Expiring Minds Want to Know; What is Conservatism?
By
laydownSally
on January 27, 2008 at 06:10 pm
No Comments Yet
Saturday it was pointed out, in a back page blog here on SAB, that the three Democratic candidates are extreme liberal-socialist. Sounds fair. The definition of a socialist is pretty clear.
It was said, by another commentator, that no one holds ownership of the definition of conservatism. With some timorous I tended, at first, to agree, since the definition of conservatism is not as crisply defined.
But the I suppose the same could be true for the numerous (and sometimes misguided)interpretations of right and wrong.
To be sure I am a slow minded individual, but with time I realized the commentator was saying we can all define conservatism as we please. I don’t believe that is so.
Conservatism is caution; in a sense, the diametric party to socialism.
It is ownership versus the lack of ownership.
It is responsibility versus the lack of responsibility.
It is the market place determining when and which goods will be rendered, instead of goverment administering and distributing goods.
Conservatism isn’t defined by small goverment. It is less goverment intrusion that defines conservatism.
When it comes down to the choices we will have for the general election and if the Democrats offer up a socialist, then with what will the Republicans counter?
If a Republican candidate in their efforts to unite us agrees to comprimises which have socialist overtones, are they not then socialist enablers?
If a Republican candidate agrees to raise taxes, (or votes against lowering them), and places a higher percentage of burden on wealthy individuals, isn’t this the same socialist principle of reapportionment?
It was said, by another commentator, that no one holds ownership of the definition of conservatism. With some timorous I tended, at first, to agree, since the definition of conservatism is not as crisply defined.
But the I suppose the same could be true for the numerous (and sometimes misguided)interpretations of right and wrong.
To be sure I am a slow minded individual, but with time I realized the commentator was saying we can all define conservatism as we please. I don’t believe that is so.
Conservatism is caution; in a sense, the diametric party to socialism.
It is ownership versus the lack of ownership.
It is responsibility versus the lack of responsibility.
It is the market place determining when and which goods will be rendered, instead of goverment administering and distributing goods.
Conservatism isn’t defined by small goverment. It is less goverment intrusion that defines conservatism.
When it comes down to the choices we will have for the general election and if the Democrats offer up a socialist, then with what will the Republicans counter?
If a Republican candidate in their efforts to unite us agrees to comprimises which have socialist overtones, are they not then socialist enablers?
If a Republican candidate agrees to raise taxes, (or votes against lowering them), and places a higher percentage of burden on wealthy individuals, isn’t this the same socialist principle of reapportionment?
likwidshoe
Lestat
Hannitized
Carrick
Anarchist Vegetarian