Best products from r/askaconservative

First, I think it's instructive to understand the difference between classical liberal's conception of freedom and the progressive perversion of freedom. The following is some copy-pasta I wrote a few months ago:

>In the early 20th century progressives broke from the classical liberal understanding of liberty by distinguishing between effective freedom and formal freedom. Formal freedom, or freedom per the classical liberal tradition, is defined as the ability of a man to pursue his goals without interference by others. In other words, formal freedom represents "a clear road, cleared of impediments, for action."

>Progressives argue that the ability for a man to pursue his goals requires more than just a lack of impediments, but the possession of material and mental means to get him where he wants to go. For example, having the freedom of speech doesn't mean much if you're mute, and having the freedom to travel doesn't mean much if you don't have a car. Thus, progressives argue that true liberty (aka effective freedom) understands material lack to be the true impediment of liberty, not government/social restrictions. Combining this progressive understanding of liberty with an unrealistic trust in the abilities of social science yielded massive increases in the scope of government.

>Classical liberals deny the existence of effective freedom in natural law, and argue that ensuring that everyone has the material means to pursue their dreams requires violating fundamental principles of formal freedom. Thus, in the minds of classical liberals, progressives are the enemies of liberty.

>Meanwhile, progressives perceive classical liberals as selfish or prejudiced because classical liberals refuse to use the state to redistribute wealth. Such characterizations are asinine. Taking the formal freedom position does not preclude individuals from donating to causes they think worthy.

>You'll find no better defense of the classical liberal definition of freedom than Hayek's Constitution of Liberty.

I agree with the classical liberal definition of freedom, but classical liberals and libertarians make the mistake of assuming freedom is sufficient for a good life and good society. It is not. Freedom is necessary for living a moral life in that it allows one to choose good. A proper understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, is also necessary for moral life. Conservatives advocate that our understanding of morality should not come from government, but from churches, schools, families, and other voluntary civic institutions.

Read Evan's classic essay, A Conservative Case For Freedom for more on the differences between classical liberals and conservatives with respect to freedom.

In the early 20th century progressives broke from the classical liberal understanding of liberty by distinguishing between effective liberty and formal liberty. Formal liberty, or liberty per the classical liberal tradition, is defined as the ability of a man to pursue his goals without interference by others. In other words, formal liberty represents "a clear road, cleared of impediments, for action."

In the classical liberal tradition, rights are assurances of formal liberty. They can be understood as a shield against being forced to violate your will.

Progressives argue that the ability for a man to pursue his goals requires more than just a lack of impediments, but the possession of material and mental means to get him where he wants to go. For example, having the freedom of speech doesn't mean much if you're mute, and having the freedom to travel doesn't mean much if you don't have a car. Thus, progressives argue that true liberty (aka effective liberty) understands material lack to be the true impediment of liberty, not government/social restrictions. Combining this progressive understanding of liberty with an unrealistic trust in the abilities of social science yielded massive increases in the scope of government.

In the progressive tradition, rights are assurances of effective liberty. I'm sure you can see how guaranteeing healthcare to all denizens fulfills the progressive ideal of liberty.

Classical liberals deny the existence of effective liberty in natural law, and argue that ensuring that everyone has the material means to pursue their will requires violating fundamental principles of formal liberty. Thus, in the minds of classical liberals, progressives have become the enemies of liberty.


The most influential source of the progressive view of liberty is Dewey and Tufts' Ethics. For the applied stuff skip to part 3.

You'll find no better defense of the classical liberal definition of liberty than Hayek's Constitution of Liberty.

>Because unfortunately, conservative values build nations and liberal values tear them down

Give us one example, please.

> The job of the government is recorded in the Constitution.

Yes, but as Scalia wrote in his book, it's a matter of interpretation. It's a very informative book. I recommend you read it.

> Both sides have an agenda and that agenda is to inflate the well being of their supporters so that those supporters will continue to put them in power.

I agree. Who are the supporters and how do we take them down? Trump has made them all members of his cabinet.

This is devolving and becoming unhelpful to everyone. Tediously citing sources for every opinion is not helpful and often overburdens a social platform such as reddit. I'll finish off my thoughts here, but will leave you the last word if you want it.

• I listed infrastructure -- which would include utilities -- for you. We agree on utilities.
  
• The budget (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2018&isCollapsed=false&leafLevelBrowse=false&isDocumentResults=true&ycord=0) is 4 trillion dollars. Of that, the following i have stated would cost precious little:
  
  

• Military - 574.5B
  
• Energy - 28B
  
• DOJ - 27.7B
  
• Transportation - 16.2B
  
• TOTAL: 646.4B
  
  So, you see, that would be 16% of our current 4T budget. This is what I meant by the term "precious little".
  
