What's the point of being conservative?

[Norsklow]

The underlying people - or rather the people living above the structures.
When people think it is not 'their' state they have little reason to be honest in their dealings with the state.
When they believe it is theirs,they do.

Group identity is very important.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

They whole point is to reduce poverty or manage it some how. You want less crime? Then ensure that people in poverty have access to good education and healthcare. Harsh penalties do not act as a deterrence.

I already know that- and I fully support both free healthcare and education. However, I don't get how there are so few welfare queens in Europe or that less harsh sentencing, by itself, reduce crime- Singapore has an even lower crime rate than most European countries with punishment that would make the US cringe in their sheer severity, but they also have affordable education, housing, and healthcare for all.

http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2012 ... rime-rate/

Apparently they just executed their criminals early.

[Emile Zola]

I already know that- and I fully support both free healthcare and education. However, I don't get how there are so few welfare queens in Europe or that less harsh sentencing, by itself, reduce crime- Singapore has an even lower crime rate than most European countries with punishment that would make the US cringe in their sheer severity, but they also have affordable education, housing, and healthcare for all.

Where do you get your information that there is rampant abuse of welfare in the US. Do you have statistics or are you just repeating somebodies opinion? Harsh penalties for crime is not a deterrence. We have a few Australians facing the death penalty for drug smuggling in Asia. They knew full well of the penalties and still attempted to smuggle the drugs. A reduction in crime occurs when the incentive to commit a crime is reduced. A good paying job for example.

[The Reasonable]

I already know that- and I fully support both free healthcare and education. However, I don't get how there are so few welfare queens in Europe or that less harsh sentencing, by itself, reduce crime- Singapore has an even lower crime rate than most European countries with punishment that would make the US cringe in their sheer severity, but they also have affordable education, housing, and healthcare for all.

http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2012 ... rime-rate/

Apparently they just executed their criminals early.

...and I never had anything against abortion. Freakonomics is an awesome book btw.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2012 ... rime-rate/

Apparently they just executed their criminals early.

...and I never had anything against abortion. Freakonomics is an awesome book btw.

Never said you did, and yes it is.

[The Reasonable]

I already know that- and I fully support both free healthcare and education. However, I don't get how there are so few welfare queens in Europe or that less harsh sentencing, by itself, reduce crime- Singapore has an even lower crime rate than most European countries with punishment that would make the US cringe in their sheer severity, but they also have affordable education, housing, and healthcare for all.

Where do you get your information that there is rampant abuse of welfare in the US. Do you have statistics or are you just repeating somebodies opinion? Harsh penalties for crime is not a deterrence. We have a few Australians facing the death penalty for drug smuggling in Asia. They knew full well of the penalties and still attempted to smuggle the drugs. A reduction in crime occurs when the incentive to commit a crime is reduced. A good paying job for example.

I never said that the US had rampant welfare abuse- I just expressed surprise that with European welfare systems there isn't more abuse. And harsh punishments aren't necessarily deterrence- I've never argued that- but they are fair based on the concept of lex talionis, and I think that it doesn't matter whether you're soft or tough on crime as long as there's no incentive to commit crime to begin with, and that recidivism is low- no matter how you manage to do it. And I agree good paying jobs cut down on crime- no wonder Singapore has its low crime rates with 2% unemployment, 90% home ownership etc. They don't even have that extensive of a welfare system other than their top-notch education, healthcare, subsidized housing, work income supplements, and old-age social security. They don't even have a minimum wage...and yet people still mostly have enough to survive.

[Capitalist America]

I don't see how a Constitutionalists can be social conservatives. The Constitution makes no reference to things like abortion, weed, and gay marriage. Technically, by the Constitution, all of those things should be legal.

But, yes social conservatism kind gives all economic right-wings a bad name. People want to have economic freedom, but they don't want it bundled together with a guy like Rick Santorum.

However, anarcho-capitalism is very socially liberal. And I'm a classic liberal, but I'd say I'm socially liberal, too.

By the European definition though, a social liberal is what we Americans consider just plain old liberal.

So I'm a liberal then? Huh. Interesting...

[The Reasonable]

By the European definition though, a social liberal is what we Americans consider just plain old liberal.

