Is conservatism selfishness?

[joko104]

Most democrats, fascists, socialists and progressives are science deniers of THE core of the entire history of every species to ever live on this planet - and it is this: LIFE IS NOT FAIR. LIFE IS A COMPETITION.

All of life, from the lowest organism to humans - across the hundreds of millions and billions of years is the history of competition. Evolution itself is a product of this competition. ALL life competes. Plants compete for space and light - and aggressively against other plants. No life form on earth is not in competition with other life, nor is life fair to any species either.

Most Democrats, socialists, fascists and progressives deny that reality of life. Thus, they they tend to be sobbing, ranting, whining losers, raging they will make life fair by theft, by eliminating competition, and by financially rewarding bad behavior, laziness and irresponsibility. Such systems always fail - usually in mass starvation, murderous revolution, and/or mass atrocities and genocides - because it is 100% contrary to the most core reality of life on this planet as it has always been from the start.

 

[Renae]

Build any road or bridges by yourself lately?

You are being obtuse and absurd.

 

[Mr Person]

In general, yes.

"I've got mine and if someone else doesn't have theirs, it's their moral fault. So don't ask me to help them" is a common theme. That's why they called certain benefits "entitlements" and why they always want to slash them, acting as if "charity will cover it" is an acceptable answer.

The other common theme is: no societal change! If we treated gay people like second-class citizens (or worse) at the founding, they should always have that treatment from government, and so letting them get married is an abomination. This often goes hand in hand with fundamental dishonesty, such as that of those pushing the notion that the founders only meant with the establishment clause that the federal government cannot sanction one church over all other.

Simply put, it's "do not force me to help anyone else" combined with "I don't want to re-examine prejudices I may or may not have, so let's just pretend we were right 100 years ago" combined with the internal confusion of saying that while trying to decry things like segregation, slavery, and women not being allowed to vote. It's pretty much an "I know it when I see it" approach to preserving so-called tradition.



Fiscal conservatism maybe plays some role but I have trouble believing most conservatives believe in it, truly. We're running 1,000,000,000,000 a year deficits thanks to Bush and Trump's tax cuts. A true fiscal conservative should want us to pay for what we spend, then talk about spending. Instead, they are perfectly happy voting for people who cut revenue and do nothing about spending, even increase it as Trump did with +10% to the military's already bloated budget.

They cannot possibly mean what they claim to mean as a principle when they vote for that. That, or they mean it but it's just not that important of a principle. Maybe stopping gays from marrying is more important, I dunno. Don't care either.

And the worst bit? The decades of tax cut swill has now got the Democrats pitching new tax cuts/credits that will only increase the deficit more. Because they are Democrats, that deficit-spending will be bad, and the fiscal conservative deficit spending will still be fine, because reasons and no they won't explain them.




We're done. We've been done for a while. We'll totter on for quite a long time, but this all failed. Ride it out. :shrug:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Most democrats, fascists, socialists and progressives are science deniers of THE core of the entire history of every species to ever live on this planet - and it is this: LIFE IS NOT FAIR. LIFE IS A COMPETITION.
All of life, from the lowest organism to humans - across the hundreds of millions and billions of years is the history of competition. Evolution itself is a product of this competition. ALL life competes. Plants compete for space and light - and aggressively against other plants. No life form on earth is not in competition with other life, nor is life fair to any species either.
Most Democrats, socialists, fascists and progressives deny that reality of life. Thus, they they tend to be sobbing, ranting, whining losers, raging they will make life fair by theft, by eliminating competition, and by financially rewarding bad behavior, laziness and
irresponsibility. Such systems always fail - usually in mass starvation, murderous revolution, and/or mass atrocities and genocides - because it is 100% contrary to the most core reality of life on this planet as it has always been from the start.

Humans (and other social critters) out-compete their competition by cooperating amongst themselves to great advantage.
Wars are won when soldiers work for the good of their unit who work for the good of the country.
Cooperative team mates will win against a team of show-boats.

This information is not an endorsement of w/e you are railing against.
Just information.

 

[Harshaw]

Is conservative ideology selfish? It seems to be based on self-reliance and the freedom of the individual. Collective cooperation is seen as something to be feared and avoided.

A lot of conservatives like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul (named after her) love Ayn Rand. But her philosophy is that "selfishness is a virtue." So, at its heart is conservatism a selfish ideology?





US Republican leaders love Ayn Rand’s controversial philosophy—and are increasingly misinterpreting it

more Ayn Rand...

There's a difference between moral philosophy and political philosophy.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a moral philosophy, not a political one.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a moral one.

