|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
These are the first and truest representatives of self-conscious Conservative thought. For a host of reasons neither of them would support the American Constitution. Plop one of them in present-day America and you'd have a specimen more opposed to the status quo, and more in favour of change, than any progressive. |
I'm confused, who does the 'neither of them' here refer to? Because I'm pretty confident a Burkean would not be opposed to the status quo. |
It might clarify things if you read 'Burke' instead 'Burkean Conservative' in my first paragraph. Burke's thought has threads of principled communitarianism, elitism, and natural law which make it antipathetic to the atomism and egalitarianism of modern America. You seem to be implying that Burke was a 'law and order' historicist or relativist; if so you are misinformed. If you'll make your case, I'll reply to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
These are the first and truest representatives of self-conscious Conservative thought. For a host of reasons neither of them would support the American Constitution. Plop one of them in present-day America and you'd have a specimen more opposed to the status quo, and more in favour of change, than any progressive. |
I'm confused, who does the 'neither of them' here refer to? Because I'm pretty confident a Burkean would not be opposed to the status quo. |
It might clarify things if you read 'Burke' instead 'Burkean Conservative' in my first paragraph. Burke's thought has threads of principled communitarianism, elitism, and natural law which make it antipathetic to the atomism and egalitarianism of modern America. You seem to be implying that Burke was a 'law and order' historicist or relativist; if so you are misinformed. If you'll make your case, I'll reply to it. |
Its been awhile since I've read Burke, and what I read was 'Reflections on the Revolution in France.' I don't mean that Burke would be for the status quo just because it was the status quo. I meant that if the status quo were reasonably accomodating of liberty and the protection of property, Burke would support its foundations and work within it for change. Because the Constitution is the source of America's guarantee of liberty and the rights of the few (against the tyranny of the many), I'd imagine Burke would support it, even if he believed that the ultimate source of the rights were natural, and not constitutive either by being upheld by social contract or by being legal rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Conservatives understand the limits of government. |
Really? Is this why it's the conservatives who push the war on drugs, vote to ban same sex marriage, tried to bring the gov't into Terri Schiavo's hospital bed...etc.?
I can understand why Big Business doesn't want an active government messing with their pursuit of profits by pushing clean air/water laws, worker safety legislation, etc.
Historically speaking, American conservatives hate big government except when they are in office and hold the levers of power. Exhibit #1: Thomas (in his Mr. Small Government incarnation) pushed the Embargo of 1807 after doubling the size of the country in what may well have been an illegal land deal. Do we need to review the federal budget under the Bush Administration? A talking point does not rise to the level of a principal. Actions speak louder... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Really? Is this why it's the conservatives who push the war on drugs, vote to ban same sex marriage, tried to bring the gov't into Terri Schiavo's hospital bed...etc.? |
The war on drugs was expanded by Clinton (whose presidency is looking worse and worse as the years pass). You're mistaking Republican with conservative. Both the Republican and Dems, and Cons and Liberals in Canada, are just big government political organizations.
| Quote: |
| I can understand why Big Business doesn't want an active government messing with their pursuit of profits by pushing clean air/water laws, worker safety legislation, etc. |
Big Business loves Big Government. It is their bread and butter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? Is this why it's the conservatives who push the war on drugs, vote to ban same sex marriage, tried to bring the gov't into Terri Schiavo's hospital bed...etc.? |
The war on drugs was expanded by Clinton (whose presidency is looking worse and worse as the years pass).
|
Clinton's presidency at least for America wasn't that bad. It was Bush and his totally irresponsible fiscal policy that has brought America to where it is today. In 2001 America was due a correcting recession which if had been allowed to run its natural course would have in my opinion have prevented America and other countries from ending up in exceptionally deep recession we all now find ourselves stuck in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
What Clinton did was "balance" the budget by stealing from the SS and other trust funds. Further, he raided the FDIC's reserves by moving them into general revenue and leaving the FDIC (who needs that anyways) with IOU's from Treasury. Further, he gave the economy to Rubin and Summers, allowed Greenspan to swap savings into checking without accountholders permission and bombed the hell out of Iraq and others.
Bush continued Clinton's legacy. It's true. Clinton covered up his holes and then Bush did the same. Obama has no tricks left, so Benny is just printing the Obama's agenda and calling it "household". More tricks.
http://www.industrymailout.com/Industry/View.aspx?id=182081&q=173576285&qz=d2a48f
Don't be partisan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
What Clinton did was "balance" the budget by stealing from the SS and other trust funds. Further, he raided the FDIC's reserves by moving them into general revenue and leaving the FDIC (who needs that anyways) with IOU's from Treasury. Further, he gave the economy to Rubin and Summers, allowed Greenspan to swap savings into checking without accountholders permission and bombed the hell out of Iraq and others.
