The Philosophy of a True Conservative, Today

[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!

[BigV]

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

Seriously, conservatives are craven and fearful. They think people are always going to do the wrong things, act in the worst way, etc.

Really?

This is how you want to play? This kind of statement is not something an intelligent person would say. It is not something a person who is engaged in a dialog with others, seeking to understand and be understood would say.

I had hoped for better from you.

[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 BigV

Really?

This is how you want to play? This kind of statement is not something an intelligent person would say. It is not something a person who is engaged in a dialog with others, seeking to understand and be understood would say.

I had hoped for better from you.

It's stupid, and I don't like it, but after enduring several personal attacks with that very word, I became rather tired of it being so one way. Thanks for getting us back on the right track.

Which indirectly gets us right back to foreign policy. Because you can work on a higher level as a diplomat, but ONLY if the governments you're dealing with, are working at a higher level, also. In North Korea, we don't have that. The NK's have serious food shortages, BUT they remain heavily militarized, with over a million man army. And of course, missile technology that is getting better, and we can't forget the threat of their nuclear bombs.

They are still at war with South Korea - which as we know, has moved from a 3rd world country, into a 1st world country, in record time. Meanwhile, NK's are starving. Despite the best efforts of the NK gov't, word of the success of SK is getting out, and is putting NK into a real squeeze. A coup is starting to brew, the NK leaders must know. They can't sit around and do nothing, although that is the box we have tried to put them into.

NK is trapped. Sooner or later, they will have to attack SOMEBODY, to keep their citizens rallied up and still supporting their gov't, in spite of food shortages, and everything else. That somebody will surely be, their chronic enemy of South Korea, and we are right there with several thousand troops. So we're immediately right in the thick of it.

We will support SK, no question. It's possible that an internal coup, supported by the Chinese, will lead to a more moderate NK, but otherwise, there will be war in Korea, again.

Our allies are not too helpful here, either. France has no bases close to Korea, and the UK has ZERO air craft carriers at this time! , and after the loss of Hong Kong, have little interest in the region. Their focus will be on the Middle East, Russia, and the Falklands.

So yes, we need to have a strong military, and we need to have a strong foreign policy. The NK leaders don't give crap about being polite, after kidnapping so many Japanese and South Koreans, so they could learn how to train their spies better, sinking a SK destroyer, and shelling a SK island. They are "itching" for some military action, just something small that they can save face and get some admiration from the people of NK.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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

Nobody supports unrestricted business or markets! But we need to limit those restrictions - otherwise you simply have very few businesses, and very little competition or innovation.

What you think might be good tight regulation, will result in excellent monopolies by the few businesses that will remain.

More regulation, comes with a cost - it's not free to the consumer, or to the business being regulated. Who pays for these added regulations, ultimately?

You and me - the consumer.

[Adak]

@Bruce. Go to my previous post in this thread. Watch the series on Education. Then tell me how central planning is doing a better job, than local planning.

Because it doesn't. Centralized professionals do NOT do a better job, than concerned parents and local teachers, working at the local school. Not even close.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

what makes labor practices unfair?
what makes a patent? a trademark? a copyright?

you didn't answer the question about the waste discharge freedom vs the drink clean water freedom.

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are a full book in themselves. Lots of in's and out's to them. I don't see how that relates to political philosophy directly, however.

I completely missed your post about waste discharge vs clean water freedoms. I'm not sure that topic relates to this thread, directly. Maybe start a new thread for it?

Once again, you're really. really really hung up on labels about what happened in Libya. It's ok, you focus on what you think is important. "act of terror" versus "terrorism" seems terribly important to you. It means something to you. Fine. But you're wildly inconsistent in your choices of what's "important" and what's not, what's valid and what's not. Your standards for different speakers saying similar things are wildly different. this .. .. inconsistency might be easier for you to bear, but it disqualifies you as a respectable source of information. your confirmation bias is so huge it covers your whole horizon, making it indistinguishable from anything else.

More info is still coming in about Libya - as Hillary Clinton said it would in her statement last week.

Today, the Hillary Clinton staff have leaked that Hillary received the request for more security in Libya, and based on the earlier attacks in June (iirc), and the unstable armed militias abounding in the country, approved the request for more security, and sent it up to the President.

