Conservatives and Double Standards?

[Übermensch1]

The conservative is an entertaining creature, a man of reactions. Take, for instance, the bellicose militarism that seems to be the hallmark of modern American conservatism. From whence does it stem? The feeling of weakness. The conservative feels weak, and seeks a means by which to rectify it. An individual possessed of genuine inner strength, on the other hand, is more than happy to live peaceably, in the knowledge that any militarism on his part would be wasted, for nothing can harm him in the first.

So it is true of their social policies as well. The conservative senses danger in the present atmosphere and reacts to it. There is nothing unique in him; indeed, he betrays his own 'individualist' philosophy each time he opens his mouth (individualism, true individualism, would entail a complete and total rejection of everything that falls under the aegis of 'tradition', including Christianity). What the modern conservative means instead when he calls himself an 'individualist' is that he is instead a soul-atomist: that is, he accepts the existence of individual, individuated souls. This belief strikes into the very heart of his mindset, and is the source of his malaise. The metaphysics of the individual must be destroyed - and for that, one must be an individualist.

 

[joebudda]

The way I see it is someone who advocates government do something, like helping others, is because they themselves don't personally lift a finger to help others and expect someone else to do it for them.

And also I must assume hasn't put much thought into it, because anytime you have a government do something you are to lazy to do yourself ends up harming more people then you actually help. So really it makes anyone who advocates government doing the job they wont do themselves hypocrites. It is just immoral for anyone to force their big bleeding hearts onto others using government, because the only tool government knows is threats and violence.

 

[Zlex]

The conservative is an entertaining creature, a man of reactions. Take, for instance, the bellicose militarism that seems to be the hallmark of modern American conservatism. From whence does it stem? The feeling of weakness. The conservative feels weak, and seeks a means by which to rectify it. An individual possessed of genuine inner strength, on the other hand, is more than happy to live peaceably, in the knowledge that any militarism on his part would be wasted, for nothing can harm him in the first.

Apparently, History is over. You see -- we don't need a credible projection of force. Nothing can harm us if we roll our eyes back into our heads and call on our great inner strength.

So, can war be unilaterally declared obsolete?

Can't we just wish it so?

Crime is costly, painful, destructive, Hellish.

So, can crime be unilaterally declared obsolete?

Can't we just wish it so?

Can cops/military be unilaterally declared uneccessary?

Has universal enlightenment arrived?

If the following absolutes can be true, then I will accept that militarism (the belief that some credible projection of force/threat of violence si necessary) is a product of weakness and not a recognition of the Universe in which we live:

1] If all political processes never fail, and
2] If all political demands are reasonable.

A large fraction of the world wants to eat the Jews. Again. Is that a reasonable 'polite/political' demand?

Someone wants carnal knowlegde of your 18 year old daughter. Is that reasonable, and can't you just compromise? How about, just some head? It's not even sex, you know.

There is another utopic vision of a militarism world: a perfectly empowered state, that perfectly directs superior violence only at the unjust first use of violence. In that world, only political goals can be pursued, using political means, and the state/world effectively comes rushing in to perfectly protect civilization from megapolitical action.

We can never achieve that 'GORT'-like perfection, we can only decide to either imperfectly pursue that vision to the best of our abilities, or reject it.

If we reject it, we must understand that our only other choice is to imperfectly pursue some other also not going to reach it model. One in which a perfectly unempowered state directs no violence at all, towards anybody and anything, including, at megapolitical actors who choose to ignore the unempowered states unilateral repeal of violence as a means to an end, and thus rule the world with impunity. Towards such entities, the perfectly unempowered state directs only words like "must" and "shall" and "will", all unenforced. Wishes on paper. Hell, we can all even roll our eyes back into our heads and speak in tounges about our inner strength as the boot comes down on our face.

The above is most like our current unilateral world experiment, the UN.

The Greatest Generation had no such compunction about imperfectly pursuing and defending some ideals. 140 million Americans sent 400,000 into a foreign meat grinder, not on our shores. For every Malmedy, there was US halftracks and German POW bodies mangled in frozen ruts in the ground. None of the above rampant imperfection justified abdicating the world to Hitler, not for one second, no matter how peaceful and Judenrein Germania would today be.

