Kinds of 'social conservatives'

[Machjo]

Interestingly enough, according to this, social engineering is not all bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)

[bloodyminded]

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.

This is exactly my issue with the "shrink government down to nothing" ideal.

In fact, it's worse than you've posited (though directly related): not only is there the problem of individuals' choices deleteriously affecting other individuals...I personally believe that, thanks to the pretty inarguable craving for power that exists among our species, in lieu of official government control, a de facto government will assert itself; or rather, BE asserted. Not necessarily benign.

If we look at the scenarios of virtual mafia control over certain neighbourhoods...well, situations along those lines would be commonplace...if not legion.

[ToadBrother]

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.

And yet every advanced society in history has done precisely that. In Rome they used to give bread away because if you didn't feed the masses, they rioted (which they tended to do). Hence the term "bread and circuses" to mean distracting people from greater problems.

Surely the French Revolution pretty much demonstrated that not looking after the welfare of the lower classes will lead those with the coin into grave danger.

[ToadBrother]

If we look at the scenarios of virtual mafia control over certain neighbourhoods...well, situations along those lines would be commonplace...if not legion.

And that too, would simply be another form of government, with its own forms of taxation and ways of assuring prompt and full payment.

Simply put, no society in history has ever been Libertarian. Such a society, I doubt, would ever exist for any length of time.

[bloodyminded]

And that too, would simply be another form of government, with its own forms of taxation and ways of assuring prompt and full payment.

Simply put, no society in history has ever been Libertarian. Such a society, I doubt, would ever exist for any length of time.

No, not without some gigantic shift in human consciousness itself.

[eyeball]

No, not without some gigantic shift in human consciousness itself.

A gigantic advance in technology might do it. Imagine if each of us had our own swarm of nano-assemblers or a replicator capable of producing and recycling anything a person needed or wanted?

Even then I bet there would still be some old pinch faced social conservative insisting that too much libertarianism was immoral or unnatural.

[Machjo]

A gigantic advance in technology might do it. Imagine if each of us had our own swarm of nano-assemblers or a replicator capable of producing and recycling anything a person needed or wanted?

Even then I bet there would still be some old pinch faced social conservative insisting that too much libertarianism was immoral or unnatural.

Technology itself is but a tool that can be used either for good or evil.

[bloodyminded]

A gigantic advance in technology might do it. Imagine if each of us had our own swarm of nano-assemblers or a replicator capable of producing and recycling anything a person needed or wanted?

Even then I bet there would still be some old pinch faced social conservative insisting that too much libertarianism was immoral or unnatural.

Yes, well, I have little doubt that certain types would wish to gain control over such technology, in order to get others to work for him or to pay him for its use.

It sounds perverse--and it it perverse. But I think Bertrand Russell was right: at a certain point, the accumulation of wealth is not about "greed" in the traditional sense at all. It's about Power; power over other people (and sometimes, though not necessarily, Glory, which in a way is related to Power.)

[Pliny]

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?

Yes, road construction, at the federal level should cease. It started because they needed military access to isolated parts of the country. Most of our roads are built at the provincial level which is better and not a centralization of federal power.

I think you can see that Provinces should have some powers and the federal government should not just dictate what it wants the provinces to do.

When I am talking about a central authority that is what I mean - a central authority, and I am usually referring to it on a national or federal level. At the totalitarian level there is no other independent level of government. Provincial and municipal levels of government would simply be extensions of the central authority.

If we look at the mandate of the federal government we see it has expanded into the area of social welfare. Employment insurance, health care, education, pension plans. It has a department of Women's affairs, multiculturalism. It has a central bank, and it is interesting to note that most of the widening of their mandate occurs after the creation of the central bank.

We see this as a progression of centralizing power and authority. This is socialism.

It's end is a total centralization of power and authority as espoused in ideologies such as communism and fascism.

While we, well...most of us, have learned that communism and fascism are not good things we have not learned that centralizing power and authority are not good things and we continue to grow the powers and authority of the state. Both the left and right are guilty of this but once favours are won the people will not easily relinquish them.

