Conservatives. I have some questions?

[Danny_boi 16]

I align myself as a Democrat. To go further into my ideological beliefs socially I'm liberal and fiscally I'm center-left. I try to understand all points of a debate; so I can see the bigger picture. But every time, I try to watch Fox News, I want to punch the television. But I've also realized that conservatives on TV don't always mirror conservatives in real life. I'm good friends with Republicans and Libertarians (lol that like saying "I have black friends and I'm not racist), and we have great debates on policy. But I still have questions, that they can't really answer. So I have three major questions, and maybe more as we go on.

1. Why are you conservative?
2. What's you view of the institution of government (bigger/smaller and why)?
3. Why should America be an isolationist country?

[rks1]

I am not republican but lmao @ the fox news comment. truuu

[dirtyboxer55]

im conservative because dont you think its bad that our president is a communist bastard?

[Aajj333]

im conservative because dont you think its bad that our president is a communist bastard?

lol.
Communism- a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Bastard- a person born of parents not married to each other.

Not all property is publicly owned and people don't work according to their abilities nor does obama want any of that. I guess technically he is a bastard but there is nothing wrong with that and if you have a problem with something as stupid as that you have way too much white privilege and should reprioritize your life.

[dirtyboxer55]

lol.
Communism- a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Bastard- a person born of parents not married to each other.

Not all property is publicly owned and people don't work according to their abilities nor does obama want any of that. I guess technically he is a bastard but there is nothing wrong with that and if you have a problem with something as stupid as that you have way too much white privilege and should reprioritize your life.

obama's first step towards destroying this nation was the banning of flavored dip

[Stronk Serb]

The Republicans are just neoliberals praying to Jeezus. The Republicans and the Democrats are just the two sides of a same coin.

[phuckphace]

1. Why are you conservative?

because order must be preserved for the greater good and the continued survival of our societies.

2. What's you view of the institution of government (bigger/smaller and why)?

a necessary evil.

I don't use the "big/small" descriptor because it's overly simplistic and vague. they mean entirely different things to different people.

personally I advocate a very strongly authoritarian approach (some would refer to this as "BIG GOVERNMENT") but even I recognize that government overreach is a real thing and must be avoided. then again, what exactly constitutes overreach is another thing that varies from person to person. some people think fire codes and food safety regs are overreach (get government out of my botulism!) whereas I find them crucially necessary.

3. Why should America be an isolationist country?

it shouldn't. North Korea is isolationist. the terms you're looking for are protectionist and non-interventionist. the key difference is that the latter two are actually workable, the former is not.

[Danny_boi 16]

because order must be preserved for the greater good and the continued survival of our societies.

I enjoy order and stability, but conservatism doesn't maintain either. For societies to advance and survive, there is no room for weakness, but conservatism is a weakness of the mind. Poor ideology. The entire society must progress; if even one person is left behind, that society is poor.


a necessary evil.

I don't use the "big/small" descriptor because it's overly simplistic and vague. they mean entirely different things to different people.

personally I advocate a very strongly authoritarian approach (some would refer to this as "BIG GOVERNMENT") but even I recognize that government overreach is a real thing and must be avoided. then again, what exactly constitutes overreach is another thing that varies from person to person. some people think fire codes and food safety regs are overreach (get government out of my botulism!) whereas I find them crucially necessary.
I agree with you here. I personally believe in a strong government. To me government is a tool (not an obstacle) to advance in commerce, science, and the arts.


it shouldn't. North Korea is isolationist. the terms you're looking for are protectionist and non-interventionist. the key difference is that the latter two are actually workable, the former is not.
Okay, why non-intervention? That sound like a horrible idea. The United States and the world cannot afford that kind of policy shift.

[amgb]

1. I've never been interested in politics for that matter, mainly because it either bores me, confuses me, or annoys me. Thinking about it I am quite conservative because I think it's important to hold something that will always be a consistent and firm part of you. But, I also believe that for society to move forward and progress we need a balance of sticking to our guns and being open to change.

2. I find it stupid, big or small. There are definitely the good ones out there, but a lot of government bodies are either corrupt or simply not self-sufficient.

I personally believe in a strong government. To me government is a tool (not an obstacle) to advance in commerce, science, and the arts.

Also, I agree with this.

3. It's not just America. Again, I think it should be a balance. All countries need to help each other just as much as they need independent self-sufficiency to be able to prosper and improve.

[phuckphace]

For societies to advance and survive, there is no room for weakness, but conservatism is a weakness of the mind. Poor ideology.

explain.

inb4 pseudo-intellectual appeals to Reason and Progress

The entire society must progress

towards what, exactly?

if even one person is left behind, that society is poor.

every society will have its successes and its failures. one of the critical mistakes that a lot of progressives make is to (arrogantly) place too much faith in human reason, which is exactly what you appear to be doing. I really hope you aren't entertaining the notion that Progress will someday give us a perfect society.

it's also worth noting that "success" and "progress" are also open to interpretation. what some consider progressing is seen by others as devolving or decaying. it's a difference of perspective and values, not a "weakness of the mind."

Okay, why non-intervention? That sound like a horrible idea. The United States and the world cannot afford that kind of policy shift.

so you're in favor of the United States continuing to expend resources and lives to maintain its political and economic hegemony abroad despite the enormous cost and consequences? why is that a good thing, to you?

[Sugaree]

I align myself as a Democrat. To go further into my ideological beliefs socially I'm liberal and fiscally I'm center-left. I try to understand all points of a debate; so I can see the bigger picture. But every time, I try to watch Fox News, I want to punch the television. But I've also realized that conservatives on TV don't always mirror conservatives in real life. I'm good friends with Republicans and Libertarians (lol that like saying "I have black friends and I'm not racist), and we have great debates on policy. But I still have questions, that they can't really answer. So I have three major questions, and maybe more as we go on.

1. Why are you conservative?
2. What's you view of the institution of government (bigger/smaller and why)?
3. Why should America be an isolationist country?

I'm Libertarian Right, but I align myself a lot more with conservatives on about 90% of debated topics.

I'm conservative because I actually agree with ideas put forward by conservative thinkers. I think conservatism, by and large, has worked for many people. Social conservatism isn't my bag, but I can see some of the reasoning behind those ideas as well.

