Real Conservatism

[Clizby WampusCat]

It was the "basic health care" part of that statement to which I was responding. I thought the reply made that obvious, but I guess that I should have been more explicit.

If the only way people can get medical care is through an emergency room then I would say that they are not getting the care they need. We need a system where people can get free physicals yearly and care if they cannot afford it. This would also include assistance for women who cannot afford to have a child or a national adoption system that is easy an inexpensive. If we are to ban abortion (which I support) then we need a system to take care of the children that are not wanted.

 

[Albion]

If the only way people can get medical care is through an emergency room then I would say that they are not getting the care they need.

Not a problem then.

Essential care is being given. It is not refused on account of the patient's inability to pay. That was the point.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not sure that the genie can be put back into the bottle that easily. However, it is undeniable that the federal government caused the problem in the first place.

And now we have irresponsible politicians claiming that the same federal government should or will pick up the tab for students and former students who are in default with their payments (but not those who sacrificed in order to pay off their debts). Yeh, that would be a great solution!

LOL! I am a strong supporter of forgiveness of loans in return for public service of some kind. I also support the notion that loans, or any other form of government subsidy should be tailored to need. We don't need any more journalism majors, for instance, there aren't enough jobs for them, so no free college for that. On the other hand, we do need CNC machine tool operators and related trades, so it should be easy to get money for JC.

 

[Speedwell]

Not a problem then.

Essential care is being given. It is not refused on account of the patient's inability to pay. That was the point.

But the emergency room is not a cost effective way of providing anything but emergency medical care. If people are being treated there for more routine illnesses, then we are wasting money. Why? What's the point?

 

[Albion]

LOL! I am a strong supporter of forgiveness of loans in return for public service of some kind. I also support the notion that loans, or any other form of government subsidy should be tailored to need. We don't need any more journalism majors, for instance, there aren't enough jobs for them, so no free college for that. On the other hand, we do need CNC machine tool operators and related trades, so it should be easy to get money for JC.

And this hodge-podge of additional tinkering with what had been a good system is supposed to solve the problem the federal government created? It wouldn't.

 

[Speedwell]

And this hodge-podge of additional tinkering with what had been a good system is supposed to solve the problem the federal government created? It wouldn't.

You didn't say how the federal government cause the problem so I will assume that you meant by making college more available through loans and subsides causing increased demand which raised the price of the commodity. So if we remove the loans and subsidies the demand will decline and so will the price. Right? Classic free market stuff.

The question is, will it decline enough to solve the problem of an undertrained workforce? What's your thought on that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not a problem then.

Essential care is being given. It is not refused on account of the patient's inability to pay. That was the point.

What is your definition of essential care?

 

[98cwitr]

Here in the US we tend to lump republicans and conservatives in the same group. I consider myself a conservative but not a republican. My overall philosophy of conservatism can be summed up as "Allowing maximum freedom while protecting everyone's rights".

Ideally in my opinion a conservative based government should have these characteristics:
Some form of representative government where people vote for leaders and policies.
Government has no preferred religion.
Government has no media outlet of their own.
Some form of court system that impartially decides disputes based on the law and enacted rights.
Should be able to tax the people but only to provide for protection from other countries/organizations and to protect and provide for the citizens rights.
Taxes should be billed not automatically taken from someone's paycheck.
Environmental policy where it balances citizens rights and environmental issues.
Should have a basic healthcare system that is voluntary and provides healthcare for everyone if they want to join.
Term limits for all offices.

Rights are agreed upon by the people who control the government in some representative way. Freedoms and Rights are not absolute. Freedom and rights can be practiced until it is in conflict with another persons freedoms or rights.

Proposed rights are (in no particular order):
Right to life.
Right to practice any religion.
Right to move freely throughout the country without explanation.
Right to protect yourself from harm as well as own weapons to do so.
Right to a trial and due process.
Right to address accusers in person.
Right to fair punishments for crimes.
Right to not be executed or aborted for any reason (right to life)
Right to marry anyone you desire.
Right to a lawyer.
Right to privacy.
Right to free speech.
Right to basic healthcare.
Right to basic clothing housing and food.
Right to own property and possessions without government taking it for public or its own use.
Right to unauthorized searches and seizures.
Right to basic education.
Right to affordable higher education.

This is not meant as an exhaustive list of how a conservative government should be run or what rights we should have. There may even be contradictory things here. It is meant for discussion. Again my overall philosophy of conservatism is to maximize freedom while protecting everyone's rights.