So I'm a liberal then? Huh. Interesting...

You would be considered an economic liberal in Europe. Their social liberal is the US liberal.

[Tavok]

Why are fiscal right-wingers inevitably wrong?

Let's put it in a historical perspective:

Back in the Gilded Age, there were no legal protections for workers, child labor was rampant, laborers worked under brutal conditions, the rich had pretty much all the wealth, and periodic recessions left millions starving. This came to a head in the Great Depression, when the New Deal attempted to alleviate the suffering associated with a bad economy and Keynesian economics used to lower unemployment. The New Deal's policies are still popular today, and most European states have gone further, to creating a complete welfare state that redistributes wealth in order to prevent the abuses that happened in years prior. How are they faring?

Studies show, to my utter surprise when I first read them, that the Nordic welfare states are the happiest. They have a cradle-to-grave welfare system...which very few people even abuse- the European debt crisis wasn't centered around those countries. They enjoy more freedom than the US does and have lower rates of crime, higher education rates, higher per capita GDP, and their people have greater access to healthcare. I thought they would be fuming over the high taxes, heavy business regulations, and abuse of the welfare system. Turns out they were ok with the taxes because of the services they were getting, business still made profits (maybe not as much), and welfare is rarely abused in Europe. They even managed to lower crime rates by actually reducing penalties. It seems utterly absurd, really...that societies that permit the most parasitism and abuse of the system in fact have the least of it. I still don't understand how it works, especially since my own experiences have taught me that permissiveness leads to widespread abuse because there's incentive to. This is even getting me to question my beliefs on fairness, such as: how is permitting people to live off of the state for a lifetime fair? How is not punishing criminals harshly fair? How is equality of results, not opportunity, fair? How is simply making incomes more equal fair? I hope those who live in those countries or know a lot about them can answer those questions, because they are counterintuitive as all hell.

Before I say anything, I gotta stop you right there at the GDP per capita. Only Norway has a higher one than the US, and we all know why that is. And the US is considerably larger than all of them, and has a problem with illegal immigration from a poorer country just south of us. Despite all this, our GDP/capita remains above Sweden and Denmark, and would be well above Norway as well were it not for oil (that's fact, not opinion btw. Iirc at least 30% of their GDP is directly from oil).

Now to the main points. Believe me, I'm not at all in support of reverting to the "Gilded Era". As a counter-example to Scandinavia, I would point you to Switzerland, a personal favorite of mine. Not only is it one of the most democratic countries in the world, but it also enjoys a high GDP/capita and low crime rates. On "happiness indexes" it is just behind, or in some cases just ahead of, the Scandinavian welfare states. All this in a country whose economy is based off financial services, and is by some measures more "economically free" than the United States. However, one must acknowledge that simply pointing at countries does not prove points, and I don't pretend that any one country proves mine.

Going back to Scandinavia, these countries are certainly not the Utopias that many US leftists make them out to be. For one thing, they are not absolved from crime, and abuse of their welfare programs is actually quite a common problem. They aren't perfect economically either. And a lot of the economic success Sweden's gas had has actually come from deregulation, and closer inspection reveals that it really the most anti-capitalist of places, despite high tax rates which unfortunately leave workers with only 40% of their income (and thanks to the good old tax wedge, the government isn't actually receiving the remaining 60%).

[Emile Zola]

I never said that the US had rampant welfare abuse- I just expressed surprise that with European welfare systems there isn't more abuse. And harsh punishments aren't necessarily deterrence- I've never argued that- but they are fair based on the concept of lex talionis, and I think that it doesn't matter whether you're soft or tough on crime as long as there's no incentive to commit crime to begin with, and that recidivism is low- no matter how you manage to do it. And I agree good paying jobs cut down on crime- no wonder Singapore has its low crime rates with 2% unemployment, 90% home ownership etc.

Eye for an eye is a dated concept that was objected to as far back as Jesus in the bible. How you deal with someone who commits a crime is important. It is important whether you are soft or tough on crime. An example is the war on drugs. Would you call that a success? The casualties seem to be the poor who leave jail as institutionalized criminals.
I'm not surprised of your point of view regarding social programs outside of the US. There seems to be disinformation or ignorance to how they run and how effective they are.

