Do Conservatives Think They Have A Monopoly On Truth ?

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

Using confident claims of knowledge as a grounding for coercive power is almost exclusively what the lib/dems have been doing. Exhibit A: Global Warming, now called climate change.

Good point.

And thank you for posting it.

However, I would say that in the argument for health insurance, the right argued (and rightly so) against Obummercare. At the same time, there was clear lack of undrestanding of the issue on the part of the right. Yet, there was nothing but smuggness in much of the rights argument.

Lack of clear understanding of the issue? The issue is clear. It is YOUR life, YOU are responsible for it.

Sounds like a very clear understanding of the issue.

What is issue ?

You want to address the OP ?

 

[MisterBeale]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

It is definately an argument against a national "one size fits all" huge monolithic centralized federal government. In this highly technologized age, it has become antithetical to individual freedom, especially to localized communities with greatly varied interests.

 

[task0778]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

Using confident claims of knowledge as a grounding for coercive power is almost exclusively what the lib/dems have been doing. Exhibit A: Global Warming, now called climate change.

Good point.

And thank you for posting it.

However, I would say that in the argument for health insurance, the right argued (and rightly so) against Obummercare. At the same time, there was clear lack of undrestanding of the issue on the part of the right. Yet, there was nothing but smuggness in much of the rights argument.

I won't argue that, but I will say the Left lied their asses off about the ACA. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Costs won't go up by one dime. Bull effing shit.

I expect that from them. I don't trust them at all.

My heartbreak in all this was the failure of conservatives (GWB was no conservative...never was one) to surface the issue in context and hold an honest discussion.

That would have included the fact that health insurance (and by association health care) has been regulated for a hell of of a long time...and it was the regulation that was making it tough for people to get access.

Conservatives lost a golden opportunity to lead America a better place without using the government (except to get the fuck out of the way).

Do you think the Dems were going to let Bush do anything about Health Care, thus taking away one of their political talking points? Same as the GOP wouldn't work with Obama either, although I would also say in both cases there were legitimate arguments against what the other side wanted to do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is not an attack on conservatism.

This is exploring someone's critisism of it.

I don't agree it is fundamental tenant of conservative doctrine. In fact, I think it's the reverse.

I was just asking for some help here.

We have to be willing to look in the mirror.

 

[MisterBeale]

If Texas, NY, and California were not united under one governing authority, this whole conversation, and that article you posted would be moot.

 

[MarathonMike]

What a lame article. Another academic Liberal trying too hard to sound intellectual and saying nothing.

 

[JBond]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

Using confident claims of knowledge as a grounding for coercive power is almost exclusively what the lib/dems have been doing. Exhibit A: Global Warming, now called climate change.

Good point.

And thank you for posting it.

However, I would say that in the argument for health insurance, the right argued (and rightly so) against Obummercare. At the same time, there was clear lack of undrestanding of the issue on the part of the right. Yet, there was nothing but smuggness in much of the rights argument.

Lack of clear understanding of the issue? The issue is clear. It is YOUR life, YOU are responsible for it.

Sounds like a very clear understanding of the issue.

What is issue ?

You want to address the OP ?

You did not address the predisposition you posted about, but now demand others pay attention to the crap.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

Using confident claims of knowledge as a grounding for coercive power is almost exclusively what the lib/dems have been doing. Exhibit A: Global Warming, now called climate change.

Good point.

And thank you for posting it.

However, I would say that in the argument for health insurance, the right argued (and rightly so) against Obummercare. At the same time, there was clear lack of undrestanding of the issue on the part of the right. Yet, there was nothing but smuggness in much of the rights argument.

I won't argue that, but I will say the Left lied their asses off about the ACA. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Costs won't go up by one dime. Bull effing shit.

I expect that from them. I don't trust them at all.

My heartbreak in all this was the failure of conservatives (GWB was no conservative...never was one) to surface the issue in context and hold an honest discussion.

That would have included the fact that health insurance (and by association health care) has been regulated for a hell of of a long time...and it was the regulation that was making it tough for people to get access.

