NationStates Jolt Archive

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.

The fundamental aspect of conservativism is "small government". Those that believe the mantra believe that an overly cumbersome federal government is evasive, inefficient and overall a bad idea.

Thus they advocate fewer governmental services, fewer regulations, and generally fewer governmental restrictions. It is often bundled with a belief in a very aggressive form of capitalism that says the market will respond better than any governmental restriction, and if a restriction is a good thing for companies, then companies will, as a matter of course, adopt them independantly, as it would be good for their bottom line to do so. If a regulation was bad for the industry, then it shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

So the argument goes that conservative ideology is about small government, with imited governmental impact on daily life and commerce. Whether you think that's a good thing, and whether the current "conservative" administration has lived up to that idea, is your own personal belief.

Because Conservatives are God-fearing, virtuous, patriotic, intelligent, kind, and just.


Liberals are atheistic, church burning, pinko-commie, gay, animal fornicating, flag burning, pot-smoking terrorrists.


Simple

was I first?

Because Conservatives are God-fearing, virtuous, patriotic, intelligent, kind, and just.


Liberals are atheistic, church burning, pinko-commie, gay, animal fornicating, flag burning, pot-smoking terrorrists.


Simple

was I first?
Amen.

Because Conservatives are God-fearing, virtuous, patriotic, intelligent, kind, and just.


Liberals are atheistic, church burning, pinko-commie, gay, animal fornicating, flag burning, pot-smoking terrorrists.


Simple

was I first?

No, you weren't...

This is a perfect example of the flip trash I was talking about. Please stop.

Because history shows that conservative economic policies lead to greater overall prosperity, a mitigation of poverty, and an incentive to innovate and produce. Innovation and competition leads to lower prices for consumers and greater access to goods and services.

Liberal economic poicies tend to restrict overall prosperity by discouraging production and innovation. By taxing the rich, liberals discourage people from working hard enough to become rich. By offering a generous welfare program, liberals create an incentive not to produce at all, and instead to live off the work of others as much as is possible. Liberal economic policies also tend to place greater power in the hands of government, and government has exactly one purpose - to grow. Governments don't necessarily produce anything, so expeditures there are unproductive. If governments do produce things, they do so without a profit motive, and thus are more likely to tend toward inefficiency.

Liberals are atheistic, church burning, pinko-commie, gay, animal fornicating, flag burning, pot-smoking terrorrists.


And this is supposed to be a bad thing? 'pinko-commie':p

Because history shows that conservative economic policies lead to greater overall prosperity, a mitigation of poverty, and an incentive to innovate and produce. Innovation and competition leads to lower prices for consumers and greater access to goods and services.

*cough* 1930s*cough*
It's all good until something like the great depression comes along, and capitalism fails.

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.

If you got something good, you should conserve it...

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.
What a pointless thread.Everyone knows that the only reason anyone says that being conservative is great and being liberal is terrible is because the person saying it is conservative and not liberal.

No, you weren't...

This is a perfect example of the flip trash I was talking about. Please stop.
Damn, I was trying so hard to be sarcastic to.:)

*snip*
If you knew History, you would realise that what you refer to as Conservative economic policies are in fact classical liberal policies, proscribed by the Austrian school of Economists. I agree with what you are saying, but you are using the wrong terminology.

The irony of it all is, at their theoretical core, conservativism and liberalism are really much the same thing.

Conservativism is about less government, smaller government, less regulation.

Liberalism is about the idea of personal freedom, and personal autonomy.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the idea of less regulation inherently means more freedom. A classical conservative and a classical liberal would actually agree on many of the same things, primarily "get the government out of my life".

However the lines have changed and blurred, and the classical sides of things are not really what they should be. Perhaps the best current seperation can be defined as a view different from the government's purpose vis a vi the people.

A "conservative" philosophy may be that it is the job of the people to protect and support the government. A "liberal" may see it as the job of the government to protect and support the people. Thus a "conservative" may see flag burning as a vile debasing of our national symbol, while a "liberal" may see an attempt at restricting flag burning as an assualt on our right of free expression.

It seems, to me, that conservative philosophy these days seems to center on "small government omg!" when it serves their purpose, but not the other way around. For instance, limit government restriction on gun ownership, lessen social welfare programs, but let's not allow abortions, durg use or free expression in flag burning

Liberalism, at least as it is today, is a bit more open, where we liberals believe in such things as social welfare, free expression such as flag burning, permissable drug use etc.

Where SOME liberals fail in this ideology, or where some conservatives argue that they do, is that gun control is a big liberal platform, as is affirmative action which some argue is just racism in and of itself.

In the end, in today's definitions, the meanings are useless, neither side fully lives up to what the classical definitions would suggest, however at least liberals, to a further extent, are willing to put up with things they personally dislike in the name of freedom (I know many liberals who would never get an abortion or burn a flag, but still advocate the right to do so) while the conservative party seems more intent on legislating that which they disagree with.