My view of the institution of government is that it should be small, but not too small that we can't depend on it when the need arises. A central government needs to be out of the way as much as possible when it comes to the nation's economy; however, it should prevent the creation of large corporate monopolies (think J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller monopolies where you have one company controlling an entire market). The central government should never be used for interventionist policies in the free market or through any other form of domestic/international policy. All it should be used for is to legislate through the Congress, uphold the laws that are passed through the executive branch, and hold fair trials through the judicial branch.

State governments should be much the same way; however, they should individually tailor themselves to the residents of that particular state. What's good for the people of Wisconsin is not always good for the people in California, for example. This is the failure of having state governments rely on the federal government because the state governments are stuck with having to accept federal government rulings and regulations. This should not, however, stop the federal government from intervening IF IT IS CLEARLY NEEDED. States should not get funds from the federal governments unless they need it for emergency purposes.

I could go on more about how governments, both state and federal, should operate, but I want to keep this post short.

As for the question of America being an isolationist country, I don't think that we should be isolationists at all. The United States was an isolationist country before World War I, and that was through both public opinion and government action. It was not until Woodrow Wilson took office, and the last few years of WWI, when interventionist policies started to take effect. That's why Americans were so reluctant to get involved in WWI, even when our allies very desperately needed help.

Being an isolationist country would be to our detriment. Without being involved in world affairs, the United States would suffer on the international stage. However, this does not mean we should take an interventionist role in everything that happens. Unless it directly involves our interests, or the interests of our allies, the United States should not intervene until it is called upon to do so. I don't think conservatives, by and large, are for isolation. Libertarians in the vein of Ron Paul, however, think it would do us all a great service. While I can see why it would be great for the country in the short term, it would be disastrous in the bigger picture. To exit entirely from the world, with our fingers in our ears, does no good for us or our long established friendships with countries like France, England, Canada, and so on. Mutual respect for countries that show respect to you is needed in order to form alliances, economic relationships, and cooperation in emergency situations.

Conservatives are a rather mixed bag group of people. You'll find many that are isolationists, interventionists, religious, fiscally conservative, socially conservative...it runs the gamut, really. You won't find conservatism on Fox News. Really, you'll find nothing more than authoritarianism under the disguise of conservatism, just like you'll find authoritarianism under the disguise of liberalism in CNN and MSNBC.

[Danny_boi 16]

explain.

inb4 pseudo-intellectual appeals to Reason and Progress



towards what, exactly?
Society must advance to international unity. We have to think of ourselves, as not only nation states, but as a race. In the same way other less evolved species change to fit with external and internal situations, so must we. Be we do not always need a force to push us to change. We have to act on conflict, disease , famine, drought, and so on. All are security risk for ever nation.


every society will have its successes and its failures. one of the critical mistakes that a lot of progressives make is to (arrogantly) place too much faith in human reason, which is exactly what you appear to be doing. I really hope you aren't entertaining the notion that Progress will someday give us a perfect society.
I'm an optimist yes, but I'm also a realist. "Perfection" can never be achieved. Not only because of realistic limitations, but also you and I have different ideas of "perfect". I have faith in humanity, but not in human reason ( at this point and time). Progressives aren't arrogant, just optimistic.

it's also worth noting that "success" and "progress" are also open to interpretation. what some consider progressing is seen by others as devolving or decaying. it's a difference of perspective and values, not a "weakness of the mind."
I can agree with this. But once the population of a state has overwhelming decided to go on a course of action (with debate, review, safe guards, and possible appeal). What ever they decide shall be the will of the state, and must be administered; regardless, of ideology.



so you're in favor of the United States continuing to expend resources and lives to maintain its political and economic hegemony abroad despite the enormous cost and consequences? why is that a good thing, to you?
The way I see it is: If you build a bomb in your country to detonate said bomb in my country, then it's my business ( it is my duty) to do everything in my power to stop that. I do not want to see the loss of American lives, French, British, Mexican, Israeli, and so on and so forth. I want to see the death of this nation's (and our allies') enemies. What we need to do is implement "Smart warfare". That includes collation building, international conciseness and approval, and diplomacy and diplomatic end to violent conflict.

I think this is a cool discussion. I'd like to ask another question. What do you think is the role of government in the economy and social safety nets?

[phuckphace]

Society must advance to international unity. We have to think of ourselves, as not only nation states, but as a race.

there is no monolithic "human race." what we actually have are numerous peoples that are divided by race, nationality, culture, religion, class, and values. the first thing progressives and the excessively optimistic types do upon encountering these divisions is to assume them away or pretend they influence human behavior to a lesser degree than they actually do.

In the same way other less evolved species change to fit with external and internal situations, so must we.

that's why humans developed societies.

Be we do not always need a force to push us to change. We have to act on conflict, disease , famine, drought, and so on. All are security risk for every nation.

who's going to foot the bill for this spectacularly expensive project of yours?

let me guess, Western countries are under obligation to open their economies so that the "big happy human family" of 7,000,000,000 people can eat its fill?

I'm an optimist yes, but I'm also a realist.

no realist I've ever met assumes away politics and human nature, but okay.

"Perfection" can never be achieved. Not only because of realistic limitations, but also you and I have different ideas of "perfect".

well, no disagreements there.

I have faith in humanity, but not in human reason ( at this point and time). Progressives aren't arrogant, just optimistic.

perhaps "arrogance" was too strong a word, how about "ideological certainty"?

another key aspect of conservatism (the real kind, not the phony shit peddled by Fox News) is recognizing that there isn't always a clear-cut solution to every problem. there is a lot that we know, but even more that we don't. certainty can be a pitfall that a lot of overly optimistic ideologies fall into.

But once the population of a state has overwhelming decided to go on a course of action (with debate, review, safe guards, and possible appeal). What ever they decide shall be the will of the state, and must be administered; regardless, of ideology.

okay? I obviously disagree, not in the least because I have no idea what we're even doing here, for starters.

