mustbeageek

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, December 12, 2011

Explicating Conservatism: Some Questions for Ilion and other self-described conservatives

Posted on 2:43 PM by Unknown
Ilion, let's try to unpack your claim here.

I: Meanwhile, Prokop and his fellow leftist partisans *do* believe in, and *do* agitate for, using the violent power of The State to forcibly confiscate the honestly-earned wealth of [someone] so as to give it to [someone else] … and this is open theft. It is grossly unjust and immoral; that “the government” is doing it does not make it just or moral. Any society which tries to operate on this principle of mutual looting must utterly destroy itself.

VR: I think this is a fair statement of a standard conservative perspective. The presupposition seems to be that, before the government gets its greedy mitts on our money, it is distributed by markets, both the commodity markets and the labor markets. When this original distribution occurs, that distribution is relatively meritocratic; those who have more merit more. However this meritocracy is compromised by government's "well-intentioned" (and here I reference the signature statement on your blog), attempt to help the have-nots at the expense of the haves.

Now, I take it you do think the government has the right to ask that we all ante up to provide for our common defense, and probably some of this also needs to go to make sure the country's infrastructure is maintained. So there should be a military budget, there should be a budget for building roads and bridges and maintaining those, etc. As I understand it those should be paid for not at the point of income but at the point of consumption; those who use it should pay to use it.

But here, it seems to me that conservatives draw a distinction between the protective role of government and the non-protective role. The protective roles of government have a constitutional mandate (provide for the common defense, etc.), the non-protective roles are, pretty largely, a matter of government overstepping its authority. So, for example, if health insurance companies have a policy of excluding people with pre-existing conditions, it is unjust government intrusion to come in and prevent them from doing this, so that more people can be insured. So, conservatives at least can be hawks when it comes to what we need to do to defend ourselves, although there was a time in our history when conservatives tended to be isolationists.

At this point I am trying to spell out what I think is the conservative vision as you understand it, and I want to invite others who describe themselves as conservative to look at this and see if their own view is accurately represented. Amend as you see fit, guys. I want to put the descriptive process first before I start talking about why I have trouble believing this whole story.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in conservatism | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home
View mobile version

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Is there a general conception of God?
    Here is some discussion on Debunking Christianity. I had been in a discussion on a prior thread with Cole, who had argued that in the absen...
  • Conflating atheism with materialism
    Parbouj has been making the complaint that Lewis, and those like myself who make use of his philosophical ideas, conflate atheism with mater...
  • We call it "going bad" in Narnia
    Papalinton: However, the arguments providing epistemic support for atheism is growing as we speak. What remains in the wash, following the e...
  • If you attack something, you have to defend your attacks
    Papalinton: Dawkins showed more than a modicum of wisdom when he intelligently noted, in paraphrase, "It [a debate] would look good on ...
  • McGrew on the Historical Reliability of the NT
    This is a youtube video of a presentation given by Skype to the Belfast Reasonable Faith society.
  • An interesting discussion of ECREE
  • Blatant ad hominem?
    Papalinton seems to be arguing as follows: 1. C. S. Lewis defended the view that there is a God, and that Christianity is true. 2. But C. S....
  • Another version of the AFR
    1. If there is no God, then all causation in the universe is blind, physical causation.  2. If that is true, then what everyone believes is ...
  • The problem of prior time
    Here is Graham Oppys response to some Craig's claims about the Kalam argument. Grünbaum (1990) (1991) worries about the propriety of the...
  • The Rage of Unbelief
    This is in response to Alex Rosenberg's debate with William Lane Craig. Not mentioning any names, but this does seem to be a real probl...

