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.
This doesn't surprise me at all. Do you think you would feel differently if you had children?
It's hard to reckon with counterfactuals. My whole, ahem, Weltanschauung is contingent upon not reproducing. To imagine the contrary would be like asking how I'd think of sexual morality if I were a Wahhabi Muslim or a Mennonite Christian. But in general terms, of course if I had kids I'd be more concerned about safety and order and risk-reduction, and less concerned about raw individual primacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
But what if you don't even want to be part of "civil society"? What if you're basically Ted Kaczynski?
Kaczynski intentionally set out to harm people. It's a bit hard to defend such behavior. But if you refer to his lament that society has become too dominated by powerful technology-driven forces, then the man was ahead of his time. Such message would be broadly hailed today, by both sides.
I don't wish to completely absent myself from civil society. I enjoy having internet access, grocery stores nearby, paved roads and city parks. What I lament is the weighing of public health and safety, vs. the necessary compromises. I prefer a society that takes greater risks, allows more tragedies, gives less support in case of failure and has more lax limits. Imagine a society run by fraternity bros. They're still a society... living in a house, paying the electric bill, having a system of recruiting new members and "pledging" and so forth... even a code of honor and a threat of expulsion for bad behavior. But it's a society of hard drinking, impressing each other with flexed biceps, telling tall-tales about sexual exploits, and arguing about whether Porsche or Ferrari is faster. It's a society where the emphasis is less on managing high blood pressure, paying the mortgage, or taking the kids to soccer practice... and more about snapping towels in the locker room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
My overarching point is, when we say "conservative" we know what we mean. Just because something has existed for 50 years doesn't make it conservative. Just because it has existed for 100 years doesn't make it conservative. Even something that existed in 1776, doesn't make it conservative....
But DO we really know what "conservatism" means?
If "conservatism" means leaving alone a longstanding way of doing things, either from veneration of our forebears or from aversion to the risk entailed in making changes, then the opposite of your assertion could be argued. If in our village we smoked pot, swapped sexual partners, never used money and shared property in-common for the past 500 years, then the conservative approach would be to keep doing these things. It would instead be "progressive" or even outright radical, to pair up as monogamous married couples, to ban drugs, to buy houses and to secure private property in said houses.
If instead "conservatism" means favoring one's tribe or kin-group or city-state, taking skeptical view of outsiders, then the much-maligned recent idea of "globalism" would be progressive and radical. So, a corporation that wants to offshore its manufacturing, to have a data-center in India and to bring-in H1B software engineers, would be anti-conservative... even all of these things are pro-business and advance the interests of the shareholders.
If "conservatism" means a deference to ordained authority, then defunding the police is the height of radicalism. If on the other hand, if "conservatism" means every-man-for-himself individualism, and an entrenched skepticism of authority, well then, we have the exact opposite.
so when is conservative conservative? The problem comes up, if we observe an injustice and wish to invoke the power of the State to correct the injustice. So for a self-styled conservative, abortion is an injustice. The remedy is a muscular state that bans abortion and has strong police-powers to enforce that ban. Meanwhile for a self-styled liberal in the "woke" era, writing a physics textbook where an experimenter is referred to, using male pronouns, is an injustice. The remedy is a muscular state that censors or rewrites or bans such a textbook, and has strong police powers to enforce the ban.
Of course if I had kids I'd be more concerned about safety and order and risk-reduction, and less concerned about raw individual primacy.
You're human after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Kaczynski intentionally set out to harm people. It's a bit hard to defend such behavior.
Sam Harris was discussing a belief in hell and gave two examples. In one example a man was kidnapping children, locking them in his basement, raping and then murdering them. In another example, the same man was preaching a heresy to the children, leading them away from god.
Which is the more dangerous man?
To the Christian it would be the latter. In the former, only he is condemned to hell. In the latter, he condemns both himself and the children.
Ironically, Kaczynski believed he was saving humanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
I enjoy having internet access, grocery stores nearby, paved roads and city parks. What I lament is the weighing of public health and safety, vs. the necessary compromises. I prefer a society that takes greater risks, allows more tragedies, gives less support in case of failure and has more lax limits.
You believe this because it has utility for you. Basically, you support that which provides you the most perceived gain. So what is it that you want? What makes you happy? And if you didn't have internet access or paved roads, would you be less happy? Were your ancestors less happy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
But DO we really know what "conservatism" means? If "conservatism" means leaving alone a longstanding way of doing things
We know where it comes from, its psychological and biological pathway. To answer all of the questions you raised, watch this video.
