Conservatism

[g8rguy]

Economic rank is social rank. While I’m normally only a marxist of the Groucho variety I’m inclined to go with that doctrinaire position that elucidator mentioned here, there really isn’t much to social class other then economics. Even your own cherrypicked quotes demonstrate the primacy of economics in defining class , that workers rose into the middle class via capital accumulation ie an economic consideration.

See, that’s why I bolded the part about also owning a business; sheer capital accumulation wasn’t viewed as the defining factor, since how you accumulated it was an important consideration as well. I’d be the last to deny that social status and wealth are strongly correlated (and in fact, and in earlier post on this page, I admitted as much), but they are not identical, in my view.

Or the notion you also quoted that the middle class was those people ‘below the aristocracy but above the workers’ which are two categories also defined by the economic factors of landowning and labour.

Yes! Landowning and labor, not possession of actual wealth. These are certainly economic quantities, and one presumes that he who owns land is most likely fairly well off, while he who is a laborer is most likely not. But this is not something that must be the case; as mentioned, selecting any random member from the aristocracy, the middle class, and the working class, it is entirely possible that the laborer is wealthier than the member of the middle class, or that the middle class member is wealthier than the aristocrat, even though on average the economic status will reflect the social status.

Class is admittedly a somewhat arbitrary notion that blurs at the edges but its driven by economic considerations. You’re welcome to disagree but if you dont think economics defines social class then what do you think does it?

In a situation in which you have a hereditary aristocracy, defined not necessarily by “rich” but by “having the appropriate blood” or “being from the right family,” the connection between wealth and social status is blurred substantially.

And that, I posit, it what happens here. Social status is determined to a large extent by wealth, especially as the vestiges of the feudal class system vanish more and more, but there is still an idea of “breeding” somehow, if I may use a rather nebulous term. One would consider, for example, the Kennedy family to be upper class; one would probably not consider Eminem or a lottery winner to be in the same category, despite their obvious wealth. And further, viewing things through my lens as a modern American, I see a stronger connection between the two than I think would be seen by a Victorian Briton.

This is, of course, not particularly relevant to the debate, and in the larger sense that of course the absolute poorest people of today are not better off than the comfortable of yesteryear, I agree with you. I don’t know that this is particularly relevant either, as what Sam pretty clearly meant is that the working poor of today are provided with vastly more comforts than the working poor of a century ago, and are even better off in some way than the middle class of that same time frame. This, I think, is pretty much indisputable.

[Fear_Itself]

Democrats Block Bush’s Intent to Deny Student Aid to 84,000

Is this representative of the conservative position on the role of government? Should government help students go to college, or would society be better off if we let the free market regulate who gets an education in America?

[Eolbo]

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
**I’d be the last to deny that social status and wealth are strongly correlated (and in fact, and in earlier post on this page, I admitted as much)
**

Yes I noticed. I dont think we have a fundamental disagreement more one of emphasis, while I use the expression ‘primacy of economics’ you refer to a ‘strong correlation’.

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
**
But this is not something that must be the case; as mentioned, selecting any random member from the aristocracy, the middle class, and the working class, it is entirely possible that the laborer is wealthier than the member of the middle class, or that the middle class member is wealthier than the aristocrat, even though on average the economic status will reflect the social status.
**

Indeed. This is the blurring at the edges I mentioned.

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
**
In a situation in which you have a hereditary aristocracy, defined not necessarily by “rich” but by “having the appropriate blood” or “being from the right family,” the connection between wealth and social status is blurred substantially.
And that, I posit, it what happens here. Social status is determined to a large extent by wealth, especially as the vestiges of the feudal class system vanish more and more, but there is still an idea of “breeding” somehow, if I may use a rather nebulous term. One would consider, for example, the Kennedy family to be upper class; one would probably not consider Eminem or a lottery winner to be in the same category, despite their obvious wealth.
**

Yes, but those connotations of breeding and being from good families are themselves derived ultimately from wealth. What I think you may be underestimating is the extent to which class mobility both upwards and downwards occurs in socities with a hereditary aristocracy. Families become rich and move upwards and become gentrified, aristocratic families fall on hard times and lose their cachet. Naturally one does not look upon the nouveau rich in the same light one views old money but this is a point in time exercise. Eminem is a precocious upstart and clearly not a person of quality if we view the world in those archaic terms. Yet if wealth remains in his line, his family will in time be perceived as upper class just as the Kennedy’s were themselves once bumpkins of no account. That social prestige derives ultimately from money. An aristocratic family that loses its wealth can no longer maintain its lifestyle and unless it can marry into up and coming money it will decline and be forgotten.