The way I see it is: If you build a bomb in your country to detonate said bomb in my country, then it's my business ( it is my duty) to do everything in my power to stop that. I do not want to see the loss of American lives, French, British, Mexican, Israeli, and so on and so forth. I want to see the death of this nation's (and our allies') enemies. What we need to do is implement "Smart warfare". That includes collation building, international conciseness and approval, and diplomacy and diplomatic end to violent conflict.

seems like non-interventionism would be a simpler and more elegant solution. if we aren't meddling in foreign affairs to begin with, then nobody has the desire to detonate a bomb and kill me in the first place. you know, the way things were before we started meddling.

the problem with your thinking is that it assumes internationalism and thus international conflict is a given, which is wrong. we can have diplomatic ties to other nations without meddling in their affairs or going to war over their resources. the meddling is what causes 99% of the violence. remove the meddling and presto! you don't have to overthink "what about terrorism!" like neocons must do.

I think this is a cool discussion. I'd like to ask another question. What do you think is the role of government in the economy and social safety nets?

you're going to get a different answer out of me than you would other conservatives but here goes.

the state should play a significant role in the economy (regulation and wealth redistribution) to hedge against the formation of "too big to fail" enterprises that capture/concentrate wealth and engage in rent-seeking.

safety nets such as universal healthcare and unemployment pensions are a hedge against volatile market conditions that are crucial for a society's continued survival. I would like to see full employment restored eventually, but removal of the rent-seekers has to occur first.

[Arkansasguy]

I align myself as a Democrat. To go further into my ideological beliefs socially I'm liberal and fiscally I'm center-left. I try to understand all points of a debate; so I can see the bigger picture. But every time, I try to watch Fox News, I want to punch the television. But I've also realized that conservatives on TV don't always mirror conservatives in real life. I'm good friends with Republicans and Libertarians (lol that like saying "I have black friends and I'm not racist), and we have great debates on policy. But I still have questions, that they can't really answer. So I have three major questions, and maybe more as we go on.

1. Why are you conservative?
2. What's you view of the institution of government (bigger/smaller and why)?
3. Why should America be an isolationist country?

1. Because I want our country to recover from liberalism.
2. Feudal.
3. NA/Strawman.

towards what, exactly?

Perdition

[phuckphace]

Perdition

sounds unpleasant

[Stronk Serb]

1. Because I want our country to recover from liberalism.
2. Feudal.
3. NA/Strawman.



Perdition

By shoving it back into feudalism, the thing is going to be worse. The nation has gotten used to liberalism, you need strong leadership in the shape of a dictatorship with a few institutions that will keep that power in check, to prevent the rise of Stalin 2.0. Also to keep the people in check, leave their liberties largly intact.

[Arkansasguy]

By shoving it back into feudalism, the thing is going to be worse. The nation has gotten used to liberalism, you need strong leadership in the shape of a dictatorship with a few institutions that will keep that power in check, to prevent the rise of Stalin 2.0. Also to keep the people in check, leave their liberties largly intact.

Feudalism would make it better. And liberalism needs to be removed regardless of how used to it people are.

[Stronk Serb]

Feudalism would make it better. And liberalism needs to be removed regardless of how used to it people are.

It wouldn't. Early and developed feudalism were pretty much farmer states. Late feudalism too. Hell, there was no money in early feudalism. During early and developed feudalism, the phrase technological advancement was apstract. During early and developed feudal times you are so fascinated about, society technologically deteriorated with some minor exceptions, Byzantium and some other Greek cities.

[Danny_boi 16]

Sorry for the long reply, school is getting the better of me. But I hope we can continue, I find this wildly entertaining and insightful as to how the other half lives.

there is no monolithic "human race." what we actually have are numerous peoples that are divided by race, nationality, culture, religion, class, and values. the first thing progressives and the excessively optimistic types do upon encountering these divisions is to assume them away or pretend they influence human behavior to a lesser degree than they actually do.
No progressive, or at least me and others I know, think that the races don't matter when it comes to societal norms. But these societal norms are arbitrary and no longer serve a biological nor political purpose. Also there is
a "monolithic" human race. To say that there is no such thing is ignorance to biology. I feel like I don't have to make the point clear, but I will anyway. Humans share one genome, thus making one species. Whites, Blacks, Jew, Muslims aren't different species there are part of one race ( Race: 1 a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. dictionary.com) the human race.


that's why humans developed societies.
But, just having a society isn't enough. It must advance. A society of hunters and gathers and monarchs has been replaced. And it shall always be replaced and improved upon.



who's going to foot the bill for this spectacularly expensive project of yours?
let me guess, Western countries are under obligation to open their economies so that the "big happy human family" of 7,000,000,000 people can eat its fill?

This is already a project. The millennium goals are a thing already, so it's not my project. My question is: "Why do conservatives see this as a waste?" Helping underdeveloped countries experience capitalism is a good thing, and will grow our economy. China is making investments in some African counties, thus blocking the US and the west from purchasing desired resources there, unless we go through the Chinese politburo.

no realist I've ever met assumes away politics and human nature, but okay.
Politics and human nature, interact with each other directly.



perhaps "arrogance" was too strong a word, how about "ideological certainty"?
I don;t understand what you mean here.
Full Definition of CERTAINTY: 1 something that is certain: 2 the quality or state of being certain especially on the basis of evidence.
I think you still mean "arrogance". All ideologies are somewhat arrogant, because they think that their ideology is the best. I'd argue that progressives are less arrogant, because of our liberal minds being open to more ideas (even conservative) ideas.

another key aspect of conservatism (the real kind, not the phony shit peddled by Fox News) is recognizing that there isn't always a clear-cut solution to every problem. there is a lot that we know, but even more that we don't. certainty can be a pitfall that a lot of overly optimistic ideologies fall into.
No one that is rational believes that one giant policy can fix all the problems. That's why new agencies and committees specialized in a field should be in charge of decisions that are then submitted to the people and then an executive for approval (Oh wait, i just described the structure of the US gov't)


okay? I obviously disagree, not in the least because I have no idea what we're even doing here, for starters.
Look ^^above for what I mean. Once the gov't says something is the law, and that law has been appealed or failed appeal, then that law is the law of the land (ie ACA).



seems like non-interventionism would be a simpler and more elegant solution. if we aren't meddling in foreign affairs to begin with, then nobody has the desire to detonate a bomb and kill me in the first place. you know, the way things were before we started meddling.
So we should allow human rights violations, massive rape, and mass murder to exist in other countries. I mean, if we want them to go back to they way they were before...the problem with your thinking is that it assumes internationalism and thus international conflict is a given, which is wrong. we can have diplomatic ties to other nations without meddling in their affairs or going to war over their resources. the meddling is what causes 99% of the violence. remove the meddling and presto! you don't have to overthink "what about terrorism!" like neocons must do.

