A Conservative Wakes Up

[Diuretic]

What does the conservative do and why? Does she stay or leave for a nation that allows more economic freedoms, more profit, and is similar to her core ideological position up to her coma? Or does she change and stay, why?

She stays. She looks at the other nation and realises that she wasn't born into a position of privilege; she has no political pull to enable her to be dragged up into the upper classes of the other nation; she realises that privileged classes reproduce within themselves to exclude potential newcomers, so she may as well stay where she is as her own interests are best served there.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Common sense and Librulism

why is it that people on these boards spell "liberal" incorrectly? Do they realize it makes them appear uneducated?

Good Lord, you liberoidals are idiots.

it's almost ironic...

seriously, can someone, conservative or otherwise, explain why people don't spell that word right? I think I'm missing something here.

I think in this scenario, the person in question has instilled values, principles. Why would anyone give up what they know to be correct just because their surroundings have changed? (And I mean society in this scenario).

That's actually the entire premise behind science and logic. You give up what you thought true based on the facts that present themselves. In this case, if she "knew" a society of that nature would fail but awoke to it in stability, then she would be foolish to hold to her "values" as they are blatantly contradictory to the situation before her. (Tho there's like a 40% chance I completely misinterpreted you. If so, please clarify)

For this alleged utopian society, after these perfectly equal citizens are done paying taxes (or whatever Utopia calls its taxes), how much is left over? Anything? Can anything be left over? IF I have something left over, but CF has nothing left over, there goes the premise of absolute equality, too.

The system invisioned cannot work. Absolutely impossible.

Actually Denmark already has a pretty similar (tho not extreme) system in place, with income tax exceeding 50%, and it is widely recognized as having the happiest people in the world.

Oh but that's impossible... eh?


EDIT: answer to the thought experiment: whatever she wants

 

[garyd]

Denmark is a homgenous 5 million people. The society envisioned works only for very small groups of like minded religionists. And no Denmark isn't even close since nothing is free. Solmeone always pays somewhere along the line.

By the way in some states by the time you combine state federal and local taxes you already pay more than 50% of your income if you make much above 100k

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Denmark is a homgenous 5 million people. The society envisioned works only for very small groups of like minded religionists. And no Denmark isn't even close since nothing is free. Solmeone always pays somewhere along the line.

By the way in some states by the time you combine state federal and local taxes you already pay more than 50% of your income if you make much above 100k

which states would those be?

ok so you're saying denmark "doesn't count" cuz they are too similar? And you claim nothing is "free" because someone has to pay. Yes, the government does. If you want to start a club or event, the government picks up the tab.

 

[midcan5]

What does the conservative do and why? Does she stay or leave for a nation that allows more economic freedoms, more profit, and is similar to her core ideological position up to her coma? Or does she change and stay, why?

She stays. She looks at the other nation and realises that she wasn't born into a position of privilege; she has no political pull to enable her to be dragged up into the upper classes of the other nation; she realises that privileged classes reproduce within themselves to exclude potential newcomers, so she may as well stay where she is as her own interests are best served there.

Yes, that sounds right.

 

[midcan5]

This has been an interesting discussion. Many conservatives see the example as Utopian and not realistic, they bring into the discussion their biases towards ideas that seem too good to be true. A few mention that people would never behave this way but consider that the same people do not want any central authorities - but then claim the same people (often conservatives) will provide the necessary charity and care. Can you have it both ways and do people really have the time.

Free services was a sticking point for some. I agree nothing is really free. By that I meant services were paid for out of a large pot as we now do for federal roads.

I wasn't sure what the conservative would do when I thought this up, but then I thought why would the conservative leave, she may stay. I agree with the few people who also noted that possibility.

Other conservatives glorify the concept that more freedom exists in the unequal society. I purposely wanted both places to be similar as freedom is often used in so vague and hazy a way as to have no real meaning. This actually returns us to a modern liberal idea that freedom really means nothing if you can do nothing. Saying I am free is like saying I am good person. Prove it. (my nutshells on freedom)

And then some suggested that a liberal would leave; the conservative would stay. This too is an interesting irony of ideological stances. Conservatives are often for the here and now while liberals hope progress makes things a little nicer. A neat twist on things and food for thought.

Any more input.

 

[Ringel05]

This has been an interesting discussion. Many conservatives see the example as Utopian and not realistic, they bring into the discussion their biases towards ideas that seem too good to be true. A few mention that people would never behave this way but consider that the same people do not want any central authorities - but then claim the same people (often conservatives) will provide the necessary charity and care. Can you have it both ways and do people really have the time.

Free services was a sticking point for some. I agree nothing is really free. By that I meant services were paid for out of a large pot as we now do for federal roads.

