What is a "true conservative"?

[iustitia]

Certain folks love relying on No True Scotsman fallacies. Is claiming someone isn't a "true conservative" an example of such? Few points:

-I am against the War on Drugs and favor the legalization of marijuana
-I oppose the War on Terror
-I disagree with the veneration of police and question authority
-I think whistle-blowers should be treated as public servants and not traitors
-I am not an environmentalist but still believe people should care for the planet
-I accept evolution, the Big Bang, vaccines and climatology aka science
-I don't believe in the prison system
-I think Israel should have to take care of itself, as should Europe, Japan and Korea
-I support the right to work in a union
-I don't have wet dreams about Ronald Reagan
-I hate the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party

Am I allowed to be a conservative then? After all:

-I support traditional marriage
-I am religious and endorse a religious public
-I deeply oppose abortion
-I have unwavering support for self-defense rights
-I serve in the Army and swore an oath to my country
-I dislike ghetto culture
-I oppose unfettered immigration
-I reject feminism
-I hate political correctness
-I believe in nuclear families

I've considered myself conservative for most of my adult life. Conservatism to me is about rejecting radical upheaval of social institutions. It's not a predetermined political position, but a philosophy. It seems that by "true conservative" folks mean rigid, liberal capitalism rather than traditionalism.

[Cigar]

Looks like a lot People think the same.

Being a Liberal or Conservative only matters on Election Day.

[Mister D]

Certain folks love relying on No True Scotsman fallacies. Is claiming someone isn't a "true conservative" an example of such? Few points:

-I am against the War on Drugs and favor the legalization of marijuana
-I oppose the War on Terror
-I disagree with the veneration of police and question authority
-I think whistle-blowers should be treated as public servants and not traitors
-I am not an environmentalist but still believe people should care for the planet
-I accept evolution, the Big Bang, vaccines and climatology aka science
-I don't believe in the prison system
-I think Israel should have to take care of itself, as should Europe, Japan and Korea
-I support the right to work in a union
-I don't have wet dreams about Ronald Reagan
-I hate the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party

Am I allowed to be a conservative then? After all:

-I support traditional marriage
-I am religious and endorse a religious public
-I deeply oppose abortion
-I have unwavering support for self-defense rights
-I serve in the Army and swore an oath to my country
-I dislike ghetto culture
-I oppose unfettered immigration
-I reject feminism
-I hate political correctness
-I believe in nuclear families

I've considered myself conservative for most of my adult life. Conservatism to me is about rejecting radical upheaval of social institutions. It's not a predetermined political position, but a philosophy. It seems that by "true conservative" folks mean rigid, liberal capitalism rather than traditionalism.

In the American context, yes. It does indeed denote a belief in liberal capitalism. That belief is paramount. It's often combined with a certain traditionalism but a traditionalism at odds with the principles of liberal capitalism. Such is the cognitive dissonance of American conservatism.

[Chris]

I sort of consider myself conservative, at least a right libertarian. I think, even though I don't agree with Russel Kirk entirely, for his belief the state should be used to promote virtue, I do find a lot in his definition of conservatism I agree with: What is Conservatism? (http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/12/conservatism.html)


...A conservative is not, by definition, a selfish or a stupid person; instead, he is a person who believes there is something in our life worth saving. Conservatism, indeed, is a word with an old and honorable meaning—but a meaning almost forgotten by Americans until recent years. Abraham Lincoln wished to be known as a conservative. “What is conservatism?” he said. “Is it not preference for the old and tried, over the new and untried?” It is that; and it is also a body of ethical and social beliefs. The liberals, for a good while, have been drifting leftward toward their radical cousins; and liberalism, in recent years, has come to imply an attachment to the centralized state and the dreary impersonality of Huxley’s Brave New World or Orwell’s 1984....

...Modern conservatism took form about the beginning of the French Revolution, when far-seeing men in England and America perceived that if humanity is to conserve the elements in civilization that make life worth living, some coherent body of ideas must resist the leveling and destructive impulse of fanatic revolutionaries. In England, the founder of true conservatism was Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France turned the tide of British opinion and influenced incalculably the leaders of society in the Continent and in America. In the newly established United States, the fathers of the Republic, conservative by training and by practical experience, were determined to shape constitutions which should guide their posterity in enduring ways of justice and freedom. Our American War of Independence had not been a real revolution, but rather a separation from England; statesmen of Massachusetts and Virginia had no desire to turn society upside down. In their writings, especially in the works of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, we find a sober and tested conservatism founded upon an understanding of history and human nature. The Constitution which the leaders of that generation drew up has proved to be the most successful conservative device in all history.

Conservative leaders, ever since Burke and Adams, have subscribed to certain general ideas that we may set down, briefly, by way of definition. Conservatives distrust what Burke called “abstractions”—that is, absolute political dogmas divorced from practical experience and particular circumstances. They do believe, nevertheless, in the existence of certain abiding truths which govern the conduct of human society. Perhaps the chief principles which have characterized American conservative thought are these: ...

And he lays out 10 principles, "Men and nations are governed by moral laws...," "Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own—to the things best suited to their own nature...," "Property and freedom are inseparably connected...," "Power is full of danger...," "Modern society urgently needs true community: and true community is a world away from collectivism...," "Men and women are not perfectible...," "moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial...," so on and so forth.

[Mister D]

Certain folks love relying on No True Scotsman fallacies. Is claiming someone isn't a "true conservative" an example of such? Few points:

-I am against the War on Drugs and favor the legalization of marijuana
-I oppose the War on Terror
-I disagree with the veneration of police and question authority
-I think whistle-blowers should be treated as public servants and not traitors
-I am not an environmentalist but still believe people should care for the planet
-I accept evolution, the Big Bang, vaccines and climatology aka science
-I don't believe in the prison system
-I think Israel should have to take care of itself, as should Europe, Japan and Korea
-I support the right to work in a union
-I don't have wet dreams about Ronald Reagan
-I hate the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party

Am I allowed to be a conservative then? After all:

-I support traditional marriage
-I am religious and endorse a religious public
-I deeply oppose abortion
-I have unwavering support for self-defense rights
-I serve in the Army and swore an oath to my country
-I dislike ghetto culture
-I oppose unfettered immigration
-I reject feminism
-I hate political correctness
-I believe in nuclear families

I've considered myself conservative for most of my adult life. Conservatism to me is about rejecting radical upheaval of social institutions. It's not a predetermined political position, but a philosophy. It seems that by "true conservative" folks mean rigid, liberal capitalism rather than traditionalism.

I think you're right although I would refer to conservatism as a disposition rather than a philosophy.

[Chris]

I think you're right although I would refer to conservatism as a disposition rather than a philosophy.

It's certainly not an ideology.

[Mister D]

I sort of consider myself conservative, at least a right libertarian. I think, even though I don't agree with Russel Kirk entirely, for his belief the state should be used to promote virtue, I do find a lot in his definition of conservatism I agree with: What is Conservatism? (http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/12/conservatism.html)



And he lays out 10 principles, "Men and nations are governed by moral laws...," "Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own—to the things best suited to their own nature...," "Property and freedom are inseparably connected...," "Power is full of danger...," "Modern society urgently needs true community: and true community is a world away from collectivism...," "Men and women are not perfectible...," "moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial...," so on and so forth.

The church has taught that private property, a principle or right the bride of Christ has traditionally upheld, is inseparable from its use. Would you agree?

[Mister D]

It's certainly not an ideology.

It really can't be because there are too many 'conservatisms', so to speak. Too many contexts. I think disposition is a good descriptor.

[iustitia]

I think you're right although I would refer to conservatism as a disposition rather than a philosophy.

I'll buy that too. Basically I was thinking philosophy as a worldview, as opposed to an ideology which are normally pretty by the books, rigid or organized. I mean I guess I'd say conservative philosophy/disposition is always rooted in the specifics of the culture at hand, whereas liberal ideology is pretty much by the books wherever. In my eyes anyhow.

Based on your posts I think you agree that conservatism is about the traditions of a people, whereas liberalism is about the material desire and 'rights' of all people, correct? Tradition is dependent on a singular culture, liberalism is dependent on every wallet.

[Ethereal]

I'll buy that too. Basically I was thinking philosophy as a worldview, as opposed to an ideology which are normally pretty by the books, rigid or organized. I mean I guess I'd say conservative philosophy/disposition is always rooted in the specifics of the culture at hand, whereas liberal ideology is pretty much by the books wherever. In my eyes anyhow.

Based on your posts I think you agree that conservatism is about the traditions of a people, whereas liberalism is about the material desire and 'rights' of all people, correct? Tradition is dependent on a singular culture, liberalism is dependent on every wallet.

