tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post2757177208312405570..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: French right: "We must impose parity"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-10134249166282498132009-12-14T04:32:15.148+11:002009-12-14T04:32:15.148+11:00I ALWAYS LAUGH when a person call themselves '...I ALWAYS LAUGH when a person call themselves '' Fiscal conservative/Social liberal ''<br /><br />Social liberalism IS inherently psychotic and WILL damage fiscal conservatism<br /><br />Look what has happened to Governor Arnold from California ... his social liberal policies destroyed his fiscal conservatism<br /><br />But I understand that not all social conservatism is right ( thought a huge bulk of it is )<br /><br />The ONLY alternatives is being a Fiscal conservative/Social libertarian OR Fiscal conservative/Social moderate<br /><br />Since fiscal conservatism concentrates on liberty and free markets so should the social policies be structured to be local , state and have less government and be more libertarian in nature ( anything goes )<br /><br />In the time of USA this may be it's only hope and I'm not even American<br /><br />I seriously despise social liberalism ... it creates politicized colleges , laziness AKA lack of personal responsibility and disorderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-31324449727060387542009-12-10T19:29:43.833+11:002009-12-10T19:29:43.833+11:00"Isn't the rise of state (left wing) inst..."Isn't the rise of state (left wing) institutions a direct consequence of an increasingly liberal society?"<br /><br />I don't know if this is directly on topic or not but I think one of the best things you can do for society is to be good or really good at your job. To be really good at something requires more than just intelligence or aptitude it requires dedication. If people's idea of work is "only do enough" or "will work for a million dollars" but otherwise I don't want to, you're not going to get that dedication. <br /><br />High standards in work will surely only come when we have community and social expectations as well as pride in these standards. If we say everyone do your own thing, energy will be dissipated, different priorities will come to the fore and that will be reflected in the results. Alternatively if we say "only results matter", (eg money, position) then we'll be tempted to cut corners or act unethically. <br /><br />Today people are suspicious of individuals abilities or dedication. They want everything regulated or overseen. The idea of inherent professionalism or dedication is going by the board and we look to others to make sure stuff is done. Surely this explains in part the rise of large scale institutions? <br /><br />I find when I do meet highly competent people they are usually fairly “civilised”. Meaning they can do more than tick boxes and cite regulations. They are aware of how the pieces fit, of how what they do affects people’s lives. They usually have fairly good people skills. To be such a person I think requires you to have an eye, so to speak, on society with its allied rules of decorum, awareness of function, duty and sense of appropriateness. To focus only on the task in isolation or to be concerned largely with yourself may be good enough for work at a basic level but not for achievement at higher levels. This is not something that you can just throw money at to fix. The desire to do things well I believe is a trait associated with a traditionalist or conservative outlook (although not only this outlook).Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-25547057241528467552009-12-10T15:22:35.826+11:002009-12-10T15:22:35.826+11:00Sorry in relation to "No, because the state i...Sorry in relation to "No, because the state is increasingly authoritarian not liberal".Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-61129559700890784432009-12-10T15:21:29.928+11:002009-12-10T15:21:29.928+11:00I don't know if its authoritarian but its cert...I don't know if its authoritarian but its certainly impersonal.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70679360334262653582009-12-10T12:55:55.130+11:002009-12-10T12:55:55.130+11:00No offence but I would have thought that point wou...No offence but I would have thought that point would be so obvious its embarrassing even to discuss it.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2761412781964210552009-12-10T12:32:30.081+11:002009-12-10T12:32:30.081+11:00"in an invasion situation the warriors could ..."in an invasion situation the warriors could certainly refuse to defend objector neighborhoods."<br /><br />The moment soldiers can say where and when they won't fight the war's over. Its the death of coherant collective action.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75209823037059308632009-12-09T17:24:00.348+11:002009-12-09T17:24:00.348+11:00"Isn't the rise of state (left wing) inst..."Isn't the rise of state (left wing) institutions a direct consequence of an increasingly liberal society?"<br /><br />No, because the state is increasingly authoritarian not liberal (i.e supportive of individual freedom of association and speech).