I wasn't sure what the conservative would do when I thought this up, but then I thought why would the conservative leave, she may stay. I agree with the few people who also noted that possibility.

Other conservatives glorify the concept that more freedom exists in the unequal society. I purposely wanted both places to be similar as freedom is often used in so vague and hazy a way as to have no real meaning. This actually returns us to a modern liberal idea that freedom really means nothing if you can do nothing. Saying I am free is like saying I am good person. Prove it. (my nutshells on freedom)

And then some suggested that a liberal would leave; the conservative would stay. This too is an interesting irony of ideological stances. Conservatives are often for the here and now while liberals hope progress makes things a little nicer. A neat twist on things and food for thought.

Any more input.

Interesting take on the responses, you did bring in your own bias in your assessment but this (for most people) is unavoidable. Part of the problem with the "exercise" are the terms liberal and conservative and how you applied them. Conservatism is nothing more than laissez-faire while liberalism embraces change (to one degree or another). Those living in your "communal" world would be the conservatives of that society while anyone opposed or wishing change would be the liberals. If the society you mentioned was your utopia and you were living within it you would then be the conservative, not the liberal.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting take on the responses, you did bring in your own bias in your assessment but this (for most people) is unavoidable. Part of the problem with the "exercise" are the terms liberal and conservative and how you applied them. Conservatism is nothing more than laissez-faire while liberalism embraces change (to one degree or another). Those living in your "communal" world would be the conservatives of that society while anyone opposed or wishing change would be the liberals. If the society you mentioned was your utopia and you were living within it you would then be the conservative, not the liberal.

Actually I tried (wanted) to keep liberal out of the picture completely. The idea was why are these ideas wrong to the conservative and how would they react if this was the world. But as soon as you mention egalitarian you move left. Still I think it worked as the conservatives on the board had no clear answer. I am not sure where you place yourself .

Since conservatives have managed to make liberal a bad word what really is a conservative. Seems they don't really know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting take on the responses, you did bring in your own bias in your assessment but this (for most people) is unavoidable. Part of the problem with the "exercise" are the terms liberal and conservative and how you applied them. Conservatism is nothing more than laissez-faire while liberalism embraces change (to one degree or another). Those living in your "communal" world would be the conservatives of that society while anyone opposed or wishing change would be the liberals. If the society you mentioned was your utopia and you were living within it you would then be the conservative, not the liberal.

Actually I tried (wanted) to keep liberal out of the picture completely. The idea was why are these ideas wrong to the conservative and how would they react if this was the world. But as soon as you mention egalitarian you move left. Still I think it worked as the conservatives on the board had no clear answer. I am not sure where you place yourself .

Since conservatives have managed to make liberal a bad word what really is a conservative. Seems they don't really know.

Um, remind me again, who calls themselves "Progressives"?

 

[Liability]

Interesting take on the responses, you did bring in your own bias in your assessment but this (for most people) is unavoidable. Part of the problem with the "exercise" are the terms liberal and conservative and how you applied them. Conservatism is nothing more than laissez-faire while liberalism embraces change (to one degree or another). Those living in your "communal" world would be the conservatives of that society while anyone opposed or wishing change would be the liberals. If the society you mentioned was your utopia and you were living within it you would then be the conservative, not the liberal.

Actually I tried (wanted) to keep liberal out of the picture completely. The idea was why are these ideas wrong to the conservative and how would they react if this was the world. But as soon as you mention egalitarian you move left. Still I think it worked as the conservatives on the board had no clear answer. I am not sure where you place yourself .

Since conservatives have managed to make liberal a bad word what really is a conservative. Seems they don't really know.

Um, remind me again, who calls themselves "Progressives"?

Only liberals who don't like the more accurate label "liberal" because it has some negative associations -- you know. The truth.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Um, remind me again, who calls themselves "Progressives"?

 

[The Rabbi]

This has been an interesting discussion. Many conservatives see the example as Utopian and not realistic, they bring into the discussion their biases towards ideas that seem too good to be true. A few mention that people would never behave this way but consider that the same people do not want any central authorities - but then claim the same people (often conservatives) will provide the necessary charity and care. Can you have it both ways and do people really have the time.

Free services was a sticking point for some. I agree nothing is really free. By that I meant services were paid for out of a large pot as we now do for federal roads.

I wasn't sure what the conservative would do when I thought this up, but then I thought why would the conservative leave, she may stay. I agree with the few people who also noted that possibility.