I definitely would not agree with that conception of liberalism. Liberal figures like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, etc. were all either religous or sprirutal or heavily invested in the importance of morality and virtue. Just because they thought economics were important and worthy of studying does not mean they placed material desires above all else. If that were the case, then it's doubtful they would have worked up the courage needed to rebel against the British empire. After all, if your primary concern is material comforts, then charging headlong into a war is probably the last thing on your mind. I know that most Americans now living are extremely reticent to serve in the military for precisely that reason. They are incredibly fearful of discomfort and death and simply do not want to risk losing their material comforts, even if it means serving their "country".

[Mister D]

I'll buy that too. Basically I was thinking philosophy as a worldview, as opposed to an ideology which are normally pretty by the books, rigid or organized. I mean I guess I'd say conservative philosophy/disposition is always rooted in the specifics of the culture at hand, whereas liberal ideology is pretty much by the books wherever. In my eyes anyhow.

Based on your posts I think you agree that conservatism is about the traditions of a people, whereas liberalism is about the material desire and 'rights' of all people, correct? Tradition is dependent on a singular culture, liberalism is dependent on every wallet.

Yes, I think that's accurate. Liberalism has universalist pretensions whereas traditionalism does not. Persons of the latter disposition place an emphasis on the particular while many liberals, by no means all but I think liberalism devalues the particular in general, place emphasis on what is universal.

[Chris]

I definitely would not agree with that conception of liberalism. Liberal figures like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, etc. were all either religous or sprirutal or heavily invested in the importance of morality and virtue. Just because they thought economics were important and worthy of studying does not mean they placed material desires above all else. If that were the case, then it's doubtful they would have worked up the courage needed to rebel against the British empire. After all, if your primary concern is material comforts, then charging headlong into a war is probably the last thing on your mind. I know that most Americans now living are extremely reticent to serve in the military for precisely that reason. They are incredibly fearful of discomfort and death and simply do not want to risk losing their material comforts, even if it means serving their "country".


I think we need to follow Hayek and divide liberalism into the Scottish/British tradition of Mandeville, Hume, Burke, Ferguson, Smith, etc. that founding Americans tended to follow, and the French tradition of Rousseau, Gournay, Turgot, and Condorcet, etc, that modern American liberals tend to follow.

[Mister D]

I'll add before I hit the hay that the tension between the particular and the universal is something I struggle with as a Christian. Liberalism inherited its universalist pretensions directly from Christianity (e.g. Galations 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") but I find myself more inclined to a racialist outlook on human existence. I don't think this is insurmountable because it's from the particular that one arrives at the universal. Not the other way around.

[Chris]

I'll add before I hit the hay that the tension between the particular and the universal is something I struggle with as a Christian. Liberalism inherited its universalist pretensions directly from Christianity (e.g. Galations 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") but I find myself more inclined to a racialist outlook on human existence. I don't think this is insurmountable because it's from the particular that one arrives at the universal. Not the other way around.

God didn't create us equal, just judges us equally. Rule of law. Even Galatians 3:28 distinguished Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female--we're all different in various ways, but one in faith, one in morality.

[iustitia]

I definitely would not agree with that conception of liberalism. Liberal figures like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, etc. were all either religous or sprirutal or heavily invested in the importance of morality and virtue. Just because they thought economics were important and worthy of studying does not mean they placed material desires above all else. If that were the case, then it's doubtful they would have worked up the courage needed to rebel against the British empire. After all, if your primary concern is material comforts, then charging headlong into a war is probably the last thing on your mind. I know that most Americans now living are extremely reticent to serve in the military for precisely that reason. They are incredibly fearful of discomfort and death and simply do not want to risk losing their material comforts, even if it means serving their "country".
I don't think liberalism is all bad, Ethereal. Mind you I could just as easily be called a liberal as a conservative. I believe in free speech, religious freedom, gun rights, trade, low taxes, due process and habeus corpus. I believe in consent of the governed, autonomy and all that jazz. But the big gaps between the old order and post-Enlightenment were largely matters of finance and constitution. I think that's self-evident. But that isn't entirely bad. I think history has shown liberal arguments, classical that is, on trade and tariffs to be correct. Liberals - personal views about national interests aside - were correct about mercantilism. Granted most people today still support autarky whether they know it or not, but that's besides the point.

I can appreciate liberal thought. I have through my loyalty to Lew Rockwell's site become very much impressed with liberal/libertarian revisionism. It's kind of how I came to terms with most of our wars being about money. Economics. Keep in mind, liberals started the War of 1812 and Mexican War over land, resources and trade. And the American Revolution was as much about resisting the mercantilism of the British, such as monopolies like the East India Company, as it was about self-governance. And not all material comfort is bad to desire. How many people today despise their government because they think it makes it impossible for them to make a living? If you can't even scrape by in life, that's both a matter of material comfort and a matter of political dissent. I can see the extremes of liberalism without also throwing out the rationalism it's historically brought to the table.

As for military service, I am going to have to disagree. In my experience most people who express to me a desire to join up are in it because they want benefits whether for school, a steady paycheck or just to see new things. That's pretty materialistic on the scale of reasons to serve. I'm sure everyone's seen or heard different things; not sure what people say to you. But virtually nobody I've served with has even read the Constitution they've sworn an oath to uphold. Which makes me sad; I framed my oath of enlistment back when I thought it meant a damn. I still have it hanging, but I know better than to expect any higher calling from others I work with in uniform besides "Murica" or "free shit". Just my observations.

[Dr. Who]

I definitely would not agree with that conception of liberalism. Liberal figures like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, etc. were all either religous or sprirutal or heavily invested in the importance of morality and virtue. Just because they thought economics were important and worthy of studying does not mean they placed material desires above all else. If that were the case, then it's doubtful they would have worked up the courage needed to rebel against the British empire. After all, if your primary concern is material comforts, then charging headlong into a war is probably the last thing on your mind. I know that most Americans now living are extremely reticent to serve in the military for precisely that reason. They are incredibly fearful of discomfort and death and simply do not want to risk losing their material comforts, even if it means serving their "country".
OR, they simply disagree with the mandate.

[MisterVeritis]

Looks like a lot People think the same.

Being a Liberal or Conservative only matters on Election Day.
Actually no. A Conservative, at least a Constitutional Conservative, sees the damage to liberty that liberalism does every day. We fight you where we can.

[Dr. Who]

I'll add before I hit the hay that the tension between the particular and the universal is something I struggle with as a Christian. Liberalism inherited its universalist pretensions directly from Christianity (e.g. Galations 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") but I find myself more inclined to a racialist outlook on human existence. I don't think this is insurmountable because it's from the particular that one arrives at the universal. Not the other way around.
Racialism does not find a home in Christianity. There is no part of being thy brother's keeper that suggests that you can choose your brothers on the basis of ethnicity and race, all being God's children.

[maineman]

Actually no. A Conservative, at least a Constitutional Conservative, sees the damage to liberty that liberalism does every day. We fight you where we can.


can you not take up arms at this point and press that fight already? or, perhaps, you are missing a little cojone-juice?

Or perhaps, could it be that your "fighting" is done by an army of dweebs with zits sitting in front of PC monitors in their mom's basement?

[Ashton]

The difficulty with terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' is not only that they change over time but that they change by location. American conservatism is quite different than many other areas of Europe because it still maintains such a strong emphasis on the individual. Whether liberal or conservative, the dominant theme of American political thought is individualism. There are many conservative traditions that view such individualism as inherently Leftist. This is why American Libertarianism does not have much of a European counterpart. It is almost exclusively a US phenomenon. If you were to mention the term 'libertarian' to many Europeans, they would think you were referring to non-state socialism.

A good anecdote about the differences in conservativism is a conservative German professor I had in university. There was a proposal in Germany to require that all sexually transmitted diseases be listed on your ID. It did not pass, but he thought it was an amazing idea and so did many others of his party. The Republicans in the classroom thought that was a horrifying intrusion of government onto the individual.

Part of the reason why American conservatism is so hard to describe is because we do not have a large-government form of conservatism which many other countries do.

[Dr. Who]

Maineman removed at the request of the OP.

[Mac-7]

Certain folks love relying on No True Scotsman fallacies. Is claiming someone isn't a "true conservative" an example of such? Few points:

-I am against the War on Drugs and favor the legalization of marijuana
-I oppose the War on Terror
-I disagree with the veneration of police and question authority
-I think whistle-blowers should be treated as public servants and not traitors
-I am not an environmentalist but still believe people should care for the planet
-I accept evolution, the Big Bang, vaccines and climatology aka science
-I don't believe in the prison system
-I think Israel should have to take care of itself, as should Europe, Japan and Korea
-I support the right to work in a union
-I don't have wet dreams about Ronald Reagan
-I hate the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party

Am I allowed to be a conservative then? After all:

-I support traditional marriage
-I am religious and endorse a religious public
-I deeply oppose abortion
-I have unwavering support for self-defense rights
-I serve in the Army and swore an oath to my country
-I dislike ghetto culture
-I oppose unfettered immigration
-I reject feminism
-I hate political correctness
-I believe in nuclear families

I've considered myself conservative for most of my adult life. Conservatism to me is about rejecting radical upheaval of social institutions. It's not a predetermined political position, but a philosophy. It seems that by "true conservative" folks mean rigid, liberal capitalism rather than traditionalism.

