What kind of Conservative are you?

[2A_Tom]

Selfishness is the basis of life, altruism is an attempt to overcome one's own selfishness.

Tell me you are not selfish and and I'll call you a,

I attempt to follow, although poorly, the teachings of Jesus Christ. My own selfishness is one of the chief impediments.

Ephesians 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 

[jamil]

Selfishness is the basis of life, altruism is an attempt to overcome one's own selfishness.

Tell me you are not selfish and and I'll call you a,

I attempt to follow, although poorly, the teachings of Jesus Christ. My own selfishness is one of the chief impediments.

Ephesians 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

No one involved in this branch of the discussion is saying people aren't selfish. I would further that altruism doesn't exist purely of itself. People don't give for purely the benefit of other people. For some people it makes them feel better to be a part of making someone else's life better. And I would argue it is actually self interest in chasing that feeling that makes them do it. But still others do it because they get some benefit from being seen as altruistic.

Adam Smith had a lot to say on that topic.

I do understand the Christian teachings about selfishness. As I see it now, it is a beneficial philosophy and is compatible with the reality of human nature, that we are self interested.

 

[Twangbanger]

Of the two, she may be more likely to put the pedal to the metal and topple this precarious and artificially supported house of cards so painstakingly and incrementally constructed for the last several generations. She's more likely to disobey her handlers and push too far.

Of the two, Trump may be may be more likely to continue kicking the can down the road and raping what benefits he and his cronies can, prolonging the inevitable collapse with continued incrementalism.

One of these scenarios leads more quickly to the collapse of the centralized national cartel known as the U.S. government.

A collapsed government is a limited government.

...But about this "collapse" strategy. What's the realistic game plan? You really believe that'll work? I strongly suspect your vision of the end game is much different from what would actually transpire. Might end with more tyranny. Governments, even if the largest government on the planet can collapse, aren't the only sources of tyranny...

I guess what this leaves me wondering, is what makes you so sure that it will be the government which will collapse? It would seem more likely to me that the economy goes down the drain, taking ordinary people with it, but the Gubmint manages to hang on. We've seen some pretty severe austerity work out in other places, and economies collapsed to some degree, peoples' livelihoods and standards of living sagged to some degree...but the one entity pretty much left intact was the government. Sure, there can be some rough sledding and changes in leadership. But where are the case studies which would suggest that a powerful and established government of a developed nation will up and leave the field of play entirely? (Especially one as entrenched and enriched as Uncle Sam?). What are the specific mechanisms of how that goes down?

Well...I don't expect an answer to that, and I'm not going to get one. Because I've learned that once you get into the more apocalyptic, pseudo-theological sort of discussions about how the proverbial "showdown at OK Corral" will actually transpire, you don't need to furnish specifics to satisfy the faithful. Generalized expressions of doom are plenty good enough. One of the benefits of INGO lifting the religious discussion injunction, is that we've finally been able to get a clearer picture of where some of the "max. liberty" collapse theorists come from, culturally. And it's a very, very religious place, lots of homeschooling or church schools, with lots of "no government role for anything" rhetoric, and no need whatsoever for rigorous mechanical explanations of how things will actually work out.

Directing this toward you, Jamil, you're trying to be logical about this. Since I take it you don't believe in some divine hand directing the outcome of these events, and because you don't believe in the "end of days," you're looking for ways to "balance the equation," to "make it all work out" in an orderly and copacetic fashion. You want government and society to be operated in an economically sustainable manner, in perpetuity, because you're not waiting for the chariot to come pick you up. But the other camp has no such worries. They're not going to get caught up in the details of this, because they believe it's all doomed in the end, anyway and by definition, on theological grounds. They believe all outcomes are known by the Creator ahead of time. And they're not necessarily trying to find a system of governance which has to "work out," which has to be sustainable in practical terms, or that's built to last in any meaningful way. The equation does not need to "balance out" for them, because it's a problem which never converges on any sort of Earthly solution.

I've come to refer to this luxuriously nihilistic school of thought as "Leave Me the Heck Alone Until Rapture Comes." Which brings us back around to the subject of the thread, because it's a form of Conservatism well-represented on INGO.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I guess what this leaves me wondering, is what makes you so sure that it will be the government which will collapse? It would seem more likely to me that the economy goes down the drain, taking ordinary people with it, but the Gubmint manages to hang on. We've seen some pretty severe austerity work out in other places, and economies collapsed to some degree, peoples' livelihoods and standards of living sagged to some degree...but the one entity pretty much left intact was the government. Sure, there can be some rough sledding and changes in leadership. But where are the case studies which would suggest that a powerful and established government of a developed nation will up and leave the field of play entirely? (Especially one as entrenched and enriched as Uncle Sam?). What are the specific mechanisms of how that goes down?

Well...I don't expect an answer to that, and I'm not going to get one. Because I've learned that once you get into the more apocalyptic, pseudo-theological sort of discussions about how the proverbial "showdown at OK Corral" will actually transpire, you don't need to furnish specifics to satisfy the faithful. Generalized expressions of doom are plenty good enough. One of the benefits of INGO lifting the religious discussion injunction, is that we've finally been able to get a clearer picture of where some of the "max. liberty" collapse theorists come from, culturally. And it's a very, very religious place, lots of homeschooling or church schools, with lots of "no government role for anything" rhetoric, and no need whatsoever for rigorous mechanical explanations of how things will actually work out.

