CONSERVATIVES & SOCIAL CONSCIENCENESS

[williamlayton]

When does a Conservative become a Liberal?
Can a Conservative have a social conscience?
Here are the thoughts and the delima.
If we work on the thought of pure conservativeness, without regard for a social cause---is this not pure Marxism?
It brings into play another type of politics, without representation---the good old boy system, the fraternity system, the have and the have nots without regard too equality.
Blessings  

[Squib]

I tried bringing up the idea of focusing on the ideals more than the players in the political game in the barbie forum... nasty stuff but jump in if you're ready for a da** vigorous swim will

[magooch]

The last time I saw any figures on the subject, conservatives give a helluva lot more to charities than liberals do.  In general, liberals are very generous with other people's money.

I don't know where that puts me, but I sure as heck ain't liberal and I am not charitable at all.  I believe charity begins at home.  I do believe that government should probably provide some type of safety net to those who are very unfortunate, but it has been my experience that the majority of those who find themselves in the ditch, have no one but themselves to blame.

[Squib]

that's the REAL issue (even though I am a virtually single-issue voter I know better)

it's self-reliance, responsibility, empowered citizenship with no excuses whatsoever.  people who are raised with all the priviledges of being american don't necessarily believe in that same system.  it's like a "rich kid" falling quite far from the tree, dad was a cutthroat business man and mom was the same and they have it all but the kid grows up spoiled and lacking any future or ambition.  it doesn't actually take that much wealth though, society in general is falling down like that fast, the real world realities of death and misery aren't close enough to scare people because we have enough money to shield us.  it's running out though.

[Redtail1949]

good question no simple answer..

i consider myself a conservative yet i carry some views that many would say are liberal. i am just one of many Americans that just do not fit the political accepted mold of a "TRUE DEMOCRAT" or "TRUE REPUBLICAN". I have many friends and family that will pass out on the thought that someome might dare consider them a "REPUBLICAN". they see themselves as nothing but.

in my opinion there are very very few absolute "CONSERVATIVE" or "LIBERAL" people. they are the minority. so i guess thats why they have that "INDEPENDENT" class for people just like me.

in my opinion most people start out with more liberal views about society when the become adults and as the years pass and all the knocks that life dishes out they become more conservative.

you see so many claim that if this guy believes this or that i will not vote for him. i do understand and i even have some of those absoulutluy not deals myself. the point is i doubt if anyone will find another that believes just as he does 100% on everything. you i am kinda glad they do not. it is in fact what has made us the great nation we are. a nation of individuals.

like i said that just how i see it.

[Squib]

compromise is the cornerstone of a bicameral legislature fighting with the judicial and executive branches- even if they get the laws wrote like they want they won't necessarily be prosecuted or enforced as they wish



america will always be chaotic in action, but what goes around comes around

dynamic equilibrium!

[littlecanoe]

WL,

What is your definition of conservatism?


Marxism breaks down in its basic tennants.  It works to undo the class system by pitting "class" against "class".
Individualism is expressed through the mass and what the mass wants.  This assumes that to a degree greater than
ensuring basic freedoms all men need to exist and experience all things to the same degree.  The system has proven
that this never works as the outcome.  Another underlying ideal seems to be that human reason can answer all things.
Consider the global warming scam here.

Conservatism, as I view it, seeks to allow the greatest freedom available in a society while protecting the individual.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the basic factors needed for a person to pursue life.  Marxism would encroach
on these basics, and to some degree take them away from all in order to meet it's goal of uniformity.  What Marxism misses
is a blind trust in human nature.  Philosophically, it works.  In reality, human nature, greed, selfishness, etc., degrades the
philosophy to the point that the system cannot exist in it's intended form.  To me, this is why Democratic and Libertarian constructs
will never fully work.  Human nature is the point at which they break down.  Conservatism, in it's truest form, sets standards
based on absolutes and looks to level the playing field.  Again, human nature perverts this system and tries to make it one of
the other orders.  To my thinking we will never have a perfect order but this is the closest to perfect in this world when it
functions as intended.

