/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2458413]

Hi!

I may be stupid but I genuinely don't understand Conservatism. Encyclopedias describe as "a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society,"

The problem I have that there is no adjective that further specifies what kind of "traditional institutions" we are talking about.

1. Are we talking about ALL traditional institutions?

I guess that can't be true because there are many conflicting institutions that are traditional.

2. Are we talking about the traditional institutions of a particular country?

I guess that can't be true because there are conservatives in almost every country.

3. Are traditional institutions the ONLY thing that should be promoted?

Guess that can't be true because of the falsehood of 1. If not ALL traditional institutions should be promoted than there needs to be another principle on which we base our value judgment and decide which one needs to be promoted.

But if there is another principle, aside from the conservative one, then why even bother to call yourself a conservative in the first place?

If that principle is utilitarian for example then there is simply no need to emphasize that there are traditional institutions that are good because the very same can be true for any other kind of institution that we value based on utilitarianism or any other kind of principle.

I mean: Conservatives don't really say that something is good or right solely because it is a tradition, right? Then what do they say?

[Anonymous No.2458425]

This is not off-topic btw -> political SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.2458433]

who called themselves conservative? look here lib-tard, there are more than two politcal views and just because your a lib-tard doesn't mean anyone everyone who's not is conservative. their are perfectly non-tarded liberals in this world, their just hard to find

[OP No.2458440]

You over analyzed a shitty definition of conservativism. Stopped reading when I saw dubya in the picture

[Anonymous No.2458453]

>>2458433

What? How does this even address what I asked?

I am from Germany and I just value political decisions on the bases if it makes sense or not. I have not a specific agenda I want to push here.

[Anonymous No.2458457]

>>2458440

Ok then give me a better definition.

[Anonymous No.2458464]

todays liberals are conservatives. they want to go back to new deal government tyranny...

[Anonymous No.2458478]

OP here. What is going on here? Why aren't people addressing what I am saying and instead talk about liberals?

[Anonymous No.2458481]

can op point out what traditional institutions are conflicting? i think most traditional institutions have only the most minor conflicts between themselves, and this is where your def went off the tracks

[Anonymous No.2458509]

You are taking the definition much too literally. As with many things in the social sciences, it is difficult to find a concrete definition. Conservatism is a catch-all name for a wide range of political, social, and economic philosophies. In general, people who identify as "Conservative" advocate lower taxes and government spending (fiscal conservatism) and stronger legislation protecting perceived national values and morality (social conservatism; against abortion and gay marriage for example).

[Anonymous No.2458515]

I think what he's basically saying is "societies that never change never advance, so why is anyone supporting an ideology that is opposed to advancement?"

I'm not sure why everyone else is getting all butthurt over the use of the word conservative.

[Anonymous No.2458521]

>>2458481

For example the traditions of different religions.

[Anonymous No.2458535]

>>2458433

So much irony in this post. Try not to make conservatives look stupider since they already try so hard.

[Anonymous No.2458548]

>>2458509

Which, strangely enough, is completely opposite the traditional definition of conservatism.

The closest thing is libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.2458557]

>>2458521

no op, i gave you a chance because your german, and germany has the most non tarded liberals in the world, but sadly its not you.....religion is not an institution, churches are institutions, and other than the war all major non-muslim churches are having with muslims, they have only the most minor of conflicts

[Anonymous No.2458561]

>>2458521
Not all "traditional institutions" are traditional in the same culture simultaneously. "Traditional institutions" for an American might be Christianity, the bicameral legislature, and Thanksgiving. For a Chinese person, "traditional institutions" could be Chinese New Year, One-Party Rule, etc.

[Anonymous No.2458580]

First you need to define "is".

Seriously though. It's just a word. Look at your parties and you see the different ideologies.

I myself subscribe strictly to Conservative Liberalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism

[Anonymous No.2458581]

>>2458561

Yes. But if they promote only particular ones then it is not the case that they just promote it because it happens to be traditional. Otherwise they could just as well pick the tradition of another country. If they don't then they make exceptions - on which basis?

[Anonymous No.2458594]

>>2458561

now your just saying everything is an institution, so what all things society does/is need to be destroyed and reworked in your master plan to fit the vision of lib-tardery where everyone is equal and worth the same amount and evolved to the same degree?

