re: Is there even a definition of "conservative" anymore? When did you start promoting it?

I have always identified as a classic Conservative in the Burkean sense, best personified by WFB and The National Review of the post war era prior to Obama. As I have said 10,000 times it seeks to conserve American traditions, principles , ideals and Institutions. Philosophically it would borrow heavily from Libertarianism but it would favor small liberty-oriented Government. And it has always had a really nice blend of pragmatism and philosophy that allowed Conservatives to govern effectively.

But as others have pointed out, what is left to conserve? Certainly not the culture itself. Definitely not our corrupt institutions. So I think we are left with conserving The Founding Documents and maybe personally preserving traditions we enjoy.

I think as the culture has become hopelessly phony and corrupt most Conservatives have retreated to analyzing Leftism and the psychology behind it that seeks to perfect the nature of man through The State. That is to say, Conservatives are now almost entirely reactionary- we are overwhelmed culturally and shaking our heads at Clown World. As Andrew Klavan has pointed out, we are standing near the flag pole watching the Leftists attempt to slide up the flagpole and laughing at them because they can't figure out why they can't do it. It's obvious for us, but they are utterly confused and befuddled because it is their idea and all their ideas must work because it is their idea and by definition that infers brilliance.

As for Trump, as you know I was on this by early 2011. Trump and his movement is a brilliantly effective antidote to the phoniness and wokeness of Progressive culture. He was the mirror the Elites were forced to look into to remind them of their failure. He was the guy who showed us that The Emperor wears no clothes. The many effective and wise policies he proposed and implemented (non-fiscal obviously) were just a happy by-product but were only incidentally Conservative in that Donald Trump has great common sense and is a patriotic American, which are bedrocks of Conservatism. But he was never a philosophical Conservative. He's just defending a version of American exceptionalism that Conservatism shares. He is instinctively Conservative in many ways, but not philosophically Conservative.

Moving forward there is only societal decay, chaos, State coercion and murder. This is our 21st Century Dystopian phase and it will be bloody and tragic and impoverish us in every possible way. After that, who knows? But America has set course on Disaster and we while we might get a brief reprieve here and there, at this point it is unavoidable.

quote:

---

Libertarians are libertines in the social/cultural arena.

---

Not really. It's a long story so Zach shall take one example:
Legalization of drugs.

Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to use whatever drugs as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.

Arguments:

1. But drug use can kill you.
Lib: Then die. No rehab paid by others.

2. Drug users will lose their jobs.
Lib: Then starve. No welfare for anybody. That's stealing.

3. Drug users will commit crime.
Lib: Kill them. Every home owner should have a gun and shoot them on sight.

This applies to every 'libertine' issue. You are free to choose risky behavior but all public rescue should be stopped. Suffer the consequences and the behavior will naturally be curtailed.

quote:

---

and then immediately enacted a bunch of economic and immigration regulations

---

Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

I think the retarded progressive that's been hibernating in sfp was awakened 1/6

quote:

---

Clearly you missed the "very specifically" portion of my post

---

I'm not responsible for your snarky moving goalposts.

quote:

---

I'm not responsible for your snarky moving goalposts.

---

The question you replied to didn't change

Conservatism : Don’t frick with people’s lives and don’t frick with people’s businesses. Small government / pro-Constitution

quote:

---

Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to use whatever drugs as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.
...
This applies to every 'libertine' issue. You are free to choose risky behavior but all public rescue should be stopped. Suffer the consequences and the behavior will naturally be curtailed.

---

This works great if you have a moral nation. Liberty is of course ideal, but cannot be societally beneficial apart from morality. In fact, the greater the freedom within an immoral nation, the more precipitous its decline into disorder. The state will then rely on tyranny to restore order.

quote:

---

And libertarian social ideals are anti-conservative.

---

What do you mean by ideals?

quote:

---

In theory, this is their position. In the real world, libertarians love to smoke pot and advocate for the legalization of pot (or the idiotic “medicinal marijuana”).

---

But real world is should/would fallacy in argumentation theory. IE, all of the examples of consequences for drug use (starvation, no rehab, kill robbers) would never be passed into law. Therefore, they would never have the effect of stopping the consequences of bad decisions.
But the libertarian idea is correct absent the political/social probabilities.

We know this from history. Drugs used to be legal. When people abused them they died in the gutter. Parents walking by the next morning with children pointed it out 'See there? That's what will become of you if you become a dope fiend.'