<br /><br />"The Bastardy Clause absolved the putative father of any responsibility for his bastard child and socially and economically victimized the mother in an effort to restore female morality. Its enactment fomented the growth of a modern and murderous form of an old institution, baby farming, which preyed on the infants of these humiliated and alienated mothers. Despite the tremendous toll it took on the lives of innocent children, the Victorians' fear of government intervention into social reform and the Victorian ideal of the inviolability of the family prevented its reform until the end of the 19th century."<br /><br />Here is an example of a very liberal society, Victorian England, who valued non-intervention of government to such a degree that they allowed infanticide of illegitimate children, in foundling hospitals, to escalate to 80-90% of the children placed there by their mothers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-84444738649562640832009-12-09T08:37:55.625+11:002009-12-09T08:37:55.625+11:00Matthew, thank you for your answer. I admit that o...Matthew, thank you for your answer. I admit that on the face of it the two scenarios I asked you to consider seemed very unrelated, the first almost trivial in comparison with the second. But there was a common thread running through them that I'm not sure you identified completely.<br /><br />You were correct when you wrote in answer to the first scenario, <b>"my house my rules."</b> But you gave a very different answer in response to the second: <b>"I think [war objectors] absolutely have a right to object, and should not be punished for it."</b> In other words, if I might paraphrase, "No one's house, anyone's rules."<br /><br />But is this true? In the same way that individuals in a family voluntarily constrain the free exercise of their wills in the interest of the family, so too do individuals in a community voluntarily constrain theirs. <br /><br />Now "voluntary" does not mean "volitional." It does not mean <b>merely</b> a product of one's own will. The 15 year old likely would not have come up with taking out the trash all on his own, correct? That was his dad's idea, his dad's will. But the teenager submits because, as you pointed out, the family which sustains him requires his submission. <br /><br />When traditionalists speak of coercion, for instance, against objectors or anyone else in larger society, this is the kind they mean. No gulags here. Rather, the social opprobrium that shames and prods us into doing what we ought in a context of love and mutual dependency, much like what one sees in a healthy family.<br /><br />Your answer that the warriors of a community are under no obligation to defend an objector is a bit like saying that dad is under no obligation to pay for junior's water or electric consumption. Some (and only some!) goods are simply collective and it would be impracticable and self-defeating to individualize them. And it is immoral and self-defeating to make the maintenance of such goods the sole burden of the willing, that is, to put it in libertarian economic terms, to privatize the losses and socialize the profits.<br /><br />Finally, when I say "dependency" I refer only that concept as it is realized in the healthy family in which everyone does his part and needs the rest to do theirs.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-42482517555378225962009-12-08T22:09:51.729+11:002009-12-08T22:09:51.729+11:00I think that traditionalist charity isn't free...I think that traditionalist charity isn't free. Its based on the assumption that you kind of stuffed up and hopefully you'll (or you should) start to make amends. So you get a punch in the guts shame wise. Left wing charity or state support is based on the assumption that you deserve it and much more besides. You're sort of encouraged to be on it from a psychic point of view (although I imagine the actuality of it would be quite irritating, what with all those forms to fill out). So we endlessly hear "oh this state support isn't enough to live on blah". Maybe it isn't but your expectations are fairly high. <br /><br />Sure economic choices/factors influence behaviour but so do social factors. If anything goes then anything goes. <br /><br />"Did a liberal society cause single motherhood to become acceptable, or did the government sponsored growth of single motherhood create single mothers in such numbers that single motherhood was normalized"<br /><br />I think first it was normalised and then the numbers grew. Being a single mother isn't the end of the world but its hardly ideal. <br /><br />If we say we deserve a good standard of living, which is a libertarian position (or at least that we should be free to strive for it), then when we can't achieve it we look to the state to supply it. We don't look to our family or others in the community. We may say we look only to ourselves but this can be balanced by saying, oh I've paid taxes so I deserve this, its only smart to maximise my opportunities. Libertarianism doesn't support state support but it does encourage the idea that we should have strong lives independent of people around us. When people falter therefore its not such a big step to ask the state as last resort and first response to step in because there's no-one else. <br /><br />It also supports the notion that everything is economic relations. So political calculations in practise come down to this: Its in my economic interests to a) pay no tax if I have no need, b) receive lots of beneifts if I have need. Haggling go on.