[Anonymous No.2458605]

>political SCIENCE
0/10
Fuck you
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.2458618]

How about this: View political opinions similar to how you would view a probability distribution. Each individual who identifies as "Conservative" subscribes to a range of views, some "Conservative", some not. It is the same for "Liberals". 3 standard deviations from the mean are the hardcore proponents and as you move toward the mean you see various combinations of views and moderation.

[Anonymous No.2458656]

>>2458618

Can't we just simply about the meaning of the word "conservative"?

It seems to make a value judgment, right?

On which basis does it do this?

Is it decisive that something is traditional? We have already established that this can't be the case.

So what is the basis?

[Anonymous No.2458661]

>>2458618

WTF IS THIS TOTALLY CALM AND SENSICAL EXPLANATION DOING HERE!??! RRRAAAAAGH!

[Anonymous No.2458670]

American conservatism has nothing to do with tradition.

It has to do with fiscal discipline, maintenance of free and competitive markets, minimizing power and scope of social programs, opposing socialist policies, and maintaining a global stability through military presence in strategic parts of the world, and giving military aid to our allies.

Now go away.

[Anonymous No.2458677]

>>2458557
>Germany
>non tarded liberals

I hope you are not talking about the FDP. Their economic liberalism is horrible and I would rather vote for the CDU than the FDP (I actually would vote SPD and Grüne though).

[Anonymous No.2458694]

>>2458670

But I wasn't asking about American conservatism.

I was asking about conservatism in general.

Here in Germany are conservatives too (Konservative) and I guess in any other country as well...why is it so hard to quickly explain these guys position?

[Anonymous No.2458704]

>>2458581
You making several incorrect assumptions:
1) All Conservatives subscribe to the same central philosophy
2) This philosophy is based on the promotion of so-called "traditional institutions"
3) You are ignoring the fact that "traditional" is a relative term. What is "tradition" for one person is often not "tradition" for another.

Your conundrum, which I suspect is a poor attempt at trolling some conservatives, is easily solved by observing that political ideologies are never as monolithic as you are suggesting.

[Anonymous No.2458710]

OH YEAH, THIS ISN'T SCIENCE AT ALL.
NO WONDER THIS THREAD WAS BORING MY BRAIN.

[Anonymous No.2458752]

Conservatism in a nutshell. Picture the 1950's. They want everything to stay 1950's forever (not literally but the ideals and social norms of the 1950's).

[Anonymous No.2458778]

>>2458752

pure lib-tardery, like molecularly distilled, reverse osmosis shit right here

[Anonymous No.2458784]

>>2458778
u mad?

[Anonymous No.2458788]

>>2458704

I am really not a troll.

Lets address my false assumptions:

>1) All Conservatives subscribe to the same central philosophy

Well I think there must be some minimal common ground, otherwise it would make no sense to even adopt the term "conservative" if it can mean anything. For example: Not all atheists have the same philosophy but they all share that they don't believe in a god.

>2) This philosophy is based on the promotion of so-called "traditional institutions"

I was just reciting what I read in encyclopedias. If it is not based on this, then what is it based on?

>3) You are ignoring the fact that "traditional" is a relative term. What is "tradition" for one person is often not "tradition" for another.

I am not ignoring this but this is what makes the term redundant or at least very muddled. If we are just talking about specific traditions for specific people and not about traditions as a hole then why even bother to call yourself conservative? You could just say: "I am in favor of these traditions and here are my reasons why."

Because if this is true then everybody already is implicitly stating that the mere fact that something is considered a tradition of some kind doesn't mean it is worthy of promoting it.

[Anonymous No.2458794]

>>2458752

I don't care about what people who call themselves conservatives want. I care about what the term actually means in its most basic form.

[Anonymous No.2458796]

inb4 posts, hundreds of them

[Anonymous No.2458800]

>>2458788

politics is very muddled...deal with it

[Anonymous No.2458806]

>>2458752
>has no idea what the 1950's were actually like

[Anonymous No.2458813]

>>2458794

get a clue, it means what the people who call themselves that say it means, ask them when your arguing with them, but it will be obvious then because thats what political arguments are about....btw, this is true for all politcial doctrines

[Anonymous No.2458818]

>>2458794
It means whatever people make it mean. That's why IT'S NOT FUCKING SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.2458841]

>>2458813

This isn't true. I understand what Autonomism and Federalism means. I don't have to talk to people who call themselves "federalists" or "autonomists" and ask them what their personal believe are to know what they mean by these two political doctrines.