Objectivism, being a personal moral philosophy, can exist under any political philosophy, because it's about the relationship between man and man, not man and state.

Libertarians can adopt whatever personal moral philosophy they wish and still be consistent libertarians, because libertarianism is about the relationship between man and state, not man and man.

Libertarian =/= Objectivist, or Randian. Libertarians can be Objectivists, but they need not be. Libertarians can be small-c communists as long their commune is voluntary and they don't try to force anyone to join who doesn't want to. Libertarians can (and often do) recognize moral responsibility while opposing the legal requirement of living up to that responsibility.

If your definition of "selfish" is opposition to enacting moral responsibility into law and thereby forcing people to be behave "generously," then you could say libertarianism is selfish. But it's not a good definition.

Libertarians, of course, are not conservatives. Conservatives are comfortable with enacting their morality into law and forcing people to live according to it. But then, so are "progressives."

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Build any road or bridges by yourself lately?

Or protect any international shipping lanes, lately?

 

[ataraxia]

Most democrats, fascists, socialists and progressives are science deniers of THE core of the entire history of every species to ever live on this planet - and it is this: LIFE IS NOT FAIR. LIFE IS A COMPETITION.

All of life, from the lowest organism to humans - across the hundreds of millions and billions of years is the history of competition. Evolution itself is a product of this competition. ALL life competes. Plants compete for space and light - and aggressively against other plants. No life form on earth is not in competition with other life, nor is life fair to any species either.
.

Well, actually that's how it was for us humans before the dawn of civilization. There sure was a lot of freedom- but it was the freedom of the jungle and Darwinism. The strong survived and thrived, and the weak got eaten for lunch. Concepts such as law, fairness, and justice, enforced by rule of law did not exist.

But we weren't doing so hot back then. Most people consider civilization and systems of enforceable law, order, and justice, a positive development in human evolution. Do you prefer the freedom of the jungle?

 

[ataraxia]

Or protect any international shipping lanes, lately?

How about national defense systems against N. Korean nukes?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well, actually that's how it was for us humans before the dawn of civilization. There sure was a lot of freedom- but it was the freedom of the jungle and Darwinism. The strong survived and thrived, and the weak got eaten for lunch. Concepts such as law, fairness, and justice, enforced by rule of law did not exist.

I highly suspect that this information is ahistorical.

We're a cooperative social species who developed from previous cooperative social species.

We've looked out for our own since time immemorial.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

How about national defense systems against N. Korean nukes?

There is a HUGE unitemized list of benefits we receive from the efforts of our country which is often forgotten.

 

[ataraxia]

I highly suspect that this information is ahistorical.

We're a cooperative social species who developed from previous cooperative social species.

We've looked out for our own since time immemorial.

Not all of us. We have always had our share of thieves and psychopaths, thugs and gangs. We are not all demons, but we are certainly not all angels, either. And so we have needed formal systems and safety nets to deal with them.

The wild west was wild because there were very few laws, and very little formal law enforcement. So sure we are a social species and tried to "look out for our own". It can be a royal mess otherwise. So the best we could do then was vigilante justice. That didn't work out so hot either.

 

[akyron]

Is conservative ideology selfish? It seems to be based on self-reliance and the freedom of the individual. Collective cooperation is seen as something to be feared and avoided.

A lot of conservatives like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul (named after her) love Ayn Rand. But her philosophy is that "selfishness is a virtue." So, at its heart is conservatism a selfish ideology?





US Republican leaders love Ayn Rand’s controversial philosophy—and are increasingly misinterpreting it

more Ayn Rand...

But Ryan delivered on none of this. Instead he passed a health-care bill that lobbyists crafted and Trump was lukewarm on. He fought to preserve a tax loophole for Wall Street that Trump "tried more than two dozen times" to get rid of. He also failed to pass any meaningful immigration reform. On the contrary, according to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Ryan refused to lobby for the Goodlatte immigration bill, which would have built a border wall, enacted E-Verify procedures, and offered DREAMERS a path to citizenship. It failed to pass the House after nearly 20 Ryan loyalists voted against it.

And throughout it all, Ryan governed like deficits didn't matter: The deficit has ballooned, and is projected to hit $1 trillion in the next year.

Ryan failed Republicans of all stripes, and his House tenure is ending on a disastrous note: Democrats saw their biggest gains in the House in a generation in the 2018 midterms. This isn't the first time running on Ryan's agenda has cost Republicans dearly: It happened in 2011 special elections after Ryan introduced his Medicare reforms, and of course, Romney lost the 2012 presidential election with Ryan as his running mate.

