|
On April 14 2011 01:17 darmousseh wrote:
How bout the libertarian perspective?
-Age of consent is fine as is
-Welfare is bad
-Abortion is (insert views about whether or not an embryo is a human being or not)
-Regime change is not our job
-Massive defense budget is not good, but we should focus on protecting our borders and bring the troops home.
-Abstinence is the best way to deal with not having babies (It's true)
-No death penalty. Support force servitude of criminals (kinda contraversial)
-Marriage is a contract, it cannot be defined by the government.
The majority of "conservatives" only stick to 2 issues: Abortion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is going to happen and conservatives will stop caring. Abortion is here to stay. The rest of the time, conservatives are actually closet libertarians that don't know about libertarianism. Neo-conservatives are the real problem. People like bush, clinton, cheney, etc but I believe that era is starting to fade into the corporatist era.
You have a few libertarian points, but also some paleoconservative. This is what I meant earlier that paleoconservatism and libertarianism overlaps a bit.
Age of consent is statist nomenclature. Most libertarians adhere to natural rights by our humanity, not by age, therefore age of consent is based on the individuals mental status. We use the same procedure when it comes to those of an older age. We do not say all persons over 80 rights are reserved to their guardians (children) or next of kin. Why do we do that with those of younger age? Each case should be heard on its own merit. Most libertarians are against consent age laws (drinking, drugs, labor, etc.).
Libertarians are against welfare because it is a violation of your right to property and self.
Abortion is about 50/50 in the libertarian community.
We oppose foreign intervention for the same reason we oppose domestic intervention. We do not however oppose individuals voluntarily choosing to help others on their own accord. Such as Von Steuben coming to help our Revolution we do not oppose anyone choosing to help others fight for their freedoms and liberties, but you have no right to either force another individual through theft or conscription to do likewise.
Libertarians are against standing armies. We favor voluntary militia's and private defense agencies (like mall security, private detectives, etc.). Blackwater/XE, etc. are not private as they derive their income from Government. They are fascist entities.
Personal preference -- libertarians do not care about how others educate their children on sex.
Yes, most libertarians are against the Death Penalty. However, most libertarians are against the current judicial system. We favor a remunerative judicial system; as such we are against prisons. We see it as punishing innocent people for the crimes of others. We also favor ostracizing instead of imprisonment.
Yes, we believe marriage should be divorced from the State. It should be treated as a contract, and individuals should be allowed to give Next of Kin, Power of Attorney, and all other delegations of rights to whomever they want.
Most conservatives are more closet paleoconservatives than libertarians, though there are a significant number of conservatives who are libertarian, but have not been introduced to it.
|
Ah, I'm getting a bit too many responses that, while well-intentioned, don't help me much. I'd like to be clear on one thing: I'm not politically clueless or ignorant. I know all about libertarians and what they believe and I've no interest in signing up with those beliefs. I know exactly where I stand on my beliefs and I'm pretty sure they aren't going to change significantly anytime soon.
I am completely at ease with libertarianism because I understand the arguments behind it. Libertarians pride themselves on rationality and, while I may disagree with the assumptions they make and some of the leaps of logic they make, I can totally see the bigger theory behind libertarianism.
The problem is when it comes to aggressive foreign policy and social conservatism, I'm at a loss for any rational defense of these things. But I'd like to know if anyone can find good secular arguments for these things. I'm even interested in a good argument for why religious beliefs might be an acceptable justification for social policy. I've read some pretty clean and effective arguments in favor of nationalism, btw, which surprised me.
Anyway, thank you for the info so far. I'm putting the names you're giving me on my reading list. This is just a time for me to familiarize myself with things I disagree with. I remember at one time I was completely against all forms of anarchism. Because I had the misfortune of meeting anarchists who really were just complete creeps, I formed a bad impression of it. I kept on ignorantly believing that anarchism really did imply total chaos and crime. But then I read some academic literature on anarchism and my view of it completely changed. I still disagree with anarchism, but I gained a lot of respect for it as a point of view. I hope I could achieve a similar kind of change of perspective toward the parts of conservatism that currently make little sense to me.
|
On April 14 2011 01:35 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 01:17 darmousseh wrote:
How bout the libertarian perspective?
