What Are Conservative Values?

[Stephen mosier]

Yes, I would define, “Speak Softly and carry a big stick” subjectively. “Softly” and “big” are both subjective terms. Yes, Killer drones are awesome from both a technical and weaponry aspect. The use of killer drones, though, is only awesome if such use serves the interest of national defense, as they do in Afghanistan but did not do in Libya. I recall an invasion of Iraq but not an occupation. And I agree with voiding foreign entanglements, especially treaties on climate control and the like.

Preemptive action (strikes) may never be acceptable in your opinion but they are in mine. As far ability to predict the future, no one can predict with certainty what will happen but probabilities can be determined with use of good intelligence gathering and good judgment. As to fortune-tellers, there was something in the news about them being hired by the government but that was the GSA not the CIA. (I’ll have more to say about your view of preemptive actions when we get to the subject of gun-control.)

I always understood Charity to be a function of the church (moral conscience). If it is indeed a process of Congress then it cannot be a function of the church, because, if it is both then we have no separation of church and State.

As a foreign policy issue, being appreciated for the good we do is not immaterial. People of other nations who understand and appreciate the goodness of the American people are less likely to want to fight us over disagreements between our government and theirs. That sense of personal gratitude is lost when the only aid they see is our government attempting to buy political favors from their government leaders. I agree with you here, most of that is counter-productive.

Aid for any purpose other than nation security is un-constitutional. Aid to nations that we have treaties with for national defense purposes (NATO, for example) is constitutional when that aid is reasonably related to keeping our allies strong enough for us to reap the benefits of those treaties.

I read your commentary on free-trade at the link you provided and I found it interesting but not convincing.

And then you said, “Those who won’t compromise commit their grandchildren to violence.” The opposite might be equally true—Those who are too willing to compromise commit their grandchildren to violence. I say that in mind of the 1787 compromise on slavery and the Civil War ninety years later.

[Martin Hash]

I don't go to chuch but I still fill out the "Charitable Donations" item on Schedule A.

You have a lot more faith in science than I do if you think it can predict the future. People who say they can predict the future are ignorant at best and often dangerously manipulative. However, I think we can agree that "Preemptive Action" is a Conservative Value.

Expecting people to appreciate anything will only distress you. (Pehaps I'm missing your point?)

I don't know where we are on the subject of compromise - you seem to be saying that violence is inevitable either way so there's no reason to. "No compromise" is probably another Conservative Value?

[Stephen mosier]

I don’t go to church either but I also claim “Charitable Donations” on Schedule A. I find it interesting that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion yet the IRS has rules which define “Charity”. Go Figure???

I never said science could predict the future. The evolution debate demonstrates that science can’t even determine the past with any degree of credibility. But probabilities can be established and reasonable actions can be justified based upon analysis of likely probabilities.

I would not agree that preemptive actions is exclusively a “Conservative Value.” The Brady Bill is just one example of a Liberal based preemptive action (strike, if you prefer) against the Second Amendment rights of every law abiding citizen on an assumption—much less a probability—that the citizen is going to use the gun for unlawful purposes.

The point of our efforts being appreciated is not a matter of me expecting it. It is matter of understanding basic human nature. Most humans (certainly not all) appreciate freely given help they receive from others. They do not appreciate that which any government gives them--they believe they are entitled to it--they just expect it.

I think we are in agreement on the subject of compromise. It is a necessary part of any human association with other humans. However, I don’t think failure to compromise will always lead to violence nor that compromise will always avert violence.

[Stephen mosier]

p.s.

Just for clarification, I do go to churches sometimes for various special events and occassions. But I am not a member of any church and I do not attend for purposes of worship with any regularity. I am a non-denominational Christian.

[Martin Hash]

Charity:
Your argument rests on the assumption that there would be no charity without religion which is demonstrably false. (It’s similar to the anti-gay-marriage folk who insist there would be no marriage without religion.)

Probabilities:
I'm sure you're aware of the "Black Swan" theory? Creating scenarios, assigning probabilities, and drawing conclusions is the work of charlatans and witches. Predictions are bunk. (Spoken by a licensed Professional Engineer.)

Human nature:
Hmmm... I think I have a distinctively lower opinion of humanity's basic instincts.

Compromise:
My premise is that lack of compromise leads to violence. (You cannot disprove that tautologically - that violence after compromise means that compromise doesn't work.) However, we agree that compromise is neccessary, and I go the additional step of suggesting that Conservatives are less willing to compromise than me.

[Stephen mosier]

Martin,
No, my argument makes no assumptions about religion and charity. Charity is a function of one’s moral conscience—that personal and individual sense of right and wrong—that part of our being that government ought not intrude into so long as we are doing no harm to others.

I am not aware of any anti-gay-marriage folk who insist that there would be no marriage without religion. Perhaps you do. But that idea is not founded in any orthodox Conservative Value. If you encounter someone who espouses such a view and calls themselves a Conservative, would you please correct them for me.