"Low income" people generally don't pay federal taxes anyway. How do you "cut" taxes that don't exist?
People that EMPLOY those people and who pay the most in taxes got tax cuts though, which benefit everyone. Also, 0.0% of social security was cut.
Dead employees and consumers? So your solution is bigger government? How many dead people have governments been responsible for over the course of history? It's an ASTROMICAL number. I'm glad you believe angels in government will save you.
It's not the 1800s anymore. There were a lot of weird things that happened then, and it wasn't because we didn't have enough "government."
America IS the richest country in the world by leaps and bounds. I'm not talking about tiny countries that skew that number. We have the most opportunity and it's why we lead the world in immigration requests by leaps and bounds. Capitalism ISN'T A GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS. I'm surprised you don't understand that? It doesn't guarantee anything, but it allows as equal of opportunity as there can be.
So what happened to the Dixie states who are pretty much in poverty and rely on the federal government for aide
Sam Harris was discussing a belief in hell and gave two examples. In one example a man was kidnapping children, locking them in his basement, raping and then murdering them. In another example, the same man was preaching a heresy to the children, leading them away from god.
Which is the more dangerous man?
To the Christian it would be the latter. In the former, only he is condemned to hell. In the latter, he condemns both himself and the children.
To your point, that depends on our world-view. In yet another alternative, if the people of my village believe that we've been having bad harvests because the gods are angry, and to placate the gods we need to sacrifice a bunch of children, then the man who whisks these kids from the sacrificial-altar and hides them away from danger, is committing a gross immorality.
But to the thread's point: in your own example, which of the two positions is the more conservative, and which, the more liberal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Basically, you support that which provides you the most perceived gain. So what is it that you want?
You know, most commonly, threads start out in some forum, go awry, and get banished to the Politics forum, as punishment for snide bickering instead of good discussion. Now we're going in the reverse, out of Politics and into Philosophy or Psychology. But in brief, I most prize some blending of autonomy and convenience. This means to be as little beholden to others, as possible; but simultaneously, to have to resort as little to my own faculties (growing crops, picking berries, hunting for caribou, weaving fishing-nets) as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
We know where it comes from, its psychological and biological pathway. To answer all of the questions you raised, watch this video.
OK, the crux of the video is that of the 5 main “moral dimensions”, conservatives care about “purity”, “in-group loyalty” and “authority”, far more so, than do liberals. There is reportedly a very clear trend. This jives with our intuition, when we think of conservatives as Puritans and liberals as, well, libertines… or conservatives insisting on the beauty of a well-ordered society, while liberals hanker for dynamism, churn and change.
But it’s more subtle than that. If a modern liberal is offended by derogatory speech, and seeks to restrict such speech, is this not a question of “purity”? Likewise, if a modern liberal decries a milquetoast environmentalist conceding that we still need fossil fuels, and that a warming of the earth is inevitable, and hearing this, seeks to banish said person… well, is this not “in-group loyalty”? On the other hand, what of the conservative who pans the government as being abusive, rapacious and illegitimate; is this not a disavowal of authority?
The point is not to cherry-pick exceptions to the rule, but to note, that in a complicated marketplace of ideas, the intuitive associations of what it means to be a liberal or a conservative, get scrambled.
In yet another alternative, if the people of my village believe that we've been having bad harvests because the gods are angry, and to placate the gods we need to sacrifice a bunch of children, then the man who whisks these kids from the sacrificial-altar and hides them away from danger, is committing a gross immorality. But to the thread's point: in your own example, which of the two positions is the more conservative, and which, the more liberal?
I want to say conservative because conservatives are more likely to defer to authority. Thus if the authorities say it needs to be done, they'll go along with it. But on the principle of sacrificing the few for the good of the many, leftists seem to be the most eager of all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Out of Politics and into Philosophy or Psychology. But in brief, I most prize some blending of autonomy and convenience. This means to be as little beholden to others, as possible; but simultaneously, to have to resort as little to my own faculties (growing crops, picking berries, hunting for caribou, weaving fishing-nets) as possible.
What would politics be without philosophy? Just people screaming at each other, belittling each other, making demands.
On the topic of philosophy. Why do you do anything? Whatever your answer, isn't the true answer to everything, "To be happy"?
Are you happy? Why do you think these things will make you happy? If you won the lottery tomorrow, and could do anything you want, do you think you would be happier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
1) But it’s more subtle than that. If a modern liberal is offended by derogatory speech, and seeks to restrict such speech, is this not a question of “purity”?
