The Small Government Fallacy
Let's take a look at a very basic premise to which right-wing ideologues adhere. Please note my word choice--ideologue--a person who zealously advocates an ideology. This obviously is meant to apply to the extreme right--though this is perhaps not as small a wedge of the spectrum as we'd hope, both in range and the population that is encapsulated by that range.
The basic idea behind conservatism is either fiscal, religious, or political. In fact, that's where the whole term "conservatism" comes from: the idea that there's something that needs to be conserved; something that needs protection from apparently external agencies that would corrupt a system that should remain more or less uncorrupted. It's rugged, brutal tribalism dressed as a sheep. Where sheep look suspiciously like white marble pedestals.
Ignoring the fact that there is no such system, the three types of conservatism state that there should be modest, responsible and ultimately proper usage of public resources (fiscal conservatism), modest, responsible and ultimately proper behaviour and belief systems (religious conservatism), and that the society as a whole should blend these two types of conservatism and produce political conservatism, ie, the modest, responsible, proper way of living as a society that is concerned with responsible resource management and observing living in the right way. Ie, a place for everyone and everyone in his place, but on a collective-consciousness level of scale.
I think that, for the most part, those descriptions are correct. They might be tweaked by this or that person for greater correctness, but I don't think they'd say it's wrong outright. At least, I don't know of anyone who would say "No, I don't want to be 'right'. That's so WRONG!"
In the United States, that global loud-mouth who dominates the world media with its every "crisis", those concepts are very much caught up in another concept, the idea of personal freedom. The freedom to choose, the freedom to act, the freedom to chase one's own dreams. What I find interesting about the political right, particularly in the States, and in those countries who cannot help but be infected by their collectively-neurotic, polarized schizophrenic society, is that that love of freedom is completely blind to their own reality.
In most right-wing rhetoric, the government is the big bad, come to take your liberties away.
Has no one taken a look at how imprisoned we are by the very circumstances of our lives? Corporations, the big champion of the right-wing, whose ability to pay everyone as low a salary as they can get away with, in exchange for at least a third of our whole lives, and where possible, for an exemption from observing the precepts of right action, place more restriction on our actions and our supposed liberties than any US Govt has done so far.
I will however, go so far as to say that the corporations are not really to blame. Nature abhors a vacuum. Before corporations existed with their ability to influence government, the government really had no checks and bounds in place. I imagine that, humans being human, governments WERE the big bad come to take your freedom away. So yay corporations. Of course, when it comes to controlling resources and hoarding them against some ubiquitous rainy day just over the horizon, no entity is spared from, nor is immune to, the seductive power of money. And money is really just a means of dealing in resources instead of actually trading resources. Anyone got change for a goat?
So it seems that the human condition is to be chained and subverted by a greater power. Might equals...well, not right, but what's going to happen, anyway. Might equals plight? Force equals course? Forget it. It is our struggles against those limitations that create all of our stories. It is not our ability to be free from struggle that creates our love of freedom; it is in fact our struggle for freedom that creates our love for it. And without that struggle, there is no basis for, or any real depth to, our love of it. As an example, imagine a Hollywood star who buys a house. It's not worth as much to that person who has disposable income as it is to one who spends 5 or even 10 years saving up for a down-payment. It is because of this premise that I agree with the abandonment of the gold standard; value is relative to the person who has the resource. If all you've got is gold, gold becomes worthless, a la Twoflower from Terry Pratchett's _The Colour of Magic_.
Which brings us back to conservatism. Fiscal conservatism dictates that we use our money responsibly. However, in the West, we are blessed with extreme prosperity, at least as a society. But if all we've got is money, it becomes almost impossible to use it in an appropriate way.
With regards to religious conservatism, the argument includes the freedom to choose one's own religion, which is one of the things that basically caused the conception of the United States. So it's ironic to see the religious right talking about the One True Path. But that particular target is as big as a barn. It's also about living the right way. I cannot believe that living according to any particular doctrine, especially if that doctrine tells you that "you can only be righteous if..." works. There are too many options out there. Again, I think that value is relative to the individual that holds the resource. For example, to compare extremist ideologies: a Christian tends to get neurotic about the sanctity of life, and takes that to the extreme that, let's say, a fetus is more valuable than the mother. Something about unrealized potential or something. But a fetus is just another mother waiting to be abused, or another father waiting to be the abuser. Potentially. Can we really play the lottery with our moral value judgements about our own lives and their relative worth? I've heard the lottery referred to as "the stupid tax" before... On the other hand, others completely ignore the sanctity of life and talk about the sanctity of honour, or whatever ideal you want to stick in there. And while both deal with the creation or the ending of life, neither have anything to do with right LIVING. There is no right; because right changes with context. Therefore, live appropriate to your context, and understand that others are likely trying to do the same. If there's anything that should be universal, it should be "how can you help other living things to live more easily?". But that's beside the point.
And finally we come to political conservatism. Now we can stop ignoring the point I mentioned above: There is no golden age. The truth of this can be found in Greek myth; thousands of years ago they were STILL talking about that time, not so long ago, when things were so much better. How long does "not so long ago" lapse? But we can't resist the temptation to believe that it was better before, because it sure sucks ass right now. Life is tough, and our natural instinct is to want it to be easier. Not necessarily to make LIFE easier, but to make OUR own life easier, and forget the fact that that likely makes someone else's life more difficult.
