Why have People Historically Linked Small Government with Conservatism?

What's the ideology of wanting to use the long arm of the law to make people behave better?

Paternalism?

How did it work out so far?

Before no fault divorce, there were much fewer divorces. Before Roe v. Wade, there were much fewer abortions. Like it or not, the law and policies are very effective in curbing people.

>Why have People Historically Linked Small Government with Conservatism?

Only in Amerimuttica. And only very recently.

There are no real conservatives in America, just 2 parties of liberals who hate each other.

Having a big government is all well and good if you think it's a requirement to do what's necessary, the challenge is getting people to willingly accept it, so they support it on their own initiative, not because the government tells them to do it. People have to accept (and I don't mean everybody, but generally speaking most people) have to see from their own experience that this path is the correct one, otherwise it's not going to survive.

Also your own desires, or your own ideological or political attitudes, are not the same thing as the objective reality. Or what might seem obsolete to you, like a particular form of government, but might not be something that to most people, generally speaking.

Attached: FNKNJ_GWUAMzHRp.jpg (1500x1866, 382.83K)

YOUR COMMIE OPINION ISN'T RELEVANT

You are not going to have a 1000 year reich of worshipping weakness, gay sex, black criminals, transgender toddlers, and the apple iphone. Your materialist, spiritually dead society has no future because it is by parasites, of parasites, for parasites. After this brief chapter in history, there will be a short period of mental shock as everyone who survived realized they were a victim of propaganda all their life, and the natural order of monarchism will return.

I think this is why people need propaganda campaigns. The state has used them in the past before.

odysee.com/@keithwoods:e/ModernRight:7

I want smaller government because beuracracy is a waste. I do not approve of abortion but I do not think the government should restrict it. I believe a society can impose ethics/morals/values that would discourage bad behavior like abortion or gay marriages. What does this make me?

I guess libright on the political compass. I believe society works from the top down and not the bottom up. Whatever is imposed on top becomes policy and the people's views quickly follow. People are engineered since birth.

ancap

What?

engineered by family, who are in turn living in a top down society, but were first engineered by their family, who were at last living in a top down society, but then engineered by their family and so on. but if you trace that back there would be no need for a government.

it appears to me that there are fundamental morals that exist in every society. those are, take care of children, do not kill and do not lie. i believe these core fundamentals exist(ed) in everyone and if they can be adhered to, everything we know would get along just fine.

look at asian history and get back to me
the only reason the west isn't a retarded nest of autistic bugpeople is because we didn't spend the last 2000 years relegating essential job occupations like butchers to a slave caste because it's "grody lul"

they lack empathy and empathy is why the west is successful, largely because of Christianity and greek/roman philosophy. Nobody else has that and that's why your theory wouldn't work

You’re just conservative, middle right on the compass. Freedom with arbitrary limits based on weird post-hoc rationalization.

>because we didn't spend the last 2000 years relegating essential job occupations
what was the trans-atlantic slave trade? I don’t need to look at asian history. often times, human atrocity has led to great swaths of progression through the grand scheme of history

Must really jostle your pistachios that one can be an empathetic and top civilization and make groids pick their cotton

> empathetic
American civilization is a lot of things but empathetic it is not.

The public schools and media engineer kids today. This is why they must somehow be curbed.

who said anything about americans? Many western european countries had black slaves. Point is you don't understand what it means to be human

>how to make the world le conservative master plan
>step 1: shut down schools
i dont think you'd like the implications of that

in addition to western atrocity, not every german was on board with the nazi agenda. the top down authority is only as good as the propaganda. it can be considered two ways, either they were right in committing the crimes bc the government said it was right or they were mistaken. i choose to believe their morals were mistaken.

all I did was compare your argument to something closer to home

> groids pick their cotton
> who said anything about America?
> you don't understand what it means to be human
Because you aren’t coherent enough to tell me.
I need to visit this board more often.

>western atrocity
compartmentalizing human events as "atrocious" instead of including them in on the whole of human existence is a mistake

>the only reason the west isn't a retarded nest of autistic bugpeople
were you not implying the same thing but with different language? I presumed you were referencing the cannibalism or the infanticide along with back breaking labor for next to nothing.

I fail to see how anything I've said contradicts itself. The West is superior due to its philosophy and empathy, categorizing and focusing on negative events to push narratives is something ideologues do. The question you have to ask yourself is what are you trying to sell

user is clearly making it up as he goes along.

they aren’t my rationalizations, rather they belonged to Emmanuel Kant. I just tend to agree with his assessment

I presented western philosophy as a base argument to have little to no government. You contradicted yourself when you wanted to compare the east to the west.

part of the reason the west has to stay in the position it is in is so that fucktard atheists without any philosophy don't get their hands on nukes and shit, and that includes asians, if the west ever gave up its position of power to return to monke there would be nukes flying in the third world within a decade

Somehow I doubt you picked up those ideas reading Kant.