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
**
This is, of course, not particularly relevant to the debate, and in the larger sense that of course the absolute poorest people of today are not better off than the comfortable of yesteryear, I agree with you. I don’t know that this is particularly relevant either, as what Sam pretty clearly meant is that the working poor of today are provided with vastly more comforts than the working poor of a century ago, and are even better off in some way than the middle class of that same time frame. This, I think, is pretty much indisputable. **

Society is so obviously more advanced and wealthier now then in 1900 that I doubt anyone would even contest the point. Yet Sam is glossing over the hardships of the poorest members of our society and indeed above he attributed such hardship to their own ignorance, poor life choices, and mental incompetence. Anything but the system in other words.

But it should be noted that in the recent US mayors report on contemporary homelessness, which is increasing, primary factors cited included unemployment, low-paying jobs and unaffordable housing. 22% of the homeless even have jobs, they just cant afford housing.

http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/news/press_releases/documents/hunger_121802.asp
Now capitalism is fine and dandy and better then any other economic system we currently know. But God almighty its not a panacea and lets not pretend everyone has benefited and that everyone gets a good deal.

[Sam_Stone]

Now capitalism is fine and dandy and better then any other economic system we currently know. But God almighty its not a panacea and lets not pretend everyone has benefited and that everyone gets a good deal.

But I never said that. I myself wrote several paragraphs on the flaws of the market, and even mentioned the potential problem of growing wealth disparity.

The point is that Captalism is just better than any other system we have, and you muck with it at your peril. I believe liberals are too quick to demand government solutions to problems, because they ignore the systemic flaws of government, and over-state the flaws of capitalism.

[Icerigger]

I think a better measure of the success of conservative capitalism is what percentage of the country’s wealth is owned by the top 5%. If a raising tide lifts all boats then the super rich should gain wealth at the same rate as the middles class. This is not the case, the top 5% have been gaining an ever increasing piece of the pie, as Limbaugh constantly preaches the rich pays most of the taxes, yes because they have most of the wealth. Conservatives don’t seem to mind that the rich are getting richer at an ever increasing rate and if it continues at what point does it become a problem?

http://hascall.colgate.edu/jwagner/Inequality%20in%20the%20U.S.%201997%20data.htm

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm

[Shodan]

I think a better measure of the success of conservative capitalism is what percentage of the country’s wealth is owned by the top 5%. If a raising tide lifts all boats then the super rich should gain wealth at the same rate as the middles class.

I don’t see how either of these are relevant.

Why should it be the case that since “a rising tide lifts all boats”, that all should be lifted equally? If the poor get richer, and the rich get richer even more, how is that a bad thing?

And I have never seen the problem with saying that some are getting richer faster than others.

Suppose in society A, there are twenty people. Joe owns ten simoleans, and everyone else owns a total of 90 simoleans, or 4.74 simoleans apiece, and there are a total of 100 simoleans in the economy.

Their economy booms, and at the end of the year everyone except Joe owns ten simoleans. Joe, on the other hand, is getting even richer, and now owns 200 simoleans. Joe used to be twice as rich as everyone else, now he is twenty times as rich. He used to own 10% of the wealth, now he owns more than half.

How has Joe hurt anyone else? They have all doubled their wealth. (Assume that this society has no inflation.)

Shit, gotta run.

Regards,
Shodan

[g8rguy]

Eolbo, I do see where you’re coming from, so let me just posit that membership in what one might call the upper social class has some element not of having money but of having inherited money; I think that class mobility is difficult for individuals to achieve on their own merits and rather easier to achieve based on the merits of their ancestors. This is less true today, I would suggest, but there’s certainly some element of it even now. But as you said, we don’t disagree on the major theme.

