Gives a good foundation on the fiscal side of conservatism. I didn't even realize the author was black until a few years after I read the book.
How does/can/should a modern political subject reconcile themselves to support a movement that is so much bigger than just finance based on finance alone, black, white, or otherwise?
I personally have some properly fiscally conservative values, but I can't reasonably call myself "a conservative" in the US because not one of the conservative leadership are fiscal or even legislative conservatives. The ones who drive political direction on the biggest issues of the age tend to be fundamentalist christian nationalists wanting to facilitate rule based on a particular version of "god says that abortion is bad and gays are bad and guns are good and the poor and the sick deserve it because everything is according to His plan" evangelical protestantism. So thinking of myself as conservative means thinking of myself in league with, collaborating with even, a movement that ultimately seeks to eliminate me.
Independent? Sure. Hard right religionism? Yes. But what "conservative" politic is there in the US really?
Work hard, plan smart. Make money. Keep your own money and build wealth. High taxes and regulation stop that.
Welfare creates dependence on government and destroys morale. Why work hard if you get free money? Oh you decided to get a job to earn a bit. Let's cut off all your welfare so you're stuck forever.
Guns are two fold. * Do you have the right to defend yourself? * Keeping government from getting too out of control.
China is locking people into buildings, letting them starve to death. Anyone that disagrees is silenced or disappeared. They have death camps where they are committing genocide and using them for cheap organ harvesting. If those people had a 2nd amendment then much of that nonsense wouldn't be possible.
49 senators just voted to allow a 9 month old baby thats half way out to be killed. Anyone that supports this or votes for someone that does is just plain evil.
Are you talking about HR-3755?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755...
I'm reading this now and I'm not seeing any references to "intact dilation and extraction" or "partial birth abortion". It specifically limits abortion to before the point of fetal viability unless the mother's life is at stake:
> (a) General Rule. — A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
> (snipped)
> (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
> (9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
Have you even read this bill for yourself, or are you reacting to some journalist's interpretation of the bill's text?
The US rounded up Japanese people and put them into concentration camps during WWII, the second amendment made no difference.
Protection against the government comes from organization and political consensus, arms can be acquired as a consequence.
The second amendment movement is mostly based on mythology, not on reality.
Also, ask Bobby Seale how exercising Second Amendment rights worked out for him, Huey Newton, and the rest of the Black Panthers.
I think looking to gov't for solutions is a dead end and that in general, the gov't should be much smaller...
I don't wholly disagree with that. IMO, Queensrÿche diagnosed the fatal flaw of US leftists back in 1988 in their song "Spreading the Disease": "Fighting fire with empty words / While the banks get fat and the poor stay poor / And the rich get rich and the cops get paid / To look away as the one percent rules America".
I personally find social justice advocates hilarious. Whenever I talk to one, they seem to expect me to take individual and personal responsibility for systemic issues I had no part in creating, and expect me to remedy injustices that occurred long before my birth. They don't want justice; they want revenge for the past.
However, I'm not convinced that "small government" is the answer. Many of our economic issues are due to the issue of a few megacorporations dominating their industries, but "Small government" advocates are typically OK with letting corporations do as they please as if the Constitution didn't explicitly list the regulation of interstate commerce among the powers delegated to Congress.
All good points. Actually, overall - your answer has a refreshing sense of humor to it. Even as a small gov't advocate, I will concede that we probably need a military given the number of nation that want to blow the U.S. off the map - and yeah, divesting ATT in the 80s and the subsequent 10x drop in phone call prices probably wasn't all that bad either.
But fast forward 20/30 years later, and people use whatsapp, FB, and telegram - I can't help but wonder if monopolies will work themselves out eventually as technology re-invents itself.
Maybe they will, but cancer eventually works itself out too. The problem is that the patient usually dies in the process. I'm not sure it's actually a good idea to wait for monopolies, monopsonies, or oligopolies to "work themselves out" because when corporations (and individuals) become too rich and too powerful they can place themselves above the law and do as they please.
A situation where a few corporations and individuals are essentially sovereign entities equal to the world's governments doesn't seem like a sustainable situation to me. I think the governments representing us should have the authority to prevent such accumulations and abuses of power from happening.
I also think that when a government agency or somebody working for a government agency oversteps their authority, they should be thoroughly investigated, publicly tried, and (if proven guilty) punished without mercy. If, for example, the FBI steps out of line again, it ought to be shut down. If a cop summarily executes an unarmed black man for driving with a busted taillight, he should be guillotined.
IMO and incidentally, the only valid use case for cryptocurrency is the one Jim Bell outlined in the 1990s when he wrote Assassination Politics. Though that's probably not a good idea to actually implement in the real world, lest you have Elon Musk paying to have trolls whacked instead of just blocking them on Twitter.
For my part, I have a hard enough time fathoming why working-class white people like me would buy into conservatism; the movement has become more blatantly populist and authoritarian since 2001, and its economic aspects only seem to benefit the already-wealthy. Most of them do it because of cultural conservatism, which does them few favors either. I won't even attempt to speculate on why black people would choose conservatism since most of my few conservative neighbors are still nostalgic for Jim Crow.