Conservatives on this site?

[Kenny Lee]

I'm fiscally frugal and socially try to mind my own business.  I think people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, but then be responsible for those choices.  (Do what you like, don't force me to be like you, don't force me to pay for your decisions)

With two parties that appear to be driven by a desire to interfere in people's lives and push their own social biases on others, and to use my money to accomplish those aims, I'm a bit of a outcast.

I'd claim Libertarian - this is what it is originally defined as, but this term continues to be hijacked and redefined and strawmanned to death.  So I'll just stick with my first sentence.

 

I find your everyday liberal to be well intentioned, but excessively naive at best.  The stereotypical conservative to be way too churchy, but also well intentioned, but misguided.

Political leadership?  Liberals are naive, Cons are corrupt.  (Libs just do the wrong things, Cons say the right things, but do the wrong things when you aren't looking)

Overgeneralization is fun, isn't it?

BEST. POST. EVER.

Just brilliant, man.

 

[CoachB25]

Kenny, thanks for that post!

 

Take care,

Darrell

[boogielicious]

OK everyone. Keep this civil or the thread will be locked. Every time politics and religion are discussed there is a tendency to get person. DO NOT get personal. Two members have been warned on this thread.

Edited October 29, 2015 by boogielicious

[CoachB25]

I apologize and will stay out of this forum.

Take care,

Darrell

[Elmer]

 

 

we'd do well to stay away from the ridiculous caricatures, but then that would require respectful dialogue and the ability to accept that disagreement of positions on subjective issues doesn't always equate to a life or death battle of pure evil vs pure goodness

In theory, you are wrong.  the people are supposed to gladly contribute for the greater good.  Rainbow farts, unicorns, and happiness and all that......

In practice you are correct, the collection of one's labor and skills by government is always under threat of force.  Which by human nature will breed resentment by both givers and takers.  The only free exchange that works is on the individual level - personal, 1 on 1, charity.  And then only when it's a temporary measure.

 

 

Marx came up with his brand of communism after looking upon history at the working class and their struggles. You have to also understand that during Marx's time there was little Govt involvement in peoples lives aside from taxes and patching the occasional road. There was very little if any social welfare assistance. 
You got sick or injured and unable to work your family took care of you. You had no family, hopefully a neighbor was nice enough to help you out, but it would have likely cost you a chicken.
Marx's idea required humans to all evolve and work towards a common goal of health and combined prosperity. Very along the lines of Jebus idea of healing the sick, feeding the hungry and love thy neighbor.

However humans are petty and selfish. So Marx idea will really never work.

[rehmwa]

Marx came up with his brand of communism after looking upon history at the working class and their struggles. You have to also understand that during Marx's time there was little Govt involvement in peoples lives aside from taxes and patching the occasional road. There was very little if any social welfare assistance. You got sick or injured and unable to work your family took care of you. You had no family, hopefully a neighbor was nice enough to help you out, but it would have likely cost you a chicken.
Marx's idea required humans to all evolve and work towards a common goal of health and combined prosperity. Very along the lines of Jebus idea of healing the sick, feeding the hungry and love thy neighbor.

However humans are petty and selfish. So Marx idea will really never work.

I don't believe that.  Marx's idea was calculated to achieve a power structure over a downtrodden people by using ideas that sound nice.

Humans, as individuals, do not have to be petty and selfish, they will stand up for each other (like the neighbor example of yours).  When charity becomes forced, or remote, that's when it breaks down - it has to be personal - eye to eye.  the giver has to see the benefit they created - the taker has to see that the benefit is a real sacrifice and meaningful.  That's when those little evolutions happen and we become better as a species.  It's why the concept of "social welfare" (anonymous, impersonal, etc etc.  the term itself "entitlement" says so much about the unhealthy psychology we're encouraging) is a short term fix at best, and disastrous in long term - unwilling charity drives resentment - voluntary charity drives evolution.  You can't legislate voluntary caring.

Edited October 29, 2015 by rehmwa

[Elmer]

I don't believe that.  Marx's idea was calculated to achieve a power structure over a downtrodden people by using ideas that sound nice.

