Conservativeness as Defense against social justice?

[Darkbloom]

Antipodes! I love it

Vladimir Nabokov has taught me much.

 

[portarica]

The least have been fed - at least in this country. Obesity-related health problems are a huge problem for the least. There also appears to be no shortage of luxuries among the least, that the working class may forego (cell phones, dining out, cigarettes, etc.). Outside the US, the Catholic Church is the largest provider of human charity in the world.

The problem conservatives have is that the liberal interpretation of “helping the least” is establishing another government agency, which appears to keep them well fed, but ignores their spiritual heath.

You confirm my point with your analysis of the “least”.

And since both conservatives and liberals have supported bloated and inefficient government bureaucracies , I guess you are OK with government as long as the proper “least” get the help.

Peace

 

[Anna2552]

You confirm my point with your analysis of the “least”.

If so, would you mind explaining, because I really don’t know what you mean.

And since both conservatives and liberals have supported bloated and inefficient government bureaucracies , I guess you are OK with government as long as the proper “least” get the help.
Peace

I don’t know any conservative who supports big government. If you want to point at a politician who calls himself one thing and does another, that could go on forever.

 

[Brendan]

You do know that corporations pay a much smaller percentage of the actual tax burden in the US then they did decades ago?And about 2/3 less than they did in the fifties?

Technically, they aren’t really ‘taxpayers’ at all, but a collection arm for the government. The costs of the taxes are simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

The only substantial difference between a corporate tax and a sales tax is that the more sucessful a company is, the more tax it is required to collect.

 

[Darkbloom]

You confirm my point with your analysis of the “least”.

And since both conservatives and liberals have supported bloated and inefficient government bureaucracies , I guess you are OK with government as long as the proper “least” get the help.

Peace

I don’t want to belabor the linguistic impossibility thing again, but if you support inefficient government programs ipso facto you’re not a conservative.

 

[portarica]

I don’t want to belabor the linguistic impossibility thing again, but if you support inefficient government programs ipso facto you’re not a conservative.

Did you support the Bush Jr war in Iraq?

Do you support the DEA?

Did you support Ronald Reagan’s growth in government?

Those are examples of programs and policies that were and are considered “conservative” but were either inefficient, corrupt or the converse of small government. So ipso facto they are not ipso facto non conservative .

If you are going to use absolutes or generalities, they need to have universal application or ipso facto , they are untrue.

Peace

 

[portarica]

Technically, they aren’t really ‘taxpayers’ at all, but a collection arm for the government. The costs of the taxes are simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

The only substantial difference between a corporate tax and a sales tax is that the more sucessful a company is, the more tax it is required to collect.

Darkbloom had originally blamed the demise of manufacturing on increasingly high corporate taxes. But historically corporate taxes were much higher in the past, when manufacturing in the US was stronger.

Peace

 

[Black_Rose]

I don’t want to belabor the linguistic impossibility thing again, but if you support inefficient government programs ipso facto you’re not a conservative.

Could you define the nebulous term “efficient”? And if so, how does one quantity efficient and what are its theoretical and practical limits. At least in thermodynamics the limits have been defined rigorously and clearly; the theoretical maximum efficiency of a heat engine is limited by the difference of absolute temperature of the hot and cold reservoirs divided by the temperature of the hot reservoir.

 

[Darkbloom]

Did you support the Bush Jr war in Iraq?

Do you support the DEA?

Did you support Ronald Reagan’s growth in government?

Those are examples of programs and policies that were and are considered “conservative” but were either inefficient, corrupt or the converse of small government. So ipso facto they are not ipso facto non conservative .
Peace

All those questions are absolutely mute. Any definition of a political conservative in the US is going to include the idea of a firm belief in the necessity of small government. Insofar as one does not share that belief, one is to a corresponding degree not conservative.

Accusing someone of hypocrisy doesn’t change that a wit.

Other linguistic impossibilities:

A baseball player who’s never played baseball.

A pacifist who routinely gets into fist fights.

A proofreader who can not read.

If you are going to use absolutes or generalities, they need to have universal application or ipso facto , they are untrue.

This may be a wasted link if we are going to redefine words as we see fit (but I’ll give it a shot anyway) ipso facto.

And yes, I agree, words should and actually must have a universal meaning. Hence, you’d be forced to agree with me that if you violate the definition of a word - like a political conservative who supports big government, for just one random example - you ipso facto lose the ability to be described as such.

But all of this is sideline material. Fact of the matter is, conservatives not only more completely fulfill the commandment to love thy neighbor as thy self, they also tend to hew much closer to the Church’s teachings on social matters. Given those two facts, I think liberals would be wise not to question others’ orthodoxy.

 

[portarica]

All those questions are absolutely mute. Any definition of a political conservative in the US is going to include the idea of a firm belief in the necessity of small government. Insofar as one does not share that belief, one is to a corresponding degree not conservative.

Accusing someone of hypocrisy doesn’t change that a wit.

Other linguistic impossibilities:

A baseball player who’s never played baseball.

A pacifist who routinely gets into fist fights.

A proofreader who can not read.

This may be a wasted link if we are going to redefine words as we see fit (but I’ll give it a shot anyway) ipso facto.

And yes, I agree, words should and actually must have a universal meaning. Hence, you’d be forced to agree with me that if you violate the definition of a word - like a political conservative who supports big government, for just one random example - you ipso facto lose the ability to be described as such.

But all of this is sideline material. Fact of the matter is, conservatives not only more completely fulfill the commandment to love thy neighbor as thy self, they also tend to hew much closer to the Church’s teachings on social matters. Given those two facts, I think liberals would be wise not to question others’ orthodoxy.

Again you throw out conclusions without facts to back them up.

Were Bush Jr., Rove, Cheney et al conservatives? Because they grew government at the fastest rate since that other “conservative” Ron Reagan.

Or was Clinton a conservative because he cut government employment and created a budget surplus?

As for conservatives being on the side of the church’s teachings on social matters, do most conservatives agree with the recent teachings of the church on capitalism, the death penalty, healthcare, working conditions and the humanitarian crisis in Africa?

As for saying the following :Any definition of a political conservative in the US is going to include the idea of a firm belief in the necessity of small government. Insofar as one does not share that belief, one is to a corresponding degree not conservative.

How do you define small government? Big military small social programs? How about a small military big social programs ? Would that be conservative?

How about a government like China that checks ID’s of citizens is that conservative? Does doing that make a state conservative? Is returning illegals to Mexico conservatives or is it conservative to hire illegals at the lowest pay possible as an example of the free market?

Def of conservative:1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7.Mathematics . (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8.a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9.a supporter of conservative political policies.
10.( initial capital letter ) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11.a preservative.

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

Again you throw out conclusions without facts to back them up.

That is blatantly untrue. I routinely link to several sources in my posts and to say otherwise is a lie.

Furthermore, I was making an a priori argument, not an a posteriori. No facts needed.

Were Bush Jr., Rove, Cheney et al conservatives? Because they grew government at the fastest rate since that other “conservative” Ron Reagan.

To the extent they supported bigger government, no.

Or was Clinton a conservative because he cut government employment and created a budget surplus?

To the extent he supported smaller government, yes.

As for conservatives being on the side of the church’s teachings on social matters, do most conservatives agree with the recent teachings of the church on capitalism, the death penalty, healthcare, working conditions and the humanitarian crisis in Africa?

The Chruch’s teachings are much more opposed to socialism and communism than capitalism, so in that degree conservatives are closer to the Church’s teachings.

Health care, working conditions and especially the crisis in Africa - and several other places around the world, Thailand jumps to mind - are all matters that most conservatives would like to see improved very much. We simply don’t think government is the right way to go about it. Opposition to big government does not equal lack of compassion.

That leaves the death penalty. So yeah, conservatives are much truer to the Church’s teachings.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot though. How about abortion, which will get a Catholic automatically excommunicated and causes pro-abortion politicians in certain dioceses to be denied Communion?

Seems that abortion is more strenuously opposed by the Church than it supports any liberal pet project like government run health care. If that were not so, I would be excommunicated for not supporting it, and practically every Catholic Republican in Congress would be at risk of being denied Communion. Who is closer to the Church on this matter?

As for saying the following :Any definition of a political conservative in the US is going to include the idea of a firm belief in the necessity of small government. Insofar as one does not share that belief, one is to a corresponding degree not conservative.

How do you define small government? Big military small social programs? How about a small military big social programs ? Would that be conservative?

How about a government like China that checks ID’s of citizens is that conservative? Does doing that make a state conservative? Is returning illegals to Mexico conservatives or is it conservative to hire illegals at the lowest pay possible as an example of the free market?

Def of conservative:1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7.Mathematics . (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8.a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9.a supporter of conservative political policies.
10.( initial capital letter ) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11.a preservative.

Peace

The only entry in your definition that speaks to politics is # 9: “a supporter of conservative political policies.”

Doesn’t specify what those policies are, but it gives us a good start. I’m going to argue a priori again, and point out the flaw in my logic if you can.

1. As per #9 above, a person is a conservative if he or she supports conservative political policies.
2. The concept of political conservatism in the US includes a strong belief in small government.
3. Increasing the size of government is antithetical to small government.

Hence, 4) an individual is not conservative if he or she wishes to increase the size of government.

 

[Darkbloom]

Could you define the nebulous term “efficient”? And if so, how does one quantity efficient and what are its theoretical and practical limits.

Quoted from here:
* No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
* More output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of (name removed by moderator)uts.
* Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost.

Furthermore, capitalism allows people to freely make economic decisions. I know that sounds reactionary, but that is only because freedom is reactionary to some.

 

[portarica]

That is blatantly untrue. I routinely link to several sources in my posts and to say otherwise is a lie.

Furthermore, I was making an a priori argument, not an a posteriori. No facts needed.

To the extent they supported bigger government, no.

To the extent he supported smaller government, yes.

The Chruch’s teachings are much more opposed to socialism and communism than capitalism, so in that degree conservatives are closer to the Church’s teachings.

Health care, working conditions and especially the crisis in Africa - and several other places around the world, Thailand jumps to mind - are all matters that most conservatives would like to see improved very much. We simply don’t think government is the right way to go about it. Opposition to big government does not equal lack of compassion.

That leaves the death penalty. So yeah, conservatives are much truer to the Church’s teachings.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot though. How about abortion, which will get a Catholic automatically excommunicated and causes pro-abortion politicians in certain dioceses to be denied Communion?

Seems that abortion is more strenuously opposed by the Church than it supports any liberal pet project like government run health care. If that were not so, I would be excommunicated for not supporting it, and practically every Catholic Republican in Congress would be at risk of being denied Communion. Who is closer to the Church on this matter?

The only entry in your definition that speaks to politics is # 9: “a supporter of conservative political policies.”

Doesn’t specify what those policies are, but it gives us a good start. I’m going to argue a priori again, and point out the flaw in my logic if you can.

1. As per #9 above, a person is a conservative if he or she supports conservative political policies.
2. The concept of political conservatism in the US includes a strong belief in small government.
3. Increasing the size of government is antithetical to small government.

Hence, 4) an individual is not conservative if he or she wishes to increase the size of government.

Actually all the definitions apply to “conservative” you ignored the ones except for the noun conservative.

Then you go on to to make up and then use a conditional definition of conservationism that revolves around the concept of small government.Regarding your statement just above regarding that concept, Reagan and Bush Jr. who both increased the size of government are not conservatives.

And the concept of smaller government draws as much from libertarian theory as it does from conservatism and restricting government involvement in peoples private lives is a liberal concept .

It is interesting also, that in earlier posts you rejected the notion of the compatibility of fiscal conservatism and liberal social policy, but seem to indicate that a liberal spending policy like that of Reagan could co exist with his conservative social policy.(despite your definition of conservatism being mutually exclusive with growing government.)

I think what you are trying to say is that you don’t understand why some people are or would would want to be liberal on the policy side and conservative on the fiscal side.

In a nutshell, it is because doing so allows more of Jesus’ teachings to be implemented to the benefit of the greatest amount of people.

Peace

 

[portarica]

That is blatantly untrue. I routinely link to several sources in my posts and to say otherwise is a lie.

Furthermore, I was making an a priori argument, not an a posteriori. No facts needed.

You should probably reread the link you cited. It doesn’t say facts are not needed, it says experience is not needed.

“a” in a priori means “not” and speaks to not needing a prior experience of the status being described because the legitimacy of the use of the status or definition in an argument is not based on the experience of the participants in the argument.

However,as your varied usage of “conservative” points out, facts are actually required to make a valid argument because there is no absolute definition of conservative or of conservatism .

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

Actually all the definitions apply to “conservative” you ignored the ones except for the noun conservative.

I did specify political conservatives, which are relevant when you keep evoking Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

Then you go on to to make up and then use a conditional definition of conservationism that revolves around the concept of small government.Regarding your statement just above regarding that concept, Reagan and Bush Jr. who both increased the size of government are not conservatives.

Right, I’ve been very clear about this. Insofar as Reagan and Bush strayed from the definition of conservative, they are not conservative.

And the concept of smaller government draws as much from libertarian theory as it does from conservatism and restricting government involvement in peoples private lives is a liberal concept .

Libertarians (of which I am one) do not have a monopoly on a belief in a small government.

It is interesting also, that in earlier posts you rejected the notion of the compatibility of fiscal conservatism and liberal social policy, but seem to indicate that a liberal spending policy like that of Reagan could co exist with his conservative social policy.(despite your definition of conservatism being mutually exclusive with growing government.)

Please show one iota of proof I’ve ever said liberal spending can coexist with conservative social policy. You won’t find any.

I’ll say it again just to drive the point home, insofar as you support big government, you are not conservative.

I think what you are trying to say is that you don’t understand why some people are or would would want to be liberal on the policy side and conservative on the fiscal side.