99%!? Let's get real here. Conflict is away a given. It is human nature for conflict to exist. Like the philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt, some conflict is good, but massive conflict is unacceptable. We always meddle in the affairs of other nations and the meddle in our affairs, thus is the more globalized world in which we live in. You remove meddling you get ISIS, but what I gather is that conservatives believe in survival of the fittest. ISIS is pretty strong, and therefore, I guess they get to dominate the region. The world must be safe for Americans and humans as a whole. Therefore, diplomatic ties are important. There I agree with you, we don't always have to go to war with other nations; however, was is just a continuation of diplomacy when talking fails. But since we both don't like wars, it is still incumbent on the US to be part of an international dialogue about everything.


you're going to get a different answer out of me than you would other conservatives but here goes.

the state should play a significant role in the economy (regulation and wealth redistribution) to hedge against the formation of "too big to fail" enterprises that capture/concentrate wealth and engage in rent-seeking.

safety nets such as universal healthcare and unemployment pensions are a hedge against volatile market conditions that are crucial for a society's continued survival. I would like to see full employment restored eventually, but removal of the rent-seekers has to occur first.
I semi-agree with this. But I don't disagree enough to debate.

[Vlerchan]

I'm just going to throw in some points as a libertarian because that seems to be counted under conservative in the OP.

2. What's you view of the institution of government (bigger/smaller and why)?

Smaller.

I don't believe governments have a natural right to dictate people's private lives. I also think that government attempts to do this are inefficient and a lot of the time harmful: developing social norms through the nongovernment sector is preferable.

I believe the safety net is inefficient in its current conception. It should be scrapped and replaced with a universal minimum basic income or some form of negative taxation plan. Private charities should pick up the remaining slack.

I believe government invention in economic affairs should be minimal. I accept a role for government in influencing demand in the short-run - and it should take an activist role during economic downturns - but it should never take its eye off the long-run in which I think enabling the supply-side to operate as unburdened as possible is essential.

3. Why should [The EU] be an isolationist country?

I don't believe this. I think we shouldn't take a prominent military role in the Middle East or elsewhere but that's a reflection on decades of disastrous US foreign policy. I still think we should develop strong relations with other states and advance the doctrine of free trade.

---

For societies to advance and survive, there is no room for weakness, but conservatism is a weakness of the mind.
I would love if it was explained how "conservatism is a weakness of the mind".

I can't imagine you not holding a single conservative position.

The entire society must progress; if even one person is left behind, that society is poor.But, just having a society isn't enough. It must advance.
You're going to need to expand on why progress and advancement are good things.

Society must advance to international unity.
You're going to need to qualify this with what a descriptor on international unity entails.

But once the population of a state has overwhelming decided to go on a course of action (with debate, review, safe guards, and possible appeal). What ever they decide shall be the will of the state, and must be administered; regardless, of ideology.
You made this comment in response to a comment about how ambiguous the idea of progress is:

Does that mean you consider all state decisions inherently progressive?

Also there is
a "monolithic" human race. To say that there is no such thing is ignorance to biology. I feel like I don't have to make the point clear, but I will anyway. Humans share one genome, thus making one species. Whites, Blacks, Jew, Muslims aren't different species there are part of one race ( Race: 1 a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. dictionary.com) the human race.
We are of common descent but that doesn't mean there's not genetic distance between the different sub-races. From the studies I've looked at it's quite minimal but we are a lot less homogenous as historical-geographical groupings than the above makes out.

You remove meddling you get ISIS[.]
The US never meddled in Iraq is correct.

---

I left as much of the latest responses as I could bare leave to you phuckphace:

I'll pick up on whatever is left out when you next post.

[phuckphace]

But these societal norms are arbitrary and no longer serve a biological nor political purpose.

in your opinion.

Also there is
a "monolithic" human race. To say that there is no such thing is ignorance to biology.

if it's an appeal to scientific authority you're looking for, how about Dr. James Watson, the discoverer of the double helix?

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

it's a simple truth that anyone with a background in biology should already know: the course of evolution proceeded without regard to modern political sensitivities, and thus some evolutionary divergence between groups should be expected. you can't seriously claim that Homo's evolutionary struggle across countless millennia somehow resulted in a geographically far-flung set of groups that nevertheless remained 100% identical in all but skin color. this is called "progressive Creationism" and it's especially hilarious because it's a rather sudden break from the usual "muh science said so!"

Whites, Blacks, Jew, Muslims aren't different species there are part of one race ( Race: 1 a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. dictionary.com) the human race.

the "Muslim" label isn't a race, it's a religion.

at any rate I never claimed that the racial groups comprise separate species, but even if I wanted to do so it really wouldn't matter all that much because racial differences in and of themselves are not a problem. it's only when different groups are forced to associate with other groups that they'd rather not associate with that conflict ("racism") arises.

in case you're wondering, I view the human races as being similar to dog breeds - you've got big dogs, little dogs, dogs with short snouts, long snouts, long tails, short tails, pointy ears, floppy ears, etc. they all descend from the gray wolf, and are all equally dogs (canis lupis familiaris) but have differing temperaments and other obvious physiological differences besides coat color. so when I say "group A is different than group B" think: the difference between Dachshunds and St. Bernards.

But, just having a society isn't enough. It must advance. A society of hunters and gathers and monarchs has been replaced. And it shall always be replaced and improved upon.

stargazers have been saying this shit for centuries.

This is already a project. The millennium goals are a thing already, so it's not my project.

stupid goals invented by stargazing children who think society is "wasted" unless every person has their own flying car and sex robot.

My question is: "Why do conservatives see this as a waste?"

because resources are finite and it would consume more than can practically exist?

because it would involve spending money that we don't have (i.e. borrowing it)

those are just two of many objections that any sensible person would raise.

Helping underdeveloped countries experience capitalism is a good thing, and will grow our economy.

:lol3:

China is making investments in some African counties, thus blocking the US and the west from purchasing desired resources there, unless we go through the Chinese politburo.

they're buying up real estate because it is a good store of capital.

I also could not care less what China is doing.

I'd argue that progressives are less arrogant, because of our liberal minds being open to more ideas (even conservative) ideas.

utopian ideologies attract scorn because they are invariably shortsighted and assume all problems faced by humanity will just disappear if we do ____ (which is usually just the progressive manifesto made policy).

I also don't believe progressives are open to any conservative ideas, if anything they are open to whatever isn't conservative. I say this because anywhere and everywhere progressives are given political influence, the very first thing they do is attack conservative institutions from all directions until they fold and are declared moribund or extinct.

it's already de-facto illegal in some places to teach children things that the ruling party disagrees with (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896). not the greatest track record, I don't think.

That's why new agencies and committees specialized in a field should be in charge of decisions that are then submitted to the people and then an executive for approval (Oh wait, i just described the structure of the US gov't)

:lol3:

Look ^^above for what I mean. Once the gov't says something is the law, and that law has been appealed or failed appeal, then that law is the law of the land (ie ACA).

the ACA is a perfect example of why our current government and its institutions need to burn. a convoluted, bureaucratic nightmare that ended up creating more problems than it solved, just like President Camacho's administration itself.

99%!? Let's get real here. Conflict is away a given. It is human nature for conflict to exist.

conflicts that don't concern us are a waste of time to fuck with for precisely that reason. humans have proven time and again that we cannot get along, and thus the best way to avoid conflict is to remain in our own homelands keeping to ourselves as groups.

We always meddle in the affairs of other nations and the meddle in our affairs, thus is the more globalized world in which we live in.

which we could stop doing just as easily as we started.

You remove meddling you get ISIS

no, ISIS wouldn't exist if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

but what I gather is that conservatives believe in survival of the fittest. ISIS is pretty strong, and therefore, I guess they get to dominate the region.

I believe in survival of the fittest as an evolutionary phenomenon, not a sociopolitical ideology. ISIS dominate the region because we inadvertently paved the way by removing the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein that kept a lid on that extremism. a power vacuum will always be filled by opportunistic forces.

The world must be safe for Americans and humans as a whole.

it's not America's duty to make the world safe for Americans. we can however make America safe for Americans (preferably we'd do this before we did anything else.)

you'll find that you have to worry a lot less about safety when you have a community to belong to and live out your life in.

however, war is just a continuation of diplomacy when talking fails.

not really. the point of diplomacy is to seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts without war. war should be a last resort to direct threats to the safety of the homeland only, which should be fantastically rare (like, once on the order of 100 years rare) if foreign policy is being carried out correctly.

[Vlerchan]

[I]t's a simple truth that anyone with a background in biology should already know: the course of evolution proceeded without regard to modern political sensitivities, and thus some evolutionary divergence between groups should be expected. you can't seriously claim that Homo's evolutionary struggle across countless millennia somehow resulted in a geographically far-flung set of groups that nevertheless remained 100% identical in all but skin color. this is called "progressive Creationism" and it's especially hilarious because it's a rather sudden break from the usual "muh science said so!"
Regardless of geographical location though I can't imagine intelligence not being a valued trait evolution-wise. I'm open to it bring possie but there's going to want to be multiple well-researched studies substantiating such claims.

in case you're wondering, I view the human races as being similar to dog breeds - you've got big dogs, little dogs, dogs with short snouts, long snouts, long tails, short tails, pointy ears, floppy ears, etc. they all descend from the gray wolf, and are all equally dogs (canis lupis familiaris) but have differing temperaments and other obvious physiological differences besides coat color. so when I say "group A is different than group B" think: the difference between Dachshunds and St. Bernards.
I think it historical-geographical groupings because it's more precise: some groups of black people are closer to white people on a genetic level than other groups of black people so race is a redundant measure if people want real answers:

Even then we differ on average with respect a minute percentage of our genes so I'm also sceptical of differences of temperament being pronounced to begin with.

[Danny_boi 16]

I'm just going to throw in some points as a libertarian because that seems to be counted under conservative in the OP.

2. What's you view of the institution of government (bigger/smaller and why)?

Smaller.

I don't believe governments have a natural right to dictate people's private lives. I also think that government attempts to do this are inefficient and a lot of the time harmful: developing social norms through the nongovernment sector is preferable.
I absolutely agree. A government's job is to serve and protect the people.

I believe the safety net is inefficient in its current conception. It should be scrapped and replaced with a universal minimum basic income or some form of negative taxation plan. Private charities should pick up the remaining slack.
I agree somewhat. Could you explain a negative tax plan? Would you be in favor of Universal Healthcare?

I believe government invention in economic affairs should be minimal. I accept a role for government in influencing demand in the short-run - and it should take an activist role during economic downturns - but it should never take its eye off the long-run in which I think enabling the supply-side to operate as unburdened as possible is essential.
Again I agree. It's interesting that, since your from Ireland, how your version of the Federal Reserve works.
3. Why should [The EU] be an isolationist country?

I don't believe this. I think we shouldn't take a prominent military role in the Middle East or elsewhere but that's a reflection on decades of disastrous US foreign policy. I still think we should develop strong relations with other states and advance the doctrine of free trade.
Yet, again I agree.

---


I would love if it was explained how "conservatism is a weakness of the mind".

I can't imagine you not holding a single conservative position.
Full conservatism is a weakness. Merriam-Webster defines "conservatism" as : dislike of change or new ideas in a particular area.
I see this as a weakness, because one cannot closed minded to new ideas. One must hear all proposed plans of actions, and choose a plan with a combination of the prior proposed.


You're going to need to expand on why progress and advancement are good things.
Do you mind if I use a metaphor? I'll use one in this post, but if you want me to explain better, I can in a later post. If a group of people build a city in a river valley (for agriculture), and then the river dries up. Then it is the responsibility of the citizens to leave that city an build a new one. It would be the conservatives that say that they must stay and follow tradition. They will die in the drought. It will be the progressives that build a new city with new infrastructure to cultivate more efficiently; and, they shall live.