2) If a modern liberal decries a milquetoast environmentalist conceding that we still need fossil fuels, and that a warming of the earth is inevitable, and hearing this, seeks to banish said person… well, is this not “in-group loyalty”?
3) On the other hand, what of the conservative who pans the government as being abusive, rapacious and illegitimate; is this not a disavowal of authority? The point is not to cherry-pick exceptions to the rule, but to note, that in a complicated marketplace of ideas
1) It might also be fairness/equality. I think purity is more about cleanliness and virtue.
2) I don't know if seeking to banish someone because you don't like what they have to say is necessarily in-group loyalty, even if it is a fellow environmentalist. Though I guess it could be if the only reason is because you felt stabbed in the back.
3) He lists five main values. Authority is not the only or the highest. His main argument is that liberals tend to only have two values(fairness and care). While conservatives have five values, three of which most liberals not only don't have, but actually oppose. He doesn't mention it, but I'm pretty sure libertarians score low on all five.
I don't know if conservatives believe we should have unlimited submission to all authority, but they do believe that some kind of authority is necessary and good. I would assume if that authority was abusing its power and violating the other values, conservatives would no longer see that authority as legitimate.
I mean, Islamic fundamentalists are constantly trying to overthrow authority in the Middle-East, but that is only because they don't think the governments are conservative enough.
The reason I brought all this up, was to show that there really is a base psychological difference between conservatives and liberals. It isn't just "those who want to change stuff" vs "those who want to keep things the same".
On the topic of philosophy. Why do you do anything? Whatever your answer, isn't the true answer to everything, "To be happy"?
Eudaimonia? We'd have to be more specific about what's meant by "happiness".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
If you won the lottery tomorrow, and could do anything you want, do you think you would be happier?
No. Reasons are legion, but one is that money has tremendous achievement-value. Lottery winnings might be great for buying a house in the Los Angeles hills (assuming that the winnings are sufficiently large), but they don't provide achievement-value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
... He doesn't mention it, but I'm pretty sure libertarians score low on all five. ...
The reason I brought all this up, was to show that there really is a base psychological difference between conservatives and liberals. It isn't just "those who want to change stuff" vs "those who want to keep things the same".
The hypothesis of correlation between mental-maps (psychology) and political orientation, is plausible and intriguing. But I’m not yet convinced. For example, it does not explain the commonly-regarded (and probably true) trend that people grow more conservative as they get older. Presumably their mental maps don’t change much, those being largely wired already during childhood. So what changes?
Another plausible alternative is individualism vs. communitarianism (I hesitate to say “collectivism”, that being a freighted term). An individually-minded person who is weak or vulnerable, would prefer a vigorous system of support, to enable him to rise. An individually-minded person who is already strong and well-established, would prefer a weak system, that gets out of the way, and burdens him the least. A more communitarian-minded person who is in a position of weakness, would think of a vigorous support-system as being wasteful and oppressive, since even if it benefits him personally, it is too staid and ponderous. A more communitarian-minded person in a position of strength, would regard a loose and hands-off government as being derelict in its duty, and thus, unfair.
So for a 20-year-old college kid with $0 net worth, a “what’s in it for me” mindset is student-loan forgiveness, government-led job training and job placement programs, and later, home-buying assistance. For a 35-year-old blue collar worker, a “what’s in it for me” mindset is brutal crackdown on illegal aliens, a closure of the borders, and a trade-policy that punishes offshoring even at the cost of higher prices or less GDP growth. For a 50-year-old late-career profession worth tens of millions of dollars, a “what’s in it for me” mindset is abolition of the social safety net, minimal taxes, and free-trade.
As to your point about Libertarians scoring low on all 5 categories (is there a citation for that, BTW?), well, I find myself scoring low on 4 out of 5, the one high one being fairness. So for example if my employer cheats me, it is only fair that I cheat my employer. Whereas a person who treats me with kindness and deference, deserves my like regard, even if this person is a terrorist or child-molester. Anything less would be dishonorable. And that introduces a sixth category: honor and prestige. More than just an appetite, can it be regarded as moral-good?
Eudaimonia? We'd have to be more specific about what's meant by "happiness".
What do you think it means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
They don't provide achievement-value.
Have you read, Industrial society and its future by Ted Kaczynski? Isn't this basically his argument for why industrial society needs to be destroyed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
The hypothesis of correlation between mental-maps (psychology) and political orientation, is plausible and intriguing. But I’m not yet convinced. For example, it does not explain the commonly-regarded (and probably true) trend that people grow more conservative as they get older. Presumably their mental maps don’t change much, those being largely wired already during childhood. So what changes?
