AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Particularly with seeing how many more times you will interject one of your "conservatives are insane bad guys" bon mots.

Faulty construction arising from serious faults in your perception and thinking. But pleased you are having fun.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox - You've asked a few questions on this thread, the most recent of which is completely non-sequitur. Your question, which I answered by the way, is " does the government have the right to take from Citizen A's property, and give it to Citizen B.

As for what questions I'd like you to answer, I shouldn't have to go back over the last 10-15 pages to bring them back up for you. You should have been courteous and answered them when I asked them instead.

Quote:

Show me public programs that went private that are better stewards and managers of resources and produced better results.

Well, I guess private armies like Blackwater produce results... Except we pay them more than American soldiers and they seem to create more problems.

Before schools were public were we able to get a better education?
Before we has public Fire Departments, were we better tailored to handle dangerous fires?

I don't feel like going back super far and fetching old questions, but this one I'd like to have an answer for. And please, none of the "this is off topic" excuses. I'm directly commenting on your words, so if you think it's off topic, it's your fault not mine. You introduced it into the dialog.

No more excuses Fox.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Fox - You've asked a few questions on this thread, the most recent of which is completely non-sequitur. Your question, which I answered by the way, is " does the government have the right to take from Citizen A's property, and give it to Citizen B.

As for what questions I'd like you to answer, I shouldn't have to go back over the last 10-15 pages to bring them back up for you. You should have been courteous and answered them when I asked them instead.

Quote:
Show me public programs that went private that are better stewards and managers of resources and produced better results.

Well, I guess private armies like Blackwater produce results... Except we pay them more than American soldiers and they seem to create more problems.

Before schools were public were we able to get a better education?
Before we has public Fire Departments, were we better tailored to handle dangerous fires?

I don't feel like going back super far and fetching old questions, but this one I'd like to have an answer for. And please, none of the "this is off topic" excuses. I'm directly commenting on your words, so if you think it's off topic, it's your fault not mine. You introduced it into the dialog.

No more excuses Fox.

T
K
O

The problem is that federal programs don't ever go private. Federal programs have the shelf life approximating huge slabs of granite and generally grow to mountainous proportions. And the bigger they get, the more dollars proportionately go into funding the bureaucracy rather than get to anybody who needs them. And because federal programs must of necessity be one-size-fits all, there is no way to tailor them to the specific individual needs or address unique problems in a specific area and that further degrades the efficiency and effectiveness as well as greatly increases the cost.

It makes sense for people to form themselves into communities and mutually share certain infrastructure such as sewer systems, roads/streets, utilities, libraries, courts, and, yes, fire and police protection and schools. The lowest level that such can be administrated, however, the more accountability there will be and the more economical it will be. The more layers of bureaucracy that are added on, the less efficient oversight will be, the less the people are able to hold the government accountable for administration of the people's resources, and the more money will be expended that will benefit nobody but bureaucrats administering the programs.

It is impractical and cost prohibitive for each person/family to own his/her own fire truck so it makes sense to cooperatively fund and administer fire fighting efforts. Albuquerque happens to have a pretty good and highly rated fire department, and that's necessary for a big city. I'm not knocking it, but the conservative view is that the people of Albuquerque should pony up the funds to finance their own fire protection. It should not be the responsibility of Duluth or Topeka or Houston to fight Albuquerque fires.

Just east of here are a gazillion little communities that can't afford a fully manned fire department. So, coordinated through the county who provides the rating for each entity, they put up a small metal building housing a mutually owned fire truck or two and the county provides instructors to train volunteers to man the equipment and fight fires. The communities hold fund raisers and benefits to provide the necessary money to acquire and maintain the equipment. Whenever there is a fire in the area they all go. You don't have to have a big government program to get the job done and those small fire departments are far more effective and operate for a far sight less money than would be the case if the federal government was doing it.

I went to a public school that was inferior to no other and we kids received an education that allowed us to compete with anybody. But it was organized, funded, and administered at the local level. When the state decided that there was too much inequity in funding among the various communities, it took it over and began administering funding and education mandates from the state level. The quality of education in our state immediately suffered. Then when the feds got so heavily involved and the schools had to look to Washington for some of their funding, American education has steadily deteriorated until we are worse than just about any other developed country in the free world.

And now private schools--those that do not receive state or federal funding--far out perform the public schools. And home schooled kids--those who receive no public funding or services of any kind--are overall performing better than any other group.

