What I do not understand about the conservative ideology

[HighStakesPro]

[ QUOTE ]
put yourself in the position of someone who believes that abortion is the mass murder of unborn children. Do you really expect them to care whether this in consistent with wanting to pay lower taxes?

these things are not black and white dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I understand that abortion and limited taxation are not really comparable issues, but while I can completely understand how someone could view abortion on a personal level as "mass murder and unborn children", the idea of allowing allowing people the freedom to spend money as they choose is consistent with the idea of allowing women decide if they want to abort. The main thing that the issue of abortion has in common with the other issues I listed with it is that lawmakers are making deciding what people should do, not the people themselves, and like the other issues the debate between government authority vs personal authority is eclipsed by the debate between religion-based morality vs real-world practicality.

[HighStakesPro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why do they often oppose the side that would seem to support "limited government" on other issues, like legalization of marijuana, lower legal age for drinking/gambling, assisted/attempted suicide, censorship, abortion, gay marriage, and sodomy, among othes?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you prefer the liberal/Democratic Party position on those issues? Give me some examples of prominent Democrats who advocate gay marriage, legalizing drugs, lowering the drinking age etc...

If Conservatives are hypocrits for advocating more governmental powers on certain issues, while criticizing governmental intervention on other issues, then why aren't liberals hypocrits for taking the exact opposite positions on those issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to position this as one party or ideology against another. Nor do I subscribe to any one party's platform. My personal view is that government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not to tell them how to go about their lives. That is why I support the idea of more progressive income taxes which are weighted more towards the wealthiest of Americans, but this is another topic for debate in a separate thread.

[RickyG]

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are the true conservatives

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually misinformation. Liberarians are true Liberals in the original sense of the word. What we call liberals (or progressives I guess) now are closer to democratic socialists.


What is called conservative today would fall closer to fascism or authoritarianism.

EDIT: I guess that line was redundant as you already said it. Oh well.

[RickyG]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal view is that government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not to tell them how to go about their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original purpose of this government was indeed that improvement of the general populace's life, but in the very specific manner of protecting my rights from being infringed from you, not in protectin me from myself. The change began when we the people forgot that this was a republic where the representatives of the people did not have the power to take away the rights of a person who was not infringing on the rights of other (ie drug users, people who wish to commit suicide, homosexuals, prostitutes, etc.) All of these things may be "bad" or "wrong" in your world view, but theoretically, there should be nothing you can do about it.

If you are concerned about increased violence from drug users, the crime is still violence, not the use of drugs.

The other problem is that people have a tendency to like to vote to give away other people's property. This goes back to the beginning of the republic. There is a great speech given by Congressman Davey Crocket that talks about this exact thing. http://www.greaterthings.com/supplem...ey_crocket.htm

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are the true conservatives

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually misinformation. Liberarians are true Liberals in the original sense of the word. What we call liberals (or progressives I guess) now are closer to democratic socialists.


What is called conservative today would fall closer to fascism or authoritarianism.

EDIT: I guess that line was redundant as you already said it. Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Ricky Ricky, you're wrong. Don't get involved in this if you don't know what you are talking about.

Conservatism is about restricting the power of government in all areas. The modern day Libertarian Party best fits that description, especially considering the fact that government spending has grown faster under Bush than his recent Democratic predecessors.

[HighStakesPro]

Wow, I read that story in the link you posted, and it's truly amazing. Growing up in the generation of media sensationalism and political posturing and badmouthing really inoculated me to politicins' attempts to fraternize and mingle with common citizens. I was shocked that a dialogue like this could be so enlightening and effective in deepening Crockett's understanding of the constitution and garnering such ardent support for his reelection - all because of Bunce's immaculate reputation, as Crockett described: [ QUOTE ]
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words, but in act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances."

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly suggest that anyone reading this thread read the speech:
http://www.greaterthings.com/supplem...ey_crocket.htm

One other thing I was wondering about Ricky: The main point about not arbitrarily spending the people's money in exclusion of the budget does seem somewhat unconstitutional (though I am by no means an expert on the Constitution), but there are some situations, like in the case of natural disasters or terrorist attacks, where the damage is so devastating and far-reaching that it halts local and national economies and even disrupts the administration of government. In addition, there are unforseeable international events (like septempber 11th and the war in Afghanistan, and the Thailand tsunami) that require swift actio and the expenditure of funds to maintain international economic interests, productive foreign relations, and national security and integrity. In principle it seems like the same thing that Crockett described as unconstitutional, yet in practice it seems like at the very least a necessary breach of the constitution, or is there something in the constitution that provides for expenditures like these? How would Crockett view spending revenue like this? Or is there something obvious that I'm missing that differentiates these scenarios from the one Crockett was referring to?

Thanks again for posting the link to that speech.

[lehighguy]

Telling someone that believes life begins at conception that the government shouldn't be involved in abortion cases would be equivilant to telling them the government shouldn't be involved in prosecuting murderers. We all agree the government is allowed to prosecute murderers right.

[MMMMMM]

I fail to understand why libertarians should be considered the "true conservatives". Libertarians are essentially laissez-faire both in economics AND in social matters. If anything, that strikes me as being the "true liberals" rather than the "true conservatives". Liberal = "to allow", and libertarians generally favor allowing the widest choice in both social and economic matters.

[lehighguy]

I think its how words used to be used. A long time ago conservatives had views much closer to libraterians. That is on an idealogical level.

On a governance level repubs have no principles at all. Thier current budgetary shinanigans is proof of that.

[HighStakesPro]

Yes, but the reason the government prosecutes murderes (and perpetrators of any other legitimate crime) is because they are a threat to the general society and have proven themselves to be a threat to society and the well-being of others. This is why I stated that the issue of abortion is a debate between religion-based morality and real-world practicality. Women who abort are not violent or a danger to society, and other than the fetus nobody is directly or indirectly victimized. If you murder someone, you victimize not only that person, but their family members, coworkers, friends, their neighboorhood, community, and society in general. This is not the case with an aborted fetus. The only conceivable victim is the fetus, and obviously the debate over whether the fetus is a life is why abortion is so controversial. I am not arguing for or against abortion, I'm simply pointing out that it is similar to other "crimes" like assisted/attempted suicide, drug usage, and underage drinking/gambling in that it does not jeopardize others or society in general, and therefore, at most, is a crime only in theory and not practice.

On a side note, why do people bomb abortion clinics? Is there a more blatant example of hypocrisy? I'm not trying to attack the pro-life argument in general by mentioning abortion clinic bombers, but it's pretty amazing that people will take such actions that defeat their own purpose.