That being said, don't even get me started on those leftist whack-jobs who think the world owes them everything. Maybe in another post?
The basic idea behind conservatism is either fiscal, religious, or political. In fact, that's where the whole term "conservatism" comes from: the idea that there's something that needs to be conserved; something that needs protection from apparently external agencies that would corrupt a system that should remain more or less uncorrupted. It's rugged, brutal tribalism dressed as a sheep. Where sheep look suspiciously like white marble pedestals.
Ignoring the fact that there is no such system, the three types of conservatism state that there should be modest, responsible and ultimately proper usage of public resources (fiscal conservatism), modest, responsible and ultimately proper behaviour and belief systems (religious conservatism), and that the society as a whole should blend these two types of conservatism and produce political conservatism, ie, the modest, responsible, proper way of living as a society that is concerned with responsible resource management and observing living in the right way. Ie, a place for everyone and everyone in his place, but on a collective-consciousness level of scale.
I think that, for the most part, those descriptions are correct. They might be tweaked by this or that person for greater correctness, but I don't think they'd say it's wrong outright. At least, I don't know of anyone who would say "No, I don't want to be 'right'. That's so WRONG!"
In the United States, that global loud-mouth who dominates the world media with its every "crisis", those concepts are very much caught up in another concept, the idea of personal freedom. The freedom to choose, the freedom to act, the freedom to chase one's own dreams. What I find interesting about the political right, particularly in the States, and in those countries who cannot help but be infected by their collectively-neurotic, polarized schizophrenic society, is that that love of freedom is completely blind to their own reality.
In most right-wing rhetoric, the government is the big bad, come to take your liberties away.
Has no one taken a look at how imprisoned we are by the very circumstances of our lives? Corporations, the big champion of the right-wing, whose ability to pay everyone as low a salary as they can get away with, in exchange for at least a third of our whole lives, and where possible, for an exemption from observing the precepts of right action, place more restriction on our actions and our supposed liberties than any US Govt has done so far.
I will however, go so far as to say that the corporations are not really to blame. Nature abhors a vacuum. Before corporations existed with their ability to influence government, the government really had no checks and bounds in place. I imagine that, humans being human, governments WERE the big bad come to take your freedom away. So yay corporations. Of course, when it comes to controlling resources and hoarding them against some ubiquitous rainy day just over the horizon, no entity is spared from, nor is immune to, the seductive power of money. And money is really just a means of dealing in resources instead of actually trading resources. Anyone got change for a goat?
So it seems that the human condition is to be chained and subverted by a greater power. Might equals...well, not right, but what's going to happen, anyway. Might equals plight? Force equals course? Forget it. It is our struggles against those limitations that create all of our stories. It is not our ability to be free from struggle that creates our love of freedom; it is in fact our struggle for freedom that creates our love for it. And without that struggle, there is no basis for, or any real depth to, our love of it. As an example, imagine a Hollywood star who buys a house. It's not worth as much to that person who has disposable income as it is to one who spends 5 or even 10 years saving up for a down-payment. It is because of this premise that I agree with the abandonment of the gold standard; value is relative to the person who has the resource. If all you've got is gold, gold becomes worthless, a la Twoflower from Terry Pratchett's _The Colour of Magic_.
Which brings us back to conservatism. Fiscal conservatism dictates that we use our money responsibly. However, in the West, we are blessed with extreme prosperity, at least as a society. But if all we've got is money, it becomes almost impossible to use it in an appropriate way.
With regards to religious conservatism, the argument includes the freedom to choose one's own religion, which is one of the things that basically caused the conception of the United States. So it's ironic to see the religious right talking about the One True Path. But that particular target is as big as a barn. It's also about living the right way. I cannot believe that living according to any particular doctrine, especially if that doctrine tells you that "you can only be righteous if..." works. There are too many options out there. Again, I think that value is relative to the individual that holds the resource. For example, to compare extremist ideologies: a Christian tends to get neurotic about the sanctity of life, and takes that to the extreme that, let's say, a fetus is more valuable than the mother. Something about unrealized potential or something. But a fetus is just another mother waiting to be abused, or another father waiting to be the abuser. Potentially. Can we really play the lottery with our moral value judgements about our own lives and their relative worth? I've heard the lottery referred to as "the stupid tax" before... On the other hand, others completely ignore the sanctity of life and talk about the sanctity of honour, or whatever ideal you want to stick in there. And while both deal with the creation or the ending of life, neither have anything to do with right LIVING. There is no right; because right changes with context. Therefore, live appropriate to your context, and understand that others are likely trying to do the same. If there's anything that should be universal, it should be "how can you help other living things to live more easily?". But that's beside the point.
And finally we come to political conservatism. Now we can stop ignoring the point I mentioned above: There is no golden age. The truth of this can be found in Greek myth; thousands of years ago they were STILL talking about that time, not so long ago, when things were so much better. How long does "not so long ago" lapse? But we can't resist the temptation to believe that it was better before, because it sure sucks ass right now. Life is tough, and our natural instinct is to want it to be easier. Not necessarily to make LIFE easier, but to make OUR own life easier, and forget the fact that that likely makes someone else's life more difficult.
That being said, don't even get me started on those leftist whack-jobs who think the world owes them everything. Maybe in another post?