Quote of the Day
When you’re unsure about a given issue, whether it’s race relations or equal rights for women, or marriage equality or immigration, just look at what side the social conservatives are on, and it’s a fair bet that history will judge that side to be the wrong one. — tgirsch
Of course it sounds like cynical political snarkiness on the surface but when you think about it — well, social conservatism is “resistance to progress” pretty much by definition. Since progress will happen and the most that those who fear it can ever do is slow it down, social conservatism must always be on the wrong side of history. That’s precisely what it means to be a social conservative.
[...] UPDATE: Lookie here! I got the Qoute of the Day! [...]
[...] Touche. But is it always bad to be on “the wrong side” of history? What if history is wrong? [...]
Remove the semantics and examine the facts. Liberals lean towards policies that favor the group -socialism for instance- at the expense of the individual.
The only thing that appears to work the best is a system that emphasizes personal responsibility and protecting individual liberties. It’s my experience that conservatism seems to emphasize the individual over the group, basically attempting to “conserve” the rights of the individual regardless of what the group wants. Liberalism appears to be the opposite.
How’s that work out in relation to history? Not so well.
What the hell are these so called individual rights? There can’t be that many. I think you should have the right to be left alone, regardless of your kinks, right up to the point that you inflict them on someone else. You do not, however, have a right to keep everything you earn, since there are so many factors that assist you in that endeavor. Ownership must have limits. If this is a dis-incentive for you or anyone else to be productive, no sweat, move out of the way, sport, there are 6 guys behind you that think X dollars a year after taxes is a damn nice living.
Ahh, Mack, you’ll have to forgive Tman — as near as I can tell, he lives in a comic book. Either that or he’s very confused and thinks the ACLU is a conservative institution and Pat Buchanan is liberal.
What the hell are these so called individual rights?
In the US we call them THE BILL OF RIGHTS, otherwise known as Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution.
I think you should have the right to be left alone, regardless of your kinks, right up to the point that you inflict them on someone else.
Good! Me too. Those are the rights of the individual conservatism seeks to conserve.
You do not, however, have a right to keep everything you earn, since there are so many factors that assist you in that endeavor.
Sure. What if I don’t get any assistance when I earn something? Can I keep it all then?
If this is a dis-incentive for you or anyone else to be productive, no sweat, move out of the way, sport, there are 6 guys behind you that think X dollars a year after taxes is a damn nice living.
Where did I say that? The point I was making is that socialism hasn’t been successful in practice throughout history (see: China, Russia), whereas a system based on “conserving” the rights of the individual has been wildly successful (see the US).
I don’t have a problem paying for the rights and amenities that I have through taxation, as long as the government promises to defend these rights. And I will vote to remove politicians that want MORE than I think is necessary. Conservatives seek to limit the power of a centralized government so that individual talents can flourish. Notice that when taxes were cut by Bush the government collected more revenue in taxes than at any other time in history. This is because people were able to use more of the money they earned to create more wealth, thus raising overall tax revenue.
This isn’t rocket science. And it sure as hell isn’t a comic book.
My eyes must be failing me because I’ve looked and looked at my post and still can’t find this glorification of “socialism” that has you all hot and bothered.
Your world veiw is cartoonish because you seem to have some perception that “all liberals believe FOO” and “all conservatives believe BAR”, which is silly on its face since “all” is a dangerous word in any context, but becomes even sillier when faced with the reality that both statements are based on hyperbolic stereotypes whose meager kernels of truth have been whithering away steadily since the 60s.
What has me bothered is your definition of conservatism. It’s wrong on its face. And you don’t seem to understand the correllation between individual rights and conservative values, which “progressives” would sell down the river to benefit the group. What’s even worse is that history shows how badly socially “progressive” programs have failed.
I’m not hot though. Internet arguments don’t get me hot.
Methinks you confuse conservatism and libertarianism. And you again seem to think that opposing BAR is the same as supporting FOO.
I agree that opposing Foo doesn’t necessarily mean you support BAR, but I haven’t confused conservatism with libertarianism.
Ahh. So opposing the right to marry, opposing the right to move freely about the planet, and opposing the right to hire who you want/work for who you want are examples of conservatives supporting individual rights?
“opposing the right to marry”
True conservatives don’t believe the government should have anything to do with marriage, one way or the other. I’m not defending what the repubs have done with this issue, because it’s not in line with conservative values.
“opposing the right to move freely about the planet”
Huh? You mean immigration? Conservatives again, believe in conserving the laws that protect the individual. There are laws that say you can’t just waltz in to our country and automatically become a beneficiary of everything this country has to offer, just as if you are a company you can’t (or aren’t supposed to) hire people that are here illegally. There are rules of law one follows to do this. The laws should be upheld. These laws protect the individuals who do obey the law.
Yup, that’s what I was expecting, conservatism suddenly gets redefined as soon as it’s challenged. This was a post about social conservatives. You did read the post before commenting, right?
Meanwhile I’ll leave you to ponder on your own the paradox of defending conservatism on the grounds that it supports individual rights over the collective, while defending the social conservatives view that some perceived need for the collective to control the imaginary lines it draws in the sand outweighs the individual right to travel and work.
How bout I just leave.
You don’t agree with me and that’s fine. I’m not trying to win anything. I was just pointing out that “progressives” have a brutal track record throughout history, and the quote you fawned over at the top is inherently wrong.
You are trying to put the christian right under the conservative umbrella, and there is no room for them there.
Have fun being right about everything though. I’m used to liberal condescension by now.
Well perhaps you would have more fun bashing progressives under circumstances where one is actually discussing progressives.