Healthy diversity in civilization = Orders & Classes & Inequality
Because it is so controversial throughout American history it might be useful to discuss what makes a TRUE conservative. Among many others, the philosophical pillars of conservatism are Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797), Russell Kirk (1918 - 1994), and William F. Buckley Jr. (1925 - 2008)
Russell Kirk in summarized Conservative philosophy in his Ten Conservative Principals. One of those, #5 "Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety", is encapsulated in the subject of this forum. His complete thought is as follows..
He claims that conservatives:
1. "Feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life"
2. Think Liberals prefer the "narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems."
3. That "for the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality."
4. Think "the only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation".
In a very general sense, if you agree with those statements you are in the true conservative camp. If you disagree, you tend toward liberalism or socialism.
SO, what do you think?Hi My Esoteruc,
I think your question validates my "Purple."
I agree with #1 & #3, but think #2 is formed by a bias that makes it too narrow a statement. It seems he might be using the social egalitarianism doctrines of extreme Liberalism, (his reference to "radical systems"), to define all of Liberalism. That is not a concept I agree with. In my view the concept of Liberalism, just like my view of Conservatism, is an umbrella concept - covering many factions.
If #4's "Last Judgement" could also be construed as the sense of philosophical egalitarianism, then I can agree with that one too. Otherwise, I think #4 misses that vital component. My perception can easily see a True Conservative accepting the original concept of equality of human Rights, (not economic or social Rights), but with the qualifier that personal actions may diminish those Rights.
Thinking about your reference to the historical battle of Liberal vs. Conservative, and your use of the term "true conservative," I think a True Conservative could easily be a Purple, like me, and is also only one faction under the larger umbrella of Conservatism.
Just as Liberals, and every other grouping in life, are generally defined by the extremes of their group, I think Conservatives are misidentified by definitions like True Conservative.
GAYes, GA, there is a purple conservative; some academics ironically label them liberal conservatives, lol. A better name for it would be progressive conservatives. These are the people who are actually responsible for the development of the public school system. While they had no qualms with slavery (still in existence at that time) and justified it under conservative philosophy, they nevertheless saw a need for society to better itself.
(Just in case you didn't know, those four points is the paragraph Kirk wrote about Variety broken up into bullet points.)
As best as I can tell, Kirk was one of those thought that the only good liberal is a dead liberal. One way to view that is Kirk Did Not believe in the supremacy of the individual (which defines liberalism), instead, he believed in the supremacy of the state, albeit a small local one (which defines socialism and conservatism)..I did realize the source of your bullet points. I read Kirk's points with interest because there was much I agreed with, but there were also troubling aspects that felt "unscholarly."
Progressive Conservative ... hmm... I still think "Purple" covers it, but maybe "Progressive Conservative" might explain why Credence2 and I often find a common understanding, (once I dismount him from his Progressive Liberal horse, of course). ;-)
GA
1. "Feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life"
There is nothing wrong with long established social institutions and modes of life, but they are not carved in stone for a liberal, change, when overwhelming circumstances call for it is welcome.
-----------------------------
2. Think Liberals prefer the "narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems."
I don't acknowledge Kings or Lords merely because they are there, prove that there is a mechanism or rational that support that some are more equal than others. And, that the possibility to be in that favored category is available to all. My focus is equality, while being aware that we are not all equal in our abilities and talents. But that objective whether brought about by radicals systems or no, is the most important. So, I guess, here I am guilty.
------------------------
3. That "for the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality."
All that is unavoidable, as long as the foundation is based upon earned merit, not the divine right of Kings. I don't know that it is as much of a 'healthy diversity' as it is simply reality as part of the human condition. More social mobility within a society goes a long way toward placating me and my attitude toward this statement.
----------------------------------
4. Think "the only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation".
Conservatives might miss this, but the reality for many of us is that obtaining equality under the law has, in itself, been a challenge. I don't generally support that and I think that any great and responsible civilization needs to do better.
After all that M.E., where do you think I am best placed?He corralled you Cred. You're a Progressive Conservative. Ha! This warrants a martini.
Have you noticed that your defense of Liberal perspectives is usually based on thoughts pertaining to a Conservative-acceptable philosophical egalitarianism, and not the precepts of Social egalitarianism that Liberal Progressives usually promote?
GAhttps://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progr … nservatism
There is a canyon between the desire of socialist attempts to MAKE everything equal (not quite true, but close enough), which is an aberration of egalitarianism (which is simply the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.)
Conservatism specifically rejects the idea that "all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities" before the Judgement Day. They do, on the other hand, allow for simple "equality" under a "just" (whatever that means) court of law.
The bottom line, IMO again, is that normal progressives believe that 1) external hurdles to equal justice and opportunities should be removed and 2) it sometimes requires the power of a collective people, e.g. government, to do the job. Why #2? Because there are so many forces trying to keep those hurdles in place that, in the words of one active state liberal philosopher, you would have to be "superhuman" to do it yourself.While it is an obvious and demonstrable fact that all people are NOT equal, can you truly believe that conservatives do not think that all people should have equal rights and opportunities (as much, anyway, as they can make use of)?
"While it is an obvious and demonstrable fact that all people are NOT equal, can you truly believe that conservatives do not think that all people should have equal rights and opportunities (as much, anyway, as they can make use of)?"
Yes, I do
What do you mean by "as they can make use of"?A person without arms will never be an arm wrestler. An idiot (literal, meaning a very low IQ) cannot make use of a Yale education.
There are some opportunities that some people cannot make use of. All people are not equal in all respects.
Your link made me take a look-around, because if wealth redistribution is a tenant of Progressive Conservatism - then I don't want anything to do with it.
Fortunately, not only have I found a couple good reads, I also did not find support for your link's contention. Whew!
I found one blog post that sounded as if I were reading something I would write. It is just a blog post from a site called Ordinary Times on Culture and Politics, and I haven't heard of the author before, (Mike Dwyer), but I think you will find it interesting.
Here are a couple blurbs:
What Progressive Conservatism Looks Like
"... It was conservative values, actually, that gave Progressivism its start. It was only later, when the success of the project was established, that liberals largely took over the project. But there’s a fundamental difference between the ways conservatives and “progressives” go about their respective values projects. For conservatives, values arise from and are tested in society, and only later make their way into our political and legal institutions. That is, government is meant to play a supporting role in the underlying society’s culture and norms; it is not meant to conceive and advance and foist them on society who otherwise would not go along with it."
"This is exactly what a Progressive Conservatism looks like. Change is going to happen and the government’s role is to support the process, not take over. Government provides a framework to support change and when necessary slows it down to a speed society can handle. The analogy I have always used is that liberalism is like a teenager behind the wheel of their first car. They drive fast because the point is to get where they want to go and safety is a small concern. Mainline conservatism is like the elderly driver who fears everything on the road and drives so slow that they actually cause more problems than they prevent. Progressive Conservatives are like the middle-aged dad in the minivan. They set the cruise control at five over the speed limit because it gets them a little faster, yet they drive responsibly and keep the family safe. "
Source: Ordinary Times on Culture and Politics
Note the absence of any "redistribution" thoughts.
But ... I also found a couple examples that placed "Progressive Conservatism" beyond what I could identify with in other areas also.
Your comment about Conservatives rejecting the concept of human equality - relative to the basics of human Rights; created equal, equal opportunity, etc, draws a hesitant and grudging agreement, but I think would be more accurately attributed to Hard-Right Conservatives, than to Conservatives in general.
One reference to Progressive Conservatives also described them as "Big Tent" Conservatives. An apt description, as I see it.
I agree with your closing thought, but would not confine it to "normal progressives," I think you could also attribute it to "Big Tent" Purple Conservatives.
GA
GA, pour me a glass, but I will have it shaken not stirred, if you don't mind.
Progressive-Conservative? Talk about a contradiction in terms....
I did not think that I was advocating any concept that is acceptable under today's conservative stance, that is currently in vogue.