[Anonymous No.2458843]

>>2458794
Let me try, in its most basic form

Economic freedom is highly important.
Personal freedoms are highly important.
Progressive Social change is highly frowned upon. (gay marriage, interracial marriage back in the day, etc)

I may be wrong, but from my understand, these are the 3 basics.

[Anonymous No.2458845]

Conservatism is basically the constant resistance to change; though in the context where it's combined with capitalism change can be allowed if there's money to be made.

[Anonymous No.2458850]

>>2458843
>implying any of that is actually progressive.

[Anonymous No.2458861]

It depends on the context. God, kids are faggots.

[Anonymous No.2458877]

>>2458845

this soo fucking dumb...yes its like you planted a little lib-tard seed last spring and its germinating into a beutiful lib-tarded turd flower

[Anonymous No.2458879]

>>2458861
>context hurr

Sorry but this is like saying that the word is utterly redundant. If it can mean anything depending on the context then it basically means nothing.

I give up. If it takes this long to give a simple and straightforward answer what the princple of conservatism is then I guess there really isn't one. It is just a neat umbrella term that some guys use when they liked how things were in their childhood.

[Anonymous No.2458888]

>>2458843

this is the best concise statement you've gotten so far kraut

[Anonymous No.2458889]

Lifelong conservative here to give an opinion, not a better definition.

I feel that being conservative means to have a backbone belief that common sense, time, and a strong personal, moral code is essential to politics.

[Anonymous No.2458893]

>>2458843
Social Democrats, the 'liberals' of Scandinavia, advocate personal and economic freedom as well as strong social and technological progress through public programs.

Seems that in the end, bisecting everything into dichotomies is a bit simplistic for reality.

[Anonymous No.2458900]

>>2458879

there isn't a simple a nd concise statement for ANY major political doctrine...deal with it

[Anonymous No.2458907]

>>2458889
Can you define what common sense and a good moral code are?

[Anonymous No.2458909]

>>2458877
>Is right
>You call him dumb

[Anonymous No.2458913]

>>2458889
>belief that common sense, time (????), and a strong personal, moral code is essential to politics.

You honestly think that anybody would say that common sense or a moral code are bad things? This really isn't something that discriminates conservatism from other doctrines.

[Anonymous No.2458922]

>>2458900

Yes there are! >>2458841

In fact: Conservatism is the only political doctrine I encountered that seems to lack any clear cut basic principle.

[Anonymous No.2458935]

>It has to do with fiscal discipline
haha no, read their budgets and take a look at their unfunded programs and unfocused spending
>maintenance of free and competitive markets, haha no, take a look at agriculture and then branch out to examine contracts tailored to specific districts

>minimizing power and scope of social
programs, opposing socialist policies
haha no, see above
>and maintaining a global stability through military presence in strategic parts of the world, and giving military aid to our allies.
>haha no, again, examine tailor-made contracts and note the districts the money runs through. The actual goals involve propagating the military industrial complex itself, its application is completely irrelevent in the age of M.A.D.
Now go away.
>nah


This is why Op's question is a good one, in practice american conservatism does not remotely conform to the definitions it markets itself with. An answer based upon observation rather then repitition of dogma would be this:

American conservatism means to perpetuate your public employment by the arbitary opposition of the democratic party.

If you apply classical definitions then modern American conservatism itself means exactly nothing, as it does not exist. The political spectrum itself in practice is inherently liberal.

