Saturday, May 05, 2012

The Short Take on Conservatism

Found over at Stacy's place:

Michael Oakeshott hit the nail on the head when he said: “To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

Short, (and a touch insufficient), but accurate.

22 comments:

Jim said...

Hard to argue with this one (except the "fact to mystery" part).

Deekaman said...

I disagree with a good bit of it. Familiar to unknown? Tried to untried? Actual to possible?

No, Conservatives don't prefer any of those either way. What Conservatives prefer is the common sense of not doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. The socialists continue to try their orthodoxy over and over and over, knowing it has never worked anywhere it has been tried, yet they continue the course. Capitalism, on the other hand, when governed rather than ruled has been successful, beyond anyone's wildest dreams. The failures of capitalism are not the failures of the system, but rather the failure of a Big Government attempting to save Capitalism from itself.

Jim said...

The socialists continue to try their orthodoxy

What do socialists have to do with anything?

Capitalism, on the other hand, when governed rather than ruled has been successful

See September 2008.

Deekaman said...

September 2008 is exactly my point. Big Government, since at least Clinton, and maybe back as far as Carter (and I include GOP-types in this mess for not fixing it) set the stage for September 2008 by trying to "fix" all the perceived "ills" of Capitalism thereby creating a crony capitalism in which government picks winners a losers. Smaller federal government, less opportunity for corruption. Exactly how has government protected us from the evil corporations? Really.

Deekaman said...

"and losers"

Jim said...

So repealing Glass-Steagall was trying to "fix" all the perceived ills of Capitalism?

Exactly how has government protected us from the evil corporations?

EPA, FDA. Financial Services consumers might be better protected if the Republicans would allow the administration to fill the position of leader of the Consumer Protection Bureau.

Or do you want to return to those golden days of the turn of the 20th century?

Deekaman said...

Yes. I'd rather have my Liberty and self-determination than 15 trillion in debt and a Big Government that owns me. I'll take my chances with the evil corporations. Hundreds of millions killed by their own governments over the last 100 years and how many killed by the "evil corporations"?

Deekaman said...

Since it's "either-or" for you. I'm pretty sure there's something better thanall or none, but that's the way you Lefties always phrase it, so I'll take none for $1000 Alex.

Jim said...

how many killed by the "evil corporations"?

Hmmm, ask the citizens of Bhopal.

Hundreds of millions killed by their own governments over the last 100 years

In the US?

my Liberty and self-determination

Is this about the light bulb thing? What other liberties have been taken from you?

I'm pretty sure there's something better than all or none

I agree. But I don't think we are anywhere near "all". I guess you do.

Deekaman said...

If you are going there, Bhopal is not in the US. If you want to go with Bhopal, then you have to go with governments worldwide.

Yes, we are near "all". Do you think there should be more? Once the government starts requiring us to buy "stuff" just because we exist, I suggest we are at "all".

Dad29 said...

Familiar to unknown? Tried to untried? Actual to possible?

Actually, your exchange with Jim is precisely about these, and your preference is for the 'tried', 'familiar,' and 'actual' (limited) capitalism we have in the US.

Not for the "possible" Nirvana of the Socialismos, which hasn't arrived yet regardless of the 1965 beginning of the "War on Poverty."

Terrence Berres said...

I'm not seeing how the answer to the catechism question "Why did God make us?" is consistent with a disposition "to prefer ... present laughter to utopian bliss."

Jim said...

If you are going there, Bhopal is not in the US.

Really? So what government was this:

"Hundreds of millions killed by their own governments over the last 100 years."

Once the government starts requiring us to buy "stuff" just because we exist.

Do you pay payroll taxes?

Deekaman said...

Really Jim? You just think that because it's the Leftists in the US that they'll just be benevolent because....? At no time in human history, when a government has become big and powerful enough has it failed to oppress its own people. What makes you think an all-powerful US government will be any different? It has already started. You can deny it all you wish. That the term "hate crime" even exists is evidence. The Trayvon Martin case is evidence. NDAA is evidence. The Patriot Act is evidence. EPA regulations that allow them to take property without due process is evidence. IRS laws that make you guilty until proven innocent is evidence (clearly you have never been audited). What more do you need?

And WTF are you talking about with payroll taxes? I'm taxed to pay for other people, but I do not have to purchase anything.

Deekaman said...

"Hundreds of millions killed by their own governments"

Mao-45 million murdered in The Great Leap Forward. Some indicate a total of 77 million during his regime.

Stalin - At least 20 million

Pol Pot - Over 2 million

Hitler - 6 million Jews and a total upward of 12 million

Start throwing in the likes of Castro, Che, Ho, Kim and various African dictators, and the number climbs even more.

Jim said...

Decide. Are you talking about America or something else? Or are you saying that it's terrible if governments kill people but when corporations kill people, meh?

If you pay payroll taxes, you are purchasing disability insurance, health insurance, and a pension. You must do this. Check your annual SSA statement. The government made you buy it.

You just think that because it's the Leftists in the US that they'll just be benevolent because

I don't know how old you are, but I made it through air raid drills, the Cuban missile crisis, the Viet Nam war, Nixon, 9-11 and much, much more. Unlike you, I finished hiding under my desk in the 50s. I don't believe that President Obama is the next Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler. I'm simply not that delusional.

We have problems in this country. What we need is to not have so little faith in the strength of our history, system, and citizens that having to purchase efficient light bulbs or health insurance is going to lead to 20 million deaths. Or don't you believe America is an exceptional nation?

You need to read The Book of Eli, man. We survived George W. Bush, you can survive Barack Obama.

Dad29 said...

By the way, payroll "Taxes" are just that.

ObozoCare is not a "tax"--remember?

And "purchase" of ObozoCare is not dependent on working.

Jim said...

It doesn't matter what the government calls it. It IS a tax.

"It’s part of the tax code, it raises revenue, it promotes the general welfare, and it’s not a so-called 'direct tax.'"

Deekaman said...

Please learn the original intent of "promote the general welfare". Based on the above comment, I am certain YOUR meaning is bullshit.


Also, there is no Constitutional authority for Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, OSHA, FDA or any other regulatory authority that makes "regulations" with the force of law.

Jim said...

Thank you for your astute legal analysis, Deek. However, the "original intent" of the "promote the general welfare" clause is not clear as at least two of the drafters of the Constitution had opposing views of what it meant. Over time, courts have followed one or the other interpretation, meaning there has been disagreement as to "original intent".

However, since the 1930s, the broader view of Hamilton has predominated case law through conservative and liberal courts.

BTW, where do you teach law?

Dad29 said...

Purchase of ObozoCare is NOT dependent on working.

Ignored that part, eh, Jim?

Where do you teach reading skilllzzz?

Jim said...

What's your point? Last I checked, lots of people who don't work pay taxes.

BTW, it is impossible to "purchase" Obamacare.