What I do not understand about the conservative ideology

[HighStakesPro]

I know that conservatives have, throughout this country's history, generally advocated "limited government", supporting such ideas as limited taxation, limits on gun control, more power to the states/weaker central government, free trade, stronger property rights, opposition to affirmative action, etc.

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?

I know that there are different arguments for each of these issues that go beyond how much the government should control one's actions, but it seems to me like in all of these cases, the usual conservative propensity for limited government is superceded by a strict adherance to the Christian ethos. This worried me because it violates the separation of church and state that is supposed to prevail in all branches of government.

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. 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? The only potential victim is the perpetrator (in the case of assisted suicide I will presume mutual consent.) Wouldn't someone who supports limited government oppose the criminality of such actions? In the case of underage activities, why not at the very least take decisionmaking authority away from legislators and grant it to a parent or guardian? A parent or guardian must be present for someone under 17 to see a rated R movie, so why should it be any different for drinking or gambling?

I know that there will be some contrasting opinions on this subject so I would appreciate it if all who respond would please be civil and refrain from describing me or others as "liberals", "leftists", or other uncomplimentary characterizations. Hope this turns into an interesting discussion thread [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Dead]

Libertarians are the true conservatives.

Today's "Conservatives" are really fascist authoritarians.

[lehighguy]

What dead said.

[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.

[Myrtle]

The whole issue of labeling anyone’s political views (in toto) baffles me.

Most of us who post here pretend to be poker players.

Good poker players understand that +EV is gained by ‘making good decisions’, not by sticking to one broad-based platform that attempts to deal with all specifics by embracing a ‘one size fits all’ strategy.

Making good decisions is fundamentally based upon analyzing and understanding the dynamics of each particular hand one participates in, so that the best decision for that hand can be made.

Why is it that in this forum here on 2+2 we can so easily depart from this discipline when the subject is politics?

Is it instinct that causes us to revert to some sort of tribalistic credo where our overwhelming need to belong to part of a larger group precedes our common sense?

Do we, as individuals, have some sort of overwhelming need for security of numbers that support our position that overrides the discipline of examining each and every issue on its’ own merit?

As I’m writing this, and thinking about it, perhaps that explains why most poker players are –EV?

Perhaps most of us simply cannot get away from the faulty thinking processes that have been so thoroughly ingrained in us since childhood?

I can’t help but wonder that if each of us could look at some of these issues, without viewing it through our own ‘rose-colored’ political ideological eyeglasses, that all of us might be much better off.

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't really think this is the case on this forums. There are a lot of posters on the conservative side who would take a liberal stand on social issues. Look at threads on medical marijuana, civil liberties, etc. There are some who tow the party line, but not the majority.

I also think the same is true of the liberals. Many of them are more open to free markets than the standard definition or the party line would make them.

Back to your poker analogy we typically label other players LAG, Maniac, Rock, etc. But often think that we don't fit a label, we are usually TAG, but will adjust our games when the situation calls for it. I think many of the posters on this forum, (or at least the posters that I still read) have a somewhat similar approach to political discussion.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are the true conservatives.

Today's "Conservatives" are really fascist authoritarians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please define "fascist authoritarians," then give me a few examples so I know what you are referring to. Thanks.

[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.

[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.