Why are conservatives so mean?

[Jac3510]

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klavan_on_cul ... n%3F/1949/

A must watch. Just under five minutes.

[Byblos]

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klavan_on_cul ... n%3F/1949/

A must watch. Just under five minutes.

Klavan is my new hero. Thanks Jac.

[cslewislover]

I liked this until the very end, when he said that liberty also meant that you would need to suffer the consequences of your actions. That's good, except I think that those people who are suffering the consequences from greedy business owners' actions aren't so happy about it; they are forced to suffer greatly because of what others have done. That's the opposite side of it, isn't it? The opposite of the control or spirit-numbingness of the socialists. Liberty will only work where people are moral, or at least have their selfish impulses (like greed), under some kind of control. I never was required to read Tocqueville in university either, and wanted to read it myself; maybe I will now.

[Harry12345]

Conservatives are not interested in liberty. Sure, free market capitalism is good, but conservatives marry this with an unusual interests in citizens' sex lives (?). It was the conservatives who wanted to keep sodomy illegal. Moral? Perhaps. Liberty? Um... no.

If you really want liberty, vote Libertarian.

[Jac3510]

This is one of those things that makes conservatives sound mean, csl, but while I have sympathy for those who are suffering due to the negligence of a few greedy people in today's economy (not all of whom were sitting on boards of directors, but some, mind you, in Congress!), that sympathy does not lead me in any way to want to government to step in and try to solve the problem. There are two issues here that need to be kept separate and in plain site:

1. The bottom line is that when you or I choose to go work for someone else as a means for providing for our family, we are taking on the risk that our employer may decide they can't or don't want to continue to pay us. The job is not mine or yours. It is theirs to give or withdraw to their own pleasure. The idea that companies exist to provide employment is completely antithetical to why this country was founded in the first place. Companies exist for the owners, not the employees or even customers.

The same thinking holds when you invest for retirement. If you choose to put your money in a business (which is what stocks are), you are buying a portion of it. You, therefore, take on a certain risk and thus responsibility. If, then, the company fails, it is no one's fault but your own that you lost your own money.

So, while I hate to see people suffer, I do not buy the argument that people are suffering through no fault of their own. They chose to provide for their familes by working for someone else. They chose to invest for retirement by buying stock in this or that compnay. The responsibility to take care of my family today and in my retirement falls on me alone, not on the company whom I work for or invest in.

2. The second issue is that it is not the place of government to provide employment or retirement for me. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. They should not be in the business of making up for people's bad decisions. The only way for them to do that is to penalize those who have made good decisions, and that is obviously fundamentally morally wrong. It's also economically stupid. You get what you pay for, so if you penalize people for making good decisions and pay them for making stupid ones (which is what social security and welfare more generally do), then you are going to get a society that wants the government to provide an ever increasing "security net" that, in the end, is nothing more than a single pool in which the few smart people may for the mistakes of everyone else. That's hardly fair. It encourages laziness, and thus, you end up with a lazy culture. I'm sure where you can see where that ends up. In tyranny.

So, again, while I appreciate the sufferings of those who have lost, my response is that they should pick themselves up by the bootstraps, educate themselves, and start providing for their own needs, rather than looking to others to provide for them.

edit:

Conservatives are not interested in liberty. Sure, free market capitalism is good, but conservatives marry this with an unusual interests in citizens' sex lives (?). It was the conservatives who wanted to keep sodomy illegal. Moral? Perhaps. Liberty? Um... no.

If you really want liberty, vote Libertarian.

The government has an economic interst in strong, nuclear families. Children from strong, traditional homes do better in school, make better money, pay more in taxes, and are less likely to engage in criminal activities. In short, morality pays, so the government should be in the business of holding people to moral standards (those are called laws, btw).

Therefore, while Libertarians think they are pursuing liberty, they are really just pursuing a slow death. Whereas liberals would produce a nanny-society, libertarians would produce a selfish society. Neither can long survive.

[zoegirl]

[cslewislover]

@ Jac. You know, it's like in Spiderman, however the uncle says it. Free countries or communities won't work without good morals. That's my point, not that people can't work hard for themselves and their families (although they often do not have much choice in the matter). It's why we have so many laws and regulations now - because of greed and things related to greed.

[Jac3510]

We shouldn't have laws relating to greed. We should have laws relating to dishonesty. The former just means one person getting as much as they can (nothing wrong with that). The latter has to do with getting something at the expense of another. There is something wrong with that.

In any case, don't buy into the lie that greedy CEOs caused this recession. The financial is the most regulated industry in the United States. This was caused by a burst in the housing bubble, a bubble that was first caused because the government during the Clinton years (by accelerating policies that began during the Carter years) encouraged non-qualified people to buy homes they couldn't afford. Even the New York Times, hardly a conservative newspaper, predicted way back int he '90s this would happen for that reason.

So yes, we have responsibilities, but our responsibilites are to ourselves and to our families. Not to our government. It is NOT the government's job to take care of you. It is your job to take care of you. It is NOT the governments job to take care of your elderly parents. That is your job (and theirs, while they were working). The moment you ask the government to take over any such "compassionate" (please read that with the most exagerated sarcasm you can!) functions, you give up your liberties. And, contrary to your point, when you give up your liberties, you actually have no responsibilities.