-Age of consent is fine as is
-Welfare is bad
-Abortion is (insert views about whether or not an embryo is a human being or not)
-Regime change is not our job
-Massive defense budget is not good, but we should focus on protecting our borders and bring the troops home.
-Abstinence is the best way to deal with not having babies (It's true)
-No death penalty. Support force servitude of criminals (kinda contraversial)
-Marriage is a contract, it cannot be defined by the government.
The majority of "conservatives" only stick to 2 issues: Abortion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is going to happen and conservatives will stop caring. Abortion is here to stay. The rest of the time, conservatives are actually closet libertarians that don't know about libertarianism. Neo-conservatives are the real problem. People like bush, clinton, cheney, etc but I believe that era is starting to fade into the corporatist era.
You have a few libertarian points, but also some paleoconservative. This is what I meant earlier that paleoconservatism and libertarianism overlaps a bit. Age of consent is statist nomenclature. Most libertarians adhere to natural rights by our humanity, not by age, therefore age of consent is based on the individuals mental status. We use the same procedure when it comes to those of an older age. We do not say all persons over 80 rights are reserved to their guardians (children) or next of kin. Why do we do that with those of younger age? Each case should be heard on its own merit. Most libertarians are against consent age laws (drinking, drugs, labor, etc.). Libertarians are against welfare because it is a violation of your right to property and self. Abortion is about 50/50 in the libertarian community. We oppose foreign intervention for the same reason we oppose domestic intervention. We do not however oppose individuals voluntarily choosing to help others on their own accord. Such as Von Steuben coming to help our Revolution we do not oppose anyone choosing to help others fight for their freedoms and liberties, but you have no right to either force another individual through theft or conscription to do likewise. Libertarians are against standing armies. We favor voluntary militia's and private defense agencies (like mall security, private detectives, etc.). Blackwater/XE, etc. are not private as they derive their income from Government. They are fascist entities. Personal preference -- libertarians do not care about how others educate their children on sex. Yes, most libertarians are against the Death Penalty. However, most libertarians are against the current judicial system. We favor a remunerative judicial system; as such we are against prisons. We see it as punishing innocent people for the crimes of others. We also favor ostracizing instead of imprisonment. Yes, we believe marriage should be divorced from the State. It should be treated as a contract, and individuals should be allowed to give Next of Kin, Power of Attorney, and all other delegations of rights to whomever they want. Most conservatives are more closet paleoconservatives than libertarians, though there are a significant number of conservatives who are libertarian, but have not been introduced to it.
Yeah, I know and understand the TRUE libertarian views and they would be excellent, but that is a looooong ways away. I tend to favor a little bit less extreme version because the good version tends to confuse people and make them resentful towards libertarians. The age of consent thing I believe is important though as I think it is important to define the age at which human beings can enter into contracts without the permission of a guardian. I think it's important for contract law and thus I think it should be defined at somewhere that the society agrees that a person is fully capable of making decisions. It should probably be around 16, but 18 is fine. If the kid gets consent from the parents to engage in an activity, then that's fine by me. If all people were born adults this wouldn't be a problem, but children often times act in a manner that they wouldn't do as an adult. It's a special part of law meant to protect children from entering into bad contracts.
Otherwise yeah, i agree on everything else for those reasons you provided.
|
On April 14 2011 01:53 meaculpa wrote:
Ah, I'm getting a bit too many responses that, while well-intentioned, don't help me much. I'd like to be clear on one thing: I'm not politically clueless or ignorant. I know all about libertarians and what they believe and I've no interest in signing up with those beliefs. I know exactly where I stand on my beliefs and I'm pretty sure they aren't going to change significantly anytime soon.
I am completely at ease with libertarianism because I understand the arguments behind it. Libertarians pride themselves on rationality and, while I may disagree with the assumptions they make and some of the leaps of logic they make, I can totally see the bigger theory behind libertarianism.
The problem is when it comes to aggressive foreign policy and social conservatism, I'm at a loss for any rational defense of these things. But I'd like to know if anyone can find good secular arguments for these things. I'm even interested in a good argument for why religious beliefs might be an acceptable justification for social policy. I've read some pretty clean and effective arguments in favor of nationalism, btw, which surprised me.
