Social Conservatives want a seat at the "retooling" of the GOP

[zsdersw]

Its a stupid metaphor.

Who cares? You know the issues it is referring to, so the only reason for you arguing about it that I can think of is you simply like to argue about matters you already know and understand... which is, itself, stupid.

Some of us would prefer that children not starve to death.

And some more of us would prefer that some children starve so that others in the future will not; that their parents will be more responsible. There has to be a cut-off point or no one will learn anything and start taking responsibility.

And if that means restricting the freedom of irresponsible adults so be it.

No, that is not an acceptable option. Government doesn't know best, nor is it the best at doing what you want it to do in these matters.

 

[nehalem256]

And some more of us would prefer that some children starve so that others in the future will not; that their parents will be more responsible.

No, that is not an acceptable option. Government doesn't know best, nor is it the best at doing what you want it to do in this area.

Actually I am willing to bet you are in a minority of people that would prefer that some children starve.

And good luck getting people to think ahead about the possibility of their children starving.

 

[zsdersw]

Actually I am willing to bet you are in a minority of people that would prefer that some children starve.

And good luck getting people to think ahead about the possibility of their children starving.

I'd say you're in an even smaller minority of people who think "restricting the freedoms of adults" in this matter is acceptable.

I don't care what other people think. Their lack of thinking the same way doesn't make me less right.

 

[dank69]

Letting children starve in an attempt to teach someone else about personal responsiblity ranks right above removing people's personal freedoms in exactly the same way that cutting off someone's hands for stealing ranks right above shooting them in the head.

Zsdersw, you are right, letting children starve is slightly better than restricting freedom, but it is still a shit idea. The better option is to accept that many people aren't going to act the way you think they should, and we should all just work together to minimize the impacts that behaving badly have on the rest of us. Minimize does not equal eliminate.

 

[Atreus21]

I find the phrase "social conservative" oxymoronic, even if it is accurate.

To me, you cannot be truly conservative and, yet, think the government's proper role is to oppose gay marriage, adoption, and support workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, impose "decency rules" via the FCC, funnel public money to private religious organizations, and force public schools to teach creationism or intelligent design in science classes... to name a few.

The "culture war" is not where the government has a role. Even if, by some wild stroke of one's imagination, the federal government did have a role in fighting in the culture war, it should be plainly obvious that.. just as in economic and fiscal matters.. it is woefully incompetent at best and disastrous at worst.

Free people don't need the government in their wallets or in their bedrooms.

To the extent that an act is harmful to another the government has a role in restricting it.

Incest, for example, can be done among consenting adults. I'd wager there is nearly no one in the psychological sciences who would call this anything other than unhealthy activity borne of some kind of past sexual abuse. The act is considered harmful even if the participants don't know it. Why, if government is to have no role in enforcing social behavior, should incest be disallowed not only to adults, but to children and their parents, or among underage siblings? Does any reasonable person call that anything but horrible and psychologically catastrophic for the participants?

The question at the basis is this: Does government have the responsibility to interfere on our behalf even if we are willing actors to the act it considers destructive? Should the government advance and enforce a certain morality?

Conservatives most often answer no. Libertarians always answer no. But what about the extremes like incest? Secondly, whether or not it should advance a moral order, it can't help but actually advance it. All laws generally begin with the premise that an act is either good or bad, and should thus be encouraged or discouraged.

 

[zsdersw]

To the extent that an act is harmful to another the government has a role in restricting it.

Harmful to someone else, yes.. and only when that harm is easily and obviously identifiable/quantifiable.

Incest, for example, can be done among consenting adults. I'd wager there is nearly no one in the psychological sciences who would call this anything other than unhealthy activity borne of some kind of past sexual abuse. The act is considered harmful even if the participants don't know it. Why, if government is to have no role in enforcing social behavior, should incest be disallowed not only to adults, but to children and their parents, or among underage siblings? Does any reasonable person call that anything but horrible and psychologically catastrophic for the participants?

The question at the basis is this: Does government have the responsibility to interfere on our behalf even if we are willing actors to the act it considers destructive? Should the government advance and enforce a certain morality?

