Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Aug '09 02:54
    http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
  2. 25 Aug '09 12:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by voltaire
    http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
    Heretic!!

    In all seriousness, I think it is a good article and one that is worth a look. It shows how far conservatism has been nonexistent in government for well over a century, so what is happening now or how we got to where we are today should not be a surprise to anyone.

    So what to do? Could you imagine someone who embraced conservative principles entering the Oval Office today? Could they even function in the system? If you think about the fact that they would either have to maintain the status quo, which is to be expected, or fighting the status quo, which would be without the help of either party, what would be the role of that president? Would he not be nothing more than a lame duck in their first year?
  3. 25 Aug '09 13:30
    Conservatism is not libertarianism.
  4. 25 Aug '09 14:16
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Conservatism is not libertarianism.
    What is it then in your humble opinion?
  5. 25 Aug '09 14:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is it then in your humble opinion?
    Conservatism is fear of change, sticking to old values, emphasis on the family and old moral values, etc.
  6. 25 Aug '09 14:43
    libertarianism is essentially what the term "liberalism" used to mean before it became a synonym for big government.

    the US founding fathers were essentially libertarian - albeit a relatively moderate version that accepted the need for a certain level of government. They opposed the "conservative" statist positions (monarchy, state religions etc)

    It's funny how the terms liberal and conservative mean almost the opposite of what they used to
  7. 25 Aug '09 14:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Conservatism is fear of change, sticking to old values, emphasis on the family and old moral values, etc.
    The basic building blocks of society is the family. Strong family values makes for a strong society. No wonder it is out dated. I think the gangster values will be much better for society. It has already proven beneficial. I can't wait until we have some gang activity in our neighborhood.
  8. Standard member smw6869
    Granny
    25 Aug '09 14:57
    Take the Libertarian test:

    http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

    GRANNY.
  9. 25 Aug '09 14:58
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    The basic building blocks of society is the family. Strong family values makes for a strong society. No wonder it is out dated. I think the gangster values will be much better for society. It has already proven beneficial. I can't wait until we have some gang activity in our neighborhood.
    Well, the main problem with "strong family values" is that people who cherish strong family values tend to value the other members of society less highly.
  10. 25 Aug '09 15:09
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, the main problem with "strong family values" is that people who cherish strong family values tend to value the other members of society less highly.
    hmmm, lol. i must say i value my family more than strangers.
  11. 25 Aug '09 15:19
    Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
    hmmm, lol. i must say i value my family more than strangers.
    Anyone does, I was rather hoping you would grasp the extremely obvious.
  12. 25 Aug '09 15:20
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Anyone does, I was rather hoping you would grasp the extremely obvious.
    Funny you never do.
  13. 25 Aug '09 15:29
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    The basic building blocks of society is the family. Strong family values makes for a strong society. No wonder it is out dated. I think the gangster values will be much better for society. It has already proven beneficial. I can't wait until we have some gang activity in our neighborhood.
    So what do you think we should do to strengthen the family?

    One problem I see is that people rely much more on the nuclear family, and a lot less on extended family and the immediate neighborhood. I'm not sure if the nuclear family structure by itself is able to handle all of the strain we place on it.

    The idea that "it takes a village to raise a child" is now a cliche. I would argue that it takes a village to support a family.
  14. 25 Aug '09 18:00
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Yeah and Reagan is usually considered to be the last true conservative, and my point is that even that isnt true.
  15. 25 Aug '09 18:16
    Originally posted by voltaire
    Yeah and Reagan is usually considered to be the last true conservative, and my point is that even that isnt true.
    A "real conservative" would be someone who made proposals to seriously cut the size of government.

    Consider that the Federal budget is predominately devoted to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and Interest on the Debt. So any "truly conservative" candidate would have to propose serious cuts to all of these programs. Now imagine what would happen to any candidate who offered even minor cuts to any of these programs.

    As for Reagan, he did put forth the radical notion that conservatives are capable of smiling.