Anyway, thank you for the info so far. I'm putting the names you're giving me on my reading list. This is just a time for me to familiarize myself with things I disagree with. I remember at one time I was completely against all forms of anarchism. Because I had the misfortune of meeting anarchists who really were just complete creeps, I formed a bad impression of it. I kept on ignorantly believing that anarchism really did imply total chaos and crime. But then I read some academic literature on anarchism and my view of it completely changed. I still disagree with anarchism, but I gained a lot of respect for it as a point of view. I hope I could achieve a similar kind of change of perspective toward the parts of conservatism that currently make little sense to me.
I've talked to a few atheist conservatives and it's a totally different way of looking at things. For these conservatives, the most important thing is providing for the general welfare of the entire world. That the ends are a justification for the means since the ends are good. A libertarian would say "Obviously marijuana is not good for you, so I won't do it but I won't force others" a conservative will respond saying "Isn't it the responsibility of humans to make sure that their neighbors also do not harm themselves?" and they will use the example of suicide as a justification. It's not an irrational viewpoint, it's just a completely different way of viewing the world.
|
On April 14 2011 01:53 meaculpa wrote:
Ah, I'm getting a bit too many responses that, while well-intentioned, don't help me much. I'd like to be clear on one thing: I'm not politically clueless or ignorant. I know all about libertarians and what they believe and I've no interest in signing up with those beliefs. I know exactly where I stand on my beliefs and I'm pretty sure they aren't going to change significantly anytime soon.
I am completely at ease with libertarianism because I understand the arguments behind it. Libertarians pride themselves on rationality and, while I may disagree with the assumptions they make and some of the leaps of logic they make, I can totally see the bigger theory behind libertarianism.
The problem is when it comes to aggressive foreign policy and social conservatism, I'm at a loss for any rational defense of these things. But I'd like to know if anyone can find good secular arguments for these things. I'm even interested in a good argument for why religious beliefs might be an acceptable justification for social policy. I've read some pretty clean and effective arguments in favor of nationalism, btw, which surprised me.
Anyway, thank you for the info so far. I'm putting the names you're giving me on my reading list. This is just a time for me to familiarize myself with things I disagree with. I remember at one time I was completely against all forms of anarchism. Because I had the misfortune of meeting anarchists who really were just complete creeps, I formed a bad impression of it. I kept on ignorantly believing that anarchism really did imply total chaos and crime. But then I read some academic literature on anarchism and my view of it completely changed. I still disagree with anarchism, but I gained a lot of respect for it as a point of view. I hope I could achieve a similar kind of change of perspective toward the parts of conservatism that currently make little sense to me.
If you understand Plato, then you understand Neo-Conservatism. Really though, just read it straight from the mouths of those who created the movement.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irvin-Kristol/dp/1566632285
http://books.google.com/books?id=S2nUuTagIw8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=irving kristol neoconservatism&source=bl&ots=iEfs4mTP40&sig=3bpcVi9y0n4fXppxVTxnVlkb354&hl=en&ei=x9mlTeGvH8rp0gGkn_TkCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
As for foreign aggression you should particularly read Woodrow Wilson as he was a major proponent of war and internationalism.
http://www.aei.org/issue/17311
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_(international_relations)#Wilsonian_idealism
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_7.pdf (Recommended)
I'd also recommend reading Zbigniew Brzezinski & Henry Kissinger. Foreign Policy is a mix between the moralists and the military industrial complex of domination of resources.
|
read john lukacs.
although he is not a secular conservative,he does a really great job of demonstrating the falsehood of many ideologies still prevalent.
|
I shall make an effort to explain the intelligent reasoning behind these views:
On April 13 2011 22:54 meaculpa wrote:
Now this is going to sound like a flame, but this is an honest report of thoughts. I can't help but find most conservative arguments just don't work for me. There are many conservative views like:
-Age of consent should be raised up high
Traditional libertarianism, from which conservatives root, suggests that the government should avoid interfering with any individual's ability to make decisions which only affect himself. However, the reasoning behind that breaks down when you start to question the ability of a person to make rational decisions.
Most people will agree that a 3 year old isn't capable of making rational decisions, or at least not sufficiently capable to be able to give reasoned consent. It becomes far more cloudy at higher ages, and generally you can have a reasoned belief that it should be higher than 16 or 18, or possibly even higher than 21 (I could see a vague argument for that but it would be pretty inconsistent with everything else).
