RE: Question about conservatism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 11:27:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Do you think this global economy is the new reality forever and ever? Capitalist economies require constant growth, stagnation is death. What comes up must come down,... and the fiat currencies of the world are not stable. I hate doomsday scenarios, because like everyone else i want to continue off on my LaLa Land denial mode and stick my head in the sand.... But I have learned just enough to freaking scare the living crap outta me when it comes to global economics. Unless they find alternatives to fossils as a form of energy to move the global economy that one factor alone is enough to do it in... and if you do not believe that do a search to see how much wildcatting is going on these days, how much exploration has led to new oil reserves being found. We do not have the energy to continue growth an expansion.

But there are a lot who will disagree with that logic... and I hope their right because if the global economy collapses many people will starve to death.... and that makes me sick inside to even contemplate.

(Puts on rose colored glasses and heads to the gym.. have a great holiday everyone)


I think it is the new reality, for awhile at least and I don't think it is a threat. India and China used to have far bigger economies than they have now and they are just making a comeback. The most important thing is that an economy remains creative and dynamic and not retrench into protectionism. No doubt with global warming there will be big changes but the world has always gone through big changes. The new technology that will be required should be seen as a challenge to the west and an opportunity for the taking.



DelightMachine -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 11:53:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I guess you'll have to wait for a conservative to answer that question.  I'm still stuck on this paradox.  Ask 100 conservatives whether the government should interfere with commerce, and all 100 will say no.  Ask the same 100 conservatives whether the state of Alabama has the authority to ban the sale of sex toys, and at least 70 of them will say yes.  Conservatism isn't a coherent position.


Insisting on this kind of coherence is ridiculous. Do YOU favor ANY restrictions on people that would touch on the economy? If so, you're just as incoherent as they are. If not, you're an extreme libertarian.

Conservatism, liberalism and even socialism compromise (even in principle) on some points. The alternative is to go off into the extremes.

Modern-day American conservatism is made up of three strands, and some who call themselves conservative only agree with any two of them, or are "soft" on one or two of them. In a free country, we get permutations (and even some that are inchoherent). These are the three strands:

-- Concern over national security
-- Concern over traditional morality and culture
-- Support for the free market

People with more interest in one or two of the principles than with a third one came together because they found they were compatable enough within the same group. That's historical circumstance (and a lucky one, I think). Each of the three principles will come into conflict with the others at some point. That's not incoherence, that's life.



MsMacComb -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 12:34:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
Insisting on this kind of coherence is ridiculous. Do YOU favor ANY restrictions on people that would touch on the economy? If so, you're just as incoherent as they are. If not, you're an extreme libertarian.
 

Ah yes. Look at what shallow little man showed up and immediatly starts insulting  people. Some things never change.



DelightMachine -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 12:50:22 PM)

Thank you, pot. You look good in black too.

LAM is an adult and knows the difference between forceful language about an argument and insults about a person.

That's called a distinction.

But I'm so glad you're around to complain about insults. No doubt you'll raise the level of discussion.



juliaoceania -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 12:50:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Do you think this global economy is the new reality forever and ever? Capitalist economies require constant growth, stagnation is death.


Really?  I just finished a book on the guilds back in medieval Europe and they seem to have managed for a long time with a steady state economy and they were almost pure capitalist as the kings and princes were content to simply stay in the background and collect taxes.Classic lazi faire.


The guilds in essense were what our modern day labor union movement is supposed to represent. These were not capitalist economies such as what we see today in which there is not real wealth to back up a currency such as a gold standard. Either these rulers had wealth, or they borrowed it from others (such as the Templar Knights). But there was no Federal Reserve, no IMF, or WTO. I am new to studying economic theory, but what little I do know is that modern global trade is much diferent because of fiat currency.

That being said the energy that powers the world is fossil fuels.. without them it would be hard to sustain growth.

Combine this with the fact this planet is overpopulated if we want everyone on it to enjoy a similiar standard of living (which being a humanitarian I would love to see this), Planet Earth has exceeded its carrying capacity and if India and China manage to acquire the same standard of living as we do in the West that means they burned fossils to get there. China wants every familiy to have a car.... their air is already so polluted that it causes bleeding from the throat and nose to breathe it..

I am also considering the amount of land that has to come under cultivation in order to feed all the mouths that are being born into this global economy, which our biodiversity is being stressed by more and more land coming under cultivation... not to mention gentically modified organisms and their environmental impacts...

I could go on and on and on.. because all these things are related, and I havent mentioned everything that comes to mind when it comes to the global economy... this is a forum post and not a dissertation after all..smiles



Lordandmaster -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 1:06:34 PM)

Yes, of course I do.  I never pretended not to.  That's why my position isn't incoherent, and the typical conservative's position is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

Insisting on this kind of coherence is ridiculous. Do YOU favor ANY restrictions on people that would touch on the economy? If so, you're just as incoherent as they are. If not, you're an extreme libertarian.



DelightMachine -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 1:12:11 PM)

OK, I'm lost here:

They favor policies that can restrict the economy, therefore they're incoherent
You (if I read your response correctly) favor other policies taht can restrict the economy.
But you're NOT incoherent.

Well, what's the difference?



Lordandmaster -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 1:14:53 PM)

Did you read what I said?  I said conservatives are incoherent because they believe that government shouldn't interfere with commerce AND that the state of Alabama has the authority to ban the sale of sex toys.  I don't pretend to believe that the government shouldn't interfere with commerce.



DelightMachine -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 1:39:24 PM)

Oh, OK. You have no problem with the government interfering with commerce.

I assume you also believe that Alabama has the authority to ban sex toys -- that was the way you put it, right? I assumed you don't believe they had that authority. My mistake.

So you are consistent but they are not. OK, you're not inconsistent. I don't consider their position to be inconsistent either, because when they say they don't want interference in commerce, they don't take an absolutist position on that. It's debatable where you decide to interfere and not interfere and by how much. That's not inconsistency, that's just difference of opinion.



JohnWarren -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 1:39:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

The guilds in essense were what our modern day labor union movement is supposed to represent.


The rest makes a lot of sense, but guilds were only owners, labour was not represented.  Maybe in this sense they were pure capitalism and what we have now is something else.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 2:17:56 PM)

You're just debating, you're not really responding to what I'm saying.  Conservatives are always blaring on and on about how free markets are best, small government is best, we don't want the government dictating how Americans do business--and yet they're quite willing to tolerate the regulation of commerce that offends them on moral grounds.  That's incoherent.  If you really take it as a foundational principle that government shouldn't be making business decisions for people, then lay off the dildo and marital-aid bans.  What conservatives really believe, but don't wish to admit because it's rhetorically untidy, is that A, B, and C should be regulated, and X, Y, and Z shouldn't.

I think you're aware that my view is more complex than you're making it seem--that's why I say you're just debating.  Of course I believe that government has both the authority and the duty to regulate commerce because I don't believe that, left to their own devices, corporations act in the best interests of the nation.  But that doesn't mean I'd agree that the government is always right whenever it wishes to interfere in commerce.  I certainly don't believe that moral outrage is sufficient grounds for government interference.  If the government could show, for the sake or argument, that the dildo business pollutes the environment egregiously, or leads to breaches in national security--then fine, they'd have a case.  But that's hardly the reasoning that was put forward in Alabama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

Oh, OK. You have no problem with the government interfering with commerce.

I assume you also believe that Alabama has the authority to ban sex toys -- that was the way you put it, right? I assumed you don't believe they had that authority. My mistake.

So you are consistent but they are not. OK, you're not inconsistent. I don't consider their position to be inconsistent either, because when they say they don't want interference in commerce, they don't take an absolutist position on that. It's debatable where you decide to interfere and not interfere and by how much. That's not inconsistency, that's just difference of opinion.



MsMacComb -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 2:47:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

Thank you, pot. You look good in black too.
LAM is an adult and knows the difference between forceful language about an argument and insults about a person.
That's called a distinction.
But I'm so glad you're around to complain about insults. No doubt you'll raise the level of discussion.
 

No doubt one could in general, but then with you thats impossible. Some discuss and take action, others debate just to hear themselves. Raising (or lowering) the level of discussion just for the sake of raising or lowering is not a laudable goal. Its open to personal interpretation, subjective opinion which is something you would know about as to you, its only your opinion that matters. Others opinions, facts, evidence is irrelevant.



juliaoceania -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 2:54:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

The guilds in essense were what our modern day labor union movement is supposed to represent.


The rest makes a lot of sense, but guilds were only owners, labour was not represented.  Maybe in this sense they were pure capitalism and what we have now is something else.


Ancient guilds protected individual craftsman in cooperatives, European guilds later in time were perhaps as you state... But many guild in ancient times were ran by individual craftsmen that regulated who got to learn their trade and how their trade was done. In this way some modern labor unions still decide who gets to learn a trade and protecting that trade. It is a way of protecting tradesmen. In that way they are similar.



DelightMachine -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 6:51:24 PM)

quote:

You're just debating, you're not really responding to what I'm saying.

No, I was trying to figure out what you were saying. Actually, at one point, I thought you might be a radical libertarian, because they often charge both conservatives and liberals with inconsistency, but now I see that you're criticizing conservatives from the left.
quote:

Conservatives are always blaring on and on about how free markets are best, small government is best, we don't want the government dictating how Americans do business--and yet they're quite willing to tolerate the regulation of commerce that offends them on moral grounds.  That's incoherent.  If you really take it as a foundational principle that government shouldn't be making business decisions for people, then lay off the dildo and marital-aid bans.  What conservatives really believe, but don't wish to admit because it's rhetorically untidy, is that A, B, and C should be regulated, and X, Y, and Z shouldn't.

Now who's trying to score debating points? I've been reading conservatives for decades, and it's never been a surprise that conservatives like the free market but will sometimes, in some areas, have higher priorities. Having priorities isn't incoherent. 

quote:

I think you're aware that my view is more complex than you're making it seem--that's why I say you're just debating.  Of course I believe that government has both the authority and the duty to regulate commerce because I don't believe that, left to their own devices, corporations act in the best interests of the nation.

