the moniker "conservative" connotes a person who feels comfortable with the way things are. the moniker "liberal" is overused, and absorbs the "progressive" among us, who may not count themselves as supporters of "big government"; ironically enough, the kind of government the current administration is running. so i guess my question is: do the conservatives among us feel like the way things are going is the right (no pun intended) way to pursue our goals? is progressive science and thought just a runaway train, poking into corners of the universe in which we have no business? how big a role does God really play? i'm sure this has been covered before, but humor me if you don't mind.
Esoterik Appeal: The term "conservative" and "liberal" are really misleading, specifically as the terms when used in a political context have almost completely different meanings than the words otherwise. Clarify? Not at all. Not much at all, I'd envision.
A conservative is someone who supports traditional values. The US was founded on the ideals of classical liberalism. So someone who believes in preserving those ideas is, in the US, a conservative. This does not imply any resistance to change. There are quite a few changes I'd like to see. A liberal is basically a statist (be it socialist or communist). I love science and believe there are no corners of the universe that we shouldn't investigate. God. One should be free to worship him or not as one pleases.
I disagree with the very first statement. A conservative isn't so much one that prefers the status quo and wants things to remain stagnate as it is someone who wants change but wants it done in a methodical, carefully planned manner. And they tend to view liberals not so much as simply wanting change but ready to leap into something new without having first considered all the implications. Tell me your views on that and we'll take it from there.
like global warming? and for a quick definition, the status quo means "the way things are." how do the conservatives deal with the soon-to-double budget deficit we have going on now in the States? do moral conservatism and fiscal conservatism not go hand in hand? my views are progressive, with a sprinkling of socialism, and a dash of libertarianism. contradictory? hardly. for instance, we (our tax dollars) should invest heavily in technologies that can combat the power of hurricanes, which is under investigation btw. if nothing can be done to stop the storm, we should have a dedicated fleet (land, water, and air) for transporting evacuees, but those who choose to stay behind must sign a waiver that says, while the government will make every effort to help them, it is not liable in any way for their choice to remain in danger. i have no problem in paying slightly higher taxes, as long as those resources are dedicated to science and effective social programs, not wars that my children will be paying for.
I understand perfecty what "status quo" means and even mentioned it. Why are you trying to explain it to me? And you have just proven that you would leap into uncharted things foolishy by wanting to spend tax money researching ways to combat hurricanes. Technology is far from even having a clue as to how to do that. Millions were spent in the past and one scientist at NOAA recently compared any efforts to do that were "like hitting a car with a pea-shooter." As to your wavier business, that's foolish also. No one can sue the government for not evacuating them so why persue nonsensical remedies?
Esoterik Appeal: Somewhat. The conservative view tends to take into consideration the economic impact of too rigid of controls. Most conservatives would very much like to see the amount of government programmes severely reduced, with the remaining made more effective, efficient, and with clear goals. In essence: Deal with the budget deficit by cutting superfluous expidentures, not through taxation or other such means. My views are Fascist-Meritocratic with influences of Classical Liberalism. It may be of interest to the State to indeed look into technologies for dealing with the hurricanes and other natural disasters, although it probably would be better for private industry to do most of the investment and work for it. But as to evacuation, to what extent would people be asked to evacuate in their own manner under this proposed system? What about wars which are needed?
while the progressive view takes into account the economic impact of too loose controls. for instance, lost productivity due to illness, environmental change, and loss of production due to inefficiency. recent polls suggest that most Americans consider the war in Iraq a superfluous expenditure. also i would like to add a month long vacation to that list. and by better, do you mean less effiecient, blocked by regulations, and lack of innovation due to the nepotism present in the awarding og grants. it's pretty simple. the " FEVAC"- Federal Evacuation Force- would do a house by house evacuation in major and minor cities. citizens would choose to leave with the feds, or they would choose to stay, in which case they would sign a waiver stating that they absolve the government from the responsibility of saving their dumbass when they get bent over by Hurricane Umberto. a token effort would be made to help them anyway, but the focus would be on the population that made the responsible decision. the actual number of necessary wars the US has been involved in is quite low, especially in the 20th century.
