A Conservative Wakes Up

[midcan5]

For discussion - Thought Experiment #1 (Try to stay away from slogans and labels.)

A few may be familiar with my nutshells, in them I tried to isolate the characteristics of a particular ideology. This time you decide, but remember this is a thought experiment and the premise is not debatable.

One day a conservative wakes up from a coma in a world unlike her past world. In this world equality trumps personal freedom. The political structure could be defined as a constitutional cooperative in which decisions are made democratically and an elected court settled issues that any average citizen or minority group could disagree on.

The overall philosophical Weltanschauung means no one is super rich and no one poor. The society varies but it excludes extremes. All receive a stipend, so all live securely. All fundamental services are free, these include transportation, education, and healthcare. Work is private, state, and federal but all work is supportive of the society and not just the person or corporation, above average profits are returned to the society. The business person, entrepreneur, artist, does enjoy prestige and a higher standard of living.

The conservatives finds this odd and uncharacteristic but soon grows accustom to the society, she receives a stipend, finishes her education, and finds work in a private industry.

One day the conservative discovers there is another nation in which personal freedom trumps equality. In this place extremes of all kinds exist and government and law exist to defend or to protect power. This nation is basically considered a libertarian capitalistic republic. In this society no stipend system exists and no service is free. While the nations are isolated from each other, each feels, and their media supports their political structure as the best political structure. Movement between nations is possible as both at a base level respect personal freedom.

What does the conservative do and why? Does she stay or leave for a nation that allows more economic freedoms, more profit, and is similar to her core ideological position up to her coma? Or does she change and stay, why?

[Cypress]

The problem is that liberals can cite dozens of examples of prosperous and successful social democratic countries based on the premise of a welfare state, income equity, and egalitarianism.

Cons in contrast cannot, and never have, been able to cite a real-world example of a successful country that employs their ideological rheortic; aka unfettered free markets, a privately-run heathcare and education systems, and a smallish government that "gets out of the way".


So the only way to relate this to the real world, is asking would a Con leave a country like Sweden or Canada....for what exactly? Somalia or Afghanistan?

[PostmodernProphet]

Cons in contrast cannot, and never have, been able to cite a real-world example of a successful country that employs their ideological rheortic; aka unfettered free markets, a privately-run heathcare and education systems, and a smallish government that "gets out of the way".

and yet, the one country in the world that comes the closest to it, is still the most successful country in the world.....the US......

[DamnYankee]

...

Cons in contrast cannot, and never have, been able to cite a real-world example of a successful country that employs their ideological rheortic; aka unfettered free markets, a privately-run heathcare and education systems, and a smallish government that "gets out of the way"....

The US of A prior to FDR.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

For discussion - Thought Experiment #1 (Try to stay away from slogans and labels.)

A few may be familiar with my nutshells, in them I tried to isolate the characteristics of a particular ideology. This time you decide, but remember this is a thought experiment and the premise is not debatable.

One day a conservative wakes up from a coma in a world unlike her past world. In this world equality trumps personal freedom. The political structure could be defined as a constitutional cooperative in which decisions are made democratically and an elected court settled issues that any average citizen or minority group could disagree on.

The overall philosophical Weltanschauung means no one is super rich and no one poor. The society varies but it excludes extremes. All receive a stipend, so all live securely. All fundamental services are free, these include transportation, education, and healthcare. Work is private, state, and federal but all work is supportive of the society and not just the person or corporation, above average profits are returned to the society. The business person, entrepreneur, artist, does enjoy prestige and a higher standard of living.

The conservatives finds this odd and uncharacteristic but soon grows accustom to the society, she receives a stipend, finishes her education, and finds work in a private industry.

One day the conservative discovers there is another nation in which personal freedom trumps equality. In this place extremes of all kinds exist and government and law exist to defend or to protect power. This nation is basically considered a libertarian capitalistic republic. In this society no stipend system exists and no service is free. While the nations are isolated from each other, each feels, and their media supports their political structure as the best political structure. Movement between nations is possible as both at a base level respect personal freedom.

What does the conservative do and why? Does she stay or leave for a nation that allows more economic freedoms, more profit, and is similar to her core ideological position up to her coma? Or does she change and stay, why?

You're a moron.

[Cypress]

and yet, the one country in the world that comes the closest to it, is still the most successful country in the world.....the US......

The US social welfare state, while not as generous as the western european nations, is still based on the New Deal model.

Movement conservatives have always wanted to eliminate the New Deal, and return to the glory days before the progressive era.


so are you a New Dealer now? You support all the government programs that rose out of the New Deal and Great Society? Or can you name a successful rightwing democratic country, along the models that Midcan alludes too?

[Cypress]

The US of A prior to FDR.

Bingo.


Edit: as postulated, the rightwing fringe wants a country before the New Deal.

aka, before regulation of corporations, before child labor laws, before government social security, before medicare, before government subsidy of college educations, etc.


Can you cite a successful example of this wonderful rightwing paradise on the planet today?


And would you move to a country like that, from say Sweden?

[DamnYankee]

Bingo.


Edit: as postulated, the rightwing fringe wants a country before the New Deal.

aka, before regulation of corporations, before child labor laws, before government social security, before medicare, before government subsidy of college educations, etc.


Can you cite a successful example of this wonderful rightwing paradise on the planet today?


And would you move to a country like that, from say Sweden?

You wrongly assume that conservatives wish to exploit children and deny them education. Yet modern liberalism exploits children with it's over-sexed society and denies them a proper education through no-choice public schools.

And yes, I would gladly give up Social Security and Medicare, since the payments that I have made to the government could be better used to buy private insurance and massively increase my portfolio.

[PostmodernProphet]

The US social welfare state, while not as generous as the western european nations, is still based on the New Deal model.

Movement conservatives have always wanted to eliminate the New Deal, and return to the glory days before the progressive era.


so are you a New Dealer now? You support all the government programs that rose out of the New Deal and Great Society? Or can you name a successful rightwing democratic country, along the models that Midcan alludes too?

fuck midcan's models.....if any country tried to follow midcan's models, it automatically would be moving away from being successful.......that's why the European nations had to band together just to remain relevant.......individually they would have vanished into obscurity.....

[belme1201]

and yet, the one country in the world that comes the closest to it, is still the most successful country in the world.....the US......

"Yet" in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the US is not at the top. Scandinavia and W. Europe tops us. Where would we be if military spending was at the same level as other 'developed' countries and we were free to spend on problems within our borders?

[Cancel4]

Well said, Belme.

[charver]

"Yet" in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the US is not at the top. Scandinavia and W. Europe tops us. Where would we be if military spending was at the same level as other 'developed' countries and we were free to spend on problems within our borders?

In Communist Russia.

(sorry, i thought i'd better say it before someone else comes along and actually means it )

[midcan5]

So what does the conservative do and why?

I am assuming conservatives can provide a well reasoned answer.

[NOVA]

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

[PostmodernProphet]

"Yet" in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the US is not at the top. Scandinavia and W. Europe tops us. Where would we be if military spending was at the same level as other 'developed' countries and we were free to spend on problems within our borders?

really?......you believe happiness is better pursued in the EU?.....by what standard?.....are people happier in Portugal than they are in Kansas?......is life merrier in Munich than it is in Minneapolis?......