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-17276416669180187532009-12-08T15:34:29.977+11:002009-12-08T15:34:29.977+11:00"Isn't the rise of state (left wing) inst..."Isn't the rise of state (left wing) institutions a direct consequence of an increasingly liberal society?"<br /><br />Jesse, I don't know, chicken or egg?<br /><br />Take for example single motherhood. Now, there have always been single mothers in the past, just a lot less of them than now. However, no doubt it was thought of as a problem that needed to be solved. Even a conservative or traditionalist (or perhaps ESPECIALLY a traditionalist) might say 'we need to help these kids regardless of the poor judgment of their mother', and set up social welfare for single mothers.<br /><br />What then happens is that single mothers are supported by the state, and then single motherhood explodes because single mothers are insulated from the economic consequences of their choices. That is what has happened now.<br /><br />Strangely enough, single mothers and their families have become a self perpetuating political constituency. What starts as a small problem inevitably grows once the government starts to 'help'. <br /><br />Did a liberal society cause single motherhood to become acceptable, or did the government sponsored growth of single motherhood create single mothers in such numbers that single motherhood was normalized? It is a question worth asking.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16048944750056048686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50560386927849381892009-12-08T15:26:08.376+11:002009-12-08T15:26:08.376+11:00"But the order that existed in that society w..."But the order that existed in that society was the result of extragovernmental forces - religion, tradition, community, etc."<br /><br />Agreed. For instance in a stable and static community its fun to make fun of rules and taboos, because lets face it you might squeak out some room out around the edges but society isn't going to change very much so relax and go with the flow. In the comedy circuit the good old formula of making fun or rules and taboos doesn't work so well when anything goes and everything’s been done. Surprisingly now in comedy its a bit "edgier" to promote conservative values. They wouldn't have seen that one coming.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68116266975516807612009-12-08T14:04:12.759+11:002009-12-08T14:04:12.759+11:00"Isn't the rise of state (left wing) inst..."Isn't the rise of state (left wing) institutions a direct consequence of an increasingly liberal society?"<br /><br />This is what I've found to be the blind spot of today's self-styled libertarians. It is very easy to look at, say, 1950s America and say "we don't need the government, these people can govern themselves". But the order that existed in that society was the result of extragovernmental forces - religion, tradition, community, etc. To his credit, Matthew seems to recognize that the government simply cannot and should not be asked to replace these institutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-7984904571124843872009-12-07T21:44:59.110+11:002009-12-07T21:44:59.110+11:00"What libertarianism are you reading about th..."What libertarianism are you reading about that prohibits voluntary charity?"<br /><br />Voluntary charity is all well and good, but a "duty to give" is better. I'm not saying that libertarianism is inconsistent with charity but if your priority is you, giving will be a lower order concern.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-33848981224528332172009-12-07T21:34:07.916+11:002009-12-07T21:34:07.916+11:00How long do the Libertarians suppose a society ful...<i>How long do the Libertarians suppose a society full of neglected infants and starving grandpas lasts?</i><br /><br />What libertarianism are you reading about that prohibits voluntary charity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36651339404868136312009-12-07T16:23:45.729+11:002009-12-07T16:23:45.729+11:00Mark,
"Your own position deserves more consi...Mark,<br /><br />"Your own position deserves more consideration. I'm off to work now and can't reply at length, but my immediate response is that you're holding out a kind of oblique way for traditionalism to get a boost rather than a direct way."<br /><br />There is a reason for this. I think that given a chance, people would opt for normalcy, rather than the deviancy that we see today. If we are at the stage where traditionalism has to be imposed on the masses, then we have lost already.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16048944750056048686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-90903212152977389522009-12-07T16:18:40.510+11:002009-12-07T16:18:40.510+11:00Bartholomew,
Thanks.
