Conservatism Should Die, So That Peace & Justice Might Live

Thank you for that unbiased definition of Conservatism.

 

Can you point out the bias and what is your unbiased definition?

 

All I can say is that Bill Clinton had a better economy than all of your Republicans.

 

though Republicans controlled the congress during it.

 

Apparently, he was pretty good at getting his way then.

Republicans love to take credit for the boom, but now with them in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches--we see the truth.

 

Great post... I also completely agree with the idea that governments in general must be abolished (cat). Every time however I get into a debate with someone over that issue, they always bring up the idea that if we had no government, the world would go into total anarchy, and people would just start killing each other off... As if the reason people reframe from crime is fear of punishment... Why is it hard to believe that we can exist without crime, and poverty... as well as without government at the same time.

Sad thing is, most conservatives in the US and in Canada believe we live in free countries...

 

Economically?

The belief that a smaller government is more efficient, that excessive taxation is immoral, and that increased economic growth benefits everyone.

I don't believe it is entirely correct. But it isn't all wrong either.

 

SMALLER GOVERNMENT
Smaller government in our private lives is more efficient.
Efficient social programs are beneficial--it takes support, however.

TAXES
Render Unto Caesar -- Jesus says (morally)
16th Amendment -- Constitution says (legally)

ECONOMIC GROWTH
See: Bill Clinton

 

Social programs are equitable - whether they are benificial is arguable.

I didn't say taxes are immoral. I said excessive taxes are immoral. Go read some Nozick and get back to me.

I'd consider Bill Clinton fairly conservative. But I'm Canadian, so different standards.

 

Good points.

I am sure we may disagree about the details, but...

 

What is small and small in what? Is Wal-Mart inefficient because it is big? It is so slippery slope.

If the means of productions were democratically controlled then there would be no need for excessive taxation because the surplus value would cover the needs of society instead of going to private individuals who do not pay their share.

 

*ahem*

I think you underestimate us.

 

In my view? Anything that is a basic human right - healthcare, education, basic social services (including a national day-care program) - as well as any infrastructure necessary to encourage trade - ie: roads, defense, production of money, etc - should be controlled by the government. Everything else should be private.

While that might increase the RELATIVE wealth, it will do nothing to increase (and might actually decrease) the ABSOLUTE wealth of the nation, which in the end will hurt even the poorest.

 

Should they? Why confuse universal health care/education/etc with state provision of health care/education/etc. School vouchers can provide universal education without the state as a monopoly provider. Toll roads, etc.

 

If everything else is, private then you must support progressive taxing because private institutions benefit from socially created value.

Are you implying that workers would be producing less if the means of productions were democratically controlled instead of private? If so, this has been proven wrong by many studies. When people have more control, choice, and opinion in their work environments they are more productive.

 

[font=&quot]

Vouchers issued by whom?

[/font]Education and health are such vital societal institutions that are better to remain outside the realm of the marketplace. Once you turn education into a commodity, profits become first priority not education or progress. You will end up with private schools the equivalent to Fox news. Private education is already a mess.

America is a terrible example and a disgrace to public education.

 

Personally I don't see the need for the US to always be producing more and more. We already have enough wealth to keep everyone in this country happy healthy and safe (more or less). We already produce more than our fair share. Our government (through farm subsidies) makes it possible for our farmers to produce product at a cost that the rest of the world can not compete with.

For example, farmers in Jamica who used to grow carrots, now are forced to buy carrots from the US. The reason being, they can buy our carrots cheaper that they can grow their own. That may sound like we're doing them a favor, but it ain't so. All those farmers who used to make their meeger lively hood growing and selling carrots are out of buisness. That is one of countless examples of how the wealthy countries stay wealthy and the poor countries stay poor.The only way a country stays at the top is through manipulation of the rest of the world. The unjustified occupation of a rich oil country for example.

I know I've gotton off topic, but couldn't disagree more with the notion that the only way for a country to do well by its citizens is to constantly increase the gross national product.

The US will NOT be #1 for ever, and then it'll be time for its citizens to understand what its like to be on the loosing end of globalization. Granted this may take 100 years, but it will happen.

Libertine, That first post really sums it up. You've got great insight.

 

Workers may be very happy running their own show. In which case they can go ahead and start a business, as they do by the thousands all the time. In fact so can you. Start a business and give the workers control. Soon, by virtue of your superior productivity, you'll be able to expand and take over the industry. Of course there's always the possibility that you like to talk theory, but when it comes to doing...

Capitalism has succeeded, socialism has failed. Why are you still beating a dead horse?

 

But many poor countries are on the winning side of globalisation too. How do you think China is getting rich right now? That's hundreds of millions of people escaping poverty.

 

Vouchers issued by the state.

Profits are the first priority of airplane manufacturers and airlines - so planes are crashing all the time, right? Profits are the first priority of the computer industry - so every year computers get slower and more expensive, right?

No. The same is true for education. All systems work better with competition. Competition raises standards.