A Conservative view of Government.

[Total Crica]

Everyone may technically be selfish - we do things that we decide to do (duh), but the motivation behind our actions and the end result for ourselves is what truly defines a selfish or selfless act I think.

Nope. Everyone has their own version of "selfless" based solely on "selfish" desires.

- - - Updated - - -

everyone should pull their own weight.

Whoever can't, dies. That's how all other species do it. Some species help each other out a bit, but not to the extent us humans do. But isn't that because they can't? They don't have the bodily tools we do, after all. Even monkeys don't have the brainpower we do. I've watched ants. If all humans did what they did, willingly, as much as they were able, this earth would not be able to contain the population explosion.

[NED funded]

@Endus Jim Crow laws instutionalized racism. That's big goverment restricting freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

It can if you consider that its structure depends on a powerful state to enforce its rules and socialize and condition people into obedience to Capitalism.

People are free to live a socialist life.Right now Venezuela is accepting anyone money (dollars). People choose capitalism.

[Theodarzna]

@Endus Jim Crow laws instutionalized racism. That's big goverment restricting freedom.

People are free to live a socialist life.Right now Venezuela is accepting anyone money (dollars). People choose capitalism.

There are legions of other models to chose from. Socialism and Mass Democracy both have many common elements. If its a choice between Socialism, Fascism and Mass Democracy obviously one chooses the Mass Democracy with its vaguely liberal Capitalism. That isn't what I am talking about however.

Socialism and Capitalism both depend on a level of state power. The State behaves as the DM to a very big game of Dungeons and Dragons. I am not advocating a new DM, I am advocating a new game.

[Machismo]

I like the idea of such a form of conservatism, at least most of it. You bring up the issue of self government, yet at the same time, desire to limit sexual and expressive freedoms. You cannot demand self government, then immediately try to take it away. There's one problem with conservatism in this county, it is applied in an inconsistent fashion. We see this in things such as attempts to ban gay marriage, prostitution, drug bans, immigration laws, free trade, corporatism, and policing. In every case, conservatives chose the path of "more government." Not wanting to be ruled by technocrats is great, so long as the goal is not to then turn around and rule over others in a similar fashion.

The entire basis of government is to deal with societal outliers, the people who could not live harmoniously without a governing body to keep them in line. At some point, our nation realized it could make more money, and gain power, by creating more societal outliers in which to deal with. Government became a business, where the profits came by way of power and job security. The federal government alone makes a gross income of $4 trillion a year, far bigger than any other business around. I would love to get rid of its interference and inefficiency, but you would need to redesign the entire system from the bottom up. You need a group of people to gain power, and do a reset of the laws, and start the process all over again. We last did that over 240 years ago. They used violence to reach their goals, hopefully the next one will be done in a more mundane fashion. In the end, there is no such thing as limited government. The goal is to slow it's growth, as to delay the inevitable revolution, whether by force, or by change in beliefs.

[Total Crica]

I am advocating a new game.

Gotta kick out the players that already own the playing field before you get to play your game.

[Theodarzna]

I like the idea of such a form of conservatism, at least most of it. You bring up the issue of self government, yet at the same time, desire to limit sexual and expressive freedoms.

These freedoms will become essentially whatever a locality believes in.

Okay, some groups will be say colored by Mormonism, and obviously that will be a different way of life then say those colored by different sets of values. I might personally want a group that is much more sexually liberal than a Mormon community or any Abrahamic faith informed community, that would be my principle goal. What I take issue with is for example the State deciding what everyone's values should be and exercising a program of reforming societies values to that.

There's one problem with conservatism in this county

A problem of libertarians will be the problem of assuming you local communities culture and values won't be a factor in ones life. No man is really an island, and you will obviously have to compromise with those around you to survive.

[Total Crica]

These freedoms will become essentially whatever a locality believes in.

Nope. Freedoms are fought for, not taken away.

[Machismo]

These freedoms will become essentially whatever a locality believes in.

Okay, some groups will be say colored by Mormonism, and obviously that will be a different way of life then say those colored by different sets of values. I might personally want a group that is much more sexually liberal than a Mormon community or any Abrahamic faith informed community, that would be my principle goal. What I take issue with is for example the State deciding what everyone's values should be and exercising a program of reforming societies values to that.



A problem of libertarians will be the problem of assuming you local communities culture and values won't be a factor in ones life. No man is really an island, and you will obviously have to compromise with those around you to survive.

But that's not limiting the size of government at all, it's simply allowing a different government to be equally as restrictive. That's certainly not a push towards self government, that's the standard states' rights conservatism. It's what led to the Secession of the South 150 years ago.

Culture is great, people should live in whatever culture they like. The problem comes when attempting to legislate that culture. That's exactly how we got to this point in time, it's why government is so big at the moment. Once cultures begin to restrict actions that don't actually cause harm, then they have gone away from conservatism, and have pushed towards "anarcho tyranny." As I have long said, government is not necessary, it is inevitable.

[Glorious Leader]

The free market can't go wrong.

Of course not. Your god can never fail can it.

[Theodarzna]

But that's not limiting the size of government at all, it's simply allowing a different government to be equally as restrictive. That's certainly not a push towards self government, that's the standard states' rights conservatism. It's what led to the Secession of the South 150 years ago.

Culture is great, people should live in whatever culture they like. The problem comes when attempting to legislate that culture. That's exactly how we got to this point in time, it's why government is so big at the moment. Once cultures begin to restrict actions that don't actually cause harm, then they have gone away from conservatism, and have pushed towards "anarcho tyranny." As I have long said, government is not necessary, it is inevitable.

It is limiting the size of government, the issue is that what you describe is an expansion of the State as a body to regulate society. If the State can socialize and condition behavior into people in one way, why not others?