...and abuse of their welfare programs is actually quite a common problem.

Edit: Is this not evidence enough.

[Conserative Morality]

Because maybe they don't want to.

Fuck 'em.

I don't see, for example, why we should try so hard to bring the Sentinelese to the modern world if they don't want to. As much as I want to see them fend off attack choppers with bows and arrows.

They are lucky they live in an island, which means minimal resource competitions with others. Other groups, like the Hadza or the Bushmen aren't so lucky.

Because progress should not stop at the borders of some backwards tribe.

Yes. Desertification is one of the issues with modernizing the Sahara. Nomads like the Tuaregs who used to be able to manage their own resources are forced to settle down to farm. Farming requires more resources to do than nomadic herding. The result is desertification. Is that better? It just doesn't affect them either. It affects the entire world.

I used to have a link to a scholarly article when I was still in anthropology class linking the two things together, but I lost it since I'm not in the class anymore. However, this should satisfy you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuaregs#Post-colonial_era

Now, I know a bit about the Tuaregs, and I was under the impression that the reason that things have been getting hard (er, rather, living in the Sahara is never very fun) for them is because France was cutting all sorts of deals to mine for uranium and leeching shitloads of water out of the Sahara.

Furthermore, desertification is a reversible process - with modern methods.

So, what, you want us to gallantly ride into battle as a knight in shining armor to stop all conflicts?

No.

Well...

Yes, but that's not what I'm advocating.

To the eyes of Canadians and Europeans, we were oppressing minorities by not letting gays serve in the military.

Did you miss the repeal of DADT?

To the eyes of anarchists, the federal government is stealing property through taxes.

So?

That doesn't mean they have to force us to conform to their ways. It's a problem, but it's not their problem. The same principle applies to these groups.

If they don't participate in some sort of struggle to forward their ideals, they don't really believe in them very strongly.

Now if it's something big like genocides, then I would have a problem about it as that tends to affect the world than just a local group.

What if it were a localized genocide? No real effect on the outside world, just two little societies dedicated to wiping the other out to the last man, woman, and child?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Because maybe they don't want to.

Fuck 'em.

I don't see, for example, why we should try so hard to bring the Sentinelese to the modern world if they don't want to. As much as I want to see them fend off attack choppers with bows and arrows.

They are lucky they live in an island, which means minimal resource competitions with others. Other groups, like the Hadza or the Bushmen aren't so lucky.

Because progress should not stop at the borders of some backwards tribe.

What you and someone else thinks is progress are can be two entirely different things.

Your not talking about some objectively straight line of societal evolution that's named "progress", you're talking about a certain way of life you just happen to think is better, and calling it "progress".

If they can live without war, taxes, and all around bullshit then more power to them.

It's their choice as an independent people and since it harms no one, leave them the fuck alone.

[Tavok]

I never said that the US had rampant welfare abuse- I just expressed surprise that with European welfare systems there isn't more abuse. And harsh punishments aren't necessarily deterrence- I've never argued that- but they are fair based on the concept of lex talionis, and I think that it doesn't matter whether you're soft or tough on crime as long as there's no incentive to commit crime to begin with, and that recidivism is low- no matter how you manage to do it. And I agree good paying jobs cut down on crime- no wonder Singapore has its low crime rates with 2% unemployment, 90% home ownership etc.

Eye for an eye is a dated concept that was objected to as far back as Jesus in the bible. How you deal with someone who commits a crime is important. It is important whether you are soft or tough on crime. An example is the war on drugs. Would you call that a success? The casualties seem to be the poor who leave jail as institutionalized criminals.
I'm not surprised of your point of view regarding social programs outside of the US. There seems to be disinformation or ignorance to how they run and how effective they are.

...and abuse of their welfare programs is actually quite a common problem.

Edit: Is this not evidence enough.

How exactly is that evidence? Are you saying that welfare abuse is not a problem in Scandinavia?

[The Reasonable]

I never said that the US had rampant welfare abuse- I just expressed surprise that with European welfare systems there isn't more abuse. And harsh punishments aren't necessarily deterrence- I've never argued that- but they are fair based on the concept of lex talionis, and I think that it doesn't matter whether you're soft or tough on crime as long as there's no incentive to commit crime to begin with, and that recidivism is low- no matter how you manage to do it. And I agree good paying jobs cut down on crime- no wonder Singapore has its low crime rates with 2% unemployment, 90% home ownership etc.