You can use the term "conservative" if you want to.

There is no copyright on the word.

What is onteresting is how many people fight over what being a conservative means

And jockying for position in the relm of conservatism.

Conservative has a much better reputation than liberal which many people go to great lenghts to avoid being labeled with.

[Mac-7]

Maineman removed at the request of the OP.

I didnt realize this was one of the Soviet-style tPF threads where only robots are allowed to post.

Mac-7 banned at request of OP

[Standing Wolf]

You can use the term "conservative" if you want to.

There is no copyright on the word.

What is onteresting is how many people fight over what being a conservative means

And jockying for position in the relm of conservatism.

Conservative has a much better reputation than liberal which many people go to great lenghts to avoid being labeled with.

Whether you would tend to think that "conservative" has a better reputation depends entirely on the sort of folks you hang around with and where you go for your media fix. Rightly or wrongly, "conservative" is, for many, many people, inextricably linked with right-wing hate groups, racist - truly racist - attitudes, efforts by religionists to impose their doctrinal beliefs on the general public, war profiteering, and any number of other bad things. I'm not suggesting that these associations are invariably fair - only that the connection certainly exists in the minds of many people, and after all that is what a reputation consists of.

As for justicia's OP lists, I'm pretty much with him on the top one and also with about half of the items on the bottom one. Depending on their perspective and propensities, other people have called me literally everything from a spun-out fringe Liberal to a hard core Conservative nutjob. I don't see a great advantage in self-labeling, simply because as soon as you accept the brand, so many people think they've got you figured out and stop listening to your actual words and ideas.

I often refer to "special interest liberals" - people who focus on a single traditionally liberal cause and refuse to acknowledge as "liberal" anyone who doesn't go along with their take on it a hundred percent...and I suppose that the same would apply to "special interest conservatives". One common confusion factor is that too many people fail to acknowledge and understand that there is fiscal conservatism, religious conservatism, social conservatism - just as those divisions exist (with some overlap) in the liberal realm. Of late, I hear much derision (mostly from the Right) aimed at someone who says that they are "a fiscal conservative and a social liberal" - as though the thing described is some sort of logical impossibility.

[Chris]

You can use the term "conservative" if you want to.

There is no copyright on the word.

What is onteresting is how many people fight over what being a conservative means

And jockying for position in the relm of conservatism.

Conservative has a much better reputation than liberal which many people go to great lenghts to avoid being labeled with.



I'm sure iustitia is forever indebted to you for your permission.

One reason the definition is contentious is, as discussed above, conservatism is not an ideology but a philosophy or disposition with a variety of guiding principles. So was classical liberalism from which it derives, whereas contemporary liberalism seems to consist of a set of positions with little principle behind it, sort of like some contemporary so-called conservatives of a social or neocon position.

[donttread]

Certain folks love relying on No True Scotsman fallacies. Is claiming someone isn't a "true conservative" an example of such? Few points:

-I am against the War on Drugs and favor the legalization of marijuana
-I oppose the War on Terror
-I disagree with the veneration of police and question authority
-I think whistle-blowers should be treated as public servants and not traitors
-I am not an environmentalist but still believe people should care for the planet
-I accept evolution, the Big Bang, vaccines and climatology aka science
-I don't believe in the prison system
-I think Israel should have to take care of itself, as should Europe, Japan and Korea
-I support the right to work in a union
-I don't have wet dreams about Ronald Reagan
-I hate the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party

Am I allowed to be a conservative then? After all:

-I support traditional marriage
-I am religious and endorse a religious public
-I deeply oppose abortion
-I have unwavering support for self-defense rights
-I serve in the Army and swore an oath to my country
-I dislike ghetto culture
-I oppose unfettered immigration
-I reject feminism
-I hate political correctness
-I believe in nuclear families

I've considered myself conservative for most of my adult life. Conservatism to me is about rejecting radical upheaval of social institutions. It's not a predetermined political position, but a philosophy. It seems that by "true conservative" folks mean rigid, liberal capitalism rather than traditionalism.


For those of us of a certain mindset the terms "liberal" (socially) and conservative ( fiscally) are too confusing to sheep. We should probably just call ourselves "Constitutionist". That way the donkephant supporters will have to look that up and in the process might accidentally actually read some of the BOR's

[Mac-7]

We should probably just call ourselves "Constitutionist".

You mean allowing yourselves to be ruled by 5 unelected lawyers on the supreme court.

[Chris]

For those of us of a certain mindset the terms "liberal" (socially) and conservative ( fiscally) are too confusing to sheep. We should probably just call ourselves "Constitutionist". That way the donkephant supporters will have to look that up and in the process might accidentally actually read some of the BOR's

I'd prefer Declarationism. :D

[Mister D]

Racialism does not find a home in Christianity. There is no part of being thy brother's keeper that suggests that you can choose your brothers on the basis of ethnicity and race, all being God's children.

What? That's not what racialism as per my use means or entails. In any case, with all due respect I don't take advice on what has a home in Christianity from the "spiritual" folks.

[MisterVeritis]

can you not take up arms at this point and press that fight already? or, perhaps, you are missing a little cojone-juice?

Or perhaps, could it be that your "fighting" is done by an army of dweebs with zits sitting in front of PC monitors in their mom's basement?
You never cease to amuse.

I see you have been removed.

[iustitia]

You never cease to amuse.

Run along. This discussion is for the adults.

He's threadbanned.

[MisterVeritis]

You mean allowing yourselves to be ruled by 5 unelected lawyers on the supreme court.
I am a Constitutional Conservative.

What the Supreme Court has done is not Constitutional. Very little of what the Federal government is Constitutional.

People have the right to govern themselves. We have less and less opportunity to do so as the Federal government swallows up society whole.

[iustitia]

I am a Constitutional Conservative.

What the Supreme Court has done is not Constitutional. Very little of what the Federal government is Constitutional.

People have the right to govern themselves. We have less and less opportunity to do so as the Federal government swallows up society whole.

He's also threadbanned.

[MisterVeritis]

He's threadbanned.
I saw that after I responded. Thank you.

[Bo-4]

A "true" conservative doesn't get involved in social issues and what others do with their bodies.

[MisterVeritis]

A "true" conservative doesn't get involved in social issues and what others do with their bodies.
Does this mean you believe we do not have the right to self government?

[Tahuyaman]

Part of the problem is that people have assigned too many modifiers to the term conservative. Social, fiscal, constitutional etc.

just be consistent.

[iustitia]

A "true" conservative doesn't get involved in social issues and what others do with their bodies.

Isn't that exactly what a conservative does? Or are you talking about libertarians?

[Tahuyaman]

A "true" conservative doesn't get involved in social issues and what others do with their bodies.


Thats not accurate. Being a conservative doesn't mean one must completely ignore all social issues.

[Chris]

A "true" conservative doesn't get involved in social issues and what others do with their bodies.

Not so sure. Earlier I cited Russel Kirk. He, I think, is a true conservative, just like Bill Buckley. The difference is, while Buckley believed the conservative promoted virtue by example in public life, Kirk believed the conservative promoted it politically through the government. Buckley's way allows society to settle moral issues before the government legislates, administers or adjudicates. I prefer his approach.

[Truth Detector]

I definitely would not agree with that conception of liberalism. Liberal figures like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, etc. were all either religous or sprirutal or heavily invested in the importance of morality and virtue. Just because they thought economics were important and worthy of studying does not mean they placed material desires above all else. If that were the case, then it's doubtful they would have worked up the courage needed to rebel against the British empire. After all, if your primary concern is material comforts, then charging headlong into a war is probably the last thing on your mind. I know that most Americans now living are extremely reticent to serve in the military for precisely that reason. They are incredibly fearful of discomfort and death and simply do not want to risk losing their material comforts, even if it means serving their "country".

^Spot on.

[Truth Detector]

can you not take up arms at this point and press that fight already? or, perhaps, you are missing a little cojone-juice?

Or perhaps, could it be that your "fighting" is done by an army of dweebs with zits sitting in front of PC monitors in their mom's basement?

