A Conservative Wakes Up

[midcan5]

Thought Experiment #1

A few may be familiar with my nutshells, in them I tried to isolate the characteristics of a particular ideology. This time you decide, but remember this is a thought experiment and the premise is not debatable.

One day a conservative wakes up from a coma in a world unlike her past world. In this world equality trumps personal freedom. The political structure could be defined as a constitutional cooperative in which decisions are made democratically and an elected court settled issues that any average citizen or minority group could disagree on.

The overall philosophical weltanschauung means no one is super rich and no one poor. The society varies but it excludes extremes. All receive a stipend, so all live securely. All fundamental services are free, these include transportation, education, and healthcare. Work is private, state, and federal but all work is supportive of the society and not just the person or corporation, above average profits are returned to the society. The business person, entrepreneur, artist, does enjoy prestige and a higher standard of living.

The conservatives finds this odd and uncharacteristic but soon grows accustom to the society, she receives a stipend, finishes her education, and finds work in a private industry.

One day the conservative discovers there is another nation in which personal freedom trumps equality. In this place extremes of all kinds exist and government and law exist to defend or to protect power. This nation is basically considered a libertarian capitalistic republic. In this society no stipend system exists and no service is free. While the nations are isolated from each other, each feels, and their media supports their political structure as the best political structure. Movement between nations is possible as both at a base level respect personal freedom.

What does the conservative do and why? Does she stay or leave for a nation that allows more economic freedoms, more profit, and is similar to her core ideological position up to her coma? Or does she change and stay, why?

[midcan5]

There has been an interesting discussion on this question. Many conservatives see the example as Utopian and not realistic, they bring into the discussion their attitudes towards ideas that seem too good to be true. A few mention that 'people' would never behave this way, but consider that they do not want any government planning or central authority either, but then they claim the same 'people' will finally act morally providing the necessary honesty, charity, and care. Can you have it both ways.

Free services was a sticking point for some. I agree nothing is really free. By that I meant services were paid for out of a large pot as we now do for federal roads.

I wasn't sure what the conservative would do when I thought this up, but then I thought why would the conservative leave, she may stay. I agree with the few people who also noted that possibility.

Other conservatives glorify the concept that more freedom exists in the unequal society. I purposely wanted both places to be similar as freedom is often used in so vague and hazy a way as to have no real meaning. This actually returns us to a modern liberal idea that freedom really means nothing if you can do nothing. Saying I am free is like saying I am good person. Prove it by demonstration.

While I wanted to keep liberal out of the discussion, a few people suggested that a liberal would leave; the conservative would stay. This too is an interesting irony of ideological stances. Conservatives are often for the here and now while liberals hope progress makes things a little nicer. A neat twist on things and food for thought.

[duodecim]

The conservative should stay and change it. The new order is unjust. It is also likely to break down (economically, if in no other way). The right thing to do is to fight it.

[midcan5]

Dec 7, 2009 13:18:53 GMT -5 duodecim said:

The conservative should stay and change it. The new order is unjust. It is also likely to break down (economically, if in no other way). The right thing to do is to fight it.

What is unjust about it? We have labor laws and minimum wage laws, and social security right here in America. Good luck with outlawing them.

I think the conservative stays, but for a different reason, and foundational principles are a bit hard to change.

[duodecim]

It is unjust that their freedom is being arbitrarily curtailed.

Yes, we do have those kinds of laws in America, but we shouldn't (with the exception of aspects of labor laws, which we would have to discuss piece-by-piece, since they vary so greatly in their character).

Responding to your wish of good luck, thanks, but what does the difficulty of eliminating unjust laws have to do with the underlying issue of whether they are unjust?

[midcan5]

What loss of freedom? I would argue a stipend gives the person more freedom. Consider if you worked in wal-mart and made nearly nothing but had a family. Now how would get out of that situation and start a business if you feared a complete loss of income. I have been reading a bit of Manchester's 'Glory and the Dream,' I suggest it as a real history lesson for today's youth.

books.google.com/books?id=f9dOPQAACAAJ&dq=the+glory+and+the+dream&cd=1