of logic and youth
I have always been conservative; it’s not that I grew up in an overly conservative house, I just think it is my default state. I am not overly religious, I respect religion, I respect the conviction of religious followers, however my conservatism is not derived from faith. Nor is it derived from my public school education, the media I consume, the city I live in. It can’t be pegged on books I have read, radio I have listened to, nor can it be contributed to an early indoctrination. Nope. Like I said, conservatism to me is my default state. I subscribe to logic, I apply that logic equally and judiciously to come to my conclusions. The same thought process I use to determine which toilet paper to buy, is the same thought process I use to decide how much of my pay check to put in my 401k, and both decisions share a stream of logic that is equally applied to my theories of social policy and which politicians I respect and which ones I despise.
Conservatism is my default state. Arriving at this state involved no affirmative actions, no teachings, no coercion, nothing like that; I did not seek it out, it did not find me, it has always been there. When I was a child, like most children, I had a sense of what was fair and what was not, and like most children I did not take “because I said so” as an acceptable answer. I guess unlike some, I never grew out of that. I am twenty six years old, and with every passing year the novelty of my conservatism wears a bit. As a teenager at family parties when the discussion turned decidedly political (as it tends to do), people much older than myself would marvel at my world view and appreciate how someone so young, despite the odds, could see the world with such realism.
I think it is that default nature of conservatism that makes “intellectuals” scoff. Unlike them, I did not have to seek my world view, I did not have to work at it, mine is not borne of academia, rather that of common sense, and there is nothing merely “common” about an intellectual. Their view is superior to mine because theirs is man-made, and man must triumph over nature. Their views have been bridled by wise men, men who in turn have made them wise; theories that have withstood the vigorous of hypotheticals and postulates; awards have been won, medals have been handed out, books written, and editorials penned. My views are not dazzling, perhaps they are even quite mundane; there is nothing particularly exciting about being personally responsible or spending only that which I have (and even being logical can sometimes get in my way, just ask my fiancee). However, I have never been a prude, I am not politically correct, nor do I take myself too seriously. I can watch the Daily Show and laugh or sit through a late night monologue without changing the channel (unless it’s David Letterman). In college, by day, I could be drafting a paper on the downfalls of affirmative action or the illogical position of abortion, and by night I could be organizing a keg race, or scouring the town procuring ping pong balls (all in the hopes of attracting the attention of the opposite sex, of which most would turn a concerning eye toward my Bush ‘04 campaign sign hanging on my wall).
Up until this point in my life I have always looked at liberalism as an illogical curiosity. An oft misplaced yet goodnatured philosophy that inevitably goes awry in Rube Goldbergian fashion. However, today I view it with scorn, before it was little threat, I never imagined the possibilities of my freedoms being so affronted, I never imagined group think en masse; now on the verge of insanity, our government has been overrun with nonsensical philosophy, and this time with the distinct possibility of it showing up on my doorstep; the pendulum has surely swung, and while I wait for Newton’s Third Law to firmly take effect, I can only sit here and make my voice heard, and vow to engage as many as I can in a serious conversation about our future.
I hope someone is listening.
There is no doubt that we are governed by our genes. You are conservative by default, others are liberal by default, and others may be moderate. You should feel proud of your conservatism, but there is nothing wrong with seeking information, as academics do to form decisions. What is wrong with man-made views. Views should always evolve based on the information available, not some sort of default. I know there are people out there who make decisions because they feel they are default conservative or liberal. What people may perceive as “common sense” may not actually be logical at all. We should all seek logic, sense, and knowledge through education. In my opinion conventional wisdom (common sense) dominates the decision making of most people, and therefore what appears to be common sense to them, may not make sense at all.
I respect that your conservatism is not derived from faith, as you well know religion has hijacked conservatism. And as you well know my opinions on faith, the process of making a decision without evidence, is dangerous. There are many things that conservatism has to offer and there are things the liberal view has to offer. I would not dare call liberalism completely illogical, there are many illogical ideals in conservatism. These illogical ideals originate from this “default” you discuss. People who make decisions based on their “default” manufacture illogical views. You say abortion is illogical. I read an economics book (freakonomics) many years ago where after the author evaluated the statistics and numbers, suggested that abortions led to the decrease in crime. Is it true, I don’t know I’m not an economist, but what if it is? The point being that we should not resort to our default, but always seek information and data. You bring up very logical points in this website, I think when it comes to fiscal policy conservatives do a pretty good job, but there is a lack of logic when it comes to their social policy.
My point is; I believe liberalism is much more a man-made view point, and like everything that is man-made it is flawed. I believe conservatism in its simple form has less unintended consequences because it does much less in manipulating the natural course of things. Conservatism sticks to the “keep it simple stupid” axiom. I think you and I have two separate perceptions of what “conservatism” is. I respect knowledge and my post was not meant to be blast to academia, however, I do believe when it comes to social sciences many “scientists” exist in a vacuum, and then present their “results” to an echo chamber. I believe if liberalism has a place, it is in local issues, the mechanism of liberalism is far too complicated to apply it the macro environment.
Liberalism has done way more in this country to prolong suffering, promote irresponsible behavior, foster racism, and prevent social mobility, than any other force. I believe most liberals are well meaning, however – I truly believe conservatism (and libertarianism) does much more to foster long term prosperity for all, than any other philosophy.
