Conservatives Don't Change -

[rayboyusmc]

This is has been the argument for a long time.

Then on the other side there’s the right. There’s the group who says we should surrender all of our power to corporations. They are people after all. We should surrender all of our power to corporations and just let them govern us because they know what’s best for us and they can do the whole thing. The debate really goes back to the debate between Sir Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. In the 1790s, Thomas Payne spent two weeks in Sir Edmund Burke’s home in London. Burke is the godfather of the modern American conservative movement. You can read about him in Russell Kirk’s book The Conservative Mind, the book that animated Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Burke said, in a letter to Thomas Paine, “it does me no harm if a man is to allowed to engage in a servile a profession as hairdresser or tallow maker (candle maker) but it does society great harm if such a man is allowed to participate in governance by voting.”

Thomas Paine proposed progressive income tax, inheritance tax, healthcare for all, labor unions, just the whole thing. Thomas Paine was the original progressive thinker. Sir Edmund Burke wrote a letter to him. This is the conservative worldview of a small, but very powerful, very wealthy aristocracy, and the rationale that Burke used was that that would create a stable society. And he was right. The conservative worldview for 7,000 years held very stable societies. But we have agreed for 200 years plus now in the United States that that’s not the kind of society we want to live in. We’re willing to put up with a little bit of instability to have freedom, and to have a quality of life, and to have a real middle class in America. And that’s the ultimate struggle. That’s the ultimate battle. So, to paraphrase Jefferson, as we water the tree of liberty with our words, and our deeds, and our actions, it can grow to a mighty oak that can provide protection for us, and for our families, and our children, and future generations, and for all nations around the world.

Thom Hartmann, "Beyond Framing..." from Bioneers 2005 | Bioneers

 

[Mad Scientist]

You know rayboy we had socialistic communes when this country was founded but they didn't work. Everyone getting the same share regardless of output takes away the incentive to work and produce.
And did you know that if a billionaire and I pay the same 15% tax, the billionaire pays more in tax? You know cause 15% of a billion is much more than 15% of my salary.
Sounds pretty progressive to me.

 

[editec]

What on earth do socialist communes have to do with anything Rayboy just wrote?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That article actually reminds me of something I just read

http://mises.org/books/inclined.pdf

It is interesting to add the NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) technique of framing to the essay Inclined To Liberty

What frame do libertarians use in their constructs and how are those frames different from those less or not inclined to liberty but rather to more social controls via more government?

Carabini states:

I have often wondered why those with strong opinions about
social affairs are always attracted toward one of two opposing poles. There are those inclined to liberty—freedom of the individual to live his or her life in any peaceful way. And there are those who are inclined to mastery permitting others to live their lives only as another sees fit.

Is this not an example of differences in framing?

What is the genesis of the difference? What core attitudes do those inclined to liberty are different from those inclined to mastery?

Those favoring mastery seem to believe there is an inherent unfairness existing in all aspects of society and that this unfairness must be remedied by placing controls on society.

The message implied in each proposition is not simply that “the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.” The very heart of each of the propositions is that the cause of the poor being too poor is that the rich are too rich. In one sense, we are told that the “haves” are at fault for reventing the “have-nots” from gaining wealth, and, in another sense, that if the “haves” had less, the “have-nots” would have more by default.

What core belief frames the thoughts of the one who perceives himself as an emancipator?

Could it be that person sees people as incapable of attaining liberty of thought and deed and must be coddled and protected from harm by the state?

What core belief frames the libertarians philosophy?

Is it a belief in people and their ability to achieve the level of liberty and success they desire, even if it may not be considered fair by others?

IN A WORLD IN which economic inequalities are universal, why do
so many envision the existence of villains and victims? Does this view stem from a belief that there is a static quantity of wealth or resources in the world, and when someone gets more than an equal share, someone else must receive less? Or does the view stem from a belief that rich people have garnered their wealth undeservingly, by unscrupulous, greedy, or inconsiderate behavior? Or does it stem from envy, resentment, or simply a blatant attempt to increase one’s own status by decreasing that of
another?

