Kinds of 'social conservatives'

[Michael Hardner]

True.

The Conservative government under Harper has indeed attempted to lower taxes. I suspect Harper having roots in the Reform party is more about smaller government than we have seen in the last half century.

The Liberals also reduced EI payouts and cut transfer payments. Smaller is the trend. Congratulations on your right-wing victory.

I sure hope you don't negate your victory and forget to celebrate it, as leftist types do with their social liberalism victories of the last 50 years.

[bloodyminded]

I think politically it is a straight line. It is about Statism and big government.

It matters little what the ideology is, and I agree that may vary. It is not a straight line but could be all over the place. The single factor is that the more extreme the more they are inclined to use political and legislative force to impose themselves upon others. Growth of the State is a straight line - the direction may not be. Mussolini and Hitler were born out of leftist socialist ideology and became extreme rightists. The State under them, and as under Stalin, was supreme.

I get what you're saying now. I have some agreement with you, but I honestly don't see conservatives as better than leftists when it comes to Big Government.

You might argue that they're not, then, "true" conservatives...and that's an ok point to make, but it's irrelevant; all that matters is how they behave, not what their stated principles are.

So conservatives are just as much statists as are leftists.

Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

I get what you're saying now. I have some agreement with you, but I honestly don't see conservatives as better than leftists when it comes to Big Government.

You might argue that they're not, then, "true" conservatives...and that's an ok point to make, but it's irrelevant; all that matters is how they behave, not what their stated principles are.

So conservatives are just as much statists as are leftists.

Agreed.

When the left is in power they concentrate on leftist legislation. When the right is in they concentrate on legislating their interests. Neither one can rescind the benefits and privileges already "democratically" won - and so the State grows under democracy. This is essentially the progressive nature of socialism and social democracies.

Democracy is fine if people understand government is not the source of privilege and largesse to be bestowed upon them based upon their voting the benefit for themselves.

The only reason I would agree with rightists is they oppose progressive socialists.

[Pliny]

The Liberals also reduced EI payouts and cut transfer payments. Smaller is the trend. Congratulations on your right-wing victory.

I sure hope you don't negate your victory and forget to celebrate it, as leftist types do with their social liberalism victories of the last 50 years.

Thanly ou for reminding me, Michael. You have restored some in me some hope!

And a Merry Christmas to you!

[Machjo]

Another phrase I find to be without meaning is 'social engineering'.

For example, when the Quebec government used to require schools to offer Catholic Catechism classes, that wasn't social engineering, yet when it replaces that with world religion classes, it is social engineering. Why is one social engineering but not the other?

The same applies with immigration. If a government intervenes in immigration laws to restrict the free flow of people, that is not social engineering, yet if it takes on a more laissez-faire approach to immigration, with government butting out a little more from it, it is social engineering.

And then nation-building abroad such as in Afghanistan is not social engineering either.

So how exactly do we define the term social engineering for it to make sense in all of these apparently contradictory contexts. Without a clear understanding of the term (which I don't have myself, which is probably why the phrase baffles me so), it is meaningless, so when someone criticizes an idea as being social engineering, we can just sit there and wonder what he's on about.

[eyeball]

Another phrase I find to be without meaning is 'social engineering'.

For example, when the Quebec government used to require schools to offer Catholic Catechism classes, that wasn't social engineering, yet when it replaces that with world religion classes, it is social engineering. Why is one social engineering but not the other?

The same applies with immigration. If a government intervenes in immigration laws to restrict the free flow of people, that is not social engineering, yet if it takes on a more laissez-faire approach to immigration, with government butting out a little more from it, it is social engineering.

And then nation-building abroad such as in Afghanistan is not social engineering either.

So how exactly do we define the term social engineering for it to make sense in all of these apparently contradictory contexts. Without a clear understanding of the term (which I don't have myself, which is probably why the phrase baffles me so), it is meaningless, so when someone criticizes an idea as being social engineering, we can just sit there and wonder what he's on about.

Ah, that would likely be your moral-engineers weighing in. They're at least as bad if not worse than their social cousins.