I think of conservatism as a restraint against the idea of more rights and opportunities for more people, in principle. That is contrary to what I believe. Who were resistant to the abolition of slavery, women's rights, etc? Why, because for them, there was always this 'natural order' where people could naturally be subordinated without any real basis or reason. You could count on that like a sunrise.
As a liberal/progressive, I am not an advocate of a 'commune' society, equal outcomes is not realistically possible. But government and society should see this like adding integers in the computation of PI, with the goal of always more closely approaching the answer. I have never really seen your definition as promoted by the left, have you an example?Shaken is the only way Cred, stirring is for snobs. (they only want the appearance - they don't appreciate the process)
The first thing is to push your thoughts off the Conservative label, and onto the Far-right label - which is where they belong. And... forget about your qualifier - "current vogue." I don't think anything that is "in vogue" with today's Conservative politics is normal, or an attribute of past politics.
I think that if you consider the thread's discussion of Conservatism, and its tangent; Progressive Conservatism, and my contribution of Purple and "Big Tent" Conservatism, you will find that the resistance to change that you find unacceptable is better attributed to those Far-right, Fundamentalist Conservatives, than it is to Conservatives in general. But I admit that may be splitting hairs. I don't think "Conservatives" have distanced themselves enough, from their fringes, to avoid all the taint of those fringes.
On your final thought I would agree, those "commune" Liberals would be better described as "Far-left" Liberals.
Based on our past discussions I might even challenge you on the "Liberal" part of your "Progessiveness."
I have seen you strongly support the concept of social safety net programs, yet you don't promote the "no matter what" support that Far-left Liberals do. I have seen you rail against Voter ID laws as an infringement on voting Rights, yet admit that with proper government action to get the IDs into everyone's hands, free - the concept might not be voter infringement. Far-left Liberals would never accept that. Just the thought, regardless of the details, is to be fought.
I like your Pi analogy. Sounds like something a Progressive Conservative would say. ;-)
I am not sure what you are asking an example for. If it is of typical Liberal thought, I would offer the voter ID example. Or perhaps the thought behind California's lawsuit against including the "Citizen's question" on the Census.
If you you were asking for examples of your alignment with Progressive Conservative thought - you just read those.
ps. As for your thought about that "contradiction of terms..." I found this old, (1990) Harvard Crimson article: Progressive Conservatism is no Oxymoron that may offer a thought for you to consider.
GAShaken is the only way Cred, stirring is for snobs. (they only want the appearance - they don't appreciate the process)
-----------------------------------
The first thing is to push your thoughts off the Conservative label, and onto the Far-right label - which is where they belong. And... forget about your qualifier - "current vogue." I don't think anything that is "in vogue" with today's Conservative politics is normal, or an attribute of past politics.
Well, GA, I don't know.. It appears that this FAR Right has hijacked what it is you consider the definition of 'conservative'. I see the FAR right view in Congress, the White House and throughout the nation. I see the FAR right attitudes in the 'questions' of the day. Forgive me if I have difficulty discerning between black pepper and gnat excrement, particularly when I see so much more of the excrement relative to the pepper.
----------------------------------
I think that if you consider the thread's discussion of Conservatism, and its tangent; Progressive Conservatism, and my contribution of Purple and "Big Tent" Conservatism, you will find that the resistance to change that you find unacceptable is better attributed to those Far-right, Fundamentalist Conservatives, than it is to Conservatives in general. But I admit that may be splitting hairs. I don't think "Conservatives" have distanced themselves enough, from their fringes, to avoid all the taint of those fringes.
What you say is true, the so-called 'good conservatives' have not distanced themselves enough from their FAR right brethren. So, as I alluded to earlier, it is almost natural to place you all in the same barrel.
-----------------------------------
On your final thought I would agree, those "commune" Liberals would be better described as "Far-left" Liberals.
Based on our past discussions I might even challenge you on the "Liberal" part of your "Progessiveness."
I have seen you strongly support the concept of social safety net programs, yet you don't promote the "no matter what" support that Far-left Liberals do. I have seen you rail against Voter ID laws as an infringement on voting Rights, yet admit that with proper government action to get the IDs into everyone's hands, free - the concept might not be voter infringement. Far-left Liberals would never accept that. Just the thought, regardless of the details, is to be fought.
OK, I don't know those of our group that takes the 'no matter what' attitude. The FAR right is the Right and I don't see the equivalent from the ideological Left. Yes, I am concerned with the voter ID as creating impediment to those otherwise eligible to vote to not be able to vote. I don't have a problem with the ID in principle. Yes, get them into everybody's hand at no cost to them. The argument from the left focuses on the issue of voter suppression, not merely the ID in itself.
-----------------------
I like your Pi analogy. Sounds like something a Progressive Conservative would say. ;-)
I am not sure what you are asking an example for. If it is of typical Liberal thought, I would offer the voter ID example. Or perhaps the thought behind California's lawsuit against including the "Citizen's question" on the Census.
I may be misinformed, there may be some on the leftist fringe that have a problem asking the question in principle. But, it is an appropriate question to ask when one wants an accurate census result.
--------------------------------
If you you were asking for examples of your alignment with Progressive Conservative thought - you just read those.
ps. As for your thought about that "contradiction of terms..." I found this old, (1990) Harvard Crimson article: Progressive Conservatism is no Oxymoron that may offer a thought for you to consider.
Thanks....
Credence, right now, I wouldn't place you anywhere because there are nine more principles to discuss.
As of yet, I haven't really said what I think, but now will expand on bullet number 3. That, IMO, is not a benign statement of reality. While a reality it may be, Kirk holds that bullet forth as a principal, A belief that should be followed. I would lay at the feet of this thought the Conservative's acceptance of slavery and other forms of discrimination.
It isn't that they advocate it, but it is the reason not to eradicate such and similar institutions. To me, that is the evil tucked neatly beneath the surface of the conservative principal of "Variety".I do see this as a major difference between the two philosophies, and your own statement here shows it rather clearly.
Yes, #3 is a reality. How then do we get to the concept that it can be eradicated? The liberal lives in a dream world (in this regard - conservatives have their own, different, dream worlds), pretending that they can change the laws of nature if only they can get enough money. The conservative lives in that reality, recognizes it and works within it. The philosophy is that while some can be helped out of those undesirable classes, but not all for there will always be people that are simply unwilling to help themselves no matter what we do.Yes, #3 is a reality. How then do we get to the concept that it can be eradicated? The liberal lives in a dream world (in this regard - conservatives have their own, different, dream worlds), pretending that they can change the laws of nature if only they can get enough money. The conservative lives in that reality, recognizes it and works within it. The philosophy is that while some can be helped out of those undesirable classes, but not all for there will always be people that are simply unwilling to help themselves no matter what we do.
----------------------
Wilderness, what are the laws of nature? For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit. The conservative calls this the "reality", me, not so much. I work to change it not work with it or accommodate it. There is a vast chasm between those that remain in the doldrums because they insist on not helping themselves, and those that far short because of a lack of equality and opportunity."For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit."
Untrue, and you know it as well as I do. Just another liberal spin without truth.
When you have "changed" that a child with an IQ of 60 cannot graduate from MIT with an engineering degree, let me know. It's time to leave the country."For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit."
Untrue, and you know it as well as I do. Just another liberal spin without truth.
When you have "changed" that a child with an IQ of 60 cannot attend Yale university, let me know. It's time to leave the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue? do you read history, Wilderness? Conservatives remain irritatingly obstinate about this point.
You know as well as I do that I am not speaking about people with obvious, mental and physical impairments. Those are the people that should be subject to compassion within our society. Merit means ability and perseverance. So, your example of the mentally deficient child evades the point of this discussion.Do YOU read history? Conservatives produced the end of slavery. It is not a matter of political philosophy no matter how hard you will try to make it one.
You accepted the statement of equality, live with it. But it doesn't stop with retardation; every task requires specific attributes from people, and not all people have every attribute. Indeed, no person has the physical and mental abilities to perform every task in the world.Do YOU read history? Conservatives produced the end of slavery. It is not a matter of political philosophy no matter how hard you will try to make it one.
You accepted the statement of equality, live with it. But it doesn't stop with retardation; every task requires specific attributes from people, and not all people have every attribute. Indeed, no person has the physical and mental abilities to perform every task in the world.
--------------------------------------------
And where do you get the idea that conservatives produced the end of slavery, was it because Abraham Lincoln was Republican and the Republican party was the same conservative party then as it is today? Surely, I thought that you had a more refined discernment on this subject.
But, I wanted to do a little research on the topic: was the maintenance of slavery a conservative or liberal concept. Well, it appears that someone else asked the question and from the comments, I believe that I am redeemed.
I don't believe that inequality of opportunity is "living with it". I insist on equal opportunity in all aspects of life as I can morally support where they end up economically if they had every opportunity to succeed and excel and did not take advantage of it.
https://www.quora.com/Was-it-the-libera … -the-1800sThen we disagree. You have no use for an opportunity to train to compete in the 100 yard dash in the next summer olympics. You have no use for an opportunity to train as a heavyweight boxer. I doubt that you have much (if any) use to attend Yale in an attempt at a degree, tuition paid.
At least I have no use for any of those opportunities. Or for hundreds or thousands of other ones as well. When you decide to put every high school student into Yale, well, we both know that 99.99% of them will fail, and at enormous cost to the rest of us.At least I have no use for any of those opportunities. Or for hundreds or thousands of other ones as well. When you decide to put every high school student into Yale, well, we both know that 99.99% of them will fail, and at enormous cost to the rest of us.
As usual, Wilderness, with you, it is 'all or nothing"
Should only rich white kids have the ability to attend Yale University, or do we use test scores, academic achievement and consideration for admission that extends beyond how much money someone has? I did not say EVERY high school student, Yale has standards. We should have a universal K-12 system that educates and allows for the possibility that every kid has an opportunity to qualify for admission to Yale University. I might have a use for an opportunity that you have no use for, is there any consideration in regards to that?Sounds utopian and it doesn't work and it won't work.
I would argue that this qualifies equality of outcome. It's not opportunity because getting accepted into Yale is not opportunity, its a privilege. It is, by definition, not for everyone.
Ok, Jesse, a privilege for who and why? Who do you think should have the 'privilege' to attend Yale University, what are their qualifications?
The qualifications are to pass entrance exams...and pay the tuition. If you don't want to earn enough to make those payments, you don't get to go.
The qualifications are to pass entrance exams...and pay the tuition. If you don't want to earn enough to make those payments, you don't get to go.
That is why there is 'student aid", in the form of loans and scholarships. Why should I support institutions for preppy rich white, black, blue or whatever kids? I pay indirectly, as part of the tax code, to support venerable institutions like Yale. We all do. I am sure Yale university has subsidized the cost of its athletes to attend school? What about people like GW Bush, hardly a stellar student, that gets in just because his father went there, based on the "legacy" program? So, it is not as simple as you like to believe.
Those with the appropriate natural skills and mental prowess should be accepted. Everyone actually CAN apply for Yale, but to be accepted is a whole different story.
Let's put it this way: To be part of any club, you have to share something in common with the rest of the clubs members. Whatever that something is, is what defines the club and what the club does. I'm not going to walk into some random establishment and demand membership simply because I feel like I deserve it.
Having said all that, I don't think there is any real prestige to Ivy League Schools other than their brand. Why are a pair of Nikes 200% more costly than a generic pair of shoes? It's the brand. There might be some differences in the quality of material, but not by much.
If you like the "finer" things in life, you also have to back it up with capital. But it's not the end of the world if we can't. I'm an online student and I thrive quite well. My tuition is but a fraction of Yale's and I'm okay with that. I work hard and learn quite a bit. I've taken what I've been given and intend to make use of it. That's freedom, diversity and equality of opprotunity if I've ever seen it. I have a criminal record and am a recovering alcoholic. It would be just as likely for society to take everything away from me. I'm glad they didn't. I made use of the many opportunities despite my setbacks and socioeconomic status. And I attribute this grace to some of the so-called "oppressive" traditional institutions that we have.do you think that it is utopian to work toward the goal of equal educational opportunity for all of our young people, even if it is not going to be attained to in a perfect way?
Good. We're getting somewhere - not all people can make use of all opportunities. And those that can't should not demand that others provide it anyway.
No, not only rich white kids can go to Yale. Rich black ones can, rich brown ones can, rich yellow ones can and rich red ones can. Don't try and turn it into a race thing, for it is not.
Next, can we discuss just why someone should not be able to put their child into Yale without being forced to put 3 more in, 3 more children whose parents did not accumulate the necessary funds? Can we discuss why a choice to live in a tiny town 50 miles from nowhere means others must foot the bill to educate their kids or provide the parents with food because there are no jobs out there?--> "Good. We're getting somewhere - not all people can make use of all opportunities. And those that can't should not demand that others provide it anyway."
True and True; but that misstates the issue. The issue IS, when a person can make use of an opportunity, then the only thing that should stand in their way should be their personal talent and drive. Nothing else should interfere with being able to achieve that opportunity; subject to legal restrictions, of course.
What legal restrictions you might ask? Let's say there is a private all white football club. Not belonging to it is of no consequence to the black man who wants to join, other that the fact that he wants to join. The law provides no legal remedy for this situation, nor should it.
Change the situation slightly and make the all white, all male club of influential business men and a black business woman wants to join in order to participate in the important networking that occurs at these types of clubs. The law does provide a remedy here, as well as it should be. (481 U.S. 537 Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte (No. 86-421) Argued: March 30, 1987 Decided: May 4, 1987 - Conservative Rehnquist Court: Unanimous)Quite right, and I have no quibble with any of this, and don't think most conservatives do, either. The businessman club is getting close to the line where govt. should not intrude, but only close.
But the rest of the liberal mantra - that environment, money, parentage and a hundred other things must also be made "equal" is where I draw the line. If it takes money to avail ones self of an opportunity, and it is not available, then neither is the opportunity. And for the most part I agree with that, but very few liberals will. Instead the demand is that the money be provided, by a second person, so that all may have the same opportunity.
Of course, as in everything else in life it is seldom black and white. Should a small, rural town have poor quality, poorly equipped schools because their community cannot afford better? My answer is "yes"...to some degree. It is that degree that is gray, for I think they should receive help but I also think a richer community that can, and is willing to, provide far more for schools should have better schools.
Agreed, Wildnerness.
Average IQ in the west is about 100. Most universities don't accept people with an IQ lower than 120. The military will place people with below average IQ on cooking lines.
Oh and ethnic Jew's and Asians average at 120. So one entire standard deviation higher than typical Americans. Dismal, but the stats don't lie. Jews also account for much of the Nobel Prize history.
"For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit."
If subordinate people had merit then they wouldn't be subordinate. People often subordinate themselves.
The law of nature is a hierarchy. Liberals like to think of hierarchies as systems of power and corruption. When in reality its a system of competence and fitness.
It should make sense if you think about. I want the freedom shop around for the most well trained and competent surgeon if need be. Same with my plumber, etc etc.
The psychometric studies have already shown liberals to favor the maternal approaches to society. Their whole thing is compassion and caring for others. The problem is, they can become devouring and "smother their children", so to speak. [#2] Worst case scenario of course.Average IQ in the west is about 100. Most universities don't accept people with an IQ lower than 120. The military will place people with below average IQ on cooking lines.
------------------------------------------------------
Jesse, I cannot believe what I hear you saying. That, you actually subscribe to this nonsense. You're the proof in the pudding, validating my negative attitudes about conservatives in general.
Oh and ethnic Jew's and Asians average at 120. So one entire standard deviation higher than typical Americans. Dismal, but the stats don't lie. Jews also account for much of the Nobel Prize history.
People are to be judged on their ability; academics, test scores, etc. IQ is just one factor in predicting success, what about hard work and determination to compensate for not having a 'genius" IQ?
I guess that you subscribe to all that "Bell Curve" bull****
------------------------------------------------
If subordinate people had merit then they wouldn't be subordinate. People often subordinate themselves.