[video]https://theweek.com/articles/808059/good-riddance-paul-ryan[/video]

Right now you don't seem properly conversant enough on conservatism to comment with any clarity.

You seem to propose that Paul Ryan was conservative. This would be incorrect in many cases.

You also missed the most important part of the quote you are relying upon.....From your own link.

"He identified with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment.

When I pointed out that The Fountainhead is in a way about the tyranny of groupthink, Trump sat up and said, “That’s what is happening here.”"

 

[sangha]

The price of freedom is self reliance.

Says the guy who works for the government

https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...t-interference-government.html#post1061491392

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Yes, conservatism tends to oppose much or most social spending or programs for the poor. In some cases perhaps this is a reaction of selfish individuals. Ideologically however conservatism opposes most of that because a) it is not Constitutionally authorized the fedgov to spend from the treasury for charity, and b) there's that concern, a legitimate concern, that too much of that leads to Socialism and all the ills that tends to bring.

If it's constitutional for the federal government to spend on education, why isn't it constitutional to spend money on health care? Making sure you have an educated and healthy population is not charity? Is the CDC a charity? No, it exists to protect the health of members of society. The health of citizens is a national security concern.

Conservatism is impossible to define. Let me define a conservative as someone who is ideologically opposed to welfare and universal healthcare. This does not include those who think it's a good ideal but it's impractical.

I'm trying to get to the heart of the conservative mentality.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

You also missed the most important part of the quote you are relying upon.....From your own link.

"He identified with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment.

When I pointed out that The Fountainhead is in a way about the tyranny of groupthink, Trump sat up and said, “That’s what is happening here.”"

I'm not sure what you mean. Howard Roark is a selfish nutcase. Yes, he designed the building but he didn't fund it or construct it. It was actually a collective effort to build the structure. He destroys it for his own selfish reasons.

Just because Ryan is not your ideal conservative doesn't mean he's not considered a conservative. I'll stipulate conservative as someone who is ideologically opposed to welfare or universal healthcare or other social safety nets.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Universal health care is still a topic that divides people into conservative and liberal distinctions.

Ultimately, the question boils down to how much you care about the health of poor people.

Selfishness and altruism are both aspects of human nature. It makes sense that they would manifest themselves in politics. Of course, neither pure selfishness or pure altruism are ideal. There is some balancing that is needed. Conservatism is a force towards selfishness and liberalism is a force towards altruism.

Sort of, but not really.

Universal Healthcare is still a topic that divides people into who is making decisions, and both sides are intentionally misrepresenting who those people are and what drives them to make the choices that they do. What is not happening no matter the model is the patient making all the choices no matter where the system falls in terms of any healthcare model we have tried over the past 40+ years (if not longer.)

How much anyone cares about the healthcare of poor people is an emotional argument, who is ultimately responsible for the cost of healthcare for poor people is a political discussion. But we are still stuck with the same problem of who is really making choices and in either case it is not poor people, nor is it you or I.

Agreed that selfishness and altruism are aspects of human nature, just as anything that speaks to motivations. Evolution into ideology though means viewing these issues like healthcare within the confines of expectation from governance regardless of the level of governance to ensure a means to an ends.

What you are failing to understand is conservatism is not entirely a force towards selfishness and liberalism is not a force towards altruism. Being pragmatic about exclusively government ran healthcare does not necessarily mean selfishness, and being opportunistic about saying someone else with wealth should pay for something for someone else is not about altruism either. Both can be about how much governance is needed to ensure a means to an end but at no time is liberalism entirely about selflessness. Liberalism, especially in the modern context, is not about each liberal giving more of themselves or their wealth to someone else near as much as it is about telling others what they should give to governance for someone else. That is not generosity, that is using the power of governance via a vote that someone else should be picking up the tab.

But the same thing I said before is still true, neither modern "conservatism" or modern "liberalism" is about the difference between individualism and collectivism. It is an outright lie to suggest it is that simple, but it is very accurate to say both modern front running ideologies is about where governance can be used to ensure an ends. The only difference is who benefits at someone else's expense, so spare us the bull**** that modern liberalism is about altruism and modern conservatism is about selfishness. They are both about the confines of power to achieve their wants at someone else's expense via force of that governance.

Selfishness or generosity accusations are bumper sticker thinking used to obtain a vote, completely absent reality. And you know that.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Liberalism, especially in the modern context, is not about each liberal giving more of themselves or their wealth to someone else near as much as it is about telling others what they should give to governance for someone else. That is not generosity, that is using the power of governance via a vote that someone else should be picking up the tab.

