Monday, March 1, 2010

What it means to be a conservatives.

Zo on the Zonation has a good clip about what it means to be a conservative. One of the question my children and my wife ask me is, "what's the difference between a liberal and a conservative?". I often found easy to define liberals, basically, having freedoms without responsibility. They all for freedom without suffering any consequences for said freedom, so they have money without work, be unproductive and have the government use by the force of the gun take money from the productive so as to be "fair", have sexual relations and abort any consequences, have gay sex and claim AIDS is a bigoted disease caused by a lack of caring and government intervention against homophobic bigots, give health care for those that don't contribute. When it comes to what makes a conservative, that question has proven to be a bit more difficult to define because, unlike liberals, they have certain moral standards and traditions that define what makes a conservative, even by liberals, but since every one have different morals standards (thanks liberal education system), determining these rules and standards can be challenge. This is why liberals think they're so morally superior. Since they have no morals, they can't be called hypocrites and with the most corrupt congress in history can honestly make the claim they're running the most ethical congress in history. Since they have no ethics, a lack thereof makes them ethical (don't use their logic, you'll just go crazy. They go by the "because I said so" mentality).

Basically, politically, what makes a conservative is those that want to conserve the original meaning that is defined in the Declaration of Independence, that the government only exist by the consent of the government, that we all have inalienable rights endowed by our creator to per sue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Basically freedom with responsibility. If one takes a look at what those that the media, education system, and the political arena define as a conservative person, the person is viewed as holding long held tradition view of the above principals and liberals sees such traditional views as ancient, outdated, and archaic. A prime example was a man that joked about a petition to end Freedom of Speech and how many signed with the agreement that it's an outdated concept that has no need in the modern world.

Conservatives belief in the scanty of life. That's what the founding fathers meant when they said that we have the inalienable right to life. We have a right to live and that government don't have the right to take the life of innocent. If anyone understand history and law that murder is viewed as a violation of a person right to life. Murders forfeit their right to life when they violate that right of other individuals. This is how it's been historically as well as in the Bible. However, we life in a time where right to life is defined by how it's valued by the government and each individuals relative morals. One of the fundamental foundations of conservatives is the right to life and that right can't be inpuned. Those that infringe on that right forfeit of their right. Liberals believe in the opposite. That's why they believe in abortion used as birth control, defending the lives or killers and terrorists. Heck, it's the real reason why they want to take over health care: the power of life and death. Conservatives believe that if one doesn't take a life, the life of innocents are to be protected. This is why the abortion debate won't go away, why they oppose government control health care, why they support gun rights to protect our right to life, and actually, the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendment was designed to protect the right to life among the next principal.

The next, the right to liberty. Liberty is a loaded word because if you ask 1000 people on the street what does liberty means, you'll get 1000 different answers. I'm going with the founding father's main believe and this is the one that conservatives hold true, freedom from government intervention when it comes to mandates other than the protection of life and property. The main property to be protected is our right to our hard earned cash, money, mucho dinero. One of the most violent acts a person can do to another is take their money from them. If one wants to find the most fundamental flaws of socialism is that it's based on the concept that the government has a right and obligation to take one man's money and give it to another. Now some taxes are necessary because the government can't protect life and property without funding. When the government tax, it does so with the force of the gun. It was suppose to be by willing participant who pay so as to live in a civilized society, but lets face it, nobody is going to agree all the time what should be tax and how should it be spent. However, taxes for protection of the right to life and property is needed and necessary. It's when people are forced to give up their money for programs other than said protection. When a productive man is forced to give up their money so a non-productive, the lazy, the criminal, are to get a "fair share". How is that different than the said persons just get a gun and forced the productive to give it up because they simply want money? Conservatives are for limited government and low taxes because their fundamental value is that people should be free to spend their money on what they see fit. You want to see a prime example how people become poor, desuetude, and slaves to the powers to be, just go to a socialist or totalitarian society. They often have high and oppressive tax bases and not to build roads or schools, or to protect their life and property, but to fill the powers to be pockets. Life and liberty and their protection can often be seen on the size of the government and their tax base. This is why conservatives believe in low taxes and limited government.

As for the pursuit of happiness, there's often a misconception that that pursuit should find what it is a person seek. This is the freedom with responsibility comes in. One is entitle to the PURSUIT. Today, though, that pursuit is no longer the right, but the consequences. We believe, fallaciously, that every pursuit should have equal results, finding happiness. This is why modern politics try to make everything "fair". They mandate equal results and if the results isn't equal it's because someone took it from them. Often is different people have different desire, talents, skills, intelligence, traits, etc. What makes one person happy may make another miserable. The limited government is the cornerstone to the this right. However, what we have is that if everything doesn't turn out as we wish, we ask the government to intervene. If one wants a prime example, just look at the lawsuit crisis we have here. People get sued over the dumbest things and now is making so much of economic activity so expensive, that people are now having a harder time pursuing their happiness. Playgrounds are disappearing for example, because if a child gets hurt, they sue and get money. I remember when I first learn to ride a bike or skate and I got hurt at first, but now I can enjoy (my pursuit of happiness) to ride or skate. Now with our desire to have a perfect utopia we outlaw many items at play ground because of lawsuit issues. A doctor take too many test and we're in danger of the industry because costly and scarce because nobody wants to go into the profession because they're target of greedy and frivolous lawsuits. The one that makes me shake my head was a woman that sued her insurance company because after paying 10 times for an IVF procedure and failing and it was determined she's a poor candidate for a successful IVF, the company tired of paying for it (at $100,000 a pop), found it no longer productive to go through with it. The woman statement shows how far from the original meaning we've distanced ourselves from. She stated that she's entitled to a baby and the insurance company is denying her that baby. We're entitled to pursuit of happiness, we're not guarantee to find it. When we have a government that's mandate such equity and utopia, that's when we get into trouble. Conservatives believe a person has the right to pursuit happiness, but not the government to guarantee or mandate it.

Now do conservatives agree on how to achieve these goals? No. There's a story of two brothers in the Bible that didn't agree how to spread the word of Christ. Now did that mean they weren't a part of God's organization? No, just different how to do so. However, when one based one goals and objective on the principal of Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, they tend to be conservative. When on base it on everything should be equal all the time and every individual is entitled to their own moral compass with an entitlement of no consequences for their actions, then they tend to side as liberal. Or to put it beast as I can. The conservative believe that an individual is entitled to be free as long as they're responsible and held accountable for the consequences as we don't live in a perfect world. Liberals believe in utopia if everyone is forced to have equal consequences for unequal input, productivity, and moral foundations (which is no morals, no violations). Or as I see it, conservatives believe in individualism, while liberals in totalitarianism.

No comments: