Is Conservative Ideology Finally Dead?

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: EternalSolace

you're still in this mindset that half the people think one way and the other half think another way. people are complicated, if you subscribe to just one political philosophy without thinking about it, you're an idiot. that why i challenge conservative philosophies here almost everyday, it just so happens liberalism brings the most good to as many people as possible, name one conservative idea that isn't selfish.

That's a strange coincidence isn't it? Seems like a perfect example of the us vs them mentality you mentioned?

I'm merely stating that no matter what the ideology is, even if it's a new ideology, it has got to be balanced out with different ideas. I'm for a collaborative effort. Are you only for liberalism? Because even that, if left unchecked, is harmful.

thats the problem, left unchecked. as if you dont think liberals aren't intelligent or dont think about consequences, if thats the main reason you aren't a liberal, you have yourself a nice strawman.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: EternalSolace

you're still in this mindset that half the people think one way and the other half think another way. people are complicated, if you subscribe to just one political philosophy without thinking about it, you're an idiot. that why i challenge conservative philosophies here almost everyday, it just so happens liberalism brings the most good to as many people as possible, name one conservative idea that isn't selfish.

But does it?

If you look at it in a simplistic cause/effect analysis only, maybe. If you look at it in an emotional satisfaction manner, maybe.

Let's look at redistribution.

You have two people. One person has $40 and the other has nothing. In order to survive, both need $20. The liberal policy says take $20 from the one who has $40 and give it to the other. Now they both have $20. Everyone survives.

But that's all that happens. They survive. Bare minimum. There is no growth in the economy, and only one person is producing and doing all the work to support both of them. If something happens and that one person loses any capacity, both of them will fail to survive.

In the conservative economy, you try to make sure the person with $40 can keep working and the person with nothing has every opportunity to find a meaningful employment that will allow him to also earn at least $20, if not more than that. Since that person only has the opportunity, there is no guarantee he will take advantage, but if he does, the two combined will make at least $60, if not more. The economy will have grown and you have a cushion in case one of the two loses productive capacity.

The conservative position where the wealth is not redistributed by the government through force is seen as cruel because it does not yield immediate results, but the long term potential to benefit all is much greater. And there is greater latitude for individual liberty, too, even if the one person chooses to ultimately be a failure.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

i think markets should be regulated, how are we to avoid monopolies and exploitation? just trust the corporations? hah thats rich. taxes, safety regulations, federal currencies. im a federalist by all means because i understand we need a central structure to keep order.

a reply to: vjr1113

You might think about it, but I don't think you always think far enough. If you did, we wouldn't have Obamacare.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

i think markets should be regulated, how are we to avoid monopolies and exploitation? just trust the corporations? hah thats rich. taxes, safety regulations, federal currencies. im a federalist by all means because i understand we need a central structure to keep order.

And yet the liberal market policies end up creating just what you fear - monopolies and exploitation by default. When you over regulate and allow cronyism into the picture through corrupt bureaucracies and legislative procedures, only the very big survive the damage inflicted and there becomes less and less competition in each market all the time.

a reply to: vjr1113

as if you dont think liberals aren't intelligent or dont think about consequences,

Where did I say that?

if thats the main reason you aren't a liberal,

You're making assumptions. No where at all have I claimed any political affiliation. As I've mentioned several times in my posting history, I pull from all ideologies and don't subscribe to just a single one.

You're also all over the place with whatever point you're trying to make. So, nice try.

a reply to: ketsuko

thats not an accurate representation of our society. no one wants to redistribute money like that. show me a policy that describes what your model shows.

originally posted by: avgguy

There's a reason why liberalism and socialism are failing in Europe. There's not enough people working to support all the people that aren't.

Some would readily point a finger to capitalist ideology as the reason... millions of migrants in war torn places as capitalist try to capitalize on cheap labor and resources of other lands while the people fleeing the conflict weigh down those systems as refugees.

Cause and effect is a real thing... even if the cause looks good the effects need not always be correlated with the opposing ideology... I mean would you blame a nail for a flat at a construction site or the choice to drive through a place likely to have nails?

Best to not divide and point as that solves nada but continuing conflict.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Fair enough, but this is just an ideal scenario and we have gone too far for this work anymore.

Furthermore, I should add that I feel that beyond the fiscal ideology and smaller sized government ideals, conservative "thinking", conservative values, etc are what drives the definition that you posted above.

Well, to be fair, you asked about modern day conservatism. Nowadays, a lot of people are more fiscally conservative, and moderate when it comes to social issues. Your attack is on the far-right base, not the conservative principles I subscribe to. I am pro-choice, believe in a reasonable path to citizenship, and support gay rights. To be honest, I think some of these issues should be left to the states and not be controlled or dictated by the federal government. There is a reason more moderate candidates generally end up winning the presidency.

Unfortunately, pandering to the base is necessary to get the nomination due to the caucus/primary process. The base, in my opinion, does not reflect the true modern conservative movement, however.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: ketsuko

thats not an accurate representation of our society. no one wants to redistribute money like that. show me a policy that describes what your model shows.

It's called the progressive tax system.

But there is also the knee jerk answer from the left. Obama himself introduce it when he described being his brother's keeper. When one kid has a sandwich and the other doesn't, the teacher should take that sandwich and give half to each kid.

Yes, I grossly oversimplified my economy, but that is a representation of what essentially happens in a socialist and heavy social safety net welfare state economy.

a reply to: EternalSolace

you keep saying that liberalism left unchecked is going to ruin the country or whatever your saying. as if liberals just want to see everything burn.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, I grossly oversimplified my economy, but that is a representation of what essentially happens in a socialist and heavy social safety net welfare state economy.

Can you provide examples where this has occurred before in a "socialist and heavy social safety net welfare state economy"?

Please do not provide examples of Communism's failures, as that is not what is at debate here.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: EternalSolace

you keep saying that liberalism left unchecked is going to ruin the country or whatever your saying. as if liberals just want to see everything burn.

Oh no, you don't want to see everything burn.

You sincerely do want to improve society, but the basic difference between left and right is that where we on the right see improvement as a personal, individual thing to be done person-by-person, one by one in a manner best addressed through character. You on the left think of it as a top down problem of improving society as a whole through the law.

Instead of convincing the motorcyclist he's dumber than a box of rocks to go out without a helmet, you would rather improve society by passing helmet laws and saving him from himself. That's just one example.

It turns your societies into a form of soft tyranny after a while and later into not so soft tyranny.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, I grossly oversimplified my economy, but that is a representation of what essentially happens in a socialist and heavy social safety net welfare state economy.

Can you provide examples where this has occurred before in a "socialist and heavy social safety net welfare state economy"?

Please do not provide examples of Communism's failures, as that is not what is at debate here.

Venezuela.

Greece.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

i think markets should be regulated, how are we to avoid monopolies and exploitation? just trust the corporations? hah thats rich. taxes, safety regulations, federal currencies. im a federalist by all means because i understand we need a central structure to keep order.

I think you're misinformed.

The supporters of the proposed Constitution called themselves "Federalists." Their adopted name implied a commitment to a loose, decentralized system of government. In many respects "federalism" — which implies a strong central government — was the opposite of the proposed plan that they supported.

Each human person is a unique collection of memories, skills, and tastes. Human society is the result of individual human activity.

"Put a monkey in a cage and he becomes a pig, because he cannot be a monkey, in a cage." Chinese Masters 1200 AD

Progressives want to make society the real thing and humans the cells in the body.

Society as a whole has paid 95% of wealth made in the 20th Century into the progressive slush fund. We basically have everything we had in 1920 and not much more. But now we work 10 years of our life for taxes, and half of the rest for inflation.

Whatever power Bernie collects to the gov will be used to further totalitarian ends.

What ever power Trump accumulates to the Presidency will at least be ad hoc and hopefully decay and weaken under other leadership.

a reply to: ketsuko

You on the left think of it as a top down problem of improving society as a whole through the law.

That's incorrect. The causes the Left tend to focus on is equal application of laws and recognition of rights for individuals that were previously oppressed. The Right, through laws, wish to suppress individual rights and wish to have the laws reflect their ideologies, including religious.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko

You on the left think of it as a top down problem of improving society as a whole through the law.

That's incorrect. The causes the Left tend to focus on is equal application of laws and recognition of rights for individuals that were previously oppressed. The Right, through laws, wish to suppress individual rights and wish to have the laws reflect their ideologies, including religious.

Thank you for proving you do not know what you are talking about. You're just regurgitating nonsense.

a reply to: ketsuko

right i mean taxing trillionaires and billionaires a bit more than the working class is unfair.

no one is taking half of 40 bucks, we are taking about a dollar out of 100. i really have the smallest violin for the super wealthy. our society allowed them to exploit the rest of us, now they're playing the victim.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Not really.

You cannot have any individual liberty in a society forced to be perfectly equal in its outcomes. We are all of us different with different talents, different hopes and dreams, different aspirations. Why should I allow myself to be forced into a predetermined societal mold of the government's making in order to be exactly like everyone else and not make any feel bad because I have talents they don't? Why should I suffer and possibly eventually break in silence attempting to be able to do those things the societal mold demands I ought in order to be like everyone else and equal?

And if I fail, what then? Such societies inevitably discard the misfits.

I don't want to live in your enforced equality Utopia. I am not made to be part of the world of The Giver or 1984 or Brave New World. There is a reason why those are dystopias.

I think we both have two separate definitions of "liberty" and two separate definitions of "equality".

The equality you fear is some sort of fictional scenario where you are not allowed to excel in deference to those less skilled. However, this has nothing to do with what I think of when I say "equality". To me, it means every person is treated equally and given the same opportunities. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Every wealthy person in our nation has achieved what they have because of the system in which we all participate in and support. This means they cannot discriminate. This means they must follow the rules. If they don't like it, they need to gain their success elsewhere, where they can make their fortune without the help of an infrastructure, utilities, or an established economy. That person can go be Queen or King of the lone island they lord over.

As far as those movies all depicting dystopias for a reason, you are correct. That reason is because they are fiction novels, written by people who share your views.