NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, what are you? Conservative or Liberal? You must explain WHY for one word answers of "Conservative" or "Liberal" don't explain why.

The point of the making of this thread was because I'm interested in know why you're a Conservative or a Liberal, not just if you are one or the other.

--

I personally, am a Conservative, why?

-Parents influenced me in this greatly, which I am grateful. They, however, didn't say anything like, "Because I said so," but explained why.

-Liberalism is another step to an Anarchic Society, which can NEVER be peaceful because Humans are too Humanly to live in a Society that has no Rules and at the sametime is peaceful. There will ALWAYS be Chaos if Order with Law isn't established -- as depicted in the book Lord of the Flies
written by William Golding.

-Moral Values, Focus on Education, Respect and Loyalty are all bloomed by Conservatism

-Culture and Traditions should be revived because as Conservatism says, "The Old Times, Where We Conservatives Base Our Beliefs On, Were The Best Times Of Society."

-Well-ordered Societies are born, for example, Ancient Chinese Dynastic Rules were heavily influenced by Confuciansim, which bloomed long-lasting peace, progress in Education and high Moral Values and Respect/Loyalty.

-Conservatism ultimately makes a person a good person in terms of Moral, Respect and Self-Respect.

-The Roots of Order, Law And Good-Will came out of Conservatism.

I am a socialist because I feel that there are inherent flaws in all forms of capitalism that can be addressed to ultimately improve the quality of life for all.

Neither.

Well, would that mean your a Conservative or Liberalist? (To Kanabia)

To Eichen - What are you then, and why?

Neither.

:D

The confusion for the "liberal-conservative" absolutists has begun.

Oh and count me as a "neither" as well.

Those words have as many definitions as rotting meat has flies, and I'm not sure which ones you're operating under. You definitely seem to be ignoring the laissez-faire/state's rights/small government aspects of modern Conservatism, as shown in your anarchy argument.

Personally, I'm on the far edge of Liberalism, specifically as a technocrat. I believe that the world should be ruled not by the people but by experts in their given field. I also do not believe in human rights, as I have never heard a conclusive argument as to why they exist.

I do not consider myself a Conservative because conservatism represents social stagnation and repression of scientific growth.

I am a Progressive, pure and simple.

Society must be in a state of perpetual growth in order to achieve any true greatness, when a society turns Conservative that society dooms itself to self-destruction: look at Rome, it only endure when it was growing, after it stopped expanding everything began to fall apart slowly but surely.

I am a Progressive, pure and simple.

Well, would that mean your a Conservative or Liberalist? (To Kanabia)

No...Conservatism and Liberalism are branches of capitalism. Specifically branches within the US system. Neither of them cover me.

I value liberty very highly; but am not a "Liberal" in the sense of the word.

I am a conservative because of my deeply held trust of the free-market. I believe in individual Liberty and Responsibility. I support the strict interpretation of the Constitution. I believe in the Social Contract Theory as set forth by John Locke, in that we the people have been given by God the authority to govern our own lives and that we have found it beneficial to give up some of those rights to a collective body to aid in protecting those rights from those who would violate those rights.

I also do not believe in human rights, as I have never heard a conclusive argument as to why they exist.

Haha........because you don't believe in God.

I am a conservative because of my deeply held trust of the free-market. I believe in individual Liberty and Responsibility. I support the strict interpretation of the Constitution. I believe in the Social Contract Theory as set forth by John Locke, in that we the people have been given by God the authority to govern our own lives and that we have found it beneficial to give up some of those rights to a collective body to aid in protecting those rights from those who would violate those rights.

It's kind of amusing how your view of conservatism and that of the OP are completely different. This is an illustration of why we need more exact terms.

You, for example, appear to be a Classic Liberal. They had a party in the NS General elections awhile back.

Haha........because you don't believe in God.

Though even with God it's quite hazy. I haven't heard of a religious text that actually mentions rights.

Neither, according to the US political definitions.

In regard to culture I am probably a liberal, believing that consent and equality are far more important than tradition and a puritanical conception of "moral values."

The OP mentioned a dedication to morals being a motivation for conservatism... perhaps it is just me but seeing what self-described moral people have done, I prefer to build my political structure on something with a few less strings: personal principles. That is, I consider myself to be amoral, and yet feel this to be a positive thing. I do not derive my principles from the edicts of gods or men, but from my own personal observations. This is not because I feel myself to be so superior, but because I don't. I haven't the insight into the minds of others to be able to read so well the motives of those who speak of morals. I figure that if my amoral principles are strong enough to build a political structure on, they must be somewhat effective, if not "good."

I am neither
http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif
nor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Conservative_Party_of_Canada.png/150px-Conservative_Party_of_Canada.png


I'm

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/ndp_logo.gif

;)

There are RULES in Anarchy. What there isn't is someone forcing you to follow them. Under anarchy, the race as a whole agrees to volountarily obey a set of rules.

I'm liberal. People should do what they want with themselves, so long as it doesn't hurt others in the process. Jack yourself up with heroin, for all I care. You're only destroying yourself.

This question cannot be answered until the political context is defined. To what political culture or system does the question refer? "Conservative" means nothing more than the desire to preserve the political culture/system/order. A communist is a conservative if communism is the political norm within a given context.

It's kind of amusing how your view of conservatism and that of the OP are completely different. This is an illustration of why we need more exact terms.

You, for example, appear to be a Classic Liberal. They had a party in the NS General elections awhile back.

Yes, I do fit nicely with the classical liberals, however, in today's narrowed outlook on differing ideoligies it's easier to just say conservative. Actually I describe myself as a conservative with Libertarian leanings.

I am a conservative because of my deeply held trust of the free-market. I believe in individual Liberty and Responsibility. I support the strict interpretation of the Constitution. I believe in the Social Contract Theory as set forth by John Locke, in that we the people have been given by God the authority to govern our own lives and that we have found it beneficial to give up some of those rights to a collective body to aid in protecting those rights from those who would violate those rights.
To me, free markets are a mechanism to an ends, and if they would betray those ends, I have no trouble in discarding them for something better. That said, I haven't seen this "something better" yet, so I'll stand by free markets within those refinements of Keynsian economics.

To me, free markets are a mechanism to an ends, and if they would betray those ends, I have no trouble in discarding them for something better. That said, I haven't seen this "something better" yet, so I'll stand by free markets within those refinements of Keynsian economics.

The reason the free market works is because it doesn't try to make society better, it just describes what happens naturally. We can then use this understanding to tweak it to acheive positive results.

look at Rome, it only endure when it was growing

What did Rome in was moral decay.

I am a socialist because I feel that there are inherent flaws in all forms of capitalism that can be addressed to ultimately improve the quality of life for all.

Contradictory.

I also do not believe in human rights, as I have never heard a conclusive argument as to why they exist.

Man's ability to reason, along with his imperfection and social nature, and man's ownership of himself.

Conservatism and the mis-named "liberalism" tend to be malign influences. The question is what benign influences do they have. In modern liberalism (in the American sense), there are none, even their talk of increasing social and civil liberties is rubbish, as they only push for fashionable social and civil liberties, and for the status of "eternal victim" for groups they favour.

Zanasa is quite wrong to say that liberalism would puch an anarchic society, but in being wrong, his principles should be reinforced. Liberalism pushes the master state, their only tool is coercion, their only goal power.

In a master state, such principles as being "a person a good person in terms of Moral, Respect and Self-Respect" are totally annihilated. They can only exist in an environment of liberty, because they must come from within, they cannot be forced from without.

We see examples of this in government-backed "multiculturalism", and "affirmative-action". Posited as a means of getting people to respect those who are different, it has merely added suspicion, and violence.

What about conservatism. They are certainly better on the freedom stakes, allowing a lot of economic freedom, but with less social and civil freedom.

If I had to choose between one and another, I would choose conservatism, firstly because liberal's hatred of econimic freedom will tend to push people towards the slavery of socialism, and secondly, it allows man to advance and grow in his own way, rather than according to the whims of politicians, activists, and bureaucrats.

But, I don't want to choose between them. I'm a libertarian (not an anarchist) for a few very simple reasons.

1) History has shown man advances better in freedom.

2) I have seen no real argument for restricting freedoms.

3) Man cannot live in any state but freedom. In anything but, he simply exists.

4) All the state needs to do is enforce contracts and rights, and defend the nation.

What did Rome in was moral decay.
Talk about an empty phrase...

I'd like to say I was a none of the above, because liberals are slaves to ideology and often will succumb to the same emphasis on society and conservatives will.

In terms of policies, I guess I'm a liberal. More than anything else I care about personal rights. I also recognize the other side of that, which is that with capitalism, and the free market comes human suffering and a new kind of totalitarianism (rule of the Wealty), and that limmiting that suffering, while not completely eliminating the competitive market is the only way to assure true human rights.

Where exactly is that paradise where one can believe in the conservative ideals of small government and a free market and at the same time indulge in the liberal belief of these things called civil rights?

Ahh yes... That place would be libertarianism.

Well, I'm probably on the Left. I'd call myself more Liberal than anything else, because in most things, I think people should be free to decide to do what they want.

Economically, I'm more a pragmatist than anything else. Neither extreme is realistic to achieve, nor does it work.

And finally, I think that change is central to a successful society. Which would all in all make me anti-conservative.

PS: Conservatism has nothing to do with the Free Market ideologically...it just so happens that Conservatism at the moment is largely influenced by radicals alá Thatcher.

Well, what are you? Conservative or Liberal? You must explain WHY for one word answers of "Conservative" or "Liberal" don't explain why.
Hooray for oversimplification!
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
You seem to have forgotten that people can believe in a free market AND not support tradition, or support older traditions than free markets, or all sorts of other things. Are Stalinists liberal or conservative? Are Falangists liberal or conservative?
The point of the making of this thread was because I'm interested in know why you're a Conservative or a Liberal, not just if you are one or the other.
I am an independent. I can say this with confidence because every time I get anywhere near anybody else's party line, I realize that it's mostly junk, that it has nothing to do with my original aims, and that I want nothing to do with it.
I personally, am a Conservative, why?

-Parents influenced me in this greatly, which I am grateful. They, however, didn't say anything like, "Because I said so," but explained why.