Thus, the only way we can say we have any responsibility at all is if we actually have freedom. Obama and the other luny-lefties want to solve the problem of responsibility by just taking away our freedom, or put the other way, in taking away our freedom, we no longer have the responsibilities you rightly recognize.

[cslewislover]

Jac, I really don't understand how you can read so much into my point of people having morals. Lol. You even say yourself we need to have morals, taught to kids by their parents, etc. This is not the first time this has happened, where you respond . . . a lot . . . to things not expressed.

Anyway. The one thing I don't get about the housing situation, that seems to go against what you claim, is that these people who couldn't afford to buy houses actually bought them. Who gave them the loans? How did that happen, and why? I don't understand it, for sure. But I do see that these people got loans that they shouldn't have. Am I wrong in this? Why, when so many predicted this scenario, did it happen anyway? Why did the banks get caught up in it?

[Jac3510]

Anyway. The one thing I don't get about the housing situation, that seems to go against what you claim, is that these people who couldn't afford to buy houses actually bought them. Who gave them the loans? How did that happen, and why? I don't understand it, for sure. But I do see that these people got loans that they shouldn't have. Am I wrong in this? Why, when so many predicted this scenario, did it happen anyway? Why did the banks get caught up in it?

Banks gave them loans under the direction of the federal government via Freddie Mac and Fannie May and under compulsion from federal laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act.

Let me ask you a reverse question: why would you, as a bankowner, give money to someone that you knew would not repay? That's a bad business investment on its face. Greed would tell you NOT to give someone the loan.

The reason: the government told them to.

[cslewislover]

Anyway. The one thing I don't get about the housing situation, that seems to go against what you claim, is that these people who couldn't afford to buy houses actually bought them. Who gave them the loans? How did that happen, and why? I don't understand it, for sure. But I do see that these people got loans that they shouldn't have. Am I wrong in this? Why, when so many predicted this scenario, did it happen anyway? Why did the banks get caught up in it?

Banks gave them loans under the direction of the federal government via Freddie Mac and Fannie May and under compulsion from federal laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act.

Let me ask you a reverse question: why would you, as a bankowner, give money to someone that you knew would not repay? That's a bad business investment on its face. Greed would tell you NOT to give someone the loan.

The reason: the government told them to.

Jac, why do you frame your response in such a way? As if I, and so many people, don't realize that what the banks did was financially irresponsible? Why do you think I asked the question in the first place? I believe what you say, to a point, anyway. I'd like to see what the law actually says. That would be truly unfortunate if the banks were forced, 100%, into accepting these bad loans. There's this part of me that wonders if this really could be the case.

[Jac3510]

Here ya go:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/busin ... gewanted=1

Bear in mind that was written back in '99.

As far as why I framed the response like I did, it is simply to demonstrate that greed (at least, not on the part of bank CEOs) could have been responsible for our current problems. But that fact negates the whole "legislation against greed" argument.

[cslewislover]

It seems to me that most of our laws and regulations deal with selfishness and greed. I wasn't referring to legislation just dealing with banks and such, specifically. I like in the Kite Runner movie what the father said, something like: if stealing is against the law, that's all you need. Because if you kill someone, you're stealing their life, as well as that person's family's livelihood. One can think of it that way. If my selfish actions take away from someone else, it's stealing, whatever form it's in. A lot of our laws and regulations deal with this, unfortunately, because they seem necessary in our culture.

Instead of thinking of getting all we can, we should be more focused on being like the woman Jesus commended for giving a mite (I think it was), who gave all that she could. I'm not saying anything about you at all, lol, I'm just thinking about people's attitudes regarding getting and giving, and what it leads up to. Have you seen recent studies on lying and cheating in universities? It's amazing what is going on in our culture regarding getting what one wants, no matter what it takes.

I'll check out your article, later, since I need to leave.

[Harry12345]

The government has an economic interst in strong, nuclear families. Children from strong, traditional homes do better in school, make better money, pay more in taxes, and are less likely to engage in criminal activities. In short, morality pays, so the government should be in the business of holding people to moral standards

Should they now? A conservative government feels it can interfere into people's private lives in order to bring about an economic end... isn't that meddling in economics? The thing we're trying to avoid?

Also, this kind of thinking could easily be turned around and used by liberals. The government has an economic interest in tight, stringent business laws. See what I mean?

(those are called laws, btw).

How about laws that restrict free trade on a moral basis? Face it, conservatives meddle, oh my, do they meddle. They just meddle in a different area than liberals do.

Well no thank you very much, I don't want the government meddling in my bank account OR my bedroom.

Therefore, while Libertarians think they are pursuing liberty, they are really just pursuing a slow death. Whereas liberals would produce a nanny-society, libertarians would produce a selfish society. Neither can long survive.

That could easily be turned around and used against you by liberals - they could say that conservatives want to make an economically selfish society, which wouldn't last long.

Also, I think that a Libertarian society WOULD last long, so I disagree.

[ageofknowledge]

I think you have to differentiate between authentic conservatives (like paleoconservatives) and what is commonly called conservative today (e.g. neoconservatives). Neoconservatives are not authentic conservatives. Many of the older neoconservatives were actually Democrats that crossed over in the late 60's and early 70's to join the Republican Party for example. They talk about fiscal conservatism but then outspend the Democrats when they get into office. They talk about less government but then try expand the scope of our government around the world. Etc... etc... etc...

If you want to see what a real conservative looks like, check out paleoconservatism.