Edited December 25, 2009 by eyeball

[Machjo]

Ah, that would likely be your moral-engineers weighing in. They're at least as bad if not worse than their social cousins.

Perhaps. So the antithesis of social engineering is moral engineering? So all policies fall in either of these two categories, whereby if we impose one set of values, that is moral engineering, but if we impose an exposure to (as in the case of world religious education in Quebec) or allow an exposure to (as through a more liberal and hands-off immigration system) various values, that is social engineering? But if we impose a particular set of values (like Catechism in Quebec previously) or restrict exposure to alternative world views (by controlling immigration), that is moral engineering?

So if everything is either one o the other, then how do we avoid both? Or are they to be avoided?

[eyeball]

So if everything is either one o the other, then how do we avoid both? Or are they to be avoided?

Definitely avoided.

Most of the stuff they preach is pretty much summed up in the "Everything I needed to learn I leaned in kindergarten" poster my wife stuck in the downstairs bathroom.

Freakin' engineers gotta make rocket science put of everything.

[Michael Hardner]

Thanly ou for reminding me, Michael. You have restored some in me some hope!

And a Merry Christmas to you!

Merry Christmas ! (without the Who Cares)

[Pliny]

Another phrase I find to be without meaning is 'social engineering'.

For example, when the Quebec government used to require schools to offer Catholic Catechism classes, that wasn't social engineering, yet when it replaces that with world religion classes, it is social engineering. Why is one social engineering but not the other?

Did Protestant schools have to offer Catholic catechism classes as well? Were Protestant schools allowed to exist?

Here's the difference. Catholic schools if they were funded on their own privately and run as private entities can offer or enforce any classes they want. People are free to support them or not based upon what they have to offer.

The use of public money to support Catholic schools is a form of social engineering. Some of the public may not wish to support catholic schools with their tax dollars. The government favouring catholic schools is engineering society. They either have to stop funding catholic schools or start funding all schools of all religious denominations equally to be just and fair. They cannot do the latter so they need to stop the former.

The same applies with immigration. If a government intervenes in immigration laws to restrict the free flow of people, that is not social engineering, yet if it takes on a more laissez-faire approach to immigration, with government butting out a little more from it, it is social engineering.

How is it not social engineering to restrict the free flow of people?

The government determining through various processes who shall be allowed entry as an immigrant based upon their (the government's) criteria, whatever it is, is social engineering. That people wish to come here should be the criteria, they should understand they need to live according to the laws of the country. I don't think there should be much more of a requirement beyond that. They should want to be, firstly, a citizen of the country, contribute to the general society. It seems to me that immigrants looking for a better life by migrating to a social democracy often do so for the social benefits and not the opportunity the society affords them to improve their lives. They are more economic refugees than immigrants. There is benefit to governments that have policies that aid immigrants inthat those immigrants will tend to vote for them.

And then nation-building abroad such as in Afghanistan is not social engineering either.

Nation building? Afghanistan is a totally engineered society already. By attempting to offer them some freedom of choice in their governance it is almost social de-engineering. The problem with a tyranny or theocratic government is it restricts choices for the people. If the population were homogeneous then there wouldn't be a problem necessarily. They could all agree to be governed as they are by a central authority. It is not conducive to progress or change to live in this manner. And, IMHO, that is what has happened to these theocratically based societies. They get lost in time.

So how exactly do we define the term social engineering for it to make sense in all of these apparently contradictory contexts. Without a clear understanding of the term (which I don't have myself, which is probably why the phrase baffles me so), it is meaningless, so when someone criticizes an idea as being social engineering, we can just sit there and wonder what he's on about.

You are a student of languages. Let's make a comparison of an engineered language and an un-engineered language. Let's say French is engineered. All changes to the language must meet the approval of the language verification board. And let's say English is not engineered. Which one is more accommodating to other languages? Which one will be more broadly adopted if only because you can use the language even if you don't use it properly?

I myself find it very perturbing that the english language goes through transformations and people will, in my mind at least, misuse and abuse it, but I also understand that languages are ever evolving if they are going to continue to be used. English may be entirely unrecognizable in a century or two, but it will still be called English. French will go the way of Latin and will only thrive in an enforced, i.e., socially engineered, cultural climate setting boundaries between itself and other cultures and societies. Freedom and liberty in language will prevail over strict adherence to the determined laws of a language.

