NationStates Jolt Archive

So, who is paleoconservative in here? For those who don't know what paleoconservatism is, then read this handy little Wiki article about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

I would have to say that I am a paleoconservative and damn proud of it! I may either start a Paleoconservative Guild or Party on here. So who all subscribe to the ideals of Paleoconservatism?

You just missed the election.

I'd vote for ya, I guess that makes two paleoconservatives ;)

You just missed the election.

I know I did.

My impression of paleoconservatism is that it's 1) a response to the neoconservatist movement and 2) an attempt to save the brand of conservatism from the disaster that has been the Bush administration.

hrm:

an anti-communist,

Well ok

anti-authoritarian

well all right.

right wing movement

Eww, lost me there.

that stresses tradition,

Ahh one of them "no blacks allowed" type of places.

civil society

Really who isn't against civil society, other than the more rabid social evolutionist anarchists among us.

and classical federalism,

Feh, states rights are so 19th century. When Florida fights a war, I'll consider it worthy of some autonomy, until then it's just a piece of land that's part of one government and vaguely looks like a penis.

along with familial

Ahh one of them "no gays allowed" type of places.

religious,

Ahh one of them "no jews allowed" type of places.

regional, national and Western identity

Ahh, one of them "no immigrants allowed" type of places.

I'm sorry but whenever someone tries to talk to me about an affiliation that tries to stress "traditional, family, religious and national values" I start picturing men in white robes burning crosses.

I suppose my largest objection to this ideology is that it doesn't seem to allow for growth or change. And, even though change is not always for the better, it is still smart to be open to the option: how do you know the "old" ways are better, if you never try the new?

Ew. No. No no no no no no no, no.

I know I did.

Well, I was just saying, you cauld create a party and force the election, pissing of the entire forum cuz Ruffy will win again.

The proper name for them is "troglodytes."

My impression of paleoconservatism is that it's 1) a response to the neoconservatist movement and 2) an attempt to save the brand of conservatism from the disaster that has been the Bush administration.

1.) Actually Paleoconservatism has been here before Neo-Cons, Goldwater, William F. Buckley, even John Mc.Cains are Paleoconservative.

2.) Yes, I personally do feel like the Neo-Cons and the Bush admins are giving the real Conservatives a bad name.

Protectionism, xenophobia, homophobia, and right-wing economics?

Nope.

<snip>
[/thread]
'Culture war'? Ugh.

hrm:



Well ok



well all right.



Eww, lost me there.



Ahh one of them "no blacks allowed" type of places.



Really who isn't against civil society, other than the more rabid social evolutionist anarchists among us.



Feh, states rights are so 19th century. When Florida fights a war, I'll consider it worthy of some autonomy, until then it's part of one government.



Ahh one of them "no gays allowed" type of places.



Ahh one of them "no jews allowed" type of places.



Ahh, one of them "no immigrants allowed" type of places.

I'm sorry but whenever someone tries to talk to me about an affiliation that tries to stress "traditional, family, religious and national values" I start picturing men in white robes burning crosses.

Did you read the wiki article or just skim over it?

Well, I was just saying, you cauld create a party and force the election, pissing of the entire forum cuz Ruffy will win again.

Eh maybe I'll just create a Guild.

[/thread]
'Culture war'? Ugh.

I'm really not sure what this means...

Did you read the wiki article or just skim over it?

the first paragraph is really as far as I needed to go for pretty much the reasons I said. And by the way, I got a degree in political theory, don't assume I need a wiki to tell me the tenants of a political philosophy.

I'm really not sure what this means...
You win the thread. :p

From the wiki...
"The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat—that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."[166]
Yuck. On social issues, they don't seem to be particularly different to any other conservatives. I.e. backward, to put it nicely.

1.) Actually Paleoconservatism has been here before Neo-Cons, Goldwater, William F. Buckley, even John Mc.Cains are Paleoconservative.

2.) Yes, I personally do feel like the Neo-Cons and the Bush admins are giving the real Conservatives a bad name.
*points out the fact that this is Wilgrove's 5000th post*

1.) Actually Paleoconservatism has been here before Neo-Cons, Goldwater, William F. Buckley, even John Mc.Cains are Paleoconservative.

2.) Yes, I personally do feel like the Neo-Cons and the Bush admins are giving the real Conservatives a bad name.

I glanced at the Wiki article--read the section on how they embrace traditional southern values (guess you can figure out how I felt about that)--but I was talking more about their recent resurgence. Until the neo-cons went ass-up, you didn't hear the term paleocon very much, if at all, so I'm thinking that the recent resurgence is really just an attempt to save the brand so carefully built around Reagan.

1.) Actually Paleoconservatism has been here before Neo-Cons, Goldwater, William F. Buckley, even John Mc.Cains are Paleoconservative.

The best example of paleoconservatism is Pat Buchanan.

Which is also a good example of why it is loathsome.

I glanced at the Wiki article--read the section on how they embrace traditional southern values (guess you can figure out how I felt about that)--but I was talking more about their recent resurgence. Until the neo-cons went ass-up, you didn't hear the term paleocon very much, if at all, so I'm thinking that the recent resurgence is really just an attempt to save the brand so carefully built around Reagan.

He's a brand? But, history has already judged him as the evil nitwit he was!

I glanced at the Wiki article--read the section on how they embrace traditional southern values (guess you can figure out how I felt about that)--but I was talking more about their recent resurgence. Until the neo-cons went ass-up, you didn't hear the term paleocon very much, if at all, so I'm thinking that the recent resurgence is really just an attempt to save the brand so carefully built around Reagan.

Ok nevermind I guess I'm not paleoconservative. I'm not white enough and I HATE confeds! :sniper:

I glanced at the Wiki article--read the section on how they embrace traditional southern values (guess you can figure out how I felt about that)--but I was talking more about their recent resurgence. Until the neo-cons went ass-up, you didn't hear the term paleocon very much, if at all, so I'm thinking that the recent resurgence is really just an attempt to save the brand so carefully built around Reagan.

Actually the Neo-Cons was born through Nixon. Richard Nixon was the first Neo-Con because of his domestic policy. Reagan was also a Neo-Con. Goldwater is a Paleoconservative, hell he's the guy that birthed the whole Modern Conservative movement.

The best example of paleoconservatism is Pat Buchanan.

Which is also a good example of why it is loathsome.

Nah, he's a fundie, and a Neo-Con.

Actually the Neo-Cons was born through Nixon.

Goldwater is a Paleoconservative, hell he's the guy that birthed the whole Modern Conservative movement.

The "modern conservative" movement that lasted for all of four years?

The "modern conservative" movement that lasted for all of four years?

Eh the movement split.

Nah, he's a fundie, and a Neo-Con.
Granted, I don't know much about Pat Buchanan, although the quotes in the paleoconservatism article were enough to tell me he's an ass, but...
Pat Buchanan opposes those people labeled neoconservatives, whom he calls "undocumented aliens from the Left, carrying with them the viruses of statism and globalism

Actually the Neo-Cons was born through Nixon. Richard Nixon was the first Neo-Con because of his domestic policy. Reagan was also a Neo-Con. Goldwater is a Paleoconservative, hell he's the guy that birthed the whole Modern Conservative movement.

try harder. The whole theory on paleoconservatives, namely the enforcement of traditional family values on the public would have made goldwater vomit.

In the whole list of "promenant paleoconservatives" in your wiki link you presented, his name doesn't appear at all.

Pat Buchanan's and Joe Sobran's on the other hand, do.

Actually the Neo-Cons was born through Nixon. Richard Nixon was the first Neo-Con because of his domestic policy. Reagan was also a Neo-Con. Goldwater is a Paleoconservative, hell he's the guy that birthed the whole Modern Conservative movement.

But Reagan is the god of modern conservatism, paleo, neo or otherwise--he's the one around whom all conservative "goodness" is rotated. He's the one around whom the brand has been built, and it's that legacy that Bush threatens, which is why there are people (like you, for instance) who are now trying to distance themselves from the neocons and say "they're not true conservatives." Because if you don't, the brand will forever be tarnished. Thus the resurgence in paleoconservatism and the re-lionization of Goldwater, who had been tucked away in the Republican closet since the rise of Reagan.

Nah, he's a fundie, and a Neo-Con.

Did you read the Wiki article you yourself posted?

Paleoconservative thought incubated in the pages of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.[11] Patrick J. Buchanan was heavily influenced by its articles[10] and helped create another paleocon organ, The American Conservative.[12]

Now, let's click on the link to "Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture."

The magazine influenced the views of Patrick Buchanan and strongly supported his candidacy in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicles_%28magazine%29

Indeed, he is a "fundie" - and a key issue for paleocons is restoring lost Christian values. Indeed, one of their major attacks on the neocons is that they are not aggressive enough in that respect.

Now, as for calling him a "Neo-Con," that is an absurd statement that indicates a lack of attention to everything the guy has said about Bush in the past six years.

The proper name for them is "troglodytes."

No, we only wish they'd stay in their underground dwellings.

From Wiki

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, foreign wars, and welfare.[2] They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the therapeutic managerial state,[5] the welfare-warfare state[6] or polite totalitarianism.[7] They see themselves as the legitimate heir to the American conservative tradition.[8]

Federalism

Federalism is another key aspect of paleoconservatism, which they use as an antitype to the managerial state. The paleocon flavor urges decentralism, local rule, private property and minimal bureaucracy.[56] In an American context, this view is called anti-federalism and paleocons often look to John Calhoun for inspiration.[57]

Followers of the late Murray Rothbard[207] and Lew Rockwell[208] who embrace paleolibertarianism, and who, being culturally conservative, espouse many of the same themes of paleoconservatives, are also wholly committed to laissez-faire economics.[209] Conversely, many paleocons favor laissez-faire and free trade. While they say America has economic ills, they do not attack foreign competition. Instead, they point to the benefits of free trade, economies of scale, comparative advantage, and specialization of labor.

