a liberal on conservatism

Note: This is the third of four posts about my exchange with Justin.
Also see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 4.

Justin writes:

Conservatives are so attached to their precious tradition that when a better idea comes along, they can't see it for what it is simply because it's different from what they already know.  I understand the value of tradition, but we cannot continue to use it as a substitute for governance.

The false premise here is that "tradition" is either arbitrary or antiquated when in fact it is neither. 

A progressive should recognize that "traditional" American values are highly evolved, originating in a philosophical quantum leap known as the Age of Enlightenment. The lifestyle Americans enjoy is nothing less than Darwin on display: survival of the fittest.  Not some zero sum game nonsense of Americans surviving while everyone else perishes, but evolution in the sense that our enlightened freedom displaces the natural poverty that other social and political structures just can't seem to eradicate.

The liberal laments that our prosperity is shackled by so much tradition (property rights, anyone?) without ever recognizing traditional values as the very source of that prosperity.

Every authoritarian government in history has been an experiment in all the same principles of liberalism.  Progressives have new theories, but their ideas are neither better nor new. 

Progressive income taxation did not work when the king took all the money for himself, and it does not work any better when the elites give it away to their favored interests.  Prosperity isn't bound by whether there's a law against poverty -- the problem is that less gets produced when there are laws against wealth.  And that's exactly what all liberal policies are, whether imposed by medieval nobility or modern-day elites.

Conservatism is not an impediment to progress; it is the source of progress.  America is not what it is because of where it's going -- it's great because of where it's coming from.  The individual liberty that "progressives" want to suppress in fact was, and still is, the most progressive idea in the history of human government.  It was conservatism, not liberalism, that made America great.

If you want to see what liberalism has brought us, consider the $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that would be necessary to sustain progressive sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare.  Or the subprime housing mess, which is a direct result of liberals tampering with the mortgage market.

Justin also says:

...You seem to fear science, which is hilarious to me.

I have no fear of science.  Like economics, which I refer to all the time for explanations of why liberal policies don't actually work. 

It's religious cults like liberalism that scare me.  And rightly so, considering that leftism in all its various forms has killed over a hundred million people in the last century alone.

In fact, if liberals had ever applied the scientific method to their own ideas as they've been tried across history, liberalism would have been declared a failed experiment decades ago.

But liberals continue to hope and believe.  That's faith; not science at all.

Comments

[ConservativeLibertine]

Liberals love labels. In fact liberal should be redefined to mean 'labeler', because it certainly does not mean liberty.

They label their ideas as 'progressive' because it sounds good. Progress? Who does not want that? You do well to point out that their ideas are not new. Socialism and Marxism have been tried and they fail every time.

To your point, productivity is progress! And the people responsible for it are rewarded with money. Maybe a lot of money. That's progress!

I checked the link to the previous post. It appeared as though Justin thought his intelligence quotient gave his opinion more strength. Some of the comment even interpreted it as meaning elite intelligentsia should perhaps do the decision making.

While Justin is very far off the mark, there is something to the concept. Thomas Jefferson never intended a 'one man, one vote' system. In fact he abhorred the idea of 'mob rule'. Our initial form of government only allowed 'owners of property' to vote. Why? Because they were rich? Because they were more intelligent? No, because they had demonstrated that they could produce. That was all that was required.

If Justin is so smart and wants greater influence on decisions to benefit society, then he should put that intelligence to work and produce. He should make millions of dollars and go George Soros on our asses!

See you in the funny papers Justin!

[Simon9]

Just realize guys that no matter what you say, or how you say it, you will not get through to a single liberal out there. Not one. Have you ever gotten through to one of them?

You know, and I know, and every libertarian and conservative out there knows just how much of the liberal belief structure is total nonsense. You can go further than just "name-call". You can explain in detail if necessary exactly how and why. Or you can ask them questions that cut to their core of their inanities.

It doesn't matter. They aren't listening. And they'll evade your questions every time.

Think "cult". Think "conditioned".

I guarantee you, if "Justin" read your comments, it didn't even begin to penetrate. I don't know Justin. I don't particularly care to. But I know liberals and their "cookie-cutter" mentality. They march in lock-step and are utterly clueless that that is the case. They're utterly clueless about quite a few things which I find funny as they are obsessed with their own cleverness.

For instance, none of them understands economics. Refer to our current POTUS who plans to spend us into prosperity, increase our debt load and massively increase taxes and regulations on businesses believing it will help create more jobs overall. No clue at all.

Sorry if my comments are a downer, but I have absolutely no doubt just how closed off their mentality is.

[SKB]

There is no point in debating a liberal. The goal of liberalism is to silence debate. By engaging a liberal you have accepted the premise that they are worthy of debate. They will not argue germane facts, but rather resort to personal attacks.
I fear the only way to triumph over this age of unreason is to stoke the flames and allow this progressive fire to burn out.

[Donna Fitzgerald]

I believe that only those who produce should vote. We are rapidly getting bottom-heavy with lazy, useless people who vote for more entitlements. At some point, the takers will outnumber the producers.

Then where does the money come from???

[Ben]

So while I have not lurked internet boards very much, this is still the first time I have seen an Idea I have had posited by anyone else:

Redifine citizen to mean producer. My idea for measuring Producer would be with the data that Social Security is currently tracking on your earnings and taxes paid, compare it to the amount of money you are being handed by the government. If this does not end up being a positive sum paid INTO the pool, then you are a Resident and not a Citizen, without the right to vote. I do not feel that property ownership would be the best measure since many productive people DONT own their own property. Just my thoughts...

[Matt Lockyer]

Funny posts. I thought the same things. If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote. This would solve many problems but create a hellstorm in the doing. YOUR tax money is at stake if you pay taxes. OK. Then just like doing your taxes, if you don't have a W-2 form, you CANNOT vote. Simple remedy to do away with those so eager to give away your hard earned money to those who don't even work, those who "need it more than you do". Why even work then? Why not just be one of them?