With the 15 yr old situatio...Bartholomew,<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />With the 15 yr old situation, I would say this is a case of "my house my rules", that could apply to any individual, including a 15 yr old.<br /><br />The demand to take out the rubbish seems coercive on the face of it, but the non-paying tenant (in this case the 15 yr old but could be anyone, including a friend or relative) can remove himself from the situation at any time by moving elsewhere, where the conditions are more to his liking. There are many such coercive situations. You may not like socializing with your boss, but the conditions at work are better than you can get elsewhere, so you consider it part of the cost of working there. If the socializing with the boss is too onerous, you can get employment elsewhere.<br /><br />There are other types of situations that have a coercive flavor, but are valid under libertarianism. A friend may ask you a favor, and threaten to withdraw that friendship if you do not accede to the favor. This seems on the surface coercive, but it is just people exercising their freedom of association.<br /><br />In the situation of objectors, yes, I think they absolutely have a right to object, and should not be punished for it.<br /><br />However, I do have a little bit of faith in humanity. Objectors appear most often when people have no idea what they are fighting for, or when they realise that the cause their nation is fighting for is unjust. In cases like these, objectors serve as the conscience of the nation against a war of aggression that their nation is fighting.<br /><br />When a country is genuinely facing a situation of invasion by another country, how many objectors will appear? I would think very few.<br /><br />On the other hand, warriors have no obligation to defend objectors against foreign aggressors. While it is possible that objectors might benefit from the labor of others, in an invasion situation the warriors could certainly refuse to defend objector neighborhoods.<br /><br />Again, I doubt objectors could be a serious problem for a nation under genuine threat.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16048944750056048686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-7415699767968393512009-12-07T15:44:03.139+11:002009-12-07T15:44:03.139+11:00Intread of traditionalist conservative why not cal...Intread of traditionalist conservative why not call yourself a traditionalist libertarian?<br /><br />I don't see much benefit in being "Conservative" in a world which has values I don't wish to conserve.<br /><br />The State continues to grow bigger, and the bigger it grows the more freedom it takes away, this freedom is used by most people to follow the paths which are natural to them, paths which are inherently traditionalist in nature because they are affected primarily BY nature.<br /><br />Whaddya think? I would sign on under that label.Jessenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63528447645546344312009-12-07T15:27:42.003+11:002009-12-07T15:27:42.003+11:00But I do have a question for you, Matthew, and I t...But I do have a question for you, Matthew, and I too don't mean this as an attack. When you talked about your opposition to "coerced group action" that struck a chord in me because a.) I don't like that either, but b.) I don't see how, because of human sin, any society can do without it. <br /><br />For instance, the following persons usually consider themselves "coerced" and resent it:<br /><br />1.) The typical Western 15 year old right after his mother has asked him to take out the trash or his father has asked him to turn his music down<br /><br />More seriously, <br />2.) Objectors in a small community under military attack after the other men have forced them to fight on pain of death.<br /><br />I wonder, was the 15 year old coerced? The objectors? If so, is that OK anyway? Doesn't Libertarianism, as you said, <i>always</i> reject coercion no matter the justification? <br /><br />But isn't the justification for it, at least in these two examples, pretty sound?<br /><br />If such coercion violates the objectors' "freedom" then what about the warriors' blood? Why should the warriors defend the objectors and what if such defense costs the warriors their lives? With what and how does the objector compensate the departed warrior for the protection purchased by his blood? <br /><br />Shouldn't the objector pay for that protection with his own blood? How, without coercion? <br /><br />I could think of more examples, but I think you get the point. Sometimes, I think coercion is necessary. <br /><br />Can you explain to me how your position would deal with real-world problems like these without coercion?Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72008784425876014532009-12-07T15:17:33.116+11:002009-12-07T15:17:33.116+11:00Great discussion. I just wanted to add to Jesse...Great discussion. I just wanted to add to Jesse's remark:<br /><br /><i>Isn't the rise of state (left wing) institutions a direct consequence of an increasingly liberal society?</i><br /><br />Good point, and this is why mainstream Libertarianism fails. It seems to forget that all humans aren't fit 25 year olds. Some are babies; others are great-grandpas; and most cannot be completely independent and still survive, let alone live well. <br /><br />How long do the Libertarians suppose a society full of neglected infants and starving grandpas lasts?<br /><br />Nobody wants to see half the population starving on the streets, hence they either take care of them themselves (a violation of their autonomy) or they seize other people's money to build left-wing institutions (a violation of everyone's autonomy). <br /><br />I'm critiquing the usual Libertarianism, not Matthew here.