Many blame America's economic problems on over-regulation, especially bad fiscal, tax and monetary policy, and accept the Austrian theory of trade cycle. Nonetheless, they concurrently reject treaties such as the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA. Lew Rockwell summarizes this position:

Anti-intervention

[edit] Against "entangling alliances"

In relations with other nations, paleoconservatives are more willing to question the logic of globalism and globalization, along with immigration policy and the lack of enforcement against undocumented immigrants — and they characteristically embrace an anti-interventionist foreign policy. Pat Buchanan once wrote that "we love the old republic, and when we hear phrases like 'new world order,' we release the safety catches on our revolvers."[211] Columnist David Aaronovitch (The Times of London) remarked that paleocons "want out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, out of everywhere and bring up the drawbridge."[212]

Many paleocons support a foreign policy based upon non-interventionism, which some call isolationism. American "isolationists" of the 20th Century opposed political and military commitments, or alliances with, foreign powers (or for that matter international bodies), particularly those in Europe. They find support in the wisdom of the founding fathers and a subsequent generation of antebellum statesmen.

Those are just a few of the things that Paleoconservatism.

The best example of paleoconservatism is Pat Buchanan.

Which is also a good example of why it is loathsome.

Nah, he's a fundie, and a Neo-Con.There is no possible way to lump Buchanan in with the neo-cons, unless you're defining neo-con as "anyone I don't like."

From Wiki

Those are just a few of the things that Paleoconservatism.

All of which is either bullshit, borderline racist, or highly impractical given america's position in global affairs in the 21st century.

But Reagan is the god of modern conservatism, paleo, neo or otherwise--he's the one around whom all conservative "goodness" is rotated. He's the one around whom the brand has been built, and it's that legacy that Bush threatens, which is why there are people (like you, for instance) who are now trying to distance themselves from the neocons and say "they're not true conservatives." Because if you don't, the brand will forever be tarnished. Thus the resurgence in paleoconservatism and the re-lionization of Goldwater, who had been tucked away in the Republican closet since the rise of Reagan.

The brand has been building since Goldwater, Reagan just re-energized the movement. Also, I've been distancing myself from Bush since 2000.

No, we only wish they'd stay in their underground dwellings.

Aye, but they are still as primitive and left behind...

All of which is either bullshit, borderline racist, or highly impractical given america's position in global affairs in the 21st century.

Well, it's sure as hell better than the Neo-Cons.

Well, it's sure as hell better than the Neo-Cons.

That's like saying "semi-solid poo is better than diarrhea." It's still shit, you know.

Those are just a few of the things that Paleoconservatism.

Don't selectively quote.

For instance, right above the section about laissez-faire, we see a very different paleoconservative approach to globalization:

Many paleoconservatives hold conceptions of trade policy that many call protectionist — in particular, applying revenue tariffs to foreign-made products — and other views that critics call mercantilist. For example, Samuel Francis argued that big business should serve the interests of Middle America.[198] "What Middle Americans need", he said, "is a political formula and a public myth that synthesizes the attention to material-economic interests offered by the left and the defense of concrete and national identity offered by the right."[199] He argued that defense of capitalism is not a conservative issue[198]

In addition, Pat Buchanan[200] and William R. Hawkins are expositors of economic nationalism[201] They say America's industrial base is eroding and warn of peril posed by uncontrolled free trade and globalization.

...

Philosophically, they believe domestic products deserve tax breaks over imported goods. They also encourage a return to the days when tariffs served most of America's revenue needs. Outsourcing and the underground economy of undocumented labor are also special concerns.

...

On another level, Thomas Fleming, who once called himself “more of an anarcho-capitalist than most of the free-marketers I have met,”[205] calls Austrian economics a Christian heresy.[206] He attacks lassisez-faire as a nihilistic ideology that actually subverts liberty to "the whims of fashion and the promptings of our glands." This robs people of the stability of family and community. Therefore even capitalism must be rooted in culture and tradition.

Well, it's sure as hell better than the Neo-Cons.

pneumonia is better, and ultimitly more preferable than ebola.

I'd just as soon have neither however.

Well, it's sure as hell better than the Neo-Cons.

No, it isn't.

Well, maybe in deaths caused. But not in ideological sanity; there, if anything, it's considerably worse.

That's like saying "semi-solid poo is better than diarrhea." It's still shit, you know.

Well I don't fit in well with the Neo-Cons, I don't fit in well with the Democrats or Liberals, blah.

For those who wonder what my political beliefs are.

I am Conservative when it comes to government, and how big it should be physical size and in powers. I believe that the government is too big nowadays, and that it interferes too much with our private lives. I am also Conservative when it comes to our taxes, I believe that not only are our taxes too high, but the tax system with the IRS is just too damn complicated. You get tangled in all of this red tape it's like being trapped in a spider web. That's why I am a big supporter for the Fair Tax plan. Now socially, I am liberal. I really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home with yourself, one or more consenting adult(s). I don't care how you run your business, and I don't care what you do to your body. I believe Gov. Co. intrudes too much in the private life of it's citizens. I also believe that the private sector and public sector should be separate. That's basically the gist of what I believe.

When paleocons are wrong, they are completely and utterly wrong.

When paleocons are right, they are right for all the wrong reasons.

Well I don't fit in well with the Neo-Cons, I don't fit in well with the Democrats or Liberals, blah.

You're a vague, moderate right-wing libertarian.

The paleocons would hate you even more than they hate the neocons.

Well, it's sure as hell better than the Neo-Cons.

and so are the democrats.

and we don't even want to force our moral values on other people!

you support a political movement that is centered around a strong religious guidance?

welcome to theocracy, where one religion is everyone's religion!

see! even the law says so!

after all, if we let pesky things like "freedoms" get out of hand, people might choose any old religion they want!




face it: any political group/party/movement, or whatever you want to call it that follows the tenements of one religion and wishes to use those religious laws as national laws is doomed to failure.

Or you could move to Iran.

you'd like it there: the government is very religious and traditional.

they don't let the women drive or vote, just like in the good old days!

you did say your movement was "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture"

I'm pretty sure the culture of our forebearers involved slavery and masculine domination.

you might want to look into that and see exactly what you're supporting, here

I don't fit in well with the ...Liberals.



not "fiting in well" with the liberals is basically like saying "I really don't want everyone to be equal".

That's fundamentally what the liberal philosophy is. The liberal ideology is basically the idea that everyone has the right to live their life as they want to, everyone has the right to a living wage, everybody has the right to share their love with whom they please.

The only reason to not get along with that, is to not believe in that.

not "fiting in well" with the liberals is basically like saying "I really don't want everyone to be equal".

That's fundamentally what the liberal philosophy is. The liberal ideology is basically the idea that everyone has the right to live their life as they want to, everyone has the right to a living wage, everybody has the right to share their love with whom they please.

The only reason to not get along with that, is to not believe in that.

They're also for bigger government, higher taxes, a more centralized government, and giving Gov. Co. more power over the private sectors and the private lives of it's citizens.

That's fundamentally what the liberal philosophy is. The liberal ideology is basically the idea that everyone has the right to live their life as they want to, everyone has the right to a living wage, everybody has the right to share their love with whom they please.

There is nothing in liberalism itself, at all, that deals with "living wages" and any sort of social liberalism. Liberalism is an economic philosophy about free markets and supply and demand and so on...

They're also for bigger government, higher taxes, a more centralized government, and giving Gov. Co. more power over the private sectors and the private lives of it's citizens.

Wow, the US version of liberalism is like bizarro world...

Wow, the US version of liberalism is like bizarro world...

Yea it is lol.

Wow, the US version of liberalism is like bizarro world...

Silly...the US is the CAPITAL of bizarro world!

The upside to that is how freaky some of their populace can be...

There is nothing in liberalism itself, at all, that deals with "living wages" and any sort of social liberalism. Liberalism is an economic philosophy about free markets and supply and demand and so on...

well there's economic liberalism and social liberalism, I was refering to social liberalism.

They're also for bigger government,

More social equality, yes... and if it requires government intervention, then, well, it requires government intervention.

On the other hand, they are favor of much smaller government in some cases - the military and government intervention into people's bedrooms, for instance.

higher taxes,

See above.

a more centralized government,

Justify that.

and giving Gov. Co. more power over the private sectors

Generally, yes.

and the private lives of it's citizens.

Nope.

well there's economic liberalism and social liberalism, I was refering to social liberalism.

What you were talking about was more like the fringe element of social democracy.

I am Conservative when it comes to government, and how big it should be physical size and in powers. I believe that the government is too big nowadays, and that it interferes too much with our private lives. I am also Conservative when it comes to our taxes, I believe that not only are our taxes too high, but the tax system with the IRS is just too damn complicated. You get tangled in all of this red tape it's like being trapped in a spider web. That's why I am a big supporter for the Fair Tax plan. Now socially, I am liberal. I really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home with yourself, one or more consenting adult(s). I don't care how you run your business, and I don't care what you do to your body. I believe Gov. Co. intrudes too much in the private life of it's citizens. I also believe that the private sector and public sector should be separate. That's basically the gist of what I believe.


To sum up:

"You have the right to do whatever you want with your mind, your body, and your property, and the government is here to make sure it stays that way"

I agree with the above statement, and that's why I'm a democrat.

sure: both parties spend too much.

but I'd rather have them spend money on welfare, social security, and healthcare (you know: helping people) than on legislating my sex life, going to war, or putting up statues for a religion I don't believe in.

well there's economic liberalism and social liberalism, I was refering to social liberalism.