On probabilities: Yes I am aware of the “Black Swan” theory but it has no application to the problem of accessing threats to National security. Throughout history there has been nothing rare or unpredictable in events of international intrigue and conflict. Hitler’s invasion of Poland; the attack on Pearl Harbor; and the attacks of Nine-Eleven were not Black Swan events. Neither will the next attack on us be a Black Swan event. (However, your reference to charlatans and witches does have application with regard to Al Gore’s predictions of Global Warming.)

Human Nature:
You said, “.. I think I have a distinctively lower opinion of humanity's basic instincts.”. It that opinion of humanity a reflection of your view of yourself, or just others?


On Compromise:
Conservatives have many disagreements among themselves which are normally resolved by compromise. Conservatives are only unwilling to compromise in matters where their core values are at stake. And in that regard I don’t think they are any less willing to compromise than Liberals. In context of the current political phenomenon which is being played out now, I can see how it might appear that Conservatives are less willing than their opponents to compromise.

[Martin Hash]

Charity:
Your argument seems to be that charity is emotional (not pragmatic) and hence is not a matter for Government. (Actually, you call pragmatic charity "national interest.") A society decides what it wants Government to be responsible for through the democratic process.

Witches:
It will be very interesting to see if Zimmerman gets off - normally Common Law does not allow preemptive action. The fact that our nation does it sometimes astounds me. Also, you'll find I'm consistent on the subject of soothsaying & voodoo:
Cap & Trade
Global Warming

Human Nature:
I am worse than some and better than most. (By my standards.)

Compromise:
We'll let that ride for now.

[Stephen mosier]

Reply To Your April 22, 2012 9:32 AM post

No, my argument is not that charity is emotional. The term I used was “moral conscience”. It is your opinion that “moral conscience” and “emotion” are synonymous? (Actually, I do not call pragmatic charity “national interest”. Charity, when it is a voluntary act of free citizens, can promote national interests—to the extent that it fosters good will toward Americans.)

Martin, as well as learning what it is that liberals place value in, I am interested in learning what they think and why. So, I would like to know why liberals have so much difficulty responding to a conservative’s point of view without replacing the words of the conservative with words from their own (liberal) thought processes. Case in point, why did you substitute “emotional” for my words, “moral conscience”?

Witches:
You are right about the common law and preemptive action. However, the findings in the Zimmerman case may not turn on the issue of preemptive action but upon the question of whether Zimmerman reasonably believed that he has in danger of serious bodily harm or death at the moment he pulled the trigger. In any case, I am confused as to what “witches” have to do with the Zimmerman case. Could you explain the connection you are making here?

Human Nature:
Perhaps you are better than most. That would mean that out the seven billion people in the world today you have some basis to judge over 3.5 billion of them and find them inferior to yourself. Do you actually know that many people well enough to make that judgment? Or, is there some preemptive judging involved in your view of others?

[Martin Hash]

Morals:
Stephen, morals are for religion, and ethics are for professional organizations - the only rules that both of us are involuntarily held to is The Law. To use the word “morals” in any debate is assuming facts not in evidence, while the word “emotion” universally defines subjectivity.

Witches:
Any purveyors of magic, whatever the terminology (witches, soothsayers, voodoo, fortuneteller, oracle, seer & revelator, mystic, etc.) applies to people who say they can predict the future which is what preemptive action is based on.

Human Nature:
Many people recognize professional organizations, educational institutions, and licensing agencies as objective proof of character – perhaps you don’t? I can accept that.

[Stephen mosier]

Morals:
You having a Doctorate in law from Lewis and Clark, I assume you are familiar with , “de Finibus Bonorumet et Malorim”, so I don’t understand your thinking that ethics is for only for professional organizations. But be that as it may.

You said, “To use the word “morals” in any debate is assuming facts not in evidence, while the word “emotion” universally defines subjectivity.”. First off, that is not true. That people do recognize the existence of morals is a fact. And the mention of that fact is relevant in many debates, particularly the one we are having here. Additionally, “emotion’ is a subjective term (just as morals is) but it is not the universal definition of anything. But if you are uncomfortable using words like “morals” and “conscience” in debates then I have a suggestion for you:

You are a Democrat and the Democrats are currently in control of the Legislative and Executive Branches of state government. Therefore, may I suggest that you lobby them to propose an amendment to Article One, Section 11, of the Washington State Constitution to strike all occurrences of the word “conscience” and replace them with the word, “emotions”. It would make the word much less likely to come up in debates.

Witches:
Your connection between witches and the Zimmerman case is flawed. Witches, (and all the other form of psychic practitioners) involve un-natural or super-natural senses. Zimmerman’s actions, whether justified or not, were based upon his natural senses. The human ability to sense danger is natural. And the sense of fear that comes from that sense of danger is natural. If he is convicted it will not be for practicing witchcraft but for exercising bad judgment. All the Witches in the World notwithstanding.

Human Nature:
Okay, so if I accept professional credentials as proof of character, it does not establish that the nature of the character proven tends to make such a person more likely to view the generosity of others in a more correct light than a person without such credentials. Said another way, how a person views generosity, whether as a giver or a receiver, is a function of their sense of moral conscience, not professional credentials. (Whoops! There’s that word again.) Lastly, are you sure that fewer than half the people on the planet have fewer credentials than you do? Or is that an assumption based upon some psychic ability.