[Squib]

republicans/conservative are for social darwinism, and for me the more extreme the better
as long as they remember the constitution and don't cross it I don't see what can go wrong

it's when "progressive" minded republicans decide that corporatism isn't totalitarian.  when we throw money into the economy expecting specific results that we have problems.  a free market only works if it's FREE completely, which is about as anti-marxist as I can understand

I suppose everyone is afraid of being the dejected little buy but the truth of the matter is that someone is gonna be left out in the cold and the only morality that should be judged acceptable is to let them freeze.  if they can't support themselves then neither can we.  plus I'd rather live comfortably and ignore the needy than have 25% of my money go to support the gov that takes from me so they can live- if I can support myself with a surplus  well why can't they even get by?  ambition and the lack thereof mark the divide between sustainable societies and survivalists which is what all communists end up becoming

back to you little canoe

[littlecanoe]

Before I return serve, where does morality fit into your thinking?

[briarpatch]

Your question involves two different entities. One is the government the other, us as a people.
It is not the governments job to give to those that have nothing. It is not the governments job to drive people into dispair and bankrupsy by taking from them and giving to those that refuse to work, be productive or care for their families.
The government is there to build a strong army, build good roads, and provide laws to protect the innocent.
We the people as individuals are to help where we can and raise up our families, neighbors and others. It is our duty to do that as humans.
When the government gets involved there is only misery for all.
A true conservative should think this way.
A liberal would turn it over to the whores, fools and elite in the name of helping. MHO

[nomosendero]

Looks like a question a Liberal would ponder, one who doesn't understand conservatism at all.

[Squib]

the moral mission to support the needy, they can't manage to keep themselves fed or support a family so what is gained by enabling them to continue leeching?  it is just counter-productive.  taking something away from one person for someone else is not charity it's social engineering.  I can't look at that and think of anything but theft.  Needy people are always gonna keep coming back for more, and if they aren't left to suffer then people who otherwise would have got a job and kept it won't be as afraid of giving in and living off the welfare state.  although it's their perogative to be leeches it's our money and those people continue to vote- THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE OFF FROM WORK TO GO TO THE POLLS, THEY'LL GET A BUS RIDE TO TAKE THEM OTHERWISE IT'S DISCRIMINATION!  They'll not go to work five days a week or take care of themselves, but they CAN get to the polls and vote every two years for representation in congress and every four years for the president... they have nothing but free time to debate who is the best conductor for the gravy train and vote accordingly election after election.  

[Squib]

let's not get to bashing someone for questioning the big machine


I'm sympathetic to will, him and some other guys just got done bashing me pretty good today and yesterday actually!

anyways, when people forget their motivations and just go after the "other team" then they forget the moral highground and damn us just like the scum/whores/bums/freaks/thieves like was stated two posts prior to this one

[Squib]

nevermind, briarpatch said whores and fools and elites


see how I threw more in already, this stuff gets people going crazy quick

[45-70.gov]

i  feel a slight  moral  oblication  to help those that  need  it

i  can  make  a choise  to  do  so  and  so  can  you

should  government  help  those  in  need??

if  i said  yes  then  i  am  using the force  of government  to  compell  you 
to do  as  i  have  deemed  moral

and  that is  immoral.....this  applies  to  any subject

stop  useing  the word  weand  us.....think  i terms  of  you  and  i  and them

[jimster]

The words themselves have been twisted so much it's hard to answer the question without knowing what you think liberal or conservative is.
In my mind, the socialists/marxists stole the name liberal a long time ago...they are not true liberals at all.  a true liberal used to be very limited government and very "conservative".  It's all a words game and very confusing to lots of people.  When someone calls Polosi a liberal I know what they mean to say, I go along with it so I don't have to turn it into a big long history lesson.  In my opinion the term liberal has been used incorrectly for a long time.

Heston was a true Liberal...he marched with M.L.King when it was not popular to do so....

"I HAVE FOUND A CERTAIN TYPE CALLS HIMSELF A LIBERAL...NOW I ALWAYS THOUGHT I WAS A LIBERAL. I CAME UP TERRIBLY SURPRISED ONE TIME WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT I WAS A RIGHT-WING, CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST, WHEN I LISTENED TO EVERYBODY'S POINT OF VIEW THAT I EVER MET, AND THEN DECIDED HOW I SHOULD FEEL. BUT THIS SO-CALLED NEW LIBERAL GROUP, JESUS, THEY NEVER LISTEN TO YOUR POINT OF VIEW..."

