What I do not understand about the conservative ideology

[natedogg]

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" these days tend to mean whatever it is an attacking critic wants it to mean at the time.

[ QUOTE ]

Mondern conservative positions on some issues in particular seem counterproductive and anachronistic, and are based on lawmakers' insistence on forcing people to do what they think is good for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to think of it this way. Republicans want you do what god knows is best for you. Democrats want you to do what the state knows is best for you.

Only the libertarians actually respect individual decision making.


[ QUOTE ]
Many of these positions relate to so-called "victimless crimes." For instance, why should somebody be punished for not wearing a seatbelt, underage drinking and gambling, smoking marijuana, or attempting/assisting another with suicide?

[/ QUOTE ]

All those examples apply to liberal politicians just as well. Your post should be asking "why do politicians of all stripes have such utter disdain for our individual decision making? Be it drug use, our retirement, diet, smoking, car insurance, gambling, you name it. They ALL want to decide for us".

And the stupid sheep keep voting for them and everyone is apparently convinced that the only issue of import is abortion, which by the way is the ONLY issue where liberal Democrats actually support individual liberty. In every other issue they just as hypocritical as, say Robert Bork.

natedogg

[HighStakesPro]

Abortion is slightly different than the other issues because it is less of an argument between individual libert and government authority as it is between whose individual liberty is more important, the mother's or the fetus's. Some of the issues like legalization of marijuana and underage gambling/drinking aren't as hotly contested because they don't involve life or death cases, except in the case of medical marijuana. Therefore, politicians don't have anything to gain by taking contrarian stances on these issues because if anything it will hurt their chances of getting re-elected. It is the same with the death penalty: going on record as opposing it is political suicide, so dissenters keep their mouths shut. I am sure that in particular the issue of the legal gambling age has been discussed on here but since I am relatively new I will open up a new thread to discuss it.

I'm glad I started this thread, gained some valuable insight from others who both agree and disagree with my point of view. However, as I feared, someone like JackWhite would come in and attack everyone who he disagrees with and start labeling people and parties as liberal and conservative, as though it was two sides waging war against each other, and furthermore framing the discussion as a clash between Democrats and Republicans.

These are just political parties comprised of people with very roughly similar ideologies, but it seems like he makes an effort to perpetuate the idea that Democrats are liberal and have one set of beliefs and Republicans are conservative and have an opposite set of beliefs; I was specifically trying to avoid the debate between one party and another, because all the parties are are groups of politicians who use clever rhetoric to syphon off tiny bits of the people straddling the political fence and recruit them to their ranks; they do not represent a pure ideology, only what will further their own agendas. I explained my position as to how government should be involved in people's lives as clearly as I could in a previous post: government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not tell them how they should live their lives. Collecting the optimal amount of taxes provides funds which can be spent on productive ventures to improve society without having too significant an impact on people's finances so that they cannot fully enjoy these improvements. If I want to committ suicide, I should not be barred from doing so by the government because some elected lawmakers have arbitrarily decided that it's immoral. That is for me to decide, not them. I hope these examples sufficiently illustrate my point of view on the ideal role of government.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not tell them how they should live their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your position has two major problems.

1. Who defines what it means to "improve the general populace's quality of life". That purpose sounds noble and laudable but when you are confronted with what that actually means, in terms of everyday governance, there is no simple answer, and plenty of room for disagreement. I have no doubts that I would disagree with you about many programs and regulations that you currently believe are there to meet that goal.

2. How exactly do you give govt the power to "improve the quality of life" but not give them the power to tell us "how we should live our lives". There is a thin line there between paternalistic protection and authoritarian coercion, and it makes for a bad governing principle.

Your view of govt depends entirely on the belief that only uncorruptable men of goodwill shall ever hold positions of power in the govt. This is naive at best.

natedogg