What's the point of being conservative?

[Liriena]

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

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

To be honest, the title of the thread you opened gave that sort of vibe. But you quickly put my worries to rest

[Pragia]

Its not about stopping change. It's about managing the change and preventing society from making radical spur of the moment changes without any real forethought.

Ultimately conservatives exist to balance out the liberals and keep society stable while still allowing for gradual well planned change. Radicals hate this, but ultimately it has proven the best way to run a society and government.

Unfortunately here in the US the conservatives are under attack by reactionaries who want to stop all forward momentum. It has massively upset the balance that has allowed our society to function for over two centuries. If only the moderates in the Republican party had the balls to take back their party from the crazies...

A politician this day and age with balls? Good luck
What's the point of being liberal when you end up tearing away all the progress working systems have made and claim your untested one is better?

[Icoservmot]

Whether or not I win the battle doesn't matter. I will always choose to stand up for what I believe in even if it goes against the trends of society. The point of being conservative, or liberal for that matter, in the way you speak of is to show that you are an individual of integrity.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

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

And 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.

Actually, I read that wrong in my first response. I accidentally stated why I thought moochers and welfare wouldn't bankrupt a nation. Ethically I'm on the same page though. As far as how Europe & co. prevent abuse, no idea.

[Emile Zola]

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.

Individuals in any system will try and abuse it. Whether it's paying less taxes or cheating on welfare. You can only minimize it. Social programs in proportion to the level help they give the abuse is tiny. They only other thing is to visit our countries. Go to places like Sweden or Australia and see how we live. I lived and worked in the US for some time and was shocked by the level of poverty when I first arrived.

In regards to waste or abuse there is a British comedian, David Mitchell who has a pretty accurate view of what really can be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8&list=SP865204245E056F8C&index=24&feature=plpp_video

[The American Corporatocracy]

I grew up a Goldwater conservative. Conservatives these days think Goldwater was a leftist. Originally it meant that the conservative in question recognized the need for change, but wanted to take it slowly so that everyone involved wouldn't feel marginalized and disregarded or they wanted to examine the possibilities and choose a course of action that would harm as few people as possible and maximize the good for everyone.

Then, in about the 80s/90s, it came to mean the desire to stop progress altogether.

Then, recently, it came to mean that we should not only come to a dead stop, but we should slam everything into reverse, undo every bit of progress we've made and go back to the glorious days of the plutocrat, the racist and the sexist.

Can't imagine why that should cause a problem.

[The Reasonable]

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.

Individuals in any system will try and abuse it. Whether it's paying less taxes or cheating on welfare. You can only minimize it. Social programs in proportion to the level help they give the abuse is tiny. They only other thing is to visit our countries. Go to places like Sweden or Australia and see how we live. I lived and worked in the US for some time and was shocked by the level of poverty when I first arrived.

In regards to waste or abuse there is a British comedian, David Mitchell who has a pretty accurate view of what really can be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8&list=SP865204245E056F8C&index=24&feature=plpp_video

I have another question for you. Unemployment in developed countries is a rather serious problem, and many people have pointed to outsourcing as the answer. Outsourcing's cause is often low labor costs in other countries. In that case, would an abolition of the minimum wage, combined with a work income supplement by the government to maintain a minimum income, curb unemployment? The system has worked in Singapore in terms of unemployment, which has never gone above 6% for its entire history and is currently at 2% despite the recent global recession.

[Tavok]

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.

Individuals in any system will try and abuse it. Whether it's paying less taxes or cheating on welfare. You can only minimize it. Social programs in proportion to the level help they give the abuse is tiny. They only other thing is to visit our countries. Go to places like Sweden or Australia and see how we live. I lived and worked in the US for some time and was shocked by the level of poverty when I first arrived.

In regards to waste or abuse there is a British comedian, David Mitchell who has a pretty accurate view of what really can be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8&list=SP865204245E056F8C&index=24&feature=plpp_video

I've been to Norway and Australia. In both, the prices were too damn high. Made me like my homeland just that much more.

