The Philosophy of a True Conservative, Today

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So less government control = more freedom, unless we're talking about the things government does that you approve of?

Yes, that is true. Less government equals more for you. In your wallet, in your freedom.

It's not whether I approve of it, or not. It's whether it's appropriate for a function of federal gov't, as stated in the Constitution.

For example, controlling our borders is a function left to the federal gov't. That is perfectly and undeniably true. So hiring border patrol and immigrant enforcement agents, is perfectly acceptable to me.

Hiring an EPA enforcer to prevent me from using my clean burning car, or running my clean diesel truck, is NOT OK, because the EPA's regulations were never passed as a law, by our representatives, AND the action of the EPA has gone FAR beyond any scientific rationale. Basically, the EPA has adopted regulations into law, that bypass our lawmakers, and totally exclude us from representation, in their decisions. We have no vote on their regulations.

With the stroke of a pen, they can say that every puddle of water, is now a "standing body of water" (meant to describe lakes and such), and make driving a truck through a puddle, now require an environmental study, first! In other words, they can wipe out any forestry or rural jobs, that they want to.

THIS is taxation, without representation, and THAT phrase sounds VERY familiar to an American.

[Cyber Wolf]

Exactly how much intrusion is acceptable?

Federal agencies are established for a reason. The process of planning one, getting Congress to establish it, getting physical assets then a workforce in place isn't a quick or easy thing to do. Granted, they may overreach sometimes, but is the original reason they were formed no longer an issue?

[Ibby]

it's utterly utterly hilarious, literally laugh-out-loud ridiculously laughably utterly undeniably hilarious, how wrong you can consistently be. If it weren't 1 AM and I were more or less sober, I would try to point-by-point prove to you what an idiot you are.

But since I'm drunk and you're stupid, I UTTERLY trust the regular dwellars I respect - which is almost all the regular dwellars - to, even when they disagree with my broader political liberalism, see right through all your utterly backwards, absolutely idiotic bluster.

Most of us dwellar types are MUCH too smart for you lying, ridiculous, idiotic shills.

ETA: yeah sorry this is obviously directed at Adak. Only UG and Merc are so ridiculously and consistently WRONG.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Most of us dwellar types are MUCH too smart for you lying, ridiculous, idiotic shills.

ETA: yeah sorry this is obviously directed at Adak. Only UG and Merc are so ridiculously and consistently WRONG.

@Ibby:
Why don't you come over to the C Programming Board forum, and show us just how brilliant you are? Or come over to the DaniWeb C forum, and show us how you'd optimize a Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm.

Because us C programmers, aren't so dumb, either.
http://cboard.cprogramming.com/c-programming/

=========================================================
Let's see how this Conservative philosophy, can work with a real life (and big) problem:

Education!

This is a multi-part YouTube segment. Each segment is about 10 minutes. When you've completed one segment, choose the next education segment number, from the choices offered on the YouTube screen.

The name of each segment can be seen if you hover the cursor over it.

#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU

[BigV]

A computer programmer, eh? That would explain a lot about your affinity for defined labels and your inability to embrace the mixed, indefinite, changeable, contradictory reality of people and their interactions, including elections, in the real world. Thanks for that bit of background.

As for freedom, let me ask you, what about when two parties are in conflict, when their freedoms come at the expense of the other's. Imagine a situation where a manufacturing plant wants the freedom to discharge waste into a river (your introduction of the EPA made me think of this). They wish to be able to be free to do so. Imagine an individual downstream that wants to drink from or bathe in the water of the river. Without government inhibiting the freedoms of either, what happens?

Let me pose another one, since I know you have a strong preference for things that are favorable to business. Imagine that a manufacturer produces a widget. Now imagine another manufacturer sees what a great doodad that is, and starts producing the same widget with a different deelybob on top. Should the second manufacturer be free to do so?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

A computer programmer, eh? That would explain a lot about your affinity for defined labels and your inability to embrace the mixed, indefinite, changeable, contradictory reality of people and their interactions, including elections, in the real world. Thanks for that bit of background.

No, I'm not a computer programmer, professionally. I do it for a hobby.

I like the changeable and the freedom to make changes, whether they be contradictory one's or not. What I don't like is when someone calls a chicken, a dog, or a pig, a horse. Like calling the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, a result of a demonstration against a film, when they had a real time feed from a recon drone, AND emails from the consulate, during the 5 hour attack, telling them exactly what was going on.

That's not a labeling problem - that's lying, and when it involves our Ambassador being killed and dragged through the streets, it's NOT a little inconsequential thing, damnit!

As for freedom, let me ask you, what about when two parties are in conflict, when their freedoms come at the expense of the other's. Imagine a situation where a manufacturing plant wants the freedom to discharge waste into a river (your introduction of the EPA made me think of this). They wish to be able to be free to do so. Imagine an individual downstream that wants to drink from or bathe in the water of the river. Without government inhibiting the freedoms of either, what happens?

Let me pose another one, since I know you have a strong preference for things that are favorable to business. Imagine that a manufacturer produces a widget. Now imagine another manufacturer sees what a great doodad that is, and starts producing the same widget with a different deelybob on top. Should the second manufacturer be free to do so?

There are certain (and needed) protections from others making duplicate widgets, of your design. Those protections are limited however.