[Pliny]

Perhaps. So the antithesis of social engineering is moral engineering? So all policies fall in either of these two categories, whereby if we impose one set of values, that is moral engineering, but if we impose an exposure to (as in the case of world religious education in Quebec) or allow an exposure to (as through a more liberal and hands-off immigration system) various values, that is social engineering? But if we impose a particular set of values (like Catechism in Quebec previously) or restrict exposure to alternative world views (by controlling immigration), that is moral engineering?

So if everything is either one o the other, then how do we avoid both? Or are they to be avoided?

Moral engineering is not the antithesis to social engineering it is more a subset of it.

The way both are avoided is to keep government limited in it's mandate and allow society to evolve itself.

[charter.rights]

That's a myth. Government should do what governments are apt to do - redistribute the wealth.

Social engineering and economics are mere distractions that divert attention away from the criminal activity the elites are involved in. And this whole idea of reducing government is simply a means to force the low income classes to pay for the services, high income earners want to avoid paying for.

No one is fooled by your game.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Social engineering and economics are mere distractions that divert attention away from the criminal activity the elites are involved in. And this whole idea of reducing government is simply a means to force the low income classes to pay for the services, high income earners want to avoid paying for.

So if the "elites" did not arrive at such wealth with/without "criminal activity", what would be government's role / action in such a wealth distribution scheme? Who would pay for the "services"?

[charter.rights]

So if the "elites" did not arrive at such wealth with/without "criminal activity", what would be government's role / action in such a wealth distribution scheme? Who would pay for the "services"?

The middle and lower income classes have always paid for services. Industry and natural resource wealth is what gets distributed. However, the wealthy do not pay their share of taxes and do not share in the service cost.

Edited December 28, 2009 by charter.rights

[bloodyminded]

How is it not social engineering to restrict the free flow of people?

Machjo wasn't claiming that it wasn't. He meant it is not considered to be social engineering by the more rabid anti-immigration voices.

But it IS social engineering. That was his point: that free-er immigration policies are termed "social engineering" (though they don't really seem to be such); and that restrictive immigration policies are NOT considred "social engineering"--even though they are.

I think it's the politicization of the term "social engineering" itself that forms the crux of his complaint.

[bloodyminded]

Agreed.

When the left is in power they concentrate on leftist legislation. When the right is in they concentrate on legislating their interests. Neither one can rescind the benefits and privileges already "democratically" won - and so the State grows under democracy. This is essentially the progressive nature of socialism and social democracies.

Democracy is fine if people understand government is not the source of privilege and largesse to be bestowed upon them based upon their voting the benefit for themselves.

The only reason I would agree with rightists is they oppose progressive socialists.

But then this isn't an argument against statism, which is how you phrased it. Your problem is with leftist statism, not statism itself.

It's rather like people who support free speech--so long as it's speech with which they agree. Such is NOT support of free speech; it's opposition to free speech.

[Oleg Bach]

Always imagined a conservative as a person who walked around the house turning off the lights that his liberal children left on constantly.

[bloodyminded]

Always imagined a conservative as a person who walked around the house turning off the lights that his liberal children left on constantly.

If we liberals are conservatives' "children," they're quite emotionally abusive, and are unfit parents.

[Machjo]

Machjo wasn't claiming that it wasn't. He meant it is not considered to be social engineering by the more rabid anti-immigration voices.

You are correct; that was my intention. To be fair though, my wording was clumsy and so his understanding was reasonable. My apologies for the laziness in my wording.

But it IS social engineering. That was his point: that free-er immigration policies are termed "social engineering" (though they don't really seem to be such); and that restrictive immigration policies are NOT considred "social engineering"--even though they are.

I think it's the politicization of the term "social engineering" itself that forms the crux of his complaint.

That was in fact my intention. It seems the phrase 'social engineering' is really a meaningless phrase thrown out as rhetoric. Or if it does have a meaning, it simply means 'a policy with which I do not agree'. It can't get much more ambiguous than that.

