Edward Mills wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:04:45 GMT, necoandjeff wrote:
>
>> Occam's razor is a great principal for those attempting to explain
>> something, like a phenomenon. Not so great when trying to build a
>> value system or deal with something as complex as politics. That's
>> my biggest beef with conservatives and liberals alike. It's as if
>> all value questions can be broken down into black or white, and if
>> you have a black value regarding a, you must also hold a black value
>> regarding b through z. Sound bites are easy to understand, but life
>> can't be broken down into one soundbite.
>
> Actually, Occam's razor has proven itself to be most useful when
> dealing
> with any overly-obfuscatory meanderings. I employ it here because you
> are attempting to say that complexity, in this instance, is
> necessary. If it
> is, then it is up to you to explain why.

Because the problems that political philosophy must deal with it and the
value system that must be built up to deal with them are very complex. The
very fact that conservatism, by your definition, is ALWAYS going to get it
wrong when a problem comes along that deserves a new or novel approach alone
demonstrates  that oversimplification in this case isn't going to result in
better answers, just an overly simplistic way of articulating your values.

>>> Slavery was often seen as immoral then as it is now. Perhaps even
>>> moreso since those who lived through it were able to witness it
>>> firsthand.
>>
>> Ahhh. I see. So you would have been one of those rare conservatives
>> who, despite the soundbite philosophy, would have had the foresight
>> and wisdom to know that we weren't dealing with a conservative issue
>> at all, even though slavery had been practiced for hundreds of years
>> in the new world and was an integral part of the economic makeup of
>> the nation at the time.
>
> Conservative philosophy demands that moral values of today are the
> result
> of a Darwinian nature. If we find slavery today somewhat less than
> moral, then that normative value has earned its place in conservative
> politics. Surely you would agree that history has shown slavery to be
> a morally bankrupt form of business, thus you would also be forced to
> conclude that conservativism has triumphed in this regard.

Wow, that has to be one of the most interesting attempts at twisting your
own political philosophy so as to justify it that I have heard in a long
time. You know I'll bet the Catholic church could use a thinker like you.

> Or maybe not...

Yes, not.

>>> But regardless, conservativism also places a value on
>>> change - just let's not be too fast.
>>
>> Now you're inching toward a definition of conservative that I can
>> accept.
>
> That's only because you never thought of it before now.

Wrong. A conservative friend of mine whom I respect a great deal has long
told me that it isn't that conservative abhors change, it is just that it
has an aversion to sudden change.

>  > Fair enough. Let me phrase it in the negative: Lincoln wouldn't
> have been a
>> conservative by your definition with respect to that particular
>> issue. But I thought the whole occam's razor, soundbite political
>> philosophy thing basically only divides the world into conservative
>> and liberal. Haven't you assumed that I'm a liberal by process of
>> elimination, after hearing me crack a few jokes about conservatives?
>> You'll have to forgive me if I assumed that you saw the world in a
>> simplistic way.
>
> No. Your problem is that you think conservatives can be put into
> slots like liberal, conservative, anarchist, libertarian, but the
> fact that you don't understand conservativism (or maybe some of those
> others) forces me to conclude that your slots are perhaps less than
> well-conceived.

If you consider yourself a conservative (and if you still consider me a
"liberal") aren't you also subsribing to the notion that we can all
(including yourself) be fit into various slots?

I haven't conceived of any slots here. You, a self-titled conservative,
wanted to "break out your hammer and add my ass to the ratherlong list of
neo-libs you've already nailed up on the cross of ignorance. I simply asked
you to define what you mean when you say you consider yourself a
conservative.


>>> Progress is also a conservative value according to my definition.
>>
>> But I have no interest in a political philosophy that argues against
>> progress at first, and then only accepts it as progress (and hence,
>> something good) after losing the argument and having the new value
>> around long enough that it can be considered a conservative value.
>> It's a lazy approach to politics if you ask me.
>
> Would you prefer a more logical approach to politics? Perhaps some
> political philosophy that transcends the belief that what meagre
> successes
> we have achieved is the result of previous successes and failures?

A logical approach to politics? You mean actually thinking about problems
and coming up with something other than cookie -utter solutions (solutions
that may very well be to simply maintain the status quo in some cases)? Yes
indeed that is exactly what I would prefer.

> Conservativism isn't the be-all and end-all of political
> philosophies, but its strength lies in accomodating this imperfection
> by allowing for further development of the values that conservatives
> cherish, and this includes a, perhaps overly long, period of
> adjustment of normative values.

For all that bad ass talk a few posts back, you are certainly wielding that
hammer in a rather very self-effacing way. And that's intended as a
compliment.

Jeff