I don't either. Neither did Adam Smith:

Edited to add this quote that you've probably heard before:
quote:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.


I only think that free enterprise is the surest way to increase overall wealth. Individual enterprises don't protect the environment best, don't provide for the poor best (when the poor aren't able to work, that is -- overall, it is the best way to get large numbers of people out of poverty). Free enterprise is just the best wealth-creating machine we've ever had, nothing more nothing less. That's why conservatives like it, and that's why their appreciation for free enterprise has its limits. In other words, their view is more complex than you're making it seem. 

The conservative position necessarily means that they should want some regulation but not other regulation. It's all a matter of what particular regulation you want.

quote:

I certainly don't believe that moral outrage is sufficient grounds for government interference.  If the government could show, for the sake or argument, that the dildo business pollutes the environment egregiously, or leads to breaches in national security--then fine, they'd have a case.  But that's hardly the reasoning that was put forward in Alabama.

No, they call it moral pollution. You disagree with them on that. For the reasons I mentioned above, that doesn't make them inconsistent, it just means you disagree with them. Instead of charing them with incoherence (and that really does sound like a debating point), why not just argue the merits of the issue?



UtopianRanger -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 10:39:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

I've been thinking a lot about this.

When did "conservatives" move from being pro-market to being pro-business? Why did they do it? Why is the differance downplayed, even by their rivals?

*meow*


No offense to anyone who has posted, but after a long, fun-ass weekend, it saddens me to come back to reality and read how so many folks are still locked up in the same false paradigm.

Conservatives vs. Liberals - Democrats vs. Republicans - Greens vs. Libertarians  -- This is exactly the way they want it, where all these lines are drawn and everyone is pitted against each other under false pretenses, while they languish in the quagmire.


Dump the Oligarchy.


 - R



Lordandmaster -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 11:04:06 PM)

UR, what's the right paradigm?

Oh, and re DelightMachine's quote:

quote:

The conservative position necessarily means that they should want some regulation but not other regulation. It's all a matter of what particular regulation you want.


That's a more honest statement than you hear from most conservatives.  But my point is that conservatives themselves don't agree about what to regulate and what not to regulate.  It's only the Religious Right that objects to the sale of dildos.  The Religious Right and the sort of classical conservative view you're talking about--let alone neocons, who don't belong to either group--really have very little in common.  When someone calls himself a "conservative" today, I have no way of knowing exactly what he believes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

No offense to anyone who has posted, but after a long, fun-ass weekend, it saddens me to come back to reality and read how so many folks are still locked up in the same false paradigm.

Conservatives vs. Liberals - Democrats vs. Republicans - Greens vs. Libertarians  -- This is exactly the way they want it, where all these lines are drawn and everyone is pitted against each other under false pretenses, while they languish in the quagmire.

Dump the Oligarchy.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 11:07:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I guess you'll have to wait for a conservative to answer that question.  I'm still stuck on this paradox.  Ask 100 conservatives whether the government should interfere with commerce, and all 100 will say no.  Ask the same 100 conservatives whether the state of Alabama has the authority to ban the sale of sex toys, and at least 70 of them will say yes.  Conservatism isn't a coherent position.


Actually, a true free market works fine and is extremely beneficial for consumers. But that isn't what we have now by a long shot. In their distorted view, it's my opinion, that what many are seeing instead of what they believe to be a free market at work, is in all actuality an oligopoly.

And oligopolies form when the check and balances contained within a free market system, go unprotected. In this case, it's our anti-trust laws that the justice department has virtually forgotten about. I suspect it's on purpose, though.

Lou Dobbs and other economists have noted, that anti-trust laws have never been as non-existent as they are now in this nation's history.


 

- R



HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 11:11:31 PM)

{fast reply}

A quote from Robert Heinlein states my opinion on the subject to a tee.

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."



Lordandmaster -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/29/2006 11:13:11 PM)

I agree with that.  Europeans like to call it "crony capitalism."

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

In their distorted view, it's my opinion, that what many are seeing instead of what they believe to be a free market at work, is in all actuality an oligopoly.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Question about conservatism (5/30/2006 12:16:03 AM)

quote:

I agree with that.  Europeans like to call it "crony capitalism."


YES. And that is a far better more succinct term for it - I wish I would have used it.

quote:

UR, what's the right paradigm?


LaM .....

I don't think it's a question of which is the right paradigm, more than it is the one we're in right now seems to not be beneficial to anyone with the exception of those in the highest echelons of corporate hierarchies, and of course the controllers themselves.

I guess what I really mean is: Many elected what they thought was a government which was truly representative of the people and their ideals - What they got was a whole another story.

The false paradigm exists within the frame-work that it is set up to have two groups and their ideals competing against each other, yet the leaders of both groups neither believe-in or share their ideals, and instead, have their own!!!!!!!!! And a large majority of the people still hasn’t figured that out yet - They're still sucked up in partisanship. And even though I'm sitting here laughing about it right now, it's not really funny. As matter of fact, it’s very sad. And what’s even sadder, is the fact that the same trick will be used again in 2008.



    - R



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875