  You seem to value citing papers, studies, and even an online course. I'll list some here to support my earlier claims.
  
  
• https://mises.org/library/myth-efficient-government-service
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730
  
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-herzog/why-83-of-us-government-m_b_173617.html
  
  

I’ll give you my favorite: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

It’s a must read in my opinion. Long, but well worth it. Don’t waste your time with other books on the subject like “End the Fed” by Ron Paul. This book blows it out and is very comprehensive. It’s read like a story also, which makes it easy to read.

Also, take your pick from Mark Levin. I’d recommend picking any single one of his books that interest you.

A1:

I believe this is correct, but the part that complicates this matter is interstate commerce. There is a difference between a state dictating its regulations regarding health insurance companies and entirely preventing individual citizens from being a customer of an out-of-state insurance company that does not have the same regulations. The way I see it, it's the difference between being forced to work in the state in which you live and having the opportunity to, say, live in New Jersey and work in NYC.

A2:

Insurance companies would flock to states with the least amount of regulation, but that doesn't mean that only the lowest-covered plans with the lowest prices will be bought. It depends on what people want.

Let's say there's a state with no insurance regulations. Now, a company can offer a plan that includes pregnancy services, or it can offer a plan that does not include pregnancy services, based on the age and sex of the consumer. Obviously, the former would be more expensive, but it is up to the consumer to decide.

The issue is if you have regulations that dictate that every insurance company and plan must offer pregnancy services, that's an unnecessary cost to a husband and wife in their 50s.

B/C:

Yes, it would be very unpopular to offer a service for free to a specific group while forcing all others to pay for it, and then right the ship by having individuals be responsible for their own payments in order to increase efficiency and lower overall cost.

Regarding Canada, yes, it has "free" health care, but in socialized industries, either costs are high due to inefficiency or shortages are inevitable. So, when you see that costs are lower per capita in socialized health systems such as the one in Canada, there also exist absurd wait times because of said shortage. The average wait time in Canada is 47 weeks for neurosurgery, 38 weeks for orthopaedic surgery, 28.5 weeks for eye surgery, and 26 weeks for plastic surgery. The shortest wait time for a specialist is that for oncological services, and even that is a full month - quite a period when every treatment counts in the fight against cancer. (Source: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718)

In addition to long wait times, health care shortages manifest as a shortage of capital and health care equipment. The US has at best a mockery of a market health care system. Yet, in 1992, compared per capita to Canada, we had 8x more MRI machines (Washington state had more MRI machines than all of Canada), 7x more radiation therapy units for cancer treatment, 6x more lithotripsy units, and 3x more open-heart surgery units (Source: Patient Power, by John Goodman and Gerald Musgrave). We've become more centrally planned since then regarding health care, yet still have 5x more MRI machines and 3x more CT scanners per capita (Source: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649).

Think about the fact that despite Canadians' "free" access to care, people are still choosing to go to another country to pay for medical services that would be free in their own country.
We all want lower costs, but the way to lower them is not to deny care for those who either legitimately need or are willing to pay for it. It is to decrease overconsumption on others' dime and increase supply and competition.

Of course, part of increasing supply includes increasing the number of doctors, but so long as the United States places caps on the number of residency positions available for medical school graduates, there won't be a significant increase in the supply of PCPs and specialists, at least for the near future.

> He holds no concrete policy convictions

This meme is based on a false premise. Last election, the self-proclaimed "true conservatives" of the GOP nominated a habitual flip-flopper who ran as a progressive in Massachusetts before pretending to be a conservative, was for a path to citizenship before he was against it, for gun control before he was against it, created Romneycare before bashing Obamacare, etc., etc. Consistency and principles only matter now because the neocons have been overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box by their own party, and they're lashing out at Trump.

It's easy and popular to claim that Trump has no real policy convictions, but it just isn't true. If you're actually concerned, read through the detailed policy papers on his website and the books that he's written about his political views. There's plenty of information out there about where he stands, you just have to do your own homework instead of expecting Trump to do it for you.

Has Trump changed his opinions before? Sure - for instance, he changed his mind about gun control when he got a gun and a license and saw why people like having them, and he changed his views on abortion when a personal friend decided at the last minute not to have one. But on his bread-and-butter issues, his message has been consistent for decades. You can go back 28 years and hear him saying the same things about trade that he's saying now. You can go back 16 years and read him saying the same things about illegal immigration and national security and foreign policy that he's saying now.