More bulls***, Jesse? Who decides who has and deserves merit? Social custom and legalized institutional racism and sexism has subordinated people. I do not see how they subordinated themselves.... I have read of more progressive attitudes from Joseph Goebbels, how did you make good your escape after the war?
---------------------------------------
The law of nature is a hierarchy. Liberals like to think of hierarchies as systems of power and corruption. When in reality its a system of competence and fitness.
Why should you be a Lord and I be a Serf, you have to prove that. Your system of competence and fitness is to a large degree just more inequality, racism, ignorance and arrogance.
----------------------------------------------
The psychometric studies have already shown liberals to favor the maternal approaches to society. Their whole thing is compassion and caring for others. The problem is, they can become devouring and "smother their children", so to speak. [#2] Worst case scenario of course.
It should make sense if you think about. I want the freedom shop around for the most well trained and competent surgeon if need be. Same with my plumber, etc etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
We all should have the opportunity to become the best trained and competent surgeon if he or she wishes to be so. You validate my theory of conservatives herding entire classes of people into the realm of second class citizenship just to maintain their status quo, oppression and unearned economic advantage. Believe me, I will fight that and those that believe in it, tooth and nail. That, sir, is a promise.I do subscribe to the bell curve bull*** because I have education in how statistical measurements work. Every piece of psychometric data over the last 100 years that has been used to measure human behavior uses the same statistical methods. So, sorry you feel that way. That's science. It doesn't care how you feel about it.
And, you're right, hard work is actually the second half of the formula to predict long-term success. It's a combination of both intelligence and industriousness.I do subscribe to the bell curve bull*** because I have education in how statistical measurements work. Every piece of psychometric data over the last 100 years that has been used to measure human behavior uses the same statistical methods. So, sorry you feel that way. That's science. It doesn't care how you feel about it.
And, you're right, hard work is actually the second half of the formula to predict long-term success. It's a combination of both intelligence and industriousness.
Yes sir, Jesse, phrenology was a science as well. So, we agree to disagree? OK.
I am glad that you accepted my premise as you state in your second paragraph.Hmm. I wonder what the lumps on your skull would tell me about you? Lol.
And yes, agree to disagree.
And people certainly don't decide merit for themselves. Have you ever watched American Idol? Yeeesh. There's a whole lot we believe about ourselves that turns out to not be true OR not useful in the world. IQ and Industriousness determine how well people can solve problems. If you're just sucking up resources and not solving problems, then what merit do you have in our society?
Having said that, I don't begrudge people who mentally or physically can't contribute in this way. I begrudge those who think leveling the playing field is going to change how well we prosper. Forcibly implemented diversity is a zero-sum game.
And I never said I should be a lord. I'm actually at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Until I prove myself otherwise, I will remain here. The only thing I'm subordinate to is my own standards and capabilities.
I have no agenda to push people into classes. That's just where the pieces fall when people are free to choose how to live of their own accord. We can't always be what we want to be or where you think other people should be based on how "oppressed" they are.
So, by all means, continue to tell me how oppressive I am with the status quo and all that. I'm actually an artist with many interests and am very open to social reform on many levels. But if its easier for you to box me in, that's okay too.And people certainly don't decide merit for themselves. Have you ever watched American Idol?
Jesse, I have not seen the program. But, I might tune in sometime to better understand your point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeeesh. There's a whole lot we believe about ourselves that turns out to not be true OR not useful in the world. IQ and Industriousness determine how well people can solve problems. If you're just sucking up resources and not solving problems, then what merit do you have in our society?
I can't disagree with this statement, when the people sucking up resources and not solving problems choose their status. Most, are not severely constrained intellectually. According to the Bell Curve those with IQ's 60 or less just take up a fraction of the parabola. What about everybody else?
----------------------------------
Having said that, I don't begrudge people who mentally or physically can't contribute in this way. I begrudge those who think leveling the playing field is going to change how well we prosper. Forcibly implemented diversity is a zero-sum game.
Then you will have to begrudge me, because Leveling the playing field is important and is the only way that I am going to accept the outcome and on a larger scale to keep peace in this country. As I said, I don't believe in divine right, merit is the only acceptable explanation for why I will accept shoveling dung and you drag down six figure incomes.
------------------------------------------------
And I never said I should be a lord. I'm actually at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Until I prove myself otherwise, I will remain here. The only thing I'm subordinate to is my own standards and capabilities.
You mentioned somewhere having trouble with the law in your past. Do really want to have to wear the Scarlet Letter, being summarily dismissed for any and all opportunity to rise on the social-economic latter at first sight without the chance to prove yourself? Would you accept being consigned to second class citizenship under that circumstance?
-------------------------------------------------------
I have no agenda to push people into classes. That's just where the pieces fall when people are free to choose how to live of their own accord. We can't always be what we want to be or where you think other people should be based on how "oppressed" they are.
Over my lifetime and before, people said that you are to accept your station in life, because you were the wrong color, had the wrong religion, never really given the opportunity to acquire the skills to increase income and change the status. I am to accept that 'this is where the pieces fall'? The status quo attitude is not good enough, and I don't buy it. Equality is a fundamental tenet in this society, if it fails than we all fail.
------------------------------
So, by all means, continue to tell me how oppressive I am with the status quo and all that. I'm actually an artist with many interests and am very open to social reform on many levels. But if its easier for you to box me in, that's okay too.
It is nothing personal, Jesse, but your position is quite adversarial relative to my point of view, that's all.Fair enough. And this is where most cons and libs tend to have difficulties but I maintain that we are usually both correct about things depending on the context. We need each other like we need both of our eyes to see the world clearly. Liberals, true liberals, are very important to what I would still consider being a strong American society. The division is far too wide now.
Do you consider yourself a Social Darwinist, Jessie?
Also, you hit the nail on the head when you said "That's just where the pieces fall when people ARE FREE to choose how to live of their own accord. " (the capitalization is for emphasis).
So what is your answer when a people or a person is not "Free" to chose how they live? Or, in your view, are they always Free?Maybe to social Darwinism. I can't claim that field of knowledge as my own. I may arrive there by accident through other schools of thought.
"So what is your answer when a people or a person is not "Free" to chose how they live? Or, in your view, are they always Free?"
I guess that depends on what we're talking about when we talk about constraints on freedom that we see today. Historically speaking, it seems like we've come a great distance in terms of what we're free to pursue.
I would say there is a low probability that many people in this world actively work toward more inequality. I would say there is a higher probability that intervention actually creates more deficits.
There's a term that medical professionals use called "iatrogenics" which is basically all the harm, disease, injury and pathology that comes from medical intervention. It's very common in hospitals. It's more common than most people even realize. Prescriptions and diagnosis are often just our doctors best guesses. So dilute that down to people who speak on equally complex things outside the purview of their own expertise and how that might affect voting and legislation.
Humans are terrible at making predictions and no country in history has ever managed to handle the problem of inequality without some sort of collateral damage.
I think those figures are slightly off but the gist of your message is accurate. The figures I've seen have Asians at ~104-5 and Ashkenazi Jews at 115, the latter having most of their disparity due to verbal intelligence.
Do you watch Jordan Peterson? He echoes a lot of what you say.Thanks for the correction on that.
I have actually. He's a powerful dude. So, technically I echo a lot of what he says because he's been at the forefront of this type of research for many years. He also happens to be one of the few people next to Murray with the cajones to speak the truth about these dark realities.At first I thought "Douglas Murray?" but then I remembered about the guy who wrote the book on the Bell curve in the first place. Doy.
The one time I heard Murray was on Sam Harris' podcast. He didn't seem like the monster that he was painted as. Seems to me people are either not understanding his points or are lying about it to feel better about themselves.Yep. I heard that podcast too.
Looks like we are both fans of Peterson and Harris. Some might find that strange because of their incompatibility. F*** it. I think they're both excellent thinkers.
And lol
I agree wholeheartedly. I don't understand why some people on YouTube or Twitter find it necessary to praise one and deride the other - they both have their insights and are valuable thinkers. I also get the impression that they're not *that* incompatible, but then again I haven't had the time or patience to sit through the two podcasts they did together (I heard they were a bit disjointed to listen to as they were kind of talking past one another).