Social liberalism doesn't really concern itself with living wages.

They're also for...giving Gov. Co. more power over the ...private lives of it's citizens.

Wow, you really a tad brainwashed huh?

pssst, we're not the ones who are for the war on drugs or against the "war on marriage".

In other words if you wanna say a prayer to satant all while smoking a joint and doing your boyfriend up the ass, while you whip him with banana leaves, that's really cool with us.

Wow, the US version of liberalism is like bizarro world...Nope, just Wilgrove's version of US liberalism.

Silly...the US is the CAPITAL of bizarro world!

Yes, silly me, that I keep forgetting that.

What you were talking about was more like the fringe element of social democracy.

Which fringe?

Social liberalism doesn't really concern itself with living wages.

ok, in fairness that was an addon to counter the inevitable "they just want to raise minimum wages".

Social liberalism is about "live and let live" which does sorta require the "live" part however.

Nope, just Wilgrove's version of US liberalism.

So, would you claim that in the US liberalism = Adam Smith (and the rest)?

Which fringe?

The communist one.

More social equality, yes... and if it requires government intervention, then, well, it requires government intervention.

Yes, let put everyone on the Government's tits, God forbid we let people do things by themselves.


On the other hand, they are favor of much smaller government in some cases - the military and government intervention into people's bedrooms, for instance.

The second part I can agree with, not the first though. We need a strong military if we're going to survive as a nation.

See above.

But most of the spending that Gov. Co. does is wasteful spending. The only reason Gov. Co. raise taxes is because they need more money to waste.


Justify that.

They believe federal government should have more power than state government.

Generally, yes.

IF you ever taken economics, then you would realize if left alone the private sectors would take care of itself.

So, would you claim that in the US liberalism = Adam Smith (and the rest)?

No, it's more like the US equivalent of the right-wing half of social democracy.

Wow, you really a tad brainwashed huh?

pssst, we're not the ones who are for the war on drugs or against the "war on marriage".

In other words if you wanna say a prayer to satant all while smoking a joint and doing your boyfriend up the ass, while you whip him with banana leaves, that's really cool with us.

Wasn't the war on drug a Clinton thing?

No, it's more like the US equivalent of the right-wing half of social democracy.

The right-wing half of social democracy would never, ever suggest anything as ludicrous as a "living wage."

IF you ever taken economics, then you would realize if left alone the private sectors would take care of itself.

try to take an economics course more sophisticated than economics 101.

And while you're out doing that try to do some reading on the economics of monopolies, and realize a monopoly, by definition, the most inefficient means of commerce.

try to take an economics course more sophisticated than economics 101.

And while you're out doing that try to do some reading on the economics of monopolies, and realize a monopoly, by definition, the most inefficient means of commerce.

I've taken both Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. If government would just stay out of the private sector, things would take care of themselves.

Wasn't the war on drug a Clinton thing?

Ohhhhh...here's the problem...you actually think there is a difference between US Liberals and Conservatives (or in your quaint language, Democrats and Republicans) that is worth mentioning.

Wasn't the war on drug a Clinton thing?

oh bullshit.

The controlled substance act was signed in 1970, by none other than Richard "Law and Order" Nixon. Who ran a reelection campaign ad stating "onto the offensive in our all-out battle against the criminal forces in America," and by declaring a "total war against heroin and illicit drugs."

Clinton thing? Ha.

I've taken both Microeconomics and Macroeconomics.

Oh I remember those courses in college.

Economics 101 and Economics 102 if I'm not mistaken.

If government would just stay out of the private sector, things would take care of themselves.

Explain a monopoly.

Yes, let put everyone on the Government's tits, God forbid we let people do things by themselves.

Did you pay attention to what I actually said?

I believe very strongly in "let[ting] people do things by themselves," but I do not believe in "making people do things by themselves" when private economic institutions fail to provide justice in and of themselves.

The second part I can agree with, not the first though. We need a strong military if we're going to survive as a nation.

Perhaps, but we do not need to spend at the present rate to maintain a strong military.

But most of the spending that Gov. Co. does is wasteful spending. The only reason Gov. Co. raise taxes is because they need more money to waste.

Some of us don't believe that providing public services and countering the depradations of capitalist inequality is "waste."

They believe federal government should have more power than state government.

Some do... not all.

IF you ever taken economics, then you would realize if left alone the private sectors would take care of itself.

If you truly understood the economic argument for leaving the private sector alone, it would be child's play to present it to me, right?

But no, instead you prefer to repeat substanceless propaganda.

The right-wing half of social democracy would never, ever suggest anything as ludicrous as a "living wage."

Tony Blair raised the British minimum wage... and he, if anything, is to the right of right-wing social democracy.

What, in particular, is "ludicrous" about a "living wage"?

I'm going to ask my economics professor tomorrow (He has a PHd) about economics and government control, but I would like to address the equality thing and what I believe is equality.

I believe that equality is you are given the same opportunity, however whether or not you take advantage of that opportunity is up to you. If you don't take advantage of that opportunity then it's your own damn fault. I don't believe that equality means that everyone should get a two story 3 bedrooms 2 bathroom, 2 car garage house. Equality = presented with the same opportunity.

Did you pay attention to what I actually said?

I believe very strongly in "let[ting] people do things by themselves," but I do not believe in "making people do things by themselves" when private economic institutions fail to provide justice in and of themselves.

Ok, but government intervention should be a last resort kind of deal IMHO.

Perhaps, but we do not need to spend at the present rate to maintain a strong military.

We do need to keep up with the latest military technology, maintain a good size military and keep our training up to date.

Some of us don't believe that providing public services and countering the depradations of capitalist inequality is "waste."

Jobs which can be left up to the private sector. If Gov. Co. can practice some fiscal conservatively, then everything will be better. Of course that'll never happen.

I'm going to ask my economics professor tomorrow (He has a PHd) about economics and government control,

Good for you. Next time, don't advance an argument you can't defend.

I believe that equality is you are given the same opportunity, however whether or not you take advantage of that opportunity is up to you. If you don't take advantage of that opportunity then it's your own damn fault. I don't believe that equality means that everyone should get a two story 3 bedrooms 2 bathroom, 2 car garage house. Equality = presented with the same opportunity.

The problem is that that which society calls "equality of opportunity" tends not to be, and often inequality in outcome results in inequality of opportunity.

The problem is that that which society calls "equality of opportunity" tends not to be, and often inequality in outcome results in inequality of Opportunity.

Is the outcome unequal because not everyone was presented with equal opportunity, or that some people of the society choose not to take those opportunity?

I'm going to ask my economics professor tomorrow (He has a PHd) about economics and government control, but I would like to address the equality thing and what I believe is equality.

I believe that equality is you are given the same opportunity, however whether or not you take advantage of that opportunity is up to you. If you don't take advantage of that opportunity then it's your own damn fault. I don't believe that equality means that everyone should get a two story 3 bedrooms 2 bathroom, 2 car garage house. Equality = presented with the same opportunity.

you've just created a straw man of ludicrus proportions.

Is the outcome unequal because not everyone was presented with equal opportunity, or that some people of the society choose not to take those opportunity?
You create a slightly smaller, but equally asinine one when you presume to suggest that everyone in america has equal opportunity in this day and age.

Tony Blair raised the British minimum wage... and he, if anything, is to the right of right-wing social democracy.

Blair is not a social democrat. In any case, social democracy concerns itself not with a "minimum wage." The social democratic way is a collective bargaining between workers' and employers' unions where the labour market itself thus sets a minimum wage in every profession.

What, in particular, is "ludicrous" about a "living wage"?

Apart from it being economically untenable and a loony pipe dream?

Is the outcome unequal because not everyone was presented with equal opportunity, or that some people of the society choose not to take those opportunity?

It really doesn't matter.

The relevant point is that substantial inequality of result, whatever its cause, leads to inequality of opportunity.

I'm going to ask my economics professor tomorrow (He has a PHd) about economics and government control, but I would like to address the equality thing and what I believe is equality.

I believe that equality is you are given the same opportunity, however whether or not you take advantage of that opportunity is up to you. If you don't take advantage of that opportunity then it's your own damn fault. I don't believe that equality means that everyone should get a two story 3 bedrooms 2 bathroom, 2 car garage house. Equality = presented with the same opportunity.

Poor kids with poor parents currently do not get the same opportunities that well-off and rich kids with well-off and rich parents get.

There is no equality of opportunity, you're stuck with what you're stuck with. People dont get to choose where and to whom they are born.

"Equality of opportunity" is a dishonest cop-out.

You're not just wrong if you assert it, you're a liar.

Blair is not a social democrat.

His party is a member of the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. And he is hardly part of the "communist fringe" of anything.

In any case, social democracy concerns itself not with a "minimum wage." The social democratic way is a collective bargaining between workers' and employers' unions where the labour market itself thus sets a minimum wage in every profession.

Swedish trade unions are far stronger than US trade unions; such a solution might be preferable, but is simply not feasible.

Apart from it being economically untenable and a loony pipe dream?

In effect, a mere repetition of what you said before. Not very impressive.

It really doesn't matter.

The relevant point is that substantial inequality of result, whatever its cause, leads to inequality of opportunity.

Yes it does matter, because if people don't take the opportunity they are provided with, then I don't see any reason why they should get extra help. I mean it's like telling your friend that you'll hook him up with a job, however your friend don't take it, and now your friend is broke. Your friend messed up, it's his fault that he's poor and doesn't have a job. He was offered a job and didn't take it.

Yes it does matter, because if people don't take the opportunity they are provided with, then I don't see any reason why they should get extra help. I mean it's like telling your friend that you'll hook him up with a job, however your friend don't take it, and now your friend is broke. Your friend messed up, it's his fault that he's poor and doesn't have a job. He was offered a job and didn't take it.

Do you always miss the point of your opponents' posts? Or is this just something you do to me?

Yes it does matter, because if people don't take the opportunity they are provided with, then I don't see any reason why they should get extra help. I mean it's like telling your friend that you'll hook him up with a job, however your friend don't take it, and now your friend is broke. Your friend messed up, it's his fault that he's poor and doesn't have a job. He was offered a job and didn't take it.

and so it's your general opinion that all the people in the ghetto are there because they'e turned down the job opportunities presented to them?

To sum up:

"You have the right to do whatever you want with your mind, your body, and your property, and the government is here to make sure it stays that way"


That is it precisely. The primary role of Gov. Co. is to make sure that your rights stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (just wanted to make that part clear) is protected from Gov. Co. and of other citizens.

but I'd rather have them spend money on welfare, social security, and healthcare (you know: helping people) than on legislating my sex life, going to war, or putting up statues for a religion I don't believe in.

That is where you and I disagree, I would much rather have Gov. Co. practice fiscal Conservative.

Do you always miss the point of your opponents' posts? Or is this just something you do to me?

Well it seems to me that you're advocating Socialism/Communism, where Gov. Co. makes everyone "equal" at the expense of everyone. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That is it precisely. The primary role of Gov. Co. is to make sure that your rights stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (just wanted to make that part clear) is protected from Gov. Co. and of other citizens.



That is where you and I disagree, I would much rather have Gov. Co. practice fiscal Conservative.

so in other words, you support the rights of people under the constitution, you just dont' want the government to spend any money to promote a better lifestyle for its citizens in the spirit the constitution was written in.

Yeah...cause...that makes sense...

and so it's your general opinion that all the people in the ghetto are there because they'e turned down the job opportunities presented to them?

No, they are there because they did not take the opporunity presented to them. I mean what do we have now to help them. We have Pell Grant, we have numerous scholarship, we have loans, we have GED programs, We have Home School, we have LOTS of stuff in this country to help the poor. However it's up to them to take advantage of it.

No, they are there because they did not take the opporunity presented to them. I mean what do we have now to help them. We have Pell Grant, we have numerous scholarship, we have loans, we have GED programs, We have Home School, we have LOTS of stuff in this country to help the poor. However it's up to them to take advantage of it.

that's exactly my point. You believe people live in the ghetto because, effectivly, they chose to live in the ghetto.

You have an amusing if, albeit, utterly absurd worldview.

That is it precisely. The primary role of Gov. Co. is to make sure that your rights stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (just wanted to make that part clear) is protected from Gov. Co. and of other citizens.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not to mention the number of times the document mentions the "general welfare"....

so in other words, you support the rights of people under the constitution, you just dont' want the government to spend any money to promote a better lifestyle for its citizens in the spirit the constitution was written in.

Yeah...cause...that makes sense...

The Constitution is a document explaining the role of Gov. Co. I would like it that it stick to what the founding fathers thought it role should be, not this interpretations or (in the spirit of) crap. If people want a better life, then they're the one that's going to have to take the first step, not Gov. Co.

His party is a member of the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. And he is hardly part of the "communist fringe" of anything.

Oh, please, those "organisations" span much further than social democracy.

Swedish trade unions are far stronger than US trade unions; such a solution might be preferable, but is simply not feasible.

None the less, it is the social democratic way.

In effect, a mere repetition of what you said before. Not very impressive.

Well, seeing as the "living wage" people can't even explain where money would actually come from, there isn't anything more to say about it. It's simply ludicrous.

that's exactly my point. You believe people live in the ghetto because, effectivly, they chose to live in the ghetto.

You have an amusing if, albeit, utterly absurd worldview.

While they may not choose to be there, the same opportunity are still there.

The Constitution is a document explaining the role of Gov. Co. I would like it that it stick to what the founding fathers thought it role should be, not this interpretations or (in the spirit of) crap. If people want a better life, then they're the one that's going to have to take the first step, not Gov. Co.

ooooh, ok, so stick to a literal meaning of the words.

You mean...words like these?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


In case you missed that line, it's the first sentence of the constitution.

While they may not choose to be there, the same opportunity are still there.

and as long as you continue to believe that, you frankly continue to believe sheer and utter bullshit.

That's your problem. You believe that the poor and disenfranchised of this country are given the same opportunity.

In short, your entire political view is based on bullshit

Well it seems to me that you're advocating Socialism/Communism, where Gov. Co. makes everyone "equal" at the expense of everyone.

At this particular moment, I am not actively engaged in doing so, rather in pointing out a problem with the typical "equality of opportunity" framework. So this accusation is irrelevant.

And I really would rather "Gov. Co." not institute capitalist property rights in the first place, rather than institute them, and then proceed to redistribute based on that framework.

ooooh, ok, so stick to a literal meaning of the words.

You mean...words like these?



In case you missed that line, it's the first sentence of the constitution.

I doubt their term of Welfare is the same as ours.

While I agree that people do deserve to live, and to prosper, it's still not up to the government to take these people out of the ghettos and put them in the suburbs. That's just not the legit role of Gov. Co.

and as long as you continue to believe that, you frankly continue to believe sheer and utter bullshit.

That's your problem. You believe that the poor and disenfranchised of this country are given the same opportunity.

In short, your entire political view is based on bullshit

and if I say bullshit enough time, maybe it'll change Wilgrove's mind! I mean what could be a better argument than bullshit! It's flawless!

God and you're going to be a lawyer?

I doubt their term of Welfare is the same as ours.

So in other words, you prefer to use the plain words of the constitution, unless the plain words run counter to your argument, in which case fuck em.

Can't play both ways there kiddo. The constitution plainly states that one of its primary purposes is to ensure the welfare of the people. It's in the very first line.

And I really would rather "Gov. Co." not institute capitalist property rights in the first place, rather than institute them, and then proceed to redistribute based on that framework.

So what are you advocating? I mean you don't like the equal opportunity, but you think Gov. Co. is responsible for making the outcome equal?

Oh, please, those "organisations" span much further than social democracy.

"Social democracy" is a term whose meaning has changed historically so many times that the best way to know what it means is to look at what the parties generally designated as such actually advocate. The PES and the SI are both social democratic organizations.

Alternatively, we could say that the modern-day European Communist parties are the only real social democrats - indeed, quite possibly that only their left-wing qualifies - but I doubt you would like that.

None the less, it is the social democratic way.

In Scandinavia, perhaps.

Well, seeing as the "living wage" people can't even explain where money would actually come from,

Where do you think the money comes from when trade unions bargain for higher wages for their members?

So in other words, you prefer to use the plain words of the constitution, unless the plain words run counter to your argument, in which case fuck em.

Can't play both ways there kiddo. The constitution plainly states that one of its primary purposes is to ensure the welfare of the people. It's in the very first line.

Well in order to do that, we have to figure out what the founding fathers mean by Welfare. Remember they didn't have a Welfare system back then that we do now. I'm not even sure Great Britain had it back then.

Do people deserve to have the same rights and liberties as everyone else? Yes. Do people deserve to have those rights and liberties protected by Gov. Co. as well as from Gov. Co. yes! Do people have the right to rise and fall at their own merit, yes.

Does it mean that everyone should rely on Gov. Co. to help them out of poverty, that's a big question mark.

and if I say bullshit enough time, maybe it'll change Wilgrove's mind! I mean what could be a better argument than bullshit! It's flawless!

God and you're going to be a lawyer?

I AM an attorney. And you seem to be convinced I have a desire to change your mind, I don't.

See, unlike you, I realize that the world works a lot differently than it looks in the bubble of school. Unlike you I am not arrogant enough to believe that I understood how the world worked through the lense of my economics 101 class.

Unlike you I accept that the best way to learn life is to live in it, which you obviously haven't done.

I have no desire to change your mind right now, you're a college kid, one step up from a child. Right now you're too wrapped up in your arrogant self importance to realize what a dick you sound like.

Maybe you'll change, maybe you wont. Maybe a few years from now after you've actually experienced life in the real world you'll look bacn and realize how sheltered you really were, but that's a realization you will come to by yourself. And if not....well then you're just an arrogant ignorant self important jackass. And I'm not going to waste my time or energy trying to change your mind, when it's far more fun and entertaining just to mock you.

Well in order to do that, we have to figure out what the founding fathers mean by Welfare. Remember they didn't have a Welfare system back then that we do now. I'm not even sure Great Britain had it back then.

I am not talking about a mirror of modern beaurocratic welfare system.

I mean provide for the common welfare.

So what are you advocating?

Nothing. I am attacking your position.

I mean you don't like the equal opportunity,

I think equal opportunity's great. I don't like people who use the excuse of "equal opportunity" to ignore inequality of outcome - as if its only cause is failure to respond to opportunities, and as if it itself does not lead to inequality of opportunity.

but you think Gov. Co. is responsible for making the outcome equal?

I think "Gov. Co." is responsible for not causing inequality in the first place.

"Social democracy" is a term whose meaning has changed historically so many times that the best way to know what it means is to look at what the parties generally designated as such actually advocate. The PES and the SI are both social democratic organizations.

Alternatively, we could say that the modern-day European Communist parties are the only real social democrats - indeed, quite possibly that only their left-wing qualifies - but I doubt you would like that.

I wouldn't because it would be wrong. Especially for the Swedish Vänsterpartiet - and it doesn't campaign for a living wage, either. Not even they are that zany.

In Scandinavia, perhaps.

Scandinavia dictates what is social democracy, honey.

