequality and freedom inequality.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 04:33:00 AM
That point, while not stated explicitly, flows naturally from the policies conservatives advocate. They claim to be all for freedom, and yet they also advocate policies accentuating the income inequality (in the name of freedom, of course). Rational people will conclude that conservatives don't see a strong link between income inequality and freedom inequality.
Freedom inequality?? As in, Donald Trump is more free to buy a house in West Palm Beach than I am? What are you talking about?
And any examples of policies conservatives advocate that accentuate income inequality?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 03:06:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2012, 12:10:24 AM
It doesn't require specified granted privileges, just being the increased status, or do you believe we really live in a classless society? I'm not sure where you get the idea that being upper class means you have to have certain privileges set in stone. I imagine Trump does have command authority in his own company though.
Most of these are true statements. Now the trick is to tie them back into the the original thesis that conservatism is the defense of privilege.
A good restaurant table and jumping the line are not privileges reserved for a certain group. Anybody who slips the maitre d' a c-note will get the same treatment.
Defense of privilege and/or hierarchy. You keep leaving out the hierarchy part. Are there privileges to being wealthy? Well, yeah. Better access to education, better access to legal defense, better access to politicians.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2012, 05:30:53 AM
Defense of privilege and/or hierarchy. You keep leaving out the hierarchy part. Are there privileges to being wealthy? Well, yeah. Better access to education, better access to legal defense, better access to politicians.
You seem to be using privilege (and hierarchy) to mean people can spend their money and buy stuff.
And I think I've already said this, but if not I'll repeat it: it's not just conservatives who think people should be able to spend their money and buy stuff. The Shining Path, three Cambridge Marxists and seven vegan Marynoll nuns living in a yurt outside San Francisco are about the only people in the world who don't think this.
This is not what most people think of when they see the word privilege.
I can't see Cambridge Marxists living in a yurt, sorry.
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2012, 05:58:40 AM
I can't see Cambridge Marxists living in a yurt, sorry.
I think it's the start of a joke. "The Shining Path, three Cambridge Marxists and seven vegan Marynoll nuns living in a yurt outside San Francisco walk into a bar. Something, something 12 inch pianist!".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 05:48:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2012, 05:30:53 AM
Defense of privilege and/or hierarchy. You keep leaving out the hierarchy part. Are there privileges to being wealthy? Well, yeah. Better access to education, better access to legal defense, better access to politicians.
You seem to be using privilege (and hierarchy) to mean people can spend their money and buy stuff.
And I think I've already said this, but if not I'll repeat it: it's not just conservatives who think people should be able to spend their money and buy stuff. The Shining Path, three Cambridge Marxists and seven vegan Marynoll nuns living in a yurt outside San Francisco are about the only people in the world who don't think this.
This is not what most people think of when they see the word privilege.
I don't care what most people think, and I'm not making a judgement on people who spend money, but money does open up avenues. Do you agree with this? Do you further believe that people who are talented, smart and hardworking are more deserving of money then those who aren't?
I'm not saying the "Aristocracy of talent" is necessarily bad, in fact it's for the most part a good thing. It's a much weaker hierarchy then one of aristocracy or race, but it's still there.
I think I finally understand how you are using hierarchy. Some people are taller, so there is a hierarchy of height. Some are more attractive, so there is a hierarchy of beauty.
But if we're no longer talking about the usual type of hierarchy, the type that involves authority or deference, what exactly is it that conservatives are defending that differentiates them from everyone else?
I think the argument is that poverty can trump the theoretical freedoms of people subject to it. Whilst I think that there is a lot less poverty in places like the USA and the UK than some socialist types would like to think, I would agree that if one is worried about where the next meal is coming from then one is at an immediate disadvantage :hmm:
That is why I support the welfare state and the minimum wage, without them "freedom" can become irrelevant.
Trump, of course, is an orange shithead with sub-Boris hair............but then I'm not looking for a job with one of his companies.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 08, 2012, 03:18:46 PM
I think the argument is that poverty can trump the theoretical freedoms of people subject to it. Whilst I think that there is a lot less poverty in places like the USA and the UK than some socialist types would like to think, I would agree that if one is worried about where the next meal is coming from then one is at an immediate disadvantage :hmm:
That is why I support the welfare state and the minimum wage, without them "freedom" can become irrelevant.