Fear, perhaps if you tried to phrase things in a rather less misleading way, you’d get a better response to your question (whence the unquestioning acceptance of one senator’s numerical claim and the unquestioning rejection of the DoE’s claim? Whence the hypothesized original intent, if not from thin air?)…

That said, do I think government ought to play some role in helping to educate the populace? Yes. Should it do as much as it does now, as far as college is concerned? I’m not as sure of that; frankly, I think that the college experience is wasted on a lot of people, based on my experiences with the local undergrads. I don’t know why it’s the public’s responsibility to send people to some central location so that they can wander around in a drunken stupor, pausing only intermittently to actually go to class and, very infrequently, to learn from the entire thing. And further, I’ve noticed that my parents’ higher education was funded, at least in part, by the company they worked for; it’s not as if it’s a case of either the government funds college or you never go.

On the other hand, college is becoming more and more of a job qualification, and we’d have issues if people suddenly found it out of reach upon finishing high school. But then again, on the first hand, it’s not as if the market wouldn’t respond to such a change.

Bottom line: I’m not sure exactly where I’d stand on this issue.

Finally (whew!) to Icerigger: please explain why the income disparity should be constant over time. Frankly, that’s a notion for which you have provided zero support. It should be obvious that the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer; that’s why we call them the rich. As the old saying goes: it takes money to make money.

Note also that the richest 5% is hardly limited to what one might call the super rich.

[blanx]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Blanx:

I have specifically acknowledged the “tragedy of the commons” issue re: conservatism, and have suggested that protecting the rights of the people re: the commons is the legitimate purview of government.

So, I think your criticism is invalid in this instance. **

Dunno if it was invalid, perhaps just not well fleshed out cause of time constraints the other night-

I think with this we’ve gotten a touch afield from reality, and are now dwelling in pure theory, because if there were actually a conservative political party in existence that acknowledged the tragedy of the commons problem I’d be inclined to vote for their candidates. I do not believe that the Republican party as it is now meets that criteria. Heck, I’m not even talking about global warming, I’m talking about simple air pollution, and reparation of the interstate highways- the Republicans in MI seem to be interested in continually cutting taxes, which is fine, but then they never find the money to pay for things like the roads, or schools

(which I also believe fall under the tragedy of the commons heading- I don’t have any kids, but it is definitely in my best interest to pay for good public schools, if only to increase my own property values in the short-sighted view, and to provide local children with opportunities for advancement that don’t involve looting my house of its valuables.)

What say you, Scylla?

[smiling_bandit]

Economic rank is social rank. While I’m normally only a marxist of the Groucho variety I’m inclined to go with that doctrinaire position that elucidator mentioned here, there really isn’t much to social class other then economics.

I can provide absolute proof that this is not so. Let us examine japan in the age opf the Tokugawa Bakufu. While early on, the Samurai ruling class ejoyed excellent pay, derived from government income and grants, these were fixed at the government’s pay scales by rank. Increasingly, as inflation destroyed that wealth, Samurai lost economic standing to merchants. These merchants had far more cash, but occupied the ostensibly lowest economic place; in fact, the bakufu repeatedly took their money or shut down ones that became too powerful, if they had lots of Samurai indebted to the merchant house. Samurai had all the high points of social class, but eventually became endemically poor.

Even your own cherrypicked quotes demonstrate the primacy of economics in defining class , that workers rose into the middle class via capital accumulation ie an economic consideration.

It did not say that. Its said that one’s profession was the primary determinate of social class.

[quote[Or the notion you also quoted that the middle class was those people ‘below the aristocracy but above the workers’ which are two categories also defined by the economic factors of landowning and labour.[/quote]

Partly, but not entirely.

Class is admittedly a somewhat arbitrary notion that blurs at the edges but its driven by economic considerations. You’re welcome to disagree but if you dont think economics defines social class then what do you think does it?

Social class is its own reference point. It does noty have to be driven by anything else. It can even change from year to year. In America, socail and economic class is even more fluid, and our cultural appreciation for those who accumulate wealth is a part of our social class distinctions. Nevertheless, as in the case of doctors and lawyers, it is a demonstrated fact that economic and social class is not the same.