Humans, as individuals, do not have to be petty and selfish, they will stand up for each other (like the neighbor example of yours).  When charity becomes forced, or remote, that's when it breaks down - it has to be personal - eye to eye.  the giver has to see the benefit they created - the taker has to see that the benefit is a real sacrifice and meaningful.  That's when those little evolutions happen and we become better as a species.  It's why the concept of "social welfare" (anonymous, impersonal, etc etc.  the term itself "entitlement" says so much about the unhealthy psychology we're encouraging) is a short term fix at best, and disastrous in long term - unwilling charity drives resentment - voluntary charity drives evolution.  You can't legislate voluntary caring.

Are you sure you are not confusing Marx with Stalin.
What I find funny of most right wing conservatives (and conversely ultra liberals) is that they throw around general terms when they simply are not correct.
IE: "Obama is a marxist socialist"

"the possibility that one may give up ownership of one's own labour—one's capacity to transform the world—is tantamount to being alienated from one's own nature; it is a spiritual loss"

Marx lived a near penniless lifestyle when in fact he could have lived differently. 
Friedrich Engel was a wealthy for the time. Of course as a father of communism it has been said of Engels "This great lover of the good life, passionate advocate of individuality, and enthusiastic believer in literature, culture, art and music as an open forum could never have acceded to the Soviet Communism of the 20th century, all the Stalinist claims of his paternity notwithstanding"

Marx, Engles and Lenin were about the class struggle and taking the advantage of the rich who lived off the labor of the poor.
Then stalin came to power and became a real dictator.
And people tend to confuse them.
But this could be avoided, but no one cares for facts these days!

To stay on Topic, Bush looked like a trainwreck last night. His days running for POTUS are numbered!

 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Elmer

[Lefty-Golfer]

I'm fiscally frugal and socially try to mind my own business.  I think people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, but then be responsible for those choices.  (Do what you like, don't force me to be like you, don't force me to pay for your decisions)

With two parties that appear to be driven by a desire to interfere in people's lives and push their own social biases on others, and to use my money to accomplish those aims, I'm a bit of a outcast.

I'd claim Libertarian - this is what it is originally defined as, but this term continues to be hijacked and redefined and strawmanned to death.  So I'll just stick with my first sentence.

 

I find your everyday liberal to be well intentioned, but excessively naive at best.  The stereotypical conservative to be way too churchy, but also well intentioned, but misguided.

Political leadership?  Liberals are naive, Cons are corrupt.  (Libs just do the wrong things, Cons say the right things, but do the wrong things when you aren't looking)

Overgeneralization is fun, isn't it?

it may be an overgeneralization but I happen to find it spot on and I pretty much agree across the board. I actually don't consider myself frugal but our government spends money like a drunk sailor in a...well you get the point!!

[rehmwa]

Are you sure you are not confusing Marx with Stalin.

 

To stay on Topic, Bush looked like a trainwreck last night. His days running for POTUS are numbered!

 

Yes - on both counts

[14ledo81]

I don't believe that.  Marx's idea was calculated to achieve a power structure over a downtrodden people by using ideas that sound nice.

Humans, as individuals, do not have to be petty and selfish, they will stand up for each other (like the neighbor example of yours).  When charity becomes forced, or remote, that's when it breaks down - it has to be personal - eye to eye.  the giver has to see the benefit they created - the taker has to see that the benefit is a real sacrifice and meaningful.  That's when those little evolutions happen and we become better as a species.  It's why the concept of "social welfare" (anonymous, impersonal, etc etc.  the term itself "entitlement" says so much about the unhealthy psychology we're encouraging) is a short term fix at best, and disastrous in long term - unwilling charity drives resentment - voluntary charity drives evolution.  You can't legislate voluntary caring.

I agree with this completely.

I also think that those who see people taking advantage of government welfare systems become resentful.  Those who do not see it, many times, do not realize it is a problem.

[RandallT]

Are you sure you are not confusing Marx with Stalin.What I find funny of most right wing conservatives (and conversely ultra liberals) is that they throw around general terms when they simply are not correct.
IE: "Obama is a marxist socialist"

"the possibility that one may give up ownership of one's own labour—one's capacity to transform the world—is tantamount to being alienated from one's own nature; it is a spiritual loss"

Marx lived a near penniless lifestyle when in fact he could have lived differently. 
Friedrich Engel was a wealthy for the time. Of course as a father of communism it has been said of Engels "This great lover of the good life, passionate advocate of individuality, and enthusiastic believer in literature, culture, art and music as an open forum could never have acceded to the Soviet Communism of the 20th century, all the Stalinist claims of his paternity notwithstanding"

Marx, Engles and Lenin were about the class struggle and taking the advantage of the rich who lived off the labor of the poor.
Then stalin came to power and became a real dictator.
And people tend to confuse them.
But this could be avoided, but no one cares for facts these days!