And
that's great.Well, they can't seem to come to an agreement about "truth". But, I agree. What I know of Sam Harris doesn't invalidate anything Peterson has said (except for Harris's views on Religion) and vice versa.
An interesting statement this "The law of nature is a hierarchy". But which hierarchy? There are many.
The one hierarchy that is irrefutable is the hierarchy of the distribution of abilities, both mental and physical. That is the ONLY true "law of nature hierarchy". EVERY other hierarchy is artificial ... man made.
Wouldn't you agree?No. Many different organisms, simpler organisms, ancient organisms organize themselves according to a hierarchical structure. It's a metaphysical truth about how evolution itself is structured, much like a scaffolding that also works like a filtration system. Under the right conditions, a hierarchy is the most stable for social organisms to survive. Mess with it at your own peril.
There's no way to completely eradicate suffering and tragedy. Nature won't have none of that. It is hubristic to think otherwise.True, to a point. Ants, for example, are biologically, through millennia of evolution, organized into colonies with certain ants destined to do certain jobs, where each ant has a preordained place, all with the sole purpose of allowing the ant society to survive generation to generation. Yes, that is a natural hierarchy.
But the human example of that society would be that blacks are the worker ants, in America anyway, wealthy whites are the queens, regular people are the soldier ants, etc. Is that (or a similar hypothetical) the way you think human society is organized? I would seriously doubt that you do, but your statement "No. Many different organisms, simpler organisms, ancient organisms organize themselves according to a hierarchical structure" would seem to imply such a belief.
BTW, as with WIlderness, who is talking about "completely eradicating" anything? I certainly am not and it doesn't sound like Credence is either. All social liberals know you can't completely eradicate anything, but we also know you can try to make things better.
Hi Wilderness, I included this analogy, (not mine), to My Esoteric, but I think it goes along with your thought also.
"... The analogy I have always used is that liberalism is like a teenager behind the wheel of their first car. They drive fast because the point is to get where they want to go and safety is a small concern. Mainline conservatism is like the elderly driver who fears everything on the road and drives so slow that they actually cause more problems than they prevent. Progressive Conservatives are like the middle-aged dad in the minivan. They set the cruise control at five over the speed limit because it gets them a little faster, yet they drive responsibly and keep the family safe. "
I just need to think-up a driver that would fit your "unwilling" example.
GAWhat are the examples you have to back up this assertion - ""... The analogy I have always used is that liberalism is like a teenager behind the wheel of their first car. They drive fast because the point is to get where they want to go and safety is a small concern. "?
How do you conflate the very slow process of:
1. Ending slavery
2. Passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act
3. Passing the 1965 Voting Rights Act
4. Passing the 19th Amendment
to name just a few active state liberal accomplishments with driving fast cars? Curious minds want to know.Oh my, it wasn't my analogy, just one I felt covered the point in an understandable way. That you disagree with it doesn't invalidate it.
Does your "conflate" [sic] request want me to match drivers with your listed actions?
#1, obviously the middle-aged. dad. A teenager would have put it in the Constitution.
#2, #3, and #4 - well, considering the seeds for all were planted after the Civil War, with Constitutional Amendments, then took from 12 to 100 years to accomplish - I would say that was a family bonding between the middle-aged dad and the teenager. Dad drove most of the way, with the teenager asking, "Are we there yet?" Until dad finally changed seats when he knew the teenager could drive the rest of the way. ;-)
GA
Let me ask you, Wilderness, why do you use the term "eradicated"? If you think that is a liberal's, then you think wrong. Liberals understand clearly that almost nothing can be "eradicated". Liberals don't think all gun deaths can be prevented. Liberals don't think the playing field can be perfectly level.
So, why do you presume they do?Your argument, your term. "It isn't that they advocate it, but it is the reason not to eradicate such and similar institutions."
I had to search way back to find where I used that term. Just as I thought, you have, predictably, have taken it well Out Of Context. If you look back, the subject was SLAVERY and similar institutions. Now, in that particular and specific instance, "eradicate" is the right word and goal. You, improperly and unjustly applied it to Everything.
But then, as a conservative, you don't believe eradicating slavery is necessarily a good thing. Conservative theory clearly states that if that has been the tradition, it shouldn't be changed after all. (Which is why conservatives fought a Civil War over maintaining slavery.)"But then, as a conservative, you don't believe eradicating slavery is necessarily a good thing. Conservative theory clearly states that if that has been the tradition, it shouldn't be changed after all."
Such gross, insulting and false accusations are why discussions don't go well with you. There isn't much to be said to anyone actually believing such drivel, and less to say to someone that knows it isn't true and says it anyway.History (and Kirk) back up my view. True conservatives did their damnedest (and still do for that matter) to deny blacks and other minorities basic human rights.
Conservatives were dealt a serious blow with the 13, 14, 15, and 19th amendments. Until 1964, they were able to effectively neuter the 14th and 15th amendments. With the Rehnquist and Roberts' Courts, they have been slowing chipping away at the civil and voting rights granted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Careful reading of how Burke, Kirk, and Buckley Jr. define true conservatism makes it easy to understand why this is so.
If you actually believe yourself to be a true conservative, then you willing accept that albatross around your neck. The entire history of true conservationism from merry old England (Burke) to starting the American Civil War to Selma has been about conservatives trying to deny human rights.As I said, there isn't much to say to anyone with such a twisted, degrading and obnoxious opinion of those that don't agree with their own views
You may think, Wilderness, that this is opinion, but it is not. It is reality and well supported in the records of history. Are you trying to tell me slavery didn't exist in America?
Of course it is. Conservatives support the return of slavery - they all want to own a slave or 10. We know that, don't we?
Some probably do, but the point is, conservative philosophy ENABLES those who would want to do such a thing. That is quite a bit different from the red herring you just tossed out.
"True conservatives did their damnedest (and still do for that matter) to deny blacks and other minorities basic human rights. "
"But then, as a conservative, you don't believe eradicating slavery is necessarily a good thing."
I will repeat: this kind of obnoxious, offensive lie comes straight from hatred and a desire to denigrate anyone that isn't of a like mind. From an ego that does not recognize any concept that varies from it's own; that has decided that ego, and none other, shall determine right from wrong for everyone.It may be obnoxious and it may be offensive, but so is the institution of slavery. BUT, it is hardly a Lie. It is simple history which is very easy to affirm since there is 200 years of it to review.
Let's take one of the most famous conservative philosophers in America - John C. Calhoun (VP and Senator from SC). He was one of the most preeminent apologist for the institution of slavery in America up to that time (~1832). He wrote many essays which infamously promoted the idea that slavery, rather than being a "necessary evil" it is, in fact, a "positive good".
This idea of slavery being a "positive good" was fundamental argument for continuing slavery and was used by conservative politicians, lay people, and conservative religeous leaders from the time slavery was introduced to America to the late 1950s.
It is your heritage, WIlderness, whether you like it our not, and you need to own it or stop calling yourself conservative.Oh, I completely own that people of 500 years ago had a very different concept of morality than we do now.
Do you own making the statement that conservatives today have the same set of morals and ethics because they have a relatively conservative outlook on life and ethics (relative to modern liberals not those from long ago) even though it is far removed from that of people from centuries in the past? Do you own that statement even though it is as far from truth as a flat earth is?
That's as silly and stupid as saying that all liberals condone and promote sweat shops with child labor, that deny women the right to vote and approve and would repeat the genocide of Indians because liberals once did those things. Or that liberals promote and agree with religion controlling government because, at one time in the distant past, it was the "progressive" thing to do; the "right" change to make?And that is the point, isn't Wilderness, that was the view, using conservative principles, 500 years ago (let's see, that is 1518 isn't it), 200 years ago (1818), 50 years ago (1968), or today; conservative principals have not changed.
Calhoun used them, Jefferson Davis used them, the seven Justices who voted for Plessy v. Ferguson used it, conservative principals led to the need for Brown v. Board of Education, conservative principals led to Selma, conservative principals led to the need for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and conservative principals led to the plethora of conservative state roll back of voting rights in the 2000s. Need I go on?I take it then that you do NOT "own" your own statement that conservatives today wish a return of slavery. That they have the same moral code as was common hundreds of years ago, that they have shown no moral growth in that time. Put on a social network of sorts, you still won't own up to doing it.
