NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).

Now I often hear the terms "liberal elite" and then liberals calls conservatives elite to bash em back - well they're right that theyre BOTH elitist!

Feel free to attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)

Liberals are the elitists they worship the hollywood actors when most haven't done a real days work in their whole lives.

And conservatives worship the bible all day long despite being just a silly book [/ignorant generalization that doesnt even apply to conservative, but neoconservative]

you elitist individualist bastards

Liberals are the elitists they worship the hollywood actors when most haven't done a real days work in their whole lives.
Hey! No name-calling. And you didn't "attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)"

Liberals are the elitists they worship the hollywood actors when most haven't done a real days work in their whole lives.
That sounds like an elitist accusation. I don't like Hollywood and do "real work" therefore I am better than an entire group of people.

Damn libertarian intellectual elitists who think they know better than the rest of us :p

you ... individualist bastards
I'm an individualist bastard (libertarian) and proud of it!

Damn libertarian intellectual elitists who think they know better than the rest of us :p

ditto.

Bastard.

Meh.

This.

Is.

Kinda.

Retarded.

but.

I'm.

trying.

to.

create.

content.

Understand?

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).

Now I often hear the terms "liberal elite" and then liberals calls conservatives elite to bash em back - well they're right that theyre BOTH elitist!

Feel free to attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)

I'm a classical liberal, I believe there should be freedom in all arenas, social and economic both. Then again, I'm not a liberatarian, as I don't believe the people get enough education to live in a completely free-market. Should they ever revamp the school system so that people learn things like the difference between actual quality and percieved quality and things like obsoletization, THEN I would believe in a free market society being able to handle itself.

Damn libertarian intellectual elitists who think they know better than the rest of us :p
(I know you kid around but I'll respond seriously just to further the discussion) I don't - but I'm pointing out even more flaws that exist in the liberal vs conservative argument

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).

Now I often hear the terms "liberal elite" and then liberals calls conservatives elite to bash em back - well they're right that theyre BOTH elitist!

Feel free to attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)


All political power is concentrated in the hands of individuals, this concentration of power makes these people, be they labeled conservative or liberal an "elite". People place themselves into camps of "liberal" or "conservative" and ignore the fact that the leaders of both camps are more properly labeled "rich and powerful".

To support the actions of either camp , , is to support this elite. Although its odd how people tend not to "support" their own side but rather move towards attacking the "other"

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).
What social or economic control am I supposed to be wanting? I'm fairly certain that this is an inaccurate assesment of the facts as they relate to me.

I'm a classical liberal, I believe there should be freedom in all arenas, social and economic both. Then again, I'm not a liberatarian, as I don't believe the people get enough education to live in a completely free-market. Should they ever revamp the school system so that people learn things like the difference between actual quality and percieved quality and things like obsoletization, THEN I would believe in a free market society being able to handle itself.

well, I'm not a strict libertarian and I still've got years left to try and find where I stand but whatever!

What social or economic control am I supposed to be wanting? I'm fairly certain that this is an inaccurate assesment of the facts as they relate to me.
You may not be the ones wanting it; it's that "higher authority" I speak of

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).

Now I often hear the terms "liberal elite" and then liberals calls conservatives elite to bash em back - well they're right that theyre BOTH elitist!

Feel free to attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)

Perhaps amazingly, I completely agree with you! :eek:

I have an ingrown antipathy for any who know so much better than we how our lives should be run and what we should believe. I would have added "holier than thou" to "smarter-than-thou" types.

One of the greatest needs in the US is for a bit of humility among those who presume to lead, whether from office or behind the scenes, and even beyond this to almost the entire lot of us! I'm not speaking of the false humility which is little more than a thinly disguised form of holier-than-thou. I'm speaking about the true humility that comes from the realization that we are only a small part of all that lives, that each of us plays an important role in the scheme of things but a very small one, and that each of us one day must die so that what we are can contribute to what will become.