I disagree. Surely, you don't believe all liberals are poor people who want richer people to contribute more? Liberals tend to live in urban areas where wealth is concentrated. Plenty of wealthy liberals who don't mind contributing more for a better society. I believe in universal healthcare but I'm probably better off with the current system since I have great insurance from my employer.

What about all those wealthy celebrities? Why would they vote for people who want to raise their taxes?

Both can be about how much governance is needed to ensure a means to an end but at no time is liberalism entirely about selflessness.

I'm not arguing that conservatism is purely selfish. I'm arguing that its core motivation is selfishness. It's "what is best for me" vs "what is best for us." So it's not two different ideas about how to achieve the same ends. For the conservative, the end is their own personal happiness. For the liberal, the end is a happy society.

 

[joko104]

I was probably poorer at first than anyone on this forum. I am not poor now. None of it came for free. I worked my ass of. I had some luck. I saw life then - and now - as a competition. Fairness irrelevant. Excuses are worthless. So are the emotions of fear and hate. To approach life tactically, as skillfully as possible, and develop those skills as much as possible.

We instill this in our children. Teach them that life is a competition, force them to learn the skill sets, systematically build a diverse and usable resume', develop correct instincts, maximize their ability to mentally focus on goals and specifics, to calculate and when appropriate manipulate others and to acquire as much knowledge as possible to win the competitions of life. While this skill set and abilities are as diversely across the board as possible, #1 on the list is inter-personal relationships - personal, academic, social and professional. As a result, they blow past others in life to the extreme.

The goal isn't great wealth unless that were to be the goal. The goal is for them to have each their life to be as much as possible that they each want it to be for themselves - now and in the future. But as adults. As children, their tasks, duties, what they are required of each, and our parental obligation and duty, is to supervise as authoritarians their evolutionary development towards becoming such as an adult.

Then? The summer after their senior high school year? They are on their own. Sink or swim. Make their own adult life and future such as each do. We will not enable failure. But they are already so far ahead of the pack that isn't even a prospect. Rather, it is only what goals each will pursue and obtain - with the ability to do so.

 

[joko104]

I disagree. Surely, you don't believe all liberals are poor people who want richer people to contribute more? Liberals tend to live in urban areas where wealth is concentrated. Plenty of wealthy liberals who don't mind contributing more for a better society. I believe in universal healthcare but I'm probably better off with the current system since I have great insurance from my employer.

What about all those wealthy celebrities? Why would they vote for people who want to raise their taxes?



I'm not arguing that conservatism is purely selfish. I'm arguing that its core motivation is selfishness. It's "what is best for me" vs "what is best for us." So it's not two different ideas about how to achieve the same ends. For the conservative, the end is their own personal happiness. For the liberal, the end is a happy society.

The hive mentality. There are no individuals. All serve the hive. Curiously - and a total contradiction - despise the concept of a "society," which is another word for "nationalism,' which they declare is evil. There is no rationality in their ideals because they are not their ideals. They are the ideals of those who want all the power and wealth for themselves, promising to share it - which they will never do.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Teach them that life is a competition

Life is not a competition.

I'm curious, what do you think you win? And if it is a competition then most people have to be losers. That's the nature of competitions.

 

[joko104]

Humans (and other social critters) out-compete their competition by cooperating amongst themselves to great advantage.
Wars are won when soldiers work for the good of their unit who work for the good of the country.
Cooperative team mates will win against a team of show-boats.

This information is not an endorsement of w/e you are railing against.
Just information.

There are sheep and there are leaders. If all are sheep, nothing is accomplished. The question is not everyone equally at the bottom. Equality is an illusion, a lie, it doesn't exist. Nor can it be artificially created. Only fools believe it can.

Nothing I wrote is in opposition to cooperation. Rather, it is cooperation to what end, who decides to what end and who leads the cooperative effort. Team effort often is a disaster and decisions by committees just snag up on drivel. It is those who separate from the hive mentality that accomplish great things, not only for themselves but for others.

What is the measure to you of a successful life? Being more like everyone else than anyone else? To live a "cooperative life?" Some people want more than that. We teach our children they can obtain much, much more than that. I do not despise the ordinary person, the "low education" person, and certainly not the blue collar worker. They are an essential need of a society. They should have full equal legal rights and society needs to make their lives viable with reasonable comfort. In fact, the Democratic Party turning against blue collar workers in favor of foreign child labor sweatshop imports and mass cheap labor immigration is why I first turned against the Democratic party as a union steward in a packinghouse.