Globally, I don't think you would like a central authority to dictate to your country where roads should be built. Obviously, they will only do so for their own interests other wise they wouldn't care where you built roads.

Because they say they will pay for it makes it easier to swallow but essentially it is the taxpayer who is paying for it. If the leader or leaders of the central authority have a proclivity to build roads in Russia then Russia gets roads built and the rest of the world pays the bulk of it. It's a totally unfair system.

Essentially, the smaller the sphere of influence the more I am willing to tolerate a dictatorial central authority because the more likely I am to agree with what it is doing due to the fact that I, as an individual, have more input and a closer relationship with a small localized governing body addressing local issues than I do with a large central authority.

[Pliny]

Yes, well, I have little doubt that certain types would wish to gain control over such technology, in order to get others to work for him or to pay him for its use.

It sounds perverse--and it it perverse. But I think Bertrand Russell was right: at a certain point, the accumulation of wealth is not about "greed" in the traditional sense at all. It's about Power; power over other people (and sometimes, though not necessarily, Glory, which in a way is related to Power.)

Exactly the reason that power should not be centralized in our federal government except for in a described limited mandate.

[Pliny]

And yet every advanced society in history has done precisely that. In Rome they used to give bread away because if you didn't feed the masses, they rioted (which they tended to do). Hence the term "bread and circuses" to mean distracting people from greater problems.

Surely the French Revolution pretty much demonstrated that not looking after the welfare of the lower classes will lead those with the coin into grave danger.

I would say that there was injustice and oppression and exploitation that contributed to the dissension of the masses and that governments failure to provide essentials to them was not the reason for revolution.

Every advanced civilization has failed because government widens it's mandate due to a failure to deliver justice. It has granted privilege to some over others and that injustice demands correction but often leads to a further granting of privileges to the dissenters in order to "level the playing field" instead of the necessary correction of the initial injustice of providing privilege to some over others.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

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.

You are talking about "externalities". If you build a few more rooms under your neighbours property or you pollute the drinking water downstream then these are concerns that need to be addressed by those affected by these externalities. If common sense or reason cannot prevail and solutions found then justice will have to and should provide a solution that both parties have to live with. If it is just then all concerned parties will agree to it.

You ask for protection of the general public from the greed of private property owners why don't you just ask for reason and justice to prevail. Who cares if someone is greedy? It's their problem. If there is some injustice committed in the acquisition of their property or damage they are causing to others by the use of their property that needs to be addressed and a failure to address it, first with reason and last with justice, is the problem. Justice must be available to the individual when reason is lost and too many injustices, justice being the rightful province of government, are a failure of government.

[ToadBrother]

I would say that there was injustice and oppression and exploitation that contributed to the dissension of the masses and that governments failure to provide essentials to them was not the reason for revolution.

Every advanced civilization has failed because government widens it's mandate due to a failure to deliver justice. It has granted privilege to some over others and that injustice demands correction but often leads to a further granting of privileges to the dissenters in order to "level the playing field" instead of the necessary correction of the initial injustice of providing privilege to some over others.

This sounds more like a paragraph from the Communist Manifesto than a Libertarian declaration.

The reality is that there will always be imbalance. That's how human societies work. We are social primates that, by our very nature, erect dominance hierarchies. There has never been a government, no matter how hard they may have tried (and most certainly it was a goal of Marxism in its various forms) that could produce a society where all enjoyed the same privilege. In Marxist societies, those in power and the Party Apparatchik formed an aristocracy, in capitalist countries a small group, either skillful and/or ruthless enough ended up doing the same thing. Surely by now, after about 6000 to 8000 years after the invention of large-scale urbanized civilization, I think the notion that you can meaningfully extend privilege all around has been proven false. Libertarianism tends to fail because it confuses two different kinds of freedom. For those low on the economic pole, the freedom to accrue wealth and influence hardly exists at all, so while they theoretically have the same degree of privilege as folks higher up the food chain, as the old expression goes, they're really free, under a Libertarian system, to starve to death.

