"Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable"
Let's imagine for a second that we really believe is this idea - society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse.
Well, first obvious effect is that any change regarding woman rights, etc. would not have happened the way it did. That's in line with the Conservative viewpoint.
But more importantly, the society changes all the time from technology and market forces- it has changed massively with globalization, introduction of mobile phones, and social networks. Nobody talk about that!
No mainstream conservatives proposes 'let's ban kids form having mobile phones and Facebook until we fully understand their effect'. So if you are not willing to apply the principle consistently, are you just using it a a charade to mask some irrational belief of personal gain? It seems hypocritical, a bit like 'pro life' people not supporting healthcare reform.
> society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse.
That's not what the GP said. He only said the consequences of societal change are unknowable. That doesn't mean we should never change society because we're afraid it will break. It means we should change society slowly, gradually, recognizing the limitations of our knowledge, instead of forming grandiose plans and trying to impose them top-down.
Women's rights is actually a good example of gradually changing society. Women didn't insist all at once on changing everything they thought was wrong. It took centuries for changes relating to women's rights to happen (and they're still happening). And even then we're still figuring out how to deal with unintended consequences of those changes. But I don't think any reasonable conservative would say we shouldn't have made those changes.
> society changes all the time from technology and market forces
Yes, that's quite true. And we're still figuring out how to deal with unintended consequences from those changes as well. And I would say that the changes that are the most problematic in these areas are the ones resulting from some one person's top-down intentions, rather than from bottom-up evolution based on the natural interactions of many people. For example, Facebook isn't a problem because of gradual social evolution; it's a problem because Mark Zuckerberg has grandiose visions about how social media and society should work.
> "Women didn't insist all at once on changing everything"
Are you sure about that? I think they felt quite strongly about their cause
"The suffragettes had invented the letter bomb, a device intended to kill or injure the recipient, and an increasing amount began to be posted...
the former home of MP Arthur Du Cros was burned down. Du Cros had consistently voted against the enfranchisement of women, which was why he had been chosen as a target"
> Women’s rights historically aligned well with gdp/capita growth.
How much of this is simply a consequence of the fact that if you take care of your kids, it is not counted as a part of GDP, but if you pay someone else to take care of your kids, it is a part of GDP. So the GDP would increase even if the kids get exactly the same care, and even if all the money the woman makes is spent on paying the babysitters.
The man makes $1000, the woman stays at home with kids = GDP $1000.
The man makes $1000, the woman makes $1000, they pay $1000 for babysitting = GDP $2000.
In the latter scenario, GDP is twice as high, but the family only keeps $1000 either way.
> Well, first obvious effect is that any change regarding woman rights, etc. would not have happened the way it did. That's in line with the Conservative viewpoint.
I don't think you fully got my point.
The idea is not to oppose every change, but to change incrementally, letting society adapt, and learn from it when you do the next change.
Women's rights changed gradually over the whole 20th century as society gradually changed. To me that's a very well executed set of incremental changes!
>Let's imagine for a second that we really believe is this idea - society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse.
Surely you see the problems with technology, you don't think that the world was more social, people less polarized, and less isolated? Why do we have to assume its not when its obviously true, smartphones did change society greatly, so did online dating apps. They are not beliefs or guesswork.
>No mainstream conservatives proposes 'let's ban kids form having mobile phones and Facebook until we fully understand their effect'.
American conservatism isn't about preventing changes, its about less govenment control. In fact to other countries they are considered very liberal. Nancy Pelosi banned ecigs to protect the children, does that mean that she is conservative?
>It seems hypocritical, a bit like 'pro life' people not supporting healthcare reform.
They think aborting which is killing an unwanted baby is murder, but they ignore who takes care of the child after, its something I have a problem with too.
Pointing out a single pro legalization politician does not invalidate the claim that conservatives are more opposed to drug legalization than liberals. Look at any poll out there.
I don't trust polls. Dehumanizing people into numbers is pointless. People are not numbers, and the elections showed how worthless they are.
During Obama there were raids on dispensaries. These labels are meaningless.
We are not liberal or conservative. We are people with many different often hypocritical viewpoints, nobody is consistent. Nixon’s universal healthcare would have been more comprehensive than Obamacare, but Senator Kennedy rejected it. Politicians are opportunistic, Obama said he was not pro gay marriage, and Nixon said he’d never put in price controls (he did). Clinton was a carbon copy of a republican and weakened welfare and popularized super predators as well as deregulate heavily.