Categories

  • abortion (4)
  • ad hominem arguments (4)
  • AFR (7)
  • Angus Menuge (1)
  • anti-intellectualism (1)
  • anti-religious propaganda (2)
  • Aquinas (2)
  • archaeology (1)
  • argument from beauty (1)
  • argument from confusion (1)
  • argument from consciousness (1)
  • argument from design (4)
  • argument from desire (1)
  • argument from evil (4)
  • argument from intentionality (3)
  • argument from martyrdom (1)
  • argument from reason (12)
  • argument from size (1)
  • Arianism (1)
  • Athanasuis (1)
  • atheism (30)
  • atheism and rhetoric (2)
  • atheistic arguments (1)
  • atonement (1)
  • Balfour (1)
  • Barack Obama (3)
  • Bayesianism (3)
  • Benedict XVI (1)
  • Bertrand Russell (1)
  • biblical criticism (1)
  • biblical ethics (1)
  • biblical inspiration (1)
  • Bill Clinton (1)
  • Buddhism (1)
  • Bulverism (3)
  • Bulverism. (1)
  • burden of proof (3)
  • business ethics (1)
  • C. S. Lewis (21)
  • C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (1)
  • campaign finance reform (1)
  • capital punishment (2)
  • capitalism (3)
  • Catholicism (1)
  • Christian apologetics (4)
  • Christian philosophy (1)
  • Christian socialism (1)
  • Christianity (2)
  • Christianity and Islam (1)
  • christianity and politics (2)
  • Chronological snobbery (1)
  • church and state (1)
  • classical theism (3)
  • comments (1)
  • communism (1)
  • conservatism (4)
  • contemporary miracles (1)
  • conversion (2)
  • cosmological argument (1)
  • cosmological arguments (2)
  • courtier's reply (1)
  • creationism (1)
  • critical rationalism (1)
  • cultural relativism (1)
  • cumulative case arguments (1)
  • Daniel Dennett (2)
  • Darwinism (2)
  • death penalty (3)
  • debates (1)
  • deficits (1)
  • defining evolution (1)
  • defining faith (4)
  • defining materialism (1)
  • defining naturalism (2)
  • divine command morality (2)
  • Doctor Logic (1)
  • Dualism (2)
  • dwindling probabilities (1)
  • EAAN (1)
  • Easter (1)
  • ECREE (6)
  • eliminativism (1)
  • embryonic stem cell research (2)
  • epistemology (1)
  • ethical relativism (1)
  • ethical subjectivism (3)
  • ethics (2)
  • ethics without god (2)
  • ethics without god. ethics (1)
  • Euthyphro (1)
  • evidence (2)
  • Evolution (8)
  • Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (2)
  • exclusivism (1)
  • fact and opinion (1)
  • faith (3)
  • Faith and Reason (2)
  • fallacy of composition (1)
  • fideism (1)
  • fine-tuning argument (3)
  • first way (1)
  • five ways (1)
  • flat earth (1)
  • Francis Collins (2)
  • free thought (2)
  • free will (1)
  • functionalism (1)
  • fundamentalism (1)
  • fundamentalist atheism (2)
  • G. K. Chesterton (2)
  • Gandhi (1)
  • gay marriage (2)
  • gnu atheism (1)
  • God and goodness (1)
  • god of the gaps (5)
  • gun control (1)
  • hallucination theory (3)
  • hard determinism (1)
  • Health Care (1)
  • heaven (2)
  • historical argument (3)
  • historical reliability of the NT (2)
  • Holy Spirit (1)
  • homosexuality (1)
  • Hume (4)
  • ideologues (1)
  • illegal immigration (2)
  • inclusivism (1)
  • indexicals (1)
  • informal fallacies (2)
  • intelligent design (10)
  • intentionality (2)
  • Islam (1)
  • J. R. R. Tolkien (1)
  • Jeffrey Jay Lowder (2)
  • Joe Biden (1)
  • John Loftus (13)
  • just war theory (1)
  • Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)
  • Kant (2)
  • Keith Parsons (4)
  • liberalism (1)
  • libertarianism (1)
  • logical fallacies (1)
  • logical problem of evil (1)
  • love (1)
  • Lydia McGrew (4)
  • lying (1)
  • materialism (5)
  • mathematics (1)
  • Mere Christianity (1)
  • metaphysical naturalism (1)
  • methodological naturalism (1)