Directing this toward you, Jamil, you're trying to be logical about this. Since I take it you don't believe in some divine hand directing the outcome of these events, and because you don't believe in the "end of days," you're looking for ways to "balance the equation," to "make it all work out" in an orderly and copacetic fashion. You want government and society to be operated in an economically sustainable manner, in perpetuity, because you're not waiting for the chariot to come pick you up. But the other camp has no such worries. They're not going to get caught up in the details of this, because they believe it's all doomed in the end, anyway and by definition, on theological grounds. They believe all outcomes are known by the Creator ahead of time. And they're not necessarily trying to find a system of governance which has to "work out," which has to be sustainable in practical terms, or that's built to last in any meaningful way. The equation does not need to "balance out" for them, because it's a problem which never converges on any sort of Earthly solution.

I've come to refer to this luxuriously nihilistic school of thought as "Leave Me the Heck Alone Until Rapture Comes." Which brings us back around to the subject of the thread, because it's a form of Conservatism well-represented on INGO.

While some of this may be believed by INGO members and/or the general population, it's also worth pointing out that not much of this statement is Biblical. So there's that.

 

[2A_Tom]

I do understand the Christian teachings about selfishness. As I see it now, it is a beneficial philosophy and is compatible with the reality of human nature, that we are self interested.

Anyone who has been saved for many years and studied the Bible thoroughly would know that the flesh is selfish and that is the means that the men use for self advancement. I would never expect an unsaved person or someone who does not know God's Word to understand that the Spirit is the antithesis of the flesh. The Spirit of God which dwells in all believers is totally unselfish and, if allowed, will motivate the saved person to love others more than self.

I realize this is a concept that few will grasp and many will eschew.

Disclaimer: There is no such thing as a GOOD Christian. I will never reach the goal of Christianity until I see Him in glory and am myself glorified with Him.

 

[jamil]

Anyone who has been saved for many years and studied the Bible thoroughly would know that the flesh is selfish and that is the means that the men use for self advancement. I would never expect an unsaved person or someone who does not know God's Word to understand that the Spirit is the antithesis of the flesh. The Spirit of God which dwells in all believers is totally unselfish and, if allowed, will motivate the saved person to love others more than self.

I realize this is a concept that few will grasp and many will eschew.

Disclaimer: There is no such thing as a GOOD Christian. I will never reach the goal of Christianity until I see Him in glory and am myself glorified with Him.

I'll say this. My perspective on human nature is secular, but please don't assume that because I'm not a "believer" that I don't or can't understand your perspective. I'm not going to get into explaining my personal life on a public forum, but I will say this. I have spent a large chunk of my life as a Bible believing Christian, devoting years of careful study of scripture. I've been a deacon in my church, and have led Bible studies. When I see the religious debates on INGO it reminds me of arguing the very same points you guys make in my own debates with non-believers back in the day. You're assuming facts not in evidence when you think that the cause of my perspective is an inability to understand it. I do understand it. I didn't un-remember everything I learned as a Christian.

To restate your words more accurately, I would say, that Christians shouldn't expect non-believer to have the same perspective that a Spirit led Christian would have. I would completely agree if you said it that way.

 

[2A_Tom]

I apologize. I actually misread your statement and didn't even re-read it when I quoted it.

I thought you said you do not understand.

 

[YahwehsBattleAxe]

How many Bush conservatives are here versus Trump conservatives? I'm a Trump conservative.

 

[jamil]

Directing this toward you, Jamil, you're trying to be logical about this. Since I take it you don't believe in some divine hand directing the outcome of these events, and because you don't believe in the "end of days," you're looking for ways to "balance the equation," to "make it all work out" in an orderly and copacetic fashion. You want government and society to be operated in an economically sustainable manner, in perpetuity, because you're not waiting for the chariot to come pick you up. But the other camp has no such worries. They're not going to get caught up in the details of this, because they believe it's all doomed in the end, anyway and by definition, on theological grounds. They believe all outcomes are known by the Creator ahead of time. And they're not necessarily trying to find a system of governance which has to "work out," which has to be sustainable in practical terms, or that's built to last in any meaningful way. The equation does not need to "balance out" for them, because it's a problem which never converges on any sort of Earthly solution.

I've come to refer to this luxuriously nihilistic school of thought as "Leave Me the Heck Alone Until Rapture Comes." Which brings us back around to the subject of the thread, because it's a form of Conservatism well-represented on INGO.

Well, I'm trying to be real about it anyway. It's not that I'm trying to balance the equation. I'm trying to separate what's real from what's imagined. And I'm not referring to religion, per se. I am an ideological guy, but, I try to be pragmatic about that. Ideology or religion or philosophy can produce imagined stuff, but they can also produce real stuff, useful stuff.

We can apply our ideologies towards predicting what might transpire in the future, but does that produce an accurate image? I think a heuristic approach, looking at human nature, tendencies, history, is more likely to produce a realistic estimation of what might happen in the future than following an ideology or religion or philosophy.

As it pertains to this, I think ATM's outlook on the possible futures is more dependent on ideology than mine. That's why I think if the government would collapse, we would likely revert to the types of social arrangements that we've had prior to this kind of government, and then eventually we would evolve back into this kind of government. But, as I alluded to before, I'm not even sure a government like this can collapse. It might morph into something even worse, but I just don't see it collapsing entirely, unless the people pulling the strings no longer had the power they have.