Think of cars - aren't they a very similar widget with a few deelybobs on top? Yes, but the basic design of a car is not patented. And I think we agree that we all benefit from the competition for our car buying business.

In a free market, if the widget was not protected by patent, trademark, copyright, etc., a company would be free to compete for the widget market. Note that unfair labor practices, might stop a company from being allowed to compete (child labor, forced labor, sweatshop labor, etc.).

[xoxoxoBruce]

So anyone inventing a new widget, and starting a company to make them, will be immediately bigfooted by a corporation with paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So anyone inventing a new widget, and starting a company to make them, will be immediately bigfooted by a corporation with paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network.

Coke is a product that is VERY easy to imitate. Do you for one second believe you could compete with them, with your little start up soda brand?

I bet not!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Coke is a product that is VERY easy to imitate. Do you for one second believe you could compete with them, with your little start up soda brand?

I bet not!

Bad, you pivoted to the complete opposite of the example I gave.

Seriously, liberals are naive and simple. They think people are always going to do the right things, act in the best way, etc.

Not really, but I understand why you think that.

Conservative thinkers like the economist Thomas Sowell and the Times columnist David Brooks have noted that the political right has a Tragic Vision of human nature, in which people are permanently limited in morality, knowledge and reason. Human beings are perennially tempted by aggression, which can be prevented only by the deterrence of a strong military, of citizens resolved to defend themselves and of the prospect of harsh criminal punishment. No central planner is wise or knowledgeable enough to manage an entire economy, which is better left to the invisible hand of the market, in which intelligence is distributed across a network of hundreds of millions of individuals implicitly transmitting information about scarcity and abundance through the prices they negotiate. Humanity is always in danger of backsliding into barbarism, so we should respect customs in sexuality, religion and public propriety, even if no one can articulate their rationale, because they are time-tested workarounds for our innate shortcomings. The left, in contrast, has a Utopian Vision, which emphasizes the malleability of human nature, puts customs under the microscope, articulates rational plans for a better society and seeks to implement them through public institutions.

link

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So anyone inventing a new widget, and starting a company to make them, will be immediately bigfooted by a corporation with paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network.

Give me an example of this.

I'm not familiar with the term "bigfooted" and "paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network", leaves me with more questions than explanation.

Who's paying for the manufacturing and advertising? By bigfooted you mean stomped on?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Give me an example of this.

I'm not familiar with the term "bigfooted" and "paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network", leaves me with more questions than explanation.

Who's paying for the manufacturing and advertising? By bigfooted you mean stomped on?

Yes stomped on. While you try to get up and running with the widget you invented, some large corporation with manufacturing capability in place, distribution networks established and advertising agencies under contract, flood the market before you can get your new company off the ground. That's why we have the patents you protest.

In a free market, if the widget was not protected by patent, trademark, copyright, etc., a company would be free to compete for the widget market.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

As for freedom, let me ask you, what about when two parties are in conflict, when their freedoms come at the expense of the other's. Imagine a situation where a manufacturing plant wants the freedom to discharge waste into a river (your introduction of the EPA made me think of this). They wish to be able to be free to do so. Imagine an individual downstream that wants to drink from or bathe in the water of the river. Without government inhibiting the freedoms of either, what happens?

No business (or individual) has the right to pollute the environment, except when it is necessary during an extreme crisis - generally, during a war. An example would be the atom bomb project during WWII. Sufficient care wasn't taken, and a land was subsequently polluted in several states (Washington St. New Mexico, Tennessee, etc.).

There is no argument for polluting our environment, from a True Conservative - or anyone with a bit of common sense. Where do we live? In this environment, of course.

The EPA has gone FAR beyond it's mandate, however. Now, it's a bureaucracy that can ban any product, or material, from being used, anywhere it pleases. It doesn't need the recommendation of any scientists or doctors - oh no! It's whatever the lunatic in charge decides.

[piercehawkeye45]

I have wondered for a while why computer programmers have such a high proportion of libertarians/conservatives?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I have wondered for a while why computer programmers have such a high proportion of libertarians/conservatives?

Because they're smart!

Seriously, liberals are naive and simple. They think people are always going to do the right things, act in the best way, etc.
That's unrealistic, and as you get older, you learn just HOW unrealistic it is to rely on that kind of philosophy.

One example is Senator Dianne Feinstein, from CA. She was a liberal, and still tries to be one, but she was nearly killed in the Jimmy Jones Guyana kool-aid incident, years ago. She was also there when Harvey Milk (the Mayor of SF), was assassinated. Also, her husband and home have had some serious security issues, from criminals.

SO, now she supports gun control laws - but she herself HAS A PERMIT FOR A CONCEALED FIREARM, and carries a pistol.
THAT is the kind of hypocrite that is all too common, in our leaders today.

"I'll make laws so YOU can't carry a gun, but I will carry a gun. Clearly, I need one, and you are too" stupid/careless/etc.

Gotta love the bald faced hypocrisy there!

Clearly, Diannne Feinstein has learned the hard way, that liberals are too simple, and too willing to trust in the great goodness of others.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

Because they're smart!

Seriously, liberals are naive and simple. They think people are always going to do the right things, act in the best way, etc.

.

Unlike conservatives who think business should be able to operate unrestricted, reliant entirely on the civic mindedness of the business elite to prevent abuses.