Conservative Principles - The Arena of Debate

Before I begin, you liberals cannot defeat us in the arena of debate, so I challenge you to give me your best shot here on this forum.

We the people are losing a battle. It has been a long and enduring battle that depends on individuals who wish to ensure the principles that guide freedom and liberty don’t fall out of the hands of those who have the ability to prosper under a free economic system. I believe the term “conservatism” has been derived from the concept of conserving the principles, which helped guide a group of people into forming the constitution that helped promote, protect, and empower individuals who wished to provide a better lifestyle for themselves and as a consequence of their actions, (Adam Smith’s invisible hand) help others along the way.

“Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata.” – Russell Kirk

Russell Kirk wrote about ten conservative principles most conservatives would subscribe too and they are found in this link.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

The rest of this post is mostly a cut and paste of some of those enduring principles and I am adding some other views many other conservatives would agree with.  Feel free to cut and paste my views around the internet if you wish.

The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.  A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription — that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste.

Traderdrew – Humans have tried every economic system. History seems to repeat itself. If we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past, if we the people become too naive, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes others have made.

Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Traderdrew - The idea that all men are created equal was written as part of the Declaration of Independence which was a letter to the King of England. When I read the declaration, I believe the phrase, “All men were created equal.” should be put in its proper context. It was one way of telling King George that he had too much power and that he was abusing it. Ironically, today it is being used as a way to encourage a shift into socialism.

Obviously everyone has different talents. Some can perform various tasks better than others can. Therefore, some might be better at sales than someone else who is better at construction as an example.

Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created.

Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several properties and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act.

Traderdrew – The case for ownership of land cannot be overemphasized. Conservatives believe private owners of land can take care of that land better than government can just as a business can run a business better than government stepping in and doing it for them. Private ownership of land and personal property seems to empower individuals. There exists incentives them take care of their property and add value to it. The fruits of their labor may be sold for a profit and/or parts derived from this, such as commodities can be sent as part of an exchange into the free market. The value of property goes up and if everyone is empowered by this principle, the nation as a whole becomes richer.

The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that give us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

The conservative thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. (A utopia) The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Traderdrew – A friend of mine gave me an example of progression. Ten years ago an $80,000 dollar Lexus had a lot of electronic bells and whistles. Today, much of those beneficial additions are available on the Toyota Camry. If it wasn’t for rich people buying those Lexuses ten years ago then this technology wouldn’t have been continuously advanced and developed. Perhaps you are thinking, a benevolent government may have but that view is naïve and loses sight of the big picture. First of all, many ideas that embellish advanced automobiles came from the private sector. The government didn’t think of them. If the private sector has no incentive to empower their lives then, how is this technology supposed to become available? Second of all, a socialist government would have had to tax its citizens for the funding and this would leave less money for other programs.

Conservatives know that financial inequality is the result of a free market economic system. What economic system is better?  Before you move to a new land, it is wise to visit where you want to go before you move there.  Why don't you fly to Cuba, Venezuela, or Russia and try it for yourself?  The United States has some of the richest poor in the world. They have cell phones, televisions, and many of them drive automobiles.

Before I continue, lets look at this link that shows conservatives are the biggest group of philanthropists!  Or do a Google search for “conservative biggest givers”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n24978669

A significant amount of people feel we need to give money to poor people. As a conservative I am not against this but there are general problems with this idea.

1. If you want to the government to tax us and give it to the poor, first of all, it is not their money to give.

2. If you want to give your money to the poor, it only feeds them for a day or a week. It does nothing for their self-esteem and therefore, it only makes the poor happy for a short period of time.  Can you define happiness as sticking it to the rich and giving it to the poor?

3. Excessive taxes for the purposes of financial equality will diminish or abolish incentives and the liberty to advance financial livelihood for individuals and their immediate family.

We do need a government but if we the people do not stop the trend of expanding government and rely on ourselves, the government will eventually consume its host, "We the People". What real wealth does our government produce? It only taxes and redistributes.