-Liberalism is another step to an Anarchic Society, which can NEVER be peaceful because Humans are too Humanly to live in a Society that has no Rules and at the sametime is peaceful. There will ALWAYS be Chaos if Order with Law isn't established -- as depicted in the book Lord of the Flies
written by William Golding.
What exactly does liberalism have to do with anarchy? GO up and ask your average liberal, "What do you think of anarchy?", and I rather doubt they'll like it any more than conservatives. Liberals want to establish rules, they just want a slightly different set of rules than you do.
-Moral Values, Focus on Education, Respect and Loyalty are all bloomed by Conservatism
And you are saying that for some reason liberals don't do the same?
First off, most liberals are just as Christian as most conservatives are, if I'm remembering the statistics correctly. They have moral values, and these values even come from the same book as the conservatives' come from, they just emphasize different bits.
And what's this about education, respect, and loyalty? I somehow doubt that this depends on who is in power. I've met both conservative and liberal families with bratty, disrespectful kids, and I've met both with nice kids as well. I can't see what political affiliation has to do with it.
-Culture and Traditions should be revived because as Conservatism says, "The Old Times, Where We Conservatives Base Our Beliefs On, Were The Best Times Of Society."
The old times were the best?
Tell me, when were these "Old Times" that were so good? Why not go back to the oldest times? But wait, then you'd be an anarcho-primitivist...
Or, why not monarchy? We lived under that for quite a while.
Which "Old Times" do you want, and why is it better than "New Times"?
-Well-ordered Societies are born, for example, Ancient Chinese Dynastic Rules were heavily influenced by Confuciansim, which bloomed long-lasting peace, progress in Education and high Moral Values and Respect/Loyalty.
Yeah, and it brought regard for women as objects, nonsensically strict adherence to ritual, the Mandate of Heaven, and other such great things too.
-Conservatism ultimately makes a person a good person in terms of Moral, Respect and Self-Respect.
Wait, you're saying that I'm going to respect myself more if I decide to value tradition over people, that this is the right thing to do, and that it is also respect for others? I'm not sure I understand.

I am capitalist! Hear me roar!

Where exactly is that paradise where one can believe in the conservative ideals of small government and a free market and at the same time indulge in the liberal belief of these things called civil rights?

Ahh yes... That place would be libertarianism.

Same here. I am economically conservative and socially liberal. Which = libertarian.

Capitalist.

"That government is best, which governs least." -Thomas Jefferson

Socially, I think I could identify myself with moderates to moderate liberals. Economically, neither ideology can uphold freedom enough for my preference, though conservatives tend to do a better.

In terms of American politics, I identify myself as a "disgruntled Republican". Specifically with Bush's tendencies to "compassionate conservatism" aka conservatism with big government.

I find both orthodox liberalism and orthodox conservatism to be about as ridiculous as its respective counterpart, but I tend to have a stronger [personal] disdain for conservatives. There's some wiggle room with most liberals on economic issues, but conservatives simply [i]will not budge on social issues--I admire their uncompromising nature, but can't stand where that nature takes them. I tend to vote libertarian--not out of any sort of party sympathy, but mostly because they seem to be interested in not stealing my money, or putting me to work for the benefit of others without my consent.

Same here. I am economically conservative and socially liberal. Which = libertarian.

Why is it that when it comes to economics "conservative" is equated with freedom, but when it comes to social issues "liberal" is equated with freedom? I'm not seeing any kind of consistency in the definitions of "conservative" or "liberal" here (when capitalism was born, the mercantilists were "conservative," and the capitalists and socialists were "liberal" as both sought to overthrow the merchantilist establishment -- capitalism was born with socialism on the political left). Plus, I'd like someone to explain why a distinction is drawn between "economic" and "social" issues. Are not economic activities social activities? Free market rhetoric extols the virtues of the individual (and rightly so), but there must be a social interation between said individuals or there wouldn't be a market to speak of.

I am a classic conservative, ode to Ronald Reagan. Little government involvement, fiscally conservative, to hell with this deficit spending, let's get out military back to its rightful place of #1 and not this Rumsfeld ruined, post-Cold War nonsense, to hell with Arms Reduction (the other guys aren't). Soveriegnty is supreme (bye-bye UN). Why get involved in the business of other countries. All this liberal social work (gay marriage) can just go to hell. Agnosticism should be primary to the government not this religious ideology that guides this guy. And for shit's sake, let's get rid of PC once and for all.

WHY do you care?

I used to be a conservative but conservative moved so far and I stayed in the same place that I have become a moderate-liberal without changing my beliefs.


-Moral Values, Focus on Education, Respect and Loyalty, Ecology, Humane Treatment, Equal Rights, Future Improvement are all bloomed by Liberal thinking

-religion--Christianity is an extremely liberal religion. Unfortunatly, the Pharasees have redefined Christianity to the point where neither Jesus or Paul would recognize it. I still believe in helping the poor, weak, sick, downtrodden, the least of these. Christianity today means survival of the fittest. A religion of intolerance. A religion of hate. A religion of pulling in instead of reaching out. A religion that is more interested in politics than the needs of people. A religion where the "believers" do nothing but hide in megachurches as far away from the problems of the world as possible. A church that fights for governmental control of private lives, but refuses to give people hope.

--Ideas--Conservatives don't have ideas. They just defend to the death the ideas that their grandfathers fought against as "liberal". Without liberal ideals and ideas the society doesn't progress. Take the last 25 years and compare it to the 25 years before that. Improvement in society has come to a cold stop.

-Money--I believe in paying for what I use and leaving the society better for my children. Conservative as defined by "Trickle down Economics", (aka Reaganomics, aka VooDoo economics) has taken the future from the children. When Reagan ran for office he critisized Carter for allowing the national debt to reach 1 Trillion. Before he left office the debt was 1.5 trillion, Bush 1, did even better at killing the future, Clinton balanced the budget, Bush 2 decided to be more conservative than Reagan and his father put together, he openly stated "debt doesn't matter".. China now owns the future of the US. Conservatives show their loyalty with flags and magnets made by those that own the government bonds.

-Ethics--In the last 25 years an attitude of "ME" and anything I can get away with is ethical. Martha Stewart becomes a hero. The Reagan admiinistration set a record for indited members. Reagan committed treason by selling arms to the enemy and is considered a hero. Bush2 authorized revoking the first amendment and is considered a hero. This hasn't slowed up. In fact it has spread to business. The workplace is no longer a team working to a common goal. It is back-biting and undercutting. Business no longer has any feelings for employees. They are just cogs in a wheel. Because of this attitude, employees no longer have loyalty to the company. A disasterous circle.

Economics---Again, no vision of the future. The next month, or at most the next quarter is all that is important. The MBA attitude doesn't worry about next year or for sure the next 10 years. Monopolies are considered normal. Money is transfered to the richest of the rich even though they destroy more jobs than they create. Jobs are created by small business. The people that get no tax breaks. The ones that have money taken from them to fund the richest of the rich.

I could go on and on, but don't want to write so much no one will read it.

[QUOTE]I personally, am a Conservative, why?

-Parents influenced me in this greatly, which I am grateful. They, however, didn't say anything like, "Because I said so," but explained why.
fair enough. Probably similar for most.

-Liberalism is another step to an Anarchic Society, which can NEVER be peaceful because Humans are too Humanly to live in a Society that has no Rules and at the sametime is peaceful. There will ALWAYS be Chaos if Order with Law isn't established -- as depicted in the book Lord of the Flies
written by William Golding.
Liberalism and anarchy have little to nothing to do with each other. Liberals do not argue for getting rid of all rules, but instead argue for greater self determination. Having rules rarely stops people from doing what they want anyway
-Moral Values, Focus on Education, Respect and Loyalty are all bloomed by Conservatism
Whos moral values? The klan? The Nazis? Catholics? Protestants? Atheists? Each person has their own morals. No one should be forced to follow someone else's.

Education...I would say both sides focus on it. And both sides mess it up very well.

Respect and loyalty...well, respect is earned. If you're (not you directly, but a general "you) are an asshat, then I will not respect you. Loyalty is similarly earned. I'm loyal to those who have earned that kind of trust and love.

-Culture and Traditions should be revived because as Conservatism says, "The Old Times, Where We Conservatives Base Our Beliefs On, Were The Best Times Of Society."
What old times? the 60's? Depression? World Wars? Religious intolerance? Dark Ages? We get a romanticized view of history. Unless you lived it, you have no idea what it was like. Not to mention what used to be liberal is now conservative, and it will be that way again in 20 years.

-Well-ordered Societies are born, for example, Ancient Chinese Dynastic Rules were heavily influenced by Confuciansim, which bloomed long-lasting peace, progress in Education and high Moral Values and Respect/Loyalty.
liberal societies have done similar. Confucianism, oddly, was once liberal. As was christianity, and all new ideas.

-Conservatism ultimately makes a person a good person in terms of Moral, Respect and Self-Respect.
being a good person makes a person good. Politics have little impact on that. I am moral, respect those who deserve it, and respect myself above all others. I am liberal. There are bad people on both sides in equal numbers.

-The Roots of Order, Law And Good-Will came out of Conservatism.These come out of both sides.



I myself am progressive. Conservativism says "lets go back". Progressivism says "lets make ourselves better for tomorrow". I'm more afraid of the old ideas than new ideas. We know which old things didn't work...why would we want to go back? New ideas can be tried, and if they fail, changed.

Why is it that when it comes to economics "conservative" is equated with freedom, but when it comes to social issues "liberal" is equated with freedom? I'm not seeing any kind of consistency in the definitions of "conservative" or "liberal" here (when capitalism was born, the mercantilists were "conservative," and the capitalists and socialists were "liberal" as both sought to overthrow the merchantilist establishment -- capitalism was born with socialism on the political left). Plus, I'd like someone to explain why a distinction is drawn between "economic" and "social" issues. Are not economic activities social activities? Free market rhetoric extols the virtues of the individual (and rightly so), but there must be a social interation between said individuals or there wouldn't be a market to speak of.