Still think you're winning? Now THAT is damned funny. :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

The difficulty with terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' is not only that they change over time but that they change by location. American conservatism is quite different than many other areas of Europe because it still maintains such a strong emphasis on the individual. Whether liberal or conservative, the dominant theme of American political thought is individualism. There are many conservative traditions that view such individualism as inherently Leftist. This is why American Libertarianism does not have much of a European counterpart. It is almost exclusively a US phenomenon. If you were to mention the term 'libertarian' to many Europeans, they would think you were referring to non-state socialism.

A good anecdote about the differences in conservativism is a conservative German professor I had in university. There was a proposal in Germany to require that all sexually transmitted diseases be listed on your ID. It did not pass, but he thought it was an amazing idea and so did many others of his party. The Republicans in the classroom thought that was a horrifying intrusion of government onto the individual.

Part of the reason why American conservatism is so hard to describe is because we do not have a large-government form of conservatism which many other countries do.

^Spot on.

[Truth Detector]

I am a Constitutional Conservative.

What the Supreme Court has done is not Constitutional. Very little of what the Federal government is Constitutional.

People have the right to govern themselves. We have less and less opportunity to do so as the Federal government swallows up society whole.

^Spot on.

[Chris]

Isn't that exactly what a conservative does? Or are you talking about libertarians?

No, that's libertines. :D

[Truth Detector]

A "true" conservative doesn't get involved in social issues and what others do with their bodies.

Nothing more ironic than a Liberal defining Conservatism.

[Bo-4]

Isn't that exactly what a conservative does? Or are you talking about libertarians?

No, just look at most of the Republican candidates and the Teas in the House.

They just can't stop talking about birth control, abortion or gay people.

They are moral ideologues .. not conservatives.

[Bo-4]

Thats not accurate. Being a conservative doesn't mean one must completely ignore all social issues.

Live and let live - If someone's lifestyle choices don't affect their own, then a true conservative butts out.

[MisterVeritis]

No, just look at most of the Republican candidates and the Teas in the House.

They just can't stop talking about birth control, abortion or gay people.

They are moral ideologues .. not conservatives.
Those issues should be decided in the legislatures. The state legislatures. The federal government has no Constitutional role to play in any of them.

[MisterVeritis]

Live and let live - If someone's lifestyle choices don't affect their own, then a true conservative butts out.
Perhaps that is true. Perhaps not. The state legislatures are the place to battle out how we agree to live together.

[Tahuyaman]

Live and let live - If someone's lifestyle choices don't affect their own, then a true conservative butts out.

you don't have any idea what a conservative is. The ideas surrounding conservative principles are foreign concepts to you. Yore just a partisan who has no ability to think for yourself.

[Tahuyaman]

Perhaps that is true. Perhaps not. The state legislatures are the place to battle out how we agree to live together.

The further left one leans, the more they disagree with that.

[Bo-4]

Perhaps that is true. Perhaps not. The state legislatures are the place to battle out how we agree to live together.

I don't think there's any place at even the state level for telling people how to live their lives.

True conservatives don't impose their own moral values on others.

[Truth Detector]

This is the problem one has when we limit ourselves to words without specifically defining what they mean. If I look at the definition of Liberal, it describes me fairly well.

To me, Conservatism means to conserve...traditions...the family.....religion....uphold the Constitution and it's true intent....limited government....Liberty and freedom of choice.....private property rights.....

This would preclude this farcical notion that the borders should be open to anyone, drug use as a personal choice and supporting policies that lead to societal decline like drugs, and permissive criminal laws that lead to early release of criminals for emotional reasons.

What it does not stand for, IMO, is turning the Federal Government into a welfare state and making it the "decider" of what is best for everyone.

As a Conservative, the ONLY way to turn this nation around is by ending the Progressivism that defines marraige as whatever you want it to mean, suggests that one can be any gender one chooses and then divines rights for those causes.

It also places it's faith in a higher being and not in a human personality.

In addition, abolishing the current tax code and supplanting it with a Fair consumption Tax and term limits would advance economic prosperity and put an end to the partisan political corruption in Washington DC. Anything less is mere window dressing and more of the same.

liberal
[lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l]
adjective
1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6.of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

[Standing Wolf]

No, just look at most of the Republican candidates and the Teas in the House.

They just can't stop talking about birth control, abortion or gay people.

They are moral ideologues .. not conservatives.


Those issues should be decided in the legislatures. The state legislatures. The federal government has no Constitutional role to play in any of them.

I am a citizen of the state of Arizona, but I am also a citizen of the United States. If the Arizona state legislature, or some local government agency or body, insists on denying some right to me that the federal Constitution grants or recognizes, what is my recourse, in your view? Move to another state? What purpose does the U.S. Constitution even serve if the judicial power of the federal government is helpless to safeguard the citizenship rights of its people against the follies and infringements of state and local officials?

[Bo-4]

Part of the problem is that people have assigned too many modifiers to the term conservative. Social, fiscal, constitutional etc.

just be consistent.

It't true though. There about ten different types of conservatives.

With all the possible blends, it's more like hundreds.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/tp/Are-You-A-Conservative-.htm

[Chris]

Perhaps that is true. Perhaps not. The state legislatures are the place to battle out how we agree to live together.

The original intent of the federal government was to protect rights but that's been inverted by liberal/progressive agenda to provide rights.

[Truth Detector]

No, just look at most of the Republican candidates and the Teas in the House.

They just can't stop talking about birth control, abortion or gay people.

They are moral ideologues .. not conservatives.

They are talking about birth control, abortion and gay people because of a leftist agenda dying to force itself down everyone's throats.

No one had an issue with abortion rights as a State issue until leftist activists in the SC made it a national issue in their moronic decision Roe v Wade.

No one had an issue with the traditional definition and meaning of marriage until leftist activists shoved the issue down everyone's throats with the help of the SC.

No one had an issue with birth control until leftist activists mandated it through Obamacare; another program shoved down everyone's throats along a straight party line vote.

But I understand your inability to comprehend the complicity of Liberals on these issues because you are a rabid hyper partisan leftist on steroids.

[Chris]

This is the problem one has when we limit ourselves to words without specifically defining what they mean. If I look at the definition of Liberal, it describes me fairly well.

To me, Conservatism means to conserve...traditions...the family.....religion....uphold the Constitution and it's true intent....limited government....Liberty and freedom of choice.....private property rights.....

This would preclude this farcical notion that the borders should be open to anyone, drug use as a personal choice and supporting policies that lead to societal decline like drugs, and permissive criminal laws that lead to early release of criminals for emotional reasons.

What it does not stand for, IMO, is turning the Federal Government into a welfare state and making it the "decider" of what is best for everyone.

As a Conservative, the ONLY way to turn this nation around is by ending the Progressivism that defines marraige as whatever you want it to mean, suggests that one can be any gender one chooses and then divines rights for those causes.

It also places it's faith in a higher being and not in a human personality.

In addition, abolishing the current tax code and supplanting it with a Fair consumption Tax and term limits would advance economic prosperity and put an end to the partisan political corruption in Washington DC. Anything less is mere window dressing and more of the same.

liberal
[lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l]
adjective
1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6.of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:a liberal attitude toward foreigners.


That touts some conservative principles but doesn't link them to your contemporary "conservative" agenda positions.

[Truth Detector]

Live and let live - If someone's lifestyle choices don't affect their own, then a true conservative butts out.

If someone's lifestyle leads to really bad choices like dropping out of high school, having babies out of wedlock and using drugs, it impacts EVERYONE. Particularly when the Federal government reaches into our collective pockets to pay for these poor decisions.

It is the epitome of hypocrisy to see a hyper partisan leftist on steroids declare "live and let live" while they march Christians off to jail for refusing to serve gay weddings on religious grounds.

[Truth Detector]

Those issues should be decided in the legislatures. The state legislatures. The federal government has no Constitutional role to play in any of them.

^Spot on.

[Truth Detector]

you don't have any idea what a conservative is. The ideas surrounding conservative principles are foreign concepts to you. Yore just a partisan who has no ability to think for yourself.

^Spot on.

[Truth Detector]

I don't think there's any place at even the state level for telling people how to live their lives.

True conservatives don't impose their own moral values on others.

Unless they choose to not cater gay weddings based on religious views; then you lefties have no issues with goose stepping over religious liberty.

Good lord; liberals are the most intolerant brain dead sheep on the planet. If you're at a Liberals house and say the that marriage is between a man and a woman based on facts, just watch how fast they boot your ass to the curb.

[Truth Detector]

I am a citizen of the state of Arizona, but I am also a citizen of the United States. If the Arizona state legislature, or some local government agency or body, insists on denying some right to me that the federal Constitution grants or recognizes, what is my recourse, in your view? Move to another state? What purpose does the U.S. Constitution even serve if the judicial power of the federal government is helpless to safeguard the citizenship rights of its people against the follies and infringements of state and local officials?

Birth control, abortion and gay marraige are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If any State violates Constitutional rights, that is within the purview of the Supreme Court. Social issues, like gay marriage, abortion and birth control are local issues, not Federal.