And yet have the audacity to ask if I understand my "political ancestors" had convictions at odds with what you think is moral. Unbelievable.I don't have to "own" my statement that "that conservatives today wish a return of slavery." because I NEVER SAID IT, as you well know. Please provide the Entire quote where you mistakenly think I said that and you will see that you 1) took it out of contest, 2) changed the order of the wording to make it say what you want, and 3) added and omitted words to make it say what YOU want.
Please be honest, it will help the dialog immensely.
Now I DO own up to your paraphrase that "That they [conservatives] have the same moral code as was common hundreds of years ago, that they have shown no moral growth in that time." That is exactly what I believe.
I would also add that minimal state and active state liberals also have the same moral code as was common hundreds of years ago" as well. What does that imply? That human nature does not change over time."2) changed the order of the wording to make it say what you want"
Hard to do when it's a cut and paste, with no modification whatsoever, don't you think?
"That they [conservatives] have the same moral code as was common hundreds of years ago, that they have shown no moral growth in that time."
Then there is nothing more to "discuss", which is what I said before.So where did you "cut and paste" "your own statement that conservatives today wish a return of slavery. " from, since I never said it?
"There is a canyon between the desire of socialist attempts to MAKE everything equal (not quite true, but close enough), which is an aberration of egalitarianism (which is simply the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.)"
M.E., this comment you made in an earlier thread says it all for me and speaks to exactly where I stand. My problem with the conservative prospective is that I question their commitment to the idea that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.By bullet number 3, true conservatives don't believe all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Instead, as a matter of conservative principal, they believe just the opposite because they can't conceive of a world where there is more of it than there is now.
1. Agreed. What we have successfully implemented in our societies should remain intact as long as humanly possible. It's a miracle that I wake up to electricity and running water.
2. Agreed. Especially with the radical narrative being thrown around by left-wing media. The same old tired communist oppressed vs. oppressors, have's vs. have-nots arguments. Not once has this country ever swayed toward right-wing authoritarianism. And the latest accusation of Trump fitting that bill is a grossly inappropriate historical comparison.
3. Agreed. I answered that in your last thread. Diversity is a natural consequence of a free nation and cannot be forcibly implemented with any degree of success.
4. Agreed. Follows from the previous principle and our God-given sovereignty which gives rise to due process before the law. We are equal until we demonstrate that we cannot act equally in relationship to others.
If I interpreted this correctly, lol
I feel like I'm not as well read in this area as some of you.It seems like you folks, (Cred, Wilderness, Jessie), are talking about different things.
Didn't the thought start as Conservative's acceptance of a Human Right to Equal Opportunity? Not to equal acquisition of of that opportunity?
In Wilderness' example, there is nothing denying that Idiot the opportunity to apply to Yale, but the reality of their abilities does deny acceptance/acquisition of that opportunity. Isn't it only the Right of Opportunity that you are demanding Cred? I doubt you are denying that opportunity Wilderness. Your comments seem attributable to abilities not opportunities.
The same goes for Jessie's points, they pertain to abilities and acquisition - not opportunity. (as I read them)
I think you are right Cred. I think everyone should have equal opportunities, but that doesn't mean I agree with the extension of that thought to everyone should have equal acquisition. And I doubt that you are asking for that either.
I also think Wilderness is right; Conservatives, (in general, not Cred's Far-right bogyman conservatives), do accept the concept of those Human Rights that started this conversation.
As for Jessie... well, you did get sidetracked, but you're right just because you were channeling me. ;-)
Am I wrong thinking that you guys are arguing apples and oranges?
GAWhich part of the conversation? I'm known for my tangents but I'm doing my best. Lots being covered here.
And ability doesn't always equal acquisition. There are many people who squander their abilities or their abilities haven't been fostered properly.Hi Jessie, I think you got sidetracked by Wilderness' response to Credence2.
As I read the exchange, Credence2 refuted Wilderness' claim that Conservatives do also believe that everyone has the basic human Rights of; equality - in the nature of their humanity, and, opportunity - in the access to the opportunity to try to do something.
I think Wildeness' reply - concerning equality of abilities, (which I agreed with), is where the paths diverged.
Even as I agree with the truth and reality of your comments, (most of them anyway), I doubt that you don't also believe in the concept of everyone having the Right to those opportunities. Whether their abilities allowed then to take advantage of those opportunities, (your points), is a different matter.
As I understood the point, it was never about whether someone could achieve the success of the opportunity - just that they had a Right to try.
Your closing point is also still on the wrong track - even though it is a valid point. Whether abilities are squandered,. or not developed, is still beside the point of the Right to the availability of opportunity.
GAHmm. Okay I think I see what you mean. I jumped into the conversation because they happened to be touching on one dimension of human cognitive ability. I threw out some things to add to that because it's a bitter pill to swallow. If we can accept the differences in people, then we might able to have a conversation on how our society becomes stratified in such a way.
I do believe people have a right to try. That's how we actualize potential in people. If the point of my discussion leads people to believe that I don't believe in the right to opportunity then I apologize. That wasn't my intention. It's just a very dog eat dog game out there in the world and I wanted to emphasize that.
Help me get back on track, lol. I'm not opposed to constructive criticism.There was no criticism intended Jessie, just a thrown switching lever.
GA
Are you wrong? Yes and no.
There is a little trouble distinguishing between acquisition and opportunity, but consider that without the opportunity to attend you won't acquire that education. And that the entrance exam is only the start - there is still that massive tuition to consider. I daresay that a lot of kids can pass the exams, but only a tiny portion can attend. And truth be known I suspect that part of that is that the parents are not of the right social "stature" - that social standing is playing a part as well as finances.
And it goes further; a genius in the ghetto will not pass the exams although a year or two of intensive work could correct the deficiencies caused by ghetto schools. The opportunity to attend Yale is at least partially dependent on the opportunity for a solid lower class education.
So it's not just about equality of abilities. There are many more factors as well, and factors that cannot be (reasonably) overcome by government "help".I can't help but wonder why we would ever expect that Yale should be the target of everyone's educational future. If there are cases in which someone is blocked somehow by societal or economic circumstances, it might be helpful to look at what other options would be available to someone. Yale isn't the end all, be all. If we use that as a yardstick, then all we can see is the long list of rejects and the middle to upper-class admissions. It paints a very difficult picture to look at but its not the whole picture.
Sorry if I've missed the point again. Now I'm paranoid lol. I'm just trying to find evidence that opportunity is very much alive and well and I support the system that produces it.No, you haven't missed it, for that is the point. Not everyone that wants a thing can have it, and that's all right. The one kid can go to Yale and one can't is all right even if both have the abilities to use that education.
The question isn't in how to make everyone have the same opportunities; it is how far down that road we go. We try (and fail) to make the lower grades of school reasonable equal and, IMO, that's far enough. I'd like to see a little more equality there, but also recognize some of the problems - problems that start with the kids and their parents. But the liberals don't agree; all people must be totally equal in opportunities and that's something I just can't go along with.- "No, you haven't missed it, for that is the point. Not everyone that wants a thing can have it, and that's all right. The one kid can go to Yale and one can't is all right even if both have the abilities to use that education." But that is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
Assuming two people are equally capable of doing well in Yale, yet one can't get in because of external forces (the color of his skin, for example or the lack of a pedigree for another). A conservative (and minimal state liberals) don't see a problem with this and consequently don't want to do anything to fix the problem.
An active state liberal, on the other hand, would attempt to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of skin color or lack of pedigree. They would work toward having the admission process be based only on talent and drive.Skin color is actually what is getting more people accepted into universities now. Almost every university has an entire staff of diversity administrators to make sure that prejudice doesn't contaminate the admissions process. Great.
Strangely enough, men are bailing out of universities like crazy. Over 60 percent of part-time students now are female. That's great too except: why are men bailing out?
Where this becomes a problem is where white people (men) are considered racist by default simply because of their historical privilege. College kids are being told that the university is unsafe - full of racists and rapists - which is just patently false but it justifies hiking up tuition costs to pay for these "administrators".
Universities have always been the hub of diversity and free expression in this country but I'm afraid its swung too far into hypocrisy. Conservative commentators are completely shut down from speaking at almost every liberal university. I digress again. lolAt one point decades ago, but not today. Does diversity enter into the selection process, yes it does and so it should to counter the majority natural discriminatory tendencies.
I don't know of anybody who says white men are racist by default. For me I look to what the man (or anybody else) says and does before making that judgement. I think virtually all unprejudiced people do that. If you actually are prejudiced, then that biases your thinking from the get go.
And if the prejudiced person doesn't recognize that they are and try to overcome such thoughts, then the world is trouble."I don't know of anybody who says white men are racist by default"
Where have you been since 2015?Since when in recent history has it ever been okay to use this kind of language publicly? It's just the tip of the iceberg...
Skin color is actually what is getting more people accepted into universities now. Almost every university has an entire staff of diversity administrators to make sure that prejudice doesn't contaminate the admissions process. Great.
Strangely enough, men are bailing out of universities like crazy. Over 60 percent of part-time students now are female. That's great too except: why are men bailing out?
Why are the men bailing out, no one is forcing them to do so?
-----------------------------------------
Where this becomes a problem is where white people (men) are considered racist by default simply because of their historical privilege. College kids are being told that the university is unsafe - full of racists and rapists - which is just patently false but it justifies hiking up tuition costs to pay for these "administrators".
I don't agree with your assessment here.
-------------------------------------
Universities have always been the hub of diversity and free expression in this country but I'm afraid its swung too far into hypocrisy. Conservative commentators are completely shut down from speaking at almost every liberal university. I digress again. lol
I support freedom of speech and expression, conservative commentators should be free to speak and not be heckled. But, I do reserve the option to attend the engagement or not..Lol. I don't agree with your assessment of my assessment.
I think I understand the source of your second paragraph statement My Esoteric, but I think you are wrong applying it to Conservatives as a group. I would see someone that doesn't have a problem with your example as a bigot, or perhaps a couple other descriptors. That they are also a Conservative is secondary by my way of thinking.
So that leads to the question of whether Conservatives, in general, are usually bigots, (or worse). I can't make that connection. Even if I can understand how you can. Do you think all Christians are nuts because they are snake handlers?
GA
But regardless of the hurdles, the opportunity to try is there. Even if there is a 100% likelihood of failure, (due to whatever reason), the opportunity to try is there.
That is the point I thought the conversation took-off from. That is the Human Right being discussed.
As for being right and wrong, what if I substituted "success" for "acquisition?" (to connote the difference in my point of an opportunity to apply to Yale, and your mis-extrapolation to "attend" Yale). Still the same concept. We all should have the Right to try, but that does not include the Right to succeed.I like the purple man's logic. Can I join your club? lol
Thanks Jessie, but I was never one for clubs. The good ones wouldn't have me, and the ones that would didn't deserve me.
GA ;-)
Assume, for example, you have two runners running a race. One is free to run but the other had a ball and chain tied (illegally) to his or her ankle. The minimal state liberal or true conservative will simply say that's life, run the damn race (a superman might be able to win the race, but not a regular human who is, without the ball and chain faster than their opponent).
The active state liberal will ask what the hell is that illegal ball and chain doing on the runners leg and attempt to remove it before the race is run.
Now, if that ball-in-chain happens to be a natural deformity which will slow the runner down, then the liberal will also say, that life and run the damn race.I can't think of anything more heroic than running with a ball and chain. Winning or losing isn't the point. Willingly participating against all odds is noble.
I think you make a good point, though, when you say that conservatives are less likely to do something about the ball and chain if, in fact, something can be done about it. But I think a little healthy skepticism about what can be done is actually beneficial to our checks and balances of government intervention.
I haven't addressed your point about the bail and chain being "illegal". Perhaps you could elaborate.And now you are also switching tracks. From the original point of the Philosophical Egalitarianism concept of natural Human Rights, to the Social Egalitarianism concept of engineered Human Rights.
I think the former can be accepted without qualification, by Liberals and Conservatives, but the latter acceptable without qualifications only to Liberals. A Conservative might ask why that ball and chain were there before declaring an inequity.
GAI am not familiar with "Social Egalitarianism concept of engineered Human Rights". I do understand what egalitarianism is, but where does the "engineered" part come from?
I think its the difference between thinking freely without censure versus compelled adherence to certain philosophical assumptions. Just a guess.
By modern usage, egalitarianism has evolved into dual meanings. The original meaning was a philosophical one in which the equalities it defined were those of our humanity. In our humanity we are all created equal. Not equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes, but equal as members of a species. It also declared that that equality also gave us the natural equality of opportunity. All had the same Right to make an effort. An equal Right to opportunity with no predetermined discrimination.
The modern "evolved" meaning, Social egalitarianism, expands those original equalities to include the Right to equality of outcomes. Like the Yale example that was tossed around; philosophical egalitarianism declares that we all have an equal Right to apply to Yale, but Social egalitarianism now declares that we all have an equal Right to attend Yale.
The difference between "apply" and "attend" is where the ideology and engineering comes in. It seems fair to me to lay the creation of the Social definition at the feet of Liberal ideologies, and it is their use of government to create, (engineer), the path that leads to their definition of those original Rights.
As you have said, and as I contend Conservatives also agree, progress is an undeniable necessity. It is the path of that progress where we disagree. I believe a Conservative chooses the path of the original definition. Progress must be achieved by progress of our human nature. In steps that abide by all members of our culture. Sometimes in baby steps, sometimes by leaps, but at all times by measures that the whole culture can accept.
Conversely, the Social definition demands the Right to equal outcomes be recognized as a true Right, and that whatever steps needed to get there be taken now. A concept that seems only just to those of our culture that hold that belief, (Liberals), but a forced, and artificial concept to the rest of our culture, (Conservatives and non-Liberals).
Social vs. philosophical, one demands a Right of outcomes, the other declares a Right of opportunity.
But, I think you knew all that. I think you just wanted to know where I got the "engineered" from. And that was my contribution to the Social definition. The use of governmental actions, not supported by the progress of the whole of the culture, but forced by the creation of artificial, (relative to natural cultural developments), cultural changes.
GA--> "By modern usage, egalitarianism has evolved into dual meanings." - But has it really or have conservatives (in this case) decided to change the meaning to suit their argument. In my mind, that is no change at all, just a misuse of a concept that has a well understood and universal meaning.
-->" In our humanity we are all created equal. Not equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes, but equal as members of a species." - It is that belief that makes a conservative a conservative and defines the difference between conservatives and liberals. Can you find me a few liberal (not socialist) quotes that make you believe your statement is true?
Liberals absolutely believe what that most famous liberal, Thomas Jefferson (or John Locke, if you will) wrote about Life, Liberty, and Happiness. That concept is pure egalitarianism, isn't it?
Nowhere in liberal philosophy does it say liberals believe humans are "equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes"; that is a conservative faux argument not based on reality. Liberals only believe that each human being is equal throughout their lifetime, and have an inalienable right to equal human rights and opportunity (conservatives, as you said, do not believe that).
How do you square "As you have said, and as I contend Conservatives also agree, progress is an undeniable necessity." with the conservative's belief that "By proper attention to prudent reform (no leaps allowed), we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. " (which means that while conservatives do allow for minor change at the margins, the change can't be such that "this tolerable order", i.e, "some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk" is improved in any meaningful way.
Can you please site your source for the following as a liberal belief --> "Conversely, the Social definition demands the Right to equal outcomes be recognized as a true Right, " and "Social vs. philosophical, one demands a Right of outcomes, the other declares a Right of opportunity." -- It simply isn't true and therefore I still don't know where you get the idea that liberals engineer outcomes. It may be that you are conflating socialism (which has the same roots as conservatism in terms of state control) with liberalism - they simply are not the same thing.