Well, to answer your questions... the problem is the American political system. Historically speaking, I am a liberal (called a classic liberal on this forum) which, yes, equates with freedom. However, in the U.S., "liberal" has an erroneous connection with the domocratic party, which is why we must clarify ourselves.
The distinction between social and economic issues...well, think of it like this. For some reason, the republican party is freedom loving in economics (less restrictions on business, less taxes), yet because of the influence of the religious right, they are NOT freedom loving in social issues. (gay rights, drug war, etc). The domocratic party is the opposite- freedom in social issues, yet restrictive in economics (tax and spend, income redistribution through welfare).
The U.S. libertarian party is the only domestic party which advocates freedom in both, (so should be the "liberal" party)but because of the twisted U.S. termonology, we are economically conservative, and socially liberal.
Hope that answers your question.

I am capitalist! Hear me roar!

*looking at his political compass results*

Welcome to the

http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif

Party :D

*looking at his political compass results*

Welcome to the

http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif

Party :D

You're joking right? I'm not sure what qualifies for liberal in Canada, but I'm pretty sure it ain't me!

I am however an MP in the NS General Classic Liberals party. But here in the states I have little hope for the word "liberal" actually meaning anything like what I believe in politically anymore. It got hijacked...

I consider myself a Left-Communist, thus, a liberal. Here's my reply to you...

-Parents influenced me in this greatly, which I am grateful. They, however, didn't say anything like, "Because I said so," but explained why.

That's not really an excuse. If you're conscious that your values were instilled in you by your fallable parents, you can't contradict yourself by saying you honestly believe in them *because* of that.

-Liberalism is another step to an Anarchic Society, which can NEVER be peaceful because Humans are too Humanly to live in a Society that has no Rules and at the sametime is peaceful. There will ALWAYS be Chaos if Order with Law isn't established -- as depicted in the book Lord of the Flies
written by William Golding.

The beauty of liberalism is that the measures it takes, which one can conveivably view as parallel to an *eventual* anarchic society, you fail to take into account that as the side of the aisle that is most pro-democratic, all of such measures would occur at a pace comfortable for society, as it historically has, and, thus, society will not vote for something that it would try to ruin by taking advantage of these "anarchic" principles. In other words, human nature does not corrupt something that was initiated by human nature. Try to remember that if evil in human nature overpowered the good in it, we would all be dead by now.

By the way, in Lord of the Flies, order and law *was* established. Ralph simply was not a strong leader and was too unaware of his mental shortcomings and, covertly, too proud to lend an ear to Piggy. Had Ralph's "government" listened to the masses, a liberal behavior, instead of being caught up in its own statist narcissism, a conservative behavior, then Jack would not have had the leverage to rally the children to his support. Had Ralph conducted himself more democratically, there would be no reason for the people to rally under Jack's banner. It was perfectly preventable.

-Moral Values, Focus on Education, Respect and Loyalty are all bloomed by Conservatism

The latter two have absolutely no value in creating, maintaining, or improving a good quality of life for the general public. Respect does nothing--It only establishes social heirarchies which, if we want to indulge in your slippery-slope rhetorical fallacy behavior, leads to pro-feudalist movements. Loyalty only inspires nationalism and pro-state sentiments, which is bad for foreign nations as well as the domestic minority.

Also, remember, being the War-Hawks that they are, conservatives will appropriate money towards pro-state causes, like the military or the politician's own pocket, or simply lower taxes to give people short-term, ignorant spurts of happiness, which would drastically reduce funding for education, healthcare, and other civil services. In socialism, education, being a renewable, non-limited service, is free and paid for by the government. The people pay for it through their labor.

-Culture and Traditions should be revived because as Conservatism says, "The Old Times, Where We Conservatives Base Our Beliefs On, Were The Best Times Of Society."

And the Conservatives are always right? Of course, all political denominations are going to try to rally the populace with a catchy slogan. Only the most weakminded of us actually believe them.

Traditions serve no purpose to society, as they can very possibly be harmful. Many traditions hinder progress towards civil rights and social and economic equality in virtually every country. The only people who benefit are those who embrace the tradition originally.

-Well-ordered Societies are born, for example, Ancient Chinese Dynastic Rules were heavily influenced by Confuciansim, which bloomed long-lasting peace, progress in Education and high Moral Values and Respect/Loyalty.

Well, we already covered why your moral values argument is invalid.

If you read excerpts from Confucius' Analects directly, he is a major proponent of class mobility, whereas the feudalist dynasties were remarkably feudalist. How can this be? Because they didn't listen to true Confucianism, they just listened to whatever part of Confucius' teachings went in line with their own governments. Research more about the emporer of the Qin dynasty (the one that would eventually go to conquer the rest of China), he was very much anti-Confucian in the sense that he believes people to be inherently evil while Confucius believed that people had the possibility to be both. The emporer simply killed people, another anti-Confucian policy (Confucius felt that the "Jen" between the King and the Subject was mutual benevolence), who he felt were evil. Seems to me like the emporer is acting on your belief on human nature, isn't he?

Also, you think Ancient Chinese dynasties were peaceful? You know that China was not unified, don't you? You know that you literally had 9 countries fighting *each other* constituting dozens of wars.

Look at any other right-winged government and you find the state harming the people by exiling or oppressing, if not killing, them. Look at any radical, left-winged government, and the people are simply "harming" the state by changing it. Why don't you tell me which one yields more progress?

-Conservatism ultimately makes a person a good person in terms of Moral, Respect and Self-Respect.

Why? A person can be liberal and still have moral values. Conservatism doesn't teach them, it simply teaches to do whatever necessary to force the subjective beliefs on others.

-The Roots of Order, Law And Good-Will came out of Conservatism.

Prove it.

The distinction between social and economic issues...well, think of it like this. For some reason, the republican party is freedom loving in economics (less restrictions on business, less taxes), ...


Except that they are addicted to pork, military adventures (tax and spend, spend, SPEND), and corporate welfare (I don't accept the idea that "less restrictions on business" necessarily results in increased freedom -- in fact, I would say that as implemented by the Republicans, the effect is exactly the opposite).


The domocratic party is the opposite- freedom in social issues, ...


Except when they are being pro-drug war, pro-PATRIOT and all that stuff.

Again, I'm failing to see how the "conservative" vs. "liberal" lines are so clear.


The U.S. libertarian party is the only domestic party which advocates freedom in both, (so should be the "liberal" party)


The LP is beyond "liberal" and more like borderline anarchist (especially of the "anarcho"-capitalist variety it seems). I still vote for it, but only while holding my nose.

Again, I'm failing to see how the "conservative" vs. "liberal" lines are so clear..
ya know, when more people realize that politics aren't black and white with a clear line, maybe we can get some decent politics.

I declare this thread to be shit. Reading it has shown me how so many NS'ers seem to decide their positions not by reacting to real-life issues but by blindly following narrow and arcane political and economic theories.

For example, the capitalist free-market faithful say that if we buy lots of things from , then the poor will be employed by them to make more things. This is based on the [I]theory that businesses will hire more people when their income increases. However, the past 15 years has proven that particularly with large American companies, they tend to reduce their work force when their profits increase!

I am a socialist because I feel that there are inherent flaws in all forms of capitalism that can be addressed to ultimately improve the quality of life for all.

You do realise that it can be possible to be both a socialist and socially conservative - Catholicism is the prime example of that marriage of the two.

You do realise that it can be possible to be both a socialist and socially conservative - Catholicism is the prime example of that marriage of the two.

But i'm not. What's your point?

-Moral Values, Focus on Education, Respect and Loyalty are all bloomed by Conservatism

Oh, 'moral values' - translates into bash homosexuals when ever the opportunity arrises; when you have parents not taking responsibility for their actions, over failing to either adequately care for their children or ensure they have the money BEFORE they choose to have kids - what do we see from the conservatives?

Ah, thats right, find a homo which is close you, and bash the shit out of him or her; blame him or her for every damn thing that has gone wrong in society.

Marriage is falling to pieces because people have embraced the 'me me me me me me' attitude; divorce is seem as the solution rather than the last resort, people getting married without adequate time to get to know each other.

Whats the solution? thats right, bash a homo and ban gay marriage, as if somehow there is a link between gay marriage and the pathetic selfish atittudes of individuals.

Its a continuous cycle of bashing gays for all the crap that the heterosexual world can't get its shit organised around; but hey, thats alright, keep bashing us, we'll keeping paying those taxes and levies that support the lifestyle of out of control procreation and lack of responsibility when it comes to looking after children.

But i'm not. What's your point?

The point is, its pathetic to say, "Oooooooooh I'm socialist!" - well, it doesn't actually tell too much about you.

^^^
That's some good anger you got there, My Lovely Man.

I also mock his claim that conservatives focus on education. More often I see conservatives as vandals, trashing the concept and sabotaging the practice of public education. As often as not they would be just as happy to see 14 year olds working in factories as in school.

The point is, its pathetic to say, "Oooooooooh I'm socialist!" - well, it doesn't actually tell too much about you.
It says quite a lot about his economic principles. It says nothing about his attitudes to social issues, but in my opinion at least those issues are secondary to economic beliefs.

Most people have no idea what liberalism is. In american society it means a very left approach to politics. This is a very strange thing since liberalism is actually an ideology that is pro the free market, capitalism and individual freedom. Why left has hijacked this term is rather unclear. Liberals in the us are socialists anywhere else. The true meaning of liberalism is what the neologism libertarianism points to.

Though even with God it's quite hazy. I haven't heard of a religious text that actually mentions rights.
The idea of a covanent implies rights since it is a contract between two signatories. Thus, it implies rights and duties for both sides. An example of covanents in spitual texts include the Mosaic covanent between YHVH and Abraham.

I'm not a conservative since I think that people can control their own lives and make thier own decisions. Conservatives don't think so and say that everyone needs to consent in thier position in life, they wish to conserve the system as it exists now because they are in good position, or even turn back to a system where they would have even more power.

I'm not a liberal either because the system of a 'free market' doesn't work as liberals say it would, a perfect balance of price will not be found since corporations will do anything to make larger profits. Even if they are on the border of the legitimate or even have crossed this border.
Libertarianism is even worse. Now the 'free market' is still controlled by governments. Libertarians wish to remove this government or replace it with a minarchy in which their power and money-making abilities wouldn't be limited by rules or regulations. In this system they would return us to the level of the 19th century and destroy themselves by exploiting all the natural recources.