Conservatives lost a golden opportunity to lead America a better place without using the government (except to get the fuck out of the way).

Do you think the Dems were going to let Bush do anything about Health Care, thus taking away one of their political talking points? Same as the GOP wouldn't work with Obama either, although I would also say in both cases there were legitimate arguments against what the other side wanted to do.

I don't want to make this about health care in particular.

However, the point was not Bush or the Dems doing something about it......

But conservatives leading the discussion. There are better ways to do things....without the govermment....except for them to get the hell out of it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What a lame article. Another academic Liberal trying too hard to sound intellectual and saying nothing.

If you read the article you'd know the author was a libertarian.

BTW: Liberals are cool....left wingers suck.

 

[JBond]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Liberals don't either. It's an open question as to who is worse, and IMHO not worth the argument cuz nobody is going to agree on the answer.

Let's be clear...it is the left wing. Not liberals.

The left will lie like dogshit.

Classical liberals? Thanks for the update.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

Using confident claims of knowledge as a grounding for coercive power is almost exclusively what the lib/dems have been doing. Exhibit A: Global Warming, now called climate change.

Good point.

And thank you for posting it.

However, I would say that in the argument for health insurance, the right argued (and rightly so) against Obummercare. At the same time, there was clear lack of undrestanding of the issue on the part of the right. Yet, there was nothing but smuggness in much of the rights argument.

Lack of clear understanding of the issue? The issue is clear. It is YOUR life, YOU are responsible for it.

Sounds like a very clear understanding of the issue.

What is issue ?

You want to address the OP ?

You did not address the predisposition you posted about, but now demand others pay attention to the crap.

I am not arguing the OP's point of view (in general).

I am saying we should be willing to look in the mirror.

I don't understand what issue he was trying to clear up.

Libertarians are more about "it's your life" than conservatives.

 

[hunarcy]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

I think it's the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party that thinks they have a monopoly on truth. If you disagree with one of them, you are immediately labeled a "liar" with no explanation. To be honest, they come across as mentally ill.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

I think it's the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party that thinks they have a monopoly on truth. If you disagree with one of them, you are immediately labeled a "liar" with no explanation. To be honest, they come across as mentally ill.

Agree.

You have fucktards like deanrd who argue for science but have no clue what they are arguing for.

I expect them to be full of themselves (or full of shit...same thing).

I am asking this about conservatives.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

It is definately an argument against a national "one size fits all" huge monolithic centralized federal government. In this highly technologized age, it has become antithetical to individual freedom, especially to localized communities with greatly varied interests.

I agree....even without technology.

Again, I expect that (ever read Thomas Sowell....he's fantastic at this argument).

But, I worry that conservatives are unwilling to look at issues that they have no good answer for.

In health care, the conservative claim says you take responsibility....if you don't...you might die.

I totally agree. BUt that does not sound good. Why can't we own that ?

 

[MisterBeale]

What a lame article. Another academic Liberal trying too hard to sound intellectual and saying nothing.

If you read the article you'd know the author was a libertarian.

BTW: Liberals are cool....left wingers suck.

So why not address the points I brought up?

The obvious solution to the problems that are raised by the article are what I have proposed. Is it your liberal leanings and your desire for an oppressively huge police state that keep you from considering it?

 

[task0778]

I don't want to make this about health care in particular.

However, the point was not Bush or the Dems doing something about it......

But conservatives leading the discussion. There are better ways to do things....without the government....except for them to get the hell out of it.

OK. Conservatives are a mixed bag these days, all sorts of viewpoints on different issues and they aren't cooperating well with each other. Doesn't help that the MSM is pretty much on the other side either. And there aren't many issues that are all that cut and dried, finding better ways to do things outside of gov't isn't easy and obviously the Dems will be no help. Representative democracies are tough to manage, the system itself is almost self-defeating if you can't find enough people who are willing to work together on anything.

 

[JBond]

Using confident claims of knowledge as a grounding for coercive power is almost exclusively what the lib/dems have been doing. Exhibit A: Global Warming, now called climate change.

Good point.

And thank you for posting it.