Liberals believe strongly in the supremacy of the individual while socialists and conservatives believe just as strongly in the supremacy of the state. (It is the minimal state liberal who think that the state should exist but be as small as possible and only provide for security).You are really working me My Esoteric.
Understanding that my responses are coming from my perceptions, understandings, and ideas,. (their rightness is obviously a judgement call), about Liberal and Conservative positions, I will skip looking for supporting quotes, or arguing about whether Jefferson's "liberalism" of his times would qualify him as a Liberal - as considered today.
First, I should offer a re-measure of my description of the Rights Philosophical Egalitarianism embraced. As I reread my response, I was left with the impression that I excluded economic, social, and political equality from the Right of Equal Opportunity. That was not my intention.
My intention in claiming the dual Social Egalitarian definition was to separate the ideas of the original concept; ie. everyone should have the Right of Opportunity to apply to Yale, vs the Social concept that everyone has the Right of Opportunity to attend Yale.
I think that even within the original concept, proper actions to remove hurdles to achieving success of Opportunity are understood as the 'right thing to do.'
I understand this may be a poor, (or even inflammatory), example, but I believe the early intentions, (most, but not all), of Affirmative Action in our college admittance processes would fit the ideals of the Philosophical concept of Egalitarianism
On the other side, I believe the demands that standards be lowered, (ie. academic or military scores), to give under-represented groups, (yes, I believe this also includes under-achievers), an equal Right of success of Opportunity, is most definitely an over-reach of the original concept. Demanding or defending this action as part of the Human Rights that are Egalitarianism can only be justified using the modern Social interpretation.
I believe a Conservative - in general, would accept the first example, (grudgingly), but only a Liberal would accept the latter one. As such, I still say the "universal meaning" you claim, is not universal at all. I think it is very much defined by ideology, hence the determination of a dual meaning. Although I'm not offering supportive links, you can easily find credible perspectives that agree with a modern "dual" definition/understanding of the concept.
The difference may just be a matter of degrees, but there is still enough difference to affect the understanding of what those basic Rights include. As a note, I do not think "Life, Liberty, and Happiness" is a Liberal concept. I do agree it symbolizes the concept of Egalitarianism, but I believe it is so "universally" accepted as to be a foundation, rather than an owned construct. So you need a different tact for its use as a support of your position.
Although I haven't addressed your contentions and questions by bullet point, I do think most are covered in the general text of this response.
Except... I will cherry-pick one to answer. You said "Nowhere in liberal philosophy does it say liberals believe humans are "equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes" It wasn't Conservatives that demanded a lowering of physical requirements to qualify for combat duty - so women could pass those combat-ready qualification tests. And I don't think subjugating the reality of physical differences and abilities to the egalitarian concept of equal opportunity is a valid understanding of the original concept. But it does seem a legitimate understanding of the social interpretation of the concept.
As for Liberals believing in the supremacy of the individual, I am skeptical. I think Liberals may believe strongly in the supreme value of equality for the individual, but it is a supremacy of government that is their strongest belief.
GA
GA, I think that is the argument. Based on their stated principals conservatives do not believe in a "Human Right to Equal Opportunity?" They recognize that, while someone is alive, nature (God's nature btw) doesn't allow for that ... so why even try to make it better (another principal says "don't try - I'll put that one up next). That is what makes liberals (whether active of minimal state) different, they want to at least try to make things better.
This has been the funnest and most thought-provoking thread I've taken part in. I appreciate everyone's contributions.
Just stumbled across more information about Social Darwinism in my studies. It appears to be closely associated with Eugenics. I'm not on board with that. But nice try walking me into a racist trap.
Supplemental:
"As Darwinian thought took hold in the late nineteenth century, notions of “survival of the fittest” often led to the incorrect assumption that it is a “dog-eat-dog world” in which it is “every man for himself.” Such an assumption is not implied by evolution, and it is not what Darwin proposed. Rather, it is clear that in complex species like primates, what evolves is a capacity for certain types of behavior in certain situations; but whether the behavior will occur depends on learning, and patterns of learning are shaped by culture (socially transmitted expectations and knowledge).
In many nonhuman primates, certainly in chimps and apes, knowledge and habits are acquired from others. Many animals have communication and social organizational “societies.” For example, chimpanzees learn from others to wash bananas in jungle streams (de Waal, 2001a). So, we will never find a simple gene that leads directly to someone’s being aggressive or cooperative. Rather, individuals vary in their capacities for a variety of tendencies, and which ones will be realized depends on the multiplicity of interacting forces that we describe in this book. Ironically, many times in the twentieth century, people made the mistake of thinking not only that the “fittest” individual is the one who can out-reproduce all others, but they assumed (wrongly) that the fittest culture is the one that can conquer all others. Biological issues in personality psychology should be examined in terms of how they are being interpreted for purposes of public policy."
Friedman, H. S., Schustack, M. W. (2013). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research, Vitalsource for Kaplan University, 5th Edition. [Purdue University Global Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://purdueuniversityglobal.vitalsou … 269309431/"Ironically, many times in the twentieth century, people made the mistake of thinking not only that the “fittest” individual is the one who can out-reproduce all others"
I'm confused by that statement - I've always understood fitness to be a measure of reproductive ability in some form or another. The definitions on Dictionary.com and Wiki seem to support that:
Herbert Spencer's well-known phrase "survival of the fittest" should be interpreted as: "Survival of the form (phenotypic or genotypic) that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology.
the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
There's more nuance than just "out-reproducing all others," but the crux of that statement is accurate IMO.It's either a discrepancy among the entire scientific community or the author of my textbook has a strange bias of his own. Perhaps he's been dominated a time or two haha. My point was that evolution is better to be thought about in broader terms.
The former wouldn't surprise me though. Most people in the scientific community still believe that depression is starkly a neurochemical problem but there's hardly any evidence to support this nor is there any evidence that anti-depressants are good at what they're supposed to do. There's actually more evidence to the contrary. So, even among the best and brightest exist the most erroneous assumptions.
We might just be seeing a quibble among the biological/evolutionary intelligentsia."Social Darwinism" is just an adaptation of Darwin's theory of evolution (not so much a theory anymore), the so-called "survival of the fittest". It is a metaphor, not an analogy. It encapsulates the idea of minimal state liberals "you are on your own", "don't look to others (especially government) for help", "all men ARE an island (another metaphor)", "life sucks, deal with it", "if you get a raw deal, be a superman and overcome it on your own."
It should be noted that this worldview is unique to minimal state liberals. Neither, socialist, active state liberals, nor conservatives (at least I can't find it in their 10 Principals) believe this.
Related Discussions
- 67
Why do people have to fight for equality?
by mintinfo 10 years ago
Why do people have to fight for equality?v
- 64
Scientific American: succinct difference between Right and Left
by Credence2 4 months ago
The Scientific American article is not terribly long but...But it reinforces for me why I am on the correct side.But I hear that conservatives distrust higher education and scholarship. What is the palatable replacement for them? I would hazard to guess. So here are some excerpts for those without...
- 141
Is Western Conservatism Founded on Religion Rather Than Reason?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
In researching my new book "Conservatism in America: Theory and Reality" I ran across this comment by Russell Kirk about the father of conservatism - Edmund Burke. It says:"Revelation, reason, and assurance beyond the senses tell that the Author of our being exists, and that He...
- 35
What is Conservatism? What is Liberalism? An Experiment
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Having taken 10 years to publish my first book, "A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics" (Authorhouse, 2019), I am starting on a second whose working title is "Conservatism in America: History and Impact". This will be a Hub as well.One...
- 13
Is conservatism founded in Old Testament thought and liberalism in New Testament
by Tim Mitchell 7 years ago
Is conservatism founded in Old Testament thought and liberalism in New Testament?One line of thought says the Old Testament is morality focused while the New Testament is compassion. A study conducted stated from their findings, "Liberal Christians tend to believe that Jesus is more...
- 184
The End of Liberalism
by Alexander A. Villarasa 10 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism and Progressivism. Quite a leap this idea of Krauthammer's , liberals have...