John Wayne

[45-70.gov]

rush  limbough  invented the  term  ''liberal''
he  alone  can  define  it  not  us  or  wikipedia

ITS  ALL JUST A WORD  GAME  TO MANIPULATE  YOU THOUGHTS THROUGH THE MEDIA

owl  gore  invented the internet

END OF STORY

[briarpatch]

45/70 I think that is  owl whore.

[Squib]

... yeah, classical liberal is defined as a laissez-faire libertarian type

conservative is "old-fashioned" and "all american"

but the old america used to believe in all american people being free to pursue whatever enterprise with minimal regulation

now the schism is between those who want to be free of the rules and break the entire establishment, and those who want stringent rules and criterion for acceptance and for those who break ranks to be lost to social darwinism.  while it doesn't seem to be necessary to interpret it in such absolutes, the true necessity is to defend the american tradition of freedom and that means protecting the establishment to some degree.  by default it means "old-fashioned" types too.  it's not old man nostalgia, it's clean living among increasingly decadent people born and raised within the continental us.  sure, every society has deviants, but ours doesn't kill or expel them, usually the government defends them.  america has ALWAYS been free enough for people to do as they please but now the deviants aren't happy with simply disobeying every conventional moral and philosophical rule, they have banded together to march in the name of deconstruction (strangely though, most of them don't seem to realize that there is a reason that all the so called reformers conglomerate although they're representative of extremely divergent demographics, it's just to break the establishment)

who really thinks that a nation full of welfare bums, homosexuals, muslims, poor me blacks, extra gender sensitive women and disabled/unwilling workers can function?  no one believes that and that's why the democrats just pretend to be progressive and "up to bat for the little guys".  that's not reasonable, not at all.  as anyone not included within those groups of special interest and protection must eventually ask "where do I stand" the choice is pretty clear, the old-fashioned - conservative ways or nothing at all.  the reason that isn't working is because politicians are corruptable and will trade favor for favor with the other group of people- the group of deviants that don't want a truce or slice of the pie but accomodation until the establishment is completely compromised.

[45-70.gov]

who really thinks that a nation full of welfare bums, homosexuals, muslims, poor me blacks, extra gender sensitive women and disabled/unwilling workers can function?  no one believes that and that's why the democrats just pretend to be progressive and "up to bat for the little guys".  that's not reasonable, not at all.  as anyone not included within those groups of special interest and protection must eventually ask "where do I stand" the choice is pretty clear, the old-fashioned - conservative ways or nothing at all.  the reason that isn't working is because politicians are corruptable and will trade favor for favor with the other group of people- the group of deviants that don't want a truce or slice of the pie but accomodation until the establishment is completely compromised
========================================================

these  folks  all  have  a right  to  exist

you  and  i don't  need  the government  to  compell us to  support  them

if  it is  made  clear  that  ALL  individuals  are  equal


then  taking  from  one  by force  and giving  to another
destroys  the  concept  of equality

forget  all  the definitions  and  vote freedom  and selreliance  FIRST

freedom  is not  free
many  have  died  fighting for  it
many  more have  died  because  of  it..
life  is  a bitch  and  then  you die.....and  i am  an  optinist

[Squib]

oh I don't hate them all on principle, it's the alliance of bitter people who want special favors that I hate.

I am generally very polite to people that I don't particularly like unless I'm legitimately provoked... and how often does that actually happen.  I still believe they're just as special and entitled to be happy and free americans as I am entitled to those opportunities- until they try to force others to provide the opportunities and happiness.  Then I want to provide a ball-bat  but that's not politically correct

[Squib]

I like your definition of equality, that we are all equal provided we're here by our own power and not the benefice of some greater power that provides for them.  I'm no chest-thumping alpha dog so I can understand that- there are people who don't like me, somepeople are gonna think I'm ugly or have a repulsive personality but if I'm useful to this society or at least doing no harm then I'm entitled respect- respect of my rights as a citizen.  If that's what you're saying then yes I do agree- that and forensic evidence compell me to be a better person despite my personal prejudices.

the examples I've made before were something like that but not so well recieved, glad you could get that out because I would have sounded condescending

[williamlayton]