[Truth Detector]

It't true though. There about ten different types of conservatives.

With all the possible blends, it's more like hundreds.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/tp/Are-You-A-Conservative-.htm

And there is only ONE kind of Liberal; the dumb naive kind. :biglaugh:

[Chris]

If someone's lifestyle leads to really bad choices like dropping out of high school, having babies out of wedlock and using drugs, it impacts EVERYONE. Particularly when the Federal government reaches into our collective pockets to pay for these poor decisions.

It is the epitome of hypocrisy to see a hyper partisan leftist on steroids declare "live and let live" while they march Christians off to jail for refusing to serve gays on religious grounds.



It's that sort of thinking that has led to growth in the federal government in, for example, health care, like the ACA and the likely coming single-payor system.


As Spooner argued, cogently, vices are not crimes.

[Bo-4]

Unless they choose to not cater gay weddings based on religious views; then you lefties have no issues with goose stepping over religious liberty.

Good lord; liberals are the most intolerant brain dead sheep on the planet. If you're at a Liberals house and say the that marriage is between a man and a woman based on facts, just watch how fast they boot your ass to the curb.

Nobody is forcing anyone to cater gay weddings. But if you're a business owner with a storefront, you have no right to deny service to someone you believe is gay, same as you can't tell blacks, Mexicans or Muslims to take a hike.

There's a simple way to handle the gay wedding issue without making a scene. "What was that date again? I'm sorry - i've got two other events that day. Try bla-bla down the street."

And if you're at a liberal's house, there is no need to expose your hate and bigotry causing an unnecessary fight. If you do, don't expect to be invited back.

Simple

[Truth Detector]

It's that sort of thinking that has led to growth in the federal government in, for example, health care, like the ACA and the likely coming single-payor system.

Wrong; the thing that has led to the growth in Federal Government like ACA, SS, welfare and make work Government projects were Progressive Liberal policies.

FDR is the grandfather of massive Government growth; not conservative principles. Suggesting they are is absurd and lacking in factual context.


As Spooner argued, cogently, vices are not crimes.

Spooner is a moron; vices lead to crime.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't think there's any place at even the state level for telling people how to live their lives.

True conservatives don't impose their own moral values on others.
Nonsense.

Laws are based upon moral values and judgments. The state and local governments are precisely the right places to battle out the nature of the rules we agree to live by.

[MisterVeritis]

It's that sort of thinking that has led to growth in the federal government in, for example, health care, like the ACA and the likely coming single-payor system.


As Spooner argued, cogently, vices are not crimes.
What has led to the growth of the Federal government is the unwillingness of the people to occasionally march on Washington and slay the lot of them.

We failed to stand up for the Constitution. So we no longer have any limits on the federal government. And that is why the tyranny grows.

[Truth Detector]

Nobody is forcing anyone to cater gay weddings.

This is an outright lie. I would find it stunning if not for its source.


But if you're a business owner with a storefront, you have no right to deny service to someone you believe is gay, same as you can't tell blacks, Mexicans or Muslims to take a hike.

If you run a private business you have the right to deny service to ANYYONE for ANY reason and hire whoever you want. It's not the Governments business to interfere with anyone's PRIVATE business.

But this does illustrate the Fascist mindset of Liberals.


There's a simple way to handle the gay wedding issue without making a scene. "What was that date again? I'm sorry - i've got two other events that day. Try bla-bla down the street."


Yes; it's called civil unions.

But that wasn't sufficient for the leftist gay agenda; they had to shove their views down everyone's throats through the courts after LOSING EVERY BALLOT BATTLE.

This further dividing the country based on a leftist agenda.


And if you're at a liberal's house, there is no need to expose your hate and bigotry causing an unnecessary fight.

Another painfully stupid claim; that the traditional meaning and intent of marriage is about hate and bigotry.


If you do, don't expect to be invited back.Simple

Who would want to? I've found activist liberal leftists to be the most intolerant hypocrites on the planet lacking humor or a fun factor.

[Chris]

Wrong; the thing that has led to the growth in Federal Government like ACA, SS, welfare and make work Government projects were Progressive Liberal policies.

FDR is the grandfather of massive Government growth; not conservative principles. Suggesting they are is absurd and lacking in factual context.



Spooner is a moron; vices lead to crime.




Wrong; the thing that has led to the growth in Federal Government like ACA, SS, welfare and make work Government projects were Progressive Liberal policies.

Agree, but it's the muddle-headed, collectivist thinking you expressed that led to that. Here are your words again: "If someone's lifestyle leads to really bad choices like dropping out of high school, having babies out of wedlock and using drugs, it impacts EVERYONE. Particularly when the Federal government reaches into our collective pockets to pay for these poor decisions."



Spooner is a moron; vices lead to crime.

Nice ad hom. Typical "I'm right; you're wrong; therefore, there's something wrong you" sophistry.

[Bo-4]

Bigot Bigot Bigot :)

http://th686.photobucket.com/albums/vv229/Moodester/th_FrogDance-blank_molly.gif

https://top10queen.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/2009-10-26_1620.png?w=736

[Tahuyaman]

It't true though. There about ten different types of conservatives.

With all the possible blends, it's more like hundreds.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/tp/Are-You-A-Conservative-.htm

all the modifiers only apply to the wishy-wishy types who are afraid to take a firm stand on anything.

[Chris]

Well, this thread sure went to hell in a hand basket.

[Tahuyaman]

Well, this thread sure went to hell in a hand basket.


Well......?

[Tahuyaman]

Bigot Bigot Bigot :)

http://th686.photobucket.com/albums/vv229/Moodester/th_FrogDance-blank_molly.gif

https://top10queen.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/2009-10-26_1620.png?w=736

what's wrong with you?

[Ashton]

all the modifiers only apply to the
wishy-wishy types who are afraid to take a firm stand on anything.

There are some that I think are silly (click-bait conservatism?). But there are valuable distinctions to be made with others. The best example, it seems to me, is neoconservative. That has a fairly distinct meaning in foreign policy due to their interventionist tendencies — there are other differences but that is the defining one, now. Intervening elsewhere in the world to bring democracy is not a traditionally conservative desire. Before the neoconservatives came to power, a conservative foreign policy was primarily about defense and maintaining American power in the world balance. The internal affairs of other nations were simply not that important unless they represented a threat.

As Thomas Woods said (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism#cite_note-6),


"[T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt. ... They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary."

[Tahuyaman]

I have no idea what a "click bait" conservative is.

[iustitia]

I also don't see much difference between cultural and social conservatism. Aren't both names for traditionalism?

[Standing Wolf]

Birth control, abortion and gay marraige are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If any State violates Constitutional rights, that is within the purview of the Supreme Court. Social issues, like gay marriage, abortion and birth control are local issues, not Federal.

As for marriage equality, the Constitution does recognize that a citizen must have equal access to public institutions and be treated as any other, barring a compelling public interest to the contrary. There are plenty of valid arguments for not letting eleven-year-olds drive or convicted murderers own firearms, but where is the compelling public interest in forbidding two persons a marriage license because they don't have "one of each"?

[Standing Wolf]

I also don't see much difference between cultural and social conservatism. Aren't both names for traditionalism?

Whatever one decides to call it, the really major difference I see is not between cultural (or social) conservatives and cultural (or social) liberals, but between people who are satisfied with living their own lives and making their own choices in their personal lives - whether those choices tend toward conservatism or liberalism - and those on either side who believe that the general public needs to conform to what they see as right or wrong. Another way of putting it would be - it's the people who know how to mind their own business vs. the people who apparently missed that day at school. Both "sides" have both types.

[Chris]

Whatever one decides to call it, the really major difference I see is not between cultural (or social) conservatives and cultural (or social) liberals, but between people who are satisfied with living their own lives and making their own choices in their personal lives - whether those choices tend toward conservatism or liberalism - and those on either side who believe that the general public needs to conform to what they see as right or wrong. Another way of putting it would be - it's the people who know how to mind their own business vs. the people who apparently missed that day at school. Both "sides" have both types.

Agree. One can be a traditionalist and promote it by example in public life or push it by law in political agenda. See earlier on Buckley v Kirk.

[Ethereal]

OR, they simply disagree with the mandate.

That certainly has something to do with it. More people are becoming skeptical of the state's military interventions. Still, most Americans seem to have a lot of faith in the military and their mission. They seem to believe it's a genuine defensive institution, generally speaking, so what explains their extreme reticence to serve in this institution if they largely perceive it as a legitimate, defensive organization? Based on my experiences as a millennial, I tend to think it has a lot to do with the increasing emphasis on materialism in our lives. Millennials have panic attacks when they cannot find their phone for fifteen minutes. Serving in a combat zone would be a nightmare for them.

[Peter1469]

Bigot Bigot Bigot :)

http://th686.photobucket.com/albums/vv229/Moodester/th_FrogDance-blank_molly.gif

https://top10queen.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/2009-10-26_1620.png?w=736
Notice: Thread banned at the request of the thread owner.

[Ethereal]

If someone's lifestyle leads to really bad choices like dropping out of high school, having babies out of wedlock and using drugs, it impacts EVERYONE.

Only if you assume that "everyone" must support those bad choices. If, instead, you opt for personal responsibility and voluntary charity, then the only people who are impacted are the people who choose of their own volition to be impacted.


Particularly when the Federal government reaches into our collective pockets to pay for these poor decisions.

So your objection is to the federal government reaching into your pocket, not social liberty.

[Ethereal]

Spooner is a moron...

Wow, what a powerful retort. I'm impressed.


...vices lead to crime.

This is just a sweeping generalization that glosses over a complex reality. Some people who use drugs end up committing crimes and some people who use drugs do not. According to some studies, around 22 million Americans use illegal drugs each year (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-americans-use-illegal-drugs-3/). FBI figures for that year estimate around 1.2 million violent crimes (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final) and 9.1 million property crimes (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/property-crime/property-crime-topic-page/propertycrimemain_final). So even if we assume that every single one of those crimes was committed by an illegal drug user (an exceedingly generous assumption), it would only amount to approximately a rate of 47%. So even the most favorable view of the prohibitionist viewpoint has the majority of drug users not committing crimes. And this doesn't even address the approximately 131 million Americans who consume alcohol. If we include that in the figure, then your argument really starts to suffer.

[Truth Detector]

As for marriage equality, the Constitution does recognize that a citizen must have equal access to public institutions and be treated as any other, barring a compelling public interest to the contrary.

Marriage isn't a PUBLIC institution. It is a religious institution and has been for centuries. Just because the Feds wanted to stick their hands in it to get taxes doesn't change the FACTS.

Marriage isn't a RIGHT no matter how many times it is moronically enunciated.

You didn't get married to prove you were in LOVE; you got married because you were going to create a family. If not, why bother? The piece of paper is the Government institutionalized piece we could easily have done without.


There are plenty of valid arguments for not letting eleven-year-olds drive or convicted murderers own firearms,

There ARE ZERO arguments to the contrary so this babbling pile of bloviating is pointless.


but where is the compelling public interest in forbidding two persons a marriage license because they don't have "one of each"?

What is the "compelling" interest pray tell? Procreation? :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

Only if you assume that "everyone" must support those bad choices.

How are we NOT compelled to support those bad choices with Government welfare payments, food stamps and public housing?


If, instead, you opt for personal responsibility and voluntary charity, then the only people who are impacted are the people who choose of their own volition to be impacted.

Correct; is there a point here?


So your objection is to the federal government reaching into your pocket, not social liberty.

Wrong; my issue is the Federal Government being in the unconstitutional business of social redistribution efforts. I also have issues with State politicians promising some in society free stuff on the backs of others in order to get elected.

Anyone with half a brain would find this outrageous.

[Truth Detector]

Wow, what a powerful retort. I'm impressed.

Should I be impressed that you're impressed? DUH.


This is just a sweeping generalization that glosses over a complex reality. Some people who use drugs end up committing crimes and some people who use drugs do not. According to some studies, around 22 million Americans use illegal drugs each year (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-americans-use-illegal-drugs-3/). FBI figures for that year estimate around 1.2 million violent crimes (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final) and 9.1 million property crimes (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/property-crime/property-crime-topic-page/propertycrimemain_final). So even if we assume that every single one of those crimes was committed by an illegal drug user (an exceedingly generous assumption), it would only amount to approximately a rate of 47%. So even the most favorable view of the prohibitionist viewpoint has the majority of drug users not committing crimes. And this doesn't even address the approximately 131 million Americans who consume alcohol. If we include that in the figure, then your argument really starts to suffer.

Remember, the claim was "VICE LEADS TO CRIME". That includes gambling, prostitution, drugs, alcohol abuse...etc etc etc. Your strawman argument never had the slightest chance.

The notion that vice does not lead to criminal behavior is not just absurd, but factually stupid.

[Chris]

Marriage isn't a PUBLIC institution. It is a religious institution and has been for centuries. Just because the Feds wanted to stick their hands in it to get taxes doesn't change the FACTS.

Marriage isn't a RIGHT no matter how many times it is moronically enunciated.

You didn't get married to prove you were in LOVE; you got married because you were going to create a family. If not, why bother? The piece of paper is the Government institutionalized piece we could easily have done without.



There ARE ZERO argument to the contrary so this babbling pile of bloviating is pointless.



What is the "compelling" interest pray tell? Procreation? :rofl:



The government has made it a public institution.

As such it is a contract, and as such falls under the natural right of free association.

Not all marriages result in progeny, not a requirement.

Conservative attorney Ted Olsen argues compellingly...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Krpwo2YsI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kMHySNBeuk

[Chris]

Should I be impressed that you're impressed? DUH.



Remember, the claim was "VICE LEADS TO CRIME". That includes gambling, prostitution, drugs, alcohol abuse...etc etc etc. Your strawman argument never had the slightest chance.

The notion that vice does not lead to criminal behavior is not just absurd, but factually stupid.


Your facts are mere opinions. As Spooner argues, whether some behavior is even a vice requires a lifetime to determine. The casual marijuana smoker in Colorado might be indulging in a vice but may also never commit a crime. So factually your argument is defeated. By definition alone it is as well, since, following Spooner again, vices affect only the individual, it is only when an act harms another that a crime is committed.

[Chris]

For anyone interested in reading Spooner on vices and crime, a short essay, it can be found here: Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty (http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-vanc.htm).

[Ethereal]

How are we NOT compelled to support those bad choices with Government welfare payments, food stamps and public housing?



Correct; is there a point here?



Wrong; my issue is the Federal Government being in the unconstitutional business of social redistribution efforts. I also have issues with State politicians promising some in society free stuff on the backs of others in order to get elected.

Anyone with half a brain would find this outrageous.

Can we please thread ban this guy? Simply impossible to have a rational debate with him.

[Beevee]

What is a "true conservative"?
It's impossible to make a judgement from the postings by conservative members on this forum.

[Ethereal]

Should I be impressed that you're impressed? DUH.



Remember, the claim was "VICE LEADS TO CRIME". That includes gambling, prostitution, drugs, alcohol abuse...etc etc etc. Your strawman argument never had the slightest chance.

The notion that vice does not lead to criminal behavior is not just absurd, but factually stupid.

You have to be the most obnoxious poster I've ever come across, and that is really saying something.

[Peter1469]

Should I be impressed that you're impressed? DUH.



Remember, the claim was "VICE LEADS TO CRIME". That includes gambling, prostitution, drugs, alcohol abuse...etc etc etc. Your strawman argument never had the slightest chance.

The notion that vice does not lead to criminal behavior is not just absurd, but factually stupid.


Notice: Thread banned at the request of the thread owner.

[Standing Wolf]

Marriage isn't a PUBLIC institution. It is a religious institution and has been for centuries. Just because the Feds wanted to stick their hands in it to get taxes doesn't change the FACTS.

Marriage isn't a RIGHT no matter how many times it is moronically enunciated.

You didn't get married to prove you were in LOVE; you got married because you were going to create a family. If not, why bother? The piece of paper is the Government institutionalized piece we could easily have done without.

TD, there is so much just flat-out wrong with what you've written here, it's difficult to know where to begin - but I'll give it a shot.

You say that marriage is not a public institution but a religious one...and that the State has become involved in it for monetary reasons. If you will do even a little research on the history of marriage in America and the West generally, I believe you will find that exactly the opposite is true. The institution of a legally binding marital contract exists in every Western society quite apart from any religious influence or doctrine on the matter. The Catholic Church - and, later, its Protestant and other offshoots - saw a financial opportunity to become involved in the weddings of the rich and powerful early on, and created ceremonies to incorporate that previously wholly civil institution into its own doings, while the poor contented themselves with "common law" marriages and the Church could not have cared less.

The reason the various civil governments "stick their hands in it" today is the same reason their hands have always been in it: when marriages dissolve and the marital assets have to be divided and the children provided for, or when a party dies or becomes ill and their legal next-of-kin must be established to inherit or make authoritative decisions, or any one of a thousand other things happens where it is vitally important to know who married who, when, no one turns to the storefront preacher or the parish priest who may have - with the permission of the State - tied the knot at some point...they turn to the civil courts. The state keeps the records and issues the licenses for a reason, and it's not for profit - trust me. The county where I live currently has 28 Superior Court judges hearing nothing but Family Law cases; that's not cheap.