Other conservatives glorify the concept that more freedom exists in the unequal society. I purposely wanted both places to be similar as freedom is often used in so vague and hazy a way as to have no real meaning. This actually returns us to a modern liberal idea that freedom really means nothing if you can do nothing. Saying I am free is like saying I am good person. Prove it. (my nutshells on freedom)

And then some suggested that a liberal would leave; the conservative would stay. This too is an interesting irony of ideological stances. Conservatives are often for the here and now while liberals hope progress makes things a little nicer. A neat twist on things and food for thought.

Any more input.

What about a society where everyone can shit golden eggs out their ass? That is as realistic a scenario as the one you painted.

This reminds me of a discussion on NPR or somewhere by some European who maintained that fathers of daughters were mroe likely to be left leaning than fathers of sons because they wanted "someone" to take care of their daughter.
It was total bullshit.

 

[Oddball]

Interesting take on the responses, you did bring in your own bias in your assessment but this (for most people) is unavoidable. Part of the problem with the "exercise" are the terms liberal and conservative and how you applied them. Conservatism is nothing more than laissez-faire while liberalism embraces change (to one degree or another). Those living in your "communal" world would be the conservatives of that society while anyone opposed or wishing change would be the liberals. If the society you mentioned was your utopia and you were living within it you would then be the conservative, not the liberal.

Actually I tried (wanted) to keep liberal out of the picture completely. The idea was why are these ideas wrong to the conservative and how would they react if this was the world. But as soon as you mention egalitarian you move left. Still I think it worked as the conservatives on the board had no clear answer. I am not sure where you place yourself .

Since conservatives have managed to make liberal a bad word what really is a conservative. Seems they don't really know.

The reason "liberal" is a bad word is because of the socialists who stole it to camouflage their agenda. Now that the words are now virtually synonymous, they've begun hiding behind "progressive".

This begs the question: Progress toward what?

 

[REVxERIK]

why can't we just agree that both parties have their share of nonsense and common sense, for the leftist nonsense, Arianna Huffington. The right, Glenn beck. Common sense left, Bill Maher. Common sense right, Senator john Mcain.

 

[The Rabbi]

why can't we just agree that both parties have their share of nonsense and common sense, for the leftist nonsense, Arianna Huffington. The right, Glenn beck. Common sense left, Bill Maher. Common sense right, Senator john Mcain.

Common sense: virtually everyone on the right.
Nonsense: virtually everyone on the left.
John McCain is not on the right. At least he wasn't until he became the GOP candidate. McCain has never been a rightist in his life. He was absolute central. If he had picked Lieberman it would have been the most centrist ticket in history.

 

[REVxERIK]

why can't we just agree that both parties have their share of nonsense and common sense, for the leftist nonsense, Arianna Huffington. The right, Glenn beck. Common sense left, Bill Maher. Common sense right, Senator john Mcain.

Common sense: virtually everyone on the right.
Nonsense: virtually everyone on the left.
John McCain is not on the right. At least he wasn't until he became the GOP candidate. McCain has never been a rightist in his life. He was absolute central. If he had picked Lieberman it would have been the most centrist ticket in history.

dude easy, why are you so intent on drinking the haterade towards the left?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

right: religion
left: science

hmmm......

 

[The Rabbi]

why can't we just agree that both parties have their share of nonsense and common sense, for the leftist nonsense, Arianna Huffington. The right, Glenn beck. Common sense left, Bill Maher. Common sense right, Senator john Mcain.

Common sense: virtually everyone on the right.
Nonsense: virtually everyone on the left.
John McCain is not on the right. At least he wasn't until he became the GOP candidate. McCain has never been a rightist in his life. He was absolute central. If he had picked Lieberman it would have been the most centrist ticket in history.

dude easy, why are you so intent on drinking the haterade towards the left?

Because I'm sick of their moral equivalence arguments, their moral blindness, their insane desire for power, and their certainty that they really are warm caring people and conservatives are mean cruel and heatless. The truth is the opposite. Everything liberals say about conservatives is true: but its true about liberals.
The quip about McCain is telling. McCain was teh anti-thesis of conservative. He was the most centrist Republican out there and consistently polled with Democrats as the Republican they would most likely vote for. It was only when he became the candidate that the left tried to paint him as George Wallace.

 

[Oddball]

right: religion
left: science

hmmm......

Yeah, right.

Just wait until the leftists start quoting scripture to rationalize their stupid and ineffective welfare state.

 

[Oddball]

why can't we just agree that both parties have their share of nonsense and common sense, for the leftist nonsense, Arianna Huffington. The right, Glenn beck. Common sense left, Bill Maher. Common sense right, Senator john Mcain.

Oh, please.

Maher is a dithering hack and McQuisling is a career jellyfish appeaser and enabler.