This is a great example of a huge overton window shift. Many of these examples are in conflict with a right that you're missing, but is outlined in my state's Constitution

"Right to 'the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor'"

Your examples would undermine that, and give way to the idea that I have a right to your labor to provide me with the above. Take the 2nd amendment for example: While I have a right to keep and bear arms, the government isn't using tax dollars to give me a weapon at no charge. I must pay someone for the labor and costs they incurred in producing that tool; and the same goes for education, healthcare, and other "needs" as well. We must take responsibility for ourselves, as not to put undo or unjust burden on our neighbors (if you really care for your neighbor).

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This is a great example of a huge overton window shift. Many of these examples are in conflict with a right that you're missing, but is outlined in my state's Constitution

"Right to 'the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor'"

Your examples would undermine that, and give way to the idea that I have a right to your labor to provide me with the above. Take the 2nd amendment for example: While I have a right to keep and bear arms, the government isn't using tax dollars to give me a weapon at no charge. I must pay someone for the labor and costs they incurred in producing that tool; and the same goes for education, healthcare, and other "needs" as well. We must take responsibility for ourselves, as not to put undo or unjust burden on our neighbors (if you really care for your neighbor).

I am only advocating to take care of people who are in need. No need to imply I really don't care for my neighbor. We both do, we have different ideas of what that entails. You are already benefitting from the fruits of my labor for roads, schools and everything our taxes pay for. Helping the poor and needy with healthcare, shelter, food etc. benefits society as a whole. Less crime and suffering etc. We both agree that taxes are required of some sort I assume for vital services such as police, schools etc., at least something. So you are already not enjoying all the fruits of your labor directly.

 

[98cwitr]

I am only advocating to take care of people who are in need.

We can definitely do that privately. There's no real need for governmental involvement there.

No need to imply I really don't care for my neighbor.

My apology, wasn't trying to imply that at all. Just making a statement in general.

We both do, we have different ideas of what that entails. You are already benefitting from the fruits of my labor for roads, schools and everything our taxes pay for.

Not exactly; roads can be funded via DMV DL/VR registration fees. Schools can be funded via lottery programs. Those are voluntary options of raising public capital that don't involve public ownership of private labor (or the fruits thereof).

Helping the poor and needy with healthcare, shelter, food etc. benefits society as a whole.

When done in direct fashion and with the intent of getting people back to personal sustainability, yes. That is not the system we have now. The current model promotes poverty, and punishes those who weigh getting out of it or not. The model now literally sustains systemic poverty, and lifts no one from it.

Less crime and suffering etc. We both agree that taxes are required of some sort I assume for vital services such as police, schools etc., at least something. So you are already not enjoying all the fruits of your labor directly.

Paying someone not to hurt others or steal from others is called "tribute." It's akin to extortion and bribery, and we learned that lesson as a country as far back as the Barbary Wars.

Public means of raising capital are required, but we had public services, roads, and schools well prior to the ratification of the 16th amendment.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We can definitely do that privately. There's no real need for governmental involvement there.

Yet that is not happening. Where is the evidence that this will happen?

My apology, wasn't trying to imply that at all. Just making a statement in general.

Ok, no problem.

Not exactly; roads can be funded via DMV DL/VR registration fees. Schools can be funded via lottery programs. Those are voluntary options of raising public capital that don't involve public ownership of private labor (or the fruits thereof).

Is it really voluntary? Who can survive without a car and lottery does not make enough money to fund education in a state like Texas. The lottery took in $1.6 billion in revenue in FY20 in Texas, there are 5 million students in Texas schools. That is $320/student. Not enough to fund the schools.

When done in direct fashion and with the intent of getting people back to personal sustainability, yes. That is not the system we have now. The current model promotes poverty, and punishes those who weigh getting out of it or not. The model now literally sustains systemic poverty, and lifts no one from it.

Then lets change it. But removing all programs cannot help.

Paying someone not to hurt others or steal from others is called "tribute." It's akin to extortion and bribery, and we learned that lesson as a country as far back as the Barbary Wars.

Public means of raising capital are required, but we had public services, roads, and schools well prior to the ratification of the 16th amendment.

Yes because we had taxes prior to the 16th amendment.

 

[98cwitr]

Yet that is not happening. Where is the evidence that this will happen?

It's most certainly happening because my church is directly involved in it. At a macro-national level, we generate billions in private charity donations each year. Just look at gofundme.

Is it really voluntary? Who can survive without a car and lottery does not make enough money to fund education in a state like Texas. The lottery took in $1.6 billion in revenue in FY20 in Texas, there are 5 million students in Texas schools. That is $320/student. Not enough to fund the schools.

Sure. Tariffs are a great revenue generator. Federally, we collected $56B in tariff capital last year. There are plenty of people surviving without a car. Lottery funds are simply a subsidy, there are other revenue streams to tap.

