Conservative Schools?

[Lily Jaye]

Most of the conservative-bashing in this thread seems to rely on complete ignorance about what conservatives believe and why they believe it.  It's easy to ridicule an ideology when you define what it encompasses in the most uncharitable way possible.

Not really.  Most of the bashing comes from conflating economic conservatives with social conservatives.

I get the impression that most people on both sides don't know why they define themselves the way they do.  From where I stand, the definitions have more to do with defining oneself in opposition to others and with having radically different conceptions of causation.

FWIW, I'm one of the increasingly rare subscribers to both halves of conservatism (social and economic).

How do you justify holding both views simultaneously?  

[MindTheGap76]

Were your finals tough this semester? Were there more seminar papers than tests, or just a lot of both?

You can do whatever mix you want.  I was signed up for 3 exam classes, 1 paper class (paper due at the end of the year), and 1 short response class (3 page papers do every other week).

I totally bombed one of my exams because of my own stupid mistake.  Others went well, I think.

[General2010]

Wait a second, you're conservative and you go to UChicago Law? So you're, like, actually smart? But, conservative? Must be some mistake.

[chitownluva]

Good to see you MindtheGap!  Tell Chicago to step on it with the regular admits.  

Immigrate to Canada?  Be my guest.  I suppose the welfare up there is better but if people want to have the opportunity to actually start a business and become wealthy on their own then America IS THE PLACE TO BE.  Yes, we're all victims and America is an oppressive classist society and no poor person ever advances because of structural evils and the rich are behind it all and blah blah blah.  

Anyway, my final two cents on the super bowl issue is that no conservative ever argues for totally unlimited free market.  Such a thing has never been advocated for by any responsible scholar.  The question is whether the free marekt is fundamentally preferable to other more centrally planned economies (at least that's the question we were disussing earlier in the thread) and then after that we need to figure out how to frame that free market.  It is not inconsistent to say that the government can declare certain things illegal to buy and sell (drugs, firearms, porn, slaves etc.) and also argue vehemently for a free market.  It would be inconsistent to argue for the free market on one hand but then argue that the governmetn should control the price of corn or cotton or oil.

If you want to know what I think the biggest hypocrisy (economically speaking) is in the conservative movement its a tolerance for corporate welfare.  Why in God's name are we propping up the dairy industry, and other farm industries?   This sort of artificial price increase is totally antithetical to the free market.  The not only punish domestic consumers but also punish overseas producers.  All of course subsidized by the taxpayers.  That's inconsistent, not limiting decency standards on broadcast.

[MindTheGap76]

Most of the conservative-bashing in this thread seems to rely on complete ignorance about what conservatives believe and why they believe it.  It's easy to ridicule an ideology when you define what it encompasses in the most uncharitable way possible.

Not really.  Most of the bashing comes from conflating economic conservatives with social conservatives.

I get the impression that most people on both sides don't know why they define themselves the way they do.  From where I stand, the definitions have more to do with defining oneself in opposition to others and with having radically different conceptions of causation.

FWIW, I'm one of the increasingly rare subscribers to both halves of conservatism (social and economic).

How do you justify holding both views simultaneously? 

I'm not a libertarian, so there's not much conflict.

[SplitFinger]

Most of the conservative-bashing in this thread seems to rely on complete ignorance about what conservatives believe and why they believe it.  It's easy to ridicule an ideology when you define what it encompasses in the most uncharitable way possible.

So far most of the conservatives in this thread don't seem to have much idea of what they believe, except for policies that are only currently in favor among Democrats and Libertarians.

I'm not even going to bother with you.  As far as I can tell, you're total flame.

Hah.  At least you don't waste either of our times attempting to twist yourself into knots trying to justify the unjustifiable. 

[SplitFinger]

Wait a second, you're conservative and you go to UChicago Law? So you're, like, actually smart? But, conservative? Must be some mistake.

Yep.  You're assuming facts not in evidence.

[Bob Loblaw]

*sigh*

and to think, this all started b/c I said something about LSU   

[MindTheGap76]

*sigh*

and to think, this all started b/c I said something about LSU   

Once again, I have to say XO branching threads are far superior to LSD flat-format.  Much harder to irreversibly hijack.

[Lily Jaye]

Good to see you MindtheGap!  Tell Chicago to step on it with the regular admits.  

Immigrate to Canada?  Be my guest.  

Hell, I'd love to.  It's insanely difficult.  Far more so than America, in fact.

I suppose the welfare up there is better but if people want to have the opportunity to actually start a business and become wealthy on their own then America IS THE PLACE TO BE.  Yes, we're all victims and America is an oppressive classist society and no poor person ever advances because of structural evils and the rich are behind it all and blah blah blah.

And you're basing this on....? 

(Hint: There's a reason why major corporations like Toyota are picking up and moving north.  Hint 2: The same thing is having a chilling impact on small businesses as well.)  

Anyway, my final two cents on the super bowl issue is that no conservative ever argues for totally unlimited free market.  Such a thing has never been advocated for by any responsible scholar.

And you're basing this on....?

(Some of the respectable scholars I went to school really did argue for a totally unlimited free market.)

The question is whether the free marekt is fundamentally preferable to other more centrally planned economies (at least that's the question we were disussing earlier in the thread) and then after that we need to figure out how to frame that free market.  It is not inconsistent to say that the government can declare certain things illegal to buy and sell (drugs, firearms, porn, slaves etc.) and also argue vehemently for a free market.  It would be inconsistent to argue for the free market on one hand but then argue that the governmetn should control the price of corn or cotton or oil.

False dichotomy.

If you want to know what I think the biggest hypocrisy (economically speaking) is in the conservative movement its a tolerance for corporate welfare.  Why in God's name are we propping up the dairy industry, and other farm industries?   This sort of artificial price increase is totally antithetical to the free market.  The not only punish domestic consumers but also punish overseas producers.  All of course subsidized by the taxpayers.  That's inconsistent, not limiting decency standards on broadcast.

This is true.  

It doesn't punish domestic consumers, though.  Without certain types of subsidies, hamburger would cost around, oh, $50 or $60 a pound.