Trump, of course, is an orange shithead with sub-Boris hair............but then I'm not looking for a job with one of his companies.
Yes, that was exactly my point, but I didn't bother making it because Yi went into his "show some evidence that rich have more money than poor" mode.
:lol: So that's the reason. I knew there had to be a good one.
Tricky's point is very different than the one you were trying to make. His is about the irrelevance of freedom when one is lacking necessities. Yours was not about the poor vs. everyone else, it was about how the rich enjoy more freedom than everyone else, which includes the poor and everyone else in between.
Nobody "deserves" anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
I think I finally understand how you are using hierarchy. Some people are taller, so there is a hierarchy of height. Some are more attractive, so there is a hierarchy of beauty.
But if we're no longer talking about the usual type of hierarchy, the type that involves authority or deference, what exactly is it that conservatives are defending that differentiates them from everyone else?
Not a great deal. An "Aristocracy of Talent", is not by itself a bad thing. There is some authority or deference since money provides these and it can be unfair at times. Take OJ Simpson for example. His talent brought him wealth, and he was able to use that wealth to beat a murder rap. Your response indicates that you do believe certain hierarchies and inequalities are natural, which I suppose would make you a right winger. :D
The opposite would be the leftist who wish minimize or totally destroy social hierarchies. This could be as radical as killing aristocrats and abolishing private property to simple graduated taxes and welfare.
I don't think we are too far apart on this issue. I suppose the words "hierarchy", "privilege" and "inequality" set off the Yi defense since they have somewhat negative connotations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 03:47:57 PM
:lol: So that's the reason. I knew there had to be a good one.
Tricky's point is very different than the one you were trying to make. His is about the irrelevance of freedom when one is lacking necessities. Yours was not about the poor vs. everyone else, it was about how the rich enjoy more freedom than everyone else, which includes the poor and everyone else in between.
Thank you for explaining to me what my point was.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 03:58:29 PM
Thank you for explaining to me what my point was.
Someone had to do it.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
Stop being a dick.
Take a look in the mirror buddy boy. You said I went in to show evidence the rich have more money mode.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 04:11:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
Stop being a dick.
Take a look in the mirror buddy boy. You said I went in to show evidence the rich have more money mode.
Asking redundant questions to tire someone out is being a dick.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 05:03:49 PM
Asking redundant questions to tire someone out is being a dick.
Falsely accusing someone to divert attention from the poverty of your argument is being a weasel, which is a variant of being a dick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 06:40:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 05:03:49 PM
Asking redundant questions to tire someone out is being a dick.
Falsely accusing someone to divert attention from the poverty of your argument is being a weasel, which is a variant of being a dick.
Falsely accusing someone of a false accusation is also being a dick.
Geez, two guys in a dick fight.
He started it!
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 08:36:07 PM
Falsely accusing someone of a false accusation is also being a dick.
:yeahright: Times infinity.
And that's why I never kiss em on the mouth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2012, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2012, 08:36:07 PM
Falsely accusing someone of a false accusation is also being a dick.
:yeahright: Times infinity.
Times infinity squared.
Well that was productive. Christ, DG, You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.
I like my forum enemies stupid, fat and ethnic.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2012, 04:07:06 AM
Well that was productive. Christ, DG, You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.
Yeah, but your arguments never end. In this case, though, it looks like I drove my point home to Yi with my last reply.
^_^
Some wise man stated on the first or second page of this thread that like the word Liberal, the word Conservative has become so misused as to become meaningless.
God that guy was smart.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2012, 10:58:45 AM
Some wise man stated on the first or second page of this thread that like the word Liberal, the word Conservative has become so misused as to become meaningless.
God that guy was smart.
When did you piss off the brain is what i want to know?
Quote from: katmai on December 09, 2012, 11:04:49 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2012, 10:58:45 AM
Some wise man stated on the first or second page of this thread that like the word Liberal, the word Conservative has become so misused as to become meaningless.
God that guy was smart.
When did you piss off the brain is what i want to know?
When I warned all the sheep farmers in the area.
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2012, 04:16:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2012, 04:07:06 AM
Well that was productive. Christ, DG, You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.