That sort of humility leads to compassion, kindness and wisdom.

yeah the typical idea is that conservatives want stringent social controls but a free market and limited government while liberals want lax social laws (except for sexual harassment, hate crimes, affirmative action, and sometimes smoking laws) and stringent economic controls. of course, not a very accurate assertion as there are different flavors of conservatives such as classical conservative, neoconservative, paleoconservative, etc and different types of liberals, yadda yadda yadda

I think yer right Super.

Oh so right. Anyone who thinks they know what is best for everyone is truely an elitist "know-it-all" - thats EVERYBODY

You may not be the ones wanting it; it's that "higher authority" I speak of
Hang on your post said I was an elitist, the argument 'you are an elitist because the 'higher authority' wants more control' appears nonsensical to me.

Liberals and conservatives are more or less the same thing, anyway.

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).

Now I often hear the terms "liberal elite" and then liberals calls conservatives elite to bash em back - well they're right that theyre BOTH elitist!

Feel free to attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)

Ah, but your argument hinges on a very curious notion of "elite": to be an "elite", what matters isn't your economic standing, but rather your attitude. But the problem with this is that it is economic standing that is so much more influential than your attitude. I could give a rat's ass if, for example, Warren Buffett is really a downhome, folksy guy I can have a beer with, if he's going to go home and use the market to wreck my life savings.

My official response to this is: use "elite" the way it was meant to be used. Billionaires are by definition "elite", whether they deign to think of themselves as "one of us" or not, and by contrast, a latte liberal is not an elite no matter how long they've worn sandals, if they are poor and have no measurable impact on society.

Liberals and conservatives are more or less the same thing, anyway.

LOL!

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).

Now I often hear the terms "liberal elite" and then liberals calls conservatives elite to bash em back - well they're right that theyre BOTH elitist!

Feel free to attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)

I suppose you're quite right...

Liberals are the elitists they worship the hollywood actors when most haven't done a real days work in their whole lives.
and comando apparently worships the god of somehow prevent his banning

I don’t recognize the existence of conservatism though.

I don't think that either the liberals or the consevatives are necessarily elistist in the US. The real American elite would be those with money, success and fame in the media. Politicans, to an insane degree, spent too much time groveling at the media's feet (in varying ways). They need to look good on camera and in print.

Candidates from both sides seem more like actors. It's no suprise actors are so involved in politics. They must feel at home.

The media is the elite in charge of giving the people their options, and of course, manufacturing consent among the people.

Liberals and conservatives are more or less the same thing, anyway.
Both want big government. The difference is, one party lies and says it doesn't.

I'm a Facist :D!

No, not a Nazi, a Facist. Just because one group of Facism was screwed up and racist doesn't mean we're all screwed up and racist!

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Would you prefer they wanted either total freedom/control only?

I totally agree with your post though.

Would you prefer they wanted either total freedom/control only?
Personally, I'd prefer complete social and economic freedom with control in place to protect citizens from force or fraud. That's all that would be necessary.

This sounds so much better than either the liberal or conservative ideal which would grant either social or economic liberty, but heavily restrict and regulate the other.
No suprise, my vote goes to the Libertarian ideal.

Both want big government. The difference is, one party lies and says it doesn't.

That's a rather broad way to group conservatism and liberalism. But Im pretty sure conservatism is for limited government, it's the neoconservative branch that seems to like to spend a lot.

Ok you all know how I rant about that conservatism and liberalism are the same b/c they both want freedom in one aspect of our lives but control in the other.

Now I've decided I'll *actually* elaborate on this point ... since both sides claim that we need more control socially or economically, this implies that there should be a higher authority who must control those factors. This higher authority I speak of is the "elites" who I have mentioned; and when I refer to elitist I DON'T mean the rich: I mean the "smarther-than-thou" type (who arent necessarily rich).

Now I often hear the terms "liberal elite" and then liberals calls conservatives elite to bash em back - well they're right that theyre BOTH elitist!

Feel free to attack my argument with extreme prejudice (short of flaming or trolling)
modern conservativism and liberalism fit that bill, i agree. however, please remember that CLASSIC liberalism is the idea that government should have the most minimal control necessary to maintain order and protect the essential rights of the citizens (basically along the lines of modern libertarianism). a classic liberal would have even less in common with modern liberals than with modern conservatives :).

That's a rather broad way to group conservatism and liberalism. But Im pretty sure conservatism is for limited government, it's the neoconservative branch that seems to like to spend a lot.
I'm sure you're kidding me here. They both want big government, charged to the max on the people's tax dollars.
The only difference here would be that liberals would prefer to spend as mush as possible on social programs, while conservatives love to throw our money into the military-industrial complex.
Do you disagree with that?

I'm sure you're kidding me here. They both want big government, charged to the max on the people's tax dollars.
The only difference here would be that liberals would prefer to spend as mush as possible on social programs, while conservatives love to throw our money into the military-industrial complex.
Do you disagree with that?

Again, you're describing the neo-conservative movement.

I'm sure you're kidding me here. They both want big government, charged to the max on the people's tax dollars.
The only difference here would be that liberals would prefer to spend as mush as possible on social programs, while conservatives love to throw our money into the military-industrial complex.
Do you disagree with that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
I don't need to refresh on my poitical ideologies, but thanks.
Face it. The neoconservative branch swallowed the old conservative movement.
It's dead. Just like the old-school liberals are even more dead, save on campuses around the country. They're fast becoming a new kind of god-loving, pro-business conservative group themselves.

The face of politics has changed. I'd rank the number of true conservatives with the number of true Libertarians in office.

Liberals are the elitists they worship the hollywood actors when most haven't done a real days work in their whole lives.

Commando's twelve years old, so he doesn't work either.

Commando's twelve years old, so he doesn't work either. :p

Commando's twelve years old, so he doesn't work either.
hey now, there are twelve year olds who work. they generally work in the sweat shops that uberconservatives think we should allow to exist ;).

The rule by the elites has been a constant in human history. Their power has risen and fallen over time, with a high point during the middle ages under the feudal system. Many of the revolutions that led to the modern democracies and republics did not remove the elites, but chain their power to a set of rules, and restrict their actions, so as to require support from a good portion of the people. A system that is described in great detail and accuracy by Schumpter in his "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy."

A liberal, in the classical sense, desires greater control for the people, whilst a classical conservative desires greater control for the elites.

Our current system shows that modern "liberals" are not classical liberals, and in fact are on the same level as the modern "conservatives."

Collectivists also cannot claim the title of liberal either, as their support for greater governmental interference in our economic lives is in direct violation to classical liberal thought. We all might do well to recognize that Adam Smith was considered to be a radical liberal when he published his "Wealth of Nations."

So, in essence, the great liberal tradition of the west seems to have been on a decline. The traditional liberal belief set is now mainly embodied in a relatively small contingent of "libertarians." But, liberal thought has rarely been widespread, so we shouldn't be surprised or worried that this movement is small.

I don't need to refresh on my poitical ideologies, but thanks.
Face it. The neoconservative branch swallowed the old conservative movement.
It's dead. Just like the old-school liberals are even more dead, save on campuses around the country. They're fast becoming a new kind of god-loving, pro-business conservative group themselves.

The face of politics has changed. I'd rank the number of true conservatives with the number of true Libertarians in office.

Well, if you wanted to say that the Republican Party has been hijacked by neo-conservatives, then you're mostly right. There are still some bastions of old conservatives in the Republican party, but the ones in power are neo-conservatives, you're right about that.

A liberal, in the classical sense, desires greater control for the people, whilst a classical conservative desires greater control for the elites.

Our current system shows that modern "liberals" are not classical liberals, and in fact are on the same level as the modern "conservatives.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Who said this? Michael Badnarik? Harry Browne?

Nope.
Ronald fukkin' Reagan.
;)

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Who said this? Michael Badnarik? Harry Browne?

Nope.
Ronald fukkin' Reagan.
;)
Alas, the Reagan "conservatives" now seem to be very few and far between. In a society where moral values have seem to have become the hot topic, rather than the struggle for greater individual liberty. In Reagan's time this statement would have been true...but no longer.

Liberals are the elitists they worship the hollywood actors when most haven't done a real days work in their whole lives.

Better than worshiping a president who hasn't done a real days work in his entire life.