Where do you think the money comes from when trade unions bargain for higher wages for their members?

Work performed, services rendered. Collective bargaining is basically like the invisible hand; supply and demand will eventually decide what someone is willing to pay and what someone is willing to work for. Both sides have ways of making each other adhere.

I AM an attorney. And you seem to be convinced I have a desire to change your mind, I don't.

Oh God, who the hell took you on? Tell me, how many times do you say "bullshit" in court? Do they let you mock the other side? Tell me, if you mock the defendant, or plaintiff like you do to me. Do you believe that the judge or jury would side with you or be convinced? I don't think so.


See, unlike you, I realize that the world works a lot differently than it looks in the bubble of school. Unlike you I am not arrogant enough to believe that I understood how the world worked through the lense of my economics 101 class.



Unlike you I accept that the best way to learn life is to live in it, which you obviously haven't done.

I live in it enough to know that in order to make it in this life, you can't rely on anyone else. Not the government, not the community, not your mommy or daddy, the only person you can rely on is you, and what you can produce as a person, and what you can accomplish.


I have no desire to change your mind right now, you're a college kid, one step up from a child. Right now you're too wrapped up in your arrogant self importance to realize what a dick you sound like.

Says the person who use the "bullshit" argument, and now he uses the "arrogant" and "dick" argument.


Maybe you'll change, maybe you wont. Maybe a few years back after you've actually experienced life in the real world you'll realized how sheltered you really were, but that's a realization you will come to by yourself. And if not....well then you're just an arrogant ignorant self important jackass. And I'm not going to waste my time or energy trying to change your mind, when it's far more fun and entertaining just to mock you.

However what you fail to realize is that I do my own little charity work. I am not so self absorbed idiot that you think I am. Don't you think I know there's poverty, don't you think I know there are people starving. Of course I know, and I know that Gov. Co. isn't the way to help those people because 1. they become dependent, 2. Have you been in the Welfare system, it sucks, you can't get off of it once your on it. So, what's the alternative? The community, charities, churches, neighbors, friends, families etc.

I am not talking about a mirror of modern beaurocratic welfare system.

I mean provide for the common welfare.

and what is your definition of Common Welfare?

Oh God, who the hell took you on? Tell me, how many times do you say "bullshit" in court? Do they let you mock the other side? Tell me, if you mock the defendant, or plaintiff like you do to me. Do you believe that the judge or jury would side with you or be convinced? I don't think so.

In case you haven't realized junior, this ain't court, and I ain't paid to be here. and at 4am I ain't wearing my work best. But if you want a full on professional, researched argument, fine. I'll go take a shower, put on a suit, and get to it.

By the way, my time gets billed at $250 an hour. I'll have my legal assistant send you an invoice. I'll expect a check by new years.

Says the person who use the "bullshit" argument, and now he uses the "arrogant" and "dick" argument.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm calling you an arrogant dick who's full of bullshit. That's a statement, not an argument. You'd do well to learn the difference.

Don't you think I know there's poverty, don't you think I know there are people starving. Of course I know,

You know, you just think it's their fault.

1. they become dependent, 2. Have you been in the Welfare system, it sucks, you can't get off of it once your on it. So, what's the alternative? The community, charities, churches, neighbors, friends, families etc.

Have you been on it? You want me to conduct myself as a professional? Fine, let me give you the two (and I will add a third) most valuable words you will ever have in your professional career.

Cite it, bitch.

I believe we're done here Arthais101.

You go your way, I go mine. I don't believe that it's their fault (those who were born into the situation), but I do believe that the best way to get them out of the situation is to have them get it out of it themselves. However, you would like to believe in a fairy land where Gov. Co. just solves everything at a wave of a wand (at taxpayers expense of course, because hey they can afford it). A bit of piece of advice, when debating, follow the golden rule. Don't act like a total jackass just because you're an "attorney". Whoopie doo, you're an attorney, no one except for your boss, your clients, and the courts care. Does not give you the right to act like an arrogant dick.

I wouldn't because it would be wrong.

Not if we were using the definition from, say, 1900.

Scandinavia dictates what is social democracy, honey.

Since when?

Work performed, services rendered.

That is to say, revenue. Yeah, exactly - the same is true of a minimum wage.

Collective bargaining is basically like the invisible hand

Depends on the kind of support it gets from the state.

I believe we're done here Arthais101.

You go your way, I go mine. I don't believe that it's their fault, but I do believe that the best way to get them out of the situation is to have them get it out of it themselves. However, you would like to believe in a fairy land where Gov. Co. just solves everything at a wave of a wand (at taxpayers expense of course, because hey they can afford it). A bit of piece of advice, when debating, follow the golden rule. Don't act like a total jackass just because you're an "attorney". Whoopie doo, you're an attorney, no one except for your boss, your clients, and the courts care. Does not give you the right to act like an arrogant dick.

Oh it doesn't. I am fully capable of being an arrogant dick all by myself.

I realize my profession doesn't earn me anything. I realize being a proud and true member of the bar doesn't get me anything in particular. I realze that all. I also realize that in this particular thread, you brought up my profession, not I. So yeah, I know it's not particularly useful here but...lemme tell you a secret...I didn't bring it up...you did.

Don't get all pissy on me because you questioned my professionalism only to have me point out that I am not in my professional capacity, and if you wanted me as such, it'd cost a lot more than you can afford. I know my profession doesn't have practical value here, so next time don't bring it up ya dumbfuck.

Unlike you I recognize one thing. Sometimes people can't just "get out of it themselves". Sometimes the situation is just that bad. Sometimes the condition is so terrible that it can't be fixed by yourself. Sometimes you don't have friends or family to turn to because they are in it just as bad, if not worse, than you are. Sometimes there is no job to turn to because there are no jobs to be had, and going back to school isn't an option because you can't afford food, let alone books.

See you're the one who believes in magic, not I. You're the one who believes that the power of ones own lifting of the bootstraps can always, without fail, lift one out of crushign poverty.

And it just aint so.

And when that happens, and when there's no other option to be had, yes I believe it's the job of the government to step in, not to substitute for real work, but to help life the person to the point where they actually have a real, honest chance to do it themselves. Not all the way, just some ways.

It's your fairytale land that believes that poverty is self correcting. An extremely myopic, and intellectually dishonest fairytale land.

And when you finally realize that, you'll be better off.

Oh it doesn't. I am fully capable of being an arrogant dick all by myself.

And if you'll notice in this particular thread, you brought up my profession, not I.

You were the one to use the "bullshit" argument though.


Unlike you I recognize one thing. Sometimes people can't just "get out of it themselves". Sometimes the situation is just that bad. Sometimes the condition is so terrible that it can't be fixed by yourself. Sometimes you don't have friends or family to turn to because they are in it just as bad, if not worse, than you are. Sometimes there is no job to turn to because there are no jobs to be had, and going back to school isn't an option because you can't afford food, let alone books.

So what about the government program I listed earlier, whats wrong with relying on those?


See you're the one who believes in magic, not I. You're the one who believes that the power of ones own lifting of the bootstraps can always, without fail, lift one out of crushign poverty.

I never said it would not fail, in another thread I stated my parents were poor, but with presistant effort, hard work, and taking any job that they can get, they made it out of there.


And when that happens, and when there's no other option to be had, yes I believe it's the job of the government to step in, not to substitute for real work, but to help life the person to the point where they actually have a real, honest chance to do it themselves. Not all the way, just some ways.

Hence why we have the government programs I listed earlier, but those didn't seem to satisfy you.


It's your fairytale land that believes that poverty is self correcting. An extremely myopic, and intellectually dishonest fairytale land.

And when you finally realize that, you'll be better off.

and when you realize that sometimes involving the government into things just makes the problem worse than better. Have you ever been to a government subsided neighborhood, or housing project? That is government in work my friend.

You were the one to use the "bullshit" argument though.



So what about the government program I listed earlier, whats wrong with relying on those?



I never said it would not fail, in another thread I stated my parents were poor, but with presistant effort, hard work, and taking any job that they can get, they made it out of there.




Hence why we have the government programs I listed earlier, but those didn't seem to satisfy you.



and when you realize that sometimes involving the government into things just makes the problem worse than better. Have you ever been to a government subsided neighborhood, or housing project? That is government in work my friend.

Because the programs are shit doesn't mean the ideology is bad. Fix the fucking programs, make em work better. Because they're inefficient is not an excuse to get rid of them all together, it's a reason to fix them.

And your argument about letting the private sector handle it is just equally bullshit. Let me tell you a basic economics lesson you seem to have missed. The goal of an industry is to maximize profits and minimize costs. That's it. It doesn't matter if its cars or boats or lightbulbs or widgets, every company seeks to maximize profits while minimizing costs.

So while the private sector MAY handle social welfare more efficiently, social welfare is not profit maximizing, nor is it cost minimizing. Therefore the private sectore, which has the goal of maximizing profits while minimizing costs, is never going to do it.

Ever.

Private social welfare will never work because the private sector will never do it. It is not cost efficient. So if it's going to exist, it's got to exist through the government.

Because the programs are shit doesn't mean the ideology is bad. Fix the fucking programs, make em work better. Because they're inefficient is not an excuse to get rid of them all together, it's a reason to fix them.

And your argument about letting the private sector handle it is just equally bullshit. Let me tell you a basic economics lesson you seem to have missed. The goal of an industry is to maximize profits and minimize costs. That's it. It doesn't matter if its cars or boats or lightbulbs or widgets, every company seeks to maximize profits while minimizing costs.