However, I would say that in the argument for health insurance, the right argued (and rightly so) against Obummercare. At the same time, there was clear lack of undrestanding of the issue on the part of the right. Yet, there was nothing but smuggness in much of the rights argument.

Lack of clear understanding of the issue? The issue is clear. It is YOUR life, YOU are responsible for it.

Sounds like a very clear understanding of the issue.

What is issue ?

You want to address the OP ?

You did not address the predisposition you posted about, but now demand others pay attention to the crap.

I am not arguing the OP's point of view (in general).

I am saying we should be willing to look in the mirror.

I don't understand what issue he was trying to clear up.

Libertarians are more about "it's your life" than conservatives.

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

How many lies has the nominal leader of the GOP been caught telling in the last year and a half?

Conservatives don't even really have a tenuous grasp of the truth, much less a monopoly.

Liberals don't either. It's an open question as to who is worse, and IMHO not worth the argument cuz nobody is going to agree on the answer.

Let's be clear...it is the left wing. Not liberals.

The left will lie like dogshit.

Classical liberals? Thanks for the update.

Starting with Frédéric Bastiat and Locke, where do you land?

 

[MisterBeale]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

It is definately an argument against a national "one size fits all" huge monolithic centralized federal government. In this highly technologized age, it has become antithetical to individual freedom, especially to localized communities with greatly varied interests.

I agree....even without technology.

Again, I expect that (ever read Thomas Sowell....he's fantastic at this argument).

But, I worry that conservatives are unwilling to look at issues that they have no good answer for.

In health care, the conservative claim says you take responsibility....if you don't...you might die.

I totally agree. BUt that does not sound good. Why can't we own that ?

I love Thomas Sowell, he's brilliant.

In the old days, there were medi-share plans and different organizations like unions, trades organizations, guilds, and other community collectives which offered protective health-share coverage, while at that same time, barriers to entry in market were not so rigid.

Now, we live in an age where folks do not even recognize the fascism of having cops ticket a small child's lemonade stand for a health violation, when the real reason is b/c it might be causing competition with the DQ down the street.


Different localities should be able to protect their own economic interests.

Tacitus: the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws

 

[Nosmo King]

Conservatism or Liberty?

Moving to more general considerations, conservatism rests on a claim of privileged access to truth, whether through revelation or some sort of "practical reason" to derive rules of personal and interpersonal conduct—which really seems to boil down to a reverse engineering to justify personal preferences.

Admittedly, this is dissatisfying for those who claim to have a monopoly on truth and want to impose it through central planning. But humility calls for a prudent rejection of social engineering, as we simply lack the knowledge to impose better outcomes on others. Conservatism may very well be right in its assertions, but it very well might be wrong. There may very well be an eternal law—but our knowledge thereof is another question entirely. Confident claims of knowledge in the public square or the classroom are one thing, but using them as a grounding for coercive power is another entirely.

******************************

Can't argue with his POV.

I see it in many conservatives.

However, I am interested in what others think.

If Conservatives use Trump as their political,and ideological ideal, they will be ceding truth as a valued commodity.

But if Conservatives are true to their ideology, they would not be happy with the changes Trump is bringing. The spending bill breaks the argument over the deficit and the debt it brings. Tariffs were never part of the Conservative beliefs, Conservatives are free traders by nature.

So one must ask, are there still Comservatives in America, or have they been politically purged in favor of a cult of personality? If it's the latter, that particular personality has a rather casual relationship with the concept of truth.

 

[kiwiman127]

What a hilarious thread.
You alleged conservatives could give a shit about truth, look at who your leader is, a pathological liar! And you so-called lovers of the truth, never, ever call him on it. You don't care that he lies to you daily and not one peep out of your folks.
Consider this thread, ONE BIG FAIL!!
Next.

Nice, one dimensional argument.

Your conclusion was the big fail.

What would you expect people to do in the case of Trump's lies ?

I’d expect intelligent people not to vote for the guy in the primaries for starters.
Trump was the absolute worse candidate of all the GOP candidates. Trump isn’t even a real conservative, even though he plays one on TV.