Interesting.
There is no such thing as anarchy---for very long.
We are organizers.
If we limit government---and we should---then do we also limit business?
That is the question.
Cannot business become government? Does it not become a defacto government if left unchecked. Did it not become a defacto government when it was left unchecked.
Look at the history of enslavement---was it government or was the goverment business?
Blessings

[Squib]

that's actually the leverage used by the government when it got started getting into big business

ever heard of trust-busters will

capitalism CAN be snuffed out by all the big guys shutting out all the little guys (like wal-mart moving in and pushing mom and pop stores out of business) BUT usually not without some help from the gov.  the thing that seems to have really got it going though, is the government would divide corporations and business alliances and to do that they could enact all sort of arcane procedures to regulate business.  don't ask me the specifics because I'm not a lawyer (good luck absorbing it in one sitting anyways).  anyways ever since that big business has been afraid of government, to a degree.  if the politicians can be bought then they can not only keep the gov from attacking them but can actually bed the gov and vice versa.  that's not corporatism  but that's how it starts.  corporatism is government regulation of corpations- letting capitalism do what it does but favoring businesses and business practices that favor the state (modern/contemporary examples are healthcare and big tobacco)

and no anarchy doesn't last-  we have a very solid constitution and look at how far the government has strayed from it's intended role.  we have lots of rules and people just keep writing more and more and more-

[williamlayton]

Let's look at your comments.

That is the leverage used by the goverment.
Capitialism can be snuffed out by all the big guys but not without the goverment.
Big business is afraid of the Government.
If the goverment can be bought it goes to bed with the big business.
Corpratism is goverment regulation of business letting business do what it does but favoring businesses that do what favors the state.

Hummmmm---seems to be some contradiction in these thoughts.
What I think you mean is that the government wants too run businesses.
What I think government wants to do is regulate so that business does not run the government of the people.

What we need to do is elect better people.
Blessings

[magooch]

My head hurts!  Please Matt, lock this up.

[blind ear]

williamlayton, business is government

I have been saying all along that business is the government now. Regan deregulateing the banks led to banks that are too big to fail, along with the real estate "boom"-doggle and all the imaginary equity that needs to be declared as a loss by investors/banks/coorps that arn't getting paid. Add to those things the tax write offs that coorporations get for r & d etc pre tax that make them have very low taxable profits. A big constitutional issue is imminent domain which has been in the Supreme Court and the court supported the conscription of private property for PRIVATE use.

People that earn a paycheck are having to bail both the coorporate and the welfare side out.

Looks like it is here to me. eddiegjr

[williamlayton]

So, we are at crossroads.
Some think the government is business and some thing that business is the government.
Business has historically---if it is a strong business climate been the government, I agree. All legislation would favor the protection of big business.
That would leave the government to have less social consciousness--favoring business. Remember the old company store days and child labor?
But some see that the government should limit large business in order to protect the people from ruthless behavior by these large businesses.
Am I reading you guys correctly?
Blessings
 

[45-70.gov]

if  you  think  a business  or  corporation  is  corrupt  or  you don't agree with their principals

just  boycot them  and rally  support of  others like  you to  not  do  business  with them

if  you  think   government  is  corrupt  or  you don't  aggree  with their principals

you  can  revolt  or  you can  pay  up  when  they  send  the  police  to  compell  you to  comply

THAT  IS  THE BIG  DIFFERENCE  HERE

i  would  love to  see  anarchy  work  but it  won't
we  can  get rid  of OUR government
and  soon  some one  would  bring  us  THEIR government

[Squib]

yeah, we can't bail out

there are too many people willing to step up and screw us so much worse.... they're in a gridlock now and have to compete hard to push a bit of policy that'll probably be nullified or ignored in a decade anyways so we're going to be strained as a nation, not broken

let someone actually retain power in this country and we're done


will, I think that with your childhood starting at the end of ww2 you've had to deal with all the names and labels changing two or three times... allies/axis, cold war, un..... we can't even stick to a side versus another superpower.  I've read about it from the late 1800's till now and it sort of makes sense but it was from a cold analytical perspective- if I actually felt tied to any of it by experience then I would be completely lost

that's the point we're all lost and they can get away with goofy stuff like they do now.  maybe you should also research mercantilism too- it's what we're developing now