NationStates Jolt Archive

Because I'm sick and tired of the misuse of political terms, let's get a little common definition in here.

Liberals

ARE - People who believe in minimal government and an emphasis on the free market. Also very strong on individual liberties.

ARE NOT - Automatically left-wing. Modern liberals tend to be a bit more pro-state but they remain right-wing economically.

Conservatives

ARE - Those who seek to conserve the current order or at least stop it changing too much. Some seek to return to a 'golden age'.

ARE NOT - The American Republican Party.

Communists

ARE - left-wing, seeking to abolish the current market system. Most believe that the 'state' will also die off thus leading to an anarchistic government.

ARE NOT - Crazed mass-murdering dictator wannabes.

Neo-conservatives

ARE - Right-wing, aggressive and in favour of the free-market.

ARE NOT - in any real way conservative, they'd almost be Liberal if they weren't so into 'big government'.

Neoliberals - Liberals with a corporate bias.

Well, maybe it'll help raise intellectual standards and comprehension around here. I can dream I guess...

Communists

ARE NOT - Crazed mass-murdering dictator wannabes.

unless you count DHomme of course ;)
(i kid, i kid :D)

Neo-conservatives

ARE NOT - in any real way conservative, they'd almost be Liberal if they weren't so into 'big government'.


Blammo! Too true.

Conservatives

ARE - Those who seek to conserve the current order or at least stop it changing too much. Some seek to return to a 'golden age'.

ARE NOT - The American Republican Party.

NB: These arer just suggestions

Consevatives:

ARE - Those who believe change should be gradual over a period of time. Those who believe too much change too quickly erodes the foundations of institutions that prevent society from falling. Believe change should be done with respects to a country's specific constitution (eg, Oakshott's advice on "following the intimations.") Believe society is an organic organisation.


though this bring up another (albeit, not a label)

(C/c)onstitution

IS - a) "small 'c,'" c0nstitution, the way a state's governing institution work and the limits of power (or lack thereof) imposed on the different parts (yeah, some one can probably put this better).
- b) "capital 'C,'" Constitution, a written document on which a state bases itself on and runs according to.
IS NOT - Just a written document.

Neo-conservatives

ARE - Right-wing, aggressive and in favour of the free-market.

ARE NOT - in any real way conservative, they'd almost be Liberal if they weren't so into 'big government'.

I would also suggest "moralistic" and "socially authoritarian."

Neoliberals - Liberals with a corporate bias.

How about, individuals who have ressurected and adopted the works of the 'classic' liberals.

Just a few suggestions. Not worded particuarly well, I admit.

There should probably be a note on anarchists, to the effect that most don't want a return to 'law of the jungle' (a view that is often attributed to them).

How about, individuals who have ressurected and adopted the works of the 'classic' liberals.


Thing is, Neoliberals seem to be quite hot on globalisation which is something I suspect Mill and his pals would be horrified at.

Libertarians are more the heirs to Mill's ideology I feel.

Thing is, Neoliberals seem to be quite hot on globalisation which is something I suspect Mill and his pals would be horrified at.


Yes, I realise that. I was originally going to put it:

"individuals who have ressurected, adopted and twisted the works of the 'classic' liberals.

But I thought it would come across as a bit biased.

Still though, many neo-libs do seem to cite them.

There should probably be a note on anarchists, to the effect that most don't want a return to 'law of the jungle' (a view that is often attributed to them).

I was going to suggest that. But nearly two years of NS has taught me even the briefest mention of anarchism gets involved in a huge arguement with cretins on one side swamping the anarchists' side with inane dictionary definitions.

Such is life....

:)

i dont understand why nationstates must be the only place where liberal means libertarian

why cant we use liberal in either the way commonly meant in the united states or in the way its commonly used in europe?

why are you the boss of this?

i dont understand why nationstates must be the only place where liberal means libertarian

why cant we use liberal in either the way commonly meant in the united states or in the way its commonly used in europe?

why are you the boss of this?

Indeed. One thing we must all remember is that definitions are descriptive not proscriptive.

You forgot about libertarian. Since we get liberal back, the socialists should get libertarian back.

You forgot about libertarian. Since we get liberal back, the socialists should get libertarian back.
You know, once they wreck the new 'libertarian' reputation, they're gonna want liberal back :rolleyes:
The buck's gotta stop somewhere

why cant we use liberal in either the way commonly meant in the united states or in the way its commonly used in europe?


Because they're completely different! :p

Liberal in US speak= COMMIE!

:D

Liberal in European speak=/= COMMIE!

You know, once they wreck the new 'libertarian' reputation, they're gonna want liberal back :rolleyes:
The buck's gotta stop somewhere
Now THAT was fuckin' funny, SP. :D

You know, once they wreck the new 'libertarian' reputation, they're gonna want liberal back :rolleyes:
The buck's gotta stop somewhere

Except that anarchists have never called themself liberal.

Nice try though.

Except that anarchists have never called themself liberal.

Nice try though.
Actually, that post was in correlation with this one:
You forgot about libertarian. Since we get liberal back, the socialists should get libertarian back.
Which said nothing about the anarchists and liberalism.

Nice try, though.

Simonist']Actually, that post was in correlation with this one:

Which said nothing about the anarchists and liberalism.

Nice try, though.

Anarchism is a form of socialism...

Anarchism is a form of socialism...
But it isn't socialism as a whole, and I'm disgusted you would even insinuate so to the barest degree.

Simonist']But it isn't socialism as a whole, and I'm disgusted you would even insinuate so to the barest degree.

But it's the only school of socialist thought to call itself libertarian.

But it's the only school of socialist thought to call itself libertarian.
Which is why I made that remark.

unless you count DHomme of course ;)
(i kid, i kid :D)

That's it. Im gonna have to lay the smackdown on your pseudo-socialist, left-liberal arse.