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-53990080066043424542009-12-07T14:00:31.669+11:002009-12-07T14:00:31.669+11:00"Much of the government we have today goes fa..."Much of the government we have today goes far beyond what can be considered legitimate, and there would be little lost cutting off these diseased limbs."<br /><br />I think most people would agree with you. However, our answer today for everything is bureaucracy.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15448330118771014152009-12-07T13:42:31.981+11:002009-12-07T13:42:31.981+11:00Also you say we should do away with state institut...Also you say we should do away with state institutions (or largely curtail them) because they are too left wing. Isn't the rise of state (left wing) institutions a direct consequence of an increasingly liberal society? Nobody looks after old people so we need the state to do it, we need the state to help with babysitting, we need the state to do this and that. Not to mention be a strong law and enforcement presence because everyone is out there pushing the envolope and not being so restrained by their community and its standards. Large scale self reliance will work for some (perhaps many) people in some/many situations but it can hardly be the rule for society as a whole.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-80875813333094657192009-12-07T13:35:35.735+11:002009-12-07T13:35:35.735+11:00Matthew,
Do you agree that many are more powerful...Matthew,<br /><br />Do you agree that many are more powerful than one? If so and if being powerful is a good thing which I would argue it is, then we need some sort of society in which to conduct our buisness. Society will have rules of some sort, hopefully not too rigid because that would be stifling. How can we have society if everyone does their own thing which is what I interpret libertarianism to be (subject to the minimum standards of human interaction, do no harm, obey the law etc)? Isn't it a fact that if everyone does their own thing then in some instances society will benefit but in many other instances society won't?Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57712635469159686252009-12-07T08:32:53.788+11:002009-12-07T08:32:53.788+11:00Matthew, I usually don't even bother arguing a...Matthew, I usually don't even bother arguing against libertarianism, as most libertarians are generally worse than mainstream liberals in what they advocate.<br /><br />Your own position deserves more consideration. I'm off to work now and can't reply at length, but my immediate response is that you're holding out a kind of oblique way for traditionalism to get a boost rather than a direct way. <br /><br />But we do need traditionalism to be argued for directly. For too long, there has been no voice criticising the actual principles on which liberalism is based and arguing for a traditionalist alternative.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-81205786863376334922009-12-07T01:13:48.692+11:002009-12-07T01:13:48.692+11:00"Government employees, almost all of them, ar..."Government employees, almost all of them, are left liberals. They are a powerful vested interest."<br /><br />This is unfortunate, strikes go up when labor is in power because they think they can blackmail higher wages from their buddies. However, they're still only one constituency among many. The public service used to vote liberal, so maybe its not impossible they will so again.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4890324050367783672009-12-07T01:09:11.577+11:002009-12-07T01:09:11.577+11:00"We need to face down these elite business in..."We need to face down these elite business interests."<br /><br />Hear, hear.<br /><br />"Change cannot be accomplished without completely dismantling the institutions they dominate, and doing so permanently."<br /><br />One group of people who I think are relatively left is Registered Nurses. A couple of times I've been in hospital with the army and it didn't take much to get them going. However, afterwards they will look a little shamefaced. Not just because they realise they shouldn't expect all soldiers will be left wing but also they realise that they're not there to preach. Their job is apolitical and its not really appropriate for them to go on. Having said that it is a free country and people are entitled to their views although most would agree that it shouldn't really affect their work. <br /><br />I think in every work environment some people will be political (perhaps more so in certain jobs) but many won't. They'll be apolitical, neutral or uninterested. They probably won't rock the boat either way. These people are generally popular because they're easy going and they don't foist their views on others. The strike co-ordinator is usually one or two bad days away from a nervous breakdown. <br /><br />We still need nurses. Hopefully they won't be judged or promoted for their political views but for their skill on the job. Yes it is human nature for people to want to pursue politics and there will always be some bleed over, but generally, unless you're a university academic in the humanities (and even there there are limits) it is generally regarded as inappropriate to be too political at work. So I don't see how dismantling a lot of public institutions would be helpful. Although I do appreciate the fact that certain occupations can definitely allow or encourage certain politics to flourish. <br /><br />"Conservatives need to decide what kind of people they want to be. Do they want fairness, or do they simply want to wield the club currently held by the left liberals?"<br /><br />I think that is a good question. Personally I'm not sure how far state intervention should go of any political stripe, however, I'm not convinced that the government should be a non actor in society either. I'm not fully decided what the bounds should be although I am generally irritated by the way the left conducts business.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.com