You cannot reasonably live as an atomized individual without consequence. For example maybe you want to eat bacon, but say you are from a Jewish shtetl at they would not approve of that, you can eat the bacon and face the social ostracism or not. If the State intervenes, that is interesting and may for a time protect that individual from the negative social stigma's he or she might incur and all of the problems that come from it, but at the same time if we accept the State can socialize people in one way why not others?

Then I would argue you must logically accept the wisdom of a powerful state and even having your life micromanaged, because if you believe its necessary to protect you from the social culture of a group, than you accept in totality the government as a tool of socialization and conditioning.

[NED funded]

There are legions of other models to chose from. Socialism and Mass Democracy both have many common elements. If its a choice between Socialism, Fascism and Mass Democracy obviously one chooses the Mass Democracy with its vaguely liberal Capitalism. That isn't what I am talking about however.

Socialism and Capitalism both depend on a level of state power. The State behaves as the DM to a very big game of Dungeons and Dragons. I am not advocating a new DM, I am advocating a new game.

Socialism needs a totalitarian state to exist by definition.

[Machismo]

It is limiting the size of government, the issue is that what you describe is an expansion of the State as a body to regulate society. If the State can socialize and condition behavior into people in one way, why not others?

You cannot reasonably live as an atomized individual without consequence. For example maybe you want to eat bacon, but say you are from a Jewish shtetl at they would not approve of that, you can eat the bacon and face the social ostracism or not. If the State intervenes, that is interesting and may for a time protect that individual from the negative social stigma's he or she might incur and all of the problems that come from it, but at the same time if we accept the State can socialize people in one way why not others?

Then I would argue you must logically accept the wisdom of a powerful state and even having your life micromanaged, because if you believe its necessary to protect you from the social culture of a group, than you accept in totality the government as a tool of socialization and conditioning.

Social osctracization is fine, government mandate is a completely different animal altogether. If people wish to shun others for their actions, that does not require state intervention in either direction. Once the state does, either by limiting the individual's desire to eat bacon, or by limiting the society's desire to ostracize him for it, then you are right back where you wanted to avoid being.

Regulating society is how we got to this point in time. Both liberals and conservatives have done it, mainly by pushing more and more legislation. Instead of getting rid of old legislation, they simply put more restrictions on top of the old restrictions. Self governing would mean the individuals condition behavior, not the government. And yes, I mean the government at any level. Culture should not be up to the state, it should be an individual choice. The sole role of government should be to prevent one entity from harming another, that's it. The longer you push to keep it at that minimalist level, the less often you will have to have a "reset."

[Theodarzna]

Socialism needs a totalitarian state to exist by definition.

Capitalism likewise needs a degree of policing, control, socialization that makes the growth of totalitarianism inevitable because the two operate on the same logic.

If Blank can do X, why not do more X?

[Total Crica]

It is limiting the size of government, the issue is that what you describe is an expansion of the State as a body to regulate society. If the State can socialize and condition behavior into people in one way, why not others?

You cannot reasonably live as an atomized individual without consequence. For example maybe you want to eat bacon, but say you are from a Jewish shtetl at they would not approve of that, you can eat the bacon and face the social ostracism or not. If the State intervenes, that is interesting and may for a time protect that individual from the negative social stigma's he or she might incur and all of the problems that come from it, but at the same time if we accept the State can socialize people in one way why not others?

Then I would argue you must logically accept the wisdom of a powerful state and even having your life micromanaged, because if you believe its necessary to protect you from the social culture of a group, than you accept in totality the government as a tool of socialization and conditioning.

You are doing nothing different then everyone else, fighting to be free to do what you want to do.

It doesn't matter what government we have, people will always do this.

[NED funded]

Capitalism likewise needs a degree of policing, control, socialization that makes the growth of totalitarianism inevitable because the two operate on the same logic.

If Blank can do X, why not do more X?

Eeeh they don't. Capitalism just needs patents and anti-trust laws to exist.

[Machismo]

Eeeh they don't. Capitalism just needs patents and anti-trust laws to exist.

That's where it always starts, and snowballs from there. It doesn't actually need those, they were just put in place to make things go smoother.

[Theodarzna]

Eeeh they don't. Capitalism just needs patents and anti-trust laws to exist.

The mere fact that such laws can be created implies a lot about the States power. The ability to break up trusts and patents itself implies a state that makes such rules. Even enforcing contracts and defining what is and isn't property has been part of the historical process of legislating capitalism into existence.

The state had to grow to allow Capitalism to exist, why would the state stop growing?

[Total Crica]

why would the state stop growing?

Nothing stops growing as long as life is involved. What makes you any better at culling the growth then anyone else?

[Bodakane]

Every aspect of our lives are regulated these days. All those regulations and restrictions reduce our freedom, bit by bit.

This year’s daily publication of the federal government’s rules, proposed rules and notices amounted to 81,611 pages as of Wednesday, higher than last year's 77,687 pages and higher than the all-time high of 81,405 pages in 2010 — with one day to go in 2015.

http://thehill.com/regulation/admini...ion-group-says

And that's just the fed.

Do you know why there are rules that businesses must have fire extinguishers?

Do you know why the government then had to make rules about the type of fire extinguishers there are int he business?

Do you know after that, why the government had to make rules about the distance of fire extinguishers must be from people doing their job?

[Total Crica]

Do you know why there are rules that businesses must have fire extinguishers?

Do you know why the government then had to make rules about the type of fire extinguishers there are int he business?

Do you know after that, why the government had to make rules about the distance of fire extinguishers must be from people doing their job?

"Who turned up the heat again? Why can't they just wear warmer clothes, dammit!" LOL!