Economic Freedom vs Social justice

There are several reasons, one being that there are too many moderate Republicans, including Bush himself, who has embraced Big Government. Congress, like I said, has largely refused to stand up for their conservative constituents and bowed to the White House's will.

Personally I think that many GOP Congressmen have this notion that since they control the legislature and the White House they need to solve all of the nations problems and prove they belong there, since they have no excuses this time, but this inevitably leads to more government spending and surprise surprise, problems left unsolved.

Also, many large spending increases were set into motion during 4-5 years ago when the Congress was turning out a surplus and had little incentive to control the budget.

And btw, here in Pennsylvania conservative doesn't automatically mean Republican. Just look at the Toomey/Specter battle (for a repeat, watch Swann/Scranton next year) to see what I mean.

Enough thread hijacking for now.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a straw man because no one is defending the former (and now displaced for more than a decade) Somali government -- and yet, when anarchists are called upon to defend the current, wretched condition in Somalia, they wash their hands and say "all the former government's fault" - thereby skirting the real issue, and constructing a veritable straw man in the form of the former Somali government. Perhaps it would have been more accurate had I said anarchists are scape-goating, or trying to present a red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you contend that if anachro-capitalism can't make an overnight success, it's a failure? The conditions set up by the previous regime have no effect on ability of the current regime to succeed? Why, then, did they southern US take so long to rebound after the civil war? Once the US was in charge, everything should have been rebuilt overnight, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Is there not a subtle (if not overt) sense among libertarians, and others (perhaps I haven't heard you specifically say this, but I sincerely doubt you disagree -- and I suspect, should I search your previous posts, I could find posts where you express a similar sentiment): that in political systems where government intervention into the private sector was exceedingly high, or where the private sector was non-existent (let's say, for instance, in communists states) -- that the failure of these communist states demonstrate why state intervention into the private sector leads to the inevitable failure of states?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that states, even communist ones, are inherently doomed to failure, at least not in that sense. Some states will fail, and competition with more efficient states can accellerate this process. Of course, over a long enough period, any given state will fail (many will be replaced by other states, though). But again, the failure of any one doesn't *prove* that all others will fail.

[ QUOTE ]
The authors of the article you linked to seem to believe that a benevolent government would do much to resolve some of the long-standing problems Somalia suffers from -- especially in transportation and education.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course they would - they're bureaucrats, after all. The point wasn't to highlight their recommendations, but their observations. The reality of Somalia, while clearly abysmal, is still quite different from the way it is often portrayed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument. I guess anyone that disagrees with the status quo should just pack up and leave rather than try to change anything. Nevermind my property rights, somebody else's "right" to tell me what to do is more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument -- it's the old "your continued presence here constitutes a tacit consent for state authority" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except it doesn't. Proximity doesn't give thugs legitimacy. Are those that live in neighborhoods where gangs operate consenting to gang activity?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Which do you think is more important, economic freedom or social justice, and why?

It is my belief that this question gets to the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the Right and the Left. Do you agree? If not, what do you think is the fundamental disagreement?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right?

...Soon, you will reach such an advanced state of mind that you will be conversing only in numbers, preceded by the dollar sign.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are they unable? Is it because they are "liberals"? That seems to be your only explination.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that they are, seeing as they show no signs of reducing government's involvement in people's everyday lives -- something that is representative of socialist or (modern) liberal ideology.

The way I see it, true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands who place a high value on the family as the fundamental building block of society, and families interacting with each other in ways which they deem mutually beneficial with only minimal involvement from a (secular) central authority.

In modern America I can't even SAY my views publicly without getting chastised. That's how far the country is from true conservatism (unfortunately), even when republicans are in power.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands who place a high value on the family as the fundamental building block of society, and families interacting with each other in ways which they deem mutually beneficial with only minimal involvement from a (secular) central authority.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could explain why you think this is "true conservatism"?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands who place a high value on the family as the fundamental building block of society, and families interacting with each other in ways which they deem mutually beneficial with only minimal involvement from a (secular) central authority.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could explain why you think this is "true conservatism"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is Russell Kirk's list of what he thinks conservativism is defined as.

Ten Conservative Principles (1993)

1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

For a further explanation, here is a link:

10 Conservative Principles

[BCPVP]

Awesome stuff, vulture. I liked what I read of The Conservative Mind last year (college library book and I had to leave college, so I've yet to finish it).

The only issue I take with the other guy's statement was that women should answer to their husbands. I should have said it more clearly before, but this is what I wanted elaboration on. I pretty much agree with everything else he said.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right?

...Soon, you will reach such an advanced state of mind that you will be conversing only in numbers, preceded by the dollar sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, he said "most". However, you could argue that religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights (assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right

Relax. He said *most*, not *all*.

Besides, you picked an obvious violation of freedom by government. the economic ones are more insidious. The various government entities that impinge on you economically do so incrementally. A 2% increase in one tax here, a 3% increase in certain fees there, etc. It's easy to show impingement on freedom when it's as obvious as stifling religious expression or speech. it's harder when your economic freedom is siphoned off a lttle at a time, all by "good programs" that "benefit society."

So yeah, economic freedom isn't the only aspect of social justice, but it sure is an integral part. Without the freedom to keep your money, there are precious few ways to utilize all those other freedoms.