[The Reasonable]

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

To be honest, the title of the thread you opened gave that sort of vibe. But you quickly put my worries to rest

The reason why I dislike many of the left wingers on this site is because they can be as intolerant and circle-jerky as the right when it comes to dealing with people they don't agree with- I understand the frustration for arguing against incorrigible radicals- I hate them myself- but why do they subject moderates like me to the same attacks? For example, I've been called barbaric and cruel just because I said that I was on principle for the death penalty on other threads, or because I mentioned that I've never had any problems with small levels of corporal punishment. I base my views on a combination of statistics and experience- and often have trouble reconciling the two especially when they differ. But I want to learn why my experiences were different than what statistics show and then I get bashed for asking intuitive, sometimes critical questions about the statistics and research.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Individuals in any system will try and abuse it. Whether it's paying less taxes or cheating on welfare. You can only minimize it. Social programs in proportion to the level help they give the abuse is tiny. They only other thing is to visit our countries. Go to places like Sweden or Australia and see how we live. I lived and worked in the US for some time and was shocked by the level of poverty when I first arrived.

In regards to waste or abuse there is a British comedian, David Mitchell who has a pretty accurate view of what really can be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8&list=SP865204245E056F8C&index=24&feature=plpp_video

I have another question for you. Unemployment in developed countries is a rather serious problem, and many people have pointed to outsourcing as the answer. Outsourcing's cause is often low labor costs in other countries. In that case, would an abolition of the minimum wage, combined with a work income supplement by the government to maintain a minimum income, curb unemployment? The system has worked in Singapore in terms of unemployment, which has never gone above 6% for its entire history and is currently at 2% despite the recent global recession.

"You want us to pay for some freeloader to get money he didn't work for? You're just removing incentive, if he wants a better check he should just get a better job!"

I can see this assertion being spoken on a national podium. And no I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying they're dicks.

[Forster Keys]

The sex?

[Forster Keys]

Conservatism is not a set ideology, it is an attitude of resisting change.
Today's liberals are tomorrows conservatives.

"Homosexual marriage? Yeah I'm cool with that. INTER-SPECIES MARRIAGE!? HELL NO GET THEM ALIEN PAWS OFF MY EARTH WOMEN!"

Precisely. I reckon I'm going to be a reactionary in the future. Fairly anti-transhumanism.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Conservatism is not a set ideology, it is an attitude of resisting change.
Today's liberals are tomorrows conservatives.

"Homosexual marriage? Yeah I'm cool with that. INTER-SPECIES MARRIAGE!? HELL NO GET THEM ALIEN PAWS OFF MY EARTH WOMEN!"

Precisely. I reckon I'm going to be a reactionary in the future. Fairly anti-transhumanism.

If nailing green alien babes is wrong, then dammit I don't wanna be right.

[Uirokeilendh]

Just to tell you where I'm coming from, I'm an American, and I'm considered liberal in the US but very conservative by Europeans, and while on this site I've always felt this sense of guilt that whenever I take a stance that the leftists on NSG disagree with, I feel like I'm standing on the wrong side of history and that I'm holding back human progress.

If you are a conservative, you are. That's what conservatism is. Conservative ideology is essentially opposition to change.

[The American Corporatocracy]

Precisely. I reckon I'm going to be a reactionary in the future. Fairly anti-transhumanism.

If nailing green alien babes is wrong, then dammit I don't wanna be right.

Inter-species sexist.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

If nailing green alien babes is wrong, then dammit I don't wanna be right.

Inter-species sexist.

Inter-galactic virgin.

[Emile Zola]

I have another question for you. Unemployment in developed countries is a rather serious problem, and many people have pointed to outsourcing as the answer. Outsourcing's cause is often low labor costs in other countries. In that case, would an abolition of the minimum wage, combined with a work income supplement by the government to maintain a minimum income, curb unemployment? The system has worked in Singapore in terms of unemployment, which has never gone above 6% for its entire history and is currently at 2% despite the recent global recession.

Outsourcing is symptom of globalization but it's mainly been in low skilled manufacturing jobs. The country that has adapted the best in manufacturing terms is Germany as it retrained it's work force to perform highly skilled and high tech manufacturing. In Australia our manufacturing base has been wiped out but we are still going strong because of our mining industry, jobs that cannot be exported. I guess the main industries in Singapore would trade, finance and services. Jobs that cannot be easily transferred especially as Singapore is a hub for trade. They only way you would know if a policy is good or not is when a country has financial troubles which Singapore does not. Sorry can't help you there.