> What is a Trump voter actually voting for?

We're voting for national security, border security, trade deals that actually benefit us (not just our trade partners), and a prosperous economy that works. More importantly, we're voting against a phony strain of "conservatism" that capitulates on every issue, hates its own voters, and has been an embarrassment to our party and our country.

Just to point out, many Conservatives would disagree that Austrian Economics and Ayn Rand's Objectivism are even remotely Conservative (this is more related to the Libertarian branch of the Republican Party and is more correctly labeled "Libertarianism"). That said, I hope that you don't leave your studies with the notion that Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand necessarily represent Conservatism, because they most certainly don't (but to be fair, they are Right-Wing).

I like that Russel Kirk was on your reading list. Since you've read The Conservative Mind, I'm sure that you've read about Edmund Burke. I'd recommend Reflections on the Revolution in France. Another good book you may want to check out is The North American High Tory Tradition by Ron Dart. These works represent Traditional Conservativism, of which Russel Kirk was included.

There really is no such thing as "conservative" economic theory - it's just economics. After 300 years of economic research, it's pretty clear that free market capitalism outperforms any kind of mixed economy or socialism.

For a good, easy-to-read introduction, I suggest you buy Economics for Real People or you can read it for free online here.

A few books

Reflections on the Revolution in France by Burke

The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirke

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek

The Righteous Mind by Haidt, not a conservative and not really a conservative book but interesting research by a social psychologist researching morality and it's impact on political opinions.

For websites, magazines, blogs

National Review not quite as good nor as influential as it once was in decades past but still worthwhile.

Instapundit blog by libertarian law professor Glenn Reynolds. Usually links to articles posted elsewhere with a bit of commentary.

I like the The American Interest. Walter Russell Mead is a self declared liberal editing a self declared centrist publication. But much of his writing consists of a critique of what he calls the "blue social model". At this point I think he's well on his way down the road to becoming a (moderate) conservative but just can't bring himself to call himself one.

Ouch. I guess that you have an issue with that phrase. I guess I should provide some links for the data/statistics crowd.

Middle class is shrinking
http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/26/middle-class/

Productivity vs wages
https://aflcio.org/2015/1/15/five-causes-wage-stagnation-united-states

Household debt vs savings
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1104-false-prosperity-through-debt

Impact on the middle class because of globalization (elephant chart)
http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/get-ready-to-see-this-globalization-elephant-chart-over-and-over-again/wcm/c8b93ceb-197b-46fb-8aec-21961adaced3

Unions membership vs income share of top 10%
https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/07/29/the-benefits-of-unions/

Total wealth (Bottom 90% vs 0.1%)
http://progresoweekly.us/us-wealth-inequality-top-0-1-worth-much-bottom-90/

2/3 of Americans aren't contributing to a 401K
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-21/two-thirds-of-americans-aren-t-putting-money-in-their-401-k

Decline in defined pension plans
https://squarelyrooted.com/tag/fun-with-charts/

33% has $0/56% has less than $10K in their retirement funds
http://time.com/money/4258451/retirement-savings-survey/

The rate of growth of capital is greater than economic growth.
https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491591617

Take all these charts in consideration and you get the rise of Trumpism. (Mark Blyth)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY

Now...maybe it shouldn't be described as "widespread inequality". How about just inequality that is increasing?

> I guess some people would rather pay to defend our country than pay into the ponzi scheme that is Social Security?

If Social Security is a ponzi scheme then Defense is an even more egregious scam: we take your money and don't pay you back anything, but blow it on useless hardware no one wanted. At least SS pays us back in benefits. Defense is a black hole of cash. In the next decade SS benefits will directly contribute to the well being of millions of Americans. Can we say the same of defense, on a dollar for dollar basis? What's the logical argument?

I mentioned social programs as a whole. I want to hear a logical argument of why throwing more money at the F-35 bondoogle is more valuable than the kind of socialized healthcare system endorsed by the likes of Fredrich Hayek.

> Because they want to follow the rule of law? And people who are here illegally are breaking the law?

Congress can make law. My question stands: what is logical about alienating even the legal hispanic vote with a bill that'll go nowhere? I'm not pulling strawmen here.

> I guess they have a right to an opinion? There's circumstantial evidence there (I realize evidence does not equal proof). I don't share the belief, but 30% isn't a sweeping majority. If they do, so what? If he is a Muslim, so what? People have weirder beliefs than that.