0 Replies

Now no more excuses TKO. Provide a rationale for how it is moral for the government to take the property of Citizen A who legally and ethically earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't--this for Citizen B's exclusive benefit. And I won't accept social contract for an answer unless you explain HOW the social contract makes it moral.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Oh please Fox.

Are you now going to pretend the entire conversation of Locke didn't take place..

1. Social contract says that anyone living under a government agrees to that government.
2. Every government has a moral responsibility to keep its citizens from starving.
3. If it's citizens are starving then the government has the moral authority to give them food or the means to get that food.
4. It is MORAL for a government to take food or property from one citizen who has much and give it to another who has less under this scenario.

Now, Fox.. let me ask you again.. Is it moral for a government to let it's citizens starve?

1 Reply

Ought conservatism in 2008 and beyond to attempt to tie Obama to Lucifer?

Quote:

Could Lucifer play a role in this presidential election? It may sound crazy, but one of the candidates in this race has publicly praised, even emulated, a writer-activist who himself paid tribute to Lucifer. That’s right, Lucifer, also known as the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub"you get the idea.

{snip}

Do you think that admiring a Lucifer-admirer would make a difference to some voters? So why hasn’t he highlighted the Alinsky-Lucifer connection?

compliments of James Pinkerton at Fox http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023/

0 Replies

@parados,

No dear. I will say however that you have no interest in discussing John Locke's concepts or participating in anything other than non sequitur arguments.

1. If we go by your definition of social contract, then you are crazy wild enthusiastic about your government in a George W. Bush administration. By virtue of your understanding of social contract, I'm certainly glad you cleared that up after all the ways in which you've disagreed with your government.

2. The government has moral responsibility to keep its citizens from starving? Can you find the Constitutional clause that specifies that? How about a moral responsibility to make sure everybody has a roof over their head and no risk from inclimate weather. How about a moral responsibility to replace any property lost to the river or ocean or wind or fire no matter where people choose to live? How about a moral responsibility to be sure nobody dies from automobile accidents--we could mandate cars so safe they would survive a direct hit from a freight train. Shouldn't the government provide such cars to the people? Food is necessary for human survival, yes, but lack of food is certainly not the only thing that puts people in peril.

But if the government can forcibly take Citizen A's food, who legally and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who didn't, then why not Citizen A's house, clothes, transportation, health care, or anything? At what point do you stop short of saying the government can require Citizen A to take care of Citizen B's every need and Citizen B is entitled to that?

And who do you think is more likely to favor the government who heaps such benefits onto Citizen B?

3. I don't quarrel with Number 3 here within the context of the government promoting the common welfare. The government should not do anything that makes it more difficult for Citizen B to be able to earn his room and board and whatever else he needs and government policy should be designed to encourage and enable all people to prosper. That principle IS in the social contract incorporated into the U.S. Constiuttion. There is no assumption that all will take advantage of such opportunity, however, and no assumption that those who do are responsible for the welfare of those who don't.

4. You have NOT made a case that is is moral to take property from Citizen A who legally and ethically earned it and give that to Citizen B who did not. A government with that kind of power can take anything it wants from anybody, and THAT would be immoral.

A government that does not promote the common welfare and encourage prosperity for all is a government that does not deserve to exist. A government that has the responsibility to feed, clothes, and house the people is called a monarchy or dictatorship and the people have no freedom or individual rights under such a government. But when so many have laid down their lives to gain the right to be people who chart their own course and destiny free of governments dictates of what they are able to legally and ethically achieve, then yes freedom from government oppression becomes more important than mere food.

A moral society does not allow people to starve who do not choose to starve. But it does not have to be the government who provides the relief and up to the 1940's, it wasn't. And starvation was nevertheless quite uncommon in this country.

1 Reply

On the predicted toss-McCain-into-vegematic and circular firing squad thing...
bill Kristol and the Fox "power panel"
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/6668/23661

0 Replies

Kevin Drum's prediction on immediate future. Remember now, this has predictive value. That is, it will pan out or will not.

Quote:

I expect her [Palin] to rip McCain absolutely to shreds. On background, of course, but it will be no less vicious for that. Her future, such as it is, lies with the wingnut rump of the party, and she knows what her audience wants: John McCain's blood. And lots of it. They never liked him in the first place, and I expect them to be howling for his head on a platter starting at about 8:01 pm EST on November 4th...

