Replies

Wow. The premises in your posts are so flawed that it's difficult to decide where to begin.

First, regarding the “rhetoric” used by Conservative spokespersons – grow up and open your eyes. If you think that the rhetoric from Conservatives is any worse than that coming from Liberals, you are either willfully ignorant or just plain, old-fashioned ignorant.

Politics ain’t beanbag; it’s a rough game. If you – personally – want to engage in a battle of ideas, the first thing you need to do is grow up. Understand the difference between political humor, “rhetoric” used to persuade the masses in an era of sound bites and mass communication, and the “ideas” that animate the contest.

If you want to whine about rhetoric, you aren’t qualified to talk about ideas.

Second, Conservatives do not believe in Utopia. Only extremist ideologies (Islamism, Communism, National Socialism, some would say Libertarianism) believe in Utopias. Conservatives are realists, and believe that there is no such thing as Utopia – certainly not on Earth. But what we can do is organize ourselves as societies in such a way as to promote the greatest level of human happiness possible in a flawed world filled with flawed people.

We have come to the conclusion – with overwhelming historical empirical evidence to back it up - that the political philosophy which leads to the greatest level of human happiness for the most people is that which is enshrined in our Constitution: Limited Government with self-policing checks and balances, Elected representatives, Individual Rights, and a recognition that – since these rights are bestowed by our Creator and not by Man – Man has no right to take them away.

(And despite what you may think, our Constitution is a decidedly “Conservative” document. The only way that it can be construed as supporting modern Liberal ideas is for it to be reinterpreted by activist liberal judges who keenly spot “penumbral emanances” undetectable by those less liberally “enlightened”.)

Third, your concern about threats to your right to “co-exist,” is so incredibly flawed and child-like that we have to back to political Kindergarten to address it. This will take awhile, so bear with me.

To start, the animating principal of "Republicanism" is the belief in Individual Freedom and the rule of law as opposed to Collective Rights and the rule of the majority.

Republicans do not believe in government by pure majority rule, because the rule of the majority is the tyranny of the majority. We believe in rule of law (which is the definition of a “Republic”) administered by representatives of the people.

To the contrary, the animating principal of modern “Democratic/Liberalism” is Collective Rights/Majority Rule.

(btw, That’s what makes Liberals crazy today – the fact that they – the self-anointed safe-keepers of the power of majority rule – are in the minority! It blows their worldview apart!)

So who has more to worry about – a Liberal in a Conservative world, or a Conservative in a Liberal world? Let’s think about it…..

Suppose 51% of the people on your block vote to take your house, sell it and split the proceeds among them. Is that “right”? No? Well, it's "democratic", isn't it? It’s majority rule, right? That’s why in the US we have “Property Rights” enshrined in the Constitution and inviolable (though Liberals are doing everything they can to change that).

Isn't it a superior political philosophy to respect individual rights, even if that freedom contradicts majority rule (aka “collective rights”)? We have the greatest Constitution in the history of the planet because it limits the power of government to infringe upon individual liberty, regardless of the will of the 51% to do so.

So the very idea that Conservatives are challenging "Liberals" right to "co-exist" is silly. Modern Conservatives do not challenge ANYONES right to "co-exist" because we believe in individual freedom. It is the philosophy of the modern Liberal which truly challenges the rights of others with different ideas to co-exist.

You have nothing to worry about as an individual. The only thing that Conservatives in political power means to you is that you don’t have the power to force your ideas on the rest of the country. You aren’t going to jail – you just can’t tell other people what to do.

Liberalism used to mean "in favor of the precepts individual freedom". It doesn't anymore. Ever since John Rawls, Liberalism has been fatally corrupted by those who believe in collective rights over individual freedom. And collective rights ALWAYS come at the expense of individual freedom.

In a sense, Conservatives now are what Liberals used to be. It is we who are supporting individual freedom and Liberals who support collective rights.

The only areas where Conservatives do NOT believe in pure Individual Freedom is when it comes to activities that can negatively impact the moral and cultural fiber of a society.
This is because we recognize - through hard experience - that individual freedom can ONLY survive if a critical mass of people within the society are of high character and possessing of moral virtue.

- Moral Depravity + Freedom = Decay and Chaos
- Moral Fortitude + Freedom = Strength and Peaceful Progress

Not convinced? I’ll give it one more shot.

Ideas mean something, so it should be instructive to you that ALL of the genocidal and otherwise-motivated horrors of history have been animated by the ideals of collective rights over individual freedom.

- for Hitler it was the collective rights of the Aryan race at the expense of Jews, Gypsies and others
- for Stalin and Pol Pot it was the collective rights of the Proletariat at the expense of everyone else
- for Robert Mugabe it is the collective rights of blacks at the expense of White farmers
- for the Hutus in Rwanda…
- for the Turks in Armenia…
- for the Maoists in the Cultural Revolution…
- you get the idea

I’m not saying that modern Liberals are knowingly leading us in that direction. I consider them to be well-meaning idiots who know not what they do. But I am saying that the underlying premises – the animating ideas – behind those horrors are difficult to distinguish from modern Liberal collectivist ideology.