Yeah, but your arguments never end. In this case, though, it looks like I drove my point home to Yi with my last reply.
Unless he tries "Times infinity cubed".
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2012, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2012, 04:16:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2012, 04:07:06 AM
Well that was productive. Christ, DG, You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.
Yeah, but your arguments never end. In this case, though, it looks like I drove my point home to Yi with my last reply.
Unless he tries "Times infinity cubed".
Hey, don't give him any ideas. Whose side are you on?
I think conservative's got two big meanings. One is a political ideology in the Anglophone world with heroes like Thatcher, Reagan and Howard. The basic principles are roughly the same with some local differences: low taxes, small state and deregulation; law and order, family values and social conservatism; a 'strong', forward and pro-American foreign and defence policy. I think that that brand of conservatism may need to change, because it's not the 80s anymore.
The second meaning is more a sensibility. Which is about caution, tacking with the wind, trying to manage change to preserve institutions but being willing to change things radically to preserve what's valued from revolutionaries. I think you can have left or right-wing conservatives. This is the sense that's meant in 'fiscal conservatism' or 'social conservatism'. I think this is the Burkean strand, in much the same way that I don't think Mill is much use defining modern day liberalism like the Lib Dems, they both describe a conservative or a liberal approach to politics and to thinking.
QuoteOpen question: what's the difference between classical liberal and libertarian?
Connection with reality. Liberals support low taxes and minimal government in social and economic policy. They tend to oppose foreign adventures in favour of multilateralism which, anyway, they believe opens the world to more trade.
Libertarians don't believe in a welfare state at all, would more or less decriminalise everything, are normally isolationist on foreign policy and get turned on by the gold standard.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2012, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2012, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2012, 04:16:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2012, 04:07:06 AM
Well that was productive. Christ, DG, You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.
Yeah, but your arguments never end. In this case, though, it looks like I drove my point home to Yi with my last reply.
Unless he tries "Times infinity cubed".
Hey, don't give him any ideas. Whose side are you on?
Raz is on Raz's side.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2012, 09:51:39 AM
Connection with reality. Liberals support low taxes and minimal government in social and economic policy. They tend to oppose foreign adventures in favour of multilateralism which, anyway, they believe opens the world to more trade.
Libertarians don't believe in a welfare state at all, would more or less decriminalise everything, are normally isolationist on foreign policy and get turned on by the gold standard.
How do you get that classical liberals support multilateralism?
And personally I think the connection between the gold standard and Libertarianism is an overemphasis on Ron Paul's ideological importance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2012, 05:41:58 PM
And personally I think the connection between the gold standard and Libertarianism is an overemphasis on Ron Paul's ideological importance.
It seems pretty fundamental to me if you think through the ideology. If you want to minimize the government's power over you, removing the government's power over the currency should probably be very high on your list of priorities.
Most classical liberal parties in Europe do. I think modern liberalism is probably associated with elite multilateral groups like the 'neo-liberal' WTO, IMF and World Bank. Historically liberals were associated with conferences and congresses to avert costly war and manage a trading world.
In terms of numbers right now is there a more important libertarian than Ron Paul? I mean he's got millions interested in it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2012, 06:01:27 PM
Most classical liberal parties in Europe do. I think modern liberalism is probably associated with elite multilateral groups like the 'neo-liberal' WTO, IMF and World Bank. Historically liberals were associated with conferences and congresses to avert costly war and manage a trading world.
In terms of numbers right now is there a more important libertarian than Ron Paul? I mean he's got millions interested in it.
There are classical liberal parties in Europe? :huh:
Ron Paul is obviously the best known self-pronounced libertarian in the world right now. I'm just not ready to cede him Papal infallibility on doctrine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
There are classical liberal parties in Europe? :huh:
Of course. The Orange Book part of the Lib Dems, the FDP, Venstre, VVD, Democrats 66 and the PD. This is why many Europeans go on about how the Democrats aren't 'liberals'. In Europe liberalism still means classical liberalism.
QuoteRon Paul is obviously the best known self-pronounced libertarian in the world right now. I'm just not ready to cede him Papal infallibility on doctrine.