I'm not a socialist since they want an all-powerfull state: the dictatorship of the proletariat. This leads inevitably to abuse of power by certain people. They would have good positions and don't see the need for a classless society.

That leaves me with but one option: anarchism

Most people have no idea what liberalism is. In american society it means a very left approach to politics. This is a very strange thing since liberalism is actually an ideology that is pro the free market, capitalism and individual freedom. Why left has hijacked this term is rather unclear. Liberals in the us are socialists anywhere else. The true meaning of liberalism is what the neologism libertarianism points to.
Actually liberals in the US are not socialist by world standards, they are, well, liberals!

You do realise that it can be possible to be both a socialist and socially conservative - Catholicism is the prime example of that marriage of the two.

how are catholics socialists?

how are catholics socialists?
I suppose he is just calling all forms of collectivism "socialism". He's probably basing it on the Catholics' support for charity.

The point is, its pathetic to say, "Oooooooooh I'm socialist!" - well, it doesn't actually tell too much about you.

It doesn't have to. I was just pointing out that I fit into the label of neither liberal nor conservative. (and I don't necessarily agree with the stance that catholicism is socialist. There was still a very large rich/poor divide in the medieval Papal States.)

I suppose he is just calling all forms of collectivism "socialism". He's probably basing it on the Catholics' support for charity.

But catholics say that everyone should just accept the things they got in life, so they are not socialist, sonce they reject the idea of a revolution and class war, wich are inherent to socialism.

:D
The confusion for the "liberal-conservative" absolutists has begun.
Oh and count me as a "neither" as well.
Make that neither x3 here!

http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif :D

That with the Anarchy is utter bs :rolleyes:
I could just as well say "Conservatism is another step towards Faschism" :rolleyes:

- NO to false, twisted middle age-like Moral Values!
Focus on Education is definitely a liberal aspect. The conservatives want to keep the masses stupid so they have enough to vote for them.

- Outdated Traditions are bringing the sciety to a screeching halt. We need to abandon this crap in order to progress and and improve the living standards for everyone!

- *Against* the hate and intolerante that is spread by the Christian right! :mad:

Christianity today means survival of the fittest. A religion of intolerance. A religion of hate. A religion of pulling in instead of reaching out. A religion that is more interested in politics than the needs of people. A religion where the "believers" do nothing but hide in megachurches as far away from the problems of the world as possible. A church that fights for governmental control of private lives, but refuses to give people hope.
That's absolutely right! They are nothing more than a corrupted, greedy, power-hungry bunch who is only spreading hate and intolerance to the people :mad:

If I had to choose between conservative and liberal,

then I would most definitely choose liberal.

Although lately I have been leaning towards socialism a little.

^^^
That's some good anger you got there, My Lovely Man.

I also mock his claim that conservatives focus on education. More often I see conservatives as vandals, trashing the concept and sabotaging the practice of public education. As often as not they would be just as happy to see 14 year olds working in factories as in school.

True, the view by conservatives is also, 'keep them dumb' - just look at their steps to curb sex education. If there was a GOOD sex education policy, you wouldn't have teenage girls getting pregnant because of ignorance, you wouldn't have STDS getting needlessly spread - all these things result in higher costs to the welfare and health system.

You can't expect individual freedoms and responsibility without the necessarily education as to allow people to make choices based on having all the necessary education required to make an educated choice.

How can a person make an educated choice on whether or not to have sex, if they don't have the necessary information relating to STD's, condom usage etc?

It says quite a lot about his economic principles. It says nothing about his attitudes to social issues, but in my opinion at least those issues are secondary to economic beliefs.

True, but at the same time, the social attitudes go hand in hand with the economic beliefs, I've yet to see a situation where by a persons economic socialist views don't end up in the end curbing individual rights and freedoms where by the government doesn't end up over regulating the lives of individuals under the banner of 'protecting people from themselves'.

The reason the free market works is because it doesn't try to make society better, it just describes what happens naturally. We can then use this understanding to tweak it to acheive positive results.
The market is not a natural phenomenon, it is a human institution. As such, it is neither natural nor impartial. Those in power use it to their benefit and convince the rest of its inevitability and inherent justice. The market, I think, is likely something we will have to live with given its entrenched position, but it can be used to social ends, whether those ends are wealth concentration or redistribution is for society to decide, not some myth about a hidden hand.

The reason the free market works is because it doesn't try to make society better, it just describes what happens naturally. We can then use this understanding to tweak it to acheive positive results.
The market is not a natural phenomenon, it is a human institution. As such, it is neither natural nor impartial. Those in power use it to their benefit and convince the rest of its inevitability and inherent justice. The market, I think, is likely something we will have to live with given its entrenched position, but it can be used to social ends, whether those ends are wealth concentration or redistribution is for society to decide, not some myth about a hidden hand.

The idea of a covanent implies rights since it is a contract between two signatories. Thus, it implies rights and duties for both sides. An example of covanents in spitual texts include the Mosaic covanent between YHVH and Abraham.

There is also the basic right of free will; the free will to accept or reject God based on the individual freedom of choice.

Contra to the religious nuts here, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all are based on the fredom of the individual to make the choice whether to follow those beliefs, this can then be extended to the individuals right to agree or disagree with another higher authority, in the case of a country, it would be the right to disagree with the government and thus, setup an opposition, aka, alternative view point in the the form of a political party.

True, but at the same time, the social attitudes go hand in hand with the economic beliefs, I've yet to see a situation where by a persons economic socialist views don't end up in the end curbing individual rights and freedoms where by the government doesn't end up over regulating the lives of individuals under the banner of 'protecting people from themselves'.

Very wisely spoken

in the case of a country, it would be the right to disagree with the government and thus, setup an opposition, aka, alternative view point in the the form of a political party.

Or simply don't live by the rules of that country: not pay taxes and not receive any governmental benefits. You don't choose to be born anywhere, but political leaders don't seem to realise that, they want 'what is best for the people', not realising that some people do not want that.
It is impossible in todays world to go to a place where you aren't submitted to rules a government.

Well, what are you? Conservative or Liberal? You must explain WHY for one word answers of "Conservative" or "Liberal" don't explain why.

The point of the making of this thread was because I'm interested in know why you're a Conservative or a Liberal, not just if you are one or the other.

--

I personally, am a Conservative, why?

-Parents influenced me in this greatly, which I am grateful. They, however, didn't say anything like, "Because I said so," but explained why.

-Liberalism is another step to an Anarchic Society, which can NEVER be peaceful because Humans are too Humanly to live in a Society that has no Rules and at the sametime is peaceful. There will ALWAYS be Chaos if Order with Law isn't established -- as depicted in the book Lord of the Flies
written by William Golding.

-Moral Values, Focus on Education, Respect and Loyalty are all bloomed by Conservatism

-Culture and Traditions should be revived because as Conservatism says, "The Old Times, Where We Conservatives Base Our Beliefs On, Were The Best Times Of Society."

-Well-ordered Societies are born, for example, Ancient Chinese Dynastic Rules were heavily influenced by Confuciansim, which bloomed long-lasting peace, progress in Education and high Moral Values and Respect/Loyalty.

-Conservatism ultimately makes a person a good person in terms of Moral, Respect and Self-Respect.

-The Roots of Order, Law And Good-Will came out of Conservatism.


okay okay okay.
How many times have you been forcefed Fox News Channel?
Honestly,
You're uber conservative.
Liberalism is not the next step towards anarchaism.
Moral values does not mean severe governmental corruption.
Good education?
Honestly, "Is our children learning?"
We can't go back to the old times.
This is 2005, almost 2006.
There is a spaceport being built in New Mexico.
We can not go back the the old times.
We have to be ready for the future.
Don't even begin to bring Confucianism into this.
Just because it had good moral values,
and you think that conservatism has that same aspect,
does not relate the two.
Once again, moral values does not equal severe governmental corruption.
And, by the way,
if conservatism helps create peace,
then why are we at war right now?

Enjoy your bloody thirty-six percent.

But catholics say that everyone should just accept the things they got in life, so they are not socialist, sonce they reject the idea of a revolution and class war, wich are inherent to socialism.

Well, where shall i start?

Class war and belief in the coming of the revolution are inherantly marxist ideas, no socialist would touch either idea with a barge pole! Then comes the ultimate contradiction: Marxist and communist societies are inherantly conservative. I suggest for a real idea of the contrasts between conservative and liberal society you look at Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies"

okay okay okay.
How many times have you been forcefed Fox News Channel?
Honestly,
You're uber conservative.
Liberalism is not the next step towards anarchaism.
Moral values does not mean severe governmental corruption.
Good education?
Honestly, "Is our children learning?"
We can't go back to the old times.
This is 2005, almost 2006.
There is a spaceport being built in New Mexico.
We can not go back the the old times.
We have to be ready for the future.
Don't even begin to bring Confucianism into this.
Just because it had good moral values,
and you think that conservatism has that same aspect,
does not relate the two.
Once again, moral values does not equal severe governmental corruption.
And, by the way,
if conservatism helps create peace,
then why are we at war right now?

Enjoy your bloody thirty-six percent.

Was that, like, a poem?

Or simply don't live by the rules of that country: not pay taxes and not receive any governmental benefits. You don't choose to be born anywhere, but political leaders don't seem to realise that, they want 'what is best for the people', not realising that some people do not want that.
It is impossible in todays world to go to a place where you aren't submitted to rules a government.

True, and thats the problem; they have this idea that they have some cash, but never actually realise WHERE the cash comes from - its no the politicians money, its the citizens money.

Hence the reason I appose pointless wars like the one in Iraq - do the US citizens *REALLY want their hard earned tax dollars going to further some neocons geopolitical agenda or would they rather prefer seeing it to fund health, education and better care for the elderly?

The sad fact of the matter, as much as the US love to preach about the idea of meritocracy, the simple fact is that the US resembles something like the UK during victorian era; a small number of gentry ruling over the large number of citzens, aka, a ruling class made up of an elite liberal and conservatives, with each side pulling the strings behind the scenes so that they can win power for their particular faction.

True, but at the same time, the social attitudes go hand in hand with the economic beliefs, I've yet to see a situation where by a persons economic socialist views don't end up in the end curbing individual rights and freedoms where by the government doesn't end up over regulating the lives of individuals under the banner of 'protecting people from themselves'.

