Social Conservatism

Neoperspectives ^ | 8/1/06 | me

[traviskicks]

Be interested to hear any objections/responses from any Social Conservaties on this.

[traviskicks]

ping

[phoenix0468]

Well, it would be nice to have known ya, bye bye!!

[traviskicks]

Moral Absolute ping?

[traviskicks]

Well, it would be nice to have known ya, bye bye!!
---

lol Nice Knee jerk. Try reading it.

[EternalHope]

Mark, for future reading.

[adorno]

Long piece. Will finish reading later.

But, from the initial definitions in the first few paragraphs, it sounds to me like we already have a term for Social Conservatives: RINOs. Or should it be CINOs?

[MHGinTN]

"Andrew Sullivan has been popularizing the term Christianist to describe social conservatives who hope to use government power to achieve Christian ends." Andy, as a militant homosexual, wants government to stop restraining deviant sexual behavior. Doing so would harm the society, degenerating the society to the level, eventually, that Andy lusts for. When government restrains this sort of degeneracy it serves the society health regardless of whether the impetus to resist this degeneracy comes from Christian conservatives or not. Trying to misdirect focus and thus raise up a strawman to deflate is not a transparently honest approach, Travis.

Abortion is another of the 'don't tell us what we can and cannot do, government, just keep us safe' pleas. The blatant dehumanization of the unborn proves such a twisted juvenile approach to civilization accounts for tens of millions of slaughtered citizens.

[lonestar67]

I consider myself a social conservative and think you are wrong on several fronts:

1. In regard to religion, the separation crowd has no real intention of abiding by the ramifications of such a doctrine. The "limited government" is neveral realized and in fact libertarians like this author seem acutely annoyed at religiosity. consequently, the mere presence of one tax dollar in a public event entitles them to grand enforcement of "freedom from religion" a right found nowhere in the constitution. The First of the first amendment freedoms provides a protection of religious establishments from the federal government. Libertarians and liberals have cooperated to turn this promise on its head and drive the "bulldozer" [scalia] of the wall separating church and state over their religious brethren.

2. Alcohol is a legal drug. It accounts for 40 percent of all traffic accidents and is involved in 40 percent of all violent crimes. The prohibition of alcohol to 18-21 year olds has demonstrably reduced traffic deaths by more than 2,000 a year.

3. As with drugs, libertarians always think that making things illegal makes them more attractive. Drug use is actually declining among youth despite the amusing anecdotes provided.

[William Terrell]

I think somebody's not clear on what is and isn't conservative.

[phoenix0468]

Travis, Libertarians are as bad as liberals when it comes to understanding true Conservatism. A Conservative understands the balance between government and society. The fact that one aspect of governing is to enact laws that protect citizens from criminals, such as drug dealers, and in some cases themselves. If society didn't police itself through moral legislation and laws it would decay. Religion plays a very important part of governing since the basis of many ethical and moral laws come from the major religion of a society. To separate religion and government would also lead to a decadent society. We can see this quite clearly in society today. As morally based laws become less relevant or even are withdrawn, our society has become more tolerant of illicit behavior, such as drug use and minors' use of alcohol.

If government were to allow industry to exist in a completely free market, our environment and most likely our economy would suffer. Regulation of industry is necessary to mitigate the effects of irresponsible acts due to greed. Although you suggest that government takes our money (in the form of taxes) and spends it how they see fit, I disagree. It is the constituency that has put representatives in the position to submit spending legislation and subsequently vote on it. If you don't like how your representative votes or writes a bill don't vote for them. We live in the most efficient and effective democracy on the planet, and in history. No, it is not perfect, far from it, but it is the closest thing to true freedom that we can get, IMO. Libertarianism is anarchy and anarchy breeds decadence and a dangerous society that limits true personal freedom.

[GeronL]

In principle, Conservatives and Libertarians see eye to eye in regards to economic freedom

Nope. Most conservatives are like the GOP in Congress, they talk about freedom but don't practice it. I stopped reading right there.

[traviskicks]

Thanks for your comments. Overall, I think we have an honest ideological disagreement, which I can respect as long as folks have given these ideas thought and consideration.

I agree with everything you've said about the efficient democracy. I certainly wasn't trying to downplay the greatness of the united states.

