AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

How many B's and A's are there in your hypothesis?

Attention to those who care:
For the first 140 years or so after the Constitution was adopted, through regulation and policies, government could promote the common welfare, but Presidents and other elected national leaders took the view that there was no Constitutional authority for the government to use the public treasury for the benefit of any individual or special interest.

A crack in that principle came in FDR's "New Deal" and the small snowball he started rolling downhill became an avalanche in LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives.

So government sponsored charity in which a 'disadvantaged' citizen receives government assistance paid from the public treasury is a relatively new invention.

Of coure voluntary charity can be a selfless and moral act and is strongly encouraged in a moral society. But we aren't talking voluntary charity here. We are talking about (the rhetorical) you using (a rhetorical) my money to be generous.

And the question remains, is there a moral justification for that?

According to Cyclop, the Citizen Bs greatly outnumber the Citizen As with the implication that the Citizen As should just suck it up and accept that as the way it is as that is the way the people want it and Citizen A can't do anything about it.

This has ceased being productive, again, fox. You either change the argument you're making ('for the exclusive benefit of' - a parameter that has no reflection in reality anyway) or you avoid any discussion of or reflection on analogous moral dilemmas to keep your absolute pure and unassailable.

The Left tends to subscribe to moral relativism, whereas the Right more often argues for moral certainties. Vast generalization, of course.

Where once certain moral/ethical standards were regarded as absolute and unvarying, we as a society have come to question almost every moral/ethical standard. The modern world has become painfully aware that any issue is without some exception and ambiguity. Not so long ago to even suggest that our nation has blemishes would have been widely regarded as disloyal and unpatriotic, and patriotism ... loyalty to one's own country ... was counted amongst the highest virtues. Departure from social norms in one's sexual desires, was regarded as perversion. No candidate for public office could survived even a hint of marital infidelity, nor open association with those who failed to subscribe to "community values". Heroes were seldom ever depicted as having human faults, and a coward was generally shunned. Elected officials might be shielded by the press from their human failings, and so long as they maintained a good public image, the opposition was tempered in their criticism and attacks. Savings and living within one's means was expected of solid citizens, and running up huge credit debt was the sign of imprudence. That was in a world where time, distance, and the reach of communications was still limited.

Television, and sophisticated computer systems, changed all of that. Privacy between a patient and his doctor, his clergyman, and even when having minor encounters with the law was once taken for granted. Today its difficult to avoid having the most private and minute aspect of our lives escape the attention of anyone who cares enough to spend a few hours and dollars. We've been witness to a great migration from rural towns and humble occupation to impersonal urban competition and employment. The result has been to increasingly undermine the traditional values that existed throughout the first hundred and fifty years of our nation. Old verities have been exploded, social relationships have shifted, and our people have become more cynical and questioning of almost ever value that our fathers and grandfathers held most sacred.

Is that a good thing, or not? Not a simple question, and the answer is no more absolute than the values that are being eroded and toppled. In many ways our society is more just and equitable today than at any time in the past. Women not only vote, they are respected business and political leaders. Minorities no longer are subject to prejudicial laws, and at least the outward demeaning prejudice of the past is just that... past. The powers of the police are limited and constrained as never before in history. Elderly and handicapped people have at least a minimal safety net, and no one starves to death in the U.S. except by choice. The range of choices available to most people is astonishing. Those are all goals that previous Utopians only dreamed of, but there have been unintended consequences as well.

Our individual liberties have slowly been narrowing since at least the 1930's. Locally we no longer have as much control over our communities, our schools, or even our own children that we did fifty years ago. We may have more spending power, but we also carry more debt and are more vulnerable to economic change. We can travel to the ends of the earth, but travel has become increasingly annoying. We have access to images, ideas and entertainment far more than any absolute monarch of the past, yet that access is generally regarded as poor and crude by "intellectuals". More people have college educations, but number who have "good" educations hasn't changed much since the mid-20th century. We've survived the Cold War, only to find ourselves targeted by religious fanatics who want to return the world to the 8th century. We live longer, but our excesses make those lives more difficult. Medicine can do wonders, but the costs are so great that only the very wealthy can afford the best treatment, and government efforts to extend that coverage is filled with fraud and corruption ... often from the medical professionals who fifty years ago were regarded as some of the most ethical people in our society. We have become materialists and hedonists who gorge ourselves on plenty, and then endure a hangover wishing to have things different. There is never enough, and nothing beyond tomorrow seems to count for most people.