Which is why i'm against heirarchical government to begin with.

Which is why i'm against heirarchical government to begin with.

Well, for me, I'm not necessarily against a heirarchical government, what I am against are politiicians who fail to realise WHO provides the cash for the government to run.

They see billions flow through the government accounts without thinking once that maybe there is alot of crap that shouldn't be funded - child tax credits - paying parents to have children which they can't adequately look after.

Personally, I would rather next to no social services as long as it means that we no longer have the bullshit social engineering that goes on.

okay okay okay.
How many times have you been forcefed Fox News Channel?
Honestly,
You're uber conservative.
Liberalism is not the next step towards anarchaism.
Moral values does not mean severe governmental corruption.
Good education?
Honestly, "Is our children learning?"
We can't go back to the old times.
This is 2005, almost 2006.
There is a spaceport being built in New Mexico.
We can not go back the the old times.
We have to be ready for the future.
Don't even begin to bring Confucianism into this.
Just because it had good moral values,
and you think that conservatism has that same aspect,
does not relate the two.
Once again, moral values does not equal severe governmental corruption.
And, by the way,
if conservatism helps create peace,
then why are we at war right now?

Enjoy your bloody thirty-six percent.

Of course, Liberalism has nothing to do with hate. :rolleyes:

The market is not a natural phenomenon, it is a human institution. As such, it is neither natural nor impartial. Those in power use it to their benefit and convince the rest of its inevitability and inherent justice. The market, I think, is likely something we will have to live with given its entrenched position, but it can be used to social ends, whether those ends are wealth concentration or redistribution is for society to decide, not some myth about a hidden hand.

Yet another piece of economic idiocy that leftoids are trying to push. The free market came out of nothing more differences between human talents, differences between areas in terms of resources, and the fact that scarcity exists.

Can you tell me what is unnatural about any of this? Do all humans naturally have the full set of talents and abilities necessary to provide all needs and wants? Does the world naturally have a total abundance of resources everywhere?

There are no "social ends" there are only "individual ends", many individuals may have the same interests, but don't be deceived into thinking that talk of "social ends" is anything more than a device to enable the rights of some to be abrogated for the interests of others.

Which is why i'm against heirarchical government to begin with.

Yet you claim to be a socialist.

I for one question the assumption that loyalty, order, and so on are inherently good. If you ask me, they are buzzwords used because they sound good to most people, but easily used to back many things conservatives claim to oppose, like rape, war, and so forth.

Of course, even if they are, conservativism isn't necessarily the best source of such values. Japan is very conservative, after all, and yet remains the first and only source of tentacle porn, for example. Many middle eastern nations are ultra-conservative and yet don't seem to display the kind of moral character conservatives are looking for.

As a sidenote, the claim that the US Democrat party is leading the US into anarchy betrays a huge misunderstanding of both the Democrats and anarchism. Suffice to say, John Kerry is not quite the fan of Peter Kropoktin some conservatives seem to think he is.

Was that, like, a poem?

It was. Brought a tear to my eye, too.... from laughter.

I'm a moderate because I believe the world could use a few more changes.

Yet another piece of economic idiocy that leftoids are trying to push. The free market came out of nothing more differences between human talents, differences between areas in terms of resources, and the fact that scarcity exists.

It came from the imposition of property rights by those willing and capable of defending what goods they wanted.

If human social organization is inherently unnatural, which is a questionable proposition, then the notion of "property" is definitely unnatural, and therefore so is the free market. There is nothing intrinsic to any piece of property that makes it someone's; that someone must have the power to make it so, or some state must have the power to make it so.

I have to wonder if the concepts of liberalism (change) and conservatism (status quo) have changed in the past few years.

http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif :D

That with the Anarchy is utter bs :rolleyes:
I could just as well say "Conservatism is another step towards Faschism" :rolleyes:

- NO to false, twisted middle age-like Moral Values!
Focus on Education is definitely a liberal aspect. The conservatives want to keep the masses stupid so they have enough to vote for them.

- Outdated Traditions are bringing the sciety to a screeching halt. We need to abandon this crap in order to progress and and improve the living standards for everyone!

- *Against* the hate and intolerante that is spread by the Christian right! :mad:


That's absolutely right! They are nothing more than a corrupted, greedy, power-hungry bunch who is only spreading hate and intolerance to the people :mad:

It's people like you that give liberals a bad name.

Given that the US has no ability to categorize it's politicians here I won't answer the question.

I'm SANE.

Which in the end means a certain streak of conservatism, a healthy dose of Liberalism seasoned with strong moderate Christian beliefs. What works, works, what doesn't gets fixed.

The government is there to see to the well-being and continued operation of the nation, not to prove some pissy idealogical point.

(fuck you 'religion=mental illness' nuts BTW)

imposition of property rights

And debate comes from the "imposition" of free speech. :rolleyes: It is interesting that you describe the one right that guarantees man his liberty as an imposition.

There is nothing intrinsic to any piece of property that makes it someone's; that someone must have the power to make it so, or some state must have the power to make it so.

Property comes from (initially) from "homesteading" (mixing your labour with "virgin" resources), thereafter, comes voluntary exchange.

And debate comes from the "imposition" of free speech. :rolleyes: It is interesting that you describe the one right that guarantees man his liberty as an imposition.
Freedom of speech is something that anyone can do naturally without affecting others. Private property rights are not natural. No one man made the land, so no one man can own it.

I see one did not read the bit about homesteading.

Free speech does affect others. If it didn't, there'd be no need to preserve it.

I have to wonder if the concepts of liberalism (change) and conservatism (status quo) have changed in the past few years.
Of course, Conservative has become so reactionary that the balance has been thrown off. During the last 25 years all control has been taken from business creating monopolies. Note: 25 years ago there were probably 100 oil companies, at least 25 major companies. How may are left? Why is there no competition to control prices? Workers are two steps above slaves. At least with slaves the owner worried if the slaves had food and health care. He didn't want to lose his investment. Now workers have no value.

Human rights have been handed over to a religion that is two steps above the inquisition and falling. How many times have you heard "This is a Christian nation". This implies no one else has any rights. And indeed the rights of any minority (not just religious) have been eroded.

The Bill of Rights---You would think Conservative would mean following the constitution. Two words--Patriot Act. One action--President admiting spying on the phone conversations of Americans without cause.

Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally.

And debate comes from the "imposition" of free speech. :rolleyes:

Yes, it does. Free speech is an unnatural imposition, too.

Which does not mean it is not to be protected.

Property comes from (initially) from "homesteading" (mixing your labour with "virgin" resources), thereafter, comes voluntary exchange.

Production, perhaps, not property.

If I chop down a tree and use the wood to make a raft, I am using my labor, but the raft is not "naturally" mine. A certain social order may decide that it should be mine, but there is nothing intrinsic about the raft that makes it belong to me.

Yes, it does. Free speech is an unnatural imposition, too.

How is it imposed? Humans developed language naturally.

If I chop down a tree and use the wood to make a raft, I am using my labor, but the raft is not "naturally" mine. A certain social order may decide that it should be mine, but there is nothing intrinsic about the raft that makes it belong to me.

Yes there is ... your labour. Without you that raft wouldn't exist. You own yourself, therefore you own the talents, strength, and energy inside you, therefore you own what is made with it, provided you did not steal it from anyone else.

How is it imposed? Humans developed language naturally.

Speech isn't imposed, societal norms of "free speech" are.

Yes there is ... your labour. Without you that raft wouldn't exist. You own yourself, therefore you own the talents, strength, and energy inside you, therefore you own what is made with it, provided you did not steal it from anyone else.

Still, nothing "natural" about it, assuming the human social order to be "unnatural." You are giving what amounts to a moral argument.

What's to stop someone else from taking the raft? Why does it matter if I made the raft? For all intents and purposes the person who takes it "owns it," and if he has the strength to do it will stop anyone else from taking it from him.

What's to stop someone else from taking the raft? Why does it matter if I made the raft? For all intents and purposes the person who takes it "owns it," and if he has the strength to do it will stop anyone else from taking it from him.
I like you! :fluffle:

I am a Libertarian-Capitalist

Life, liberty, and property.

Or more accurately, they way I like to phrase it (since property and life fall under liberty despite what socialist rats say):

LIBERTY, KNOWLEDGE, JUSTICE

I'm a rational traditionalist, so ha!

No one but myself and a few others know what the hell that is.

I'm a rational traditionalist, so ha!

No one but myself and a few others know what the hell that is.

Oldthinkers doubleplusungood!

New Democratic Party why?
-because I believe that all people should have the right to things like healthcare and education
-because in Canada the liberals are corrupt to the core
-because conservatives care only about monney and not about people ok that was a vast generalisation
-oh and because I think that all people should be equal . . .

Oldthinkers doubleplusungood!
Think Burkean whig. ;)

Whoops, conservatives and Republicans I now have yet anothger grievance against y'all - after Bush's Oval Office address concerning the progress in Iraq, I jokingly label Bush as my mother's lover (my mom is a far-right Bush fan / Republicrat) - so then she goes 'OMFG U HAVE N0 RESPECT 4 OUR LEADER!1!!1*' 'the hell is her problem?!?


*Leetspeak added to emphasize immaturity

Although those who love to mock will aver otherwise, I am neiter a "conservative" nor a "liberal." I don't like labels, attempts to pigeonhole people, theologies, or ideologies.

Still, nothing "natural" about it, assuming the human social order to be "unnatural." You are giving what amounts to a moral argument.

What's to stop someone else from taking the raft? Why does it matter if I made the raft? For all intents and purposes the person who takes it "owns it," and if he has the strength to do it will stop anyone else from taking it from him.

There is nothing to suggest that human social nature is unnatural. Your assumption is unjustified. Most primates are highly social.

All arguments over rights are moral arguments. That does not refute the argument, nor does the existance of theft.

Although those who love to mock will aver otherwise, I am neiter a "conservative" nor a "liberal." I don't like labels, attempts to pigeonhole people, theologies, or ideologies.
You're Eutrusca. Ha, I piegenholed you!

What's to stop someone else from taking the raft? Why does it matter if I made the raft?

