And, by the way, Lord David, while I don’t really agree with what you said, I skipped the “gargantuan pile of self involved commentary” and read your comment. :)

You misquoted my assertion.

O.k. I use “liberatarian” to distinguish “anti-government conservatives” from “social conservatives.”

Just for reference, the usual term is “libertarian”. I would accept your definition as generally accurate, though.

you’re probably going to argue is that this is a perversion of the “true” definition of conservatism, that the true core dictionary definition of “conservativism” could NEVER be used to refer to belief in banning books or films

This is not particularly germane to the discussion, but note that “banning” is an extremely vague term. If by “banning” you mean Congress passing a law criminalizing the possession or distribution of copies of “Little Dorrit”, then that is one thing. If by “banning” you mean a local library board someplace declining to stock a copy of something, then that’s something else. People with an axe to grind often conflate these two ideas. The ALA’s celebrated “List of Banned Books”, for instance, simply encompasses every work that has ever been controversial in any local jurisdiction or bookstore anywhere in America. This is an extremely expansive definition of “ban”.

Consequently, you could certainly have “conservatives” who would argue that for Congress to ban a book would be an outrageous infringement of the First Amendment, but that the Dusty Grove, Wyoming school board should certainly have the authority to include or exclude whatever it wants from its ninth grade reading list (specifically, that it would be a matter for the people of Dusty Grove, WY to decide, not everyone else).

Make government work better for all citizens, don’t give up faith in it… and yet, make sure to cover your ass just in case government lets you down?

The problem, again, is that people conflate making the government work better with making it do more things. Saying “the federal government is certainly supposed to run the Patent and Trademark Office, and it could really use some reform” is not the same thing as saying “let’s try having the federal government also regulate Internet content / grocery store prices / private housing”.

So, by all means, the government should work better. But, given its track record, it certainly shouldn’t be given authority over anything more.

Are there conservatives who feel we should not have a publicly funded police force and firemen? EVERYONE, even the most rabid liberatarians (or conservatives) I have met believe that government should be responsible for providing SOME essential services.

There are a few lunatics who think we should privatize everything down to the sidewalks, but I think that everyone, generally speaking, agrees that we should have public police and fire protection. And few people would disagree that we should have public water and sewer service (in urban areas).

and I agree with Momimem that everyone deserves warm, safe housing

I believe that every eight-year-old girl “deserves” a pony. Certainly it is likely that mostly all of them would be delighted by the gift, would cherish their pony, and would treat the pony well.

The problem is, who is supposed to be providing ponies? “Us”? “The government”? “The rich”?

What does anyone think of the idea that supervisors could do more to encourage employees to educate themselves on political issues? I guess it is a daft idea, because there is clearly the danger that supervisors could exert political PRESSURE on employees..

I think that, after giving the matter some thought, you would probably realize that this idea would inevitably mean that a supervisor would be eager to encourage employees to educate themselves on political issues… so long as they were the “right” issues or the “right” positions. That is simply human nature.

A “social conservative” is likely to be in favor of banning abortion and gay marriage, and maybe ban certain books — and probably thinks holding inmates at Guantanomo indefinitely without a civil trial is just fine.

I think, speaking precisely, a “social conservative” would argue that “gay marriage” is already banned because it is legally nonexistent, and would oppose creating it. This is, of course, merely nuance. Banning books, again, is a vague concept. I am not sure why one would consider the handling of combatants at Guantanamo Bay is a “social” issue, particularly. It’s sort of like statehood for Puerto Rico or increased steel tariffs - I doubt there is a “social conservative” consensus on the matter.

A liberatarian or “anti-government” conservative would most likely never endorse banning a book or banning gay marriage

Your error is thinking that since libertarians and social conservatives are not the same thing, they must be opposites. You could certainly have an anti-government social conservative (e.g. the federal government’s powers should be sharply constrained and/or devolved to state governments; taxes and government benefits should be slashed; local jurisdictions should have the authority to ban abortion), a pro-government social conservative (e.g. the federal government should have expanded authority to regulate Internet content, government benefits should be expanded to encourage correct social principles, the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage), an anti-government social liberal (e.g. the government is incompetent and apparently only exists to infringe on freedom; communities should come together to fix their own problems), or a pro-government social liberal (e.g. the government exists to give people things to solve their problems; its authority and ability to do this should be expanded).