Human societies, even hunter-gatherer societies, partake in wealth redistribution. In primitive societies, the notion of private property barely exists at all, the groups are much too small to permit much of that. In more complex societies, wealth, power and influence tends inevitably to concentrate. It's the nature of the game. The trick is to balance the necessity for wealth redistribution with the clear benefits of free enterprise in generating new wealth, not to simply say "Well, we're killing welfare programs". Do the latter, and maybe, just maybe, the wealthy and the middle classes might be able to afford to keep themselves safe by pouring heaploads of money into police and security forces, but you'll generate the cliched Dystopia in the process.

[Pliny]

This sounds more like a paragraph from the Communist Manifesto than a Libertarian declaration.

Then you condemn us to be forever confused?

The reality is that there will always be imbalance. That's how human societies work. We are social primates that, by our very nature, erect dominance hierarchies. There has never been a government, no matter how hard they may have tried (and most certainly it was a goal of Marxism in its various forms) that could produce a society where all enjoyed the same privilege. In Marxist societies, those in power and the Party Apparatchik formed an aristocracy, in capitalist countries a small group, either skillful and/or ruthless enough ended up doing the same thing. Surely by now, after about 6000 to 8000 years after the invention of large-scale urbanized civilization, I think the notion that you can meaningfully extend privilege all around has been proven false. Libertarianism tends to fail because it confuses two different kinds of freedom. For those low on the economic pole, the freedom to accrue wealth and influence hardly exists at all, so while they theoretically have the same degree of privilege as folks higher up the food chain, as the old expression goes, they're really free, under a Libertarian system, to starve to death.

Does the fact one is really free to starve mean that the notion you can meaningfully extend privilege all around has been proven true?

We do what we can. Government can only help according to what it can extort.

Human societies, even hunter-gatherer societies, partake in wealth redistribution.

Charitably or through extortion?

In primitive societies, the notion of private property barely exists at all, the groups are much too small to permit much of that.

This is true. Many people, even today, have no concept of private property.

It becomes more important with scarcity. Who cared about private property when you just had to move away a few valleys and set up your tent.

In more complex societies, wealth, power and influence tends inevitably to concentrate. It's the nature of the game.

So you are saying that "the nature of the game" is to concentrate wealth, power and influence. In other words, the best socialist wins!

The trick is to balance the necessity for wealth redistribution with the clear benefits of free enterprise in generating new wealth, not to simply say "Well, we're killing welfare programs". Do the latter, and maybe, just maybe, the wealthy and the middle classes might be able to afford to keep themselves safe by pouring heaploads of money into police and security forces, but you'll generate the cliched Dystopia in the process.

Clear benefits of free enterprise in generating new wealth???? Is that possible?

You are talking about injustice. The rich are not always the same people unless there is injustice. Is there injustice today? Look at how long the rich have remained rich.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Pliny

[ToadBrother]

Charitably or through extortion?

This is a leading question, precisely how Libertarians frame things. But yes, at the end of the day, government, as the primary agent of society, takes what it feels it requires. The compromise in democracy is the taxed get to choose who taxes them.

[Pliny]

This is a leading question, precisely how Libertarians frame things. But yes, at the end of the day, government, as the primary agent of society, takes what it feels it requires. The compromise in democracy is the taxed get to choose who taxes them.

You suggest we are a democracy. Are European countries democracies?

We are following along in Europe's footsteps and they are no longer a democracy of the people but a democracy of special interests.

A social democracy will not last more than a century or two before it becomes a totalitarian state or there is a revolution. Bismarck, I believe was the one that said that once the public realizes it can vote itself favour from the public purse they will destroy themselves.

If you read the definition of extortion it describes our current form of taxation. The choice to pay taxes must be made by the taxpayer if it is to be fair

This could be done by eliminating income tax and having a VAT on non-essentials. Then the choice to buy is also the choice to pay the tax. One cannot choose to make no income and maintain any reasonable standard of living, although I won't argue that perhaps a few have made that choice. And they may have even made it so they didn't have to pay taxes.

[Yesterday]

Hi, Ive been buggin people out on the forum elsewhere about all these things you are talking about...thank-you for this thread. More later....