Most of this, however, is probably a visceral reaction by parents against the thought of their children giving consent.
-Welfare is bad
I would not characterize the conservative position on welfare this way. It is not that the welfare itself is bad, but that the only way of funding it is bad. You can't just give people money without taking it away from someone else - and when you take it away from them, you're not giving them a choice. You are, fundamentally, interfering with their ability to make decisions that impact only themselves.
If you could provide welfare freely, I doubt anyone would object - but then again, if you could provide it freely, you'd probably have violated a couple of fundamental physics laws to do it.
-Abortion is wrong
Contrary to the massive fountain of feminist bullshit spouted on this issue most of the time, the issue does not turn on whose body it is. The fundamental point here is when life begins. We treat the killing of a 1 year old as murder, and there are now laws in certain states that treat the killing of a fetus as murder for the purposes of criminal charges.
At some point, the fetus changes from just a loose ball of cells to a human being. Where that point is depends entirely on what one views as the crucial feature of "life" or "humanity". That feature is, obviously, not a matter agreed upon by many people. Its not even a feature that could be clearly identified by reasoned argument, its simply opinion. If you think the crucial feature is electrical activity in the brain, for example, you are not in theory against abortion but you end up against it in practice because electrical activity happens so early.
And, again, a lot of this is due to evangelical christians being a huge voter base for conservatives, and they take life beginning at conception as a matter of faith, leaving no opportunity for abortion. Its still just an opinion, however, at least as long as they aren't trying to convert you.
-Regime change is OK
The neoconservative argument for this centered fundamentally on a snowball effect that has somewhat been vindicated by events in Libya. The theory was, if you force democracy into a region that was not democratic, all citizens in that region will desire democracy, and eventually topple undemocratic governments on their own.
In my view, however, regime change is acceptable purely on the basis that one cannot leave aggressive states unchecked, and the fastest way to render a state non-aggressive is to end its existence, which is effectively what you do when you force regime change.
-Massive defense budget is important
It certainly is if America is expected (as it is) to maintain its status as world policeman. Without that status, it is less clear-cut, but fundamentally the argument over defense spending has arisen because of the budget deficit, which was itself brought on by social security and other ridiculous welfare programs, which nobody wants to cut anymore because they're terrified of losing votes.
In a properly run country without a ridiculous debt problem, defense spending would never be a problem.
-Abstinence is the best way to deal with sex
This is flat out retarded and anyone who makes this claim hasn't thought things through at all. I can offer no defense of it.
-Harsh punishments for criminals
Any time you reduce the size and scope of government, you are placing more responsibility into the hands of individual citizens. It is absolutely crucial for a functioning society that you deter people from abusing this. In a system where you have, say, inspectors to ensure that nobody is polluting a stream, the punishment can be a fine or something similar. If you have no inspectors, the first time you figure out someone is polluting is when someone dies due to poisoned water, or something similar - the risk of being caught abusing your authority is inversely correlated with the amount of authority you have, and conservatives seek to give people as much authority as possible.
Thus, since people are inherently risk-averse, deterrence is the solution - but deterrence needs to be significant. If you, for instance, punish pollution of a stream by flaying the owner of the factory (or whatever) alive, he's gonna think long and hard before he decides to abuse his authority, far longer than he would if it was a fine.
-Marriage defined as man and a woman
Technically, non-religious conservatives can hold no position on this. Marriage is not a government issue. The correct response to the whole gay marriage issue is to remove marriage benefits from heterosexual marriages as well - gays can already get married in a church or wherever the fuck, the only thing they cant do is claim all the benefits that attach to heterosexual marriage at a federal level.
Heterosexual marriages shouldn't have those benefits either, really, so the issue is something of a fake issue if you aren't religious.
Have to go to class now but I can expand on most of this if necessary.
|
if you guys would like to hear some well researched, well defended, not batshit crazy neoconservatist thoughts, check out the channel "machosauceproductions" on youtube. i myself am an independent, not sure if i'd say libertarian, but that's ok. i'm economically conservative and socially more liberal. i found this guy's views to be logical and sane, and it was just nice to hear a rebuplican who didn't bring up religion or what god wants etc... he just logically talks about the issues. check him out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
