What's the point of being conservative?

[Meryuma]

Because "progress" isn't necessarily always a good thing, it's beneficial to have people who resist change and question its virtue because it forces the proponents of "progress" to consider and defend their arguments that it is the right approach to take.

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

The ironically named Green Revolution (not as in Arab Spring, as in industrial agriculture).

[Norstal]

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.

...Progress of what? India can continue its scientific, technological, political, cultural, etc. progress without them.

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.

Yes, it's reversible and yes the French has been doing stupid things as well, but the Nomads were better off when they weren't forced to settle down. They could manage their own resources better.

Did you miss the repeal of DADT?

...I don't? That's the point? That without any foreign intervention, we were able to repeal it and stop the oppression of minorities, even if foreigners see us as backwards.

It's our problem, not anyone else's. No foreign intervention is necessary whenever congress passes a bill that would oppress a minority. So I sure as hell don't want to intervene when someone's parliament, council, chieftain, etc. does something stupid to their own society.

So?

So whatever they think of our way of life is subjective and can be ignored because they have no obligation to participate in our society.

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

Hunter-gatherers like the Hadza are struggling, but because they can't fight against the corrupt government who are encroaching upon their hunting grounds (food is a basic resource to protest), they can't do anything about it.

More than that, they have appealed for help from anthropologists everywhere. Which is why the governments they are under are still scared to do more than harassing them. Yet, you say that these governments should eliminate their way of life with the help of other foreign governments, all in the name of progress.

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?

Genocide is the only thing I'm on the fence about, but this is how I think about it: would you rather the British or the French intervene in the American Civil War? Or have the European powers intervene whenever we wiped out an Indian tribe? If not, then why should we intervene in other's localized conflicts? Because those problems were American problems. Not anyone else's.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

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.

They were respected, it wasn't a bunch of naked baboons throwing feces at each other for thousands of years. There were civilizations and cultures that rose and fell, and tribes that had natural human issues with each other, but just because the European had a different idea of what progress was than the African (which had advanced civilizations rising and falling) doesn't mean he was right. When the hell did all of Africa destroy itself in a giant war? When did it do so twice?

[The Reasonable]

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.

So much for your libertarianism- you just supported state intervention in the African economies with your statement for colonization. And as for all the problems...that's what happens when you have nationalistic and tribalistic leaders all over the place.

They were respected, it wasn't a bunch of naked baboons throwing feces at each other for thousands of years. There were civilizations and cultures that rose and fell, and tribes that had natural human issues with each other, but just because the European had a different idea of what progress was than the African (which had advanced civilizations rising and falling) doesn't mean he was right. When the hell did all of Africa destroy itself in a giant war? When did it do so twice?

They did indeed have advanced civilizations...which were similar to those in other parts of the world. The problem, often, with African countries now is anarchy- no proper government to restore order.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

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.

So much for your libertarianism- you just supported state intervention in the African economies with your statement for colonization. And as for all the problems...that's what happens when you have nationalistic and tribalistic leaders all over the place.

And borders placed by foreigners who had no clue or care about the pre-existing peoples' territories.

[Norstal]

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.

And again, as I talked to CM earlier, I don't see a reason why we should force hunter-gatherers to our level of technology.

If aliens were to arrive here and tell us they have better video games and that we should stop playing our own video games because theirs are technologically superior, I would go "fuck you" to the aliens. Course, replace video games with any other piece of technology we have.

[Varijnland]

Is this a trick question? Am I being punked?

[The Reasonable]

So much for your libertarianism- you just supported state intervention in the African economies with your statement for colonization. And as for all the problems...that's what happens when you have nationalistic and tribalistic leaders all over the place.

And borders placed by foreigners who had no clue or care about the pre-existing peoples' territories.

And anarchy/lack of proper government.

[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.

I do have to be true to my country's name, you know...I created my country as a pragmatic, pro-science country that isn't bound by ideology but rather by what provides the most fairness, meritocracy, and greatest good for the greatest number. It's a pity people took me as right-wing just because I don't consider myself left-wing and support a few rather illiberal positions...

It's rare that I get complimented around here, but thank you.

[Socialdemokraterne]

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.

My dear Reasonable, if you wanted to know more about the Nordic states then why didn't you just ask me?