No one has ever claimed that "marriage is a right", TD. The right involved is the right to be treated by the State as an equal, unless some compelling public interest dictates otherwise. Equal opportunity, equal access, equal justice - not some arbitrary system of inventorying a prospective marital couple's sex organs to ensure that they have exactly one penis and one vagina between them.

Yes, the civil institution of marriage is a great thing in terms of establishing stability in the lives of children - and for that matter of the adults involved. Everyone acknowledges that. However, not every couple is able to have children, or wants to have them. Should the State force a married couple to have children if they are physically capable of it, as the Church attempts to do? Should women beyond child-bearing age be barred from getting married at all?

There are tens of thousands of American children living in households headed by same-sex couples, TD. Should their parents decide to opt for marriage, many of those children will benefit tremendously. That's a great thing, I'm sure you agree.

[Dr. Who]

That certainly has something to do with it. More people are becoming skeptical of the state's military interventions. Still, most Americans seem to have a lot of faith in the military and their mission. They seem to believe it's a genuine defensive institution, generally speaking, so what explains their extreme reticence to serve in this institution if they largely perceive it as a legitimate, defensive organization? Based on my experiences as a millennial, I tend to think it has a lot to do with the increasing emphasis on materialism in our lives. Millennials have panic attacks when they cannot find their phone for fifteen minutes. Serving in a combat zone would be a nightmare for them.
That is probably also true. Furthermore, if you are a millennial and perhaps not otherwise employed, but have parents willing to financially support you, the military does not become an attractive option. There is also an increasing sense of entitlement in society which is pretty much at odds the notion of personal sacrifice for your country.

[Dr. Who]

Marriage isn't a PUBLIC institution. It is a religious institution and has been for centuries. Just because the Feds wanted to stick their hands in it to get taxes doesn't change the FACTS.

Marriage isn't a RIGHT no matter how many times it is moronically enunciated.

You didn't get married to prove you were in LOVE; you got married because you were going to create a family. If not, why bother? The piece of paper is the Government institutionalized piece we could easily have done without.



There ARE ZERO arguments to the contrary so this babbling pile of bloviating is pointless.



What is the "compelling" interest pray tell? Procreation? :rofl:
Declaring that marriage is only a religious institution is rather short sighted. In fact, marriage was not even a religious sacrament until the 13th century. It was previously often used as an alliance between families and a cultural norm to ensure social, if not purely legal recognition of offspring. Until 1500, most "marriages" were simply a matter of people declaring themselves married. At the same time, the tradition of monogamy was not really even culturally recognized until the 9th century in the west. Ultimately marriage became a method of ensuring sexual exclusivity and inheritance rights. It was actually the Church that brought about the notion that a marriage continued to be valid even in the absence of offspring. Prior to that, any such relationship could be terminated for lack of fertility. Your notion that it has always been an inherently religious institution is historically inaccurate in human history.

[Dr. Who]

What? That's not what racialism as per my use means or entails. In any case, with all due respect I don't take advice on what has a home in Christianity from the "spiritual" folks.
Well that's convenient.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racialism

[MisterVeritis]

There are some that I think are silly (click-bait conservatism?). But there are valuable distinctions to be made with others. The best example, it seems to me,is neoconservative. That has a fairly distinct meaning in foreign policy due to their interventionist tendencies — there are other differences but that is the defining one, now. Intervening elsewhere in the world to bring democracy is not a traditionally conservative desire. Before the neoconservatives came to power, a conservative foreign policy was primarily about defense and maintaining American power in the world balance. The internal affairs of other nations were simply not that important unless they represented a threat.

As Thomas Woods said (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism#cite_note-6),


"[T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt. ... They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary."

And, of course, neocons are not actually conservatives. They too, are authoritarian statists. Conservatives, in my opinion, stand for individual liberty, and against unconstitutional state power.

[MisterVeritis]

What is a "true conservative"?

It's impossible to make a judgement from the postings by conservative members on this forum.
It would help if you actually wanted to do so.

[Mister D]

Well that's convenient.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racialism

I'm sorry that you don't like the way I and others use the term but you're delusional if you think I'm going to allow you to dictate to me what my views are.

[Dr. Who]

I'm sorry that you don't like the way I and others use the term but you're delusional if you think I'm going to allow you to dictate to me what my views are.
Who is dictating? You need to define what you mean by racialist and how that doesn't conflict with Christianity. From my perspective, racialism is racism dressed up in a tuxedo. How does it differ from racism from a practical perspective? None of the definitions that I can find make much of a distinction and in fact, attribute racialism to the British form of the term racisim. Racism certainly would conflict with Christian dogma. Perhaps, truth be told, you are really a culturalist.

[Cigar]

Who is dictating? You need to define what you mean by racialist and how that doesn't conflict with Christianity. From my perspective, racialism is racism dressed up in a tuxedo. How does it differ from racism from a practical perspective? None of the definitions that I can find make much of a distinction and in fact, attribute racialism to the British form of the term racisim. Racism certainly would conflict with Christian dogma. Perhaps, truth be told, you are really a culturalist.

His train only goes in one direction ...

Maybe him or a family member was deeply abused by a Brown person in his Yute :laugh:


TBed by OP.

[Mister D]

Who is dictating? You need to define what you mean by racialist and how that doesn't conflict with Christianity. From my perspective, racialism is racism dressed up in a tuxedo. How does it differ from racism from a practical perspective? None of the definitions that I can find make much of a distinction and in fact, attribute racialism to the British form of the term racisim. Racism certainly would conflict with Christian dogma. Perhaps, truth be told, you are really a culturalist.

You now know exactly what I mean by racialism and if it was initially unclear you should have asked. Did you really think I was saying I'm inclined to a racist worldview? Seriously, Dr. Who? Again, in case I wasn't clear the first time, I don't care if you refuse to make any distinction between a belief in racial hierarchy and a belief that race is of significance biologically, socially, culturally, politically and historically. Your question, again with all due respect, is a rather stupid one. Essentially, you're asking me what the difference is between a belief entailing my domination over another and one entailing no such thing. It's a stupid question that a woman of your intelligence has no need to ask.

Yes, racism would certainly conflict with Christian dogma but I'm a racialist.

BTW, I have no doubt that your Google search turned this up as well. Read it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-schuck/racism-and-racialism-are-_b_6368010.html

[Mister D]

His train only goes in one direction ...

Maybe him or a family member was deeply abused by a Brown person in his Yute :laugh:

Dr. Who, like everyone else, thinks you're an idiot.

[Dr. Who]

You now know exactly what I mean by racialism and if it was initially unclear you should have asked. Did you really think I was saying I'm inclined to a racist worldview? Seriously, Dr. Who? Again, in case I wasn't clear the first time, I don't care if you refuse to make any distinction between a belief in racial hierarchy and a belief that race is of significance biologically, socially, culturally, politically and historically. Your question, again with all due respect, is a rather stupid one. Essentially, you're asking me what the difference is between a belief entailing my domination over another and one entailing no such thing. It's a stupid question that a woman of your intelligence has no need to ask.

Yes, racism would certainly conflict with Christian dogma but I'm a racialist.

BTW, I have no doubt that your Google search turned this up as well. Read it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-schuck/racism-and-racialism-are-_b_6368010.html

These explanations surely have some validity, but another reason for the paradox seems even more likely: widespread confusion between racism, which is hostility to blacks based on their supposed inferiority, and what I call racialism, which is a heightened consciousness of the race of others. It is easy to conflate them; dictionaries often define them as synonyms, and distinguishing them empirically is very hard. But they are crucially different. Racism is irrational, contemptible, and toxic. Racialism is rational, morally neutral, and inevitable in a society with our history of slavery, discrimination, and white-black social differences in so many areas.


This is a non-definition. What is a heightened awareness of race? If you are sighted, you can plainly see the different features and skin tone. He is basically endorsing the notion of stereotyping:


We all entertain many stereotypes, including racial ones, based on perceived probabilities, not hostility. Probabilities, by definition, are true much of the time but not always. Sometimes, we must make quick decisions with no information other than probabilities -- but absent hostility, this bespeaks racialism, not racism. Jesse Jackson famously said that if he were walking down the street, heard footsteps behind him, and feared robbery, he would be relieved to see that the person was white.

[Mister D]

This is a non-definition. What is a heightened awareness of race? If you are sighted, you can plainly see the different features and skin tone. He is basically endorsing the notion of stereotyping:

It's quite simple. Are you being deliberately obtuse? He makes a distinction between those who, for example, believe race matters (people like you, actually LOL!) and those who believe one race is superior to another and has the right to dominate another group. It's really not that difficult to grasp, Who.

[Mister D]

Oh, and stereotyping needs about as much endorsement as breathing. It's what we do and it's a good thing too or we wouldn't be here now.

[del]

nice tux

brooks brothers?