Bush continued Clinton's legacy. It's true. Clinton covered up his holes and then Bush did the same. Obama has no tricks left, so Benny is just printing the Obama's agenda and calling it "household". More tricks.
http://www.industrymailout.com/Industry/View.aspx?id=182081&q=173576285&qz=d2a48f
Don't be partisan. |
Yes, but if the recession had been allowed back in 2001 the economy would have mostly righted itself but of course that would have meant that Bush would have been less able to finance his foreign adventures, which is why I suspect little pressure by the establishment was put on Greenspan to raise interest rates. Don't get me wrong I was never a huge fan of Clinton either but I do really believe that most of the problems he left at the end of his second term were only minor to what Bush and his insane fiscal irresponsibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mises, as someone with ties to that segment of 'reality', could you translate this post into comprehensible language?
| Quote: |
Yata is confused because he lives in the 1800s on a single line that he thinks is a map.
He also thinks that Minneapolis, Des Moines and Houston are right next to each other, bacause that's where they are on his single line map of the US.
|
| Quote: |
| (whose presidency is looking worse and worse as the years pass). |
Au contraire.  Eleven out of seven people say they'd rather go back to the 90's when the US was more or less respected, we had wars where none of our people got killed, the economy was booming and people generally felt things were on the right track. Yes, obviously I made up the stats, but you get the point. This is just another version of the right re-writing history, but if you want to try to convince people that their memory of being happy is mistaken, knock yourself out.
| Quote: |
| You're mistaking Republican with conservative. |
Umm, no I'm not. As someone said, While not all conservatives are Republicans, all Republicans are conservative. It's becoming more and more just a quibble. In February the John Birch Society will co-sponsor the CPAC thing--yes, this is the same JBS that got thrown out of the Republican Party by William F. Buckley--Ike was not a Commie and flouride was not a plot (but it was a plot point in Dr. Strangelove). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| mises, as someone with ties to that segment of 'reality', could you translate this post into comprehensible language? |
No. Dunno.
| Quote: |
| Au contraire. Eleven out of seven people say they'd rather go back to the 90's when the US was more or less respected, we had wars where none of our people got killed, the economy was booming and people generally felt things were on the right track. Yes, obviously I made up the stats, but you get the point. This is just another version of the right re-writing history, but if you want to try to convince people that their memory of being happy is mistaken, knock yourself out. |
Yes, the economy was 'booming', but it was a succession of bubbles. The housing bubble started in 97-98. Plus NASDAQ/tech. This was the foundation for the blowup in 06. This doesn't mean that Bush is off the hook. Hopefully, you remember that I was not a fan of GWB. He could have stopped the bubble before it became is systemic issue.
| Quote: |
| Umm, no I'm not. As someone said, While not all conservatives are Republicans, all Republicans are conservative. |
The neo-cons are not conservative. Big government and big wars. They put on a conservative hat as their extremely pro-Israel stance works well with Christian nutters who have endtimes obsessions with Israel. Mostly, people just follow and defend their team. You can relate to that, no? You're a progressive and you support Obama who is a corporatist.
| Quote: |
| It's becoming more and more just a quibble. In February the John Birch Society will co-sponsor the CPAC thing--yes, this is the same JBS that got thrown out of the Republican Party by William F. Buckley--Ike was not a Commie and flouride was not a plot (but it was a plot point in Dr. Strangelove). |
I don't know what the John Birch society or CPAC is. My opinion, which I know you're incredibly eager to absorb, is that politics is like team sports. You support your team in good and bad. The ideology matters little, as the average joe sees R or D (or in Canada C or L) as more of an identity than an organization that represents his interests. I'm not immune to this. I'd probably need a bottle and shower after voting NDP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ya-ta Boy"]mises, as someone with ties to that segment of 'reality', could you translate this post into comprehensible language?
| Quote: |
Yata is confused because he lives in the 1800s on a single line that he thinks is a map.
He also thinks that Minneapolis, Des Moines and Houston are right next to each other, bacause that's where they are on his single line map of the US.
|
Yes, Yata, it's not surprising that you're confused. You've seen this before, of course, and commented on it, but obviously, you didn't read it or comprehend.
The fact is that you are lost on a line. It's called the "left-right" political spectrum. It is stupid, totally discredited and you use it religiously to try and understand American politics. This is the reason you understand nothing about America's (or any other country's) politics.
You cannot plot all the political positions of the various factions, groups and inidviduals on a single line. This is true just as you cannot plot Minneapolis, Des Moines and Huston (and the rest of America) on an "east-west map" of the US and get useful information out of it.
You at least need a map. A two dimensional map. There is one. It has been shown to you. Many people worked on this idea before it was finally established. In fact, I studied politics in Paris with Maurice Duverger, one of the early proponents of a two dimensional map such as this.
If you want to understand the world, if you want to understand what is happening and what is coming, if you want to understand what Mises hs been telling you, you need a two dimensional map.
Here it is:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
Of course, this one is too simple. There should be a longer survey with more questions and options. (used to be somewhere - 100 questions, on paper. I've never seen it on the Internet.)
However, the general positions will remain the same. This chart actually explains politics today and in American history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
That pretty much defines classical conservatism as opposed to progressives.
Nothing should ever be changed, everything is GREAT and IDEAL just exactly as it is RIGHT NOW...(yeah, right).
Progressives...what we have right now could be better. |
Conservatives understand the limits of government. We don't think government can put a puppy under every xmas tree without screwing up millions of lives along the way. It's a realism thing. |
You just described libertarians.