Eye for an eye is a dated concept that was objected to as far back as Jesus in the bible. How you deal with someone who commits a crime is important. It is important whether you are soft or tough on crime. An example is the war on drugs. Would you call that a success? The casualties seem to be the poor who leave jail as institutionalized criminals.
I'm not surprised of your point of view regarding social programs outside of the US. There seems to be disinformation or ignorance to how they run and how effective they are.

The war on crime is a failure because they criminalized something that they shouldn't have. There's a difference between criminalizing a commodity because of its harmful effect to oneself and being tough on crimes that harm other people- psychopaths are incapable of being rehabilitated (Harris, Grant; Rice, Marnie (2006), "Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings") and are highly likely to recidivate, as they are 2.5 times more likely to get out of prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7833672.stm). And how do welfare programs in European countries, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc prevent abuse? Do they even? I know they're effective but I'd like to know why. Nobody has ever answered this question properly to me.

[Emile Zola]

...and abuse of their welfare programs is actually quite a common problem.

Edit: Is this not evidence enough.

How exactly is that evidence? Are you saying that welfare abuse is not a problem in Scandinavia?[/quote]
No there is not. Do you have statistics? Where is your proof? We hear the same allegations in Australia for our programs and whenever there is an inquiry it amounts to individuals in a system that contains millions.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Eye for an eye is a dated concept that was objected to as far back as Jesus in the bible. How you deal with someone who commits a crime is important. It is important whether you are soft or tough on crime. An example is the war on drugs. Would you call that a success? The casualties seem to be the poor who leave jail as institutionalized criminals.
I'm not surprised of your point of view regarding social programs outside of the US. There seems to be disinformation or ignorance to how they run and how effective they are.

The war on crime is a failure because they criminalized something that they shouldn't have. There's a difference between criminalizing a commodity because of its harmful effect to oneself and being tough on crimes that harm other people- psychopaths are incapable of being rehabilitated (Harris, Grant; Rice, Marnie (2006), "Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings") and are highly likely to recidivate, as they are 2.5 times more likely to get out of prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7833672.stm). And how do welfare programs in European countries, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc prevent abuse? Do they even? I know they're effective but I'd like to know why.

Maybe they behave as a continual stimulus package since they probably spend the money they have right away.

Pulled from the ass on that one, but anyone's welcome to correct me.

[Liriena]

Some principles with positive effects on society deserve to be preserved. Thus, a certain degree of conservativism is quite reasonable and necessary if a particular case of 'progress' would imply an elimination of principles that would hinder order, individual liberty, equality under the law, etc.

But there's a difference between reasonable & necessary conservativism...and just downright self-centered phobia of change. Wanting to preserve the right of religious groups to speak out against other groups is reasonable. Wanting to refuse a certain group of people their individual liberty in the name of moral outrage and a downright neurotic obsession for tradition? Not reasonable in any universe.

[The Reasonable]

The war on crime is a failure because they criminalized something that they shouldn't have. There's a difference between criminalizing a commodity because of its harmful effect to oneself and being tough on crimes that harm other people- psychopaths are incapable of being rehabilitated (Harris, Grant; Rice, Marnie (2006), "Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings") and are highly likely to recidivate, as they are 2.5 times more likely to get out of prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7833672.stm). And how do welfare programs in European countries, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc prevent abuse? Do they even? I know they're effective but I'd like to know why.

Maybe they behave as a continual stimulus package since they probably spend the money they have right away.

Pulled from the ass on that one, but anyone's welcome to correct me.

That explains why welfare is desirable- no need to sell me on that- but how do they prevent people using welfare as a way of life?

Some principles with positive effects on society deserve to be preserved. Thus, a certain degree of conservativism is quite reasonable and necessary if a particular case of 'progress' would imply an elimination of principles that would hinder order, individual liberty, equality under the law, etc.

But there's a difference between reasonable & necessary conservativism...and just downright self-centered phobia of change. Wanting to preserve the right of religious groups to speak out against other groups is reasonable. Wanting to refuse a certain group of people their individual liberty in the name of moral outrage and a downright neurotic obsession for tradition? Not reasonable in any universe.