[bullfighter]

I am particularly bothered by one thing in this thread, and that it claims to be about Conservatism when it really seems to be about Libertarianism. I agree with much that has been said in support of (supposedly) conservatism, yet I have never voted for anyone who was considered conservative. Here’s why:

I like freedom a lot. About 30 years ago I picked up a pamphlet from “Young Americans for Freedom”, the Republican youth group. About 18 out of 27 positions listed were for restricting freedom in some way.

It may be that conservative political leaders favor free-market principles more than liberals, but for the most part they just cater to corporate special interests, which usually means hand-outs and special favors, not encouraging competition. They also promote public religion, school prayer, and avoiding teaching sex-ed and evolution, and harsher attacks on drug use and prostitution. They want to censor pornography and other forms of sexual entertainment. They try to repress gays. They fight family planning. They oppose abortion. They push mindless patriotism. They support expanded police power, greater government secrecy, and reduced legal protections (things like the PATRIOT act). They seek to increase criminal penalties for virtually any sort of crime. They promote huge military budgets and military bullying of other countries. These are positions I oppose.

As I understand it, virtually none of these things are supported by Libertarians either, but sadly, Libertarians usually identify with conservatives. I can only guess it is because they care more about their money than anything else.

Scylla indicated he is not a social conservative, and the others speaking for conservatism stuck mainly to economic issues, so my hope is that many of you really are better described as libertarians. If so, why not call yourselves libertarians rather than give implicit support to these many dubious positions?

[elucidator]

“Hi, my name is Scylla, and I’m a Libertarian…”

“HI, Scylla…”

[smiling_bandit]

Many conservatives are libertarian. In truth, both groups usually the same basic opinion about the government. Its a matter of what a given individual thinks is worth the bad effects of government intervention. But there is one basic difference: libertarians think that all government actiosn neccessarily infringe indivdual rights, and therefore should be minimilzed to the greatest extent possible. Conservatives allow for a much higher amount of government action. Libertarians run by axoim, conservatives, at least in our own eyes, are more practical.

Social conservatives don’t enact legislation controlling society simply because we think it would be beter if no one did that particular action. In the case of abortion, we find the act monstrous, dehumanizing to all involved, and a vile perversion of freedom.

Yes, I think those who engage in such acts piss away the gift of life, rendering what should be a joyful occaission into a mere “medical procedure”, as if it were no more horrible than removing a lesion. You cannot convince me otherwise: its aparent that you simply don’t agree with me on some basic issues that cannot and will not be crossed. banning abortion, to me, is exactly the same as banning murder.

It may be that conservative political leaders favor free-market principles more than liberals, but for the most part they just cater to corporate special interests,

And so do the Democrats; Washington legislators always try for more pork. Its a problem as old as government. As long as its kept to reasonable amount its not worth bothering over.

which usually means hand-outs and special favors, not encouraging competition.

Some things are endemic to the political process, a sort of farce. For example, every years every damned canidate gets up in front of corn farmers and promses to support ethanol.

They also promote public religion,

Mos of us have asolutely no problem with people having religion in public. Only a few fringers have any desire to institute public religion. Of course, to some liberals, the thought of anyone believing in any Christian religion is anathema.

school prayer, and avoiding teaching sex-ed and evolution,

Most of us have no problem with schools having prayer. So what? Most of us also have no problem with either sex-ed, so long as it reccomends abstinence, or evolution. You’ll note, only a very few schools sustain any objection to either.

and harsher attacks on drug use and prostitution.

yes, becuse we se these things are bad. Drugs in particular. So what?

They want to censor pornography and other forms of sexual entertainment.

Some do, some don’t.

They try to repress gays. They fight family planning. They oppose abortion.

1. The majority of conservatives have no problems with gays. I’d say the majority doesn’t desire them to legally marry. We opose abortion, and some of us oppose birth-inhibitors. you have been posting a lot of nasty sounding things that make me go, “yeah?”

They push mindless patriotism.

Mindless? No, we think there are very good reasons for being proud and patriotic.

They support expanded police power,

I’d say the courts have sometimes foolishly limited police power for illogical and not-supported-by-the-law reasons, but, yes, your point is?

greater government secrecy, and reduced legal protections (things like the PATRIOT act).

Particularly now, many of us believe there are important reasons for doing these. Not only are they intentionaly temporary, but they are absolutely nothing compared to similar legislation in other serious long-term conflicts, such as the Civil War or WWII.