Libertarians seem to allow Conservative Republicans to speak on their behalf. But they shouldn't, as they really have very little in common...Ron Paul being laughed at the stage should demonstrate how far their true political cores differentiate.
Republicans/Conservatives seem to be of the more restrictrive freedom kinds...which in turn means a much larger government with more oversight over it's people, which costs money. |
You're right. I do not like the word "libertarian". I am extremely fiscally conservative (more so every day). I do not think Canadian or American conservatives are conservative. Bush was many things, but conservative was not one. Ditto for Harper in Canada.
Fiscal conservatives might find benefit in a divorce from the conservative political organizations. Or, we might find that we will lose whatever small impact we presently have. Hard to say. |
I would classify myself as fiscal conservative. But on social issues, I really do not want ANY government restriction and laws passed to restrict freedoms. Republicans seem fairly obsessed about restricting rights and creating more laws to restrict more rights. World Policeman in nearly all affairs is another major one. The list goes on and on.
A small but typical example. Online gambling during Bush's admin. A huge industry with a lot of American companies involved...internet companies, real companies, American companies. Under Bush, those companies lost out on billions and billions of dollars when they made it illegal. Just more money just given over to Europe and elsewhere to get enormous industry and profit from an industry that was predominately American.
Anyways, I think Republicans are conservatives in the restrict freedom and desire for government to enforce their views on morality, etc. But for fiscal conservatism, I wish the Republicans were NOT seen as that, because they represent nothing of it whatsoever.
On the other hand, Democrats won't be able to attain that title either. They're just for massive spending that helps poor Americans (which in some ways, alleviates the stress of American society)...and the Republicans which promotes massive spending for a massive military throughout the world and 'world policeman' at the sake of all things domestic. Helping poor people here and there cost WAY LESS than massive world policeman and maintaining and moving around a massive world military presense/dominance.
If we could only reign in Republicans hyper-massive spending desires abroad...and could only funnel Democrats poor-people obsession to go towards 'middle class' maintenance instead...we might be better on track as a nation. Of course middle class maintance generally means LESS programs going towards wealthy and the middle classes at their expense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You do realize that this "massive spending abroad" on "wars for profit" is our primary export?
We trade security for debt. We go and solve the world's security problems, they purchase our treasury bill and provide cheap consumer goods.
All those liberal European countries/Capitalist Asian countries that have free health care are able to do so only because they have never had to pay for their total own defense, even including France and Britain.
| Quote: |
| Republicans seem fairly obsessed about restricting rights and creating more laws to restrict more rights |
Do you seriously buy into this whole Democrat vs. Republican thing?
Do you really think things would have turned out differently if Gore/Bush/Kerry/McCain/Obama were in office? Power and circumstance bind people's hands, no matter what party they are from.
| Quote: |
| Helping poor people here and there cost WAY LESS than massive world policeman and maintaining and moving around a massive world military presense/dominance. |
Actually having a world policeman is what enables the stable conditions necessary for a stable flow of cheap consumer goods that 'enable' prosperity.
And both parties try to restrict freedom. See democrats and guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Do you seriously buy into this whole Democrat vs. Republican thing? |
Yes. The parties might be fairly close together on the political spectrum, but they're still ultimately in opposition to one another. People seem to think that because they're not opposites in every way, they're somehow equivalent. This isn't true.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Do you really think things would have turned out differently if Gore/Bush/Kerry/McCain/Obama were in office? Power and circumstance bind people's hands, no matter what party they are from. |
Power and circumstance might bind people's hands to an extent, but it's not an absolute thing. With Al Gore in office, for instance, he might have felt compelled to go to war in Afghanistan after the events of 9/11, but it's doubtful that we ever would have invaded Iraq. We probably also wouldn't have had things like the Bush tax cuts. Would things be totally different in some bizarro sense of the word? Probably not. Would some things have turned out differently? Very likely. The Bush Administration took some active initatives of its own that were in no way required by the circumstances. To just assume a hypothetical Gore Administration would have taken the same initatives is questionable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| With Al Gore in office, for instance, he might have felt compelled to go to war in Afghanistan after the events of 9/11, but it's doubtful that we ever would have invaded Iraq. |
I am not sure from where you get this idea, but it is absolutely wrong. In the February before the election was stolen from him, he gave a speech demonizing Saddam Hussein to such an extent it made Bush look like a lightweight. There is no question that had he been elected, there still would have been a war against Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In the February before the election was stolen from him, he gave a speech demonizing Saddam Hussein to such an extent it made Bush look like a lightweight. There is no question that had he been elected, there still would have been a war against Iraq. |
There's some faulty logic here. Can you point to a speech by any leading American political figure of the time that defended Saddam Hussein?
The link between a speech criticizing Saddam and invading his country is highly tenuous.
At least as plausible: Gore would have paid more attention to security threats in his first months in office and the 9/11 attack would never have happened, thus the invasion of Afghanistan would not have happened either. On top of those two 'victories' he wouldn't have squandered the budget surplus and would have clamped down on financial reform so we would never have had this economic melt down. In short, Gore would have ushered in a modern utopia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
