Four Good Reasons Why I Am A Conservative

[Dr Adequate]

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Literal Conservatism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should change some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Opposition To Statism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should do some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

[Random]

I can't think of any liberal who would disagree with any of that. Liberals usually split ways with conservatives when it comes to what is or is not a "good reason".

Despite conservative talking points, liberals do not support "big government". We believe that government should do certain things then figure out what size government needs to be to achieve those things. Deciding that government should be bigger (or smaller) and working backwards from that premise is silly.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Random

Liberals usually split ways with conservatives when it comes to what is or is not a "good reason".

Exactly. Conservatives have lots of "good reasons" for regulating and intervening in marriage, abortion, education, and medical research. To bad their "good reasons"....aren't.

[KingMerv00]

I understand why people feel the need to classify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" but the definitions are so flexible it isn't really that interesting. Instead, tell me where you stand on the individual issues.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I understand why people feel the need to classify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" but the definitions are so flexible it isn't really that interesting. Instead, tell me where you stand on the individual issues.

When I've told you my ideology? Can't you just work it out from that?

Let me give you another clue: I think that government should be no bigger than it ought to be. That's another conservative principle, and I stand by it.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Let me give you another clue: I think that government should be no bigger than it ought to be. That's another conservative principle, and I stand by it.

That's also a liberal principle. The disagreement is usually about how big government "ought" to be.

No one wants a bigger government just for the sake of having a bigger government.

[Arcade22]

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal.

I find that unlikely.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

When I've told you my ideology? Can't you just work it out from that?

Let me give you another clue: I think that government should be no bigger than it ought to be. That's another conservative principle, and I stand by it.

"No bigger than it ought to be" is subjective so I have no idea where you stand on the issues.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I find that unlikely.

Seconded. Whatever side he's really on, I'd doubt they'd want to associate with him.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Literal Conservatism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should change some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Opposition To Statism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should do some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

And if you do have some good reason.......?

[Bikewer]

The Devil is in the details as stated....Some folks idea of "good reasons" tend to be wildly differing. One fellow's "growth stifling regulation" may be a life-saving health/safety concern to another...

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Seconded. Whatever side he's really on, I'd doubt they'd want to associate with him.

Actually most Conservatives i have talked to agree with my on issues like Immigration and Multiculturalism.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

And if you do have some good reason.......?

Well if you have a good reason, then you have a good reason.

Obviously my conservative inclinations wouldn't stand up against the facts. That would contravene the very principles that I have listed and upon which I stand.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Obviously my conservative inclinations wouldn't stand up against the facts.

you can say that again.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Obviously my conservative inclinations wouldn't stand up against the facts. That would contravene the very principles that I have listed and upon which I stand.

Get off the poor things before they go all flat and distorted.

Oops - to late.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

That would contravene the very principles that I have listed and upon which I stand.

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative".

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Random

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative".

So you are unable to disagree with my conservative principles?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Random

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative".

yup.

for the most part, very few people in this country would disagree with the principles set forth in the OP.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Actually most Conservatives i have talked to agree with my on issues like Immigration and Multiculturalism. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...d51a947b60.gif

That's because most people won't talk to you I imagine.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So you are unable to disagree with my conservative principles?

I disagree that they are "conservative", except in the broadest, "I don't want to do something for no reason" sense.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

That's because most people won't talk to you I imagine.

Whats the matter, why are you acting so aggressively? Didn't you have a good Christmas?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by parky76

yup.

for the most part, very few people in this country would disagree with the principles set forth in the OP.

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Whats the matter, why are you acting so aggressively?

Because bigotry is not the sort of thing one should comfort.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

honestly, the OP did not list ANY strict current-day conservative principles.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

What "good reason" do you or other conservatives have for outlawing marijuana?

[Piscivore]

Traditional Values

Quote:

Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy,[2] is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[3]

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:

The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false.

Partisanism
"Choosing a side"- any side- to me is to some degree forsaking skepticism in favour of embracing a conclusion based on other, primarily emotional, factors.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

Because the people claiming to be "conservatives" were not adhereing to those principles?

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Because bigotry is not the sort of thing one should comfort.

Am i bigot because i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals who have absolutely no intentions to work towards my country's welfare?
Or is it because i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people and our culture?

Perhaps its just because i note that different cultures with conflicting values will eventually clash?

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

Because your principles can match the liberal principles of Micheal Moore.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

Because your principles can match the liberal principles of Micheal Moore.

Or Stalin for that matter.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by parky76

honestly, the OP did not list ANY strict current-day conservative principles.

No, honestly, the OP did not list ANY strict current-day Republican practice.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

What "good reason" do you or other conservatives have for outlawing marijuana?

Vague and tenuous reasons that do not stand up to rational scrutiny.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Actually most Conservatives i have talked to agree with my on issues like Immigration and Multiculturalism. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...d51a947b60.gif

Which reflects on your choice of people whom you choose to talk to.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Am i bigot because i want a stable and harmonious country free from foreign welfare leeches and criminals who have absolutely no intentions to work towards my country's welfare?

Since you only specified foreign "leeches and criminals", yes. Because this implies that a "stable and harmonious country" means "full of people like me".

Quote:

Or is it because i would want Sweden to be the country for the Swedish people and our culture?

Yes. See "segregation".

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Yes. See "segregation".

Are saying that Sweden was 'segregated' around year 1950?

[Skeptic]

The problem is what "good reason" means. One might as well say that we are all pacifists, since none of us would go to war without "good reason".

[Eyeron]

Quote:

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Free Markets were tried. They led to snake oil salesmen, things like mercury in the food and drink, and to unions and to corporations.

Quote:

Libertarianism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should intervene in some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Whenever you leave people to their own devices, it always leads to a big huge tyrannical government, which is a why a government is needed to protect people's rights and liberties.

Quote:

Literal Conservatism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should change some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Leaving people to their own devices is generally not a good idea either. If there is no incentive to do something, however small or large, people just will not do things such as charity or things that are good. That means some people will be left out in the cold because there will be left out in the cold. There needs to be a third option, and there's nothing wrong with government providing a third option for people. However, like anything, that ideal can be abused as well.

Quote:

Opposition To Statism

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should do some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

First of all, define statism.

One of the problems that Libertarianism has is that it does not seem to acknowledge certain aspects of human nature. There are those who are envelope pushers, that is they purposefully test the boundaries of society's rules to see what they can get away with. Other people just feel that rules of society just don't apply to them.

For example, take the libertarian ideal of mediation. The only thing the people have to enforce an agreement is their word. And in the first place, if there is a conflict, and one person feels they are right no matter what, what rules and laws are there in place to handle such a situation? That's how laws are created, and that's what eventually leads to an ever more encroaching government as more and more legislation is created to micro manage a person's life.

Plus, that's a very loose definition of statism.

Added:

That in a nutshell, is the inherent weakness to libertarianism and how libertarianism is defeated. Because it cannot and will not be able to prevent a government from growing large and powerful without it's own set of rules to cover the situations that would create the new legislation that gives government its power. In order to do so, you can't just say "well, this government isn't going to get any bigger", you have to have a system in place to prevent it the government from growing bigger, and that in itself is another kind of big government.

[Myshkin]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Free Markets

If you don't have some good reason for explaining why in some particular case the government should regulate some particular thing then that is probably not a good idea.

Good reasons exist. Even Conservatives agree with them. They are called "market failures" - when goods or services cannot be efficiently delivered via free markets without harming the economy or nation at large.

Police, fire depatments, public roads, military, national parks, regulatory agents for things like public health (e.g. CDC) are all not only regulated, but fully socialized. Socialism! Oh noes!

Another market failure is long-term investment in science or technology that are difficult, if not impossible to turn a profit in human time frames, e.g. NASA, NIH.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Free Markets were tried. They led to snake oil salesmen, things like mercury in the food and drink, and to unions and to corporations.



Whenever you leave people to their own devices, it always leads to a big huge tyrannical government, which is a why a government is needed to protect people's rights and liberties.


Leaving people to their own devices is generally not a good idea either. If there is no incentive to do something, however small or large, people just will not do things such as charity or things that are good. That means some people will be left out in the cold because there will be left out in the cold. There needs to be a third option, and there's nothing wrong with government providing a third option for people. However, like anything, that ideal can be abused as well.


First of all, define statism.

One of the problems that Libertarianism has is that it does not seem to acknowledge certain aspects of human nature. There are those who are envelope pushers, that is they purposefully test the boundaries of society's rules to see what they can get away with. Other people just feel that rules of society just don't apply to them.

For example, take the libertarian ideal of mediation. The only thing the people have to enforce an agreement is there word. And in the first place, if there is a conflict, and one person feels they are right no matter what, what rules and laws are there in place to handle such a situation? That's how laws are created, and that's what eventually leads to an ever more encroaching government as more and more legislation is created to micro manage a person's life.

Plus, that's a very loose definition of statism.

Well, do you remember how I always added as a caveat the phrase: "If you don't have some good reason"?

For example, I agree totally that there should be regulation of markets --- where any good reason can be provided.