Spitzer Caught With Pants Down

[luke warm]

i've never understood how a person could call himself a conservative (in the usa, i know the term means different things in different contexts) and still want to legislate morality (i.e. prostitution, etc)... a true conservative, it seems to me, would want the individual to have as much freedom as possible while still maintaining some semblance of social order...

 

as far as spitzer is concerned, there are a lot of issues involved... on a personal level, let he who is without sin etc etc... but on a public level i can recognize the problems... for those who say that a public person's private life has no bearing, we all know that isn't true... if it was true, he wouldn't have resigned... if it was true, a politician would run on a platform that included words to the effect of "i'll do a great job, the job for which you elect me, but you should know ahead of time - my private life is none of your business" ...

 

so at least tacitly a person who runs for office promises to, on some level, serve as the moral authority of those served... this becomes even more problematic when a person flat out runs as *the* moral candidate, promising to clean up whatever his pet 'corruption' is

[mycroft]

Welcome, Luke Warm, to the idea of a "social conservative".

 

Please note that I would vote Conservative (in Canada, it's a Party) if they were a) actually fiscally conservative, and B) not socially conservative (oh, and in my province, if they publicly denounced and vowed to avoid in future obvious ploys like "demolish a hospital, artificially exascerbating the already existing bed shortage, then renege on the promise to build new ones; build new 'regional health authorities' with all the responsibilities of running hospitals, but without the power to set a budget, then starve them of funds; thus prompting a 'grass-roots' cry for private health-care to deal with the 'crisis'").

 

But they're neither. Oh well.

Michael.

[mike777]

"i've never understood how a person could call himself a conservative (in the usa, i know the term means different things in different contexts) and still want to legislate morality (i.e. prostitution, etc)... a true conservative, it seems to me, would want the individual to have as much freedom as possible while still maintaining some semblance of social order..."

 

 

My take here is let's start with the end...maintain social order......

 

My guess is we are baised, in theory, towards the family unit. We make or try to enforce social or legal rules that strengthen the family. You can argue whether we should or how best we should do this but I think that is the goal of this stuff....

 

Also somewhere ,somehow children became sacred objects compared to anything else. All law starts with "protect the child"...

They used to get married, work, have babies and fight and die at very early ages, now....they move back in with mommy and daddy at old ages...B) All this education but they seem to be even less mature than 500 years ago...

[mike777]

Welcome, Luke Warm, to the idea of a "social conservative".

 

Please note that I would vote Conservative (in Canada, it's a Party) if they were a) actually fiscally conservative, and B) not socially conservative (oh, and in my province, if they publicly denounced and vowed to avoid in future obvious ploys like "demolish a hospital, artificially exascerbating the already existing bed shortage, then renege on the promise to build new ones; build new 'regional health authorities' with all the responsibilities of running hospitals, but without the power to set a budget, then starve them of funds; thus prompting a 'grass-roots' cry for private health-care to deal with the 'crisis'").

 

But they're neither.  Oh well.

Michael.

Why is government in the business of tearing down or building hospitals. Does Canada expect the govt to do this stuff?

 

If so nanny state gone wild. :)

[hrothgar]

My guess is we are baised, in theory, towards the family unit. We make or try to enforce social or legal rules that strengthen the family. You can argue whether we should or how best we should do this but I think that is the goal of this stuff....

Speak for yourself, breeder

[helene_t]

a true conservative, it seems to me, would want the individual to have as much freedom as possible while still maintaining some semblance of social order...

I thought the conservatives were the ones who would prevent people from

- smoking grass

- having sex (exemptions granted for married opposite-sex couples)

- having abortions

- traveling to Cuba

- burning their own copy of Stars and Stripes

 

Further, the current government prevents people from traveling by air if they have ever participated in a peace march.

 

I am sure some would argue that all of the above are threats to social order, but if "I am pro freedom" means "I am pro freedom except for all those activities that I dislike", then "I am pro freedom" becomes meaningless.

 

Here in Europe there are "conservatives" who want to prevent people from drawing certain cartoons, and from almost any activity that takes place on a Sunday (other than going to church). But of course "conservative" means something different on different continents.

 

Any freedoms the conservatives do grant?

- To own firearms

- Not to pay for someone else's health insurance