Political Thought: The folly of economic conservativism and social liberalism

[Traditio]

I wrote this today on a social media site; thought it bore sharing:

Economic conservatives and social liberals have basically the same thing in common (which is, let us note, why economic conservativism and social liberalism are united in libertarianism): though the realm of action with which they are concerned is that of public, social interaction, either individual and individual, or of individual and the State, they still claim, against the rights of the State to impose law and order, that they should be left to do as they please, that they should be free against the impositions of the State. To both, I answer in the same way: "Justice has a price. The price is freedom" (Judge Dredd, America).

 

[glassjester]

they still claim, against the rights of the State to impose law and order, that they should be left to do as they please

Another thing they have in common - they both stink.

 

[Traditio]

Another thing they have in common - they both stink.

That's not really a philosophical criticism so much as an emotivism.

 

[glassjester]

That's not really a philosophical criticism so much as an emotivism.

Yep.

 

[glassjester]

The opposite would be social conservatism and economic liberalism. Who's flying that flag?

Whoever they are, they've got my vote.

 

[Traditio]

The opposite would be social conservatism and economic liberalism. Who's flying that flag?

Whoever they are, they've got my vote.

If you find such a person (i.e., someone who actually has read Rerum Novarum (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII) and agrees with the things that Pope Francis says and hasn't drunk the Republican kool-aid), you let me know. He might have my vote also.

I shouldn't have to choose between morality and right, on the one hand, and social justice and the environment, on the other hand. That's just bizarre.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Greg Bahnsen is a better political theorist than any of you papist heretics.

 

[Traditio]

Greg Bahnsen is a better political theorist than any of you papist heretics.

Yes. Because Christianity began roughly 500 years ago, right? Or, remind me, when did your particular sect get up and running?

 

[noguru]

Or, remind me, when did your particular sect get up and running?

When the Bible went to print, the clergy lost strict possession of copies, and anyone could purchase one.

 

[Traditio]

When the Bible went to print, the clergy lost strict possession of copies, and anyone could purchase one.

Ah. So Christianity didn't exist until the printing press. Is this what you are saying?

 

[noguru]

Ah. So Christianity didn't exist until the printing press. Is this what you are saying?

No. Read what I posted, and what I was responding to. You asked a specific question about the emergence and cause of the Protestant Reformation. I gave you a specific answer to that question. Nowhere in my response did I claim that is where Christianity started.

Christianity clearly began with Judaism, 100 or so years after the crucifixion of Christ.

Split of early Christianity and Judaism.

I looked back, I apologize my response was unclear. I should have deleted the first question to which I was not responding. I went back and corrected that.

And actually you should have specified "sects" rather than "sect" because the Protestant methodology leads to a much less unified and more splintered front in regard to the entire religion. In Judaism and Catholicism differences of opinion are kept within the same Church, in Protestantism they splinter due to these differences and become another sub sect. This leads to far more sub sects, than in the splits in (Catholic, Orthodox - after they stopped killing or punishing "heretics") and (Judaic Orthodox, Reform - after they stopped enforcing capital punishment for certain forms of disobedience). In modern times within Judaic thought the more "orthodox" do not always accept the more progressive, though the more progressive almost always accept the more "orthodox" or traditional. I trust you can see the logic behind that, right?

 

[glassjester]

Greg Bahnsen is a better political theorist than any of you papist heretics.

What's a "papist heretic" ?

Do you actually disagree with economic liberalism and social conservatism, or do you just like to use any excuse to spout nonsense?

 

[glassjester]

I shouldn't have to choose between morality and right, on the one hand, and social justice and the environment, on the other hand. That's just bizarre.

It is, isn't it? I've always thought so.

Has it been that way throughout history, or at least American history?

 

[noguru]

It is, isn't it? I've always thought so.

Has it been that way throughout history, or at least American history?

I think the Industrial Revolution and then the Technological Revolution have lead to this in the US and other countries. But the US seems to be very atavistic in the past 60 years, harking back to glory days right after WWII. At that point being socially conscious was tradition, and environmentally conscious to a lesser degree. Because there was far less pressure on resources. So these seemingly clear rules have certainly become strained. We now see where some of our social rules were wrong, and we also see where many of our excesses are currently problematic in regard to the environment.

 

[shagster01]

I shouldn't have to choose between morality and right, on the one hand, and social justice and the environment, on the other hand. That's just bizarre.

Are you saying environmentalism is an economic issue?

 

[glassjester]

Are you saying environmentalism is an economic issue?

It is when every environmental decision the government makes is based solely on economic impact.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What's a "papist heretic" ?

A Roman Catholic

Do you actually disagree with economic liberalism and social conservatism, or do you just like to use any excuse to spout nonsense?

Of course, government redistribution or taxation for any purpose other than upholding the ministry of the sword is ungodly theft.

But of course, Romanism and statism go hand in hand, its inherent to the system.

 

[chair]

..
Of course, government redistribution or taxation for any purpose other than upholding the ministry of the sword is ungodly theft.

Deuteronomy 26:12 New International Version (NIV)

12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.

ungodly theft?

 

[glassjester]

A Roman Catholic

Maybe this ought to be a question for another thread, but did Christ found one church or many churches?

Of course, government redistribution or taxation for any purpose other than upholding the ministry of the sword is ungodly theft.

But of course, Romanism and statism go hand in hand, its inherent to the system.

When a government begins to legislate in favor of the good of one person over the good of the many, it has become depraved.

 

[PureX]

I have no idea what this thread is about.

What is "economic conservatism"? Isn't that just those who have wealth trying to keep it? And what is "social liberalism"? Isn't that people trying to live as freely as they can without destroying each other? In what society don't these conditions exist? And in what society do you imagine that they could be successfully eliminated? I sure can't conceive of one.