How is it that traditionalists conclude that capitalism is the best economic means to prosperity? Their philosophical foundation is hollow in that regard. They just seemed to agree apon it arbitrarily.
For us we have the foundational framework of praxeology, NAP, and a clearer definition of property. This ties all of our beleifs into a network of ideas and concepts. Each related to the next.
Conservatives however seemed to have agreed to capitalism arbitrarily. As a result, I guess, some of their other beliefs seem to be in conflict with capitalism.
What gives? Am I seeing this correctly?
Well they pride themselves on not being an ideology so it is impossible to pinn them down to a T. But from what I gather to them the prosperity of the US is down to certain inherent Anglo-Saxon features from which what we would call capitalism stems more or less naturaly. So the road to prosperity is interpreted more in terms of Westernization (embracing your inner Anglo-Saxon) than it is explained by capitalism. It is a fairly amusing narrative to hear it told. Apparently honoring contracts is an inherently Anglo-Saxon thing and that the shaking of hands was as good as a written contract was crucial to the US economic success story. In short they arrive to it via mysticism.
Marko:Well they pride themselves on not being an ideology so it is near impossible to pinn them down to a T.
If anything that's a taint on their integrity. Not something I'd be proud of.
There is no contradiction. They are conservative, as one of my favorite songs puts it they "believe in yesterday". The United States was once far more free market, they are pro (more) free market. Just as with many liberals they do not inherintly support any single economic school, they merley support the general argument for more free markets as they understand the general economic arguments but none of the real specifics.
I really don't see your conceptual problem here.
The Late Andrew Ryan:I really don't see your conceptual problem here.
Because it would seem under that premise that conservatives around the globe would espouse various economic models. Perhaps they do? It seems like there would be more socialist conservatives.
Also do they ever question their premise? Do they just assume something is correct simply because it 'was' in employed practically at one point in time or another?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Shouldn't conservatives support slavery ? That was one of the founding principles of the US.
Did they during the abolition? I'd be interested in knowing this.
filc: The Late Andrew Ryan:I really don't see your conceptual problem here. Because it would seem under that premise that conservatives around the globe would espouse various economic models. Perhaps they do? It seems like there would be more socialist conservatives. Also do they ever question their premise? Do they just assume something is correct simply because it 'was' in employed practically at one point in time or another?
Oh, they do, a conservative in China is a hardcore communist. But in most european contries they are more free market because of the old style classical liberalism which has morphed into some odd leviathan.
There are two types of conservative, those who do just assume that their parents or the past was better, and those who join through principles.
Also as for slavery they are selective in their conservatism.
filc:Also do they ever question their premise? Do they just assume something is correct simply because it 'was' in employed practically at one point in time or another?
I think conservatism as a philosophy is hesitant to accept change. This may or may not be a bad thing in my opinion, depending on the context. I think the reason conservatives are not quick to embrace change is because they do not want society thrown into chaos by any new radical transformations of existing institutions. I think the conservative is much more cautious about change in order to ensure relative societal stability. That's how I've always seen it anyway. I don't think conservatives are opposed to change per se, but they are cautious in how that change is implemented. Not sure if that helps or if it was explained well, but there are my 2 cents.
Capitalism is a radical idea and we have never essentially had it so I do see your point in questioning whether conservatism can actually propound capitalist theory since it isn't really a tradition.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well we did have somthing extremly close
Capitalism has made a lot of people (and their families) very rich in this country and so I think conservatives want to maintain the system that helped make them. Although, my family got rich through industry and trade but has steadily become more and more liberal. But it's a Jewish family and that seems to be the trend. Which is odd.
Marko: Well they pride themselves on not being an ideology so it is impossible to pinn them down to a T. But from what I gather to them the prosperity of the US is down to certain inherent Anglo-Saxon features from which what we would call capitalism stems more or less naturaly. So the road to prosperity is interpreted more in terms of Westernization (embracing your inner Anglo-Saxon) than it is explained by capitalism. It is a fairly amusing narrative to hear it told. Apparently honoring contracts is an inherently Anglo-Saxon thing and that the shaking of hands was as good as a written contract was crucial to the US economic success story. In short they arrive to it via mysticism.
Heh. Eurocentrism is an interesting story.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon
The Late Andrew Ryan: Well we did have somthing extremly close
While the Industrial Revolution was a 'productive' era, we still had the state. You know that could actually be a good point. Conservatives want something like the Industrial revolution, productivity yet nightwatchman state.
filc: Conservatives however seemed to have agreed to capitalism arbitrarily.
