advertisement


Why Conservative?

I think there are two main congestive aspects that distinguish conservatives (right) from those on the left. Those are the fear response, and the ability to deal with conflicting information (shades of grey thinking). Conservatives tend to
  • Have a more pronounced fear response (fear of strangers)
  • Believe that most people are bad, unless compelled to be good by rules and punishment
  • Strongly dislike situations with conflicting information and no simple, obvious answer (e.g. abortion, and to a lesser extent Brexit)
They wish to be protected from others (hence big on law and order, move to lower population density areas) and be given simple solutions to complex problems (e.g. abortion is an unfortunate and unpleasant thing, so lets just ban it, or drugs can do great damage so lets make them illegal).

Left wingers tend to be the opposite of the above bullet points.

There have been various studies over the past few decades showing the above to be generally true:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00289-2
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052970

Unfortunately, bad faith political actors have learned to stoke fear and uncertainty in conservative leaning voters, and this is, in large part, how we ended up in our current mess. I don't know how we solve this problem while retaining freedom of speech. I do think, though, that psychopaths are responsible for > 90% of human suffering and that governmental and corporate structures to severely limit the power of individuals would be a very good idea. Either that or a virus that has a high mortality rate in those with strong genetic markers for psychopathy.
 
ks.234 said:
Surely nothing that drastic is required. To redistribute you only need to close the gap between the richest and the poorest instead of making the gap bigger. .
Click to expand...

By taking some of the wealth of the richer people, in taxes for example, which is exactly what I said: "deprive some people of their property in order to give to others" It is not, as @Sue Pertwee-Tyr suggested, that conservatives object to a fairer distribution of wealth. It is that they claim that a more even distribution of wealth may not be the most fair because, in getting to the greater evenness, you have to violate the property rights of the more fortunate. The right to keep what they legally own and what they legally earn and what they legally inherit and receive as a gift. At what point does redistribution become an incorrect violation of these rights? This is the crux of the argument -- this is a good place to focus on.
 
Yank said:
A new party to further divide the opposition vote, just what is needed...
Click to expand...
Well, it was a nice dream.

Gina Miller, a woman with intelligence and integrity running the country.

Then I woke up to a nightmare.
 
mandryka said:
By taking some of the wealth of the richer people, in taxes for example, which is exactly what I said: "deprive some people of their property in order to give to others" It is not, as @Sue Pertwee-Tyr suggested, that conservatives object to a fairer distribution of wealth. It is that they claim that a more even distribution of wealth may not be the most fair because, in getting to the greater evenness, you have to violate the property rights of the more fortunate. The right to keep what they legally own and what they legally earn and what they legally inherit and receive as a gift. At what point does redistribution become an incorrect violation of these rights? This is the crux of the argument -- this is a good place to focus on.
Click to expand...
Is taxation a violation of property rights though?
 
ks.234 said:
To be fair, Conservatives on pfm are a minority, and pfm being pfm, minority views do tend to lead to a pile on and the ad hom.
Click to expand...
You used to get a bit of banter back in the hideous old days of Bullingdon Dave and Bullingdon Osborne who were stealing exclusively from the paups to bringdownthedeficit. Remember Mick and Mecalito in their pomp? The sadism was oozing out of every pore. Their tails were still up when Dave gave way to The Human Swastika May because May was the visceral embodiment of Tory sadism at the Home Office- shipping the blacks back to Jamaica when their capacity for low paid work was at an end.

Then something bad happened- May asked the public to strengthen her hand and instead they cut it off and Corbyn was to blame. The fantasies of a have it all Brexit were over and things started to get a bit quiet, though I can remember that election night- there were howls of anguish and disbelief as the Tory majority was slashed.

Strangely, the same Tories became even shyer (with a few exceptions and! not all of them were Tories. Boris had sex appeal that reached into UKIP and Labour factions as we saw on pfm).

Now alas we have long periods of shyness interrupted by occasional howls of outrage and denial. How could this have happened? -we held all the cards!

There’s nothing to pile on to- they imploded.
 
This ‘levelling up’ idea is a big con though isn’t it. I can see why they chose it, gives the impression we’re all going to have as much dosh as J R Mogg. Nonsense, the only thing that will work is ‘levelling down’ but who’s going to use that as a slogan!
 
Minio said:
Well, it was a nice dream.

Gina Miller, a woman with intelligence and integrity running the country.

Then I woke up to a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Sorry. It's a lovely idea, I just think that the multi-party system is a bit of an illusion, and a vote for any party other than Labour is a vote for the Conservatives. Requires a bit of nose-holding, but the first priority should be to break the Tory hegemony. Only then can you quibble over the details.

Perhaps I should keep my nose out of UK politics, but there seems to be no shortage of commentary on the US system from the UK members, so turnabout is fair play. :)
 
TheDecameron said:
You used to get a bit of banter back in the hideous old days of Bullingdon Dave and Bullingdon Osborne who were stealing exclusively from the paups to bringdownthedeficit. Remember Mick and Mecalito in their pomp? The sadism was oozing out of every pore. Their tails were still up when Dave gave way to The Human Swastika May because May was the visceral embodiment of Tory sadism at the Home Office- shipping the blacks back to Jamaica when their capacity for low paid work was at an end.