Conservatives most often answer no. Libertarians always answer no. But what about the extremes like incest? Secondly, whether or not it should advance a moral order, it can't help but actually advance it. All laws generally begin with the premise that an act is either good or bad, and should thus be encouraged or discouraged.

True conservatives most often answer no. "Social conservatives" are not true conservatives. The answer to your question is No, absolutely not... even in your incest example. These decisions hinge upon adulthood (whatever age that is to be set as).

Almost all laws within the last 50-60 years were sought to correct what a constituency sees as a problem. This is predicated on the belief that the law specifically and government in general is capable, constitutionally permitted, and competent at correcting the problem. Almost all of the time the law and government are neither capable nor competent at correcting the problem... and most of the time it is not constitutionally permitted to make the attempt.

 

[Atreus21]

Harmful to someone else, yes.. and only when that harm is easily and obviously identifiable/quantifiable.[/
True conservatives most often answer no. "Social conservatives" are not true conservatives. The answer to your question is No, absolutely not... even in your incest example. These decisions hinge upon adulthood (whatever age that is to be set as).

Almost all laws within the last 50-60 years were sought to correct what a constituency sees as a problem. This is predicated on the belief that the law specifically and government in general is capable, constitutionally permitted, and competent at correcting the problem. Almost all of the time the law and government are neither capable nor competent at correcting the problem.

Well, you're definition of a true conservative is a libertarian, and a pretty severe libertarian at that. Ron Paul wouldn't have said incest even on the extremes should be permitted.

Capable? Definitely. Constitutionally permitted? Who really cares. All it is now is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. Competent? Probably not.

I can't accept that the government has no role in promoting and enforcing social conduct on some level. I'm willing to take the good with the bad for this principle, and I do.

 

[nehalem256]

letting children starve is slightly better than restricting freedom

Better a child starve than a woman be told what to do huh

I always knew that liberals really didn't care about the children.

 

[zsdersw]

Well, you're definition of a true conservative is a libertarian, and a pretty severe libertarian at that. Ron Paul wouldn't have said incest even on the extremes should be permitted.

Ron Paul isn't the yardstick with which libertarianism should be judged.

Capable? Definitely. Constitutionally permitted? Who really cares. All it is now is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. Competent? Probably not.

Definitely capable? As in, definitely capable of correcting a problem? I think you'll be hard pressed to find any significant evidence of that. Show me a social problem that government programs and restrictive laws in the last 50-60 years has corrected or severely minimized.

I can't accept that the government has no role in promoting and enforcing social conduct on some level. I'm willing to take the good with the bad for this principle, and I do.

What's right doesn't hinge upon whether or not you can accept it.

 

[dank69]

Better a child starve than a woman be told what to do huh

I always knew that liberals really didn't care about the children.

If you have to take my posts out of context to feel better then more power to you. Enjoy the warm feeling of piss on your leg.

 

[Atreus21]

Ron Paul isn't the yardstick with which libertarianism should be judged.

No, but he's a reasonable compromise between conservatism and borderline anarchism.

Definitely capable? As in, definitely capable of correcting a problem? I think you'll be hard pressed to find any significant evidence of that. Show me a social problem that government programs and restrictive laws in the last 50-60 years has corrected or severely minimized.

A government with anywhere near the power of the United States' definitely has the capability to correct certain problems. I suppose capability isn't the term to use. They definitely have the means. What they don't have is probably the know-how, which I guess could be called incapability.

What's right doesn't hinge upon whether or not you can accept it.

Right, but that's the point. There are no easy answers, which is in my opinion what you're looking for. It's far more difficult and labor-intensive to get into long, complicated discussions on morality, much less coming to agreement on them, and worse yet getting society to change to reflect it, than it is simply to say, "the government should have no role, zero, in dictating moral actions."

It's similar to saying that government should have zero hands in the economy. Absolutely none? Even Milton Friedman would disagree with that. That's my problem with anarchists and extreme libertarians. Their solution to a dirty house is to burn it down and say we don't need houses; we are perfectly capable of living in the jungle.

 

[zsdersw]

No, but he's a reasonable compromise between conservatism and borderline anarchism.