To stay on Topic, Bush looked like a trainwreck last night. His days running for POTUS are numbered!

I know it's an oversimplification, but at my age, I feel like I've seen enough attempts at this idealistic collectivism. Whether Marx, Engels, Lenin, or whoever were good, well-intentioned, noble people is not really of concern to me. I applaud Engels for those things in bold, but it's ironic that his ideals led to nearly the exact opposite, likely because he(they) misjudged the nature of people.

I think they misjudged the nature of the masses in that if there's a way to get out of work, people will usually take it. I see that in my teenagers ALL THE FRIGGING TIME. It is simply innate, and at a level of organizing people, if you provide handouts, forget it- people just get greedy for more and resentful when you take away the handouts. Like I say, this is from personal experience. My eyes show me what's right in front of me.

I think they also misjudged the greediness of elites, and their willingness to do what it takes to hold onto power. I think that while it's possible to have benevolent dictators, at some point, you'll get a ruthless one, and then game over. They have the power, and there's no getting it back from them.

Is it safe to say that by 2015, attempts at collective forms of government snuff out the individual spirit, and the natural result becomes compulsion and tyranny?  Is that a gross oversimplification? Yes. But until I see a model that works (feel free to convince us about the Scandinavian successes), I think I'll stick with the least bad system: capitalism/republicanism. That sucks for the downtrodden, but those of us that are doing well have an obligation to help those in need. We do it because it is the right thing to do, not because some elites force us to do the right thing.

I'll gladly go down fighting for freedom, as it's that important. Life under someone else's thumb is not really worth living, unless you're fighting it or undermining it at every turn. When I see our way of life heading that direction, it frankly disturbs me.

Jeb seemed to be the loser in the debate last night (other than the media). Jeb Bush is not a fighter. He's a limp noodle who would allow the country to continue down its path to collectivism. I want a fighter, but our choices are rather limited and none meet my criteria (I'm not conservative, nor a Republican).

Back to the OP: no label fits me, and my attempt to say I'm libertarian has only led to confusion, as it seems libertarian can mean a zillion things. The non-negotiable aspects of my ideology are that individual freedoms, competition, and private property are paramount and most political issues can be viewed through that prism. Many would say those are conservative principles, but I balk at being called a conservative! Certainly not on social issues! 

The rest of my outlook is pragmatic, and that sometimes you just need to get things done to see if it works (preferably at the state level), even if it doesn't fit nicely into your ideology. If the solution doesn't work, leave some room to back out try something else. Don't be overly rigid.

Enough babbling. Damn Erik for telling me to "just post it." Normally I'd have deleted this to not cause a ruckus.

 

[Gator Hazard]

I know it's an oversimplification, but at my age, I feel like I've seen enough attempts at this idealistic collectivism. Whether Marx, Engels, Lenin, or whoever were good, well-intentioned, noble people is not really of concern to me. I applaud Engels for those things in bold, but it's ironic that his ideals led to nearly the exact opposite, likely because he(they) misjudged the nature of people.

I think they misjudged the nature of the masses in that if there's a way to get out of work, people will usually take it. I see that in my teenagers ALL THE FRIGGING TIME. It is simply innate, and at a level of organizing people, if you provide handouts, forget it- people just get greedy for more and resentful when you take away the handouts. Like I say, this is from personal experience. My eyes show me what's right in front of me.

I think they also misjudged the greediness of elites, and their willingness to do what it takes to hold onto power. I think that while it's possible to have benevolent dictators, at some point, you'll get a ruthless one, and then game over. They have the power, and there's no getting it back from them.

Is it safe to say that by 2015, attempts at collective forms of government snuff out the individual spirit, and the natural result becomes compulsion and tyranny?  Is that a gross oversimplification? Yes. But until I see a model that works (feel free to convince us about the Scandinavian successes), I think I'll stick with the least bad system: capitalism/republicanism. That sucks for the downtrodden, but those of us that are doing well have an obligation to help those in need. We do it because it is the right thing to do, not because some elites force us to do the right thing.