What I would really like to see, and what the shutdowns exposed me to, is those with the means of doing so should pull their children from public schools and put them in community schools; where 7-10 parents get together and hire a teacher, but not all this ivy-league private school overhead. The cost would be something between $250-$400/mo and also afford the teacher not only their salary, but health insurance as well.

Then lets change it. But removing all programs cannot help.

Handing people money every month, without building a relationship with them, is simply called "enabling."

Yes because we had taxes prior to the 16th amendment.

Sure! I'm not opposed to taxation, I'm just saying that compulsory taxation of labor is unjust; it's...dare I say...akin to state-owned slavery: If I own your labor, then I own you.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's most certainly happening because my church is directly involved in it. At a macro-national level, we generate billions in private charity donations each year. Just look at gofundme.

I am not saying it doe snot happen. What I meant was that it is not solving the overall problem. There are still many in need and cannot get help. The government, us, should provide for them. Not tell them to go to a church, what if they are not religious? They would have to put up with the religious dogma before getting help in many of these organizations.

Sure. Tariffs are a great revenue generator. Federally, we collected $56B in tariff capital last year. There are plenty of people surviving without a car. Lottery funds are simply a subsidy, there are other revenue streams to tap.

Like what?

What I would really like to see, and what the shutdowns exposed me to, is those with the means of doing so should pull their children from public schools and put them in community schools; where 7-10 parents get together and hire a teacher, but not all this ivy-league private school overhead. The cost would be something between $250-$400/mo and also afford the teacher not only their salary, but health insurance as well.

People can do this if they wish and some do. Not all parents want to do this or have the means. Some people want public education, it can work. Public education helps everyone and everyone needs to pay into it. There is always room for improvement. Most of the problems with public education stems from politicians and parents, something the districts cannot do anything about. Most failing kids have a bad home situation in my experience.

Handing people money every month, without building a relationship with them, is simply called "enabling."

I never said hand people money. I said meet their needs.

Sure! I'm not opposed to taxation, I'm just saying that compulsory taxation of labor is unjust; it's...dare I say...akin to state-owned slavery: If I own your labor, then I own you.

If you have to pay a tax on clothes or on your income what is the difference? It is still your labor they are taxing.

 

[98cwitr]

I am not saying it doe snot happen. What I meant was that it is not solving the overall problem. There are still many in need and cannot get help. The government, us, should provide for them. Not tell them to go to a church, what if they are not religious? They would have to put up with the religious dogma before getting help in many of these organizations.

The government is not "us." I ask you: Who do the police work for?

Like what?

Apart from tariffs? Non-compulsory taxation, bonds, and borrowing.

People can do this if they wish and some do. Not all parents want to do this or have the means. Some people want public education, it can work. Public education helps everyone and everyone needs to pay into it. There is always room for improvement. Most of the problems with public education stems from politicians and parents, something the districts cannot do anything about. Most failing kids have a bad home situation in my experience.

I disagree at this point. Public education, at least here, is in shambles. Many are pulling their kids out to home school. Even before covid, public schools proved to be mismanaged, over-budgeted, and we had zero ability to remove bad apples from the classroom (that counts for both teachers and students). We the people (not the government) should be and realize we are responsible for our own children's education. That seems to be forgotten.

I never said hand people money. I said meet their needs.

What are their "needs?" How are they best met? Because right now...we're handing them money.

If you have to pay a tax on clothes or on your income what is the difference? It is still your labor they are taxing.

Because I have a choice on whether I pay taxes on $100 pair of jeans or a $20 pair of jeans. We do not have that choice when it comes to income. If I make no income, then I am living off your tax dollars.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I am a Finnish conservative, a political historian, and into classical European conservatism. "America," the United States particular, is really "a breed apart". What passes for "conservatism" in the United States has virtually nothing to do with the classical continental European definition of the term. The United States is an extremely right-wing country economically yet very economically progressive and socially liberal on the other hand -- all that "sacred" "freedom" and "liberty" of the Founding Fathers. Socially the United States clings onto much more conservative mores than the most conservative continental Alpine European countries Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Italy -- Hillary Clinton and her pearls. And pant suits? Quelle horror and pass the smelling smalt. At least the US Congress remains a manly bastion of politics with a lower female rep infilteration than the Saudi Arabian Parliament.

Economically, however, the United States worships the Mammon. That is not what conservatism ai about. At all.

Sorry, but what you call "conservatism" is just greed, pure and simple, driven by $-signs and sightings, an opportunity to make a few bucks for yourself. Not conservatism. At all.