It's beyond the scope of this thread to reply to your points here, but I'll go ahead and send you telegrams with all sorts of tidbits and sources galore. Just don't expect them to arrive quickly. You've asked a lot of complicated questions, and it will take me a while to fact-check myself and compile all of the necessary source materials. I expect to learn new things along the way as well, so it should (hopefully) be very productive for both of us.

Now, to the question actually posed by your thread: the purpose of conservatism. Not being a conservative myself I can only offer an outsider's perspective, but from what I've learned from my conversations with conservative friends it seems that the "purpose" of conservatism is to promote some combination of economic self-sufficiency, individualism, an orderly social structure, and traditions, all with the end-goal of creating a more prosperous society.

I believe I should provide an example to indicate just how it is that I believe that all of these pursuits culminate in the greater pursuit of a prosperous society:

Laissez-Faire Capitalism

You may think it strange that I selected laissez-faire as a demonstration of a structured society, so I'll explain. A laissez-faire capitalist establishes and protects an ordered society wherein the more economically competitive elements of society are continually allowed to secure a greater proportion of the available resources and a greater proportion of power therefore. This sort of society is protected by maintaining traditions such as rule of law, rigid protection of private property in all its forms, and strict enforcement of contracts.

This sort of system is hierarchical in nature because it inevitably separates people into classes with disproportionate levels of control over available resources. Class position is, in such a system, based upon one's accumulated capital and the efficiency of its use, and it is through this second point that the laissez-faire advocate might argue that the hierarchy is one in which the borders between each level are sufficiently fluid that this condition is just. While it is quickly pointed out that the borders become significantly less porous as you approach the top and as you attempt to escape the bottom, the problems of shrinking upward mobility near the upper echelons and difficulty escaping poverty are generally accepted as reasonable tradeoffs in exchange for improved collective economic output brought about by the upper levels' constant fear of replacement by more effective competitors, both horizontal and vertical on the social stratum.

In essence, it is an argument that while most will probably never climb to the top of the pyramid and many will find themselves trapped at the bottom, life at the middle and bottom will be improving as time goes on thanks to the efforts of those at and near the top to retain and advance their positions.

That, in a nutshell, is one of the main points of being a laissez-faire conservative: this sort of social order is taken to lead to the greatest level of general prosperity and is therefore pursued.

While I personally don't believe that laissez-faire would pan out quite as neatly as the narrative above suggests and do not so easily accept the social mobility problems as reasonable tradeoffs, an advocate of free markets does and so pursues them. It's hardly a pointless endeavor that the free market conservative engages in, even if I believe it is ultimately a misled one. They're not insane, they simply have a different vision of what the world should look like.

[Jewcrew]

Because "progress" isn't necessarily always a good thing, it's beneficial to have people who resist change and question its virtue because it forces the proponents of "progress" to consider and defend their arguments that it is the right approach to take.

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

How about the implementation of race-based laws? At one point, that was considered 'progressive'.

Eugenics and Social Darwinism were both considered 'progressive' at one point.

Obviously, the world needs people who sit back and say, "Wait, wait, wait. Is this actually beneficial?"

[Socialdemokraterne]

Obviously, the world needs people who sit back and say, "Wait, wait, wait. Is this actually beneficial?"

"Beneficial" has a tendency to be a concept which is somewhat more complex than simple yes/no propositions can readily address. While what constitutes "progress" is no simpler and must indeed be continually checked and re-checked, simply asking "is Action X actually beneficial" is too simplistic an approach. As strange as it may sound, someone could readily make the argument that eugenics and race laws are "beneficial", the trick is that they're selectively beneficial. The question isn't "is Action X beneficial", it's "who does Action X benefit".

[Jewcrew]

Obviously, the world needs people who sit back and say, "Wait, wait, wait. Is this actually beneficial?"

"Beneficial" has a tendency to be a concept which is somewhat more complex than simple yes/no propositions can readily address. While what constitutes "progress" is no simpler and must indeed be continually checked and re-checked, simply asking "is Action X actually beneficial" is too simplistic an approach. As strange as it may sound, someone could readily make the argument that eugenics and race laws are "beneficial", the trick is that they're selectively beneficial. The question isn't "is Action X beneficial", it's "who does Action X benefit".

Agreed, I was just making it simple. The point is, progress for the sake of progress can be wrong, and people that resist progress aren't necessarily in the wrong, and they have every right to their opinion.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Agreed, I was just making it simple. The point is, progress for the sake of progress can be wrong, and people that resist progress aren't necessarily in the wrong, and they have every right to their opinion.