You have tipped your hand when it comes to your abortion example – first the justification you use in your example is the same justification Hitler used (that’s not good company), second, it is racist, an overwhelming majority of abortions exist in the African American community, the study is basically suggesting decreasing the black population to lower the crime rate. Third, I believe in logic, obviously both liberals and conservatives are opposed to killing innocent life, therefore in order to prevent the killing of an innocent life we must establish when that life begins, we have two options; at conception or at birth. If it is at birth this means we can logically assume killing a baby 3 minutes before it is born is completely moral and consistent. However, I would say 99.9% of the population disagrees with killing a baby 3 minutes before it is born; indicating most people believe life begins before birth. On the contrary, if we aborted an embryo 3 minutes after it is conceived, a large portion of the population would not consider this killing a human being. So we can assume a human becomes a human at some point between conception and birth, however, it is impossible to establish with certainty at what point this is. So the only logical way to be certain we are not killing innocent humans would be to prevent abortions. Any other view point can only be valid if the supporter admits there is a possibility they are supporting the death of an innocent life, which by definition is in contrast with the mission of liberalism and humanity in general.
I am not really sure how you just deduced that I\’m a racist because I stated that increased abortions during the (70s?) (I don’t remember from the book), led to decreased crime rates in the U.S in the 90s. That is quite illogical of you to say that. Let it be clear I love African Americans. What we need to do is look at the big picture, and that is increased abortions can extending effects in areas of crime, health care, government aid, child abuse, etc etc. Now that doesn\’t mean I think we should have abortion parties around the country. I am completely against killing life and I agree it is pretty hard if not impossible to determine when abortion is killing a human. I think I can certainly say its not at the 8 cell stage or the 16 cell stage or the 32 cell stage etc etc. What I think the anti-abortion people are too focused on is the life of the growing human and forget the life of the adult human already living, thinking, feeling, and breathing. What about her rights? What about her rights to life and health?
I feel you may be more a libertarian than a conservative.
Unfortunately , conservatism now is not in it’s simple form. Maybe in addition to being critical of liberals, you should spend some time criticizing the current state of republicans and conservatism. As you can tell I feel very strongly about religion’s role in politics. Simple and old conservatism says government stays out of our business. Sounds great. But a government run with religious motivations, cannot stay out of the lives of people. Religions main goal is to convert, preach, tell people what to wear, say, do, etc. Why do you think the middle east is a sh*t hole? That is the most religious part of the world. Liberalism may be evil in your eyes but the people like the sarah palins, and rush limbaughs and the rest of religious conservatives are evil and dangerous in mine.
I know you are not racist (sorry if it came off that way), but the idea of promoting abortion to decrease crime is. And I know it’s not your idea but just an example you cited.
Is it killing a human at the 1,869,700,000 cell stage? My point is if you don’t know, the only way you can be certain is by not allowing abortions. I never made the argument this is practical I simple said if you are being logical you would have to concede that if you allow for abortions you have to allow for the fact there is a chance we are killing a human being. All the other stuff is moot, the question then becomes “what is it worth killing a human for?” If you think to protect the “rights” of a woman, it is worth taking the chance of killing another human being, then fine that is point of view I can disagree with but cannot argue. But if you support abortion and are intellectually consistent you have to be honest and say that the chance of killing a human life is trade off you think is acceptable.
I have dedicated various posts on this site to criticizing the Republican Party. If you notice I said I am a conservative with a small “c”. The Republican Party does not own conservatism nor do they get to define it. Most of the republicans in congress over the last decade and Bush proved themselves to not be conservatives, so do not cite them as examples of the failure of conservatism, rather they are proof of the failure of liberalism (as a result of liberal creep).
Well it is difficult to say when it is considered killing a human but like I said, I think we can all agree that, say, at the 64 cell stage it is not a human yet. In my personal opinion it is when the brain and nervous system have fully developed, from then on there exists a feeling being.
For argument\’s sake, let\’s say at the 64 cell stage one considers those cells human. How does one come to the conclusion that the life of several cells is worth more than the adult human bearing those cells? Is it more moral to kill the adult human, assuming a situation like that occurs, where one life must be chosen?
So you are strictly only in favor of abortions that are required to prevent the death of the mother? That would be a position that can only be argued on ethical grounds and not on a basis of logic, a logical argument can be made for saving the mother, and a logical argument can be made for saving the child.
But using that same logic, if 20 million people had a terminal cancer, and scientists discovered that one child was born with a DNA mutation that could cure this cancer, and the only way to access it would result in the child’s death, would you be in favor of forcefully killing that child to save the 20 million?
No, but this type of situation does arise which is why I believe abortion should never be outlawed.
Your hypothetical scenario returns us to the debate as to what stage human development do we consider the differentiating cells a human. Of course if the child is a living, breathing, thinking being then I do not believe in forcefully killing that child. But if we were able to determine when a developing embryo becomes a human, and this child was not considered a human yet, then I would say go for it. Let me state that the first evidence of a brain doesn’t occur until week 5. A heart doesn’t start beating until week 6.
4yjpfw jijvivqrknza