[Oleg Bach]

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

About six years ago - my younger brother who married a woman who had her son by a previous marriage move in with them...had two young infant sons of his own in the home - the step son - started bringing in unsavory people...Goth types - dressed like vampires who disrupted the whole house and were negatively affecting the infant children - My brother attempted to toss them out one night - he raised his voice and told them to leave - The very liberal mother attacked him after one to many vodkas..she punch the father that was attempting to clean up the house of human trash...

My younger brother...did not commit a crime - His crime was that he has a conservative attitude..he did not assault anyone but was himself struck..HE took the two infants into the bedroom and locked the door to escape the crazy wife - step son and the every day is halloween crowd. Ten minutes later the cops come knocking - they haul away the father protecting his kids - charge him with assault - the so-called child protection people show up a few days later and snatch up the young sons..

So we sued the bastards...five years of litigation - 7 months to get the kids back that they were abusing and drugging...He lost his house and now he is a renter forever who will never have his former life restored - THIS IS LIBERALISM. Eventually after a long battle we even rescued the crazy wife from the clutches of these parasites...

Point being - family is family and family belongs to family and NOT the state. THAT makes us social conservatives who were persecuted because we actually protect our children - property - wives and personal dignity...They do not bother my brother anymore because we lost the suit of course...but it cost them half a million dollars to defend their liberal policy..we bleed them - liberals understand one thing in the end - MONEY.

[Yesterday]

Technology itself is but a tool that can be used either for good or evil.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidy...teeheee

[Yesterday]

Then you condemn us to be forever confused?

Does the fact one is really free to starve mean that the notion you can meaningfully extend privilege all around has been proven true?

We do what we can. Government can only help according to what it can extort.

Charitably or through extortion?

This is true. Many people, even today, have no concept of private property.

It becomes more important with scarcity. Who cared about private property when you just had to move away a few valleys and set up your tent.

So you are saying that "the nature of the game" is to concentrate wealth, power and influence. In other words, the best socialist wins!

Clear benefits of free enterprise in generating new wealth???? Is that possible?

You are talking about injustice. The rich are not always the same people unless there is injustice. Is there injustice today? Look at how long the rich have remained rich.

I think he was talking about competition? A trait of human nature that must be exercised by all in some way shape or form. Sports are not for everyone. Couple competition with intelligence and watch the games begin.

[Yesterday]

About six years ago - my younger brother who married a woman who had her son by a previous marriage move in with them...had two young infant sons of his own in the home - the step son - started bringing in unsavory people...Goth types - dressed like vampires who disrupted the whole house and were negatively affecting the infant children - My brother attempted to toss them out one night - he raised his voice and told them to leave - The very liberal mother attacked him after one to many vodkas..she punch the father that was attempting to clean up the house of human trash...

My younger brother...did not commit a crime - His crime was that he has a conservative attitude..he did not assault anyone but was himself struck..HE took the two infants into the bedroom and locked the door to escape the crazy wife - step son and the every day is halloween crowd. Ten minutes later the cops come knocking - they haul away the father protecting his kids - charge him with assault - the so-called child protection people show up a few days later and snatch up the young sons..

So we sued the bastards...five years of litigation - 7 months to get the kids back that they were abusing and drugging...He lost his house and now he is a renter forever who will never have his former life restored - THIS IS LIBERALISM. Eventually after a long battle we even rescued the crazy wife from the clutches of these parasites...

Point being - family is family and family belongs to family and NOT the state. THAT makes us social conservatives who were persecuted because we actually protect our children - property - wives and personal dignity...They do not bother my brother anymore because we lost the suit of course...but it cost them half a million dollars to defend their liberal policy..we bleed them - liberals understand one thing in the end - MONEY.

This is a police state story. I feel very upset for your brother and the kids. My friends mother was struck by a car a couple of days ago while walking in a mall parking lot. She is 73. She is well bruised in the ribs and hips but no broken bones. Turns out that the lady who hit her is going to get off scott free. The police won't charge her because it was on private property, the woman's insurance isn't responsible for any payout and the mother had to hire a lawyer to fight her rights with her own insurance company. What is this world coming too? I am truly upset about the lack of justice for her too.