You're undermining your case that conservative beliefs and arguments are based in logic.

Perhaps you should list some issues where you think conservatives are making the logical argument, contra liberals.

>> Is there a logical refutation of climate change that climate scientist conspire to overlook?

> Agree and disagree.

This doesn't follow. You might feel the issue is up in the air but conservatives as a whole don't. I expected an argument about how climate scientists were systematically wrong, or engaged in malicious conspiracy. The politicians elected by conservatives seem to have no compunction about insinuating the presence of a hoax. What's the logic?

> Because these men are entertainers. They don't speak for me.

But they speak for conservatives and reflect their sentiments back at them. You'll have a hard time convincing me that these major media personalities, including the radio and news programs with the highest rating, are the equivalent of Jerry Seinfeld for their mostly conservative audiences. Do you deny that watching and listening to these figures will give me a sense of the pulse of conservatives today? If not them, who?

> Should I really trot out the thought that Maddow speaks on your behalf 100%? I'd bet she doesn't.

I wouldn't hesitate to say she speaks for my basic sentiments regardless of whether I specifically agree with her stances or not, and I wouldn't deny that Maddow and Chris Hayes are reasonably accurate metrics for the state of modern liberal thought. Have you ever watched? In my limited viewings and in my humble opinion they maintain greater allegiance to rational argument than today's conservatives, either judged by their base voters or the media personalities they tune into. You often see conservatives in this sub backpedal from the things Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Beck say (relying on the ol' "they don't speak for me") but you don't see liberals similarly dissociating themselves from Maddow and Hayes. Why do you think this is?

> Disagree. He really doesn't go around bitching about liberals the way Hannity and the others do. He's been putting himself out there - he's gone on Bill Maher's show multiple times, and for his latest movie he interviewed many of those on the left like Michael Eric Dyson, Ward Churchill, etc. to get their take and opinion on America.

"Putting himself out there" is how he gets publicity, it's no virtue. I read the first few chapters of The Roots of Obama's Rage and it's an incoherent logical mess. D'Souza attributes cherry-picked stances of Obama to the background of Obama himself, completely ignoring that Hilary Clinton or just about any Democratic administration would act in the same way. D'Souza neglects to even address this basic criticism and is ruthlessly taken apart by the kinds of conservatives who do use logic. I hear he wrote some good, thoughtful books at one point in time, so he's not an idiot. The only way to explain these blatant errors of not just logic but facts is that he's sold out to the crazies who want to hear something salacious rather than truthful. On the one hand, you claim conservatives rely on logic; on the other hand, a book this trashy makes the New York Times' bestseller list. What evidence weighs more? What am I supposed to think?

> In a small community - say a village of 350 people - I would say 'Yes, we are all in this together and our collective success or failure is intertwined with one another and we must all contribute to helping each other by specializing in different things which together allow the best functioning society.

This is one of the many arguments for federalism, its why services should be supplied by states and local communities, the states can act as laboratories and people can move in and out of areas they favor.

> Capitalism measures success by the amount of money we have

No, capitalism doesnt measure anything, it is simply the economic system that allows individuals to exchange their goods or services as they see fit.

Dont anthropomorphize an economic system. Capitalism allows for taco bell to sell taco's at 2 for 99 cents and a Jackson Pollock artwork for a few hundred million dollars, it doesnt measure success.

I measure my personal success different than you do, it has nothing to do with an economic system.

> is a very difficult one when we get into details and I am unresolved in where I stand on it (where is the line drawn? Cue a reference to 'death panels'...).

All the more reason why putting a bureaucrat who does not care about you or even know you exist in charge of your health is such a bad idea.

> I am of the belief that our entire nation is stronger when we are looking out for each other.

I agree, but having the government forcing people at the point of a gun erodes the voluntary individual responsibility we have with each other. Looking out for eachother doesnt mean forcing one group of people to pay for another.

It is certainly not society's job to fill in the gaps where you have failed. It is your job to pick yourself up.

If you are actually genuine with your questions and actually want to learn I strongly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529) I think it would help a lot with your understanding of economics.

Crunchy Cons, a.k.a. Front Porchers, are conservatives who are localist, communitarian, traditional (but not traditionalist), often agrarian, often Catholic or other liturgically-minded Christian. Authors in this vein would be Wendell Berry, Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Michael Oakeshott, Matthew Crawford, Jane Jacobs, Alasdair MacIntyre, G.K. Chesterton, Rod Dreher... not all strictly conservative, but definitely influential.