  • mind-body dualism (2)
  • miracles (9)
  • Mitt Romney (1)
  • modalities (1)
  • moral argument (3)
  • moral objectivity (2)
  • moral relativism (1)
  • morality and religion (2)
  • morality without God (1)
  • Mormonism (1)
  • multiverse hypothesis (1)
  • Naturalism (6)
  • near-death experiences (1)
  • open theism (1)
  • outsider test (5)
  • P Z Myers (1)
  • pacifism (1)
  • paranormal (1)
  • paranornal (1)
  • Paul Ryan (1)
  • Peter Van Inwagen (1)
  • philosophy (2)
  • philosophy of mind (3)
  • physicalism (1)
  • Plantinga (1)
  • politics (3)
  • prayer studies (1)
  • pride (1)
  • probability (1)
  • problem of evil (3)
  • property dualism (1)
  • public education (1)
  • purpose (1)
  • qualia (1)
  • reductionism (1)
  • Reformed epistemology (1)
  • relativism (1)
  • religion and morality (3)
  • religion and science (1)
  • religious relativism (1)
  • Resurrection (4)
  • retributive theory of punishment (1)
  • Richard Carrier (1)
  • Richard Carrier (3)
  • Richard Dawkins (7)
  • ridicule (1)
  • Robin Collins (1)
  • Satan (1)
  • scientific realism (2)
  • Scripture (3)
  • sexual morality (1)
  • skepticism (1)
  • Social Darwinism (1)
  • socialism (2)
  • socialized medicine (1)
  • soteriological exclusivism (1)
  • St. Thomas Aquinas (1)
  • Steve Lovell (1)
  • strong rationalism (1)
  • Super Bowl (2)
  • supernaturalism (1)
  • Swinburne (2)
  • the argument from asymmetry (1)
  • the argument from evil (7)
  • the argument from reason (15)
  • the concept of God (1)
  • the definition of faith (2)
  • the new atheism (16)
  • the outsider test (5)
  • the problem of evil (3)
  • the right to privacy (1)
  • the Unmoved Mover (1)
  • theism (4)
  • theistic arguments (3)
  • theistic explanations (2)
  • Theodore Drange (1)
  • theological voluntarism (1)
  • theology and falsification (1)
  • Thomas Nagel (5)
  • Thomism (1)
  • Thomistic Cosmological Argument (1)
  • Tim McGrew (8)
  • Trinity (2)
  • Vallicella (2)
  • vitalism (1)
  • Wall Street (1)
  • William Dembski (1)
  • William Hasker (1)
  • William Lane Craig (7)
  • Winfred Corduan (1)
  • young earth creationism (1)
  • zombies (1)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (180)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (22)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (26)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2012 (268)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (26)
    • ►  October (30)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (24)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (22)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (12)
  • ▼  2011 (52)
    • ▼  December (22)
      • Mark Nelson on reductio versions of the Argument f...
      • The Intentionality Delusion
      • Conflating atheism with materialism
      • Subjectivism and the argument from evil as a reductio
      • C. S. Lewis on Subjectivism and the argument from ...
      • Against Gandhi
      • The Great Sin
      • Carrier and I agree on something!
      • Cafeteria Conservatism and Corporate Prostitution
      • A Question for Frank Beckwith and Other Pro-Lifers
      • Explicating Conservatism: Some Questions for Ilion...
      • What happens to the unused embryos
      • The World's Top Atheists
      • Redistribution and parties
      • McGrew on the Historical Reliability of the NT
      • On Clinton's Lies
      • Ben Schuldt replies to Darek Barefoot
      • The Ten Commandments
      • Fundy atheists
      • Evolution and its impact on Christian theism
      • Defending Carrier Against Me
      • A Youtube Attack on my AFR
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile