Leftists specialize in springing surprise arguments on you. Their favorite is to get you to agree to one of their basic precepts, and then to say, “Well, so you agree with
Their favorite is to get conservatives to agree that we support a meritocracy, or a fair chance for all. Once you say yes to that, you will never appear to win an argument with a Leftist, because they will interpret “fair” as “equal” and argue straight for Leftism.
We can see this trap springing with the case of the dual-sex draft:
A federal judge in Texas has declared that the all-male military draft is unconstitutional, ruling that “the time has passed” for a debate on whether women belong in the military.
U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat “may have justified past discrimination,” men and women are now equally able to fight. In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service.
The case was brought by the National Coalition For Men, a men’s rights group, and two men who argued the all-male draft was unfair.
Your average mentally asleep conservative spends most of his day at work or fixing things around the house, and then he makes it to the screen for some quality time with Facebook or Fox News.
All of those programs are designed to provoke him into impotent rage so that he will exhaust himself in outrage, then go back to work in the morning so that he can pay the taxes that pay for the socialist entitlement state.
When confronted with the need to do things, your average conservative — let us call him Bob Bleeker — will point out that he is at risk, you see, of losing all that he has built. His family, who he ignores. His church, in which he does not believe. And most of all, his job, retirement fund, boat at the lake, basement full of sports memorabilia, whatever.
As a result, he clings to two things which are both un-American and un-Conservative: first, he believes in “equality,” and second, he believes in civil rights.
Conservatives are those who conserve the best of the past. Nothing ties us to a specific method, but we generally favor things which have been consistent and continuous since the dawn of time. Equality does not have such a record.
We tend to favor natural law, order, and rights.
a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law
Specifically, this means a bit of realism, in that natural law rewards the competent/strong while human law is generally concerned with defending the weak, as noted by ancient philosophers:
Aristotle (384–322 bce) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people’s thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law.
the orderly system comprising the physical universe and functioning according to natural as distinguished from human or supernatural laws
In the views of the ancients, natural order was an assessment of effects in reality, which in turn required a parallel unison between human thought and how nature operated as a pattern, structure, and design, as amplified by a description of the writings of Plato:
The naturally just or right is an order (taxis) of human goods in which the goods of the soul come first, those of the body second, and external goods (such as wealth) third. The goods of the soul are the virtues and only with them can the rest of the order be established and effective. This order is natural because it is according to reason and it is integral to the thing, in this case human beings.
We can amplify this with the contrast between natural rights and civil rights that currently embroils what is left of the West:
Moreover, whereas “natural rights” offer a viable (and tested) foundation for freedom, “human rights” offer an avenue to power for tyrannical leaders and ideologues who are willing to sacrifice even their own people for a cause, whatever it may be.
Consider this: “natural rights” are frequently described as God-given, and as such provide a bulwark against government’s tendency to become tyrannical. “Human rights,” on the other hand, are usually the constructs of men: men who are most often atheistic (or “enlightened”) in their worldview, and therefore looking for some earthly-yet-quasi-universal justification for being nice to one another and abiding by the rules of the state.
For this reason, Bob Bleeker has it all wrong: he thinks that conservatives believe in equality, when in fact we believe in inequality; he thinks that conservatives believe in civil rights enforced by government, where in fact we believe in natural rights in an even older definition, where rights are relative to position within a natural order hierarchy, including kings and aristocrats and intangibles like customs, faith, culture, and identity.
Bob Bleeker will look at women being subject to the draft and say, thinking himself witty as he always does, “Welcome to equality, ladies! You wanted equal rights, now you have equal duties! Haha, take that libs!”
In reality, Bob Bleeker has played himself, again, as conservatives always do when they forget their fundamental principles. In demanding that women be “equal,” he has forgotten that we all have a place in the natural order, and that for men, this includes combat.
Through his endorsement of “muh equality,” he has also made himself an agent of Leftism. This is how conservatives self-defeat, every time.