Conservatives however seemed to have agreed to capitalism arbitrarily.
Not at all, It's really quite simple.
The missing link between conservatism and capitalism can be summed up in these three equations:
CO = AC - BG + M ~JC
R^4 (AC - BG + M ~JC) + D = RR
RR = CA
Capital Pumper: The missing link between conservatism and capitalism can be summed up in these three equations: CO = AC - BG + M ~JC R^4 (AC - BG + M ~JC) + D = RR RR = CA
lol
The Late Andrew Ryan:There are two types of conservative, those who do just assume that their parents or the past was better, and those who join through principles.
yea I guess this is what I am trying to get at. Their principles seem arbitrary. Don't they see the inconsistencies? *shrug*
filc:Conservatives however seemed to have agreed to capitalism arbitrarily. As a result, I guess, some of their other beliefs seem to be in conflict with capitalism.
Indeed, the founding fathers supported capitalism, and so must they. They're not interested in justifying their positions, rather, they'll appeal to Reagan as some kind of divine authority. This is why they're utterly incapable of defending capitalism when challenged by the "liberals" and "progressives." And it's also why the liberal's ignore libertarians, and focus on Hannity/Limbaugh.
bloomj31: Although, my family got rich through industry and trade but has steadily become more and more liberal. But it's a Jewish family and that seems to be the trend. Which is odd.
What? What's odd about that?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:Indeed, the founding fathers supported capitalism, and so must they.
Ugh, whenever someone says 'founding fathers' it makes me want to choke them...metaphorically of course.
Laughing Man:Ugh, whenever someone says 'founding fathers' it makes me want to choke them...metaphorically of course.
Should I refer to them individually by name?
filc: lol
Try to decipher the variables.
Capital Pumper: filc: Conservatives however seemed to have agreed to capitalism arbitrarily. Not at all, It's really quite simple. The missing link between conservatism and capitalism can be summed up in these three equations: CO = AC - BG + M ~JC R^4 (AC - BG + M ~JC) + D = RR RR = CA
Ok, I get that CO=Conservatism, AC=Anarcho capitalism, CA=Capitalism and RR=Ronald Reagan, but what are BG (big government?), M (military?) JC (Jesus Christ?) and D (democracy?)?
Praetyre: Conservatism = anti communism - big government + morality ~ Judeo-Christian rhetoric to the fourth power (anti communism - big government + morality ~ Judeo-Christian) + democracy = Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan = Capitalism
Conservatism = anti communism - big government + morality ~ Judeo-Christian
rhetoric to the fourth power (anti communism - big government + morality ~ Judeo-Christian) + democracy = Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan = Capitalism
Pretty close.
progressivism and conservatism are both fundamentally inconsistent ideologies: The latter is based off of faith, observation, repetition, and a general feeling that whatever worked over and over again would work again. But it too lapses into a more radical strain as it tries to reach for consistency, this radical strain being neoconservatism or fascism. The progressives probably have a very similar epistemic framework but they are also probably inherently more anaylitic in that they reduce the world around them to something that needs to be changed based off of common definitions (capitalism = stinginess for instance and stinginess=not good, so socialism is what needs to be implemented). But again progressivism lapses into defending the status quo by finding humanitarian reasons to fight wars and also by producing middle-of-the-road pseudo-privatization-pragmatism aka clintonism.
The job of progressives is to make mistakes. The job of conservatives is to prevent those mistakes from being corrected.
Or something like that.
Esuric:Indeed, the founding fathers supported capitalism,
Laughing Man: Esuric:Indeed, the founding fathers supported capitalism, and so must they. Ugh, whenever someone says 'founding fathers' it makes me want to choke them...metaphorically of course.
Despotic Ghost Daddies!
filc:Did they during the abolition? I'd be interested in knowing this.
The GOP didn't. Lincoln was a racist. Conservatives, as they are traditionally defined were the southern states during that time. The GOP a.k.a the Federalists co-opted the abolition movement in order to consolidate power, they hold the conservative title in America now along with the democrats. A conservative now, as traditionally defined would be a new dealer i.e. both parties in the face of reform.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Juan: Esuric:Indeed, the founding fathers supported capitalism, Hmm. You mean slavery and mercantilism are 'capitalism' ?
They are when those who confuse terms write the dictionaries & spread these misinterpretations memetically throughout culture.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Esuric:Should I refer to them individually by name?
Well when people use the words they usually imply that every 'founding father' had the same mentality towards politics. Such as 'the founding fathers established a republic for the people.' Well not every one of them wanted the same thing. There is definitely a distinction.