So while the private sector MAY handle social welfare more efficiently, social welfare is not profit maximizing, nor is it cost minimizing. Therefore the private sectore, which has the goal of maximizing profits while minimizing costs, is never going to do it. Also, the government is always going to suck. Why because there's no incentives to make it better. They're not in it for a money, they don't have to worry about customers or making people happy. So they can do a crap job and guess what, the same idiots will always get re-elected.

Ever.

Private social welfare will never work because the private sector will never do it. It is not cost efficient. So if it's going to exist, it's got to exist through the government.

Then how do you explain loans? Isn't loans just a form of private social welfare? It's the same concept. "I'll give you money to help you make your bill payments, or start a business etc. However I do want it back."

As for improving Gov. Co. Gov. Co. is always going to suck, why because there's no reason for them not to suck! As for the politicians, they only worry about what they say during election time, and if they say the right things, then they'll get re-elected. The only time politicians are voted out if they do a really really crappy job, or they send explicatively text messages to a page.

Then how do you explain loans? Isn't loans just a form of private social welfare? It's the same concept. "I'll give you money to help you make your bill payments, or start a business etc. However I do want it back."

no, a loan is business. You see, you are forgeting the little thing that goes on the end of the sentence. Two words. "with interest".

"I'll give you money to help you make your bill payments, or start a business etc. However I do want it back, with interest."

Private entities don't give loans for the social and moral value of it. Private entities give loans because they make money from the interest. It's not a social welfare system, it's a profit oriented business. Now just because that profit oriented business has the result of temporarily putting money into someone's hands doesn't mean that the goal isn't profit and profit only.

The bank isn't gonna give me a loan because they really want me to have that snazzy new car or that great condo on newbury street. They're giving me the loan because they're making money from that loan, in the form of interest. And if they thought for one moment that they wouldn't make money on the deal, I wouldn't get a god damned dime.

Now I know what you're going to say next "well, let them get a loan then", which...brilliant, and in fact a guy who detailed the idea of micro loans just won a nobel prize on the concept.

however outside of subsaharan africa, loans are kinda hard to get if you don't have credit. And it's kind of hard to have credit when you don't have a job. And it's hard to get a job when there's 25% unemployment.

And fundamentally, what is social welfare itself other than a govenrment loan. We give you this money in the hopes that you will make something of yourself and pay us back, when we tax you.

Not if we were using the definition from, say, 1900.

No one uses the 1900 definition for it any more because the point of a social democracy is not stagnation.

Since when?

Since we basically made it what it was and had all those others follow us.

That is to say, revenue. Yeah, exactly - the same is true of a minimum wage.

You seem to be confusing minimum wage with "living wage," which is people getting money for nothing. The government just giving them money withot them doing anything.

Depends on the kind of support it gets from the state.

The state guarantees both sides' right to industrial action.

no, a loan is business. You see, you are forgeting the little thing that goes on the end of the sentence. Two words. "with interest".

"I'll give you money to help you make your bill payments, or start a business etc. However I do want it back, with interest."

Private entities don't give loans for the social and moral value of it. Private entities give loans because they make money from the interest. It's not a social welfare system, it's a profit oriented business. Now just because that profit oriented business has the result of temporarily putting money into someone's hands doesn't mean that the goal isn't profit and profit only.

Now I know what you're going to say next "well, let them get a loan then", which...brilliant, and in fact a guy who detailed the idea of micro loans just won a nobel prize on the concept.

however outside of subsaharan africa, loans are kinda hard to get if you don't have credit. And it's kind of hard to have credit when you don't have a job. And it's hard to get a job when there's 25% unemployment.

And fundamentally, what is social welfare itself other than a govenrment loan. We give you this money in the hopes that you will make something of yourself and pay us back, when we tax you.

I made an edit so if you want you you can respond to this.

As for improving Gov. Co. Gov. Co. is always going to suck, why because there's no reason for them not to suck! As for the politicians, they only worry about what they say during election time, and if they say the right things, then they'll get re-elected. The only time politicians are voted out if they do a really really crappy job, or they send explicatively text messages to a page.

Yes it is hard to get credit, and it's easy to ruin credit. However, what about those who are paying the taxes? Why should government take money out of those who have a job? I mean we don't always get tax rebates here, so if my tax money goes to help someone out great, but where's the payback? Not only that, but can we really trust Gov. Co. to even spend our money right?

You seem to be confusing minimum wage with "living wage," which is people getting money for nothing. The government just giving them money withot them doing anything.

The general idea of living wage, at least in modern era, is generally based around the idea of a minimum wage high enough to live off of. Nobody suggests government just handing people money for nothing. At very most the government subsidizes living expenses temporarily as long as the recepient is capable of demonstrating actively seeking work.

. . . general welfare. . .

Let's break that down.
General - nonspecific, referring to a large body and not anything specific. In this context, society as a whole.
Welfare - well being, the state that where the subject in question is doing well.

Now put together in its original context, it means that the Constitution is there to ensure that society, as a whole, is doing all right. Welfare, in the modern sense, is to ensure that every single person is doing what the government defines as well.

Original meaning = country has a whole is doing well.
Modern meaning = each person doing what the government defines as well.

There it is, broken down, taken from the definitions in my dictionary. They are different things. And even then, the Preamble holds no significance in its own; it's the equivalent of a thesis on a research paper. By your definition, the government could, if it wanted to, interpret the Preamble to mean that an autocratic, military dictatorship is the best way do everything stated in it.

No one uses the 1900 definition for it any more

Agreed. But convention, not you, determines what its correct use is.

And one way to discover what is conventionally categorized as social democratic is to examine the compositions of social democratic groups.

because the point of a social democracy is not stagnation.

Never was.

Since we basically made it what it was and had all those others follow us.

Some truth to that, but while the ideology may be borrowed from Scandinavia, the details of implementation need not be.

You seem to be confusing minimum wage with "living wage," which is people getting money for nothing. The government just giving them money withot them doing anything.

What are you talking about? The living wage proposals involve raising the minimum wage to what is called a "living wage."

The state guarantees both sides' right to industrial action.

Precisely.

Yes it is hard to get credit, and it's easy to ruin credit. However, what about those who are paying the taxes? Why should government take money out of those who have a job? I mean we don't always get tax rebates here, so if my tax money goes to help someone out great, but where's the payback?

In general you don't always get a payback directly from the taxes. Your payback exists in two forms:

1) the government doesn't always owe you a payback. You, in fact, owe the government the payback in the form of some taxation for allowing you to live in a free society that allows you to have the job in the first place. It's your little "thank you for letting me live in a country where i get to live free and have this job in the first place" to the great United States of America to help it keep on rolling.

Sometimes there isn't a tit for tat, sometimes you just recognize you have one hell of a privlidge living in what is overall a great country, so you fork over a little cash to make sure it keeps on trucking.

2) you pay your taxes into the system even though you might not receive social welfare because maybe, just maybe, somehow, possibly, you might fall on REALLY hard times yourself, and you might need it too someday. Sometimes you just suck up the realization that, yes, you are helping support someone else because someday, just maybe, your life is going to go to shit and then you'll be getting support from other people...maybe even some of the very people you helped support in the first place. And maybe worst of all, maybe it won't be you. Maybe it'll be your kids.


Not only that, but can we really trust Gov. Co. to even spend our money right?

It's a democracy, elect the people you want.

Now on to your edit, yes it's true that government tends not to care about efficiency because they are not a company and thus don't care about maximizing profits. Now while this is true to an extent, a proper beaurocratic scheme could be formed to help with this, and, moreoeover, perhaps sometimes we just have to accept that money on social welfare is better spent inefficiently than not at all.

In general you don't always get a payback directly from the taxes. Your payback exists in two forms:

1) the government doesn't always owe you a payback. You, in fact, owe the government the payback in the form of some taxation for allowing you to live in a free society that allows you to have the job in the first place. It's your little "thank you for letting me live in a country where i get to live free and have this job in the first place" to the great United States of America to help it keep on rolling.

Also thank our men and women in uniform.


Sometimes there isn't a tit for tat, sometimes you just recognize you have one hell of a privlidge living in what is overall a great country, so you fork over a little cash to make sure it keeps on trucking.

Yea, but we could still use the Fair Tax Plan.


2) you pay your taxes into the system even though you might not receive social welfare because maybe, just maybe, somehow, possibly, you might fall on REALLY hard times yourself, and you might need it too someday. Sometimes you just suck up the realization that, yes, you are helping support someone else because someday, just maybe, your life is going to go to shit and then you'll be getting support from other people...maybe even some of the very people you helped support in the first place. And maybe worst of all, maybe it won't be you. Maybe it'll be your kids.


Well I would hope it wouldn't be my kids (if I have any) because I would try to raise them the best I can and raise them like I was raised. As for me going on Welfare, that's more of a "nuclear option" for me. While I do realize my taxes (some of it) does go to helping people, I hate having to rely on the people or Gov. Co.


It's a democracy, elect the people you want.

We're more of a Republic, and not everyone votes. So it's not really that either. What was the voting percentages for the 2004 and 2006 elections?


Now on to your edit, yes it's true that government tends not to care about efficiency because they are not a company and thus don't care about maximizing profits. Now while this is true to an extent, a proper beaurocratic scheme could be formed to help with this, and, moreoeover, perhaps sometimes we just have to accept that money on social welfare is better spent inefficiently than not at all.

True, but it doesn't mean we can't work on Gov. Co. to try to make it more efficient.

The United States is a Republic as defined in Article 4 of the US Constitution. We are not a Democracy, period. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts." Period, end of discussion, good day, sir.

Yea, but we could still use the Fair Tax Plan.

Well sure but that depends on how you define fair. Personally I think taxes are pretty fair as they are.



