Conservatism’s core beliefs

[PLC1]

I’ve said as much in other threads. But things like Social Security cease to be conservative when they erode an individual’s self-reliance thus making him a burden on society, or cost so much that society goes broke trying to fund them.



Conservation is OK only if it preserves resources for future use. Conserving just for the sake of conserving gives natural resources a spiritual component that conservatism cannot support.



Exactly. I make no claim that someone like Ronald Reagan or GWB is a conservative.



To an extent, but you still have the issues of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility to deal with. A social welfare system that breeds a permanent underclass that is dependent on society’s largesse is just as bad as a laissez faire economy that breeds robber barons.



No more expensive lawyers getting rich like John Edwards.

It looks like we're pretty much in agreement, so far. I must say, I'm surprised at that given some of your other posts on this forum. Let's see what comes next:

IV. Society is of vital importance.
A. The individual and society exist in partnership with each being dependent on the other.
1. Participating in society is not voluntary because society is necessary to impose order on individual humans that are by nature orderless.

Anarchy is not a good thing. I think liberals and conservatives alike would agree on that.

a. Society has a right to impose its will on the individual and thereby maintain law and order for the benefit of society as a whole.
b. Nobody has a right to rebel against a legitimate government and all lawful means of redress must be exhausted before force can be used against a legitimate government

So, protest and demonstration to change government is OK, just as it says in the Constitution, but overthrowing the government by force is a last resort. I think most of us would go along with that.

meaning that a majority can impose its will on a minority so that being in the minority does not gain you any rights or privileges that are inconsistent with public order and society’s preservation.

Which is dependent on the interpretation of what is necessary for society's preservation.

2. Society has an obligation to protect its constituent parts against the individual actions of its constituent parts.
a. Nobody has a right to engage in behavior that puts society, i.e., other people, at risk regardless of whether or not the individual believes his behavior is victimless.

Which also is dependent on the judgment of what puts people at risk. We'd all agree that violent crimes need to be punished and potential victims protected from criminals. Sexual practices and drug use are open to interpretation.

b. Government has a right to use force against the governed in order to maintain its own sovereignty.

On the face of it, that statement would seem to advocate laws against criticizing the government, or staging demonstrations against government policy, the sort of laws that exist in non democratic societies, such as Egypt (where a blogger was just sentenced to four years for writing a piece critical of the government and of Islam) or Iran (where demonstrators have recently been shot for opposing their crazy leader). Surely, that is not the meaning, is it?

 

[flaja]

Anarchy is not a good thing. I think liberals and conservatives alike would agree on that.

Not really. Liberals and libertarians want to exempt individuals from societal norms- particularly with things like religion, sex and drug use. This creates societal instability and is thus a form of anarchy.

So, protest and demonstration to change government is OK, just as it says in the Constitution, but overthrowing the government by force is a last resort. I think most of us would go along with that.

Again not really. Libertarians seem to worship guns and they don’t want any restrictions on the number or type of weapons that an individual can own. But no government can recognize any right of the governed to be as well-armed as the government is and maintain its own sovereignty. The government has legitimate authority to regulate weapons because the government has a right to suppress any violent rebellion against its sovereignty (just as the governed have a right to engage in violent rebellion when no other course for redress is available). Liberals and conservatives want government regulation of private use of weapons, although we differ in the details.

Sexual practices and drug use are open to interpretation.

Not from a conservative’s point of view. Aberrant sexual activity and drug abuse both leads to chaos and so disrupt society to the point that society has a right to prohibit them by law. We know from history that stable functional families are one of the chief pillars of society. Disrupt the family and all Hell breaks loose.

On the face of it, that statement would seem to advocate laws against criticizing the government, or staging demonstrations against government policy, the sort of laws that exist in non democratic societies, such as Egypt (where a blogger was just sentenced to four years for writing a piece critical of the government and of Islam) or Iran (where demonstrators have recently been shot for opposing their crazy leader). Surely, that is not the meaning, is it?

This would depend entirely on how the relationship between the government and the governed is set up. Americans and Brits have a thousand-plus year history of taking for granted their right to criticize their government. Americans and Brits are not a docile people; we are not easily cowed by fear or force. This cannot be said for the rest of the world.

 

[dogtowner]

Not really. Liberals and libertarians want to exempt individuals from societal norms- particularly with things like religion, sex and drug use. This creates societal instability and is thus a form of anarchy.

you cant legislate morality but you can sure as heck make it taboo

Again not really. Libertarians seem to worship guns and they don’t want any restrictions on the number or type of weapons that an individual can own. But no government can recognize any right of the governed to be as well-armed as the government is and maintain its own sovereignty. The government has legitimate authority to regulate weapons because the government has a right to suppress any violent rebellion against its sovereignty (just as the governed have a right to engage in violent rebellion when no other course for redress is available). Liberals and conservatives want government regulation of private use of weapons, although we differ in the details.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

its a Constitutional thing

Not from a conservative’s point of view. Aberrant sexual activity and drug abuse both leads to chaos and so disrupt society to the point that society has a right to prohibit them by law. We know from history that stable functional families are one of the chief pillars of society. Disrupt the family and all Hell breaks loose.

we also kow that the impact was minimal until legalities came into play. societal acceptance kept in check until government stepped in.

This would depend entirely on how the relationship between the government and the governed is set up. Americans and Brits have a thousand-plus year history of taking for granted their right to criticize their government. Americans and Brits are not a docile people; we are not easily cowed by fear or force. This cannot be said for the rest of the world.