[Anonymous No.2459016]

>>2458935
i agree. american conservatism basically acts as a force to oppose or roll back democratic initiatives.

for example, they say that government cannot create jobs. of course, this is patently false as government, state and federal, is the largest employer in the country. but they say it anyway, in their long-standing tradition of painting government as bad.

when they run for election to "take the country back", they argue that job creation should have been top priority of the democrats. a sane person would ask, "if you don't believe that government can create jobs, how were the democrats supposed to...create jobs...?"

oh, well, they shouldn't have focused on health care, like every other western country has. they should have...cut taxes even more...because even though it hasn't worked for the past 30 years, this time it will.

conservatives retake the house, and what do they focus on? jobs, right? i mean, they cried about democrats not focusing on jobs. they campaigned on...creating jobs...(but the government can't create jobs? oh, nevermind).

what is their first main focus?

repealing health care

[Anonymous No.2459022]

OP, it means old people. It can't come right out and say it. But: conservatism = old people


"Traditional institutions" means "things old people remember that they like despite the obvious irrelevancy of it today"

Like the grandfather who still prefers to write letters than use one of those email things. Or the religious idiot who still thinks he can't be against homo-marriage and not be considered a fucking asshole. Or the conservative against stem cell research because they haven't seen any results yet.

For the most part, in America, conservative is synonymous religious fundamentalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j44CibcQ0bU

[Anonymous No.2459031]

>>2458889

Liberal here but the above statement is the core. There's a linguist George Lakoff who examines this question in excruciating detail. His theory is that it has to do with a moral priorities.

Don't know if that's full blown nonsense, though he claims a great deal of rigor to his study of the subject. I will say that after reading his book I (contrary to the point of the book) gained respect for conservatives, understand them better, and better predict how they'll feel about stuff.

Anyway, I'll have a beer with rational conservative over a new agey hippie douche any day of the week.

[Anonymous No.2459042]

>>2459022
>implying liberalism in America isn't a religion.
Notice how they refer to Obama as a savior/messiah.

[Anonymous No.2459047]

>>2458922

bullshit, who the fuck are autonomists? federalists? like from 200 years ago? wtf are you babbling about?

there are 3 main politcal doctrine, cons, lib, and mod.
cons=merit based
lib=everything equal
mod=?????--->profit
end of story kraut-fag

[Anonymous No.2459060]

>>2459042
you're right. liberals refer to obama as the messiah because you say so.

here's even more proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMepzqJvIw

[Anonymous No.2459068]

>>2459042
Actually its only the religious right that refers to him as being the lefts savior/messiah "The democrats MESSISH! But we know the TRUTH, hes the ANTICHRIST"

HUUURURRDURRRR

I say I have never, EVER, fucking EVER heard anyone on the left call him the messiah or savior.

[Anonymous No.2459072]

>>2459060
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

[Anonymous No.2459074]

>>2459047
>cons=merit based

So daddy being rich and powerful is a merit now?

[Anonymous No.2459077]

>>2459072
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMepzqJvIw

[Anonymous No.2459082]

Reported.

Thanks for killing /sci/ assholes.

[Anonymous No.2459089]

>>2459074
what merit should be judged based only one generation?
and who said it shouldn't be re-assesed?

[Anonymous No.2459091]

[Anonymous No.2459101]

>>2459091
That picture should be directed at sweden.

[Anonymous No.2459102]

>>2459089
>merits should be inheritable

[Anonymous No.2459103]

>>2459101
>just Sweden
O rly?

[Anonymous No.2459105]

>>2459091

ahhhh the achievements of lib-tardery

[Anonymous No.2459106]

>>2459091
That wasn't supposedly why he was arrested.

[Anonymous No.2459109]

>>2459091
They should give the prize to assange.

[Anonymous No.2459112]

>>>/newpol/

[Anonymous No.2459114]

>>2459102
>doesn't believe in genetics

go back to /rel/igion thread

[Anonymous No.2459118]

>>2459074
money = merit. pay taxes+ abide by laws= success
if daddy wants to pay for his son, let him.
don't force him though, that's called communism.
(even though communism could work efficiently in a world where everyone worked hard)

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2459123]

>>2459105
All ideologies are by definition unscientific. Take your new /new/ someplace else.

[Anonymous No.2459124]

The conservative movement, throughout time has been about keeping society exactly where it is. They always, always, always bitch that things have gotten so bad in the previous few years because X progressive thing has forced them to accept equality for another group of minorities.


Conservatives support the status quo. Anything that changes society, even something clearly fucking useful is bad.