Then something bad happened- May asked the public to strengthen her hand and instead they cut it off and Corbyn was to blame. The fantasies of a have it all Brexit were over and things started to get a bit quiet, though I can remember that election night- there were howls of anguish and disbelief as the Tory majority was slashed.

Strangely, the same Tories became even shyer (with a few exceptions and! not all of them were Tories. Boris had sex appeal that reached into UKIP and Labour factions as we saw on pfm).

Now alas we have long periods of shyness interrupted by occasional howls of outrage and denial. How could this have happened? -we held all the cards!

There’s nothing to pile on to- they imploded.
Click to expand...
Yes, though I seem to remember the ad hom was based on what those people were against, rather than what they were actually for.

It would still be nice to hear from the more articulate Tory voters who can say what they stand for, rather than against
 
Yank said:
Sorry. It's a lovely idea, I just think that the multi-party system is a bit of an illusion, and a vote for any party other than Labour is a vote for the Conservatives. Requires a bit of nose-holding, but the first priority should be to break the Tory hegemony. Only then can you quibble over the details.

Perhaps I should keep my nose out of UK politics, but there seems to be no shortage of commentary on the US system from the UK members, so turnabout is fair play. :)
Click to expand...

The economic model is the problem. Voting for Labour is still a vote for the same economic ideology based on a flawed household model.
 
laughingboy said:
They are also often the best way to deliver luxury goods (there are, as far as I am aware, no decent state-owned hi-fi companies).
Click to expand...

There once was one here in socialistic Sweden, in the 1970's. Sonab. Most famous for Carlsson omni speakers. They went bust. which probably proves your point ;)

Sweden as a socialistic state is long gone. An example. We have government financed, publicly traded (on the stock market) private schools!!! Redistribution of government money to the already rich...
 
mandryka said:
By taking some of the wealth of the richer people, in taxes for example, which is exactly what I said: "deprive some people of their property in order to give to others" It is not, as @Sue Pertwee-Tyr suggested, that conservatives object to a fairer distribution of wealth. It is that they claim that a more even distribution of wealth may not be the most fair because, in getting to the greater evenness, you have to violate the property rights of the more fortunate. The right to keep what they legally own and what they legally earn and what they legally inherit and receive as a gift. At what point does redistribution become an incorrect violation of these rights? This is the crux of the argument -- this is a good place to focus on.
Click to expand...
Your choice of word here is interesting. You chose ‘violation’; you could have used a less emotionally charged word, like ‘imposition’ or ‘infringement’ but you used the word with overtones of violence. It does support the fear narrative that others have put forward.

As a counter narrative, I might argue that poor people are ‘violated’ because they have their ‘property’ stolen at source. They earn less than a wealthy person. Why is that? Why has society decided that a lawyer, or a banker, is worth more, per hour, than the person who clears refuse or processes sewage, thereby preventing outbreaks of Cholera, say. Or the hospital porter, or supermarket worker (those we acknowledged as key workers, not long ago) all of whom keep the wheels on our essential services, used by rich and poor alike. These people don’t have their right to wealth and property ‘violated’ by taxation, they are denied it before they even get to that stage. Where is the fairness in that?
 
.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Your choice of word here is interesting. You chose ‘violation’; you could have used a less emotionally charged word, like ‘imposition’ or ‘infringement’ but you used the word with overtones of violence. It does support the fear narrative that others have put forward.

As a counter narrative, I might argue that poor people are ‘violated’ because they have their ‘property’ stolen at source. They earn less than a wealthy person. Why is that? Why has society decided that a lawyer, or a banker, is worth more, per hour, than the person who clears refuse or processes sewage, thereby preventing outbreaks of Cholera, say. Or the hospital porter, or supermarket worker (those we acknowledged as key workers, not long ago) all of whom keep the wheels on our essential services, used by rich and poor alike. These people don’t have their right to wealth and property ‘violated’ by taxation, they are denied it before they even get to that stage. Where is the fairness in that?
Click to expand...

There’s a danger of getting two questions confused:

1. At what point does taking wealth from the fortunate to support the less fortunate become an inappropriate infringement of their property rights?

2. How are correct rates of pay determined in capitalism?

As a matter of fact, the fortunate have earned their wealth and hence they have property rights over that wealth.

My suggestion is that one reason people are Conservative derives from a view about the answer to question 1.
 
The notion of ‘earned’ here is open to challenge. Why has, say, somebody whose income derives from property gifted to them ‘earned’ more than a person who works 50 hours a week caring for people who can’t look after themselves? Which of them gives more value to society?
 
My point being that society, as defined by those with the power, has decided that some tasks and abilities are of greater merit than others, but there’s no rational basis for that.
 
mandryka said:
.


There’s a danger of getting two questions confused:

1. At what point does taking wealth from the fortunate to support the less fortunate become an inappropriate infringement of their property rights?

2. How are correct rates of pay determined in capitalism?

As a matter of fact, the fortunate have earned their wealth and hence they have property rights over that wealth.

My suggestion is that one reason people are Conservative derives from a view about the answer to question 1.
Click to expand...

One response, @Sue Pertwee-Tyr, would be to relegate the rights discourse to a secondary role. This is consequentialism. This is my view, I am a utilitarian. However it’s a big subject and I think it would be hard to discuss it in a forum like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top