I'm glad that our latest encounter has been much more fruitful and positive.

[Samuraikoku]

mao's cultural revolution

That's not liberalism.

[Tayrona]

Whilst the left is often open to more radical ideas, conservatives tend to play the role of the steady hand. Not every bold move is a rewarding move and sometimes you just have to tread the conservative path.

[Ad Nihilo]

The reason I only appealed to the last 20 years is because I'm only aware of the statistics for the last 20 years, and I have a certain aversion to talking out of my arse. I don't even know if anyone bothered with these kinds of statistics before then, or whether they would be internationally comparable as they are now.



And once again, that is rather irrelevant. Your Irishman, like any other Briton, WASP, Frenchman, German or whatever you like... if any of these random "average hypothetical individuals" were dropped into any Western Country right now and we looked to see how they fared with regards to upwards social mobility, we know that they would do the worse in the US. Potatoes, or lack thereof, in C19th are simply irrelevant to that simple statistical, empirical fact.

That is an assessment based on a very brief reading of time - a rather selective one even.
It is the whole timeline that is relevant. Not the part that you find useful. The American Dream did not begin 20 years ago.

The reason I only appealed to the last 20 years is because I'm only aware of the statistics for the last 20 years, and I have a certain aversion to talking out of my arse.

In other words, when it comes to assessing the American Dream, except for possibly 20 years, you are

talking out of my arse

For as long as we've had proper evidence on this, the evidence suggests clearly that the American Dream is nonsense. That selective assessment is all we have if we are interested in evidence. I take it you are not.

You're saying that before we had evidence the American Dream was correct. I'm calling bullshit. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

[Divair]

Many people don't like changing. That's why we have conservatives.

[Ovisterra]

Because some people on here are over the age of 15.

And many of those over-15s are liberal too.

[Divair]

Because some people on here are over the age of 15.

And many of those over-15s are liberal too.

My dad is in his 50's and my mom in her 40's.
Both are very liberal, and my mom is quite left wing.

Are they just non-existent?

I'm about to be over 15 and I don't see myself every shifting right or becoming more conservative.



Of course, NSG is also filled with people over 15 who are liberal/left wing.

[Samuraikoku]

Because some people on here are over the age of 15.

I was born on January 20th, 1989.

I am 23 years old.

I define myself as a liberal.

Your argument is invalid.

[Forsakia]

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

They were respected, it wasn't a bunch of naked baboons throwing feces at each other for thousands of years. There were civilizations and cultures that rose and fell, and tribes that had natural human issues with each other, but just because the European had a different idea of what progress was than the African (which had advanced civilizations rising and falling) doesn't mean he was right. When the hell did all of Africa destroy itself in a giant war? When did it do so twice?

No, but they were perfectly capable of being just as nasty to each other as Europeans were.

[Ovisterra]

And many of those over-15s are liberal too.

My dad is in his 50's and my mom in her 40's.
Both are very liberal, and my mom is quite left wing.

Are they just non-existent?

I'm about to be over 15 and I don't see myself every shifting right or becoming more conservative.



Of course, NSG is also filled with people over 15 who are liberal/left wing.

It won't be long until I turn 16. I suppose my views will change instantly on that day.

[Divair]

My dad is in his 50's and my mom in her 40's.
Both are very liberal, and my mom is quite left wing.

Are they just non-existent?

I'm about to be over 15 and I don't see myself every shifting right or becoming more conservative.



Of course, NSG is also filled with people over 15 who are liberal/left wing.

It won't be long until I turn 16. I suppose my views will change instantly on that day.

September 24th:
"Post by Divair:
Social democracy is an amazing system. Communism, if voluntary, can work on a colony on another planet. Progression is great."

September 25th:
"Post by Divair:
Social democracy is fascist. Communism is for the weak and the Stalinists. Progression is horrible."

[Ovisterra]

It won't be long until I turn 16. I suppose my views will change instantly on that day.

September 24th:
"Post by Divair:
Social democracy is an amazing system. Communism, if voluntary, can work on a colony on another planet. Progression is great."

September 25th:
"Post by Divair:
Social democracy is fascist. Communism is for the weak and the Stalinists. Progression is horrible."

It'd be an interesting subject for a scientific paper.