 

[Albion]

Economically, however, the United States worships the Mammon. That is not what conservatism ai about. At all.

Sorry, but what you call "conservatism" is just greed,...

I don't think this is accurate. What Americans value--and what our history has enshrined--is opportunity, the freedom to become what you can become, to not be "slotted" into some class at birth and expected to stay there in the way that describes some countries which have a long history of nobility vs. commoners or of looking down on honest labor, etc.

We consider the freedom to own property and to advance in the world to be God-given rights, inalienable human rights.

Consequently, we allow people to advance, materially and elsewise. And most of us do not resent the fact. We may also admire those who succeed, depending on what they do with their money and positions of course.

And we may be proud of being the most prosperous nation in world history, but we are also proud of those people who were the inventors, the people who rose by their talent and determination from poverty to prosperity, which would not have been possible in some other countries. But this is not a matter of us worshipping "greed" or the picture of a society which values nothing but materialism. Far from it.

 

[stevil]

My overall philosophy of conservatism can be summed up as "Allowing maximum freedom while protecting everyone's rights".

I'm not a conservative at all, but I like the concept of
"Allowing maximum freedom while protecting everyone's rights"

Personally, if I could create a system of government it would be one which only has a purpose of supporting a "safe, stable and thriving society" any rules or laws outside of that purpose would be struck down.

Some form of representative government where people vote for leaders and policies.

A democracy, seems good to me.

Government has no preferred religion.

Well, since society will be made up of people of all sorts of religions and non religions, it makes sense to have a government which caters to that and favours none over others.

Government has no media outlet of their own.

I don't mind a government having a media outlet, as long as it has to compete with other free media enterprises. However, why would Govt be in the business of making money via media? I just wouldn't have a rule against it.

Some form of court system that impartially decides disputes based on the law and enacted rights.

A safe, stable and thriving society needs a way to impartially resolve disputes and uphold laws.

Should be able to tax the people but only to provide for protection from other countries/organizations and to protect and provide for the citizens rights.

Countries need to provide certain things that is difficult for a commercial sector to do in the best will of the country.
Such as roads, hospitals, schools, fire service, police, courts, building consents, military, prisons etc

Taxes should be billed not automatically taken from someone's paycheck.

Sounds like an administration nightmare and would be very costly to run. Govt would go broke.
A debt collectors dream come true though.

Environmental policy where it balances citizens rights and environmental issues.

Environment is always difficult to balance. Most people will have different ideas of where the balance is. People need to be protected from poisoned lakes, beaches and drinking water, people need to be protected from poisoned air, our ecology and animals need to be protected from us.

Should have a basic healthcare system that is voluntary and provides healthcare for everyone if they want to join.

Even poor and people happy to take risks should get health care. Noone should be turned away to die on the streets.
Therefore, govt to provide and funded through taxes.

Term limits for all offices.

Sure - to help fight corruption.

Rights are agreed upon by the people who control the government in some representative way. Freedoms and Rights are not absolute. Freedom and rights can be practiced until it is in conflict with another persons freedoms or rights.

There is a global standard of rights which seems reasonable
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This is not meant as an exhaustive list of how a conservative government should be run or what rights we should have.

Although, I don't see what any of this has to do with conservatism. I would think liberals would also agree to this.

 

[Andrewn]

I am a Finnish conservative, a political historian, and into classical European conservatism. . . . The United States is an extremely right-wing country economically yet very economically progressive and socially liberal on the other hand -- all that "sacred" "freedom" and "liberty" of the Founding Fathers. . . . Sorry, but what you call "conservatism" is just greed, pure and simple, driven by $-signs and sightings, an opportunity to make a few bucks for yourself. Not conservatism. At all.

The Parliament of Finland is composed of a Liberal government coalition, which looks like the Democratic Party, and a Conservative opposition coalition, which looks like the Republican Party.

The conservative opposition includes 2 main parties:

1) The Finns Party stands for national conservatism and isolationism, which is similar to the far-right Republican Party under Trump.

2) The National Coalition Party stands for liberal conservatism and pro-Europeanism, which is similar to the center-right traditional Republican Party.

So, on what basis do you say, "What passes for "conservatism" in the United States has virtually nothing to do with the classical continental European definition of the term"?

 

[Albion]

So, on what basis do you say, "What passes for "conservatism" in the United States has virtually nothing to do with the classical continental European definition of the term"?

You're right that our friend has it wrong. American Conservatism is and always has been a blend of Burkean Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, which to the mind of many Europeans is anything but "Conservative." That's why we often read Europeans ridiculing free enterprise and human rights in Marxist terms.