Conservatives in 1900s were against government intervention banning child labor
Conservatives in 1910s were against government intervention regulating how much rat poison could be in your food (creation of FDA)
Conservatives in 1920s were against government intervention allowing women the vote
Conservatives in 1930s were against government intervention fixing the fucking mess of the great depression
Conservatives in 1940s ...who knows, the only thing ever mentioned about this decade is how we kicked ass in ww2
Conservatives in 1950s were against women being out of the kitchen
Conservatives in 1960s were against those negros living in peace and equality
Conservatives in 1970s were against women having birth control and access to abortion
Conservatives in 1980s were against corporations paying taxes and government intervention to poor black neighborhoods
Conservatives in 1990s were against, and defeated universal healthcare
Conservatives in 2000s were against gays living without being spat upon
Conservatives in 2010s are against (surprise) all of the previous, to this day. Except when the issue is so fucking accepted in society they are not allowed to localize it without extreme backlash.

Modern example: John McCain, running for president in 2008, was against the Lily Ledbetter Act that grants women the right to sue employers if they were paid less than a man for the same work.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

[Anonymous No.2459126]

[Anonymous No.2459139]

The problem is that the definition was written by a liberal, and they tend to overlook things and generally be sloppy with their work.

[Anonymous No.2459140]

In 2008, conservatives choose who they wanted to represent themselves to the nation and the world.

Let's see what that looked like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBt0r9Exv2I

[Anonymous No.2459154]

>>2458889
that definition makes no sense. time? Also, have you noticed how conservatives having been using that moral code?

Mainly it's been spent bashing gays, restricting abortion, and underfunding science that conflicts with their bible.

[Anonymous No.2459173]

>>2459140
Still better than this.
Also his stimulus hasn't done squat.

[Anonymous No.2459187]

>>2459173
Tell your boy Bush thanks for turning surplus to deficit in his payout to the rich. That definitely helped things along.

[Anonymous No.2459191]

>>2459187
Still didn't triple the deficit.

[Anonymous No.2459197]

>>2459173
2009 was Bush's budget, bro

Remember that $700,000,000,000 Bush gave to the stock market to prevent the second great depression in Oct 2008? You know, the market Bush deregulated for the previous 8 years.

Might have something to do with things being shit right now.

[Anonymous No.2459200]

>>2459114
>Using genetics as an argument for financial hereditary merit

Just stop before you embarrass yourself further.

[Anonymous No.2459203]

>>2459103
sweden gave obama the nobel prize AND tried to arrest assange. so yes, just sweden.

[Anonymous No.2459220]

>>2459197
Trying to rewrite history already?
That bailout was spear headed by Obama, stop trying to bailout your messiah.

[Anonymous No.2459221]

ITT: No one notices that both Conservatives and Liberals base their worldview on the concept of "Government should ban/tax hard what i don't like and do/subsidize what i personally like!", and are two inconsistent and idiotic political views.

>>2459124

I'm not even a Conservative, and i found half of your list to be bullshit.

Also, State enforcement of equal pay is bullshit. Most entrepreneurs pay their workers according to productivity. Stopping this would kill meritocracy.

IF a racist-sexist entrepreneur paid women/black people that work well less based on arbitrary reasons, than other entrepreneurs that DON'T would offer them better wages, hire them, and beat the bigot entrepreneur in the market. There are market means to stop discrimination, and State enforcement of "equality" would very likely cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous No.2459231]

>>2459203
Obam promised transparency and then went back on it. Sweden had ties to the CIA during the Obama regime and probably demanded the arrest.

[Anonymous No.2459238]

>>2459220
The deregulation part isn't actually a rewrite, it's like setting up a time bomb then playing hot potato with it and blaming the guy who has it when it explodes instead of the fucker who set it.

[Anonymous No.2459242]

now this thread has confused neocons for cons, their was a lot of internal disagreement in the bush years after 03

[Anonymous No.2459244]

>>2459220
ok

[Anonymous No.2459246]

>>2459220
not too bright, or troll?
do you just ignore history? obama didn't spearhead it. paulson and the banks came up with it.
but then again, you're the same conserva-tard/troll who misrepresents the facts at every opportunity, so what good is it to discuss what really happened?