In a nutshell, it is because doing so allows more of Jesus’ teachings to be implemented to the benefit of the greatest amount of people.

Peace

No, I’ve never stated I am confused about anything. I have consistently said you, by definition, cannot be both liberal and conservative.

I have been perfectly consistent. You’re coming to my posts with preconceived notions and trying to find fault where none lies.

And it has been abundantly shown that your idea that “doing so (being liberal) allows more of Jesus’ teachings to be implemented to the benefit of the greatest amount of people.” us fakse.

You’ve done nothing, absolutely nothing, to explain why conservatives are more charitable than liberals, why conservative economic policy is closer to the teachings of the Church than liberal policy, why you must support big government to follow Jesus, etc.

You just keep insisting you’re right. If you are so clearly on the side of right, then prove it.

 

[Darkbloom]

Darkbloom;6642009:

That is blatantly untrue. I routinely link to several sources in my posts and to say otherwise is a lie.

Furthermore, I was making an a priori

argument, not an a posteriori. No facts needed.

You should probably reread the link you cited. It doesn’t say facts are not needed, it says experience is not needed.

“a” in a priori means “not” and speaks to not needing a prior experience of the status being described because the legitimacy of the use of the status or definition in an argument is not based on the experience of the participants in the argument.

However,as your varied usage of “conservative” points out, facts are actually required to make a valid argument because there is no absolute definition of conservative or of conservatism .

Peace

There are several forms of a priori arguments that deal with linguistic arguments. The most famous is “All bachelors are unmarried men.”

This is called a tautology. In effect, what it says is that a word is what it is defined as. There are no such thing as female bachelors, married bachelors, etc.

I’m applying the same logic to the word “conservative.” A conservative believes in small government. Therefore, by definition, a conservative cannot support big government.

So, no fact needed.

You are going around in circles looking for hypocrisy. Instead, why not put forth a positive argument that proves your points, not one that only responds (thus far unsuccessfully) to others. This is your thread after all.

 

[portarica]

portarica;6646129:

There are several forms of a priori arguments that deal with linguistic arguments. The most famous is “All bachelors are unmarried men.”

This is called a tautology

. In effect, what it says is that a word is what it is defined as. There are no such thing as female bachelors, married bachelors, etc.

I’m applying the same logic to the word “conservative.” A conservative believes in small government. Therefore, by definition, a conservative cannot support big government.

So, no fact needed.

You are going around in circles looking for hypocrisy. Instead, why not put forth a positive argument that proves your points, not one that only responds (thus far unsuccessfully) to others. This is your thread after all.

You say an example from Wikipedia makes something the most famous example of an a priori argument?

That aside, you are not using the same argument as the article in Wikipedia, when you conditionalized “conservative” to your definition of conservative you made the definition dependent on your experience of what "conservative " means.

And since many, if not most , people believe that Bush and Reagan were conservatives, and you don’t , then an a priori argument , ipso facto, doesn’t exist in the argument you make.

Peace

 

[traillius]

We are fine with social justice, as long as its supreme goal is the dignity of all human life, including the unborn, the elderly, and the disabled or vegetative. We just don’t agree with socialized justice which includes the slaughter of the " undesirable weak and innocent people "

 

[portarica]

We are fine with social justice, as long as its supreme goal is the dignity of all human life, including the unborn, the elderly, and the disabled or vegetative. We just don’t agree with socialized justice which includes the slaughter of the " undesirable weak and innocent people "

So if a social program doesn’t have a supreme goal that is the same as yours, are you OK with it if isn’t incongruent with your goals?

I can understand why you disagree with social policies that lead to the death of the uninsured elderly or lead to the death of the unborn because of insufficient prenatal care. Or with public policies that lead to unsafe food or drugs. But would you be OK with something like meals on wheels that has nothing to do with your “supreme” goals?

Peace

 

[o_mlly]

Among many of the threads here about social justice, there is a theme that some how equates American political conservatism with the ability to not participate in “feeding the least” or “treating the least like they maybe Jesus in the guise of the least”.

More troubling is also the unspoken connection between this political conservatism and what makes someone an “orthodox” Catholic.

It seems to me that trotting out OT verses to counter what Jesus taught about taking care of the least, while politically conservative, is not by any stretch of the imagination, orthodox in terms of following Jesus.

Now perhaps I am mistaken about thinking that the primacy of Jesus’ teachings is what makes one an orthodox Catholic. But that may just be a bias that I have.

Any thoughts?

Peace

The conservatives, I believe, agree with the objective (solidarity) but disagree with the method.

Subsidiarity, a long held Catholic and conservative principle, would allow the authority to the smallest community able to solve the problem. Achieving social justice at a higher level than needed often produces more injustice than justice.