Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right is divided into three main camps: traditionalists, nationalists, and libertarians. Most of the contradictions on the right arise from disputes between these camps. I understand that individuals can have more consistent beliefs, but as a coalition it can get messy.
1) Citizenship is like union membership. You limit the supply of people who can participate in a system and enforce some uniform standards. So how can you be for closing borders and also be for union busting?
2) Abortion reduces the cost of the welfare state. How can you complain about the cost of the economically unproductive and at the same time be pro-life?
3) Religion is about social order and control, not liberty. Religious traditions come from a more authoritarian and communal time, and the attempted fusion of Enlightenment liberalism with traditional Christianity is silly. Those two systems were mortal enemies at one point.
4) Nationalists and traditionalists have a soft spot for economic autarky that has a terrible record of penury. A good example is the early part of Franco's Spain. Trade does enrich people, and also threatens customs and autonomy.
5) Libertarians ignore that the privatization of government functions has historically produced tyranny. Feudalism, in retrospect, was a privatized government owned by a claque of families, and run for their own benefit. Libertarians sometimes think that laws are self-enforcing, and imbue the social contract with too much power. In reality power must be dispersed and regulated to avoid tyranny.
I hope people will use this thread to look in the mirror and not point fingers.
Im honestly going to have a hard time critiquing indies like myself who take the time to look at individual policies on their merits , even if they decide upon a choice I disagree with.
I do have a libertarian streak in me, but recognize that it wont work well in todays society , so I don't really push it. Above all I would wish for absolute non statism, but that is a pipe dream also. So theres that. I wish for an individualism that isn't practical in modern society.
1. I don’t know any conservative that is against immigration. Most are against illegal immigration though. The problem with unions is they are not international, so foreign companies have an unfair advantage when competing against unionized American companies. That is why I support the use of tariffs to encourage foreign countries to adopt our labor laws.
2. An unborn baby is a human life. Doesn’t matter what economic effect they have.
3. Religion is about trying to make the laws reflect the liberties God has given us. Christian countries are the most free. Democracy was born in Christianity.
4. Nationalist countries have a far better record of reducing poverty than those with open trade. Keeping jobs within the country mostly helps out those at the bottom.
5. If a feudal government privatizes the economy for the benefit of the ruling family, how can you claim this is a libertarian principle. If fuedal governments freed all their serfs and let them do what they want, that would be libertarian.
No offense, but it sounds like you are mixing and matching things without any logic. Or else, you are a lot smarter than me and way above my level of philosophical sophistication.
1. I don’t know any conservative that is against immigration. Most are against illegal immigration though. The problem with unions is they are not international, so foreign companies have an unfair advantage when competing against unionized American companies. That is why I support the use of tariffs to encourage foreign countries to adopt our labor laws.
Many conservatives oppose immigration. I think your assertion is glib.
Your point about the asymmetry between international corporations and national unions is understood, but American conservatives fought a 100 year war against international communism which prevented international unions from forming. How do you square that circle?
Quote:
2. An unborn baby is a human life. Doesn’t matter what economic effect they have.
If that human life is so valuable, why don't you support a stronger welfare state to support it after it's born?
Quote:
3. Religion is about trying to make the laws reflect the liberties God has given us. Christian countries are the most free. Democracy was born in Christianity.
Democracy was born in pagan Greece. For 1000 years Christians used the "divine right of kings" to defend autocracy. Historically Christian countries are the most free because of the Enlightenment, and because the influence of Christianity was reduced.
Quote:
4. Nationalist countries have a far better record of reducing poverty than those with open trade. Keeping jobs within the country mostly helps out those at the bottom.
This is absolutely wrong. China was poorer than Africa when they had a closed economy under Mao. After opening up to trade their standard of living improved rapidly. Trade permits greater specialization and thus surplus.
Quote:
5. If a feudal government privatizes the economy for the benefit of the ruling family, how can you claim this is a libertarian principle. If fuedal governments freed all their serfs and let them do what they want, that would be libertarian.
Because in the absence of a strong state private actors capture the government. Are the rich people going to free the slaves out of the kindness of their hearts, or for the sake of a principle? Anarcho-capitalism is a silly pipe dream. Weak states lead to tyranny by cabals of private citizens.
1. I don’t know any conservative that is against immigration. Most are against illegal immigration though. The problem with unions is they are not international, so foreign companies have an unfair advantage when competing against unionized American companies. That is why I support the use of tariffs to encourage foreign countries to adopt our labor laws.
2. An unborn baby is a human life. Doesn’t matter what economic effect they have.
3. Religion is about trying to make the laws reflect the liberties God has given us. Christian countries are the most free. Democracy was born in Christianity.
4. Nationalist countries have a far better record of reducing poverty than those with open trade. Keeping jobs within the country mostly helps out those at the bottom.
5. If a feudal government privatizes the economy for the benefit of the ruling family, how can you claim this is a libertarian principle. If fuedal governments freed all their serfs and let them do what they want, that would be libertarian.