[Anonymous No.2459253]

>>2459221

>describes real world, thread blows the fuck up

[Anonymous No.2459254]

>>2459197

>Bush
>deregulated


LOLOLOLOLOL yeah right, Bush was clearly a Small-Government type.

BULLSHIT. During the Bush years, the FED was artificially lowering interest rates and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were expanding credit into the housing market - just like the Austrian School of Economics predicts causes crisis. Regulatory spending only increased under Bush, and the Federal Code of Regulations hasn't stopped increasing since... ever.

The only parts of the financial market that were relatively deregulated ( like Hedge Funds) were the last ones to break with the crash.

Hell, ALL spending only increased under Bush, he caused the 2nd biggest government expansion ever since the New Deal.

And Obama is Bush's 3rd term. Republicans and Democrats are the same shit, only different assholes.

[Anonymous No.2459265]

>>2459254

There is a difference. Spending on welfare, health and education benefits society, especially education.

Spending on the military etc does not.

[Anonymous No.2459268]

>>2459221
well you should be quite thrilled to find out your sophomoric ideology isn't in place when you try to find a job.

Sure, it sounds great in your head doesn't it? "Let people discriminate on race, sex, etc, the free market will solve it".

Turns out reality doesn't solve it, and you need laws to prevent the abuse and subjugation of minorities by the rich. This is applicable to any civil rights movement in recent history.

[Anonymous No.2459271]

>thinks deregulation stuns economies

The Great Depression created a widespread misconception that market economies are inherently unstable and must be managed by the government to avoid large macreconomic fluctuations, that is, business cycles. This view persists to this day despite the more than 40 years since Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz showed convincingly that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies were largely to blame for the severity of the Great Depression. In 2002 Ben Bernanke (then a Federal Reserve governor, today the chairman of the Board of Governors) made this startling admission in a speech given in honor of Friedman’s 90th birthday: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry.”

And who did Obama appoint to be chairman of the FR? Bernanke

[Anonymous No.2459285]

>>2459242
There's a difference? That difference died with Reagan. The only conservative you would identify with is Ron Paul.

At which point we might as well be arguing whether the Green/Libertarian parties are good ideas, since they are just as relevant.

[Anonymous No.2459288]

>>2459271
re-appoint you mean?
so, the fact that bernanke understands how the FED can actually cause the problem makes him a poor choice?
poor choice over whom? someone who doesn't know the FED is a problem?

[Anonymous No.2459293]

>>2459265

Bush increased spending on all those sectors too. He increased ALL spending. Of course, most of it went to military, which was bullshit. We gained no benefit from this at all, we only made the world hate us even more.

And increasing spending on those things barely helps. We have been increasing the budget that goes to Education A LOT in the last 30 years and results have kept THE SAME.

Because education needs a REFORM, not more money. You don't solve problems by throwing more money at them and hoping they'll go away, though both Liberals and Conservatives both believe that.

[Anonymous No.2459294]

>>2459268
>you need laws to prevent the abuse and subjugation of minorities by the rich.

I see you're singling out minorities when whitey has to put up with abusive employers too (in addition to having to compete with all the incentives minorities get because they're not whitey), nicely done.

[Anonymous No.2459296]

>>2459288
Sorry re-appoint.
Well seeing that he's resorted to the "printing money" or quantitative easing is enough of a reason why he's a shitty choice.

[Anonymous No.2459297]

>>2459271
milton friedman is a fuckface. free-markets are bullshit, all the reasoning used to defend them is comletely contrived and ass-backwards.

[Anonymous No.2459301]

>>2459297
And you sir are why we have deficits. Why change something that has worked for centuries?

[Anonymous No.2459310]

>>2459301
exactly. slavery made this country great.
never should have freed the slaves. what a huge mistake

[Anonymous No.2459314]

>>2459294
minorities as those without majority power, shit for brains

[Anonymous No.2459315]

>>2459310
Exactly. Emancipation only plunged the country into debt.

[Anonymous No.2459317]

>>2459293
>You don't solve problems by throwing more money at them and hoping they'll go away

I see you don't have a good grasp of politics or economics... let me help you. Yes you do.

[Anonymous No.2459321]

>>2459317
And that's why the US economy is doing splendidly right now. Jesus fuck, you people are retarded.