I'm not saying he defines doctrine, but he seems to have been a relatively big figure in terms of inspiring people to vote or read up on it. Looking up libertarianism and monetary policy it's apparently a very divisive issue for them (and has been for years) with battles between 'reformers' who don't object to fiat currency on principle and 'radicals' who do.
They are to liberals what the hard-left are to social democrats. They've no interest in actually governing and are liable to interminable, self-indulgent civil wars over various implausible ideological points. Liberalism's a strain of thought worth taking seriously, libertarianism's as teenage as the Socialist Worker's Party.
I thought Ron Paul was a Republican. While he may lead, (that's not exactly the right word. Represents is perhaps better) the libertarian wing of the GOP I think he is still a Republican. There really aren't many well known libertarians leaders partly because they are fringe and partly because they subdivide into so many small factions. I can only name one real libertarian politician and that's Bob Bar, who was once a Republican. There is that guy in New Mexico but I can't remember his name. Scip was keen on him and I think he ran for President as a Libertarian.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2012, 09:49:33 PM
I thought Ron Paul was a Republican. While he may lead, (that's not exactly the right word. Represents is perhaps better) the libertarian wing of the GOP I think he is still a Republican. There really aren't many well known libertarians leaders partly because they are fringe and partly because they subdivide into so many small factions. I can only name one real libertarian politician and that's Bob Bar, who was once a Republican. There is that guy in New Mexico but I can't remember his name. Scip was keen on him and I think he ran for President as a Libertarian.
Johnson? Even he is not a libertarian by the definition Shelf gave.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2012, 06:01:27 PM
In terms of numbers right now is there a more important libertarian than Ron Paul? I mean he's got millions interested in it.
Well Ron Paul is retired. Whomever becomes the new leader (Justin Amash maybe?) may not necessarily also be a Gold Standard guy but opposition to Fed style central banking is unlikely to ever not be a central tenant.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2012, 09:49:33 PM
I thought Ron Paul was a Republican.
Well right he was not a Libertarian, but rather a libertarian.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2012, 05:41:58 PM
And personally I think the connection between the gold standard and Libertarianism is an overemphasis on Ron Paul's ideological importance.
There is the Austrian influence as well.
There is a natural connection because of the idea that a gold base is more difficult for a government to manipulate.
I thought it was a survivalist thing. Be ready for when Godless liberal finally destroy the US and gold is the only currency around.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 12:45:03 PM
I thought it was a survivalist thing. Be ready for when Godless liberal finally destroy the US and gold is the only currency around.
Godless liberals? Libertarians generally do not use terms like that. They tend to lump all non-libertarians as 'statists' and alot of libertarians are Atheists themselves.
I think you are thinking of the Glenn Beck crowd here.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2012, 12:51:09 PM
and alot of libertarians are Atheists themselves.
Yep. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether it's a replacement religion for them.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2012, 12:51:09 PM
I think you are thinking of the Glenn Beck crowd here.
Yeah, I think that's what he's saying, actually. I think you misread his post.
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2012, 12:51:09 PM
I think you are thinking of the Glenn Beck crowd here.
Yeah, I think that's what he's saying, actually. I think you misread his post.
So in the middle of a conversation about libertarians he randomly just assumes we are talking about Glenn Beck without ever actually bringing him up anywhere by name? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2012, 02:57:46 PM
So in the middle of a conversation about libertarians he randomly just assumes we are talking about Glenn Beck without ever actually bringing him up anywhere by name? :hmm:
He was agreeing with me that the gold standard is more of a survivalist thing, not so much a central tenet of libertarianism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 03:17:37 PM
He was agreeing with me that the gold standard is more of a survivalist thing, not so much a central tenet of libertarianism.
Ah ok. I missed that. It seemed to me he was conflating liberariasm with survivalists.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 01:08:10 PM
Yep. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether it's a replacement religion for them.
Much like hatred of business. Or environmentalism. Or animal rights. Or anti-Americanism. Or virtually any other belief system fanatically held.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 03:40:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 01:08:10 PM
Yep. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether it's a replacement religion for them.
Much like hatred of business. Or environmentalism. Or animal rights. Or anti-Americanism. Or virtually any other belief system fanatically held.