Well I would hope it wouldn't be my kids (if I have any) because I would try to raise them the best I can and raise them like I was raised. As for me going on Welfare, that's more of a "nuclear option" for me. While I do realize my taxes (some of it) does go to helping people, I hate having to rely on the people or Gov. Co.

You hope, but you never know. What if you never have the chance to raise them? What if you and their mother get hit by a bus 3 days after they're born?


We're more of a Republic, and not everyone votes. So it's not really that either. What was the voting percentages for the 2004 and 2006 elections?

Well yes, but that's neither here nor there. Besides, I've read theories that suggest that non voters are pretty evenly distributed across the spectrum of politics, so it doesn't actually matter that they don't vote, because even though the #s might be different, the % are roughly the same (with the exception of very close elections...which ok, 2000 was).

True, but it doesn't mean we can't work on Gov. Co. to try to make it more efficient.

Well sure, efficiency is good. But let's not kid ourselves that the private sector would do it better. They wouldn't do it at all. Not profit maximizing, and the private sector as a general rule doesn't do ANYTHING that is not profit maximizing. Sure there's some altruism, but that's really the exception not the rule.

I'd prefer efficiency, but I'd rather money be spent on a good purpose badly than not at all.

The United States is a Republic as defined in Article 4 of the US Constitution. We are not a Democracy, period. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts." Period, end of discussion, good day, sir.

oh get over yourself:

In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term

The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive, and a republic is, in fact, a form of democracy. It only isn't if you erroniously believe democracy means only direct rule of the people. The term is far more sophisticated than that, and is not simply another word for Ochlocracy.

It is fully consistant to refer to the united states as a democracy given contemporary usage of the word. Nobody who actually discusses political theory in any seriousness suggests otherwise. You gave a valliant effort at looking smart but you really fell flat on your face there.

Well sure but that depends on how you define fair. Personally I think taxes are pretty fair as they are.

Eh, but there's just so much red tape with the IRS, it's like being caught in a spider web. With the Fair Tax plan you at least get that cut away. Also in the Fair Tax Plan, you get all of your money (no income taxes) and anything that you spend on essentials (food, shelter, water, clothings etc.) get sent right back to you! The taxes is in the sales tax. However, only on new merchandises. The ones being re-sells are not taxed.


You hope, but you never know. What if you never havee the chance to raise them? What if you and their mother get hit by a bus 3 days after they're born?

Then my brother (accountant) and his wife (nurse) will take over.

Well yes, but that's neither here nor there. Besides, I've read theories that suggest that non voters are pretty evenly distributed across the spectrum of politics, so it doesn't actually matter that they don't vote, because even though the #s might be different, the % are roughly the same (with the exception of very close elections...which ok, 2000 was).

Eh ok, that's a given.

Well sure, efficiency is good. But let's not kid ourselves that the private sector would do it better. They wouldn't do it at all. Not profit maximizing, and the private sector as a general rule doesn't do ANYTHING that is not profit maximizing. Sure there's some altruism, but that's really the exception not the rule.

True, but I'm always going to strive for efficiency in our government.

Then my brother (accountant) and his wife (nurse) will take over.

What if they were on the bus?

You know why my profession exists? You know why the world needs lawyers? Because of one simple, overarching principle.

Shit happens.

That's it, that's all there is. Very simple. Sometimes shit happens. Sometimes the worst possible scenario happens. Sometimes life just sucks. And we can hope, we cay fight it, we can try our very best.

But sometimes shit happens. And when it does...I dunno, maybe part of the job of the government is to catch those who fall off the edge. Not to make sure they spend their lives in the lap of luxury without ever lifting a finger, no never that. Not a handout, just a net. Let them teeter on the edge...just don't let them fall.

the fact is at the end of the day, there's a line, and all that matters is on what side you fall on.

There's a difference between poor and poverty.

There's a difference between broke and destitute.

There's a difference between a bad neighborhood and a ghetto.

There's a difference between not having the money to eat out, and not having the money to eat.

There's a difference between no good paying jobs, and no jobs

It's a very thin line. And if you're on one side of it...well life's rough, but it's fixable, as you say. There's a chance there, there's opportunity there. You can work on it, you can scrimp, you can save, you can, slowly, build up. There is the chance to do it yourself. And maybe that's not where the government needs to be.

But on the other side....there's nothing. No chance. No opportunity. No ability to save, because there's no money to save. Nobody's hiring because nobody's open. Nobody's open because nobody has any money to spend in the stores. Nobody has any money to spend in the stores because nobody has a job. Nobody has a job because nobody's hiring. No chance of a job, because there's no jobs. That situation is not just difficult, it's inescapable. It's self perpetuating. You're born into that, you grow up in that, and you die in that.

That's where the government needs to be. Not making sure everybody life is fantastic. Hell, not even to make sure everybody's life is comfortable. Just to make sure their lives are livable.

The United States is a Republic as defined in Article 4 of the US Constitution. We are not a Democracy, period. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts." Period, end of discussion, good day, sir.

Er... someone needs to find out the Definitions of "Republic" and "Democracy".

We are both a Republic and an Indirect Democracy(Very indirect). We are both. Infact, a Democracy is a form of a Republic, as is an indirect Democracy.

So heh. Mere Semantics.

The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive, and a republic is, in fact, a form of democracy. It only isn't if you erroniously believe democracy means only direct rule of the people. The term is far more sophisticated than that, and is not simply another word for Ochlocracy.

Democracy, strictly defined, is where the people rule. That means no Congress, no Supreme Court, No President. Everything, from military budget to tax laws, is decided by max consensus, which not only is impossible and impractical (would the average layman, really understand everything about international politics?) but it leads to Mob Rule, aka tyranny of the masses. It also, eventually, leads to mass chaos; it would only be a matter of time before the majority can, quite legally, vote themselves whatever privileges and money they want. Either the country would destabilize from mass inflation and debt or the oppressed would get fed up and rebel. Those are the exact reasons why the Founder loathed and shunned a Democracy.

Using Democracy and Republic interchangeably muddles the differences between the two and can be used to confuse the people. Doublespeak, anyone?

But on the other side....there's nothing. No chance. No opportunity. No ability to save, because there's no money to save. Nobody's hiring because nobody's open. Nobody's open because nobody has any money to spend in the stores. Nobody has any money to spend in the stores because nobody has a job. Nobody has a job because nobody's hiring. No chance of a job, because there's no jobs. That situation is not just difficult, it's inescapable. It's self perpetuating. You're born into that, you grow up in that, and you die in that.

One, you're implying that the people are somehow incapable of using their own two feet. Moving is as simple as getting up and walking to another town. That's what they did during the Depression. Did it work? Not always, but at least they were willing to try.

Two, the government can best help those people by making the conditions more favorable for businesses to set up. Will not that work? Not guaranteed, but the end result (the people have jobs and are earning money) is much better than giving them everything. I've yet to see an example where a cancer was cured by giving it more blood (poor analogy, but best I can do).

That's where the government needs to be. Not making sure everybody life is fantastic. Hell, not even to make sure everybody's life is comfortable. Just to make sure their lives are livable.

The problem is that everyone has a different definition of "livable." Guaranteed that a noisy faction would arise no matter what kind of definition the government goes by that would not shut up until given what they want.

This will surprise other Conservatives, but the reason why I hate the current tax system is that the rich find all sorts of ways of exploiting loopholes to avoid paying so much. This is a problem inherent to the system, however, as the tax brackets are subject to change. That's why I support a flat Sales Tax on all new goods (used are excluded). This not only has the effect of eliminating any potential loopholes and tax shelters that the wealthy can use, but creates a demand for high quality goods (you'll never see our trade with China and India stop any quicker) but also demand for repair mechanics, which is another job slot that people can use.

Of course, the Marxists that reign supreme over this board will flame me, while people like MtaE give me a bad name.

The crux of the matter comes to simply this, to me;
Liberals think you should be able to do whatever you want.
Conservatives think you should be able to do whatever THEY want.

As far as I'm concerned, I would be perfectly happy with the government getting the fuck outta welfare and everything else, as long as people would volunteer to pick up the slack out of the goodness of their hearts.
People suck, so they wont.

In my opinion, a conservative government, one that tells the populace what they can and can't do for themselves, is no better than a dictatorship. A government that legislates against gay marriage, or critisizing the government, or not being religion {X}, or having brown hair, is unacceptable and a breach simple human decency.
Therefore, any form of conservatism, whether it be neo, paleo, theo, or neopaleotheomccarthyist, is simply the antithesis of freedom.

You just missed the election.

When's the next one? (I assume you mean the NS election)

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of paleocons. I like them just about as much as I like neocons and theocons. And I don't like those two very much at all.

I suppose my largest objection to this ideology is that it doesn't seem to allow for growth or change. And, even though change is not always for the better, it is still smart to be open to the option: how do you know the "old" ways are better, if you never try the new?

Nicely put. Conservatives, whether new or old, believe that our best days and best efforts are in the past and must be conserved. You're right, they are very resistant to change and only look to the future with an eye for making it the same as the past.

My impression of paleoconservatism is that it's 1) a response to the neoconservatist movement and 2) an attempt to save the brand of conservatism from the disaster that has been the Bush administration.

Actually, it's the brand of conservatism that came before Bush.

William F. Buckley's ideas predate the current Bush administration (and in many ways are substantially different) by over a decade.

Opposition to involvement in foreign wars, for instance. That's a substantial difference right there.

Feh, states rights are so 19th century. When Florida fights a war, I'll consider it worthy of some autonomy, until then it's just a piece of land that's part of one government and vaguely looks like a penis.

It's so unfortunate that "states' rights" is so intertwined with the right. I'm a supporter of "states' rights" (although I dislike the term) but I'm also a social democrat. However, I don't want the US to be a social democracy, I want Michigan to be one.