But we are not talking about "cooperation" on this thread. The topic is stealing money from the haves to give it to the have nots. That is the topic. Whether a person pursuing success and believing what they thus obtain is "greedy?" Nothing about "cooperation."

 

[joko104]

Life is not a competition.

I'm curious, what do you think you win? And if it is a competition then most people have to be losers. That's the nature of competitions.

The goal is to obtain as much of what you want in life, whatever that is, best you can now and in the future for you and your own - family, nuclear circle and then community and country. Democrats reject competition - certainly for our nation as a society. They want to erase the USA as a competitive country and society, a foolishness no other country shares - other than some other white liberal countries who decided to hate themselves.

 

[Nickyjo]

The price of freedom is self reliance. The price of being provided for is lose of freedom.

All mass murders, all wars, all genocides have been motivated by the "government" setting out to steal other people's gold. The sole purpose of the Spanish in the Americans, for which they engaged in true total genocide (100% of every person in the Caribbean for example) and levels of enslavement, atrocities and mass murder on an industrial scale was singular - to steal their gold.

Socialism is about government stealing people's gold (money) to give it to others who did not earn it or work for it. It is theft, that simple, at least when it comes to social programs. The US government - as I write this - is stealing people's money - EVERYONE'S money by inflation if not by taxes - to give it to non-American invaders, bums, alcoholics, drug addicts, and families who generation to generation have lived solely upon the government stealing other people's money for them.

And as the number of people relying upon the government being their thieves has grown into tens of millions (over 100 million), their political voices how scream the government should steal from others for everything they want - free everything.

Declaring what is mine is mine is not greed. It simply means what is mine is mine. No, you can not steal my car, my wallet, or my furniture. No, you can not steal money out of my bank account or by credit card fraud. Running to the polls to demand the government steal what is mine (and thus my family's) is no less of theft by thieves in my opinion. Thus, I see social socialists as nothing but rotten, slimy little thieves.

Am I charitable? Yes I am. Probably more than just about anyone on this forum because I can afford to be. Charitable to people. Charitable to animals. But I am not charitable to bums, alcoholics, druggies, or lazy asses. I won't give a dime to someone who demands it.

The concept of "charity" to most Democrats and progressives is not that THEY are charitable. Rather, they want to steal other people's money - and then claim it is their charity. Never as before, the core of the Democratic Party now is which of them more promises to be thieves.

And in what universe is that notion honored? Starting with anti-trust legislation 100 years ago through the ACA, the US and just about all the countries of the world have decided that capitalism isn’t perfect. You make what you make in a social context. I for one, am happy with the slavery of Social Security and Medicare, with government regulations that protected me from injury when I worked in a steel plant, with regulations on pesticides that keep my food safe. Thank you for doing your part.

My parents worked in defense plants during WWII, but when dad was laid off after V-J day with mom eight months pregnant, they had to depend on the government. Obvious freeloaders stealing other people’s gold. Wrong. Your money is not yours alone, as long as I pay cops to keep others from stealing it.

True, as the saying goes, both rich and poor are equally entitled to sleep under bridges. And I imagine (as you suggest) that you toss more coins than average at beggars as your carriage rumbles past. But really, wake up and smell your own subsidies.

 

[ataraxia]

How about a different paradigm: nearsightedness vs prudence?

I see conservatives as nearsighted. As long as their own short term self interests are protected, they don’t worry about long term consequences. Rising disparities in wealth? Hey, what’s wrong with that? Don’t talk to them about social instability, lack of long term growth, etc.... Damaged environments due to climate change resulting from shortsighted greed? So what? As long as I do well for now, who cares? That’s tomorrow’s problem. We’ll worry about it if and when it happens. Bans on other people based on religion or ethnicity? Hey, the tables couldn’t be reversed on me in the future if my ethnicity or religion end up in the minority, could they?

It doesn’t seem conservatives really think this stuff through. Everything is just near term interests, two inches in front of their nose.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Is conservative ideology selfish? It seems to be based on self-reliance and the freedom of the individual. Collective cooperation is seen as something to be feared and avoided.

A lot of conservatives like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul (named after her) love Ayn Rand. But her philosophy is that "selfishness is a virtue." So, at its heart is conservatism a selfish ideology?





US Republican leaders love Ayn Rand’s controversial philosophy—and are increasingly misinterpreting it

more Ayn Rand...

no taking things from people who worked hard to give it to people who didn't is selfish.