[Forster Keys]

Precisely. I reckon I'm going to be a reactionary in the future. Fairly anti-transhumanism.

If nailing green alien babes is wrong, then dammit I don't wanna be right.

I've got no opinion on that. Cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Hippostania]

Just wondering, but when has 'progress' been bad?

When you're trying to change something that has worked for thousands of years.

Africa being changed by colonialism. That's a pretty good example.

I'd say that the colonization was actually a good example of progress. We introduced Africans to modern technology; from hunter-gatherers to the industrial age in less than a decade. Decolonization on the other hand was an example of bad progress. Now Africa is full of tinpot dictatorships, the infastructure is crumbling and the people are starving.

[Forster Keys]

Inter-species sexist.

Inter-galactic virgin.

Objectifying alien creatures. What would FST say?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

When you're trying to change something that has worked for thousands of years.

Africa being changed by colonialism. That's a pretty good example.

I'd say that the colonization was actually a good example of progress. We introduced Africans to modern technology; from hunter-gatherers to the industrial age in less than a decade. Decolonization on the other hand was an example of bad progress. Now Africa is full of tinpot dictatorships, the infastructure is crumbling and the people are starving.

Technology: progress

Human Rights: Regressed so much

Civil and Political Rights: Not even worth mentioning

Honestly, I'd rather be free than ahead in tech.

[Eisenriech]

You ask the point of being a Conservative? I can answer that simply. For the same reason I would answer a liberal. Principle. If you stand by your principles, you never betray yourself, and with that you can always hold your chin up and know you are honest with yourself and you stick to your guns. That's a vitally important quality of have.

Not to get too political, but as a very moderate Conservative (I have pro-Liberatian views on social changes, and deeply believe both the GOP and DNC have utterly crippled the United States), I look and see my generation being complete tools and idiots who voted for a man cause he talked a good talk. They betrayed principle to be in with the hip new black guy running for President. And now they whine and complain constantly. You get what you deserve when you betray principles. If you voted for him cause you believed his ideology, and you are angry now...your fault. If you voted him in not because you agreed, but because 'everyone else was', you betrayed principle, and still have yourself to blame. I have more respect for the diehard Liberals who love his failing policy despite it being that...a failure. They stick to what they believe.

And on the subject of progress and change, Conservatives can act as the buffer to ensure those changes are not radical and too quick. But don't believe for one second that the GOP is truly 'Conservative'. Both parties are populist progressives. Populism is the enemy of liberty.

Also, how often do we hear Progressives argue "We need to be able to act FASTER". That's exactly how poor choices are made. When governments are forced to pass laws at a slow and proper pace, it lets all options be put on the table and examined closer. Some of the Issues in this game can be perfect examples of the consequences of acting too fast. I had one pop in on building dams to deal with flooding. Build the dams is a quick fix, but what of possible long term ill effects? By thinking and acting slowly, we make more calculated decisions, and in turn often find the best solution, which is almost all of the time, not the quickest.

Btw, if anyone is curious why I would say so much over such a simple topic? I am a fledgling politician. I am currently a candidate for the 1st California State Assembly District.

[Forster Keys]

When you're trying to change something that has worked for thousands of years.

Africa being changed by colonialism. That's a pretty good example.

We introduced Africans to modern technology; from hunter-gatherers to the industrial age in less than a decade.

A round of applause for Hippo! The most prominent Finnish explorer of the Congo Basin!

[Hippostania]

I'd say that the colonization was actually a good example of progress. We introduced Africans to modern technology; from hunter-gatherers to the industrial age in less than a decade. Decolonization on the other hand was an example of bad progress. Now Africa is full of tinpot dictatorships, the infastructure is crumbling and the people are starving.

Technology: progress

Human Rights: Regressed so much

Civil and Political Rights: Not even worth mentioning

It's not like human rights were respected in pre-colonization Africa anyway.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

When you're trying to change something that has worked for thousands of years.

Africa being changed by colonialism. That's a pretty good example.

I'd say that the colonization was actually a good example of progress. We introduced Africans to modern technology; from hunter-gatherers to the industrial age in less than a decade. Decolonization on the other hand was an example of bad progress. Now Africa is full of tinpot dictatorships, the infastructure is crumbling and the people are starving.

Because you left them in a shitty situation when they were doing well without the Europeans to begin with.