But apparently, History is over -- nothing can harm us.

Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage.

–Sir Alex Fraser Tytler 1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

So...lather, rinse, repeat! I've been following those intructions for years, I can't seem to buy enough shampoo to ever finish...

 

[SallyNow]

Personally, I think the OP poses the typical, 'these' are Conservative views as I define them, and therefore has built up her own house of cards in order to burn it down. Nevertheless.

Some majority religion folks are confused about this, but shouldn't be.

I elaborated on my point in post #5 and asked more specific questions, as I realise my OP was too broad to be meaningful. Could you perhaps answer my questions that I posteed in #5 rather than posting assumptions about me?

I'm really trying to get some honest answers here.

Thanks.

 

[nightflight]

Because in conservatism, helping people amounts to evil handouts. The only way the government should work to change society is to punish people who act in a way the conservatives don't like.

No one is keeping you from helping anyone.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Harpuia, you apparently do not know what collectivism is. Collectivism is the ideology of thievery and big government. Conservatism is small government, there has never been a collectivist conservative.

Now onto the main subject. A difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals make the government holy, conservatives make God and the church holy. The government is not something to trust with your money. Conservatives give their money to their church which do the actual work. Sad little liberals give their money to the UN which is begging for money for food aid while having 1 billion for that. These leftist organization are corrupt and unreliable and don't even work. You leftists are statist, statism is tyranny and resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

 

[joebudda]

<DELETED>

I would like to point out that collectivism is also a means of taking someones individuality away in favor of some collective group like "liberals, Conservatives, or leftists" to use a couple examples.

 

[Harpuia]

<deleted>

Collectivism comes from "collect" which means of one mind, and that's how collectivism seems to be interpreted as. To say there has never been a collectivist conservative is a bald-faced lie, as I know many conservatives who act in a collectivist manner.

You know, like you.

Now onto the main subject. A difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals make the government holy, conservatives make God and the church holy. The government is not something to trust with your money. Conservatives give their money to their church which do the actual work. Sad little liberals give their money to the UN which is begging for money for food aid while having 1 billion for that. These leftist organization are corrupt and unreliable and don't even work. You leftists are statist, statism is tyranny and resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

Back this whole thing up... please. Quit shooting up one liners and actually back up your information with at least personal testimonies if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Collectivism comes from "collect" which means of one mind, and that's how collectivism seems to be interpreted as. To say there has never been a collectivist conservative is a bald-faced lie, as I know many conservatives who act in a collectivist manner.

You know, like you.



Back this whole thing up... please. Quit shooting up one liners and actually back up your information with at least personal testimonies if you want to be taken seriously.

Collectivism is big government and conservatives are for small government, YOU CANNOT be for collectivism and be conservative.

Also, you still do not seem to understand collectivism. Collectivism is me working and sharing with you. I do not share with you, nor do I plan to.

Your trying to tell me you don't think that statist make the government holy... well look at Nazi Germany, Hitler was and is still god to these lunatics and the government was holy.

 

[Harpuia]

<deleted>

No, whether I agree with you or not does not matter. Back up your information so you don't make yourself (and those on your side) look bad. That simple. I happen to actually agree with you that liberals are statist, but that you go and make such statements without even a single shred of detail is what I disagree with you with.

It's a simple tip.

 

[joebudda]

I think he is using the term incorrectly. The way I understand it is basically just the opposite of individuality.

like calling someone a leftist would be collectivism because you are grouping a bunch of individuals, taking away their individuality, in favor of some group identity.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Human beings are the most complex of God's creations. We are at once social beings, and also individuals. To deny either--whether to declare every person an island, or to adopt an ideology of ant-like collectivism--is to willfully ignore the obvious.

This is why neither Ayn Rand style ultra-individualism nor Marxian collectivism work. Both ignore the human condition.

 

[joebudda]

Human beings are the most complex of God's creations. We are at once social beings, and also individuals. To deny either--whether to declare every person an island, or to adopt an ideology of ant-like collectivism--is to willfully ignore the obvious.