Um the person who owns it? With a gun. But hey, if you don't think property exists, I'd be glad to take your stuff off your hands.

Um the person who owns it? With a gun.
Civil War it is then.

But hey, if you don't think property exists, I'd be glad to take your stuff off your hands.
Try it. Wanna bet the evil Government will stop you?

Conservatism????

Liberalism???????


PEOPLE PEOPLE THE ANSWER IS COMMUNISM

I got screwed over by my parents as a kid and i hate fags.
-Does that cut it?:p

There is nothing to suggest that human social nature is unnatural. Your assumption is unjustified. Most primates are highly social.

That's why I called it a "questionable proposition" when I mentioned it in my first reply to you.

Let's review the origins of this argument:

The market is not a natural phenomenon, it is a human institution. As such, it is neither natural nor impartial. Those in power use it to their benefit and convince the rest of its inevitability and inherent justice. The market, I think, is likely something we will have to live with given its entrenched position, but it can be used to social ends, whether those ends are wealth concentration or redistribution is for society to decide, not some myth about a hidden hand.

Note the use of the term "human institution." You responded by arguing that the "free market" was perfectly natural, without arguing over the use of the term "human institution." I pointed out that property was indeed a function of the human social order. If this point is to be accepted, then property, the basis of the free market, is indeed a "human institution" and therefore subject to the greed and thirst for power of human nature, precisely the point being made by Kennedonia.

The distinction being made, then, is between a human creation - and thus subject to failures in human nature - and a natural, meaning inhuman creation - and therefore some sort of order imposed without human interference, not subject to the failures in human nature.

Human social orders are created by the powerful humans, and thus they tend to entrench power imbalances. Inhuman systems could care less about human power, and tend to be independent of it as far as they are inhuman.

All arguments over rights are moral arguments. That does not refute the argument, nor does the existance of theft.

Except the discussion was not about property rights, rather about property itself. And all rights are abstract inventions of a human social order.

Conservatism????

Liberalism???????


PEOPLE PEOPLE THE ANSWER IS COMMUNISM

Very true, grasshopper, but that would happen to be the wrong answer.

I'm a Liberal because I agree with them on most issues. I use the word "Liberal" in reference to the Liberal Party of Canada, not in the general sense of liberal.

I don't agree with the Conservatives (again, in terms of the Conservative Party, not just conservative) on issues like same sex marriage, the military, relations with the US, trade issues, guns, immigration et cetera. There are certainly things I don't agree with the Liberals on, but they're better then the other 4 parties.

Soheran, your human vs. natural false dichotomy won't cut it.

That something is human does not mean it isn't natural. There is nothing artificial about the conditions necessitating a market (differences between people, differences between locations, and scarcity)

Soheran, your human vs. natural false dichotomy won't cut it.

That something is human does not mean it isn't natural.

It wasn't meant to "cut it."

It was meant to portray the way the term was being used in the argument, until you denied its utility. The point was that the semantic problem you have with using "natural" as a synonym for "not a creation of the human social order" is purely semantic and has nothing to do with the essential issue being discussed.

Do you deny that property, and therefore the free market, is indeed a product of the human social order?

You own yourself,

i always found this to be a rather odd concept. what exactly does the owning of the self?

you don't own yourself, you are yourself.

therefore you own the talents, strength, and energy inside you, therefore you own what is made with it

doesn't follow. you used your ability and energy on some materials to make something new, sure. but all that leaves you with is less energy and a new thing that is currently in your possession. but possession is just that - ownership is something different altogether.

we don't wind up owning anything for most uses of our abilities and energy. we just wind up in a different place or breathe a bit more air or get something to drink. in the course of those activities we occupy various bits of ground, possess bits of air, and make use of bits of a river, but we do not come to 'naturally own' any of those things by doing so.

ownership is a legally defined situation, not necessarily related to any objective facts about the world.

You're Eutrusca. Ha, I piegenholed you!
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5202/smileytroutsmack9bt.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Yet another piece of economic idiocy that leftoids are trying to push. The free market came out of nothing more differences between human talents, differences between areas in terms of resources, and the fact that scarcity exists.

So, then, why do we live in a society described by all as existing in a time era of post-scarcity? Why did the Depression see a multitude strarving amongst plenty. Our current productive capacity is not operating at full tilit, so capitalism must not be aimed at maximization of consumption or production. In fact, it is only aimed at the maximization of individual capital accumulation. While this aim does not exclude economic growth, neither does it assure. Personal greed in no way benefits the society or the individual and so must be focused towards social ends. Furthermore, no Christian (and I do have a degree in religion from a religious college) can ever point to personal greed as something to be aspired to. Unless they've found a way to serve two masters.

Free Soviets, non-coherient rant.


Let's review the origins of this argument:

Why not!

Kennedonia suggested that the market was something foistered on people by some nasty SOB's, rather than something that arose out of man's natural condition.

Kennedonia, quote tags are your friend.


So, then, why do we live in a society described by all as existing in a time era of post-scarcity?

Blatant appeal to authority fallacy, and anonymous authority at that!

Since no one has repealed all the laws of physics, we can assume that matter and energy cannot be created, ergo, scarcity.


Why did the Depression see a multitude strarving amongst plenty.

The Fed


Our current productive capacity is not operating at full tilit, so capitalism must not be aimed at maximization of consumption or production. In fact, it is only aimed at the maximization of individual capital accumulation.

It is aimed at satisfying wants and needs as a path to profit. Nothing wrong with that.

Personal greed in no way benefits the society or the individual and so must be focused towards social ends.

Greed means going after something to which you are not entitled. You are not the dictator of the universe. You don't define what people are entitled to. What the free market does is turn self-interest (I assume what you really mean by greed is the peaceful pursuit of self-interest through peaceful means) into something useful because the way to satisfy self-interests is to provide the goods and services people demand.

Free Soviets, non-coherient rant.

*takes obvious cheap shot

Kennedonia suggested that the market was something foistered on people by some nasty SOB's, rather than something that arose out of man's natural condition.

and they are essentially correct. unless what you mean by 'market' is something trivial like 'any human action whatsoever". but if we take 'market' as a meaningful term, then it is historical fact that 'the market' is entirely the product of certain strange cultural institutions that are entirely at odds to the way the majority of human cultures around the globe have handled production and distribution.

unless what you mean by 'market' is something trivial like 'any human action whatsoever". but if we take 'market' as a meaningful term, then it is historical fact that 'the market' is entirely the product of certain strange cultural institutions that are entirely at odds to the way the majority of human cultures around the globe have handled production and distribution.

So, you want a license to shift the goal posts?

Market economy simply means people in a community voluntarily exchanging goods and services, at terms both parties agree.

Liberalism: Respect for free-markets and economies, with emphasis on private property rights and support for open access. On individual rights, the concept of "negative liberty", freedom from outside interference, is enshrined.

Conservatism: A support for the status quo, with economic protectionism and the national interest placed before individual consideration. On social issues, the individual has a duty to abide by societal custom and thus anything that deviates from the norm should be considered at the least questionable.

Liberalism: Respect for free-markets and economies, with emphasis on private property rights and support for open access. On individual rights, the concept of "negative liberty", freedom from outside interference, is enshrined.

That is classical liberalism, and those who follow all or some of that tend to be labelled as rabid right-wing nazi conservative racists, or whatever insults the leftoids are using now.

It closer to a modern conservative, and closer still to a libertarian.

Conservatism: A support for the status quo, with economic protectionism and the national interest placed before individual consideration. On social issues, the individual has a duty to abide by societal custom and thus anything that deviates from the norm should be considered at the least questionable.

This is much closer to the modern American use of the term "liberal"

Well, what are you? Conservative or Liberal? You must explain WHY for one word answers of "Conservative" or "Liberal" don't explain why.

I am a classic liberal because I believe that the government exists to ensure the equal liberties of all citizens. AND THAT IS ALL.

I believe that all human beings are inherently equal in "moral value." I believe that "because we've always done it that way" is pretty much the dumbest possible argument for anything. I believe that individuals should make their own personal decisions, and that the government should not be in any way involved in regulating private matters (religiosity or lack thereof, medical care, family structure, sexual behavior, etc) save when doing so is absolutely necessary to maintain the rights of individuals (i.e. domestic assault, child abuse, etc). I believe the government exists to serve, not to rule.

I believe in fiscal conservativism, something that virtually no self-identified conservatives seem to support in my country. I believe that passing debt on to one's children is irresponsible and wrong, and that building palaces for the wealthy by robbing the poor is disgusting.

I believe that science and education, not superstition and enforced ignorance, will improve the quality of human life. I believe that children should be taught, not indoctrinated, and that adults should be expected to inform themselves BEFORE they opine.

I don't believe these things merely because my parents believe them. I don't believe these things because a Sky Fairy told me to. I don't believe them because I want to run for office. I don't believe them because people in the 1950s did things this way, and gosh weren't the 50s perfect? And I sure as hell don't believe these things because they are popular, because they're the dead opposite of popular right now.

That is classical liberalism, and those who follow all or some of that tend to be labelled as rabid right-wing nazi conservative racists, or whatever insults the leftoids are using now.

It closer to a modern conservative, and closer still to a libertarian.

Lol, yeah, American "conservatives" are the ones who are fighting for freedom from government interference. Which is why the conservatives are fighting to have the government dictate individual medical choices, marital rights, religious indoctrination, and why conservatives are leaping to defend illegal government spying on private citizens. Because they want us to be free from government interference, don't you know.


This is much closer to the modern American use of the term "liberal"
Yes, "liberals" support the status quo, which is why liberals are the ones fighting to keep America frozen in the age of Leave It To Beaver. It is also why liberals are the ones fighting entrenched sexist and homophobic laws, and why liberals are the ones who tell gay people to get back in the closet because it's what "society" wants them to do. Movements that attacked unjust social customs (like racism, mysogeny, and homophobia) have always been led by American conservatives!

Wait a minute. On second thought, no. Reverse that.

Seriously, though, you need to consider a career in political satire. It is a rare person indeed who could keep a straight face while saying what you say.

Just a couple of quick points:
1. Conservatives are people who advocate the ideas of liberals 50-100years ago (or a relative time period in relation to the speed in which the given socio-political construct on average changes). What ever the liberals say now, will be conservative 2 or 3 generations from now (well, most of it).