You're going to need to qualify this with what a descriptor on international unity entails.
Reform of the United Nations and other international organs. I a bit tired I can go more into this if you like (in a later post).


You made this comment in response to a comment about how ambiguous the idea of progress is:

Does that mean you consider all state decisions inherently progressive?
No. But the decision of the state is the law of the state. If it is an unjust law, they may debate and appeal.


We are of common descent but that doesn't mean there's not genetic distance between the different sub-races. From the studies I've looked at it's quite minimal but we are a lot less homogenous as historical-geographical groupings than the above makes out.
This does not change the goal of a species. The role of any species is to live and reproduce, and have prosperous offspring. To add my redux on Thomas Paine's words. We must think beyond nation states and their limitations on business, education, health care, and needed things; we must think globally. Humans are the superior race on this planet, therefore, we can no longer afford fighting between the sub-races. We must secure the Human genome and Human intelligence (and consciousness). We cannot stand ideal when our fellow humans live in squalor and hardship.

[phuckphace]

Full conservatism is a weakness. Merriam-Webster defines "conservatism" as : dislike of change or new ideas in a particular area.
I see this as a weakness, because one cannot closed minded to new ideas. One must hear all proposed plans of actions, and choose a plan with a combination of the prior proposed.

conservatives oppose widespread changes to the social order because they are destabilizing to the community and cause atomization and disorder. it isn't that conservatives are close-minded to new ideas, it's just that we see unnecessary changes and changes made for their own sake as pointless, counterproductive and harmful. the liberalization of society has already had this effect on us, and conservatives warn that if the trend of liberalization continues, social disorder will continue to increase.

every progressive idea has attracted some conservative criticism and vice versa, which I would think you would be curious to read. I think you have this idea of all conservatives being raving, illogical fanatics who pray to Jesus about every decision they make. we're logical too, and capable of analyzing proposed social arrangements and forming coherent arguments for or against them.

granted, most "conservatives" today are neoliberal/cryptolibertarian frauds who like to babble on about dumb shit while Rome burns. just don't let them spoil the rest of the movement.

[Vlerchan]

I agree somewhat. Could you explain a negative tax plan? Would you be in favor of Universal Healthcare?

A negative tax plan is a form of progressive tax that gives out returns to people below a certain income. It might be the case that someone at >X pays 0+Y in tax and someone at X pays 0 in tax and someone at <X pays 0-Y in tax; where X represents tax-neutral income and Y represents a range of positive integers.

I also support universal healthcare.

Again I agree. It's interesting that, since your from Ireland, how your version of the Federal Reserve works.
The ECB is awful if you ask me. I'd much prefer the FED.

The previous comment was also made with reference to how the government should function though I think Central Banks should operate more or less the same. It's prime roll should be to temper the business cycle.

Yet, again I agree.
That's more or less phuckphace's position as I understand it too:

Except he isn't a fan of free trade.

Full conservatism is a weakness. Merriam-Webster defines "conservatism" as : dislike of change or new ideas in a particular area.
That's quite an awful definition of conservative there.

I'll just refer to phuckphace's response above here.

Do you mind if I use a metaphor? I'll use one in this post, but if you want me to explain better, I can in a later post. If a group of people build a city in a river valley (for agriculture), and then the river dries up. Then it is the responsibility of the citizens to leave that city an build a new one. It would be the conservatives that say that they must stay and follow tradition. They will die in the drought. It will be the progressives that build a new city with new infrastructure to cultivate more efficiently; and, they shall live.
This sounds like a strawman to me.

Would you mind outlining without metaphors why you think progress and advancement are important?

Reform of the United Nations and other international organs. I a bit tired I can go more into this if you like (in a later post).
I'm good to wait for expansion here.

Whenever you have the time.

No. But the decision of the state is the law of the state. If it is an unjust law, they may debate and appeal.
I more or less agree with this as a legal positivist.

This does not change the goal of a species.
How do you know we have a goal in the first place?

We must think beyond nation states and their limitations on business, education, health care, and needed things; we must think globally. Humans are the superior race on this planet, therefore, we can no longer afford fighting between the sub-races. We must secure the Human genome and Human intelligence (and consciousness). We cannot stand ideal when our fellow humans live in squalor and hardship.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea of world peace: phuckphace point had to do with it being a noble dream but a dream all the same.

[Danny_boi 16]

stargazers have been saying this shit for centuries.


:lol: "stargazers" I've never heard such a term that completely represents my political view. But you, phickphace, are not your run of the mill conservative. I happen to agree more with Vlerchan. That's because he's a libertarian, and libertarians (at least in the US) share a lot of my views. I don't always follow the democrats, but I am a liberal nonetheless. But like I said, I do share some conservative views. But your ideology seems to be opposite of mine, or I'm forcing it to be opposite. But we agree with government role in the social safety net. Can you explain your foreign policy ideology a bit further? Also if you haven't seen the West Wing, I highly recommend it, especially season 7 episode 7.

[Xander_]

People have the right to do what ever they want, so long as it doesn't interfere with other people's right to do whatever they want. There is a very obvious gray area in this and it's the government's job to sort that out. That's why government exists.

So basically the smaller, less intrusive the government is, the better.

[OSUBuckEyes]

Seems like a clickbait sort of post... Why "can't" your Republican friends answer those question? Can you?

[phuckphace]

But we agree with government role in the social safety net. Can you explain your foreign policy ideology a bit further?

it's really pretty simple: maintain politically neutral diplomatic ties with all nations, and use diplomacy to solve international conflicts, which should be a lot rarer after a non-interventionist stance is adopted.

the world is tired of American meddling and the cultural imperialism that comes with that. Americans are tired of sending their children to die in some desert for nothing (Iraq is now more violent and lawless than it's ever been).

also, economics: the less money we spend on aircraft carriers and fighter jets, the more money we have left to spend on things like healthcare, infrastructure and education. the sand tribes can keep hacking each other to bits like they've always done - I'd rather the money be spent on something that will last more than a year without getting blown up.

[Vlerchan]

That's because [Vlerchan]'s a libertarian, and libertarians (at least in the US) share a lot of my views.
I'm not a Libertarian like what would be found in the US just to be clear.

I hold some very syncretic beliefs for sure.