[Anonymous No.2459322]

>>2458413
I will legitimately try to help you OP.
In the American political arena, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are pretty much unrecognizable versions of the classical ideologies of that arose in the early 19th century. Traditional conservative was a highly elitist movement designed essentially to protect the interests of the nobility and was opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. Very few politicians today espouse this kind of conservatism. Today, most people who call themselves conservatives tend to embody the beliefs of the liberals of the 19th century, giving rise to the term "classic liberalism."

[Anonymous No.2459324]

>>2459314
>majority power
Doesn't exist.

The only thing that being a white male means is you will never be eligible for any aid from social programs.

[Anonymous No.2459325]

>>2459297

>I have never read a economics book, and i ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Bush has deregulated the economy, rather than only increase State-Power.

Though i agree Milton Friedman was mostly wrong. Ludwig von Mises and F.A Hayek's Capital Theory and Monetary Theory are far more correct than the Monetarist Theory, though Milton did indeed make some great contributions.

[Anonymous No.2459331]

>>2459325
>Mises
This guy knows what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.2459334]

>>2459271

Because the Great Depression totally wasn't caused by a fucking massive stock market bubble that lead everyone to borrow money like crazy all at once, leading to a credit shitstorm once the bubble burst and people couldn't back back their loans.

[Anonymous No.2459335]

>>2459322

No. Most of todays Libertarians are Classic-Liberals.

Conservatism and the GOP were completely dominated by Neo-Cons ( Read: Corporatist Neo-Imperialists).

[Anonymous No.2459337]

>>2459324
How is that not racist nor sexist?

[Anonymous No.2459339]

>>2459322
this guy is like an actual historian or maybe just a wiki copypasta chef but either way hes right,....not particularly relevant to anything for the last 75 years, but accurate

[Anonymous No.2459340]

>>2459321
Never said it worked, but if we're talking about politics then spend money on funding/regulations is exactly what you do.

It's why getting anything done is a crap shoot.

[Anonymous No.2459341]

>>2459334
And what caused the stock bubble? A magical flute of deregulation?

[Anonymous No.2459353]

>>2459337
Because the majority can not be the target of racism or sexism according to our court system.

[Anonymous No.2459359]

>>2459334

The Stock Market bubble was incentivized by government, because the FED was lowering the interest rates and inflating the currency.

When the crash first hit, it wasn't really bad. But then the moron Hoover increased taxes as fuck, increased spending as fuck, put enormous protectionist tariffs on imports ( which were fought back by other countries with their own tariffs) and the FED contracted the money supply. Shit hit the fan, economy went to hell.

Ludwig von Mises and F.A Hayek ( greatest pro-market thinkers) saw it coming all along.

MEANWHILE, in the 1921 crash ( which was worse than the initial 1929 crash, btw), government didn't intervene, and the economy went normal in less than a year.

[Anonymous No.2459360]

>>2459341
pre-regulation.
most of you are history-impaired.
go read about pre-depression, new-deal legislation, and post-depression market regulation.

[Anonymous No.2459362]

>>2459340
Or you can allow private industry to take care of it. Historically they have a better track record.

[Anonymous No.2459375]

>>2459362
because before 1940, private industry was paving roads, providing workers with health insurance and safe jobs, and increasing the US technological infrastructure.
do you guys have some cartoon-view of US history?

[Anonymous No.2459378]

>>2459353
Is your judicial system out to lunch? The fuck? Why does the majority put up with this?

[Anonymous No.2459383]

>>2459375
Almost all technology developed was by the private sector. Planes, vaccines, circuits, AC current, etc.

[Anonymous No.2459414]

>>2459359

I'm sure the massive over-investment, and resulting cutback on people actually spending money had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.2459428]

>>2459378

Because it is politically correct to do so.

>>2459375

>He thinks government helps those things happen, rather than cause more trouble!

In the 19th century, real wages quadrupled and the dollar's buying power increased 63%. Working conditions increased, too.

Of course the 19th century was a VERY VERY tough time, Imperialism, Corporatism and Protectionism were fucking everywhere, and Capitalism was still young. But it is economically proven that as the productivity of the economy increases, so do wages, and working conditions get better.