I'll gladly go down fighting for freedom, as it's that important. Life under someone else's thumb is not really worth living, unless you're fighting it or undermining it at every turn. When I see our way of life heading that direction, it frankly disturbs me.

Jeb seemed to be the loser in the debate last night (other than the media). Jeb Bush is not a fighter. He's a limp noodle who would allow the country to continue down its path to collectivism. I want a fighter, but our choices are rather limited and none meet my criteria (I'm not conservative, nor a Republican).

Back to the OP: no label fits me, and my attempt to say I'm libertarian has only led to confusion, as it seems libertarian can mean a zillion things. The non-negotiable aspects of my ideology are that individual freedoms, competition, and private property are paramount and most political issues can be viewed through that prism. Many would say those are conservative principles, but I balk at being called a conservative! Certainly not on social issues! 

The rest of my outlook is pragmatic, and that sometimes you just need to get things done to see if it works (preferably at the state level), even if it doesn't fit nicely into your ideology. If the solution doesn't work, leave some room to back out try something else. Don't be overly rigid.

Enough babbling. Damn Erik for telling me to "just post it." Normally I'd have deleted this to not cause a ruckus.

 

I love just post it.  :D

Very well laid out and articulate.  I am glad you posted it.

[Lihu]

Is it safe to say that by 2015, attempts at collective forms of government snuff out the individual spirit, and the natural result becomes compulsion and tyranny?  Is that a gross oversimplification? Yes. But until I see a model that works (feel free to convince us about the Scandinavian successes), I think I'll stick with the least bad system: capitalism/republicanism. That sucks for the downtrodden, but those of us that are doing well have an obligation to help those in need. We do it because it is the right thing to do, not because some elites force us to do the right thing.

 

100% agree!

Pride is the root of most of our political dissension, and is the root to why some feel that the downtrodden should retain their pride and get money "owed" to them instead of given.

[rehmwa]

Back to the OP: no label fits me, and my attempt to say I'm libertarian has only led to confusion, as it seems libertarian can mean a zillion things. The non-negotiable aspects of my ideology are that individual freedoms, competition, and private property are paramount and most political issues can be viewed through that prism. Many would say those are conservative principles, but I balk at being called a conservative! Certainly not on social issues! 

The rest of my outlook is pragmatic, and that sometimes you just need to get things done to see if it works (preferably at the state level), even if it doesn't fit nicely into your ideology. If the solution doesn't work, leave some room to back out try something else. Don't be overly rigid.

There's a lot more people like us than than not.  We just aren't the loud and 'in the news' crowd.  But we do scare the hell out of the old and entrenched leadership (because we are the absolute antithesis of what they need to keep their power).  Keep up the hope.

[turtleback]

Wait.  Wasn't Jesus a communist?  (Note, I didn't say Stalinist or Maoist, etc...)

No, not in the least.  

[mdl]

Wait.  Wasn't Jesus a communist?  (Note, I didn't say Stalinist or Maoist, etc...)

No, not in the least.  

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 – For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”

Matthew 19:21 – You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 19:24 – And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 14:13 – If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Acts 2:44-45 – And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Sounds like an Ayn Rand disciple for sure...

[rkim291968]

Ok, @mdl.   Try this one - and I will stick to the topic as best as I can.

 

Jesus was a liberal of his day.   He was not a conservative.   Let's see some verses about that. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by rkim291968

[rehmwa]

 

 

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 – For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”

Matthew 19:21 – You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 19:24 – And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 14:13 – If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Acts 2:44-45 – And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Sounds like an Ayn Rand disciple for sure...

I guess all these quotes have something in common - admonishment to voluntarily give of yourself to help others.

I see nowhere in there where it says "yay, though they have their own mouths to feed, go forth and issue legislation to force others to give from themselves even if they would choose not to, and then give the bounty to those holding out their hands in expectation and bad attitudes and resentment of those very souls from which they bleed their lives involuntarily"

 

for that matter - I suspect the final round of quotes involves all this giving to go directly to the church in some direct fashion (in reality).  The quotes likely were said right before passing the collection plate.

 

as always - the concept is laudable, but it's the process to achieve the goal that defines us

Edited October 29, 2015 by rehmwa