This is why neither Ayn Rand style ultra-individualism nor Marxian collectivism work. Both ignore the human condition.

I am an individualist. So individual rights are very important to me.
Creating collective groups and giving them an "identity" is an illusion that only exists in the minds of the believers in these collective groups. Individuals exist here in reality, not the groups people categorize individuals into.

 

[SallyNow]

Won't anyone think of answering my questions as elaborated on in Post #5 and in Post #12

I'm not trying to be combative or rude, I just really want some honest answers so I can better understand the point of view.

 

[MachZer0]

Won't anyone think of answering my questions as elaborated on in Post #5 and in Post #12

I'm not trying to be combative or rude, I just really want some honest answers so I can better understand the point of view.

Let's just take one part of post 5. You quoted Genesis

24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children."

Are you suggesting Christians should follow that lead?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

I am an individualist. So individual rights are very important to me.
Creating collective groups and giving them an "identity" is an illusion that only exists in the minds of the believers in these collective groups. Individuals exist here in reality, not the groups people categorize individuals into.

Whether you believe groups are an illusion or not, you can't deny there's an innate human tendency to congregate in groups, around common ancestry, religion, interests and hobbies, geographic point of origin, etc. So, groups are an operational reality, even if you yourself choose not to be a part of one. Again, I speak of the human condition, not merely the anarchist perspective which is held by a tiny percentage of the human race past and present.

Even if you're a hardcore evolutionist, note that all the primates are social and form groups. Why should humans be any different?

 

[joebudda]

Whether you believe groups are an illusion or not, you can't deny there's an innate human tendency to congregate in groups, around common ancestry, religion, interests and hobbies, geographic point of origin, etc. So, groups are an operational reality, even if you yourself choose not to be a part of one. Again, I speak of the human condition, not merely the anarchist perspective which is held by a tiny percentage of the human race past and present.

Even if you're a hardcore evolutionist, note that all the primates are social and form groups. Why should humans be any different?

I share my time with many people, and yes it is natural because we are very social. But once we start defining individuals into groups it is only because we believe them to be part of some group. In reality they are just individuals that we form into a these groups in our own minds, because we like to categorize everything.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

I share my time with many people, and yes it is natural because we are very social. But once we start defining individuals into groups it is only because we believe them to be part of some group. In reality they are just individuals that we form into a these groups in our own minds, because we like to categorize everything.

Depends. In some cases, yes, we do tend to put people in groups...stereotyping is probably the most common example.

But sometimes people put themselves into groups, and obviously endorse their group affiliation:

You have to admit you wouldn't get too far telling these folks that the Marine Corps is all in their heads...

 

[Suomipoika]

resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

If you read Romans 13, you see that Apostle Paul certainly didn't quite agree with you here. In fact, by advicing the Christians to submit to the authorities of Rome he pretty much had an opposite view from yours. Or do you think the Roman society - in the context of which the early Church lived - was totally free of what you would consider as tyranny? That is, was Rome so good compared to the current USA that, in Paul's opinion there was simply no need to resist anything, you could just happily submit to everything?

(Just asking a question, please do not attack me for doing so)

 

[HumbleMan]

The early church was socialist. The only difference between Christian socialism and what passes for socialism today is Christian socialism is empowered from the masses who want to work together for the benefit of their fellow man, while today's socialism is government, and militarily, mandated as a form of control.

Niether democrats or republicans have it right in what Christians are called to do. Democrats do believe that people should be taken care of, just by the wrong entity. Republicans do believe it's not the government's responsibility, they just don't practice, in speech or actions most times, the personal giving that we're called to do.

We've come a long way from the church in Acts, and it's time we started turning back towards it. Why argue the finer points of legalism, like what constitutes a tithe, or what doctrine must someone believe in order to be a missionary, and not just start taking care of the "least of these" and practicing personal holiness, and accepting that our individual actions and thoughts are what will bring us into the glory of God?

We as the church do have a duty to discontinue fellowship with people who engage in continual sin, but it's not the government's role to make laws to punish those people. It's the churches responsibility to either bring someone back in line with God's will, or place that person outside of the church body. The government, from the time of Christ, has only been about the whims and desires of those who would rather put man first and not God.