I don't agree that any fanatical belief system qualifies as a religion. Religion has to provide all the answers or at least most of them, and unlike libertarianism, most of those fanatical beliefs you listed fill a narrow niche.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 04:15:01 PM
I don't agree that any fanatical belief system qualifies as a religion. Religion has to provide all the answers or at least most of them, and unlike libertarianism, most of those fanatical beliefs you listed fill a narrow niche.
Religion only has to provide the answers on what is good and what is evil, which those belief systems do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 04:42:13 PM
Religion only has to provide the answers on what is good and what is evil, which those belief systems do.
Huh? No it does not, a religion may not necessarily address that at all. Did the Pagan Greek Pantheon provide that answer? Come on.
Besides then are philosophers religious figures? That is not a definition of religion I have ever heard of.
Yeah that's a bizarre definition of religion :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2012, 04:46:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 04:42:13 PM
Religion only has to provide the answers on what is good and what is evil, which those belief systems do.
Huh? No it does not, a religion may not necessarily address that at all. Did the Pagan Greek Pantheon provide that answer? Come on.
Besides then are philosophers religious figures? That is not a definition of religion I have ever heard of.
Actually yes, Greek religion was effectively a morality play where poeple were instructed on how to please the Gods (the good) and what displeased the Gods (the bad).
And yes Greek philosophers used analogies to Greek religion to make their point.
Take for example the Eurthyphro where Plato has Socrates cutting apart various definitions of piety which are based on what is pleasing to the Gods and essentially asks the question is something pious because it is loved by the Gods or is it loved by the Gods because it is pious.
Simply pleasing the Gods does not make a morality play, anymore they paying your taxes makes a morality play. Philosophy arose in no small part because of the deficiencies of Greek Religion. This why you have Plato and Socrates talking about morality. They are trying to salvage a system of morality and justice out of their religion which is mostly concerned in appeasing powerful spirits so they bring good things or at least not do bad things. If their religion was already a morality play, they wouldn't need to do this.
Most people seem to hold the political beliefs they do because of fear. This is true for left and right, IMO. We're scared that we won't be able to live comfortably without some kind of help, or that we're going to be attacked or robbed.
But I think the average conservative's worldview is informed a lot by guilt as well. It's why a person can be for capital punishment but against abortion. It's a question of guilt. The criminal has it and the fetus does not.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2012, 11:51:58 AM
Simply pleasing the Gods does not make a morality play
You miss the point. How one pleases the Gods in Greek myth is the morality play because the Gods are so difficult to please and what pleases one God displeases another. It isnt like christianity where there is one all powerful God with one set of rules (well may contradictory ones as well but that gets swept under the carpet).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 13, 2012, 01:16:05 PM
Most people seem to hold the political beliefs they do because of fear. This is true for left and right, IMO. We're scared that we won't be able to live comfortably without some kind of help, or that we're going to be attacked or robbed.
But I think the average conservative's worldview is informed a lot by guilt as well. It's why a person can be for capital punishment but against abortion. It's a question of guilt. The criminal has it and the fetus does not.
I think the goes back to the question of what an "average conservative" is. If we are talking about Conservatism in its traditional ideological meaning then it is not guilt but concern that change will make things worse not better.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 12:14:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2012, 11:51:58 AM
Simply pleasing the Gods does not make a morality play
You miss the point. How one pleases the Gods in Greek myth is the morality play because the Gods are so difficult to please and what pleases one God displeases another. It isnt like christianity where there is one all powerful God with one set of rules (well may contradictory ones as well but that gets swept under the carpet).
In the Greek religion you pleased the gods through sacrifice and not insulting them. The Greeks didn't see this as a moral issue. It was a like appeasing a human king. That person is stronger then you so you flattered them and payed your taxes and they might reciprocate or at least not squish you. It wasn't a complex series of moral obligations and each god had a different idea of justice. The entire lack of justice bothered the classical Greeks to no end. Take for example the story of the Judgment of Paris. Paris is asked to judge which of three goddesses is the most beautiful. Instead of actually being allowed to judge which is the fairest, all three offer him bribes. After words the the two goddesses that lose conspire against Paris and see him and his city destroyed. There is no morality or justice here. These are simply the acts of a more powerful being exerting it's influence on lesser beings.