Esoterik Appeal: Ironically, however, progressive enviromental controls tend to let businesses legally pollute up to a point, thus giving them a safeguard against law suits and such. The American experience in Iraq is one of failure due to inefficient military tactics and other such things. However, what the American people think is not always what is best to go by, considering the general level of knowledge knowledge of the issue lacking in such, plus the emotional tug of 2,000 American deaths. We have become a nature of cowards, unwilling to sacrifice even a small amount of men for wars conducted atleast under the premise that it was in our interest. Might you imagine the America of today handling WWII's deaths of over 500,000? Specifically considering Iraq has been the second most succesful war, death-wise, ever waged by the US, with Afghanistan being first? Less efficient and lacking innovation? Deal with people based on the profit potentials, make the contract open-ended to all company designs, and demand results or no money, and you have a fine method of using private business' resources for American good. On the other hand, government projects developed in-house, tend to result in robbing the tax payers of obscene amounts of money, going years over the time necessary, constantly pumping in more tax payer money, and never holding anyone accountable. So you would not ask private citizens to evacuate themselves at all if they could? Moreover, why go on a federal level? Generally hurricanes are localized. Why not go to the states? Throughout the US' history, which would you claim were justified?
*sniff sniff* anyone else smell fish? particularly herring? the government resists control on the big money groups, i.e. oil, airlines, energy production, etc. is it any secret who has the most powerful lobbies? the legal pollution you speak of is a market based approach that allows companies to buy and sell pollution credits and earn extra credits for environmental remediation. markets are the best way to accomplish this b/c you are dealing with a very indirect item to regulate. we can blame the lack of information and the plethora of media conjecture on the White House's tendancy to classify everything possible. ignorance is the most dangerous environmental toxin in the USA. and 2000 deaths is a VERY large number considering the type of operation we are running in Iraq. it is not WWII, where we are facing a nearly evenly matched army, on their turf on less. it is a police activity, and the majority of deaths are coming from potshots. we are over-involved, and under-manned. i'm sorry, but what the hell do you mean by "under the premise?" then why has only ONE private firm managed to send a man into SUB-orbit? they just can't foot the bill for long term R & D projects. they need something that turns over a profit quick. gov't projects can operate at a loss and continue to function as normal; indeed that is their purpose. yes they over-spend and under-produce, but they have the budget necessary to make that investment pay off in the end. sure, for the voluntary evacuation. but a mandantory evac. will be carried out by a STANDING FEDERAL FORCE. they will be like reservists, but trained to help, not kill. the states have enough trouble making schools work. plus many states would have a much higher budget for these forces than others- i.e. North Dakota vs. California or New Jersey vs. Louisiana. a federal force would be more centralized, organized, and, most likely, mobile; able to respond at the touch of a button, with more than enough supplies and man power. crap, i saw this coming. i'm not the biggest history buff, but i'll give it a shot. i won't feel bad about conceding this point to someone due to ignorance. i'll stick to the 20th century, for the simple fact that (barring the Civil War) casualties were relatively low in previous conflicts. 1. World War Two 2. Afghanistan they attacked us, we crushed them. as it should be. edit: i'm aware that the Civil War didn't occur in the 20th century, but it's casualty figures reach into that strata... indeed beyond.
Therein lies the reason conservatism confuses you!!! I will freely admit the meaning of this statement is subjective, but I as understand this statement. It is exhibit a of the above analysis of your confusion. Exhibit b. However, this expresses less confusion about a specific political ideology than it does an understanding of the purpose of government as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
This does not even take into account that the government cannot be sued. Let alone by someone signing a silly waiver!!
Precisely, isn't funny that paleo-leftists want to continue to fund clearly, unproductive programs; while wishing to eliminate that which has not yet to produce results; or have not been implemented, but through research or reason would appear to be productive in the long run.
Yeah, unions have been very good at assuring efficient productivity. Something to back that up? Silly!!
Haha. Traditional values. That's such a silly phrase. I figure conservatives are more concerned with material things while liberals are more concerned with the immaterial. Or rather, conservatives look to remedy the immaterial with material, while liberals wish to remedy the immaterial with the immaterial.