[Dr. Who]

It's quite simple. Are you being deliberately obtuse? He makes a distinction between those who, for example, believe race matters (people like you, actually LOL!) and those who believe one race is superior to another and has the right to dominate another group. It's really not that difficult to grasp, Who.
From my perspective, there is little difference between extolling the superiority of one's own race and dwelling upon the negative stereotypes of another's. The latter is just a passive-aggressive approach to the same thing which ignores certain socio-economic and frankly political realities.

[Mister D]

From my perspective, there is little difference between extolling the superiority of one's own race and dwelling upon the negative stereotypes of another's. The latter is just a passive-aggressive approach to the same thing which ignores certain socio-economic and frankly political realities.

Your perspective isn't rational. Again, there is a difference between, for example, citing a study about black people not getting enough return calls about their resumes or acknowledging the stark demographic realities with regard to gun violence and the belief that black people are inferior and thus rightfully dominated. If you refuse to make any such distinction and insist on denouncing anyone who approaches social life from a racial angle (which you're sometimes guilty of but your cognitive dissonance in this respect is another matter) don't expect me to humor you.

[del]

that shawl collar is timeless, isn't it?

[Dr. Who]

Your perspective isn't rational. Again, there is a difference between, for example, citing a study about black people not getting enough return calls about their resumes or acknowledging the stark demographic realities with regard to gun violence and the belief that black people are inferior and thus rightfully dominated. If you refuse to make any such distinction and insist on denouncing anyone who approaches social life from a racial angle (which you're sometimes guilty of but your cognitive dissonance in this respect is another matter) don't expect me to humor you.
Those stark realities of which you speak are confined to urban poverty ghettos and certainly do not reflect the behaviors of the black middle or upper classes. However, the stereotypes negatively impact all black people, no matter how, law abiding, hard working and ambitious.

[Mister D]

Those stark realities of which you speak are confined to urban poverty ghettos and certainly do not reflect the behaviors of the black middle or upper classes. However, the stereotypes negatively impact all black people, no matter how, law abiding, hard working and ambitious.

That's nice. Who said they did? They do, however, reflect the behavior of lower class blacks as opposed to say lower class Asians and whites or even Hispanics. Blacks seem to have everyone beat by a long shot when it comes to anti-social behaviors. In any case, I'm glad you now understand the distinction now between racism and racialism.

Edit: it has less to do with the perceived flaws of others than it does the perceived interests of your own group. no need to get hung up on stereotyping etc.

[donttread]

You mean allowing yourselves to be ruled by 5 unelected lawyers on the supreme court.

No . I mean like appointing true experts on and champions of the Constitution to the court and have the states ignore their decisions until they that happens. These guys are just extensions of the Donkephant

[donttread]

I'd prefer Declarationism. :D


I like it.

[Beevee]

It would help if you actually wanted to do so.

What? You want me to ingest the claptrap and believe it too?

[MisterVeritis]

What? You want me to ingest the claptrap and believe it too?
Do you see what I mean?

[FindersKeepers]

Marriage isn't a PUBLIC institution. It is a religious institution and has been for centuries. Just because the Feds wanted to stick their hands in it to get taxes doesn't change the FACTS.

Marriage isn't a RIGHT no matter how many times it is moronically enunciated.

You didn't get married to prove you were in LOVE; you got married because you were going to create a family. If not, why bother? The piece of paper is the Government institutionalized piece we could easily have done without.



There ARE ZERO arguments to the contrary so this babbling pile of bloviating is pointless.



What is the "compelling" interest pray tell? Procreation? :rofl:


You are correct in what the institution of marriage WAS. But, the world was very different, quite a bit more hostile than it is today to people who chose not to marry and procreate.

The old "needs" for marrying no longer exist, except in some third-world nations where large families are still needed to work the land.

Marriages were also arranged back then. Today, in most countries, marriages are more for love and companionship than anything else, and I recently read a statistic that said young married white couples in the US were having far less -- or no -- children.

As you say, marriage used to be a religious institution, but we became nations of LAWS, and the governing bodies in those nations took on the role of instituting the laws. It was a natural process. Just as we can't allow every denomination to try and punish their members for theft, neither can we allow them to set laws that extend out into greater society -- laws that affect people who are not members of their churches. Any church is free to marry - or not marry - whomever they so choose, but they are not allowed to decide what other churches can do. And, that's where the government comes in. The government can decide who can marry. No one is forcing an individual church to marry gays, but those churches can do so if they choose. Clerks of the Court, however, are not in the position of choosing and so they must abide by the law.

The idea that marriage is for procreation is over. Many choose not to have children and that is their right.

There is no compelling reason NOT to allow two people who want to share their lives to marry. At least, I haven't read one in this thread yet.

[kilgram]

Certain folks love relying on No True Scotsman fallacies. Is claiming someone isn't a "true conservative" an example of such? Few points:

-I am against the War on Drugs and favor the legalization of marijuana
-I oppose the War on Terror
-I disagree with the veneration of police and question authority
-I think whistle-blowers should be treated as public servants and not traitors
-I am not an environmentalist but still believe people should care for the planet
-I accept evolution, the Big Bang, vaccines and climatology aka science
-I don't believe in the prison system
-I think Israel should have to take care of itself, as should Europe, Japan and Korea
-I support the right to work in a union
-I don't have wet dreams about Ronald Reagan
-I hate the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party

Am I allowed to be a conservative then? After all:

-I support traditional marriage
-I am religious and endorse a religious public
-I deeply oppose abortion
-I have unwavering support for self-defense rights
-I serve in the Army and swore an oath to my country
-I dislike ghetto culture
-I oppose unfettered immigration
-I reject feminism
-I hate political correctness
-I believe in nuclear families

I've considered myself conservative for most of my adult life. Conservatism to me is about rejecting radical upheaval of social institutions. It's not a predetermined political position, but a philosophy. It seems that by "true conservative" folks mean rigid, liberal capitalism rather than traditionalism.
You are conservative. You always looked me a conservative like the rest of members of the forum that go from the range of self-called Libertarian to the ones self-called conservative.

A conservative is exactly what you defined, but a conservative can believe in the points that you say you don't believe above. Ideologies are not static. You are conservative because you believe in the core values of the conservativism. You're social conservative to the core.

[kilgram]

In the American context, yes. It does indeed denote a belief in liberal capitalism. That belief is paramount. It's often combined with a certain traditionalism but a traditionalism at odds with the principles of liberal capitalism. Such is the cognitive dissonance of American conservatism.

American and everywhere. That is conservatism.

[Ransom]

You are correct in what the institution of marriage WAS. But, the world was very different, quite a bit more hostile than it is today to people who chose not to marry and procreate.

The old "needs" for marrying no longer exist, except in some third-world nations where large families are still needed to work the land.

Marriages were also arranged back then. Today, in most countries, marriages are more for love and companionship than anything else, and I recently read a statistic that said young married white couples in the US were having far less -- or no -- children.

As you say, marriage used to be a religious institution, but we became nations of LAWS, and the governing bodies in those nations took on the role of instituting the laws. It was a natural process. Just as we can't allow every denomination to try and punish their members for theft, neither can we allow them to set laws that extend out into greater society -- laws that affect people who are not members of their churches. Any church is free to marry - or not marry - whomever they so choose, but they are not allowed to decide what other churches can do. And, that's where the government comes in. The government can decide who can marry. No one is forcing an individual church to marry gays, but those churches can do so if they choose. Clerks of the Court, however, are not in the position of choosing and so they must abide by the law.

The idea that marriage is for procreation is over. Many choose not to have children and that is their right.

There is no compelling reason NOT to allow two people who want to share their lives to marry. At least, I haven't read one in this thread yet.

I can have multiple wives then? Bring the harem back?

[kilgram]

I can have multiple wives then? Bring the harem back?

And the women can have multiple husbands. Or is that not so interesting? :)

[kilgram]

You are conservative. You always looked me a conservative like the rest of members of the forum that go from the range of self-called Libertarian to the ones self-called conservative.

A conservative is exactly what you defined, but a conservative can believe in the points that you say you don't believe above. Ideologies are static. You are conservative because you believe in the core values of the conservativism. You're social conservative to the core.
I want to make a correction in my previous post.

I said ideologies are static when I wanted to say ideologies are not static.

[Peter1469]

I want to make a correction in my previous post.

I said ideologies are static when I wanted to say ideologies are not static.

I made the change in your original. Hope that was OK.

[Chris]

I want to make a correction in my previous post.

I said ideologies are static when I wanted to say ideologies are not static.



What do you mean by nonstatic there? Just curious.

[kilgram]

What do you mean by nonstatic there? Just curious.
I meant that there are some core values of conservatism like traditionalism, religiosity, but then it is very variable from a conservative to other.