For many, possibly most, such villain/victim assertions do not stem from any deep reasoning. The ideas are simply a regurgitation of what they have read and heard in the news. Spewing the words and ideas of others is particularly likely when one belongs to a political, social, religious, or racial camp. Camp leaders, especially political ones, appear in the news daily, damning their
adversarial camp leaders with senseless headline-grabbing charges designed to excite their followers and, hopefully, capture a few more gullible camp converts.

Just coming off an election cycle, how can we deny the veracity of this statement?


This leads directly into the us vs. them argument.

DURING THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL campaign, one candidate decried,“Two Americas: One privileged, the other burdened. One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.”Demagogic statements like these simply are pleas to the masses: “Vote for me, and I’ll get you your fair share of wealth, by taking it from those who have more than you...

Blaming others for what we don’t have directs our energy and ingenuity away from the only reliably effective source of achievement in the world—self-reliance. Once we realize that no one owes us a life free of misery, we actually begin to search for real remedies instead of wasting time and energy accusing others of causing our woes and expecting restitution.

Do you see the pattern I see?

More people are framing their philosophies with "It's not my fault that I don't have wealth and success. it's the fault of others who are wealthier and more successful than I and I will make them pay by giving me my fair share.

NLP can be a great tool to be used to inspire men to achieve great things but that same tool can be turned against one's best interests resulting in resentment and vindictiveness rather than inspiring hope, achievement and liberty.

Is it a conservative vs "progressive" mindset or a libertarian vs mastery mindset?

A true libertarian, a true conservative, one who believes people should be free to make their choices of life and achievement unhindered by government as long as no rights of fellow citizens are violated, is the true patriot with the best interests of all at heart. A libertarian truly is for the progress of all in society and the simple notion that one is able to pursue his own liberty is in the best interest of all.

On the other hand, the "progressive" who at his core believes that the successful somehow achieved by denying others success and wants to create fairness by taking the fruits of one mans labor deeming it excessive or unfair is not a man who values liberty and freedom but rather favors mastery over his fellow citizens. The liberty of one must be tempered by the State out of fairness to another. Is this not merely the denial of liberty to all?

 

[007]

And what change has hussein brought about? He ran on change. He promised change. Change and hope. Hope and change. Change we can believe in. Yeah... change alright. Change BACK to the same tired old, warmed over, line up of fucking liberal clinton era has beens. Reeeeeaaaaaaal change.

You people that voted for this fucking moron have been HAD! You're not getting change, you're getting FUCKED, right along with the rest of us.

THANKS A FUCKING LOT!

 

[glockmail]

And what change has hussein brought about? He ran on change. He promised change. Change and hope. Hope and change. Change we can believe in. Yeah... change alright. Change BACK to the same tired old, warmed over, line up of fucking liberal clinton era has beens. Reeeeeaaaaaaal change.

You people that voted for this fucking moron have been HAD! You're not getting change, you're getting FUCKED, right along with the rest of us.

THANKS A FUCKING LOT!

Nice to see the old Pale is back!!

 

[Mad Scientist]

What on earth do socialist communes have to do with anything Rayboy just wrote?

Did you read what rayboy just wrote? Here, print this out and have someone read it to you aloud then come back:

Thomas Paine proposed progressive income tax, inheritance tax, healthcare for all, labor unions, just the whole thing. Thomas Paine was the original progressive thinker.

 

[Jon]

Thom Hartmann.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Progressive is not socialism, mad.

More people are framing their philosophies with "It's not my fault that I don't have wealth and success. it's the fault of others who are wealthier and more successful than I and I will make them pay by giving me my fair share.

Bullshit. Please point out all these "most" people. Because one believes in a liberal or progressive philosophy does not mean I want anyone else to pay my way. That is the standard bullshit from the right.

My main point was that even then just like now there are "those" folks who think they are the only ones smart enough to vote. That elitsim of the right is not a new idea. The current crap/crop of NeoCons hold to this philosophy that only a small group is smart enough to lead and they happen to be that group.