[Danny_boi 16]

it's really pretty simple: maintain politically neutral diplomatic ties with all nations, and use diplomacy to solve international conflicts, which should be a lot rarer after a non-interventionist stance is adopted.

the world is tired of American meddling and the cultural imperialism that comes with that. Americans are tired of sending their children to die in some desert for nothing (Iraq is now more violent and lawless than it's ever been).

also, economics: the less money we spend on aircraft carriers and fighter jets, the more money we have left to spend on things like healthcare, infrastructure and education. the sand tribes can keep hacking each other to bits like they've always done - I'd rather the money be spent on something that will last more than a year without getting blown up.

I agree with most of that. I'd just say, that the US ought to serve as the world's police. That doesn't mean to be in every country with guns, but rather, being able to mobilize a response team when disaster emerges, or when we are called. We could definitely cut back on future DOD funding, we can even cut back arms. But we still need them. But we must also rebuild our economic power, with progressive plans of desertification.

[Miserabilia]

conservatives oppose widespread changes to the social order because they are destabilizing to the community and cause atomization and disorder. it isn't that conservatives are close-minded to new ideas, it's just that we see unnecessary changes and changes made for their own sake as pointless, counterproductive and harmful. the liberalization of society has already had this effect on us, and conservatives warn that if the trend of liberalization continues, social disorder will continue to increase.

.

What would you concider social disorder?
After all it seems to me like the usa is pretty orderly atleast within it's own borders for a long time now. "social disorder' makes me picture some kind of chaos.

[CRH99]

i am a conservative (fiscally) because i believe that the only function of our government is to facilitate and protect our right to a free market, and not interfere with the peoples success. i dont think the government has an obligation to help those that fail in a free market, because its just capitalism. i am not opposed to limited welfare, but currently the government is handing it out like candy on halloween. it is basic economics that in a capitalist system, someone always draws the short straw, not everyone can succeed. personally am completely against taxing the ever-loving crap out of the upper class, it should be even across the board, everyone is paying for the same protection, so why, may i ask, do some people pay more? theyre not getting a bonus, or platinum protection, they get the same as what the people who pay 1/10th as much get. however, i do see the issues with that system so i am not completely against the income tax, as long as percentage-wise it is even across the board. Socially i am a liberal, go human rights.

[Hyper]

i am a conservative (fiscally) because i believe that the only function of our government is to facilitate and protect our right to a free market, and not interfere with the peoples success. i dont think the government has an obligation to help those that fail in a free market, because its just capitalism. i am not opposed to limited welfare, but currently the government is handing it out like candy on halloween. it is basic economics that in a capitalist system, someone always draws the short straw, not everyone can succeed. personally am completely against taxing the ever-loving crap out of the upper class, it should be even across the board, everyone is paying for the same protection, so why, may i ask, do some people pay more? theyre not getting a bonus, or platinum protection, they get the same as what the people who pay 1/10th as much get. however, i do see the issues with that system so i am not completely against the income tax, as long as percentage-wise it is even across the board. Socially i am a liberal, go human rights.

Are you from an upper class family? I'm just curious really how this, for me, nausiating right winged view of the world keeps persisting...

Also this ''candy on halloween'' rhetoric with all due respect you are 15 you have with 99% likelyhood not paid a single dollar in direct taxes ever, and even the indirect taxes you've paid were mostly if not entirely funded by your providers so stop copying some assholes lines.

Also could you define what do you mean by ''punishing success''.

And where does it say in Economics 101 that capitalism must result in someone failing by default?

Also people may pay for the same protection of state, in theory, but in all western societies your wealth has a direct influence on how well you can protect yourself legally, financially and in pure terms of security.

[phuckphace]

i am a conservative (fiscally) because i believe that the only function of our government is to facilitate and protect our right to a free market, and not interfere with the peoples success.

you're a liberal.

it is basic economics that in a capitalist system, someone always draws the short straw, not everyone can succeed.

which is why most liberal democracies have implemented welfare states that augment the market economy and negate the shortfalls of capitalism.

it should be even across the board, everyone is paying for the same protection, so why, may i ask, do some people pay more?

because they can.

a guy with a billion dollars has a lot to spare. a guy with $200 to his name making minimum wage has almost none to spare. I realize you're 15 and not quite up to speed on how real life works, but come on dude.

theyre not getting a bonus, or platinum protection, they get the same as what the people who pay 1/10th as much get.

the wealthy can afford to pay more for private security, gated communities in low-crime areas, and lawyers to get them out of trouble when they commit crimes. they are also treated deferentially by law enforcement and the government in general.

try again.

however, i do see the issues with that system so i am not completely against the income tax, as long as percentage-wise it is even across the board.

rest assured, our system right now is de-facto regressive (the lowest end pays more). meanwhile billionaires and megacorps are getting refunds and tax cuts.

Are you from an upper class family? I'm just curious really how this, for me, nausiating right winged view of the world keeps persisting...

I lol'd irl when he said "go human rights"

I guess he's planning on feeding rights to the impoverished working class

What would you concider social disorder?
After all it seems to me like the usa is pretty orderly atleast within it's own borders for a long time now. "social disorder' makes me picture some kind of chaos.

well we've got a huge, racially-delineated underclass that likes to burn down entire cities for no reason

we've got terrible cops who are just as bad as the criminals they ignore while they write chicken-shit tickets and shoot innocents

fuck it dude just come visit and we'll hang out. I'll show you around :D

[Vlerchan]

Econ 101 is all who engage with markets gain from trade. It doesn't make judgements about outcomes for actors otherwise.

Rich people are taxed more because rich people have more to lose from the government ceasing to exist to protect them. It's not the same protection.

---

Basing something as fundamental to our combined wellbeing as economics on abstract ideals is more-or-less the definition of political irresponsibility.