In the 50's, when Healthcare was A LOT more free than today, it was a lot cheaper than the UHC systems in other countries ( oh wait, Liberals believe it is "free!"), and Free Clinics + Charity Hospitals were common. Then government started intervening in the 60's ( Giving AMA a monopoly, creating Medicare and Medicaid ticking time bombs, creating CON laws, banning interstate competition...) and prices have only increased. Funny though, the least regulated areas ( like Lasik surgery) are the cheaper ones, and have dropping prices. Employees and Employers alike could get healthcare easily.

In Sweden 2/3rds of all roads are owned by Private Roads Associations. And the private roads not only are better but work at half the price that Government roads do.

All your exemples are shit.

[Anonymous No.2459429]

>>2459362
>Historically they have a better track record.

At getting results or at making money?

[Anonymous No.2459430]

>>2459285

The only clean-cut, defined ideology that remotely relates to OPs daffy-nition of "conservative" IS Libertarian. Sucks for conservatives that Bush Neo-Cons shat all over your ideology. Go Libertarian.

[Anonymous No.2459447]

>>2459428

You do realise that the workers of the 19th century had to fight for the right to organize, for an eight hour working day, for a minimum wage?

The free market didn't grant them their wishes, you know.

[Anonymous No.2459448]

>>2459414

Mal-investments are caused BY artificially low interest rates and inflation, both of which the FED was doing at the time. Go read some Ludwig von Mises.

The fall on agreggate demand is the symptom of the crash, not the cause.

[Anonymous No.2459478]

>>2459378
Judges are people too, so culture is probably the biggest things. We've developed a culture where the majority has to pay the minorities for some past wrong.

[Anonymous No.2459481]

>>2459447

The free market did, only it took a long time.

As i said, real wages quadrupled in the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution caused one of the greatest increases in living standards ever.

Minimum wages only increase nominal wages at the cost of employment. Working-hours naturally decrease as productivity increases. Government action can only increase nominal wages at the cost of real wages.

Sure, worker's rebelled a lot. Again, it was a REALLY hard time to live. Imperialism and Protectionism were everywhere, Capitalism was still very young and working conditions sucked a lot. But it is silly to think we would go back to it whit out government telling us what to do.

Read this:
>http://blog.mises.org/4949/the-real-friends-and-enemies-of-wage-earners-an-intellectual-challeng
e-to-the-left/

[Anonymous No.2459487]

>>2458907
No I cannot. You'll have to think for yourself on that one.

[Anonymous No.2459523]

>>2459478
What past wrong? The minorities should be grateful for either being emancipated or given asylum. Also the past wrongs should have no merit seeing as those were committed by people that have been long dead.

[Anonymous No.2459527]

>>2459487
I can most certainly tell you they're not what you think they are, let us war with each other now and kill billions of people over stupidity.

[Anonymous No.2459580]

>>2459523
Basically that the majority owes everything it has to the minorities it 'exploited' in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_High_School_%28Oakley,_California%29#Controversy

[Anonymous No.2459591]

>>2459580
Double standard alert.

[Bombshell No.2459613]

Conservatism is the 'man's' way of keeping society under control while trying to start a riot at the same damn time!

[Anonymous No.2459628]

>>2459591
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004020.html

http://www.naacp.org/content/main/

mfw

[Anonymous No.2459662]

>>2458913
It does when we live in the second half of the 21st century.

Nowadays a conservative is automagically labeled Republican, and the same for liberals (liberal = Dem). I don't believe in any god, I don't believe progression is a bad thing. I can still label myself as conservative and feel okay that Republicans will fight for their beliefs and that I tend to side with them far more often than a flaming mad Democrat.

I agree tenfold with the anon that said communism would work in a world full of workers. (Making the argument that conservatives wish to live in the past - like the 50s - is nonsense. The only part of the 50s that I wish existed today is the idea that if you don't work, you'll die.) I hate that I'm a racist, anti-science "old fart" in the eyes of liberals.

I wish I could address a few more of you that replied to the OP with outrageous, hateful comments, but then I would be a Republican...right?

>mfw I'm a 19yr old engineering major and I love Carl Sagan

[Anonymous No.2459689]

>>2459662
>The only part of the 50s that I wish existed today is the idea that if you don't work, you'll die.

I suppose you'll be resisting the technological unemployment then?