Obama rejected it. (it appears, this is not confirmed yet).

As the attack began, the CIA guys, who were there to collect what they could of dangerous weapons from the militias (a buy back campaign for $$$, I believe), were told TO STAND DOWN, and not support Ambassador Stevens. The CIA guys were about a 1/2 mile away from the consulate, in a "safe house".

The two CIA agents who died, disobeyed their orders to stand down, and went running over to help the Ambassador. As ex-Navy Seals, they know the difference between a little shooting into the air, and a concerted attack likely to overwhelm the consulate. They were doing a great job of holding off the attackers, but were finally killed by a mortar strike.

The attack lasted over 5 hours - and SOMEBODY turned down the urgent request by Ambassador Stevens and the Consulate staff, for help. Gen. David Patreus (Head of the CIA), has stated that NO ONE in the CIA, turned down that request, and any report that they did, is simply "inaccurate".

The Dept. of Defense is saying that NO ONE in their dept. turned down the request for help, by the consulate. The State Dept. has no say about a request for military help, from a consulate. Those go to the Defense dept, and up to the President.

So, to sum it up - Obama denied the request for help from the consulate, even though help could easily have been there in time (Aviona, Italy air base is close by). http://www.aviano.af.mil/

and ready "Anytime, Anywhere". These are the guys who gave us air support in Libya, when it was freed from Ghaddafi, so they KNOW the place, very well.

The first city they protected in Libya? Benghazi!

And with the real time feed coming in from the recon drone, Obama's staff and himself, could watch the last few hours of the attack, and the Ambassador's body being dragged through the streets after the attack - finally ending up at the hospital, dead of course.

The Benghazi attack story is not over, and many are calling for Obama being removed from office, if he wins the election, because of his apparent dereliction of duty. Not all the facts are known yet, however.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

Nobody supports unrestricted business or markets!
But we need to limit those restrictions - otherwise you simply have very few businesses, and very little competition or innovation.

who and how decides the limits?

Originally Posted by Adak

What you think might be good tight regulation, will result in excellent monopolies by the few businesses that will remain.

This is in no way the only outcome, not even the most likely outcome. Witness the recent rejection of the attempted merger between AT&T and T-Mobile. Regulators, enforcing regulations, prevented further consolidation.

Business wants to make money, it is their biological imperative. Laws, ethics, regulations, etc, these are obstacles to one degree or another in the pursuit of profit.

Originally Posted by Adak

More regulation, comes with a cost - it's not free to the consumer, or to the business being regulated. Who pays for these added regulations, ultimately?

You and me - the consumer.

businesses have costs--labor, materials, energy, transportation, etc, etc. Who bears those costs? Who bears the costs of the degradation of the environment by a given industry, polluters for example?

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Adak

Nobody supports unrestricted business or markets! But we need to limit those restrictions - otherwise you simply have very few businesses, and very little competition or innovation.

What you think might be good tight regulation, will result in excellent monopolies by the few businesses that will remain.

More regulation, comes with a cost - it's not free to the consumer, or to the business being regulated. Who pays for these added regulations, ultimately?

You and me - the consumer.

Really depends on what we regulate. Mostly what needs to be regulated is the negative effect of greed, and morally reprehensible business practices..etc...

I've been to countries with very small if any real government. No pesky regulations or enforcement by the government in business. I've seen people grind red brick into red pepper to help "maximize profits", oh, then sold this to aid workers giving food to people assed out because of flooding on a Biblical scale. Some other people in a different area were doing the same thing with chalk and flour...for the same target population. Who pays for regulation? Who pays for lack of regulation? I guess it depends on our out look. Just want more profit at any cost? Then the consumer pays in more ways then money.

Our own country has seen this in the banking/home finance industry. A few hundred million dollars for a very small population, again maximizing profits, who quite frankly does not give a shit about billions of dollars in effects for our nation to pay for this greed and lack of principled business practices.

I've been across our country two or three times in the past year. Just got back from DC. My freedoms have never been infringed, not once. I vote, I travel where ever I like, I buy what I want (can afford), I speak my mind and my heart with out fear. I read what I like, can publish just about anything that is not slanderous. No one is coming to my door to enter my home with out permission. If I get pulled over for a speeding ticket and the police ask me how fast I was going, I ask if I can have my lawyer present during questioning. I keep a 7MM Magnum long rifle, a .22 rifle, and a .22 pistol in my man cave. I have a CC licence, but rarely carry my choice.

I am very curious what freedoms you have had infringed by government regulation?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

Basic things to understand:

1) The more control the gov't has, the less freedom you have.

--snip

This is what you opened the thread with. You have been relentless on why we should not have laws, why laws are bad, how laws inhibit business or build businesses into monopolies (disregarding the obvious contradiction there).

So I gave a couple of examples of freedoms, paired and in opposition to each other. How do these freedoms get resolved? Who gets to be free? How does that happen? You stand opposed to laws, whereever possible. "It should be voluntary". If that's your stance, reconcile the competing freedoms I described.

Originally Posted by Adak

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are a full book in themselves. Lots of in's and out's to them. I don't see how that relates to political philosophy directly, however.

I completely missed your post about waste discharge vs clean water freedoms. I'm not sure that topic relates to this thread, directly. Maybe start a new thread for it?


--FLUSH--

They're a book all right, many books. Books of laws that business rely upon in order to do business at all. Our country is founded on laws. Your distaste for them is aberrant. A new thread is not needed. You've stood up as the decider in chief as to what constitutes conservatism. Tell me what the conservative position is for the situations I described.

[Ibby]

Hey, Adak. Quick. Without googling. What was the ME's COD for ambassador stevens? how did he die?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Hey, Adak. Quick. Without googling. What was the ME's COD for ambassador stevens? how did he die?

Initial reports stated he died from the effects of the fire (not gunfire, real fire). That usually means carbon monoxide poisoning, since CO binds so much better than 02 with our hemoglobin.

No, I didn't google it, but I am interested in what the investigation HERE will find for his COD.

[Adak]

@regular joe:
Every phone you make overseas, is recorded and analyzed in an AT&T building in SF. There is no warrant from a judge on any kind of case be case basis here. Mobile phone traffic is all monitored, as well.

Now, they're building a massive new facility near Salt Lake City, which will be able to monitor ALL phone calls, within the country. Again, this is not a case by case decision from a judge looking at a warrant - this is your gov't analyzing every phone call you make - period.

Perhaps this is what is needed for our reasonable safety in this day and age, but I would like to see EXACTLY why and whether this overreach into our privacy, is really necessary.

@BigV: I'm looking for it.

[Ibby]

mkay. at least you know he was killed without his killers actually having known they'd done so. Yeah, he died of smoke inhalation in the consulate fire. To my understanding, it was smoke inhalation causing asphyxia, not carbon monoxide poisoning, that killed him, but close enough.

But he was never paraded around Benghazi, as I feel like I recall you or a similar faceless idiotic republican shill claiming. That WAS you, right? at 4:00AM i'm honestly too tired to try to search for the post. His body was found IN the saferoom he suffocated in.

just wanted to debunk that one bit of ridiculous propaganda while it was on my mind.

You're so often and consistently wrong - not just in your easy-to-check facts like that, but in your utterly inane and frankly insane attempts at making conservative ideology make sense (i've seen people make halfway-plausible defenses of conservatism but you definitely aren't one) - that I can't honestly believe that you think there's more than maybe three or four idiot Dwellars who're going to buy your laughable rhetoric.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

Not really, but I understand why you think [liberals are naive and simple].

Let me re-read your example.

Yes, liberals ARE naive and simple.. See it all the time. Liberals get mugged, battered, robbed - any kind of violent crime.

And right away, you have a new born conservative, who favors gun laws, and knows that gun control should mean a good sight picture as you bring up your firearm.

Yours is a sweet world, where priests never molest altar boys, and their Bishops never keep their mouths shut about it, and move the offending priests around to a new diocese, with no warning given about his past. And violent crime never happens, and all the nations of the world come together for harmonious relations, at the U.N.

I get it, really. It's a wonderful utopia - it's just not real.