[CRH99]

bit new here and im not quite 100% on how quoting works so this'll be a bit weird.
Hyper yes, i am upper class, but i am slightly offended that you think i am copying someones lines. those were my own.
phuckphace liberals want big government with lots of regulation and involvement in business, so no, not a liberal. also, my issue is not with welfare, but the excessiveness to which it is being used. Sure that billionaire can spare money, but how come the government has the rights to force him to give up that money? i do not object to the fact that if the needed taxes were divided equally among the populace, that not everyone could afford it, so i do not oppose income tax, under the condition that the percentage is equal across the board. And i dont know where you are getting your info, but the lowest does not, by any strech of the imagination, pay more. http://dailysignal.com/2014/04/15/2014-tax-day-chart-pays/

i do believe in human rights, as far as who people can marry, pro choice, et cetera. however people do not have a right to be successful, but they do have a right to pursue that success, and the government should not be obligated to help people succeed, only protect their rights to pursue it.

[Vlerchan]

Sure that billionaire can spare money, but how come the government has the rights to force him to give up that money?
You support taxes. You tell me.

---

It seems like you're engaging in particularism:

Big Government has the right when I believe so but when I don't believe so it just doesn't.

There's not a reason offered though which is the problem.

... so i do not oppose income tax, under the condition that the percentage is equal across the board.
"Rich people are taxed more because rich people have more to lose from the government ceasing to exist to protect them [and their assets]. It's not the same protection."

... and the government should not be obligated to help people succeed
Then stop giving people welfare:

If we want to be fair and moral then the government should stop helping people succeed at living. It provides these people rights enough to be successful at this on their own.

[deadpie]

Teenage conservatives in America need to realize that structuralism isn't going to work out full time. Chances are your beliefs are learned from your parents or your surroundings. Conservatives blindly support the power elites special interests over actual social issues. You'll act like a death tax actually matters and will effect you. You'll hate people that are poor, which basically means you hate 15.1 percent of Americans. 26 percent of those 15.1 percent are people our age (under 18). It's funny how conservatives really do think that the top one percent that own all wealth really do deserve it all and don't deserve to be taxed at all (the top 20 percent wealthiest own 85 percent of all wealth). Yeah, I bet you support the trillions of dollars put into offshore bank accounts to avoid taxation. THOSE POOR GIGANTIC CORPORATIONS!

QPKKQnijnsM

Conservatives are afraid of questioning social institutions and the way society is structured. They reinforce the social construction of deviant labeling and believe that change will lead everything into complete chaos. Our generation is the most socially active and liberal of any generation EVER! We need to take pride in that and use that to our advantage to create a better world. Once the baby boomer generation dies out, it's going to be up to us and I do believe that that generation has fucked us over a lot. If you enjoy being fucked over and want to live in a world of racial segregation, homophobia, sexism,.. then you're simply on the wrong side of history.

[phuckphace]

Conservatives are afraid of questioning social institutions and the way society is structured.

no, they aren't. they critique these things all day long.

obviously, if you're someone who believes in a set order, you would naturally take steps to insure that order is preserved by limiting needless changes.

They reinforce the social construction of deviant labeling[...]

...said a Marxist academic last Thursday!

and believe that change will lead everything into complete chaos.

you just have fundamental misunderstanding of what conservatives object to and why. change in and of itself isn't always bad, it's just that it's often seen as unnecessary in the context of a conservative society that relies on a set order to survive.

Our generation is the most socially active and liberal of any generation EVER!

we're more apathetic than liberal. if shit wasn't so broke there would be far more teenage conservative voters than you think.

We need to take pride in that and use that to our advantage to create a better world.

aka another dumb slogans-only movement screeching for muh rights while nothing actually gets done (business as usual)

Once the baby boomer generation dies out, it's going to be up to us and I do believe that that generation has fucked us over a lot. If you enjoy being fucked over and want to live in a world of racial segregation, homophobia, sexism,.. then you're simply on the wrong side of history.

:lol3: the baby boomers are douchebags but those are the dumbest and most polemical reasons to hate them. getting fucked by the boomers is equal opportunity, they were more than happy to fuck over their own race and even their own communities too. I wanted to agree with your post but your bias kinda ruined it

[deadpie]

...said a Marxist academic last Thursday!

I don't get why people are so anti Marxist. Of course total equality wouldn't completely work for everyone, but if you look at Switzerland,.. I think they have the closest example of that in terms of wealth distribution and are also noted as one of the happiest places on the planet. Also, if you look at that video, it doesn't matter whether someone is male/female/repub/democ they all voted what the ideal distribution should be in the same 5 percent margins.

you just have fundamental misunderstanding of what conservatives object to and why. change in and of itself isn't always bad, it's just that it's often seen as unnecessary in the context of a conservative society that relies on a set order to survive.

Which I just completely disagree with. There's no way a set order is going to survive in this progressive society that is constantly creating new things and thinking differently. We're questioning everything and have the ability to find any information we want now. The foundations of society won't crumble when it changes, it will evolve like us.

aka another dumb slogans-only movement screeching for muh rights while nothing actually gets done (business as usual)

Well yeah, that's where my fatalism comes into play. And people try to remind me that things are getting better, but I see all of these protests and people getting pissed off at what they think is wrong and those people get ignored and called thugs. Sometimes I do wonder if us people that aren't in the top 20 percent can really make a change,.. But I think we are doing it whether we realize it or not.

:lol3: the baby boomers are douchebags but those are the dumbest and most polemical reasons to hate them. getting fucked by the boomers is equal opportunity, they were more than happy to fuck over their own race and even their own communities too. I wanted to agree with your post but your bias kinda ruined it

How are those bad reasons to hate people? Racial segregation, enforcing homophobia, sexism, being against equality? Bias? I honestly feel like any rational empathetic person would realize those issues are important and need to be dealt with.

Baby boomers ruined a world for the millennials. They categorize us as lazy and narcissistic. They grew up in an extremely good economy and told us how important college was when student debt is higher than ever, more than they could imagine. And so millenials are bashed for moving back in with their parents because they can't find a job, can't pay for debt, can't survive on minimum wage, but then conservatives will say 7.25 is fine and us young people just don't want to work. And so baby boomers get angry and ask; why aren't you getting married? Why aren't you buying minimalist ikea furniture? Why aren't you buying a house and a car? Because fucking debt and poverty. And to be honest, all of those things are useless anyways (you can't take your countertop to the grave with you).

[Vlerchan]

I don't get why people are so anti Marxist. Of course total equality wouldn't completely work for everyone[.]
Marxism isn't about equalising people, just to be clear.

That's just something that anti-Marxists tagged them with because strawmen are easier to debate with.