Difference between revisions of "Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
 
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
 
:Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the [[Great Depression]] proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. [[User:AlanR|AlanR]] 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)
 
:Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the [[Great Depression]] proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. [[User:AlanR|AlanR]] 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)
 +
 +
One semi-related question: would you agree that it is easier to understand social issues than it is to understand economic issues? Therefore those with no opinion is higher for economic issues than for social issues, and hence it is 'more important' to be an economic conservative as it is less common. And a question on social conservatism (because I can't work out how to add debate topics, nor find a place which tells me how to): What is the typical conservative view of those who refuse to consider or think about moral questions (and hence have no opinion)? - JamesCA, 5th July 2011

Revision as of 09:21, 5 July 2011

This came up in the talk page over conservative novels. I view myself as a conservative: supporting a small, minimal government, one large enough to have courts, roads and a military. I value a commitment to a small government that is not intrusive over most other things. I view Ayn Rand, despite her atheism and shrill denunciation (in the same style as Stalin of her homeland) of the conservative movement as a valuable voice in defining economic conservatism. However, it seems that what is more valued is social conservatism here at CP. It feels that people feel that it's more important to have social conservative views than economic ones. As someone who falls closer to the middle on social issues (I really don't care what people do in the bedrooms as long as I don't have to hear about it), I've been wondering if CP is the place for me. So, is Conservapedia's focus on social or economic conservatism? Or is there room here for both of us? ArnoldFriend 07:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the Great Depression proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. AlanR 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)

One semi-related question: would you agree that it is easier to understand social issues than it is to understand economic issues? Therefore those with no opinion is higher for economic issues than for social issues, and hence it is 'more important' to be an economic conservative as it is less common. And a question on social conservatism (because I can't work out how to add debate topics, nor find a place which tells me how to): What is the typical conservative view of those who refuse to consider or think about moral questions (and hence have no opinion)? - JamesCA, 5th July 2011