The Motives of Conservativism and The Next Logical Steps

[FreakyBoy]

Governments aren't people, and different terminology applies. Governments are obligated to do what their citizens believe they should do, and the penalty for not doing so is a change in staffing.

[Grillick]

People don't always do the things they should do. I disagree that the word should indicates an obligation. It indicates something that ought to happen. That doesn't mean that it will or that it has to. An obligation has an implication of something with law or force behind it, something with penalties if it is not done. A difference in terminology can be a huge difference IMO.

That might be true when you're talking about individuals, chaosman. However, any possible variation between the two words must necessarily decrease along with reductions in the possible avenues of direct, operative forces to compel behavior. Since government is essentially not subject to direct operative forces of law, the difference between what a government should do and what a government is obligated to do trends toward zero.

[Jorodryn]

The words are different. The US government should be protecting our border, but apparently aren't obligated to do so. At least not according to Roberts' court.

[Kea]

Dude, this is what I mean. The things I think a government is Capital L Obligated to do, it ought to do whether its citizens like it or not, because failure to do so would be a fundamental violation of the people's rights. Examples include holding regular elections, permitting free speech, and preventing systemic discrimination. If a majority of the population voted to, I dunno, tar and feather Mexicans, the government is obligated not to carry it out. On principle.

If the majority of the population voted to abolish public libraries and sell the land to Walmart, I would think this was a terrible, stupid, abominably short-sighted idea, but if that is the people's choice, then they should get it. In other words, I think the government should provide libraries, but it isn't Obligated to.

[FreakyBoy]

That's actually a valid use of the terms, Kea. I'll go with that.

[Grillick]

In other words, I think the government should provide libraries, but it isn't Obligated to.

I guess in this case, I'd wonder how you distinguish "I think the government should provide libraries" from "I want the government to provide libraries." And if you think there's no difference, why select the word that implies imperative instead of desire?

[arcosh]

Can't speak for Kea, but i see at least one reason to make such a semantic distinction:

There are issues, where i think the goverment providing a service is helping to reach an undisputed* goal of the goverment. The goverment should implement A, because i want the goverment to achieve B. But everyone agrees with everything after the komma already, so i don't need to say it.

And then there is things, where what the goal is, is under discussion, though what goverment measures lead to the outcomes is often straightforward. Like say i want historic buildings to be preserved.

*the goal is undisputed, the method might not be. It is pretty much undisputed, that the goverment has the goal to decrease crime, while there is not so much agreement what strategies have chance of success.

[Jorodryn]

Dude, this is what I mean. The things I think a government is Capital L Obligated to do, it ought to do whether its citizens like it or not, because failure to do so would be a fundamental violation of the people's rights. Examples include holding regular elections, permitting free speech, and preventing systemic discrimination. If a majority of the population voted to, I dunno, tar and feather Mexicans, the government is obligated not to carry it out. On principle.

We have somewhere between 12 and 20 million people in our country illegally. It doesn't matter where they are from they should not be here. There is a legal process to bring people in. I know because I have had to do that for my wife. We just had to renew her green card as a matter of fact. In response to the Supreme Court decision, our federal goverment pretty much told Arizona and by proxy every other state that if they arrest someone and detain them and they are known to be in the country illegally that unless they committed some other crime they aren't going to do a thing about it. Heck I might as well sneak my wife's family over instead of trying to go through the legal process of getting them in country.

Another way they are selectively enforcing law is that if you are between a certain age range we will hook you up with a visa. If you are outside of that, screw you.

[Kea]

What on earth has any of that got to do with dunking people into a vat of tar and throwing a bag of feathers over them? Surely tarring and feathering shouldn't be part of the deportation process.

I guess in this case, I'd wonder how you distinguish "I think the government should provide libraries" from "I want the government to provide libraries." And if you think there's no difference, why select the word that implies imperative instead of desire?

Because I'm not a @#*ing pedant. That's why.

[Jorodryn]

no they shouldn't be tar and feathered... the immigration question just hits really close to home and probably causes my blood to boil more than any other topic on here.

[Crazed123]

In his post For Liberals from an Ex-Conservative: The First Principle of Conservativism, Brad Hicks explains that conservatism's guiding principle is,

Anything that encourages you to stay in school until you get a good job, get married and never stray, work every waking hour, save every penny, and invest every possible penny into improving your children's lot in life is good. Anything that distracts you from doing those things is bad.

So then, what's the actual point of the Straight and Narrow? I follow a religion that has its own version of the Straight and Narrow (actually, I think we invented the phrase), but we don't tend to get nearly as monstrously totalitarian or capitalistic about it. At some point, you've got to stop struggling to build a Proper Lifestyle and actually live it, but conservatives never seem to do so.

[Kea]

This is just a hypothesis, but I think that people tend to get really totalitarian about lifestyle (and especially sex) when they perceive their community to be under threat. You look through history, and every time there's a war or economic upheaval or revolution brewing, people start banging on about decadence and moral backsliding and corruption and how the wimmins dese days is doing it wrong.

[Grillick]

We have somewhere between 12 and 20 million people in our country illegally. It doesn't matter where they are from they should not be here.

I disagree. I think those people should be here. The fact that there is so much illegal immigration is not an indication that there is something wrong with our enforcement of the immigration laws. Especially considering the fact that the United States has 7,494 miles of land border and fifty-one (51) airports offering international flights, preventing people from immigrating to the country is a practical impossibility. The fact that there is so much illegal immigration demonstrates that the (a) channels of legal immigration are inadequate to meet the demand for (b) jobs for the immigrants and (c) labor provided by the immigrants.

There are three effective methods of addressing this imbalance. First, we could change the immigration policy to permit more legal immigrants, thus decreasing the impact of (a) on the rate of illegal immigration. Second, we could improve the economy in other countries to decrease the impact of (b) on the rate of illegal immigration. Finally, we could reduce the number of available jobs in the United States, thus decreasing the impact of (c) on the rate of illegal immigration. It's worth noting that these last two things have actually occurred over the last six years, and the rate of illegal immigration has decreased in that time. Some sources even put the net rate of illegal immigration at 0.

The only value of regulated immigration policies (and this value is significant, in my mind) is to ensure that all new entrants to the country are accounted for and to exclude, to the extent possible, criminals from entering the country. Increasing the border patrol has a much smaller impact on these concerns than does increasing the immigration quota and providing sufficient staff to immigration services to ensure that requests for legal immigration are processed in a timely manner.

As long as the benefits of illegal immigration (earlier employment, earlier access to better healthcare, etc.) are outweighed by the costs of legal immigration (fees, waiting times, etc.), illegal immigration will always exist in this country. Arresting people who are doing jobs that would otherwise go unfilled and are paying (at minimum) sales taxes on the necessities they purchase to sustain themselves (in Texas, sales taxes are one of the primary sources of government revenue), unless they have committed some kind of crime that actually injures the community, is a waste of taxpayer dollars and simply a xenophobic reaction to a problem that is more perceived than actual.

Because I'm not a @#*ing pedant. That's why.

You only answered one of my questions.

[Kea]

^@%*ing pedant.

[FreakyBoy]

To be fair, Kea actually answered both questions, but one answer was implied. You've been studying law too long, Grillick.