Brits have now allowed the government to instal cameras in their homes to moinitor the poplace. Seems kind of docile to me.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you fling the same fecal matter at enough walls, its bound to stick to one of them.

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=57156

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...al-platforms/62193-conservative-ideology.html

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=125836&page=4

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Conservatism_is_not_what_it_is_defined_to_be_on_the_net

Conservatives see an essential role for government in regulating liberty that has to be fettered for the sake of the commonweal.

Reminds me of another quote...

“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be carefully rationed” - Vladimir Lenin

Flaja is attempting to claim the mantle of Conservatism (much to the dismay of Conservatives who reject his claim to the ideology) but it's my contention that he is actually a Christian Democrat:

Christian democracy is a political ideology that seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy. It emerged in nineteenth-century Europe. It was a direct descendant of conservatism.... In practice, Christian democracy is often considered conservative on cultural, social and moral issues (social conservatism) and progressive on fiscal and economic issues.

Christian democracy does not fit precisely into the usual categories of political thought, but rather includes elements common to several other political ideologies:

• In common with conservatism, traditional moral values (on marriage, abortion, etc.), opposition to secularization, a view of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) development of society, an emphasis on law and order, and a rejection of communism.
• In contrast to conservatism, open to change (for example, in the structure of society) and not necessarily supportive of the social status quo.
• In common with liberalism, an emphasis on human rights and individual initiative.
• In contrast to liberalism, a rejection of secularism, and an emphasis on the fact that the individual is part of a community and has duties towards it.
• In common with socialism, an emphasis on the community, social solidarity, support for a welfare state, and support for some regulation of market forces.
• In contrast with socialism, supports a market economy and does not adhere to the class struggle doctrine.

Christian democrats are usually socially conservative, and, as such, generally have a relatively skeptical stance towards abortion and same-sex marriage, though some Christian democratic parties have accepted the limited legalization of both. Christian democratic parties are often likely to assert the Christian heritage of their country, and to affirm explicitly Christian ethics, rather than adopting a more liberal or secular stance.

On economic issues, Christian democrats tend not to challenge capitalism as an economic system, unlike their explicit repudiation of communism and similar ideologies, though they do see the economy as being at the service of humanity. The duty of the state towards society is of real importance for Christian democrats, though some would see this duty as being merely to create the conditions for civil society to flourish outside the boundaries of the state, while others would see it as a more direct duty of the state towards citizens.

Notice how easily Flaja's stated political views align with Christian Democracy? Now contrast his list of "Conservatism's core beliefs" with the beliefs American Conservatives generally associate themselves with:

• Limited Government
• Minimal Taxes
• Individualism
• Constitutionalism
• Individual Rights
• Free Markets

Consider the facts and judge for yourself whether you think Flaja is a Conservative or a Christian Democrat.

 

[dogtowner]

Consider the facts and judge for yourself whether you think Flaja is a Conservative or a Christian Democrat.

I'll take CD for $400 Alex.

 

[PLC1]

Brits have now allowed the government to instal cameras in their homes to moinitor the poplace. Seems kind of docile to me.

Really! OMG! What are they thinking? That is reminiscent of the TVs that couldn't be shut off in 1984. Big Brother is watching!

 

[dogtowner]

Really! OMG! What are they thinking? That is reminiscent of the TVs that couldn't be shut off in 1984. Big Brother is watching!

only 25 years off

they are not the same people that survived the German onslought, sadly

 

[Gipper]

only 25 years off

they are not the same people that survived the German onslought, sadly

And this is the consequence of out of control liberalism.

 

[PLC1]

And this is the consequence of out of control liberalism.

It sounds more like authoritarianism to me.

 

[Gipper]

It sounds more like authoritarianism to me.

And the difference is?

 

[dogtowner]

And this is the consequence of out of control liberalism.

It sounds more like authoritarianism to me.

And the difference is?

Call a spade a spade guys, its Socialism plain and simple with all it's inherent authortarianism. Thats all liberalism is and I'll bet you know it.

 

[flaja]

you cant legislate morality but you can sure as heck make it taboo

You can regulate behavior.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

its a Constitutional thing

Whose constitution?

U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What part of “well regulated militia” don’t you libertarians understand?

we also kow that the impact was minimal until legalities came into play. societal acceptance kept in check until government stepped in.

On the contrary. When the legalities were reduced is when aberrant sexual behavior became the problem for society that it is now. We went from civil laws that mandated the death penalty for adultery and sodomy to letting everybody do their own thing. Society no longer even bothers to ostracize adulterers and Sodomites. We elect some to public office and allow others to parade through our streets.

Brits have now allowed the government to instal cameras in their homes to moinitor the poplace.

Documentation?

 

[flaja]

I'll take CD for $400 Alex.

Since I am not a European, how is this relevant?

 

[flaja]

Really! OMG! What are they thinking? That is reminiscent of the TVs that couldn't be shut off in 1984. Big Brother is watching!

And the documentation for this is?

 

[dogtowner]

You can regulate behavior.

like in prohibition ? not very well.

Whose constitution?

U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What part of “well regulated militia” don’t you libertarians understand?

the SCOTUS had no difficulty realizing that the two were seperate and distinct last year

On the contrary. When the legalities were reduced is when aberrant sexual behavior became the problem for society that it is now. We went from civil laws that mandated the death penalty for adultery and sodomy to letting everybody do their own thing. Society no longer even bothers to ostracize adulterers and Sodomites. We elect some to public office and allow others to parade through our streets.

because of those laws, public sympathy developed. before those laws the communities themselves managed to keep it in check.

Documentation?

google "cameras in british homes" and see the 73,300,000 topics
here is one