However, I think we need a more active and educated constituency. For example, how can they get away with things like this:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/07/435_districts_435_blogs_agains.php


"As morally based laws become less relevant or even are withdrawn, our society has become more tolerant of illicit behavior, such as drug use and minors' use of alcohol."

Do you have an example of this? Drug use has been declining for the last few decades, without any change in illegality, as far as I've been aware.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. Anarchocapitalism (sp) etc.. is sort of a serparate, but interesting ideology, where there really is no government. Libertarianism, generally IMO, believes government exists to protect property and liberty and enforce contracts the people make among themselves as individuals.

Thus, there would be little need for gangs and violence etc.. as people cannot count on government to protect their property, illicit drugs. With legalization, much of the 'anarchistic' behavior evaporates into a more orderly society.

[traviskicks]

That's why the words 'in principle' was used. In practice, there are scaler differences.

[traviskicks]

I think somebody's not clear on what is and isn't conservative.
----

What do you mean? Disagreeing with something doesn't mean one doesn't understand it

[Alexander Rubin]

Interesting, but relies overheavily on generalizations, and truisms from a libertarian perspective.

[traviskicks]

thanks for your comments. In regard to your first point, I think much of the debate over the public display of religion etc.. is due to the public ownership of the area in question. For example, prayer in school would be a moot issue if schools were private.

On your last two points, With the first, I don't think the figures you say have been demonstrated are true, and don't see how it can even be known. It would be equally easy to raise the limit to say, 25, and save a few thousand more lives right? With the second, I believe it is the case that European countries with freer drug and alchol laws have lower per captia use of those substances.

[qlangley]

Travis, I have noticed that not all government programmes fail in their stated aims. Some over-succeed. You give the great example of drugs. Use of hard drugs among the core 15-29 age group has gone up in the UK every year since hard drugs were banned in 1970. On the other hand, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy was designed to combat food shortages and farm poverty. It led to massive surpluses (‘grain mountains’) and to farmers driving Range Rovers and sending their kids to boarding school.

I think Murphy’s law is at work here. If the government policy has a decent enough motive, like reducing drug abuse, it will generally have the reverse effect to the one intended. If it was just stupid in the first place – the CAP applied the mechanisms of the ‘50s to the problems of the ‘40s – then it will over-succeed rather than fail.

BTW, Lonestar, are you sure about your figures? The only figures I have seen suggesting that drug use has come down are entirely due to demographics. The core 15-29 age group is shrinking. The number of over 80s is going up. But it is no credit to the ‘war on drugs’ that most 85 year olds aren’t smack heads. My understanding is that the percentage of 15-29 year olds using controlled substances is still rising in the US, just as it is in the UK. Absolute levels are, of course, vastly higher than when the substances were legal. And US consumption of marijuana is far higher than in Holland, where it is legal now.

[William Terrell]

My understanding of conservatism, especially the social kind, is that it seeks to "conserve" customs and practices that have been found over the centuries to make stable unions of people in nations and other groups. The common law reflects this experience.

Homosexual unions, for instance, is not a conservative ideal. Homosexuality for many reasons has been taboo, much less marriages among same.

Also, living together without being married is something that people do, but the common law, recognizing that bonded couples raising children create a stable society and protect women, make a couple living and making common cause together, married, requiring a divorce to part.

These are at least two liberal practices mentioned in the article.

[lonestar67]

Drug use is down among youth

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/HSYouthtrends.html

I find the whole drug war debate annoying. One of the most popular myths is that prohibition did not work. The incidence of alcoholism and alcohol related disease was much reduced during prohibition. Consumption was also reduced.

Presumably, muslim countries have rampant alcoholism-- but they don't. I am not suggesting that we return to these policies but libertarians keep foisting this idea that by legalizing all things life will get better. Russia's biggest problem is alcoholism. I don't think it is because they prohibit it.

I guess I'll go out on a limb here and say I would not mind if every car in the US had a breathalyzer. I don't think people should be able to operate vehicles under the influence.

Most of the people I know who want to legalize marijuana don't want to do so for fiscal or reduction reasons. They want to legalize it so they can get it easier. Libertarianism is in my experience a dodge for having serious values-- let the market decides because I never will.

I am not as aggressive with government as libertarian stereotypes suggest but things like public smoking bans do actually appeal to me. The religion issue is interesting to me because I don't see people saying, "make religion illegal in public and you will make it more popular."