They seek to increase criminal penalties for virtually any sort of crime.

Hardly. But we think serious crimes ought to carry substantial penalties. However, there usually is bipartisan support for these.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by blanx *
** if there were actually a conservative political party in existence that acknowledged the tragedy of the commons problem I’d be inclined to vote for their candidates. I do not believe that the Republican party as it is now meets that criteria.

**

Me neither. The Republican party is closer to promulgating my conservative values than the Democratic party, right now though.

If I may take off my partisan hat, I don’t think either party has done even a token job of addressing the problem. The Democrats pay it more lip service, but I don’t think they’ve actually done anything noticeable about it.

Heck, I’m not even talking about global warming, I’m talking about simple air pollution, and reparation of the interstate highways- the Republicans in MI seem to be interested in continually cutting taxes, which is fine, but then they never find the money to pay for things like the roads, or schools

I’ll go it simpler. I think the best example right now is fisheries. Nobody’s doing shit about any of it.

**What say you, Scylla? **

Scylla say that the commons belong to everybody and they increase our freedoms.

When the commons are destroyed our freedoms decrease. It is therefore a first order of government to protect them.

I understood the Tragedy of the Commons when I was 13 years old.

We used to fish in Montauk Bay. In the year I turned 13 they opened it to commercial fishing. Every morning at 4 am the commercial fishing boats would drag the bay and clean out every single fish in it.

They destroyed the bottom with the dragging and killed all the clams, crabs, everything.

In one year, this whole beautiful thing that belonged to everybody was all gone, taken and destroyed.

The commons should be utilize. That’s why they are there. The government has to protect them, so that utilization can continue.

[Eolbo]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**I can provide absolute proof that this is not so. Let us examine japan in the age opf the Tokugawa Bakufu. While early on, the Samurai ruling class ejoyed excellent pay, derived from government income and grants, these were fixed at the government’s pay scales by rank. Increasingly, as inflation destroyed that wealth, Samurai lost economic standing to merchants. These merchants had far more cash, but occupied the ostensibly lowest economic place; in fact, the bakufu repeatedly took their money or shut down ones that became too powerful, if they had lots of Samurai indebted to the merchant house. Samurai had all the high points of social class, but eventually became endemically poor.
**

Your own example shows the rise of the merchants and the decline of the samurai which is exactly what we would expect as their economic positions change. Its noted the Samurai are history and merchants long ago ceased to be at the bottom of the Japanese social pecking order and moved to the top and it wasn’t just a change of fashion. Your counter-example would be more compelling if impoverished Samurai families still sat at the apex of the social hierachy. However they dont, rich businessmen do (read merchants).

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**
It did not say that. Its said that one’s profession was the primary determinate of social class.
**

Yeah, it did. You will note I am responding to an excerpt posted by g8rguy and I quote "The working class could and did enter the ranks of the lower middle-class through small capital accumulation”, this being another example of the importance of economic considerations to social advancement.

Let me give you an example of how this works in the other direction. Imagine a wealthy Victorian aristocratic family, they live in an English country manor, they educate their sons at Eton, they travel, they host society balls, the ladies always wear the latest expensive French fashions. Imagine this family loses its wealth through risky investments in colonial ventures, and many aristocratic families did go bankrupt. Now if social class is its own reference point as you say then this family should retain its social standing as that standing isn’t derived from economic position. And perhaps it will in that generation as many people will stand by established friends and they will still have existing contacts. But that family has lost its ability to send further generations to Eton, and thus the contacts they would make there, and the social cachet it would provide is also lost.The women of the house can no longer afford to host society events, and even if they tried, their reduced level of housing and inability to keep up with expensive fashions limits their lustre. They cant afford all the foreign travel so their children wont be undertaking the Grand Tour like their contemporaries. They can no longer go to the same places and do the same things, and will cease to know the same people. And without wealth they are no longer as attractive marriage partners to other upper class families and so they will start to marry ‘beneath’ them. They will not retain their social position and indeed it would be illogical if they did.

Anyway, this is all well away from the OP and I’ve said as much as I intend to on the subject. To me the interconnection of social and economic class is very very strong and rather obvious. We can agree to disagree on the extent.