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/let_the_defenestrations_begin.html

0 Replies

Blatham your ummm.....finds here would be so much better received on the Election thread where they would be pertinent. They really don't address any concepts being discussed in this one.

Try here:
http://able2know.org/topic/121961-1

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No dear. I will say however that you have no interest in discussing John Locke's concepts or participating in anything other than non sequitur arguments.

directly answering your question is a non sequitor? What world do you live in "dear." I suppose it isn't an attack if I use the word "dear" in my statements. OK dear, here goes.

Quote:

1. If we go by your definition of social contract, then you are crazy wild enthusiastic about your government in a George W. Bush administration. By virtue of your understanding of social contract, I'm certainly glad you cleared that up after all the ways in which you've disagreed with your government.

Agreeing to a social contract in no way means one agrees with everything a government does. It only means I will go along with it even if unwillingly because my social contract is that the legislature is allowed to pass legislation. A simple lesson in English. "Agree to" is not the same as "agree with."

Quote:

2. The government has moral responsibility to keep its citizens from starving? Can you find the Constitutional clause that specifies that? How about a moral responsibility to make sure everybody has a roof over their head and no risk from inclimate weather. How about a moral responsibility to replace any property lost to the river or ocean or wind or fire no matter where people choose to live? How about a moral responsibility to be sure nobody dies from automobile accidents--we could mandate cars so safe they would survive a direct hit from a freight train. Shouldn't the government provide such cars to the people? Food is necessary for human survival, yes, but lack of food is certainly not the only thing that puts people in peril.

A constitutional clause? Let me post my sentence again
"2. Every government has a moral responsibility to keep its citizens from starving." If you disagree, then say so. The US is not every government. If a government wants to exist, it needs it's citizens alive. Failure to keep them alive ultimately means the government fails.

Does a government have a moral responsibility to feed starving citizens? Yes or no? This is pretty simple stuff Fox.

Quote:

But if the government can forcibly take Citizen A's food, who legally and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who didn't, then why not Citizen A's house, clothes, transportation, health care, or anything? At what point do you stop short of saying the government can require Citizen A to take care of Citizen B's every need and Citizen B is entitled to that?

And who do you think is more likely to favor the government who heaps such benefits onto Citizen B?

And there is the fault in your argument Fox. Are you willing to argue that governments have no moral responsibilities? If you are then there is no moral question of what government can and can't do.
The government is what the citizens dictate it to be. The government can do whatever the citizens ultimately allow it to do. It may not be moral and it may not be right in your world but that is the way government works.

Quote:

3. I don't quarrel with Number 3 here within the context of the government promoting the common welfare. The government should not do anything that makes it more difficult for Citizen B to be able to earn his room and board and whatever else he needs and government policy should be designed to encourage and enable all people to prosper.That principle IS in the social contract incorporated into the U.S. Constiuttion.

What social principle are you talking about? You are all over the place on the issue. If the constitution is our social contract then where in the Constitution does it say that the government should not do anything to make it more difficult for B to earn his room and board? Please cite the exact part of the constitution that says this or you think says this.

Quote:

There is no assumption that all will take advantage of such opportunity, however, and no assumption that those who do are responsible for the welfare of those who don't.

There is nothing in the constitution that the government will starve people that don't take advantage of it either. No, the constitution gives the congress the power to pass laws to do just about anything.

Quote:

4. You have NOT made a case that is is moral to take property from Citizen A who legally and ethically earned it and give that to Citizen B who did not. A government with that kind of power can take anything it wants from anybody, and THAT would be immoral.

Immoral? So. which is it Fox. It is moral for a government to let people starve or not? you have not answered the question.

Quote:

A government that does not promote the common welfare and encourage prosperity for all is a government that does not deserve to exist.

That contradicts your claim that governments have no responsibility to feed those that are starving.

Quote:

A government that has the responsibility to feed, clothes, and house the people is called a monarchy or dictatorship and the people have no freedom or individual rights under such a government.

Really? Where is that written?

Quote:

But when so many have laid down their lives to gain the right to be people who chart their own course and destiny free of governments dictates of what they are able to legally and ethically achieve, then yes freedom from government oppression becomes more important than mere food.

Quote:

A moral society does not allow people to starve who do not choose to starve. But it does not have to be the government who provides the relief and up to the 1940's, it wasn't. And starvation was nevertheless quite uncommon in this country.

LOL.. You better check your history books Fox. The 1940s? Social security was passed in 1935.

But answer the question.. Simple yes or no..

Is it moral for a government to let some of it's citizens starve?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You don't "address concepts" fox. You defend fixed ideas to the death. What I'm trying to help you with here is a speedy transition. A sane conservative voice and perspective is a good thing for the body politic.

0 Replies

Here's another find that can help us think about the future (and the past, of course)...from James Dobson's Focus on the Family PAC.

Below are a number of predicted consequences that will fall out from an Obama electoral victory.

Quote:

• Boy Scouts disband after refusing to allow homosexual scoutmasters to sleep in the same tent as young boys

• First-graders get “compulsory training in varieties of gender identity,” and parents can no longer opt out of school-based sex ed for their kids

• Churches are declared “public accommodations” and forced to offer marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples

• Military must offer “sensitivity training” for troops forced to accept enlisted homosexuals

• The Supreme Court declares that “proselytizing speech” does not have the same protection as other speech, and Christian ministries are banned from college campuses

• Nurses who do not wish to participate in abortions will lose their jobs, and doctors who deliver babies at hospitals must perform abortions or lose their licenses

• The FCC nullifies all restrictions on obscene speech or visual portrayals on TV, and it’s now a 24-hour non-stop diet of explicit porn

• States are allowed to ban guns, and illegal gun-owners face stiff fines or prison terms

• Home-schoolers are forced to use state-approved curricula, and rather than do so, many emigrate to New Zealand or Australia where they may teach without restrictions

• The U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq prompts a take-over by Al Qaeda, which in turn has carried out terrorist attacks on four U.S. cities

• Russia reclaims most of the old Soviet bloc, including the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Bulgaria while UN & NATO fail to take action

• Latin America topples toward communism as the U.S.’s pro-Chavez policies give Venezuela more weight

• A single-payer national health care system has banned hospital admissions for anyone over 80

• Periodic blackouts are the norm after a moratorium is instituted on new oil drilling, nuclear plants and CO2-emitting coal power plants

• Business owners and entrepreneurs have moved overseas in droves to avoid higher taxes, with a huge loss of U.S. jobs

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/10/25/dobsons-election-strategy-focus-on-the-family-fear/

0 Replies

@parados,

I did type 1940's when I meant 1930's--up until the New Deal, other than a small widow's pension so kids wouldn't overcrowd the orphanages, there was essentially no government charity of any kind. The 'social contract' incorporated into the U.S. Constitution did not suggest that the people must or should 'go along' with their government. The social contract was be that the government would stay within the limits dictated by the people--government by the people, of the people, and for the people, remember? The rest of your issues I specifically addressed and will not repeat myself at this time.

You are of course free and encouraged to disagree with any point that I made but please do so by making an argument in rebuttal and not just asking question after question after question which becomes exceedingly boring and non productive after awhile. Especially when any answer I might give only generates another question. Thank you for understanding.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Now no more excuses TKO. Provide a rationale for how it is moral for the government to take the property of Citizen A who legally and ethically earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't--this for Citizen B's exclusive benefit. And I won't accept social contract for an answer unless you explain HOW the social contract makes it moral.

What excuse would I need to give to not answer a question I've repeatedly answered over and over and over?

It's not moral to take from A to B, nor B to A.

The idea of "redistribution" is a total farce promoted by conservatives that would never dare apply the same standard of criticism in the opposite situation.

B is not receiving anything, they are still having their money taken, maybe you forgot. B isn't getting a cent of A's money. The government is getting the money from both, and then using the combined money to try and fund programs. The ethical thing for the government to do is to make sure that both A and B are benefiting from the investments/programs that they support.

This is at least the third time I've answered this Fox. I get tired repeating myself.

Here's a question for you, and I've asked it before...

Quote:

Why exactly do you assume that Person A earned their wages while we simultaneously assume Person B did not. Why do you refer to that as fact?

referencing: http://able2know.org/topic/113196-87#post-3445525

How is it a fact?
How is this in anyway logic based?

You are engineering the question around subjective manners.

Why does it matter how A or B made their money?
If the situation was that A made their money by exploiting others would your answer change?
What does this have to do with what A ultimately pays in taxes?
If two people As make the same money but made it from a good and a bad ethical means respectively, should they be taxed the same amount?
If not, what principle would allow you to make that distinction?
What ability does a government have to judge the morality of an individual based on the tax form they send in?
Why can't our tax system be simply about how much our income is?

T
K
O

P.s. - I've been making no argument about social contract here. You are talking about somebody else. IMO social contracts are about granting the authority to govern and rule to promote oder and provide for the common wealth. I'm sure I could make an argument based on this involving taxes, but I save social contract arguments for different situations. This one seems pretty cut and dry, no need to even bothr going that far.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I did not refer to wages. I referred to property which of course can include cash, bonds, securites etc.. I assume that Citizen A acquired/earned his property ethically and legally and that Citizen B did not earn any of the property that is in Citizen A's possession because that is the scenario as it is designed. It is important to know that Citizen A acquired his property legally and ethically because if he did not, it could be possible that he acquired property that otherwise might have gone to Citizen B and Citizen B might, in that case, actually be entitled to some of that property. I wanted to be clear that this was not the case.

It is logical because Citizen A is symbolic of all the people in the USA who own property that they acquired legally and ethically.

Citizen B is symbolic of all the people in the USA who, for whatever reason, have less property than Citizen A.

There are some in the USA who think it isn't right that Citizen A has so much and Citizen B has so little and therefore the government should confiscate some of Citizen A's property and give it to Citizen B for Citizen B's personal benefit. 'Spread the wealth around' as it were.

We are not talking about mutually beneficial shared infrastructure or anything else that mutually benefits all citizens. We are talking about one citizen being required to relinquish property for the personal benefit of another citizen. We are not talking about tax structures, or tax forms, or what work was or was not done to acquire the wealth or any of that other stuff.

We are talking strictly about what the government's ability should be to take property from Citizen A.

It is the Conservative point of view that you cannot have free people if the government can take property from one citizen and use that property to enrich another citizen. When the government can do that with impunity, the people have no power and no freedom at all. Nor is there any incentive to acquire property that the government can confiscate it at will.

For me that becomes a moral issue as all judgment about what is and is not good government always comes down to a value judgment of what is right and what is wrong.

I cannot find any kind of moral justification for the government to take property from Citizen A who legally and ethically acquired it and give that property to Citizen B.

If somebody can come up with one I will be delighted to hear it.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

You are of course free and encouraged to disagree with any point that I made but please do so by making an argument in rebuttal and not just asking question after question after question which becomes exceedingly boring and non productive after awhile. Especially when any answer I might give only generates another question. Thank you for understanding.

I did disagree. I have asked only one question. I realize you don't want to answer it because it reveals the huge flaw in your conservative argument.

So.. Let's assume you did answer it Fox.

You think it is moral for governments to let their citizens starve. OK.. thanks for showing us that conservatives care more about their money than fellow citizens.

Quote:

The 'social contract' incorporated into the U.S. Constitution did not suggest that the people must or should 'go along' with their government. The social contract was be that the government would stay within the limits dictated by the people--government by the people, of the people, and for the people, remember?

Yes, of the people, by and for the people. So does that mean you think the constitution allows some people to starve if the majority prefers they not, but a rich minority prefers they do? Or is your argument that the government is only for the rich people?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I cannot find any kind of moral justification for the government to take property from Citizen A who legally and ethically acquired it and give that property to Citizen B.

If somebody can come up with one I will be delighted to hear it.

I realize that Fox. You think it is moral to let people starve. That's fine. We see your morality for what it is. Conservativism at its finest.

Fox, you have expressed the belief that it is moral for people to starve while others have too much. Thanks for showing us what conservatism really is. Greed masquerading as morality.

1 Reply

@parados,

Well you know what Parados, I give a substantial percentage of my income to organizations that feed the hungry. I also volunteer some of my time to organizations that are making life easier for the less fortunate. Since you think it is compassionate to take whatever somebody else has to keep people from starving, how about I take what you have and give to the poor? Then you won't accuse us conservatives of being willing to let people starve and we can both be happy.

(And I can continue to know that the government is not the best vehicle to use to alleviate hunger anywhere if all it has to offer is to rob Peter and give to Paul. Okay?)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Glorious non-answer Fox. I broke the questions down in real simple terms. Please show some courtesy here.

BTW, we ARE talking about taxes. We ARE talking about shared infrastructure. You can't non-demensionalize the issue such that your point is sound AND that it remains relevant. By time you make your point, we are so far from reality, it doesn't matter.

It's not two people A and B, it's millions of people who range from above A to below B in wages. I wish you could deal in terms of reality, but as long as we stay in this A&B world with you, answer my questions please.

T
K
O

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know