2.Basically Conservatives cling to the present 'acceptable/tried' ideas and try to stop them from being supplanted with new ideas. This being said, they play a very important role in doing so. Without conservatives there is no stability, too much change is most definitely bad.

3. Liberals play the part of pushing new ideas, good and bad. Without liberals no progress is made at all. Most of what liberals say are generally good ideas, and will be adopted by conservatives in years to come. However some of what liberals advocate is really NOT a good idea, and this is why conservatives are important.

4.Both conservatives and liberals are ESSENTIAL to the stability and balance of a nation.

5.Example nation with not enough liberals: Pre-revolution China. Whereupon once a stable foundation had been laid in imperial rule and routine and further consolidated with the rise and indoctrination of both confucianism and fuedalism, the society then practically ceased to develop for almost 1000 years (except in the most basic and logical ways). Result= When faced with a consequently superior host of foriegn powers, the conservative only govt/society decided to ignore the fact and attempt to deal with issues as they always had. China was conquered, colonised, exploited, and subjugated for almost 2 centuries. This was also true of Fuedal Japan, however the very liberal modernisation scheme saved them from the fate of china.

6.Example nation with not enough conservatives (note none of these societies have the lifespan of the former example nation, consequently I canonly really list moments in history rather than actual long-term nations): Revolutionary Russia (+ countless failed revolutions across the world) whereupon a highly 'liberal' group seized the nation by coup and changed EVERYTHING top to bottom all at once. The result was a disaster, especially seeing as conservatives began to base their much more stubborn beliefs in this cataclysmic failure due to govt. propaganda. Who knows, maybe if the mencheviks had their way, communist russia may have succeeded (as the mencheviks' initiatives would have been under scrutiny by the reluctant conservative majority.

7. Conservatives, almost by very definition, are usually a majority. Which is usually a good thing, as th more conservatives in ratio to liberals there are, the slower change is- yet the more successful it is when it comes. Stupid ideas reveal themselves with time and consideration. If a state has more liberals than conservatives, then the result is a somewhat unstable, highly progressive nation (e.g. fascist Italy).

8. Consequently, there is no superior ideaology. Liberals would argue they are the ones who come up with all of the great ideas, yet it is also true that they think of the worst. Conservatives may argue that it is their work which allows the nation to exist at all (rather than topple), but it is also true liberal-supplied progress is a key element in long-term security.

9. While both options are essential to balance, I personally lean towards liberal in my preference. This is mainly due to balance; There are more conservatives than liberals. Also I am impatient to witness the various ideas which will govern our society and government in the future. Finally, like all liberals, I believe I can tell which ideas are the good ones, and which aren't (which is of course self-congratulatory bs).

Conservative: Supports capitalism, government, and the status quo

Liberal: See conservative

To anyone outside the consie-libby system, as I am, the distinction between the two really isn't all that significant. It's also very inaccurate to divide all of politics into two opposing camps. Nothing is "either/or", least of all politics. Marxists, anarchists, technocrats, classical liberals, and so on all exist outside your nice little dichotomy.

To anyone outside the consie-libby system, as I am, the distinction between the two really isn't all that significant. It's also very inaccurate to divide all of politics into two opposing camps. Nothing is "either/or", least of all politics. Marxists, anarchists, technocrats, classical liberals, and so on all exist outside your nice little dichotomy.
*agress...for once*

I use liberal and conservative to describe the rate of change one desires, not usually an ideology.

Market economy simply means people in a community voluntarily exchanging goods and services, at terms both parties agree.

no, it doesn't. that is the propagandistic definition used by certain free-marketeers. the fact that it covers gift economies, traditional redistribution economies, and actual market economies should tell you that it obscures more than it illuminates.

Conservative: Supports capitalism, government, and the status quo

Liberal: See conservative

To anyone outside the consie-libby system, as I am, the distinction between the two really isn't all that significant. It's also very inaccurate to divide all of politics into two opposing camps. Nothing is "either/or", least of all politics. Marxists, anarchists, technocrats, classical liberals, and so on all exist outside your nice little dichotomy.
I need to sit down... We agree. *the horror*

I think the argument for liberal economic capitalist theory has largely been one. It is not without faults, but wages for labour, profit for risk system seems to work generally, even if with certain things e.g. drugs the Govt. has to intervene. Modern conservatism is more like Utilitarianism or classical liberalism. I dispute the fact that modern conservatives are scared of reform or hark back the their country's mythical past. They have a set of values just like Liberals. The terms are like the all parlimentary terms Tory and Whig, both primarliy offensive but then labels used by both sides, without their meaning, them and us.

That is classical liberalism, and those who follow all or some of that tend to be labelled as rabid right-wing nazi conservative racists, or whatever insults the leftoids are using now.

"Liberalism" and "Liberal" are misused terms. We ought to use the continental European definitions of them (as cited above) which are more historically correct and less ideologically confusing.

This is much closer to the modern American use of the term "liberal"

Really? "Liberals" are in favour of the status quo. I find that surprising personally.

"Liberalism" and "Liberal" are misused terms. We ought to use the continental European definitions of them (as cited above) which are more historically correct and less ideologically confusing.


I agree in America the terms liberal and conservative have lost their meaning as they just mean, left and right. Their founding principles are irrelevent.

I agree in America the terms liberal and conservative have lost their meaning as they just mean, left and right. Their founding principles are irrelevent.
I third this motion.

Really? "Liberals" are in favour of the status quo. I find that surprising personally.

Really, you find it interesting that people who oppose almost every attempt at reform can be said to favour the status quo?

Over the last 25 years, most of the reforming has been done by conservatives, and bitterly opposed by liberals.


no, it doesn't. that is the propagandistic definition used by certain free-marketeers.

When you can't find an argument, just invoke Goebbels.


Lol, yeah, American "conservatives" are the ones who are fighting for freedom from government interference.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that freeing trade, cutting taxes, and removing regulations is not freeing people from government intereference. Mind telling me how import quotas, tariffs, high taxes, and lots of regulations do not constitute government interference?


Yes, "liberals" support the status quo

Yet, when any economic reform is proposed, liberals are the ones fighting it.


Bottle, I'm not interested in superficial rubbish, though you seem to be.

Really, you find it interesting that people who oppose almost every attempt at reform can be said to favour the status quo?
And you can turn it around 180° in social issues...

Over the last 25 years, most of the reforming has been done by conservatives, and bitterly opposed by liberals.
I would've thought you'd use the word correctly.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that freeing trade, cutting taxes, and removing regulations is not freeing people from government intereference.
The current US Government has kinda failed to really free trade, taxes were cut, but only to be raised again in the future, and removing regulations was generally only done in return for campaign funding.
On the other side, regarding religion and equal rights for gays and lesbians, Conservative Governments fail utterly.

You're a mystery sometimes...one day you denounce government interference, and behave like a genuine libertarian, and the next you'll go 100% with the Conservative talking points regarding bombing places, going to war - and now you're telling people that voting Conservative is better for Freedom than voting Centre-Left.

You're a mystery sometimes...one day you denounce government interference, and behave like a genuine libertarian, and the next you'll go 100% with the Conservative talking points regarding bombing places, going to war - and now you're telling people that voting Conservative is better for Freedom than voting Centre-Left.

in my experience, lots and lots of american 'libertarians' behave similarly. it's one of the reasons i generally distrust them. hell, it's also why they distrust each other.

The current US Government has kinda failed to really free trade

I'll put it this way, its a battle between the Adminstration's will, and Congress' won't. They've done better than previous ones. Its rather like comparing two students, one with a test score of 2%, the other with one of 4%.

you'll go 100% with the Conservative talking points regarding bombing places, going to war

Clint Eastwood expressed my reasoning better than I could "Governments don't live together. People live together. Governments don't give you a fair word or a fair fight."

To me, interfering with the actions of, or bringing down, a government, is in certain cases, not a bad thing, and in others, a necessity. Especially if that government effectively consents to it, as Iraq's did in signing a ceasefire which they subsequently broke.

voting Conservative is better for Freedom than voting Centre-Left.

The Centre-Left has done more over the last century to deprive people of liberty than Conservatives. I'll put it this way, say that Gays can't get married, and the most you've really done is impose a small inconvenience for a minority, but if you take away everyone's right to keep what is theirs, and their right to make voluntary exchanges, and you make everyone slaves. Leftists may talk about freedom, but the freedoms they propose are minor, while they are prepared to destory major freedoms. Centre-Left governments have attacked not only property rights, but free speech, freedom of association, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The notion that the centre-left has fought for freedom is based entirely on platitudes and superficial policies, while vital liberties have been squashed. How can a centre-left regime like that of Bracks in Victoria be considered better for freedom than a conservative government when it introduces "anti-villification laws"? How can the centre-left be considered better for freedom when they argue for forcing students to join organisations, and subsidise others' lifestyle choices? It can't!

How can one say that Liberals are better in terms of freedom, when the US President who is practically God to them (FDR) stole all the privately-held monetised gold in the US, and forbad even expats possessing it?!

The centre-left pushes some fashionable freedoms, but where it really counts, they fail.

Really, you find it interesting that people who oppose almost every attempt at reform can be said to favour the status quo?

Over the last 25 years, most of the reforming has been done by conservatives, and bitterly opposed by liberals.



When you can't find an argument, just invoke Goebbels.



Are you seriously trying to tell me that freeing trade, cutting taxes, and removing regulations is not freeing people from government intereference. Mind telling me how import quotas, tariffs, high taxes, and lots of regulations do not constitute government interference?



Yet, when any economic reform is proposed, liberals are the ones fighting it.


Bottle, I'm not interested in superficial rubbish, though you seem to be.
Gotta admit i'm kinda confused here . . . . . in Canada the conservatives support the status quo etc. the liberals are more left/center wing and the npd are the left along with the socialists and communists and theres the green party . . .not exactly sure where they come in . . . .is this different in the states? I think that democrats are , in essance, liberal and republicans are conservative . . am I right????

Gotta admit i'm kinda confused here . . . . . in Canada the conservatives support the status quo etc. the liberals are more left/center wing and the npd are the left along with the socialists and communists and theres the green party . . .not exactly sure where they come in . . . .is this different in the states? I think that democrats are , in essance, liberal and republicans are conservative . . am I right????
The confusion comes from every party calling itself whatever it wants.