Let’s not fight over labeling, let’s agree all politicians are dishonest.
I’m a fan of lower taxes (I think it’s silly to expect to give money to government and expect a bigger return), deregulation in over regulated markets that serves to only help big businesses, entropy in energy waste/use, removing subsidies from farming since it’s harmful to the environment and health, making natural resources into corporations so they have the sane rights as citizens and can sue for damages done.
>If labels are meaningless then why claim that conservatism is about less government control?
Republican and Democrats are not conservative or liberal.
Example: Nancy Pelosi banned ecigs to protect the children, does that mean that she is conservative?
Clinton defunded welfare, was racist, and also deregulated the market. Is he conservative?
Trump mentioned he would like to deregulate all drugs. Does that make him liberal?
Obama raided on dispensaries for federal reason, does that mean he is conservative, or does that mean he is liberal for strong central government?
I mention these heads because the polls don't matter, the policy makers do. The politicians do not work for the people, they are not beholden to their promises or any morals. Does it matter that a bunch of people want weed to be legal and have no way to make it legal, or does one person who can sign it into law matter more? I know my answer, hundreds of my pot smoking friends have less power than one politician.
>Polls like any statistical sample are not perfect but they aren't worthless.
Lets look at the example of "Political ideology"
How do you quantify that? If I consider myself liberal, I am liberal? If I consider myself conservative, I am conservative? These are not concrete definitions. I don't vote downballot. People are hypocritical. What value does this poll give to anyone? What use will it have? What can anyone use it for? When Trump ignored polls he won. When Florida was a bellwether, it is not anymore. I don't see any use in them at all.
Would you call Schwarzenegger a liberal despite him being Republican? Do moderate Democrats share the same value as the ones that are openly communist? Do fundamental christians, libertarians, tea party members, and Trump's MAGA cult of personality really deserve to be lumped together? They are all hypocrites like all humans. I edited my comment, I care about values, not parties and neither party is either or.
I hate politics usually, but I hope my point is clear: I see conservatism as devolution and and I am happy Oregon is deregulating all drugs, there are more democrats than republicans, many unaffiliated with either and they are not letting central government push them around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon
>He was most proud of helping to rescue Social Security in 1983, of pushing the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and of mustering a majority of reluctant Republicans to support Mr. Clinton’s unpopular plan to send American troops to Bosnia in 1995.
>Russell Republicans approached Mr. Dole in 1950 to run for the Kansas State Legislature — they saw the hometown war hero as an easy sell. But he had not yet picked a party, though his parents were New Deal Democrats. He said later that he had signed on with the Republicans after he was told that that’s what most Kansas voters were.
also:
>It was a surprising turn for Mr. Dole, who was long linked in the public mind with the glowering Nixon. He had defended that beleaguered president so fiercely that one critic branded him Nixon’s “hatchet man,” a label that stuck.
Lets not focus on labels, and lets focus on policy, and remember nobody follows the rules, especially politicians.
> They think aborting which is killing an unwanted baby is murder, but they ignore who takes care of the child after, its something I have a problem with too.
But this also seems like sloganeering since the data suggests they also donate more to poor children. It’s a good slogan though.
> No mainstream conservatives proposes 'let's ban kids form having mobile phones and Facebook until we fully understand their effect'. So if you are not willing to apply the principle consistently
Instituting a new, wide-sweeping government ban is itself a major change. It's not unusual for conservative families to implement those sort of rules in their households.
Let's imagine for a second that we really believe is this idea - society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse.
Well, first obvious effect is that any change regarding woman rights, etc. would not have happened the way it did. That's in line with the Conservative viewpoint.
But more importantly, the society changes all the time from technology and market forces- it has changed massively with globalization, introduction of mobile phones, and social networks. Nobody talk about that!
No mainstream conservatives proposes 'let's ban kids form having mobile phones and Facebook until we fully understand their effect'. So if you are not willing to apply the principle consistently, are you just using it a a charade to mask some irrational belief of personal gain? It seems hypocritical, a bit like 'pro life' people not supporting healthcare reform.