[bullfighter]

originally posted by smiling bandit:
Many conservatives are libertarian. In truth, both groups usually the same basic opinion about the government. Its a matter of what a given individual thinks is worth the bad effects of government intervention. But there is one basic difference: libertarians think that all government actiosn neccessarily infringe indivdual rights, and therefore should be minimilzed to the greatest extent possible. Conservatives allow for a much higher amount of government action. Libertarians run by axoim, conservatives, at least in our own eyes, are more practical.

Your statement of the difference between libertarian and conservative roughly agrees with my understanding of that difference. It seems to me that on every one of the issues I mentioned except for economics, the libertarian position is the opposite of the conservative position. That’s a pretty big gulf, so it seems like we shouldn’t treat them as the same. While you seem to be a thorough conservative, it would be misleading for you to call yourself a libertarian. Libertarians are liberal on social issues. Obviously you are not.

While someone could have a position between conservative and libertarian, I don’t see how a conservative could BE a libertarian, or why a libertarian would call him or herself a conservative.

[smiling_bandit]

Your own example shows the rise of the merchants and the decline of the samurai which is exactly what we would expect as their economic positions change. Its noted the Samurai are history and merchants long ago ceased to be at the bottom of the Japanese social pecking order and moved to the top and it wasn’t just a change of fashion. Your counter-example would be more compelling if impoverished Samurai families still sat at the apex of the social hierachy. However they dont, rich businessmen do (read merchants).

First, the Samurai stayed atop the social heirarchy for centuries after their economic position. They began declining almost immediately, though no one noticed until the Bakufu started debasing the coinage.

After a century they were considerably poorer. BY the Meiji restoration, they were in dire straights. However, guess what - merchants didn’t really become the new social top-class. In the Meiji restoration, young Samurai from the hinterlands took over the nation because they developed their territories’ military power. The samurai, now firmly third-rate, economically, were pushed out of power by the new Samurai - all of them were cut off from public largesse.

Most settled into other economic classes, their respect and influence broken from above. A few entered started companies and pushed aside the old mercantile houses.

So in this case, no Marx was dead wrong. Economic and social class did not coincide for decades and more. Even after that, Samurai might have gotten rich, but lost much prestige.

While someone could have a position between conservative and libertarian, I don’t see how a conservative could BE a libertarian, or why a libertarian would call him or herself a conservative.

We come from the same root impulse, share a lot of assumptions, and often agree on policy. However, what I should have said was that “many Republicans are libertarians”.

Yeah, it did. You will note I am responding to an excerpt posted by g8rguy and I quote "The working class could and did enter the ranks of the lower middle-class through small capital accumulation”, this being another example of the importance of economic considerations to social advancement.

That they uisually are connected is known. But there is no absolute reason they must be, nor are they in any case. Western societies tend to respect wealth a lot. Yet, even there, what one does to get money is often more important than how much one has.

[blanx]

*Originally posted by Scylla (bits snipped out for brevity) *
**

I’ll go it simpler. I think the best example right now is fisheries. Nobody’s doing shit about any of it.

When the commons are destroyed our freedoms decrease. It is therefore a first order of government to protect them.

I understood the Tragedy of the Commons when I was 13 years old.

We used to fish in Montauk Bay. In the year I turned 13 they opened it to commercial fishing. Every morning at 4 am the commercial fishing boats would drag the bay and clean out every single fish in it.

They destroyed the bottom with the dragging and killed all the clams, crabs, everything.

In one year, this whole beautiful thing that belonged to everybody was all gone, taken and destroyed.
**

Yeah, I’m gonna mish fish when they’re extinct. But this is why I vote Dem., because while like you I agree that neither party does squat about the problem, it seems like the Rep. leadership actively denies the existence of the problem.

[Scylla]

Blanx:

Hey, it’s a valid criticism, and I hope it’s one that changes.

FWIW, there is one small victory in regards to fisheries.

Capitalism found an answer to the shrimping problem. New technology makes it cheap and easy to raise shrimp in rice paddies, and, that’s where we get a lot of our shrimp from now.

Takes a bit of the load off of our natural resources, and hopefully let’s some shrimp live to feed the fish.