Thankfully for the past 40 years these collectivists have been constrained by the Constitution and opposed by Conservatives until those ideas have collapsed of their own weight.

For a clue as to what the country could have been like, look at the "tolerance" exhibited by those parts of our society which were successfully dominated by modern Liberals. Look at how well Liberals in academe "tolerate" Conservative thinkers. Look at how well Liberals in Hollywood "tolerate" Conservatives in their midst.

They don't. These parts of our society have succeeded in achieving a level of ideological purity and intolerance that boggles the mind.

So as you can see, the very PREMISE of your question – wondering whether people who espouse certain IDEAS (Liberalism) have the right to co-exist in a society dominated by Conservative principles – is ridiculous.

In a later post you ask if we consider “Equality” to be a virtue. The answer is “it depends on what you mean by that.”

1. We believe that all are equal before the law. We are a country of laws, not men, so no man is above the law.
2. We believe that people are born with the same inherent rights, as these come from God and are not granted by man
3. We do NOT believe in equality of outcomes (i.e., that if you don’t succeed in life everyone else has an obligation to give you their money to make things “equal”. And no matter the virtuous-sounding rhetoric, that’s what it all comes down to.).

It sounds all fine and well that everyone should have “free” healthcare and “free’ education, but the fact is that there is no way to do this without seriously infringing on the freedom of others. The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the property - and therefore the labor – of other people.

See my 51% example above – if the proceeds of selling that house was to put the neighbors kids through college, does that make it OK?

Not only is it wrong, but it doesn’t work. Look at the aspects of our economy that have the most out of control costs and are the subject of the most complaints about quality and availability – education and healthcare. Is it a coincidence that they are the two parts of the economy over which the government TODAY has the most control? Government ALREADY controls over 50% of the healthcare and education industries, and they are the worst-run industries in the country. Is the answer to give the government MORE control?

Is medical care any more important than food? Government has very little control over the supply and delivery of food in our country, and yet we have the lowest cost, highest quality food system in the world. Even our poorest people are fat.

Is it worth considering that maybe if we got the government OUT of education and healthcare we might have better quality, lower cost, and wider availability? It’s worked that way throughout history and for all aspects of all economies. So why do some people insist on believing that somehow government control over these things will make them better?

Answer: willful ignorance, or just plain old-fashioned ignorance.

Finally, with regards to your outsourcing issue, you first need to educate yourself. I recommend strongly that you consult Bureau of Labor Statistics publications on the real impact of outsourcing on US employment. It is so low as to almost not be measurable (and is probably even positive – not negative), and an understanding of basic economics will tell you why.

I - for one - am an employer of people both in the US and in India. I can state categorically that if it weren't for the scale afforded by our team in India, we would not have been able to hire as many people as we have in the US.

In other words, offshore labor allows us to profitably grow our business which allows us to hire more people in the US. We now have 150 US employees. If we didn't have the business benefits afforded to us by India, we would have under 100 employees in the US - maybe 0 as it's altogether possible we would be out of business.

If we weren’t “allowed” to invest in India it’s not as if we would have hired those people in the US. We wouldn’t have hired ANYONE because it wouldn’t have been profitable to do so. And we would not have been able to hire those OTHER people in the US that we have.

People who look at the issue only cursorily or emotionally will find it easy to reach a different conclusion. But - as with most things - with deeper understanding of reality comes an intelligent adoption of what today are called "Conservative" principles.

The only ‘reasonable’ argument that you’ve brought forth has to do with how you deal with things like “Single Parent households, Segregation, Sexism, Racism” and what they mean to the ability of people to live up to their potential.

With regards to Segregation, Sexism and Racism, “Liberals” were on the right side of history because they were right. And because they were right, they were rewarded with power for 30 years. However, I will make the argument – again with copious empirical data to back it up – that for all intents and purposes these issues are over.

In a country of 300 million people I’m sure you can still find a few million racists and sexists out there (and more than a few million Communists and Islamists too), but they are too small in number to be relevant in any kind of meaningful way. In any event, racism is now perhaps Problem # 83 in the black community. Problems 1-82 in the black community, in my opinion, are those of moral depravity, lack of respect for character, education and tradition, and the family breakdown that goes with it.

Effectively the “community” threw out the baby with the bathwater when they rejected Conservative principles because they associated them with racism. Single parent families and a variety of social pathologies are a direct result.

So what do you do about it? The problem with Liberal “solutions” to these problems is that they don’t work, and in most cases make them worse by institutionalizing them.

We have to recognize that these problems are only solvable over the long term, and only by nurturing an environment of economic flexibility and freedom, rejection of government-engineered institutionalization of problems, and the encouragement of virtues of self-reliance and personal character.

That’s how people are lifted out of poverty – not giving them lots of free stuff.