NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9109

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-07 | 4.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!portal!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!hela.iti.org!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!best
From: [e-mail] (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:56:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Lines: 79

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Best) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:
>>>
>>>No, conservatism is defined as a maintaining of the status quo.  Conservatives
>>>strive to make everyone's life like theirs for they feel that theirs is the
>>>best and the status quo, which has given them a good life, is the only way.
>>>Therefore conservatism = no change to the status quo.
>>
>>I would point out that it is the liberals who abhor, for example, wealth
>>and seek to "correct" this aberration by redistributing it so as to make
>>everyone equal.  Equality of result is their credo and I can think of
>>nothing which more resembles the "status quo" principle than that.
>
>Perhaps I'm missing the point, but how does "equality of result" =
>"status quo"?  Do you imply that we wish for the economy to be stuck
>where it is, with the existing economic conditions as the status quo?

The ultimate status quo - if we are all equal (economically via taxation
and the subsequent redistribution of property for example) then there is
a kind of statis.  I find this anti-productive in that if no one is allowed
to acheive then no one will _try_ to acheive.  My understanding of human
nature and justice is simply different than yours (and correct :)).

>Certainly not: I believe we recognize that economic growth is
>necessary to finance our kooky social programs.  We don't want to
>leave people behind, and feel that everyone should be given a chance.

Who is not being given a chance?  Opportunities abound from the government
and through individual effort.  What you may object to is that life creates
inequalities and this _seems_ unfair to you but I think it is natural.
I do not have a problem with the fact that Michael Jordan can outplay
me in basketball.  I do not think we should put weights on him to give
everyone a chance.  Some people could play with Jordan but they would
have to work harder than he does (perhaps).

>We are willing to tolerate some economic efficiency to this effect, I
>believe.  And we will certainly oppose the "status quo" if the present
>conditions imply systemic discrimination.  Inequality of schooling
>leading towards economic insecurity leading to inequality of
>schooling, and so on, for instance.  An even better example would be
>the "status quo" of the pre-1964 South and the systemic racial
>discrimination.  Would you rather that we had done nothing for civil
>rights?

Public schools should not be unequal intentionally or unintentionally.
Civil rights apply to all Americans in my opinion.

> [Mickey Kaus and income vs civic equality deleted]

I do not believe that the governments role is to determine outcomes but
rather to protect the rights of the individual.  The results will then
be what they may and due to the excersize of free will, ingenuity, and
hard work - I submit that these results are truly just for they are earned.

>>Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the
>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>>the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>>at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>>todays portion of happiness.
>
>Pre-Buckley conservatism also included a great deal of nativism and
>anti-semitism.  Not all such "conservatives" were free-marketeers,
>considering the isolationists in that camp.  And certainly, not all
>present-day conservatism is what you describe, the upholding of
>Lockean natural rights (btw, I believe Locke questioned certain
>conclusions he came to towards the end of his life, as he noted that
>concentrations of wealth would allow too much power for certain
>individuals.)  The Religious Right can been found under the
>conservative banner, and they would be thrilled silly to infringe on,
>say, my freedom of religious choice.  What you're describing is closer
>to the Libertarian right, which is presently being disowned by the
>Fundamentalist fringes in the Republican party.

This is a good point.  The Republican party needs to determine what it
represents better than what it has been labeled with today - fairly or
unfairly.

MB