I think that conservatives, the best of us, would like to slow down the rate of change in our society, to preserve the best of the values that made the country great. Where the line is drawn is a matter of opinion. Amongst American conservatives, I think we can generally say that faith and support of the Constitution is sacrosanct. We don't want the document fiddled with, and as a general goal we would like to see the role of the Federal government more constrained to those essential responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Generally, we decry debt for individuals or government, though we recognize that debt is sometimes unavoidable. Generally we are shocked and dismayed by our fellow citizens who support and believe anti-American rants by foreigners who are our declared enemies. We are uncomfortable with turning our lives over to Washington bureaucrats, even as we depend upon them for helping maintain stability and security in our world. Open obscenity and lack of civility is distressing and embarrassing to many of us.

The small and middle-sized towns that exist between the coasts feel that their world is under siege and attack. These are folks who are still relatively close to the values of our collective past. They are just as educated as their city cousins, but their lives haven't yet been totally transformed. Church and family, courage, loyalty, and quiet prudence are still highly valued. With every passing year, the balance continues to shift toward New York/Los Angeles/Chicago/San Francisco cultural norms, and that is disturbing to many who still live in the heartland of our nation. Many of them are Democrats as their parents and grandparents were, but their values are closer to those of today's GOP than to the Living-room Leftists who seem to control the Democratic Party these days.

No Blatham. I have stayed absolutely consistent in the question asked. I am trying to be responsive to others chiming in, but the basic question remains unchanged. What moral principle justifies the government taking property from Citizen A who legally and ethically acquired it and giving that property to Citizen B who didn't?

I did agree to one additional component: Citizen A is not volunteering his property for that purpose.

And not ONE of you who admits to being left of center have provided an answer to that question. It is you on the left who have tried to change the question, answer a different question, or throw a lot of other stuff into it. I agree that is not productive.

I am eager to discuss the other issues that have been introduced, especially some that you have introduced, but I do want to settle this primary question first as all the others hinge on the answer to this one.

There are only two possible answers that I can think of:
1. Based on the hypothesis as presented, with no other criteria involved, there is no moral justification
- or -
2. The moral justification is _______________________ (fill in the blank)

The closest we have come to having an answer is Cyclops opinion that Citizen A is outnumbered and that makes it a moral principle, or Parados's conclusion that there is a social contract, even though Citizen A didn't agree to it, that makes it a moral principle.

If that's the best the Left has to offer, then okay. But is it? Is anybody willing to say that majority rule should override any principle? Is anybody willing to say that all decisions by government are included in the social contract and therefore are acceptable?

Here is a moral principal. More of an ethical principal actually.

"Treat other's as you would like to be treated."

Fox - Since you have ignored my questions and the content of my posts, I then assume you wish to be ignored. I was very patient with you and was trying my best to engage in a nice conversation with you, but you do not abide by any sort of code of courtesy.

Suffice it to say that I do not think you are prepared to make the arguments for the ideas you champion.

Thanks for wasting my time
K
O

Citizen A did agree to the social contract. You don't seem to understand what the social contract is, Fox. Do some research, and get back to us; probably with rants about the 'tyranny of the majority.'

Cycloptichorn

I answered you as best as I could without going off course here TKO. I get to choose what subjects I wish to discuss just as you do. You chose to discuss a different subject than the one I was interested in discussing. It's all good.

Asherman


Your entire post was great as usual, Ash, but can I conclude from the part quoted above that you do not see a moral justification for the government to confiscate property from Citizen A who legally and ethically acquired it and give it to Citizen B who did nothing to earn it? Or is that not something you would say?

I am pretty sure that we are in agreement that there is no specific Constitutional authority for the government to dispense charity from the public treasury.

As a Citizen A, I can assure you that I did not agree to the social contract as described in the hypothesis of Citizen A and Citizen B presented here. On the issue of private property, I believe the government has shredded a great deal of the social contract with the people.

Yes, you did agree to the social contract, Fox. As a citizen you have no choice but to do so, or to be a lawbreaker. I guess there's a third choice; you could leave.

Every day that you fail to break the law or leave the country, you are renewing your agreement with the social contract. There is no other option.

Now, I will agree with you; your 'hypothesis' was stupid and not actually reflective of American life. This has been shown to be so. So your last response was technically correct. If, however, you want to pretend that we were talking about America - which does have some form of refundable tax credits, installed by both parties, yes - then you did agree to that contract and continue to affirm it with every breath. And we thank you for doing so.

Cycloptichorn

Your opinion is noted. I don't agree with a thing you said, but it is noted.

Your agreement or disagreement is immaterial; the contract goes on being fulfilled as we speak

As I said earlier, the best part of this whole conversation is that Reality itself has conspired against your position, Fox.

A satisfying conclusion to a convoluted attempt to justify more Republican Greed, in the name of 'morality.'

Cycloptichorn

Question to TKO and/or Cyclop:

What does the phrase "Property precedes government" mean to you?

The social contract says that government can lay taxes. Failure to pay taxes is a violation of the social contract. There is no other reading of "social contract."

You can argue if a social contract is a moral obligation perhaps but you can't argue that the contract is broken when it coerces an action from someone that has accepted that contract. Social contracts include all kinds of coercive behavior from taxes to not committing crime.

To me, it suggests that you've begun an amateurish study of John Locke, and feel that you have stumbled upon some 'great truth' that the rest of us realized to be something else, long ago.

Cycloptichorn

An interesting presumption Fox. But it is nothing more than a presumption. Property has little meaning with out a social contract. Our social contract is that you can own property and I can't take it away without buying it, taxing it or some other agreed upon fashion.

If we have no social contract than you only have property as long as you possess it and protect it yourself from others.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7751d814-9dfa-4ca7-9483-4589fd55c695

I think that gets it exactly right.

John Locke's view was that property is a natural right--what the Founders described as unalienable rights--and that it resulted from labor. The person is justified in defending his property against all who would take it from him, but anarchy was undesirable as in such a system the person and his property is continually at risk from those who would do just that.

For him the social contract was for the people to agree on a central government for a more orderly and mutually beneficial administration of the people's affairs which would respect natural rights and would relieve each property owner of most of the necessity of continually defending his property from those who intended to take it.

He was keenly aware, however, that the government should not itself be allowed to become the predator that would take the people's rightful property from them against their will. The first and most important concept of the social contract is that property precedes government. The Founders agreed with that when they incorporated the principle of unalienable rights in the U.S. Constitution.

The social contract was for mutally shared government services and national defense and provided authority for the government to equitably levy such taxes as necessary to accomplish that.

The social contract did not allow the predator to use the government to take property from one person and provide it for the private benefit of another as that would leave the people no better off than they were when everybody fended for himself. John Locke was quite clear about that, as were those who broke with England and set about setting up a new nation in which unalienable rights were inviolate.

Now here we are 210 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The people have amended the Constitution from time to time as that was deemed necessary, but no amendment has negated that original social contract by which the first responsibility of government is to defend the unalienable rights of the people.

I say there is absolutely no moral principle that allows the government to violate the principle of unalienable rights among which is the principle that one person cannot lawfully take the property of another for his/her personal benefit unless the property owner gives consent to that. That is perhaps the initial core principle of modern American Conservatism.

We are not forced to contribute to political candidates to fund their campaigns but we do have the option of volunteering to do that with a portion of our taxes. We check off the box on our 1040 forms that allows the government to use our money for that purpose.

It would not violate the social contract for the people to have an option to also check off an amount to fund relief for the goverment to use for poor or those undergoing unexpected hardships. But forced charity does violate the social contract and I believe it is one of the primary causes for much of the corruption and inefficiency in our government.

My two cents worth, but dispute it if you can.