Coming from myself, I think my "mental map" was always the same. I've always had more-or-less the same opinions but when I was younger I was more tolerant. Tolerate doesn't mean to accept, it means to allow. As a single childless man, you can tolerate a lot of things as long as you don't feel threatened by them. You might be appalled at other people's drug use and sexual improprieties, but you feel little to no compulsion to stop them.
As you get older, and especially once you have children or people you feel responsible for, you realize that everyone's behavior affects everyone. These things don't just stay in people's bedrooms, they proliferate out across society. Tinder isn't just something that affects the users of Tinder, it affects everyone. Drugs don't only affect the user, they affect everyone. Etc.
A lot of times people who are young tend to be more permissive because they don't know enough to have an opinion. Their values are still there, but they haven't yet been applied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
An individually-minded person who is weak or vulnerable, would prefer a vigorous system of support, to enable him to rise. An individually-minded person who is already strong and well-established, would prefer a weak system, that gets out of the way, and burdens him the least.
I agree with your observation, but if these were the case, neither of the two actually find equality important. At best the first one will claim it is important for personal gain. Thus what someone claims as their values are merely what they manufactured for selfish reasons.
But this would really only apply to economic issues, it wouldn't apply to social issues(IE morality) where the gap is most pronounced. Especially not for values like "purity".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
So for a 20-year-old college kid with $0 net worth, a “what’s in it for me” mindset is student-loan forgiveness, government-led job training and job placement programs, and later, home-buying assistance. For a 35-year-old blue collar worker, a “what’s in it for me” mindset is brutal crackdown on illegal aliens, a closure of the borders, and a trade-policy that punishes offshoring even at the cost of higher prices or less GDP growth. For a 50-year-old late-career profession worth tens of millions of dollars, a “what’s in it for me” mindset is abolition of the social safety net, minimal taxes, and free-trade.
Low taxes is not more conservative than high taxes. In fact, high taxes is in many cases more conservative than low taxes. Conservatism as a mindset has almost nothing to do with money. Conservatives generally vote Republican, but that doesn't mean Republicans are conservative. In fact, there are a lot of conservatives who vote Democrat. Also, libertarians are nearly a third of the Republican coalition, and they most definitely are not conservative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
As to your point about Libertarians scoring low on all 5 categories (is there a citation for that, BTW?)... honor and prestige.
There is no citation but it seemed reasonable. As for honor and prestige, I think it falls under the category of purity, which is actually purity/sanctity. Sanctity means "important and deserving of respect"(sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, etc).
"Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation."
Edit: For me it isn't honor and prestige, but rather "respect". Respect is very important to me. While I think everyone should be respected, I think some people deserve it more than others. I think respectful and honorable kind of go hand-in-hand.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-03-2021 at 07:42 AM..
Keep doubling down on Donald Trump and I'd say its a cold stone cinch. The GOP has pretty much thrown every single one of its principles overboard when it comes to supporting Donald Trump, so that it now looks like a collection of grifters, loons, theocrats, halfwits, and spineless cowards. Just freaking unbelievable. And I'm a guy who voted for every GOP candidate from Reagan onward, right up to 2016.
We used to be the party of Reagan, George Will, George H.W. Bush (Not his idiot son), George Schultz, and a ton of other dedicated people with an actual governing vision and some kind of sense of right and wrong. You might not have agreed with them, but you knew they had the country's interests in mind. Now we're the party of Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, and an assortment of other creeps and fools. How did we get from Point A to Point B over the course of 40 years?
Keep doubling down on Donald Trump and I'd say its a cold stone cinch. The GOP has pretty much thrown every single one of its principles overboard when it comes to supporting Donald Trump, so that it now looks like a collection of grifters, loons, theocrats, halfwits, and spineless cowards. Just freaking unbelievable. And I'm a guy who voted for every GOP candidate from Reagan onward, right up to 2016.
We used to be the party of Reagan, George Will, George H.W. Bush (Not his idiot son), George Schultz, and a ton of other dedicated people with an actual governing vision and some kind of sense of right and wrong. You might not have agreed with them, but you knew they had the country's interests in mind. Now we're the party of Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, and an assortment of other creeps and fools. How did we get from Point A to Point B over the course of 40 years?
Here’s how:
Reagan was Trump Lite: a reactionary showman who promised to make America great again. H.W. Bush brought the party back to its core values, but lost because of a minor economic slump. Dubya led the party into the depths of Neoconservatism and destroyed the Republican brand. Trump simply filled the vacuum left by Dubya.
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.