Conservatism is when a party prefers traditional ways of doing things. That usually means that people don't get as much freedom (eg gay rights).

Liberal (the word having to do with "Liberty") is about giving individuals the chance to do whatever they feel to be the right thing.

In the US, people call Leftists (who are liberal on civil issues, but interventionist in economic issues) "liberals". Why, I don't know, but it means that you'll hear real Liberalism sometimes as "Classic Liberalism".
In Australia, the Liberals are Conservatives, in Germany, the Liberals are Libertarians. It's confusing, so I guess one always has to add what in particular one is talking about.

Defense: Conservative
Reason: If we're not alive, we can't enjoy the Bill of Rights. And there are enemies who would take us out if they could.

Economy: Conservative
Reason(s): I prefer free enterprise to socialism, and American conservatives are a bit closer to the freedom side of the range than they are to the forced economic equality side (socialism). I think that if you let the intellectual/entrepreneurial/persevering/risk-taking cream rise to the top, inevitably the cream will need people to help them operate their businesses --which is how must of us become employed. People should be allowed to rise or fall based on their own merits, and they may do so if we have economic/financial freedom. Low taxes allow for more money to be pumped into businesses, which hurts nobody (so long as those businesses don't totally waste the investments, which they shouldn't do if they have non-sociopathic or at least semi-competent personnel in executive positions).

Social Issues: Moderate
I'm against the death penalty (it is completely irrational... as Mr. Spock might say)
I don't really care what people do in their bedrooms
I don't really care what people do in their homes, so long as they don't harm anyone else
I don't like abortion but realize that if it were outlawed, women wouldn't stop trying to get abortions, no matter how dangerous they'd become.

stuff like that

I favor freedom, except where a little more security can help us stay alive and better able to enjoy our freedom. And no, I don't expect that the CIA or NSA or whomever will be listening in on any American NSers' phone calls. So we should all just settle down a bit and stop blowing things out of proportion. IF it keeps us safe, and (big caveat) so long as they only target terrorists or suspected terrorists, it's worth it.

I'll put it this way, its a battle between the Adminstration's will, and Congress' won't. They've done better than previous ones. Its rather like comparing two students, one with a test score of 2%, the other with one of 4%.



Clint Eastwood expressed my reasoning better than I could "Governments don't live together. People live together. Governments don't give you a fair word or a fair fight."

To me, interfering with the actions of, or bringing down, a government, is in certain cases, not a bad thing, and in others, a necessity. Especially if that government effectively consents to it, as Iraq's did in signing a ceasefire which they subsequently broke.



The Centre-Left has done more over the last century to deprive people of liberty than Conservatives. I'll put it this way, say that Gays can't get married, and the most you've really done is impose a small inconvenience for a minority, but if you take away everyone's right to keep what is theirs, and their right to make voluntary exchanges, and you make everyone slaves. Leftists may talk about freedom, but the freedoms they propose are minor, while they are prepared to destory major freedoms. Centre-Left governments have attacked not only property rights, but free speech, freedom of association, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The notion that the centre-left has fought for freedom is based entirely on platitudes and superficial policies, while vital liberties have been squashed. How can a centre-left regime like that of Bracks in Victoria be considered better for freedom than a conservative government when it introduces "anti-villification laws"? How can the centre-left be considered better for freedom when they argue for forcing students to join organisations, and subsidise others' lifestyle choices? It can't!

How can one say that Liberals are better in terms of freedom, when the US President who is practically God to them (FDR) stole all the privately-held monetised gold in the US, and forbad even expats possessing it?!

The centre-left pushes some fashionable freedoms, but where it really counts, they fail.

ok a few points here . .. first off lets not start on the whole Iraq thing . . .thats been done so much its just two sides saying Im right! no im right! over and over again . . .point two the minor liberties your talking bout are not minor in any way . . .how would u feel if the goverment expressly forbid you from getting married??? you would obviously be at least slightly annoyed and i seriously doubt if you would considerd it such a minor point. part three, there is a big diference between rights and freedoms, rihgts are things like free speach. freedoms on the other hand are less solid and can be taken away an example is the freedom of association. what I think your talking about is actually a mix of rights and freedoms. fourthly I have never heared anyone from the left even suggesting that anyone become a slave. if anything that would be the right-wing people who support fre-trade and the explotation of slave labor and sweatshops so that their personal lives are less expensive and they can buy their flashyt toys cheaper while others starve. and i might suggest that the subsisdation of certain lifestyles (such as the poor) which were probably not chosen could be slightly less than removing a freedom. just one question what are you reffering to when you talk about forcing students to join organizations? and under the conservatives only the rich would be able to afford education. also you talk about econmic freedom which basically means that the rich can do what they like wheras the poor are forced to do what the rich want to simply survive.

The confusion comes from every party calling itself whatever it wants.

Conservatism is when a party prefers traditional ways of doing things. That usually means that people don't get as much freedom (eg gay rights).

Liberal (the word having to do with "Liberty") is about giving individuals the chance to do whatever they feel to be the right thing.

In the US, people call Leftists (who are liberal on civil issues, but interventionist in economic issues) "liberals". Why, I don't know, but it means that you'll hear real Liberalism sometimes as "Classic Liberalism".
In Australia, the Liberals are Conservatives, in Germany, the Liberals are Libertarians. It's confusing, so I guess one always has to add what in particular one is talking about.

great, ty

Here's a novel idea. Middle road.

I agree in America the terms liberal and conservative have lost their meaning as they just mean, left and right.
Since when have they meant left and right?
Last time I checked, the Democrats were capitalists. And aren't they the liberals?
OF course, they are less pro-free-market than the conservatives on some issues, but that doesn't change the fact that they do support capitalism. I don't see how that is left-wing at all.
Liberal and conservative, in the US, mean centre-right and less-centre-right.

:headbang: :headbang: Neither.

another neither here...extreme positions create extreme solutions and i myself want no part of either..imho...fringe,i want to be right were i am at..totally pragmatic for each situation.

liberals want to give my money away,and con's want to take or not give me any to begin with.

the one place they seem to agree is ,that they know what is better for me!

i am some dumb uneducated hick(liberals opinion) or i am some stupid worker/peasant/serf and i am here on earth to toil for the chosen few rich ass scumbags(con pov)

i will throw both sides a bone though.

liberals actually care about their fellow man...and think they are doing good...just again,they no better

conservatives actually use to believe in small government and low taxes for EVERYONE...now it seems they have betrayed that as well

so i guess i am a centrist..or goody for me here in the states..that is gonna make me a libertarian or constitutionalist..neither which has a snoballs chance of gaining any power here...thanks to the lib's and con's so thoroughly polarizing the country along religous/political lines.

if the damn liberals werent so intent on countering every damn thing the repubs were for,and the repub's werent so intent on countering every liberal idea,we might have a lucid debate here.
granted,both sides are controlled and dictated by a minority in their respective party...but all the sheep just follow along.

both sides have valid points/arguments..but neither side will concede,even if they no they are wrong just so they dont lose or concede..pathetic if you ask me.

just my 2 cents worth

...if you take away everyone's right to keep what is theirs, and their right to make voluntary exchanges, and you make everyone slaves.
You're one of these guys who believes liberals to be communists, aren't you? You're a lot closer to them politically than they are to communists.

Here's a novel idea. Middle road.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa??????
mi . .. dl . . .ro . . .ad? wha that mean????
:rolleyes:

Since when have they meant left and right?
Last time I checked, the Democrats were capitalists. And aren't they the liberals?
OF course, they are less pro-free-market than the conservatives on some issues, but that doesn't change the fact that they do support capitalism. I don't see how that is left-wing at all.
Liberal and conservative, in the US, mean centre-right and less-centre-right.
um . . .. . .really??????
cause to me liberal means slightly left-center and conservative means right or far right . .. . . man now im even more confused than before

:headbang: :headbang:

another neither here...extreme positions create extreme solutions and i myself want no part of either..imho...fringe,i want to be right were i am at..totally pragmatic for each situation.

liberals want to give my money away,and con's want to take or not give me any to begin with.

the one place they seem to agree is ,that they know what is better for me!

i am some dumb uneducated hick(liberals opinion) or i am some stupid worker/peasant/serf and i am here on earth to toil for the chosen few rich ass scumbags(con pov)

i will throw both sides a bone though.

liberals actually care about their fellow man...and think they are doing good...just again,they no better

conservatives actually use to believe in small government and low taxes for EVERYONE...now it seems they have betrayed that as well

so i guess i am a centrist..or goody for me here in the states..that is gonna make me a libertarian or constitutionalist..neither which has a snoballs chance of gaining any power here...thanks to the lib's and con's so thoroughly polarizing the country along religous/political lines.

if the damn liberals werent so intent on countering every damn thing the repubs were for,and the repub's werent so intent on countering every liberal idea,we might have a lucid debate here.
granted,both sides are controlled and dictated by a minority in their respective party...but all the sheep just follow along.

both sides have valid points/arguments..but neither side will concede,even if they no they are wrong just so they dont lose or concede..pathetic if you ask me.

just my 2 cents worth


simple solution to all your problemes!!!! move to canada . . .not only is the major party centrist but they've been in power for decades now!!!
:cool:

Liberal and Conservative have to be two of the most misused terms in the English language. Many self proclaimed conservatives believe in government subsidies of big business(which would be liberal if it were directed toward individuals) I am a liberal in some ways and a conservative in others. I don't believe that individuals should use the "right to bear arms" to accumulate arsenals rivaling the military, I believe in the death penalty, am pro-choice, and think the government has an obligation to operate under a balanced budget. What does all that make me?

Liberal and Conservative have to be two of the most misused terms in the English language. Many self proclaimed conservatives believe in government subsidies of big business(which would be liberal if it were directed toward individuals) I am a liberal in some ways and a conservative in others. I don't believe that individuals should use the "right to bear arms" to accumulate arsenals rivaling the military, I believe in the death penalty, am pro-choice, and think the government has an obligation to operate under a balanced budget. What does all that make me?
extremely confused and without aparty to vote for;)