It's not "borderline anarchism" to suggest that we don't need many of the laws and government programs/regulations we have had foisted upon us over the last 50-60 years.

Right, but that's the point. There are no easy answers, which is in my opinion what you're looking for. It's far more difficult and labor-intensive to get into long, complicated discussions on morality, much less coming to agreement on them, and worse yet getting society to change to reflect it, than it is simply to say, "the government should have no role, zero, in dictating moral actions."

It's similar to saying that government should have zero hands in the economy. Absolutely none? Even Milton Friedman would disagree with that. That's my problem with anarchists and extreme libertarians. Their solution to a dirty house is to burn it down and say we don't need houses; we are perfectly capable of living in the jungle.

I'm not looking for or suggesting any easy answers. I'm expressing an ideal; an ideal we should work toward.

 

[Athena]

Damn if they don't include these people wouldn't they be pretty much screwed?

If "social conservative" is equivalent to "evangelical Christian", a bit of distance would probably improve the outlook for the party in the long run. The allegation that social conservatives have always played a key role in Republican policy making is untrue. Barry Goldwater was a vocal opponent of the encroachment of religion into conservative politics in early seventies. Ronald Regan courted them without actually supporting any of their core positions because he knew he had to have them to win. As a country, we've exhausted untold resources wrangling about social issues while the economy has collapsed.

The Republican party has ridden the social conservative horse (which includes racist appeals to "take back our country") as far as they can. They need to put it out to pasture and deal with the actual electorate.

 

[Incorruptible]

Better a child starve than a woman be told what to do huh

I always knew that liberals really didn't care about the children.

This, The liberals only care about pandering to women

 

[halik]

I find the phrase "social conservative" oxymoronic, even if it is accurate.

To me, you cannot be truly conservative and, yet, think the government's proper role is to oppose gay marriage, adoption, and support workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, impose "decency rules" via the FCC, funnel public money to private religious organizations, and force public schools to teach creationism or intelligent design in science classes... to name a few.

The "culture war" is not where the government has a role. Even if, by some wild stroke of one's imagination, the federal government did have a role in fighting in the culture war, it should be plainly obvious that.. just as in economic and fiscal matters.. it is woefully incompetent at best and disastrous at worst.

Free people don't need the government in their wallets or in their bedrooms.

Exactly this. I have made the exact same point in bold above several times.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[halik]

To the extent that an act is harmful to another the government has a role in restricting it.

Incest, for example, can be done among consenting adults. I'd wager there is nearly no one in the psychological sciences who would call this anything other than unhealthy activity borne of some kind of past sexual abuse. The act is considered harmful even if the participants don't know it. Why, if government is to have no role in enforcing social behavior, should incest be disallowed not only to adults, but to children and their parents, or among underage siblings? Does any reasonable person call that anything but horrible and psychologically catastrophic for the participants?

The question at the basis is this: Does government have the responsibility to interfere on our behalf even if we are willing actors to the act it considers destructive? Should the government advance and enforce a certain morality?

Conservatives most often answer no. Libertarians always answer no. But what about the extremes like incest? Secondly, whether or not it should advance a moral order, it can't help but actually advance it. All laws generally begin with the premise that an act is either good or bad, and should thus be encouraged or discouraged.

I think in your example, only procreating with blood-relatives would be a compelling interest to the state; otherwise it would be an uphill battle when it comes to consenting adults. Claiming some esoteric "psychological damage" is usually how dogma gets pushed into policy.

 

[nehalem256]

I think in your example, only procreating with blood-relatives would be a compelling interest to the state; otherwise it would be an uphill battle when it comes to consenting adults. Claiming some esoteric "psychological damage" is usually how dogma gets pushed into policy.

Why would this constitute a compelling interest?

And hasn't the SC ruled that preventing people from procreating on eugenic grounds is unconstitutional?

 

[CrackRabbit]

This, The liberals only care about pandering to women

A troll agreeing with a troll, who would have thought?

 

[Incorruptible]

A troll agreeing with a troll, who would have thought?

A troll stalking an "accused troll" who would have thought?

 

[CrackRabbit]

A troll stalking an "accused troll" who would have thought?

Damn skippy I'm trolling your posts.
Deal with it.