Have I told you how much I've gotten to respect you through your...very balanced view on issues? I tend to be a pragmatist myself and so I find all the idealism from all sides to be rather irritating.

[The UK in Exile]

To the eyes of Canadians and Europeans, we were oppressing minorities by not letting gays serve in the military.

Did you miss the repeal of DADT?

did he miss the implementation of DADT?!

[Emile Zola]

The war on crime is a failure because they criminalized something that they shouldn't have. There's a difference between criminalizing a commodity because of its harmful effect to oneself and being tough on crimes that harm other people- psychopaths are incapable of being rehabilitated (Harris, Grant; Rice, Marnie (2006), "Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings") and are highly likely to recidivate, as they are 2.5 times more likely to get out of prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7833672.stm). And how do welfare programs in European countries, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc prevent abuse? Do they even? I know they're effective but I'd like to know why.

In Australia social programs are monitored so if you were unemployed and got a job but kept receiving benefits then you would be fined the amount you are overpaid. They have access to your tax records so they know if you are earning an income. If you are unemployed you have to look for work and keep a record of the places you applied for. For the chronically unemployed there a mandatory courses to do and they get assigned a case manager who helps them get the necessary qualifications and work.

As for violent crimes. I'm all for life imprisonment but people with mental illnesses should receive proper medical care plus imprisonment.

[Ukrussiaine]

After discussing how there are so many left-wingers on NSG[...]

More propaganda.

[Liriena]

After discussing how there are so many left-wingers on NSG[...]

More propaganda.

Not quite. The Reasonable actually surprised me for not being a far-right paranoid nutjob. He's actually a nice, moderate guy.

[The Reasonable]

The war on crime is a failure because they criminalized something that they shouldn't have. There's a difference between criminalizing a commodity because of its harmful effect to oneself and being tough on crimes that harm other people- psychopaths are incapable of being rehabilitated (Harris, Grant; Rice, Marnie (2006), "Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings") and are highly likely to recidivate, as they are 2.5 times more likely to get out of prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7833672.stm). And how do welfare programs in European countries, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc prevent abuse? Do they even? I know they're effective but I'd like to know why.

In Australia social programs are monitored so if you were unemployed and got a job but kept receiving benefits then you would be fined the amount you are overpaid. They have access to your tax records so they know if you are earning an income. If you are unemployed you have to look for work and keep a record of the places you applied for. For the chronically unemployed there a mandatory courses to do and they get assigned a case manager who helps them get the necessary qualifications and work.

As for violent crimes. I'm all for life imprisonment but people with mental illnesses should receive proper medical care plus imprisonment.

See, that doesn't sound so bad, and perfectly reasonable. But nobody has ever given me a proper explanation on the welfare issue as applied to so-called "welfare states"- so thank you. The point of welfare is to support people while they pull themselves back up- which I completely agree with, but I've always had this fear that governments don't do enough to curb abuse and make them handouts instead of a hand up, which was the original and correct intent of welfare.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Maybe they behave as a continual stimulus package since they probably spend the money they have right away.

Pulled from the ass on that one, but anyone's welcome to correct me.

That explains why welfare is desirable- no need to sell me on that- but how do they prevent people using welfare as a way of life?

Well, I meant the moochers too. No matter how much anyone gets, even if they don't get a job and just live off the check, they still recirculate money into the economy. Being poor would only ensure that nearly every dollar is spent, and thus pure economic stimulation.

Again, from the ass, please remember.

[The Reasonable]

More propaganda.

Not quite. The Reasonable actually surprised me for not being a far-right paranoid nutjob. He's actually a nice, moderate guy.

Where did you get the impression that I was a right-wing nutjob?

Well, I meant the moochers too. no matter how much anyone gets, even if they don't get a job and just live off the check, they still recirculate money into the economy. Being poor would only ensure that nearly every dollar is spent, and thus pure stimulation.

For the economy I have no problems with it, but from an ethical perspective I abhor it because it makes people who really need the welfare look bad and because moochers are parasites who get something for nothing- I consider reciprocity to be the most important part of ethics.