Libertarian -> authoritarian and conservative -> liberal are two different axes. The major U.S. political parties are, generally speaking, coalitions of groups which can appear at wildly different coordinates on these axes, based on what are perceived as shared interests or shared enemies. (One of my favorite examples of bizarre political marriages is the early-20th-century alliance between the Ku Klux Klan and Marcus Garvey’s “Universal Negro Improvement Association”. The two groups realized that they agreed - for somewhat different reasons - that blacks did not have a place in American society and that they should find something else to do.)

If anyone has actually READ any of this, thank you very much!

It’s always a pleasure to converse with someone mature and eloquent.

As for my other ramblings about educating oneself on political issues while at work, I guess I’m just noticing how much time I’m spending blogging today, NOT at work, and wondering how many professionals across the U.S. today are “getting away” with looking at political blogs and sticking their two cents in WHILE at work… vs. some employees who would be penalized or fired if caught reading an article at work. (At my current job, I am not technically allowed to go on-line for any reason other than purely related to the job.) Blah blah blah, sorry everyone I’m really ranting today. If anyone has actually READ any of this, thank you very much!

–Northeasterner
(not to be confused with a Nor’easter…)

In response to one of the comments above: People do not “realize” the assertion that “The government is never the solution to your troubles.” They BELIEVE it. That proposition is not like an absolute, immanent Platonic form. It is a debatable proposition.

But here I go again, getting caught up in a debate with a liberatarian. (See how this happens to me, Momimem? Possibly I should just shut up). And now next I’ll have to get into a “picayune” argument over the terminology of “liberatarian” vs. “conservative”! O.k. I use “liberatarian” to distinguish “anti-government conservatives” from “social conservatives.” “Conservatives” are actually often in favor of government intrusion upon personal liberties… But what you’re probably going to argue is that this is a perversion of the “true” definition of conservatism, that the true core dictionary definition of “conservativism” could NEVER be used to refer to belief in banning books or films, restricting the right to bear arms, or the like. (?)(Sorry to put words in your mouth…)

At any rate, I think some skepticism of the role of government is healthy… I can sometimes respect where the liberatarians are coming from..But my bias is that “we, the people,” should try to make our government work for us. Even while also trying to cover our asses and make sure we don’t ALWAYS count on the government, because gov’t may sometimes let us down. I suppose my thinking is somewhat paradoxical: Make government work better for all citizens, don’t give up faith in it… and yet, make sure to cover your ass just in case government lets you down?

Perhaps I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. But since I’m a private citizen and not a politician, beholden to produce perfect sound bites for the media, lo and behold I’m ALLOWED to express complex thoughts and own up to inconsistencies within my own belief system! By golly!

On the side of government involvement: Are there conservatives who feel we should not have a publicly funded police force and firemen? EVERYONE, even the most rabid liberatarians (or conservatives) I have met believe that government should be responsible for providing SOME essential services. It would be “trouble” if we had no roads or railroad tracks or subways or working plumbing or sewage systems… So we are ALL counting on the government to keep us out of “trouble.”
Even if some services are contracted out, then the gov’t. would need to determine WHICH private contractor will be assigned the job of picking up garbage, fixing the city’s plumbing systems, treating sewage, etc. (Wait a minute, maybe I’m getting carried away… ARE there liberatarians out there who think the government should not provide the service of sewage treatment, and that private contractors should place bids for performing this service? Do they think it is really that much more efficient, to have private contractors compete to provide every service, even sewage treatment?! Perhaps some liberatarians even believe in the idea of citizens hiring privage vigilante police forces?!)

In conclusion, I wish much love, luck and success to everyone out there working to make government work better. I want the government to work in partnership with private and religious organizations to help people in need, and I agree with Momimem that everyone deserves warm, safe housing.

I have to admit, though, that I myself have been doing very little in the way of political participation, other than reading a newspaper and doing occasional blogging. This leads to a wild tangent that nobody asked me about: What does anyone think of the idea that supervisors could do more to encourage employees to educate themselves on political issues? I guess it is a daft idea, because there is clearly the danger that supervisors could exert political PRESSURE on employees.. But I guess what I was thinking is cases like when there is some “down time” one day at work, and an employee is caught reading a news article on line. Wouldn’t it be a positive thing, in some way, that the employee was trying to expand his/ her knowledge — rather than, say, goofing off on MySpace? Is it worse to goof off by reading a news article, than by “shooting the bull” with a coworker, talking about your kids or your gardens or what have you? It seems to me so strange that “white collar” professionals get away with goofing off like this, while, say, how often could a convenience store clerk get away with picking up a newspaper and reading it if there were no customers in the store at the moment?
HIGHLY TANGENTIAL, I MUST ADMIT. (By the way, I am NOT at work at the moment..) I guess some people might have the viewpoint that ALL goofing off at work is bad, that there should NEVER be enough downtime to chit-chat with coworkers even for five minutes, or look up a news article on the internet… But hey, is anyone really all that draconian in the white collar world? Why shouldn’t, say, a gas station attendant be allowed to read a news article at work if a “white collar” employee is allowed to do so?…)

Good insight. Government is not the solution to your troubles. Usually, it is incompetent.