It's been tried throughout history and was tried under Bush. It doesn't and won't work in a country like the US.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Pale, I forgot your remark.

P.S. = He hasn't been inaugerated yet. Not much chance of bringing out any of the change he talked out.

Let's give it six months and then bitch if you want.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Progressive is not socialism, mad.




Bullshit. Please point out all these "most" people. Because one believes in a liberal or progressive philosophy does not mean I want anyone else to pay my way. That is the standard bullshit from the right.

I said more people not most people.

My main point was that even then just like now there are "those" folks who think they are the only ones smart enough to vote. That elitsim of the right is not a new idea. The current crap/crop of NeoCons hold to this philosophy that only a small group is smart enough to lead and they happen to be that group.

It's been tried throughout history and was tried under Bush. It doesn't and won't work in a country like the US.

How about the idea that things that would be considered reprehensible in a small group can be tolerated when done by a large group. You know a group like, we the people?

Would it be accepted in a small community that one or two wealthy people be forced under the threat of incarceration to give up their money and possessions to the 20 poorest but when it's a large group such an act seems acceptable.

And what of the elitism of the left?

The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people. Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound.”

BHO certainly seems to think we can't even pick the "right" radio shows to listen to.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Would it be accepted in a small community that one or two wealthy people be forced under the threat of incarceration to give up their money and possessions to the 20 poorest but when it's a large group such an act seems acceptable.

I fail to follow your logic. Progressive taxes have not had the richest pay the most in taxes.

I would like a flat tax, but it will never happen with the rich in control.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I fail to follow your logic. Progressive taxes have not had the richest pay the most in taxes.

I would like a flat tax, but it will never happen with the rich in control.

It was more a point about one of the flaws inherent in democracy. In response to the "neocons think they are the only ones smart enough to vote" remark.

But I see a flat tax as well as a national sales tax being objected to by the progressives because those who pay no tax now will have to pay the same percentage as the rich on what they earn or buy respectively.

Quite frankly, I think it's ridiculous to talk about taxes until we have cut government spending to the bone. I think we can agree that the government can be run on much much less than the current budget. In fact if we left the tax code as is and cut spending and waste, I think we would find more than enough money to fund government despite what the pols tell us.

 

[007]

Pale, I forgot your remark.

P.S. = He hasn't been inaugerated yet. Not much chance of bringing out any of the change he talked out.

Let's give it six months and then bitch if you want.

Oh c'mon rb... don't play me like some ignorant sap that has to "wait and see" when all hussein is doing is lining up the same old liberal clinton retreads.

Wake up man. You people that voted this little turd into office are going to be the most disappointed group of voters ever in history, and don't tell me you won't be, because the "change" you all were expecting is NOT going to happen. Hussein is just another, garden variety, run of the mill, rhetoric spewing liberal. Expect he doesn't have any experience, at anything. Oh... wait... he was a community organizer...

 

[Gunny]

Pale, I forgot your remark.

P.S. = He hasn't been inaugerated yet. Not much chance of bringing out any of the change he talked out.

Let's give it six months and then bitch if you want.

You can. I've already given him 6 months and he's turned out to be just what I said he would. PR's absolutely correct ... you folk that voted for "change" got had.

And since Obama's not waiting for his inauguration, why should anyone else?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Progressive is not socialism, mad.

From the Left's favorite source: Wikipedia:
Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...by definition progressivism aims to achieve gradual social change, and most progressives are outright opposed to any form of violent revolution. When the progressive movement split on economic principles, some progressives moved towards the socialist camp, advocating a planned economy. Other progressives moved towards the regulated mixed economy camp, with both public and private ownership of companies. Between these two extremes is social democracy, a branch of socialism that became increasingly moderate and moved towards the political center. Regulated-capitalism progressives and socialist progressives still tend to support similar progressive social policies, outside of economic principles. Socialist Party USA is an example of an organization with both democratic socialist and social democratic wings.

You can call it any happy happy joy joy name you want rayboy, it's still socialism.
And here's another term for you to look up: Useful Idiot.