As for fighting a war, does this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War) count?

My impression of paleoconservatism is that it's 1) a response to the neoconservatist movement and 2) an attempt to save the brand of conservatism from the disaster that has been the Bush administration.

Paleoconservatism has been around a lot longer than that. The paleoconservatives are the ones who have been against Bush from the start.

As for the OP's question, I was once a paleoconservative.

Actually, it's the brand of conservatism that came before Bush.

William F. Buckley's ideas predate the current Bush administration (and in many ways are substantially different) by over a decade.

Opposition to involvement in foreign wars, for instance. That's a substantial difference right there.

Buckley is a hard-core neocon. He's one of the first of their breed.

Buckley is a hard-core neocon. He's one of the first of their breed.

He didn't start that way.

Buckley is a hard-core neocon. He's one of the first of their breed.

Buckley may have agreed with the early Neocon agenda but his credentials as a conservative predate Ronald Reagan.

Do you think its right for the government to take money for the sucessful citzens and give it to the unsucessful citizens? Do you think its right to tax those sucessful people more money?

Personally I say no. Why tax a citizen more just because hes sucessful? Its like punishing your kid for getting a A on his report card. Most leftists "no offense, I agree with you on social issues" dont understand that its the Corporations who provide the jobs and economic prosperity that we enjoy. Yet they talk of punshing those hard working men and women who responsible for our standard of living and who drive the entire economy foward. Its not only tyranny, its madness.

The government should recongnize that every Individual should legally equal, not be guarenteed the equality of results.

Do you think its right for the government to take money for the sucessful citzens and give it to the unsucessful citizens? Do you think its right to tax those sucessful people more money?

Personally I say no. Why tax a citizen more just because hes sucessful? Its like punishing your kid for getting a A on his report card. Most leftists "no offense, I agree with you on social issues" dont understand that its the Corporations who provide the jobs and economic prosperity that we enjoy. Yet they talk of punshing those hard working men and women who responsible for our standard of living and who drive the entire economy foward. Its not only tyranny, its madness.

The government should recongnize that every Individual should legally equal, not be guarenteed the equality of results.

Success isn't only measured in, nor dependent upon, wealth.

Pragmatic socio-economic policies that mean there are no starving homeless citizens, do not equate to 'punishing' the 'rich' in any but the narrowest perceptions of selfishness - the same mentality that says "Heaven wouldn't be 'worth it' if there was no Hell".

He didn't start that way.

Oh, yes he did.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard51.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard13.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard6.html

Do you think its right for the government to take money for the sucessful citzens and give it to the unsucessful citizens? Do you think its right to tax those sucessful people more money?

Personally I say no. Why tax a citizen more just because hes sucessful? Its like punishing your kid for getting a A on his report card. Most leftists "no offense, I agree with you on social issues" dont understand that its the Corporations who provide the jobs and economic prosperity that we enjoy. Yet they talk of punshing those hard working men and women who responsible for our standard of living and who drive the entire economy foward. Its not only tyranny, its madness.

The government should recongnize that every Individual should legally equal, not be guarenteed the equality of results.

This is what I call the curse of short sighted individualism. It's the conservative ideology of "I formed the business, I worked hard, I made my money, it's mine, not yours, fuck off." The whole idea behind that school of thought is "I made, it's mine, not yours". Which is true, except for one fact that the conservative ideology just keeps missing. You didn't make that money by yourself. It wasn't a result of just your hard work. If it was, go give it a shot in Zimbabwe, or Uganda, or Cuba, see how well you do.

Your success is a result of two factors:

a) hard work

and

b) favorable conditions

And what are those favorable conditions? In general they are the conditions that make it possible for you to make a successful business. Free trade, capitalist systems, strong economies, antitrust regulation that prevents your competitors from price fixing you into bankruptcy.

In short, you were a success because you did it in a society that allows you, and encourages you, to be a success. And because you made your money due to society's acceptance of you making money, you owe society.

What I find amusing is how the conservatives, which is based on the ideology of "actions have consequences and take responsibility for your actions" cry like children when it is applied to them. You benefit from society, you pay for that benefit. You get an advantage, you owe for that advantage

You're assuming that it only applies to corporate businesses. If I start a farm, than everything is my product and if I want to produce enough to sell to others, that is my right to choose. With a farm, I might not have a penny to my name, but I'd still be able to support myself and be completely independent of society. Classical Liberalism ideologies leaves me alone to do my own thing. Liberalism post-FDR (may that crippled Marxist forever burn in the 9th Ring of Hell) says that I still have to contribute to society, even though I take nothing from it.

In short, you were a success because you did it in a society that allows you, and encourages you, to be a success. And because you made your money due to society's acceptance of you making money, you owe society.

Correct, and I would give back to society by paying my taxes and voting which ensures that it will continue to exist and allow others the same opportunity.

This is what I call the curse of short sighted individualism. It's the conservative ideology of "I formed the business, I worked hard, I made my money, it's mine, not yours, fuck off." The whole idea behind that school of thought is "I made, it's mine, not yours". Which is true, except for one fact that the conservative ideology just keeps missing. You didn't make that money by yourself. It wasn't a result of just your hard work. If it was, go give it a shot in Zimbabwe, or Uganda, or Cuba, see how well you do.

Your success is a result of two factors:

a) hard work

and

b) favorable conditions

And what are those favorable conditions? In general they are the conditions that make it possible for you to make a successful business. Free trade, capitalist systems, strong economies, antitrust regulation that prevents your competitors from price fixing you into bankruptcy.

In short, you were a success because you did it in a society that allows you, and encourages you, to be a success. And because you made your money due to society's acceptance of you making money, you owe society.

What I find amusing is how the conservatives, which is based on the ideology of "actions have consequences and take responsibility for your actions" cry like children when it is applied to them. You benefit from society, you pay for that benefit. You get an advantage, you owe for that advantage
Except that you don't owe society beyond what was necessary for those things. Free-trade is not a service, it is an acceptance of the right to trade, it is non-interference, you don't pay for non-interference, capitalist systems are also to a great extent based upon non-interference, you may pay for legal structures necessary for their maintenance but not beyond that. Essentially speaking all you owe is for the structures necessary for a working government, not for a large government or for unnecessary governmental processes. I don't owe society for it accepting the fact that I have property and not intervening in the fact that I have it, in fact, the government is supposed to allow me to do this for the sake of my rights and the sake of a working economy.

My impression of paleoconservatism is that it's 1) a response to the neoconservatist movement and 2) an attempt to save the brand of conservatism from the disaster that has been the Bush administration.

It's a bit like NAMBLA trying to point out that they're just old men who like to have sex with teenage boys, and are nothing like those other guys who don't know how underage is too underage.

Sounds a lot like good old-fashioned libertarianism.

Admittedly, I have little taste for isolationism, but it otherwise seems like a sound political ideology.

So, who is paleoconservative in here? For those who don't know what paleoconservatism is, then read this handy little Wiki article about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

I would have to say that I am a paleoconservative and damn proud of it! I may either start a Paleoconservative Guild or Party on here. So who all subscribe to the ideals of Paleoconservatism?
"Paleo"conservatism seems to be rather new.

You people seem to be against using the state to help other people, and making a better life for all. You would probably support the Iraq war and allow abortion as well. Thus you lack my vote.

He's a brand? But, history has already judged him as the evil nitwit he was!
Here in Europe anyway, but Americans are easily fooled about this matter.

Goldwater is a Paleoconservative, hell he's the guy that birthed the whole Modern Conservative movement.
Which had almost no effect on US policies, and never even enjoyed majority support from people who call themselves conservative.

"Paleo"conservatism seems to be rather new.

You people seem to be against using the state to help other people, and making a better life for all. You would probably support the Iraq war and allow abortion as well. Thus you lack my vote.


I do not support the Iraq War, and while I think Abortions is morally wrong, I don't believe it's the government place to either fund abortions or tell people that they can or cannot get abortions.

Also, I've been distancing myself from Bush since 2000.
What does that even mean? Is it hard for you to just be against him, like many of us?

Well I don't fit in well with the Neo-Cons, I don't fit in well with the Democrats or Liberals, blah.

For those who wonder what my political beliefs are.
You think too much about what the government is doing to you, and not enough about what the government is doing for other people. America has a Libertarian Party though, if you insist on holding these opinions.

I do not support the Iraq War
My mistake, sorry.

and while I think Abortions is morally wrong, I don't believe it's the government place to either fund abortions or tell people that they can or cannot get abortions.
Of course it is, as much as it's the government's place to ban murder. The government is obliged to defend human rights.

Do you think its right for the government to take money for the sucessful citzens and give it to the unsucessful citizens? Do you think its right to tax those sucessful people more money?
Yes. Anything else is social Darwinism.

Personally I say no. Why tax a citizen more just because hes sucessful? Its like punishing your kid for getting a A on his report card. Most leftists "no offense, I agree with you on social issues" dont understand that its the Corporations who provide the jobs and economic prosperity that we enjoy.
That's why I favour a regulated capitalist economy.

Yet they talk of punshing those hard working men and women who responsible for our standard of living and who drive the entire economy foward. Its not only tyranny, its madness.
This myth is rubbish. CEOs don't work 435 times harder than their average workers. I disagree with the idea that some people should get to be relatively idle while others must work hard. Especially when it's the result of class benefit, as it usually is.

The government should recongnize that every Individual should legally equal, not be guarenteed the equality of results.
I don't (really) agree with equality of results; I agree with equality of input i.e. levelling the playing field.

What does that even mean? Is it hard for you to just be against him, like many of us?

No because if you're a Conservative many people automatically think you're a Bush supporter, so no.