re: A Brief history of Conservatism

quote:

---

Has nothing to do with SUBR. I did this of my own accord

---

You received your lackwit education from that failed institution and you failed in this thread on your own accord.

quote:

---

And my politic views would be the same even if I never went to SUBR. The sad part is that most of this analysis comes from predominantly white college academia.

---

As a college educated man, I’d expect you to know you never start a sentence with the word “and”.

quote:

---

Leon Malras

---

*Walras

The difference lies in what each side is trying to conserve, for what reasons, and by which methods:
1. European Conservatives wanted to preserve the monarchy and the church to avoid the chaos and lawlessness of the French Revolution repeating itself. They wanted to expand and centralize power, silence dissent, and erode individual liberty in order to maintain the traditional power structure.

2. American Constitution is a document that restrains and limits the power of government and protects individual liberty. The people assaulting the Constitution do so to increase the size of government, silence dissent, erode personal liberty, etc to empower a morally superior oligarchic class to rule over serfs. American conservatives fight that movement to expand government power in order to protect individual liberties and force those who wish to undermine or ignore the Constitution to use its amendment mechanism to change it rather than change the definition of the words in it or use the courts or simple majority rule.

In reality, it is the American Progressive that behaves most like a European Conservative, and the American conservative who behave more like European classical liberals. American Conservatives are all about restraining and decentralizing government power, where European Conservatives are all about increasing and centralizing authority.

I’m literally shaking

quote:

---

They found the idea of a democracy controlled by the common people "repulsive".

---

All smart people do, that's why we have a republic.

quote:

---

Can you name me an example in history when more government consolidation of power was a good thing?

---

A few cases would be the abolition of slavery in Great Britain and France. Albeit those were economic decisions and had no intention of being civil rights starters.

Also, universal healthcare in those countries and other Western style democracies. We can debate on whether that was the best decision, but it appears to be supported by the majority of the public in those nations.

I never intended to suggest slavery was purely a conservative principle. Like everything else, slavery is an item of the society in which it is used. If it's the most effective economic system it will be used. Otherwise it typically will phase out.

The Southern United States and Latin countries were in a dilemma. They put there entire economic model behind slavery. So there was literally no way they could have just let it go without serious economic drawbacks. Add in the fact that a pseudo-hierachy was built around the Planter class.

By the way, I blame the Planter class not Lincoln for the Civil War. The big issue was that Lincoln would no longer allow new states to become slave states. He never intended to end slavery in states where it already existed (North or South). This would effectively put a limit on the Congressional power of the South.

quote:

---

Also, universal healthcare in those countries and other Western style democracies.

---

Hate to burst your bubble their bud but most of those countries use a “mixed” system and very few are universally covered strictly by government. If that’s what you are looking for look no further than that dumpster fire style system Canada employs.

quote:

---

volod

---

If you want to be taken seriously, respond to this post from kingbob, paragraph by paragraph.

quote:

---

The difference lies in what each side is trying to conserve, for what reasons, and by which methods:
1. European Conservatives wanted to preserve the monarchy and the church to avoid the chaos and lawlessness of the French Revolution repeating itself. They wanted to expand and centralize power, silence dissent, and erode individual liberty in order to maintain the traditional power structure.

2. American Constitution is a document that restrains and limits the power of government and protects individual liberty. The people assaulting the Constitution do so to increase the size of government, silence dissent, erode personal liberty, etc to empower a morally superior oligarchic class to rule over serfs. American conservatives fight that movement to expand government power in order to protect individual liberties and force those who wish to undermine or ignore the Constitution to use its amendment mechanism to change it rather than change the definition of the words in it or use the courts or simple majority rule.

In reality, it is the American Progressive that behaves most like a European Conservative, and the American conservative who behave more like European classical liberals. American Conservatives are all about restraining and decentralizing government power, where European Conservatives are all about increasing and centralizing authority.

---

You really have no understanding of what you claimed to have read and how it relates to conservatism in America.

quote:

---

Lincoln’s opposition to slavery in the new territories meant a political death for slavery was imminent.

---

Hell, it was simply Lincoln's election to president itself that showed that even as a monolithic bloc, the South had lost control of enough electoral votes to determine the outcome. That was the tipping point. They lacked influence in the federal government, so they left it, knowing that they could no longer control their ability to maintain their forced labor economic system.

quote:

---

Never said it was a perfect system. I just said it's possible with a centralized form of government.

---

Name a more perfect system than capitalism.