No offense, but it sounds like you are mixing and matching things without any logic. Or else, you are a lot smarter than me and way above my level of philosophical sophistication.
1.) Tariff = taxes on imports or exports. If we are taxing imports, the CONSUMER is paying them. The better idea is to convince the people to buy local instead of the inexpensive (though increasingly cheap (yes, there is a difference between the two) foreign stuff. Otherwise, a tariff will just result in a lot of angry consumers upset about why the product they purchase is now costing more than it used to.
2.) True
3.) Yes, though you have to be careful that you don't substitute your own traditions for the laws of God and enforce it as such. The Pharisees and the Medieval Catholic Church were notorious for this. Also, we don't want a caliphate (Sharia law) either. A moral society is a must where there is justice and morality is protected, not persecuted. The Left's "separation of church and state" is one extreme (a bad one) but theocracies only work if the leaders are moral. Otherwise, they go crooked, as was shown throughout the Bible when crooked people like Eli's sons held the priesthood, or when bad kings like Manasseh or Ahab ruled the land. Also, as was shown during Josiah's reign, good moral laws may work but if you don't change the people, the people will revert back to their bad ways, and perhaps even worse than that, once you are out of power.
4.) Nationalism where you protect your country (as opposed to selling it out to the United Nations or international corporations) is GOOD. Supporting your country first with the intentions of invading other countries, believing you are superior to them and thus should be their rightful rulers, not so much.
5.) Not quite sure what you are saying, but I think you are saying that if you let billionaires run the government (like charter schools (run by investors and others rather than locally elected school boards) them running agencies via social impact bonds, etc) instead of government bureaucrats, that it's really no better as they don't have much oversight. (The same goes if you, say, let Goldmann Sachs run Social Security instead of the federal government, that it doesn't necessarily mean more accountability as Goldmann Sachs could then buy politicians and keep itself immune from accountability.) You have another point. The Left argues that abortion is a woman's right. I digress, but even if it were, why does Planned Parenthood get $500,000,000 (or more) in federal funding each year? Sure, they claim that they don't use it for abortion (but it saves money that they could use elsewhere so they can spend it on abortion instead), and they then use that money to lobby for Democrat candidates which could, if elected, pass laws that could control their funding and their regulations (or lack thereof). Now, if they claim that it's a "right" supposedly protected by the Constitution is enough, then surely it would be fine if the NRA got $500,000,000 to help protect the 2nd Amendment and was allowed to donate money to Republican candidates, right? (Somehow, I don't think the David Hogg types would like that at all!).
Ok, off my rabbit trail, but, again, it doesn't matter if it's a so-called nonprofit like Planned Parenthood running these services if they are protected by federal courts and bought off politicians or if a corrupt federal agency (like the FBI) were running it, the end result is the same: corruption, waste, and abuse.
4) Nationalists and traditionalists have a soft spot for economic autarky that has a terrible record of penury. A good example is the early part of Franco's Spain. Trade does enrich people, and also threatens customs and autonomy.
This post has enriched my vocabulary.
Japan is an example of a place that has pretty much given up on autarky and autonomy as it would cease to function without trade and currently grows only about 40% of its own food. Still though, it has probably maintained itself as a coherent nation with customs intact to a greater degree than the nations of the West.
The left doesn't have a full sack between the lot of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
3. Religion is about trying to make the laws reflect the liberties God has given us. Christian countries are the most free. Democracy was born in Christianity.
Democracy was born out of limiting the power of religion. Christian countries aren't the most free, free countries are the most free. "Christian"'countries these days are no longer controlled by religion. Mich of the Middle East is.
Relgion in human practice is about controlling the population, that it is how it stays in power and relevant. Human practice of religion defys those liberties god instilled in us, mainly that of free will.
Last edited by LordSquidworth; 06-21-2018 at 08:28 PM..
3) Religion is about social order and control, not liberty. Religious traditions come from a more authoritarian and communal time, and the attempted fusion of Enlightenment liberalism with traditional Christianity is silly. Those two systems were mortal enemies at one point.
Yes, that's a great point. I think most deal with it by compartmentalizing. People might have two entirely separate worldviews, one Christian and one Enlightenment secular, that are internally consistent but when mixed together become riddled with contradictions and denial.
Yes, that's a great point. I think most deal with it by compartmentalizing. People might have two entirely separate worldviews, one Christian and one Enlightenment secular, that are internally consistent but when mixed together become riddled with contradictions and denial.
Many people compartmentalize by demanding the state be liberal and limited, while claiming the family as the purview of religion. Conveniently this means that the people above you (government) are restrained while the people under you (wife and children) are controlled.
More charitably, neither system has all the answers so holding both in your head at the same time is better than going whole hog for one or the other.
Politically the alliance between religious traditionalists and classical liberals makes perfect sense from a common enemy perspective. However when "fusionists" try to rectify the two they look stupid, like with the unfortunately named Liberty University.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
