Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conservatives: What happened to us?

Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 4:28:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What happened,

This is a page dedicated to Conservatives, what happened to us?

Since Cody Defected there's not of us left. : (

Bring back the fire, fratres.

++Any Conservatives please post your affiliation.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 4:31:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
*Awaits a response from Alex_Hansons, one or two other pretty much unknown users, perhaps Askbob, and definitely some "Haha I'm trying to be funny but I know deep down I'm not" true2gaga post about being a nazi or something
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Cody was never conservative.

Most start as conservative and gradually transition to libertarianism. Like me. I'm sure you'll see the light eventually.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 4:51:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 4:49:17 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
I don't get what makes libertarian so special?

It's worse.

Then make a case for conservatism and why it's better.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 4:53:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They're right - I was never conservative. I was authoritarian, but I realized that the ends I wanted to achieve didn't require that kind of government. I shared a lot of goals with libertarians (a merit-based, pyramidal, individualistic society), but I found that my means and intentions were a bit off. So, I switched out.
collegekitchen10
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:08:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm a moderate libertarian. Was slightly authoritarian conservative, now am moderately libertarian being near the bottom right middle of the graph
In a PM

True2GaGa: "heeeeeeeey"

Me: "hello"

True2GaGa: "sup"

Me: Masturbating

True2GaGa: "..............."
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:11:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I should become a conservative just for laughs. It would certainly be shocking to alot of people. Well I guess I am quite conservative in alot of ways already, just not economics.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:13:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:11:05 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I should become a conservative just for laughs.

If you were doing it for laughs, you wouldn't actually be a conservative. :P

It would certainly be shocking to alot of people.

That sounds like something that FREEDO would say. :)

Well I guess I am quite conservative in alot of ways already, just not economics.

SOCIALIST!!!! AHHH.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:13:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:11:05 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I should become a conservative just for laughs.

If you were doing it for laughs, you wouldn't actually be a conservative. :P

Haha yea. It would still be humourous though.

It would certainly be shocking to alot of people.

That sounds like something that FREEDO would say. :)

Well I guess I am quite conservative in alot of ways already, just not economics.

SOCIALIST!!!! AHHH.

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:33:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:39:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
moderate libertarian
pacifist Al qaeda member.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:41:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:33:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:44:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:41:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:33:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:46:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:44:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:41:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:33:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:46:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:41:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful.

You don't need to worry about that because corporations don't exist in a free market.

I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

Well, duh. What do you think they do right now?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:47:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:46:46 PM, Reasoning wrote:
You don't need to worry about that because corporations don't exist in a free market.

Say wha?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:48:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:46:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:44:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:41:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:33:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.

Well, let me ask it this way: What do corporations stand to gain from buying political influence? How do they benefit?
collegekitchen10
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:52:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:11:05 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I should become a conservative just for laughs. It would certainly be shocking to alot of people. Well I guess I am quite conservative in alot of ways already, just not economics.

That's because you don't know economics. Take an economics course.
In a PM

True2GaGa: "heeeeeeeey"

Me: "hello"

True2GaGa: "sup"

Me: Masturbating

True2GaGa: "..............."
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:52:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:48:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:46:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:44:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:41:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:33:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.

Well, let me ask it this way: What do corporations stand to gain from buying political influence? How do they benefit?

Well they could buy political influence to get politicians to implement policies that directly benefit them. I don't know, but it's a possibility. I just really don't trust large corporations. I am quite pro-small business though.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 5:56:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 5:52:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:48:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:46:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:44:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:41:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:33:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/4/2010 5:27:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Yea, pretty much. If I were to move right I don't think I could ever go further than centrist tbh.

Even as an authoritarian, I supported a free economy (since it was a prerequisite to a merit-driven society). What do you have against the free market?* :(

* Your answer can't include anything about compassion for the poor, since compassion - or any raw emotion - tends to make terrible policy. :)

My main problem with the free market is the fact that many corporations just get too big and too powerful. I wouldn't doubt it if they were actually using this power and wealth to buy political influence.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the government has entangled itself with businesses to a pretty high degree.

I personally have a problem with the package-deal that you're trying to pass off, because you're essentially forcing us to mentally connect material wealth to corruption and power-mongering.

Well oftentimes material wealth and corruption can go hand in hand. I tend to notice that once you have something you long for more.

Well, let me ask it this way: What do corporations stand to gain from buying political influence? How do they benefit?

Well they could buy political influence to get politicians to implement policies that directly benefit them. I don't know, but it's a possibility. I just really don't trust large corporations. I am quite pro-small business though.

Exactly. In a society where the government is directly integrated into the economy, that would be a valid concern; however, in a free market, the government is completely divorced from the economy; that's why it's also called "hands-off" economics.

At the point that the government has no authority over the economy, corporations couldn't benefit from buying off politicians, since no policies would exist to affect the market. There would be no subsidies, no protectionism, and so on.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 6:03:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Cody, the difference is that in order to stop the government from ever having a hand in the economy, or ever being able to benefit corporations, you would essentially need to get rid of the entire concept.

Corporations get into government for a lot more reasons than just direct economic benefits. Corporate influence on government is existent for the fact that a government has a monopoly on violence; that means corporation can play with the courts, with the military, with government-provided services (getting contracts, for instance), with diplomacy and foreign policy, etc. All these things are important to corporations.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 6:06:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The difference, Volkov, is that it becomes obvious to everyone what's going on, since there's no massive amount of perfectly moral "get off my back" lobbying to sift through to get to the corruption. It is a lot easier to deal with things when it is easier to find them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 6:11:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 6:06:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The difference, Volkov, is that it becomes obvious to everyone what's going on, since there's no massive amount of perfectly moral "get off my back" lobbying to sift through to get to the corruption. It is a lot easier to deal with things when it is easier to find them.

I disagree. I think a good amount of lobbying will exist still, plus I thought your system allowed such lobbying despite?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2010 6:13:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/4/2010 6:11:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/4/2010 6:06:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The difference, Volkov, is that it becomes obvious to everyone what's going on, since there's no massive amount of perfectly moral "get off my back" lobbying to sift through to get to the corruption. It is a lot easier to deal with things when it is easier to find them.

I disagree. I think a good amount of lobbying will exist still, plus I thought your system allowed such lobbying despite?

Allow? Yes. Give people a reason to spend resource getting people off their back? No.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.