Essentially, it's just a sign of ideological laziness. Instead, for example, of having to argue the point that freeer immigration is unwise owing to reasons X, Y and Z, it's much eazier to just spew out a meaningless phrase like 'it's social engineering', with no apparent need for explanation on the part of the accuser. This just drags the debate down, with one accusing the other of social engineering, and the other accusing the one of rich wing fascism, for example, with neither side needing to defend his argument logically. the one has no apparent need to define social engineering, and the other has no need to define fascism. They satisfy themselves with intellctual and ideological laziness and emotionalism.

[bloodyminded]

You are correct; that was my intention. To be fair though, my wording was clumsy and so his understanding was reasonable. My apologies for the laziness in my wording.

That was in fact my intention. It seems the phrase 'social engineering' is really a meaningless phrase thrown out as rhetoric. Or if it does have a meaning, it simply means 'a policy with which I do not agree'. It can't get much more ambiguous than that.

Essentially, it's just a sign of ideological laziness. Instead, for example, of having to argue the point that freeer immigration is unwise owing to reasons X, Y and Z, it's much eazier to just spew out a meaningless phrase like 'it's social engineering', with no apparent need for explanation on the part of the accuser. This just drags the debate down, with one accusing the other of social engineering, and the other accusing the one of rich wing fascism, for example, with neither side needing to defend his argument logically. the one has no apparent need to define social engineering, and the other has no need to define fascism. They satisfy themselves with intellctual and ideological laziness and emotionalism.

I agree with all of this. For, as you may or may not know, I am simultaneously a Communist, a Taliban-supporter, and I "hate the troops."

I didn't know any of this about myself, but am happy for the sober and nuanced education.

[Pliny]

You are correct; that was my intention. To be fair though, my wording was clumsy and so his understanding was reasonable. My apologies for the laziness in my wording.

That was in fact my intention. It seems the phrase 'social engineering' is really a meaningless phrase thrown out as rhetoric. Or if it does have a meaning, it simply means 'a policy with which I do not agree'. It can't get much more ambiguous than that.

Essentially, it's just a sign of ideological laziness. Instead, for example, of having to argue the point that freeer immigration is unwise owing to reasons X, Y and Z, it's much eazier to just spew out a meaningless phrase like 'it's social engineering', with no apparent need for explanation on the part of the accuser. This just drags the debate down, with one accusing the other of social engineering, and the other accusing the one of rich wing fascism, for example, with neither side needing to defend his argument logically. the one has no apparent need to define social engineering, and the other has no need to define fascism. They satisfy themselves with intellctual and ideological laziness and emotionalism.

Social engineering is not a meaningless term. It is the engineering of society by a central authority. The wider the scope of a government's mandate the more social engineering there will be. Fascism is a socialist ideal, it is socialism that has arrived at the totalitarian state. It is not progressive as it is deemed to be the ideal state. Our Canadian government is socialist and is thus progressive. It contains elements of Fascism and social engineering. Both those elements contribute to bigger government and the attainment of the socialist ideal state. While they may call the policies of the liberals social engineering or progressivism or the nanny state or politically correct extremism and the policies of the conservatives fascism, or Nazism, they both contribute to the socialist movement toward the totalitarian state.

By the definition of "conservative" we should see the liberals turning into the new conservatives in order to "conserve" their socialist gains in society. I, myself would be termed a classical liberal today. The conservative of yesterday was about King and country and a maintaining of the foundations of the power structure. The liberal of yesterday was indeed progressive but not in advancing the powers of government. Libertarians sat on the left with the socialists but when the socialists took over the left wing and started building big government the Libertarians moved to the right, in order to "conserve" the concept of limited government which is being lost today.

[Machjo]

Social engineering is not a meaningless term.

So I'm curious then; is restricting immigration 'social engineering'? If so, why? If not, why not?

It is the engineering of society by a central authority.

When a government (i.e. central authority) decides to build a roadway in a particular location, if we consider that the construction of that road will affect the behavious of the population in terms of where they will go and where they will build houses, etc, or when a local government determines where we can buikld what, is that social engineering or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

And what would be a libertarian view of immigration, vs. a socialist view vs a conservative view vs a fascist view, etc.?

[Pliny]

That's a myth. Government should do what governments are apt to do - redistribute the wealth.

Governemnts should provide a just environment where the sanctity of person and property are it's prime concern and men can thus prosper. Redistributing wealth by force is nothing more than legalized extortion.

Social engineering and economics are mere distractions that divert attention away from the criminal activity the elites are involved in. And this whole idea of reducing government is simply a means to force the low income classes to pay for the services, high income earners want to avoid paying for.

Of course, social engineering and economics are distractions we need to know nothing of them, right?

Shouldn't your sentence read,"And this whole idea of reducing government is simply a means to force low income classes to pay for their services that high income earners are now paying for them but wish to avoid paying."

I gather from the above you are another socialist that doesn't like people. The "elite" are criminally exploiting the poor and the poor are too stupid to provide for themselves is the only conclusion that can be made that justifies your wealth re-distribution scheme. I know you look at it as fairness but it is very destabilizing when the rewards of your work are extorted from you. It makes no sense to work under that duress.

No one is fooled by your game.

I would like no one to be fooled. Perhaps you have been trapped in yours?

[Machjo]

Social engineering is not a meaningless term. It is the engineering of society by a central authority. The wider the scope of a government's mandate the more social engineering there will be. Fascism is a socialist ideal, it is socialism that has arrived at the totalitarian state. It is not progressive as it is deemed to be the ideal state. Our Canadian government is socialist and is thus progressive. It contains elements of Fascism and social engineering. Both those elements contribute to bigger government and the attainment of the socialist ideal state. While they may call the policies of the liberals social engineering or progressivism or the nanny state or politically correct extremism and the policies of the conservatives fascism, or Nazism, they both contribute to the socialist movement toward the totalitarian state.

By the definition of "conservative" we should see the liberals turning into the new conservatives in order to "conserve" their socialist gains in society. I, myself would be termed a classical liberal today. The conservative of yesterday was about King and country and a maintaining of the foundations of the power structure. The liberal of yesterday was indeed progressive but not in advancing the powers of government. Libertarians sat on the left with the socialists but when the socialists took over the left wing and started building big government the Libertarians moved to the right, in order to "conserve" the concept of limited government which is being lost today.

Except for the first few sentences, your post doesn't make sense to me. If we define 'social engineering' as any act by a central authority to modify society, then simple road construction is essentially social engineering, as is the establishment of democracy. So if by definition social engineering is either socialist or fascist, and at least based on my current understanding of the term social engineering, democracy itself is a form of social engineering as it is 'an act on the part of a central authority to modify society' (and the democratic process itself does indeed modify society for good or bad), then democracy itself is either socialist or fascist. The only way then to avoid 'social engineering' would be to oppose government altogether, seeing that every policy of the government's does in fact modify social processes. Road construction ought to cease too, no?

[Machjo]

Governemnts should provide a just environment where the sanctity of person and property are it's prime concern and men can thus prosper.

I can agree with this to a certain degree in principle, but it is overly simplistic. Let's say I decide to drill a hole 100 metres under my neighbour's property to build a few more rooms there, do I have a right to do so? I could claim that he only purchased the surface down to his basement, and the rest is public property. Or waht if I decide to build a massive solar panel in my backyard that hides my neighbour's access to sunlight. if he's a farmer, that could cause a few problems for him. If that panel is built on my own private property, it si my right, yes?

Now what if I decide to buy property upstream from town to open up a factory that will pollute all the drinking water downstream? Seeing that it is my private property, I can dump what I want in there, no? After all, it's not my fault the river decided to take the refuse away? Now, let's say you buy a house next to a beautiful public park. Do I have a right to insist that the government privatize it sot that I can buy it and build a nice big repulsively smelly animal farm. We all know what chicken coops can smell like.

Your idea is overly simplistic and seems to suggest that all public property is wrong and that private property is absolute. That's an extreme view. I'm all for private property, but with restrictions imposed on it by society to protect the general public from the greed of private property owners.