Managed to miss this as well.
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you get that the point I'm trying to get across here is that "social conservative" doesn't really mean what most people assume it does? Most people assume that it means "social policies supported by conservatives". But then when they point to the policies themselves, in most cases they *aren't* things that are really connected with conservative political positions. They really mean "religious/ethically based social policies" which is not the same thing.
And that's why conservative policies you don't like aren't
true conservative policies, says the Scotsman.
One can also argue that the Scotsman doesn't get to decide what policies are
true conservative policies" either. You can see that when you label a policy a "conservative policy", you're committing the same fallacy, right?
Quote:
There are liberal stances that I don't like, but rather than pretend that isn't liberalism, I just accept that I don't have to be 100% on board with every single aspect of a broad political movement.
Get back to me when conservatives define all your liberal stances based on the ones you don't agree with, or assume that because you are a liberal you *must* agree with and support those specific positions or ideas. Remember what this topic is about. People were surprised that it was conservatives warning Canada not to pursue a high incarceration penal policy. Why were they surprised? Because they assumed that "lock em up and throw away the key" is a defining conservative social position and thus all conservatives must agree with it.
See how that's relevant? I'm pointing out how often some people (and especially posters on this forum), make assumptions about what a "true conservative" is, and what policies they must support and go so far as to accuse anyone who dares to hold a conservative position on anything at all of agreeing with their own fallacious assumptions. Do you have any clue how often I see arguments of this form: "Well, you claim that you want smaller government, but you support prayer in school, and creationism as science, and believe that life starts at conception". Um... hello?
Heck. I think an argument of that exact form is what spurred this particular little argument in the first place. It happens all the time. I'd have no problem simply saying that there are some positions held by some conservatives which I don't agree with if only other people would accept that and not constantly attempt to attack my positions by associating me (or those positions) with those other things.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The policies actually associated with being conservative are about smaller government.
But they aren't, not always. It's a sound bite, but conservative policies are a mix of increasing and decreasing the power of the government.
Are they? I disagree. The question is, am I wrong for only calling those policies which act on small government principles "conservative", or are you wrong for calling other policies which don't conservative and thus concluding that "being conservative" isn't really about small government at all. I really think the issue is that we get caught up in labels.
Quote:
Telling people who they can and cannot marry is a big deal. You can say there is a good reason for the government to have that power, but really you are increasing the power of the government. Telling gays they can't marry gives the government more control over our lives, not less.
First off, no one's telling gays who they can or can't marry. What we're doing is not
expanding the set of couples the government will provide benefits to if/when they do marry. Do you see how that fits with a small government position? I'll repeat my assertion that most people, and certainly most liberals, simply do not understand that conservatives mean when they say "small government".
Quote:
Telling people they can't have abortions is also giving the government more power. Again, you might think there is a good reason to do so, but you're not limiting government, you're expanding it.
This is a bit of a different issue though. Unless you're arguing that we should allow elective abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, then government must regulate abortion. So we're not increasing its influence by choosing what those regulations should be. That's like saying that debating how to punish criminals is a violation of the small government principle. If we've already agreed that the behavior in question is criminal then it's not.
Quote:
American conservatism is only about smaller government on the fiscal side.
I disagree. I think people who say that largely don't understand the small government position in the first place. I believe that fiscal policy and social policy within the context of big/small government are nearly impossible to disconnect. Policies which attempt to manage our fiscal lives will by necessity also manage and control our social lives. Policies which do the opposite will have less infringement.
I suspect that you're failing to see the distinction between those things which government legitimately must be involved in as part of its promise to protect our liberties and those things which government has no liberty-protecting justification to act. Small government is about government only acting in ways necessary to prevent infringement of our liberties by others. So it must act to punish and prevent crime. It must act to protect our national security. It must act to regulate industries to the point of preventing harmful misuse of power on others. Those are the broad things, there are other more specific cases, but in all of them the question to be asked should be "does the government's actions seek to prevent a harmful act by one person against another?". If the answer is yes, then the action is justified (or at least falls potentially within the scope of legitimate government power).
Quote:
When it comes to social policy, they're all for increasing its control over our lives.
I disagree. I think that what you label as an increase in control is often either just changing how control that's already there is applied, or is an issue that falls within the "prevent harm to another" category. Certainly, those who take a strong pro-life position are acting on this, right? They believe that they are acting to protect the life of an unborn child from the harmful actions of the woman. Whether we agree with a specific proposal, we ought to respect that this *is* why they're doing what they're doing. And guess what? That doesn't violate the small government principles I spoke of earlier.
I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find many social positions by conservatives which do. Again, I really think this is about most people not really understanding the small government principle at all. Once you do understand it, a hell of a lot of things which appear contradictory based on the ends-based principle which liberals tend to use become quite consistent and reasonable.
Edited, Oct 26th 2011 5:48pm by gbaji 
