Why I am a conservative (Part One of Two)

[August1991]

Why am I a conservative?

I have one of two simple answers to this question (although depending on thread drift, I may offer variations on a theme).

The scientific method involves testing a hypothesis. Our civilized legal system involves the "presumption of innocence". Combining the idea of "presumed/assumed innocent" with the "scientific method" makes me a conservative.

----

In science, there is an hypothesis.

In a civilised State, if the State (through its government) accuses an individual of a crime, the basic hypothesis is that the individual is innocent. (The government is wasting its time/taxpayer money with this prosecution.)

If you want to change things, if you want to put Citizen X in prison, then the onus is on you to prove why.

Hence, I'm a conservative.

Edited October 12, 2013 by August1991

[TimG]

If you want to change things, if you want to put Citizen X in prison, then the onus is on you to prove why.

This logic suggests that you reject the precautionary principal as a basis for policy decisions. i.e. if someone wants to stop an existing economic activity one must prove that it will led to harm that exceeds the benefit. It is not enough to claim that it might lead to harm.

[August1991]

This logic suggests that you reject the precautionary principal as a basis for policy decisions. i.e. if someone wants to stop an existing economic activity one must prove that it will led to harm that exceeds the benefit. It is not enough to claim that it might lead to harm.

TimG, a civilized State does this in a criminal court.

If your neighbour says so, should we burn the witches? Or should we check if these women can accurately predict adultery?

[Peter F]

I like to think i'm a socialist yet I beleive the same as you? Whats up with that?

[TimG]

If your neighbour says so, should we burn the witches? Or should we check if these women can accurately predict adultery?

Well, I was under the impression that you believed the precautionary principal should be a basis for public policy decisions.

[Michael Hardner]

You're using the small 'c', which makes sense in this context. I find the biggest conservatives in the country right now are Liberals. While the US is facing populist waves on both sides of the political spectrum, the Liberals believe in staying the course and wearing the same suit that was fashionable in the 1970s.

[Topaz]

Is it possible for a country not to be run under a party system, other than Royalty? Today, because of certain people getting into politics, they are just making the party system bad. Could Canada run like a business where a PM or say a CEO, has to run as an individual for the position? It would be the same for all ministers needed and there would be no MP's, but the voters would always have the power to recall and replace those people if the needed was there. People applying for the jobs would have to show they have experience and a panel of taxpayers from all walks of life, would do the deciding. Could this work?

[Jimmy Wilson]

You're using the small 'c', which makes sense in this context. I find the biggest conservatives in the country right now are Liberals. While the US is facing populist waves on both sides of the political spectrum, the Liberals believe in staying the course and wearing the same suit that was fashionable in the 1970s.

Corporatists in disguise?

[Michael Hardner]

Is it possible for a country not to be run under a party system, other than Royalty? Today, because of certain people getting into politics, they are just making the party system bad. Could Canada run like a business where a PM or say a CEO, has to run as an individual for the position? It would be the same for all ministers needed and there would be no MP's, but the voters would always have the power to recall and replace those people if the needed was there. People applying for the jobs would have to show they have experience and a panel of taxpayers from all walks of life, would do the deciding. Could this work?

The system is set up in parallel to any system that markets products. We only have a few options, and if we had more then it might be better.

[kimmy]

Why am I a conservative?

I have one of two simple answers to this question (although depending on thread drift, I may offer variations on a theme).

The scientific method involves testing a hypothesis. Our civilized legal system involves the "presumption of innocence". Combining the idea of "presumed/assumed innocent" with the "scientific method" makes me a conservative.

----

In science, there is an hypothesis.

In a civilised State, if the State (through its government) accuses an individual of a crime, the basic hypothesis is that the individual is innocent. (The government is wasting its time/taxpayer money with this prosecution.)

If you want to change things, if you want to put Citizen X in prison, then the onus is on you to prove why.

Hence, I'm a conservative.

I certainly agree with the premise.

I think where we would disagree is in deciding what actually constitutes a good reason to change things.

-k

[August1991]

I think where we would disagree is in deciding what actually constitutes a good reason to change things.

Disagree? I think Shakespeare used the term "there's the rub".

Kimmy, I suspect that you and I would agree that "change for the sake of change" does not constitute a good reason. (Zune, Clippy and Windows 8 may not be proof of my point but they're good examples.)

----

As a conservative, I like the term: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." To me, this generally means that I let people keep the old way but I present the choice of a new way. True, this leads to legacy systems, parallels and it appears costly given duplications. But in fact, I reckon that it is cheaper in the long run.

Why?

For the same reason Shakespeare used the word "rub": What is a good reason to change things? No one today really knows the future.

Edited October 20, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

I would bet valuable Kimmy Points that 100 years ago, arguments along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" were presented in response to those who campaigned for women's suffrage. Or 50 years ago in response to the civil rights movement.

Our perception of what needed fixing has changed over time, often guided by increasing awareness of situations that don't fit with our principles. What is a good reason to change things? Historically it has often been when sufficient numbers of people begin to realize that for some people the current situation *is* broken.

Today, one of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" arguments has been in regard to electoral reform. There's been considerable debate over whether it's actually broke or not, as well as whether the alleged "fixes" being proposed (proportional representation and various ranked ballot systems and other untried experiments) would be better or worse. Is it broke? Those arguing yes claim low voter turn-out as evidence, and they claim that the tendency of the current system to turn a plurality of votes into a solid majority in legislature is inconsistent with the democratic ideal. Here in BC when it was put to the ballot, the "it ain't broke" side won out; people were not adequately convinced that the traditional way was bad or that the proposed alternative would be better.

-k

[Argus]

I would bet valuable Kimmy Points that 100 years ago, arguments along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" were presented in response to those who campaigned for women's suffrage. Or 50 years ago in response to the civil rights movement.

You're right and wrong. Yes, there among the beliefs of conservatives is to stick with what works. BUT, as a conservative, while I might be somewhat wary of adopting something new, if you can show me it would work or might well work better, and that there are issues with the existing system, then I'm willing to try.

Today, one of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" arguments has been in regard to electoral reform. There's been considerable debate over whether it's actually broke or not, as well as whether the alleged "fixes" being proposed (proportional representation and various ranked ballot systems and other untried experiments) would be better or worse. Is it broke? Those arguing yes claim low voter turn-out as evidence, and they claim that the tendency of the current system to turn a plurality of votes into a solid majority in legislature is inconsistent with the democratic ideal. Here in BC when it was put to the ballot, the "it ain't broke" side won out; people were not adequately convinced that the traditional way was bad or that the proposed alternative would be better.

Count me as one unsatisfied with the current system. But I don't believe it's the degree of participation which is at fault. Or rather, that's the result, not the cause. I also have looked at proportional reprsentation in other countries and am supremely unimpresed with the quality of government it produces. While our system might tend to downplay minority interests, PP can vastly overplay them as tiny parties gain influence out of all proprtion to their support.

I think at the heart of our system's problems is politicians who are far, far more interested in what their parties think and want and say than in what their constituents think and want and say. PP won't change that. I'm not sure what will. We see the same thing at the provincial level. At the municipal level, where, in Ontario at least, there are no parties, we still often see politicians largely unresponsive to constituents, but not to the same degree. And they tend, in the abscence of parties which fund campaigns, to be far too easily persuaded by the big money donors like developers.

If we could somehow transplant the municipal system federally yet provide funding so they couldn't be bribed by developers and the like, well... it might be interesting.

[kimmy]

I certainly don't want to sidetrack the thread into a discussion of electoral reform, but I thought it was an excellent discussion piece for how the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy applies in a real situation.

There's good arguments to be made on both sides of the question "is it broke?" and there's no clear consensus on the question of "how to fix it" among those who do think it's broke.

I think that "conservatives" and "liberals" and "progressives" probably mostly agree with the principle of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", but a "progressive" probably has a different idea of what's "broke" and a much more ambitious idea of how to "fix" it.

-k

[Argus]

I certainly don't want to sidetrack the thread into a discussion of electoral reform, but I thought it was an excellent discussion piece for how the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy applies in a real situation.

There's good arguments to be made on both sides of the question "is it broke?" and there's no clear consensus on the question of "how to fix it" among those who do think it's broke.

I think that "conservatives" and "liberals" and "progressives" probably mostly agree with the principle of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", but a "progressive" probably has a different idea of what's "broke" and a much more ambitious idea of how to "fix" it.

-k

Yes, but then progessives aren't much concerned with being wrong. Nor are they concerned with complicated answers.

"Give the poor more money! Help the poor!"

"Well, but if we give them a lot more money people won't want to work minimum wage jobs..."

"Raise the minimum wage to forty dollars an hour! Guaranteed income!"

"But then people won't work..."

"You hate the poor!"

"And all those jobs will disapear because they're too expensive..."

"Oppressor! Fascist!"

"We need to stop global warming! Ban all oil!"

"Then we'd freeze..."

"Denier! You hate the environment!"

"It would destroy the economy..."

"Oppressor! Corporate sellout!"

Edited October 21, 2013 by Argus

[dre]

I think at the heart of our system's problems is politicians who are far, far more interested in what their parties think and want and say than in what their constituents think and want and say. PP won't change that. I'm not sure what will. We see the same thing at the provincial level. At the municipal level, where, in Ontario at least, there are no parties, we still often see politicians largely unresponsive to constituents, but not to the same degree. And they tend, in the abscence of parties which fund campaigns, to be far too easily persuaded by the big money donors like developers.

Pretty well said, I agree.

If we could somehow transplant the municipal system federally yet provide funding so they couldn't be bribed by developers and the like, well... it might be interesting.

I actually think solutions to the problem are pretty easy to come up with. Theres a host of ways to make politicians more accountable to the electorate and to weaken the influence of parties and donors. The problem is... the political class is smart and resourceful, and they have us squabbling amonst ourselves instead of holding their feet to the coals. The only people that could "fix" the problem, "are" the problem, and the bulk of the electorate are just blabbing on about left vs right.

[August1991]

I would bet valuable Kimmy Points that 100 years ago, arguments along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" were presented in response to those who campaigned for women's suffrage. Or 50 years ago in response to the civil rights movement.

Our perception of what needed fixing has changed over time, often guided by increasing awareness of situations that don't fit with our principles.

"Fixing"? Let me consider your point.

Kimmy, as a conservative, I don't oppose change, or "fixing". IMHO, if the bulb is dead, change it. I oppose "change as a lifestyle".

Thalidomide was once considered a "progressive" solution to early pregnancy nausea. Progressives/Leftists/Barbra Streisand/Matt Damon/Margaret Atwood seem to favour any change.... unless it means free trade. Then, they oppose people like me being able to choose freely.

Edited November 17, 2013 by August1991

[socialist]

You're using the small 'c', which makes sense in this context. I find the biggest conservatives in the country right now are Liberals. While the US is facing populist waves on both sides of the political spectrum, the Liberals believe in staying the course and wearing the same suit that was fashionable in the 1970s.

Maybe you don't quite grasp "classical" liberalism.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe you don't quite grasp "classical" liberalism.

No, I get that but Liberals are not liberals.

[socialist]

No, I get that but Liberals are not liberals.

Then in your knowledge, what is a classical liberal, and name a few present day Canadian politicians who could be called classical liberals. Name 5 if you really understand this form of liberalism.

[Michael Hardner]

Then in your knowledge, what is a classical liberal, and name a few present day Canadian politicians who could be called classical liberals. Name 5 if you really understand this form of liberalism.

Classical liberal, as I recall from school, is interested in leaving business alone.

[socialist]

Classical liberal, as I recall from school, is interested in leaving business alone.

Give me the names of 5 Canadian politicians (present day) who could be considered classical liberals. Just checking to see if you really understand the term. You failed to answer the question I presented in my previous post.

[Michael Hardner]

Give me the names of 5 Canadian politicians (present day) who could be considered classical liberals. Just checking to see if you really understand the term. You failed to answer the question I presented in my previous post.

Well, I will refrain from looking it up but I'd guess that Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and such would be classical liberals... Am I right on those two ?

[socialist]

Well, I will refrain from looking it up but I'd guess that Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and such would be classical liberals... Am I right on those two ?

Along with John Manley.

[socialist]

Well, I will refrain from looking it up but I'd guess that Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and such would be classical liberals... Am I right on those two ?

As well as John Manley, Frank McKenna, Bernard Lord, and Michael Ignatieff, before he became an opportunist.