People who realize this are called “conservatives”.

FYI, for evidence that the best strategies for combatting homelessness must include providing HOUSING for the homeless, check out some of the pdf articles referenced in links to PDF documents found within the website below:
http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/thrivingneigh/homelessness.html

Peace out. (Do people still say that?) — Northeasterner

p.s. (by the way, “Northeasterner” refers to the fact I am a resident of the Northeastern United States. I’m not a student at “Northeastern” university.)

Everyone in the United States should have a warm secure place to live.

The way we have been trying to do that has not worked. We should try new ways to assist people who need it, whether they are working poor, families with children, elderly or disabled.

That does not excuse the horrid behavior we have witnessed over the last few weeks. The protesters have significantly alienated a lot of people who would otherwise be sympathetic to real solutions.

However… why not demand such a conclusion? I’d like to think that societies can be organized in such a way that everyone who puts in a fair day’s work can afford the basics as well as some amenities — not necessarily HUGE widescreen televisions (I sure don’t have one of those myself!) but A television, for instance. Maybe it should be stated, “Any human who puts in a fair weeks’ work, to the best of his or her ability, has the RIGHT to reasonably priced housing in a reasonably safe neighborhood.” (So I’m veering dangerously close to “From each according to ability, to each according to need…” Hmm, cute ideal, eh?)

But then we’re quickly going to open the can of worms of “what is a fair weeks’ work”? Is it 70, or even let’s say 50 hours of grueling, backbreaking labor like picking crops or working in a sweatshop? 60 hours of relatively mundane work like cleaning offices or standing for hours as a security guard? It seems to me that some folks will indeed work long hours, with no complaint, at a variety of relatively “mundane” or grueling jobs. Then the idea is your kids get to go to school and do something better. [From the standpoint of societal need for labor, it's great if the kids become well educated and "upwardly mobile," as long as there are enough native-born poor U.S. citizens, plus an endless stream of legal and illegal-status immigrants willing and able to work such jobs/ hours without complaint(?) -- But does "upward mobility" still exist or is THAT a myth now?]

Anyways, I think I am beginning to digress upon digressions. NOW. Why not HOPE that we can make our local, state and/ or national governments act to regulate either wages or housing prices or otherwise help private charities and religious groups provide housing. I personally would not want to COUNT on the government providing ME with housing, but on the other hand, I do count on my taxdollars to do things like keep traffic lights functioning and increase proactive (but non-harrassing) police presence in crimeridden areas. I’m sure everyone has their different ideas, reasons, rationales behind what services we ought to demand from government and which not and these debates will go on until the end of time, if god willing we still live under a system where freedom to undertake such debates is somewhat protected. (Amen, and I’m almost feeling patriotic and misty-eyed right now — just don’t let me think too much about Iraq or Guantanamo. O.k.)

I believe that various studies (someone else go look this up and provide links, thank you) have found the best long-term solution to homelessness is to actually provide HOUSING in one-room individual units, rather than warehouse folks in shelters.

And moreover wouldn’t it seem to make most sense to keep people from ending up homeless to begin with. As to whether public housing or mixed income housing development is the best solution to offset homelessness in NOLA, or simply allow folks to come HOME… I have not studied that question at ALL!!!! (so I’m really dancing around a lot here! I could not claim to understand the crux of the debate you really wanted to see a comment on!!!!)

Another issue I haven’t touched on is the relationship between mental illness and homelessness, and if a person has a relatively non-hostile and benign form of mental illness, wouldn’t we want compassionate institutions, whether public or private, to try to help keep these folks from “bottoming out.”

And I wonder how many people were driven over the edge into mental illness by Katrina?

Too many musings and digressions, I apologize. But hey, you invited Lurkers!!! Feel free to publish or censor at your discretion.
– The Lurker