> it appears to me that there are fundamental morals that exist in every society. those are, take care of children, do not kill and do not lie.
Kant. Perhaps I’m stretching it out in my belief that a society could impose these values and discourage “bad” behavior

History tells me we aren’t above dropping nuclear weapons on other countries either.

pretty sure that's a logical fallacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Did we or did we not drop TWO big ass bombs on Japan?

You're a moron if you think the entirety of western philosophy was represented by glassing gooks

Conservatism is not inherently about big government or small government. If you are a conservative enclave in a majority leftist society, the government will more than likely end up leftist. Why would you want the government to have more power? It is strategic.

> take care of children, do not kill and do not lie.
You're right about Kant's views but completely ignorant of his (already faulty) reasoning. This is making it look even more like you just went looking for big names to throw behind your preconceived notions.

You make it too easy to poke holes in your argument when you can’t keep up. I’m here in full knowledge that my political philosophy is just a wet dream. However, if it were adopted on a global scale, it would work out better as a whole in my opinion. This entire argument transcends far more than east vs west but because you lack experience, you choose to reduce it between the two. And you’re bad at it.

Does philosophy have any concrete answers? They all use logic and reason and any one person simply chooses to run with it or not. But do go on, which theoretical camp do you subscribe to?

I mean, I took a class once. And Kantian ethics seems to align pretty close to my values and belief system.

I'm not claiming philosophy has concrete answers. Try to follow.
> they belonged to Emmanuel Kant. I just tend to agree with his assessment
You proceed to show that you are not familiar with his assessment beyond his conclusions.
It's clearly just a name to throw around for you and says nothing about how or where you acquired your beliefs.
Cringe and boring.

Attached: sad.jpg (125x125, 2.52K)

Interesting take but your side can be in charge of the government despite being the minority. This happens all the time in Latin America.

You know the 'small government' thing is just a GOP talking point. Republicans engineered the biggest government expansion with the PATRIOT Act and during Bush, it was used to monitor gay groups, Islamic supporters and the like. Its only under second term Obama that this was turned against the conservatives themselves.

With the already mentioned fundamental core beliefs that exist in every single society (according to Kant) along with his absolutist views on moral duty, how exactly am I jumping to conclusions when I suggest that if everyone followed these core values (as identified by Kant) we don’t need government and we can take care of each other? Abortion and gay marriage do not facilitate progeny, therefore they are inherently “bad” for society. I’m not that far off the mark.

the merge of libertarianism and conservatism is a recent american phenomena called "fusionism"

That only started with the Tea Party of the early 2010s even. Back in 2006, people were calling for fusionism between liberalism and libertarianism and it seemed like Dems and Ron Paul types would be on one side against Bush/Cheney.

#1 priority for the conservative is conserving their idyllic white picket fence community. If the masses threaten this and it is feasible for a far-right junta to seize power and stop it, they might support them. If not they might support small government instead to minimize interference.

Also Latin America is pretty conservative socially, even in Venezuela and Bolivia there are stringent laws against abortion and ~90% are Catholic. The left is more old school and concerned with textile workers and sugar cane farmers. There are different meanings of left and right there.

Or maybe it has to do with race and the whole philosophy thing is a cope?

Only actual brainlets wouldn't be able to realize why the west is superior

Dilate

Neocons aren't conservatives.

The problem is that it's very easy for a powerful government to enforce atheistic values.

>yet another thread that has nothing to do with history other than faggot OP putting "historically" in the title

There's a difference between Bush era neocons and later McCain and Romney neocons. McCain and Bush Jr. actually didn't like each other very much.

lmao. this is my favorite poli-sci cope in history. dubya voters pretending they weren't dubya voters in 2016.

"Conservative" is a relevistic term. Do you mean the conservative hardliners within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union?

exactly. Traditions and culture have built up over the years base on what works. In the past their were societies that practiced strict hetrosexual monogamy and they largely outcompeted the more polygamic and homosexual permitting societies.

There is a reason why the Amish are going to become the majority in many rural counties across America and there is a reason why more liberal areas have a declining birthrate.

what does that even mean

The vast, vast majority of Trump voters were Dubya voters despite what they now say about neocons, etc. It's the same fucking people.

are you 12 years old

I'm a Ron Paul voter, fuck Bush and fuck neocons.

>I'm a Ron Paul voter
kek. yes i know, all the Dubya voters were.

There's no way you posted this in good faith.
The president who supported lots of foreign interventions and big government spending, and the candidate opposing those two things as his biggest goals in politics. Sure. The voters were the same.

>I'm a Ron Paul voter
He wasn't on a single ballot in 2000 and 2004.

after all was said and done, those who voted for bush were too embarrassed to admit they voted for him and they wished they had voted for paul. that’s the play in user’s argument