The fundamental aspect of conservativism is "small government". Those that believe the mantra believe that an overly cumbersome federal government is evasive, inefficient and overall a bad idea.

Nowadays that is the central tenet of Libertarianism. Conservatives have drifted far away from their past.

The fundamental aspect of conservativism is "small government". Those that believe the mantra believe that an overly cumbersome federal government is evasive, inefficient and overall a bad idea.

Thus they advocate fewer governmental services, fewer regulations, and generally fewer governmental restrictions. It is often bundled with a belief in a very aggressive form of capitalism that says the market will respond better than any governmental restriction, and if a restriction is a good thing for companies, then companies will, as a matter of course, adopt them independantly, as it would be good for their bottom line to do so. If a regulation was bad for the industry, then it shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

So the argument goes that conservative ideology is about small government, with imited governmental impact on daily life and commerce. Whether you think that's a good thing, and whether the current "conservative" administration has lived up to that idea, is your own personal belief.


Don't forget Individual rights-no gun control, more powerful government (Military, the only area gov't SHOULD be MASSIVE) etc.

Oh, and law and order.

Liberal economic poicies tend to restrict overall prosperity by discouraging production and innovation. By taxing the rich, liberals discourage people from working hard enough to become rich.
There are lots of countries with what would, by American standards, be called liberal that are prosperous, with less crime and higher quality of life than say, the USA. Examples include the UK, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand and Ireland.

What a pointless thread.Everyone knows that the only reason anyone says that being conservative is great and being liberal is terrible is because the person saying it is conservative and not liberal.
Yes I know, it is a bit stupid. he's asking how their veiws help anything.

Nowadays that is the central tenet of Libertarianism. Conservatives have drifted far away from their past.

Well yes, I was speaking from a classical view. It is true that what was "conservative" in a classical sense, is very much akin to what was "liberalism" in a classical sense, which were very much the SAME BLOODY THING (outside economic policies anyway).

Classical conservativism advocated smaller government, which of course translates into less governmental intrusion into private life.

Liberalism advocated less government intrusion int provate life, which necessitated a smaller government.

One reaches an end through the means, the other reaches it the other way around.

"liberalism" perhaps has strayed less from its roots than conservativism has...but that may just be my classical liberalism speaking personally.

The fundamental aspect of conservativism is "small government". Those that believe the mantra believe that an overly cumbersome federal government is evasive, inefficient and overall a bad idea.

Thus they advocate fewer governmental services, fewer regulations, and generally fewer governmental restrictions. It is often bundled with a belief in a very aggressive form of capitalism that says the market will respond better than any governmental restriction, and if a restriction is a good thing for companies, then companies will, as a matter of course, adopt them independantly, as it would be good for their bottom line to do so. If a regulation was bad for the industry, then it shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

Then I have two problems.

1) The current neoconservative movement is really none of those things, even remotely.

2) The problem is that what is good for the company is rarely, if ever, good for anyone else. If it was, they wouldn't need restrictions.

Liberalism, at least as it is today, is a bit more open, where we liberals believe in such things as social welfare, free expression such as flag burning, permissable drug use etc.

You are aware that Libertarian-liberals combine Liberal social and economic ideologies, aren't you? They are essentially a right-wing movement, for the most part.

"liberalism" perhaps has strayed less from its roots than conservativism has...but that may just be my classical liberalism speaking personally.
I'm more or less a Liberal in the classical sense.

You are aware that Libertarians combine Liberal social and economic ideologies, aren't you? They are essentially a right-wing movement, for the most part.

I am a libertarian as far as social policies go. I'm not really into their hardcore economic policies, thus I call myself a "social libertarian" rather than a "fiscal libertarian" as the real economic beliefs of the hardcore libertarians such as "no taxes, ever" are way too hardcore for me.

Of course social libertarian doesn't mean much, so I just refer to myself as "liberal" for the most part.

I would argue VERY strongly that libertarians do NOT combine liberal economic ideologies. Their beliefs in personal freedom are very liberal, but their economic policies are as extreem pure conservative as you can get.

I'm more or less a Liberal in the classical sense.

So, a victorian?

If you knew History, you would realise that what you refer to as Conservative economic policies are in fact classical liberal policies, proscribed by the Austrian school of Economists. I agree with what you are saying, but you are using the wrong terminology.

I would agree with that, but I was using the OP's terminology.

I'm a big fan of the Austrian School. I think The Road to Serfdom should be required reading before being allowed to vote.

I'm more or less a Liberal in the classical sense.


Myself as well. As I said I am either a "classical liberal" or a "social libertarian" depending on my mood at the time, although the difference are negligable.

Of course, for someone not into the theory and understanding of the nuances, the definitions are wierd and not really demonstrative of anything, so I usually refer to myself as a more recongizable term.

Democrat.

Because history shows that conservative economic policies lead to greater overall prosperity, a mitigation of poverty, and an incentive to innovate and produce. Innovation and competition leads to lower prices for consumers and greater access to goods and services.

Liberal economic poicies tend to restrict overall prosperity by discouraging production and innovation. By taxing the rich, liberals discourage people from working hard enough to become rich. By offering a generous welfare program, liberals create an incentive not to produce at all, and instead to live off the work of others as much as is possible. Liberal economic policies also tend to place greater power in the hands of government, and government has exactly one purpose - to grow. Governments don't necessarily produce anything, so expeditures there are unproductive. If governments do produce things, they do so without a profit motive, and thus are more likely to tend toward inefficiency.

Apparently, the best part of being a conservative is that you can make up what history says.

Real history, as I understand it, shows a fairly clear relationship between liberalism and both increasing productivity and spreading that wealth around in society. Conservative policies, by contrast, seem heavily geared toward restricting economic growth and concentrating that growth only in the hands of the already wealthy. The rise of the middle class, for instance, only happened after the institution of liberal policies that legalized unions and expanded education opportunities to all citizens with the G.I. Bill and the Education Act of 1965. Unfortunately, in about 1979, we switched our policies, leading to vastly disparate levels of both income and wealth across the population and to lesser rates of growth in both; contrary to the claims of trickle-down economics, for instance, the wage for median and bottom quintile workers fell, not raised, during the 1980s. By contrast, our fiscal boom in the 90's was heavily concentrated in the ranks of the rich. Median workers earned more, but only by working longer hours; wages remained stagnant for most of the population.

Liasia']So, a victorian?
Haha. We are not amused.

The Austrian School of Economics. They more or less advocate the ideologies I am aligned to.

I would argue VERY strongly that libertarians do NOT combine liberal economic ideologies. Their beliefs in personal freedom are very liberal, but their economic policies are as extreem pure conservative as you can get.
You must be American. In Europe we tend to brand such policies Liberal.

There are lots of countries with what would, by American standards, be called liberal that are prosperous, with less crime and higher quality of life than say, the USA. Examples include the UK, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand and Ireland.

From that group, I will give you Ireland, and that's it. But Ireland has a hands-off government.

I live in Canada. I've seen our socialism cripple our economic growth for 40 years. Given all the economic mismanagement in the US, we should be kicking their ass, but our productivity has steadily lagged behind.

Haha. We are not amused.

The Austrian School of Economics. They more or less advocate the ideologies I am aligned to.

Yes, so the Australian and USA's government basically follow the same ideologies as the victorians did. It's not an insult, im just saying.

From that group, I will give you Ireland, and that's it. But Ireland has a hands-off government.
Ireland is one of the most economically free nations in the world.

Liasia']Yes, so the Australian and USA's government basically follow the same ideologies as the victorians did. It's not an insult, im just saying.
Australia and the US follow nothing of the sort. They follow their own concoction of ideologies and notions.

Australia and the US follow nothing of the sort. They follow their own concoction of ideologies and notions.

Which, remarkably, lead (at least the US) to policies which i can easily see someone at the turn of the century endorsing and approving of.

You must be American. In Europe we tend to brand such policies Liberal.

American view of TRUE libertarianism is basically "government, hands OFF!"

The view is that the government exists to provide only basic services, such as military, police, and emergency responses.

That, however, is it. There should be only the very minimalistic taxes to support that, nothing else. The theory is everything should be supported by fees. Want to drive on the road? pay a fee. Go to school? Pay a fee. go to a park? pay a fee.

The real hardcore idea behind it is, if enough people are willing to pay for a service, it should support itself through those payments. If one can not get enough money to support something, then the people have demonstrated that they do not want it.

In other words, if enough people are willing to pay for parks, let their be parks, supported by those that enjoy them. If not enough want it, then there will be no parks. It's the idea of true liberation from taxation, I only pay for what I WANT TO SUPPORT.

And something that is WAAAAAY too hardcore for me. Though I do like the social policies of libertarianism which are basically "get out of my home government!", which, is basically liberalism.

Libertarianism from an american viewpoint basically combines the social aspects of far left liberalism, and the economic policies of far right conservativism, for those of us who want near complete removal from the government.

I don't buy it in its whole however.

American view of TRUE libertarianism is basically "government, hands OFF!"


Libertarianism from an american viewpoint basically combines the social aspects of far left liberalism, and the economic policies of far right conservativism, for those of us who want near complete removal from the government.

I don't buy it in its whole however.
That is more or less what I support. Minarchism. I am not so crazy as to advocate complete anarchism, that is outside the existence of a utopian society.

Trust me to have an exam on this on Friday....:confused:

Conservatism is based on the preservation of tradition, the ideology follows the idea that we are merely the current custodians of the wealth, customs and institutions of our anscestors, and should guard these in order to pass them down to our descendants.

The development of Conservative thought is credited to Edmund Burke, whose 1790 work Reflections on the Revolution in France formed the basis of Anglo-American Conservatism. A direct critisism of the 1789 French Revolution, essentially a Liberal revolution, the book instead noted that wisdom comes from Tradition, Experience and History.

Of course there are many other base ideals associated with Conservatism, for example the idea of an Organic Society, and a pessimisstic view of Human Nature, as opposed to the optimistic Liberal view of Rational Human Beings.

Liberalism is generally far more widely accepted, as to a Liberal the freedom of the individual is sacrosanct. J.S. Mill is credited as being the creator of the "Liberty Principal" which goes along the lines of the State cannot interfere with the freedom of the individual, unless by not doing so they allow the individual to harm others.

Further, Liberalism ties in very closely with Capitalism and Democracy, Liberalism is also reknowned for its strong defence of Property rights, which state that an Individual is free to accumulate and disperse wealth as they see fit, which is a highly Captialistic ideal. Liberalisms key belief that Human Beings are Rational, and have the ability to choose what is right brings in the aspect of Democarcy very nicely indeed.

phew, that revision might just have paid off :p

That is more or less what I support. Minarchism. I am not so crazy as to advocate complete anarchism, that is outside the existence of a utopian society.

I don't support it. I believe in taxation, I believe it serves a purpose. I also believe that certain functions that are necessary for a good society would not exist (such as some forms of social welfare) if we gave people the option to opt out of them. To some extent, being in a governmental system, and enjoyign the privlidges of that society means you need to financial support important governmental objectives such as schools, welfare, military, public health etc.

Liberalism is generally far more widely accepted, as to a Liberal the freedom of the individual is sacrosanct. J.S. Mill is credited as being the creator of the "Liberty Principal" which goes along the lines of the State cannot interfere with the freedom of the individual, unless by not doing so they allow the individual to harm others.



or to extend a quote from Jefferson, a classical liberal if there ever was one "the right for you to extend your fist ends at my face"

Which is the tenant of liberalism. You do whatever it is that you want to do, just as far as it does not harm anyone else who does not consent to be harmed (you need to add that consent part in there for the more kinky among us who standing with whip in arm question "but what if they like it?")

Nothing?
Sorry, that was juvenille.

I don't support it. I believe in taxation, I believe it serves a purpose. I also believe that certain functions that are necessary for a good society would not exist (such as some forms of social welfare) if we gave people the option to opt out of them. To some extent, being in a governmental system, and enjoyign the privlidges of that society means you need to financial support important governmental objectives such as schools, welfare, military, public health etc.
My view is that the government should only provide for what the private market cannot. It should encourage the private market's development and allow it to reach its maximum potential. Then, what the private market cannot provide for, the government should step in to create. Not vice-versa. It is not the government's role to tell people how to use their wealth or how to live their lives. It is a last-solution provider. That is it.

That is more or less what I support. Minarchism. I am not so crazy as to advocate complete anarchism, that is outside the existence of a utopian society.

Be careful not to be too idealistic. Books like The Road to Serfdom are good, but we can no longer beleive that any government intervention leads to totalitarianism. (frankly I'd be more cautious of a neo conservative than say a modern liberal for that).

If got example free education is going to provide a skilled work force which will provide a better society and means companys who come over will pay greater wages, than only good is going to come from that a system of meritocracy is possible.

Minarchrism can be just as dangerous as socialism.

phew, that revision might just have paid off :p
It seems it did. :)

My view is that the government should only provide for what the private market cannot. It should encourage the private market's development and allow it to reach its maximum potential. Then, what the private market cannot provide for, the government should step in to create. Not vice-versa. It is not the government's role to tell people how to use their wealth or how to live their lives. It is a last-solution provider. That is it.


*grumbles* ok, to an extent, but to what degree do you let the private market exist the way it wants to? Let us not pretend that such things like unions and minimum wage would exist if they were not required.

The classical difference can be defined in the industrial revolution. Conservatives look at it and go "look, minimal governmental regulation and look what happened! Great leaps in technology, a surging economy, and great industrial benefits"

Liberals look at it and go "look, minimal governmental regulation and look what happened! Child labor, mass pverty, exploited workers, crippling hours, inhumane and dangerous working conditions."

it is, i think the perfect example of the disparity between the two. Free enterprise has brought great economic benefits, and terrible social problems. It all depends on which you find more important. A classical conservative would favor the former, a classical liberal the later.

That I suppose is the fundamental modern difference. Conservatives may place economic growth over social concerns, and the converse is true for liberals.

Minarchrism can be just as dangerous as socialism.
I don't go as far as most minarchists.

Because Conservatives are God-fearing, virtuous, patriotic, intelligent, kind, and just.


Liberals are atheistic, church burning, pinko-commie, gay, animal fornicating, flag burning, pot-smoking terrorrists.


Simple

was I first?
right on

*grumbles* ok, to an extent, but to what degree do you let the private market exist the way it wants to? Let us not pretend that such things like unions and minimum wage would exist if they were not required.
Workers have the free right to organise as they choose and please in the free market. Unions are an essential element of capitalism. Minarchists do not call for their dissolution.

The classical difference can be defined in the industrial revolution. Conservatives look at it and go "look, minimal governmental regulation and look what happened! Great leaps in technology, a surging economy, and great industrial benefits"

Liberals look at it and go "look, minimal governmental regulation and look what happened! Child labor, mass pverty, exploited workers, crippling hours, inhumane and dangerous working conditions."
The government should regulate only where necessary, for instance to break down monopolies or prohibit child labour. As I said, it is a last-solution provider. What "liberals" point out to is bad government policies and inefficient regulation.

Workers have the free right to organise as they choose and please in the free market. Unions are an essential element of capitalism. Minarchists do not call for their dissolution.


The government should regulate only where necessary, for instance to break down monopolies. As I said, it is a last-solution provider.

There is a far cry from saying "you have the right to organize" and "it's theoretically possible to." I find it very limited to say that just because workers could theoretically unionize in a free market, that they could practically do so. In practice I do not think that unions are possible in a true free market system, just look, as I said, at the industrial revolution.

There is a far cry from saying "you have the right to organize" and "it's theoretically possible to." I find it very limited to say that just because workers could theoretically unionize in a free market, that they could practically do so. In practice I do not think that unions are possible in a true free market system, just look, as I said, at the industrial revolution.
Capitalists need workers to work for them. No workers? No business. So the workers have an advantage. That said, in Minarchism the government could still legitimise the existence of unions. Unionism is vanishing either way, and not so much at the behest of the corporations, but just due to worker tendencies.

To record, there has been no truly free-market society (ie anarcho-capitalism). So all assumptions made on it are purely theoretical.

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.

I'm just going to skip reading all of the posts and state where I stand on the matter, then move on.

There's nothing wrong with TRADITIONAL Liberalism. The old mantras of equality, civil and political rights, and economic freedom are romantic ones.

However, all too often I see "Liberals" who have strayed from these original roots. Advocates of restricting rights in the name of "tolerance" or feigned, forced "equality". Socialism is in COMPLETE oppostition to the traditional laissez faire economic systems of traditional liberalism.

In truth, I consider myself a Libertarian, which I further consider to be a modern Liberal. Politics is not a matter of black and white, left or right. There are shades of grey. However, I do see that, aside from the dogma the Right spews, the Right is generally speaking better protecting of political and economic freedoms then the modern Left.

It's really a question of the lesser of two evils these days...

Capitalists need workers to work for them. No workers? No business. So the workers have an advantage. That said, in Minarchism the government could still legitimise the existence of unions. Unionism is vanishing either way, and not so much at the behest of the corporations, but just due to worker tendencies.

To record, there has been no truly free-market society (ie anarcho-capitalism). So all assumptions made on it are purely theoretical.

Capitalists need workers, but workers need jobs. I suppose it depends on the situation of the economy. No unemployment, then yes the worker has the power, since they literally can NOT be replaced.

Yet no economy has never had a natural lack of unemployment, as such, as long as there's a work force to replace them then the worker has no power, other than to stay where they are, since making next to nothing is still better than making nothing. And there are people out there who are making nothing who could easily replace you, thus sit down, shut up, and do NOTHING that may make you seem worthy of being replaced.

The presumption is based on no unemployment, which has never occureed in anything even close to a capitalist system.

Capitalists need workers to work for them. No workers? No business. So the workers have an advantage. That said, in Minarchism the government could still legitimise the existence of unions. Unionism is vanishing either way, and not so much at the behest of the corporations, but just due to worker tendencies.

To record, there has been no truly free-market society (ie anarcho-capitalism). So all assumptions made on it are purely theoretical.

I'm sorry whats that? You're encouraging the workers of the world to unite.

US has mexican workers, U.K the eastern europians. Companys will always have access to good supplys of unskilled workers not in unions.

Liberals believe in a laissez-faire economic market, with little or no government influence.

Conservatives on the other hand believe in a free economic market...as long as it's government regulated.

They believe that competition is fundamentally a bad thing, and will only lead to social dissary (they do after all place social order very high on their list of desirable outcomes!). That is why Harold MacMillan described Margaret Thatchers privatisation polices as "Selling off the family silver". (That and she was breaking with tradtion, and disbanding instutions which had passed the test of time and which we in the present are only the current custodians of).

Another key difference is attitudes to change, Liberals believe that change is a good thing, while Conservatives believe it is a bad thing....unless it is slow and evolutionary (Not that you'd guess that from the name....).

There's good and bad points to both ideologies, but given that they are essentially exact opposites (from the classical view point at least), it is hardly surprising that alot is left up to the individual to decide for themselves which is best.

However, all too often I see "Liberals" who have strayed from these original roots. Advocates of restricting rights in the name of "tolerance" or feigned, forced "equality". Socialism is in COMPLETE oppostition to the traditional laissez faire economic systems of traditional liberalism.


The idea that "omg all these liberals are COMMUNISTS!" is a myth spread by the right.

Liberals are liberals. Socialists are socialists. They aren't the same thing. The fact that socialism has found a home on the left rather than the right does not mean that the left is all socialist.

Again, liberals are liberals. Socialists are socialists.

Capitalists need workers to work for them. No workers? No business. So the workers have an advantage. That said, in Minarchism the government could still legitimise the existence of unions. Unionism is vanishing either way, and not so much at the behest of the corporations, but just due to worker tendencies.

To record, there has been no truly free-market society (ie anarcho-capitalism). So all assumptions made on it are purely theoretical.

Very good points.

Also, since people have realized that workers cannot work in terrible conditions for meager wages, ect...the government has made all this illegal, so, in my opinion, unions are an anachronism and on the way out. Alteast in America.

Capitalists need workers, but workers need jobs. I suppose it depends on the situation of the economy. No unemployment, then yes the worker has the power, since they literally can NOT be replaced.
In an ideal capitalist society, unemployment would be minimal, and wealth levels between regions would not diverge so significantly as to stimulate cross-regional migration. That said, I am practical as well as an ideologue, so I support Minarchism, in which unions do not (necessarily) lose their legitimacy.

I'm sorry whats that? You're encouraging the workers of the world to unite.

US has mexican workers, U.K the eastern europians. Companys will always have access to good supplys of unskilled workers not in unions.
My point of reference was an ideal capitalistic world, where regional wealth differences would be virtually non-existent. It was a theoretical answer to a theoretical question.

What so great about being conservative?

The unlimited ability to appeal to tradition.

Okay to clarify things.

Classic liberals, neo liberals, libertarians (New right conservatives) = Economic liberals "right winged"

One nation conservatives, Modern Liberals = Qualified state intervention Keynsian economics "Central left"

Different brances of both conservitism and liberalism can either be left or right winged.

Liberals believe in a laissez-faire economic market, with little or no government influence.

Conservatives on the other hand believe in a free economic market...as long as it's government regulated.
A very astute observation.

Another key difference is attitudes to change, Liberals believe that change is a good thing, while Conservatives believe it is a bad thing....unless it is slow and evolutionary (Not that you'd guess that from the name....).
In some cases, the Conservatives do have a point with slower, better managed change.

In an ideal capitalist society, unemployment would be minimal, and wealth levels between regions would not diverge so significantly as to stimulate cross-regional migration. That said, I am practical as well as an ideologue, so I support Minarchism, in which unions do not (necessarily) lose their legitimacy.

Wouldn't a reasonable level of unemployment be needed to keep wages low and limit inflation. Especially unions mixed with full employment, if they know their is little risk of losing jobs they'll push for very inflatiory wage demands.

Wouldn't a reasonable level of unemployment be needed to keep wages low and limit inflation. Especially unions mixed with full employment, if they know their is little risk of losing jobs they'll push for very inflatiory wage demands.
Yes, there is an optimum level of unemployment at which both Capitalists and "workers" (such an outdated term) still have to negotiate, ensuring that wages do not inflate excessively, but at the same time stripping Capitalists of the ability to simply threaten workers to conform or suffer.

Yes, there is an optimum level of unemployment at which both Capitalists and "workers" (such an outdated term) still have to negotiate, ensuring that wages do not inflate excessively, but at the same time stripping Capitalists of the ability to simply threaten workers to conform or suffer.


Now here's the million dollar question. How does a situation in which the balance is just right and workers and owners are on par and everything is at just the right balance which we're going to pray we maintain without regulation any difference, in the end, then socialism which just says "we're going to force that balance"?

Now here's the million dollar question. How does a situation in which the balance is just right and workers and owners are on par and everything is at just the right balance which we're going to pray we maintain without regulation any difference, in the end, then socialism which just says "we're going to force that balance"?
In anarcho-capitalism? I have no idea. I'd need to do more reading on Capitalism (especially in its purest forms). That is why I say I found it too ideological. In Minarchism? This would be a non-issue, since the government remains in place as the last-solution provider.

Apparently, the best part of being a conservative is that you can make up what history says.

Real history, as I understand it, shows a fairly clear relationship between liberalism and both increasing productivity and spreading that wealth around in society. Conservative policies, by contrast, seem heavily geared toward restricting economic growth and concentrating that growth only in the hands of the already wealthy. The rise of the middle class, for instance, only happened after the institution of liberal policies that legalized unions and expanded education opportunities to all citizens with the G.I. Bill and the Education Act of 1965. Unfortunately, in about 1979, we switched our policies, leading to vastly disparate levels of both income and wealth across the population and to lesser rates of growth in both; contrary to the claims of trickle-down economics, for instance, the wage for median and bottom quintile workers fell, not raised, during the 1980s. By contrast, our fiscal boom in the 90's was heavily concentrated in the ranks of the rich. Median workers earned more, but only by working longer hours; wages remained stagnant for most of the population.

It's not really a fair comparison, since the economy was constantly being dragged down by liberal policies like minimum wage laws.

And unions are entirely consistent with conservative policies. Collective bargaining is a form of voluntary association.

And unions are entirely consistent with conservative policies. Collective bargaining is a form of voluntary association.
Exactly.

Liasia']*cough* 1930s*cough*
It's all good until something like the great depression comes along, and capitalism fails.
Read up - it was The US governments poor fiscal policy which caused it. Capitalism had little to do with it - but everything to do with the recovery.

Read up - it was Americas poor fiscal policy which caused it. Capitalism had little to do with it - but everything to do with the recovery.
True. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist society right now. Most economic failures are due to bad governmental reactions to situations. Blaming capitalism for all the world's ills is infantile.

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.

Conservative and liberal are fairly broad terms. It is possible to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I am more fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Esentially the view of modern fiscal conservatives is the opinion that Government, by it's very nature, is intrusive and oppressive. The larger and more centralized the more so. The core belief is that the individual is best able to make decisions governing their life - and that governments role is to facilitate an environment where they are free and safe to do so. It is a theme of personal responsibility. In fact it becomes impossible to not promote society when serving your own interest in an environment where all persons are freely able to make their own decisions.

The joy of being a fiscal conservative is that I can succeeed or fail based on my own merits.

The trouble with being a fiscal liberal is that they feel that people are NOT able to best decided what is good for them - the government is. (for example; social security - "participants can't invest their own money - they are too stupid - Uncle Sam must do it for them.." and earn peanuts) A large oppressive government mandating how much you can earn, what you can buy, what you can sell, even what you can do for a living (think licenses). The carrot is 'free' governmental services which - like most things government - are inefficient compared to for-profit comparables. Fiscal liberals are all too ready to give up much of their personal freedoms for the illusion of avoiding personal responsibility.

The bad part of being a fiscal liberal is believing that the government is better suited to spend your money than you are - or - even worse - that you are a dependant of the government.

Sadly, in the US, neither party is currently practicing anything resembling fiscal conservativism. It will take a combination of a strong leader - like Reagan, and a substantial congressoinal majority, to reverse many of the 'big government' programs.

True. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist society right now. Most economic failures are due to bad governmental reactions to situations. Blaming capitalism for all the world's ills is infantile.
Capitalism is like any other tool - put to good use it is great - but mismanaged it is harmful. It can neiter be neglected or abused (two ends of the spectrum) without terrible result.

A "conservative" philosophy may be that it is the job of the people to protect and support the government. A "liberal" may see it as the job of the government to protect and support the people. Thus a "conservative" may see flag burning as a vile debasing of our national symbol, while a "liberal" may see an attempt at restricting flag burning as an assualt on our right of free expression.

snip... while the conservative party seems more intent on legislating that which they disagree with.

Your first paragraph is well said. I like the way you put it. Your last part though I think deserves a distinction around social vs economic. I am reasonably socially liberal but quite economically conservative. (libertarian) I think that many of the federal social laws are a huge waste (drinking age, flag burning, education, etc.) and would prefer that the large central government (fed) not waste time legislating this; let it fall under the juristiction of more local governments. If one community wants to teach creationism and another wants to teach we sprang forth from bananas then let them. The the community govern by the community standards and get the feds out of the f-in way.

The trouble with the current 'conservatives' is that they are really NOT acting fiscally conservative - they are all about socially conservative - which is just as oppressive as fiscally liberal - it is adding power to a huge, inefficient, beurocratic, oppressive government. nice.

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.

"Democrats" want to take away my guns.

Capitalism is like any other tool - put to good use it is great - but mismanaged it is harmful. It can neiter be neglected or abused (two ends of the spectrum) without terrible result.
Precisely. There is nothing inherently wrong (or right) about the tool; it is how it is used.

The trouble with being a fiscal liberal is that they feel that people are NOT able to best decided what is good for them - the government is. (for example; social security - "participants can't invest their own money - they are too stupid - Uncle Sam must do it for them.." and earn peanuts) A large oppressive government mandating how much you can earn, what you can buy, what you can sell, even what you can do for a living (think licenses).
As bad as it sounds to say, I see people all the time wasting their money on stupid shit. It's the people living in the poor sections of town that put up the most extravagant Christmas decorations, and who buy the most expensive clothing for their children. It's the people living in the rich part of town who wallow in the disposable society, not caring that their wastefulness will make everything more expensive for them - and me - in the future.

Sometimes, people actually don't know what's best for them.

As bad as it sounds to say, I see people all the time wasting their money on stupid shit. It's the people living in the poor sections of town that put up the most extravagant Christmas decorations, and who buy the most expensive clothing for their children. It's the people living in the rich part of town who wallow in the disposable society, not caring that their wastefulness will make everything more expensive for them - and me - in the future.

Sometimes, people actually don't know what's best for them.
Then they must mature. They do not need a government keeping them infantile for all their life.

Because Conservatives are God-fearing, virtuous, patriotic, intelligent, kind, and just.


Liberals are atheistic, church burning, pinko-commie, gay, animal fornicating, flag burning, pot-smoking terrorrists.


Simple

was I first?You just made yourself a dumbass, great "intelligent" debating kiddo. :rolleyes:

"Democrats" want to take away my guns.Why do you need guns anyway?

As bad as it sounds to say, I see people all the time wasting their money on stupid shit. It's the people living in the poor sections of town that put up the most extravagant Christmas decorations, and who buy the most expensive clothing for their children. It's the people living in the rich part of town who wallow in the disposable society, not caring that their wastefulness will make everything more expensive for them - and me - in the future.

Sometimes, people actually don't know what's best for them.

So you wish to restrict their ability to spend their own money because you place a different value on these things than they do? nice.

The whole point is they are free to do so themselves. They are free to make good decisions as well as bad decisions - and live with the concenquences.

I also wouldn't be so quick to judge someone on what things they place value on without taking a long hard look in the mirror...

Why do you need guns anyway?

Hmm... because I have successfully used them several times to defend myself?

Without killing anyone?

The thing is, I have some conservative ECONOMIC tendancies, and by some I mean things like social security, I believe it should be a "pay in, cash out" system where you get exactly what you put back in, plus the interest the government earns.

I however have the freedom to opt out of it if I chose. Therefore if I just want the government to go "handle this for me" i can, and if I want out of it, and handle it myself, for more stress but probably better rewards, I can.

The problem is that when we talk about putting "a true conservative" in power I cringe, and cringe HARD, because I have yet to see ever a true economic conservative who did not also subscribe to the conservative social agenda which I find abhorent.

In other words, find me a politician who has a chance of election and that is willing to limit overbroad and inefficient governmental spending who at the same time protects workers rights, believes in progressive and effective social welfare and supports equal protection and civil lberties for all citizens including gay marriage, abortion, and a total unwillingness to let religion influence politics, and I will vote for this person for whatever office he or she seeks.

The thing is, I have some conservative ECONOMIC tendancies, and by some I mean things like social security, I believe it should be a "pay in, cash out" system where you get exactly what you put back in, plus the interest the government earns.

I however have the freedom to opt out of it if I chose. Therefore if I just want the government to go "handle this for me" i can, and if I want out of it, and handle it myself, for more stress but probably better rewards, I can.

The problem is that when we talk about putting "a true conservative" in power I cringe, and cringe HARD, because I have yet to see ever a true economic conservative who did not also subscribe to the conservative social agenda which I find abhorent.

In other words, find me a politician who has a chance of election and that is willing to limit overbroad and inefficient governmental spending who at the same time protects workers rights, believes in progressive and effective social welfare and supports equal protection and civil lberties for all citizens including gay marriage, abortion, and a total unwillingness to let religion influence politics, and I will vote for this person for whatever office he or she seeks.

you sir are a libertarian. (though I'd rather not even let the government hold my social security money. I am perfectly able to determine what a good or bad investment is. I can do a heluvalot bettter than t-bills thank-you)

Hmm... because I have successfully used them several times to defend myself?

Without killing anyone?Wait a minute, you can buy tasers down in the states?

So you wish to restrict their ability to spend their own money because you place a different value on these things than they do? nice.
Ah, you may notice that I don't say that anything should be done about this. Only that I think their behaviour is in error.

The fiscal mismanagement of some poor people prevents them from ever getting out of poverty.

The wastefulness of others will cause disadvantage to everyone in the future, so in that case yes I think that recycling should be encouraged and subsidised if necessary by the government. It's working in my country.

The problem is that when we talk about putting "a true conservative" in power I cringe, and cringe HARD, because I have yet to see ever a true economic conservative who did not also subscribe to the conservative social agenda which I find abhorent.
Depends on their inclination. Some libertarians are socially conservative, but they believe that no one has the right to dictate how you live your life, so they keep it to themselves.

In other words, find me a politician who has a chance of election and that is willing to limit overbroad and inefficient governmental spending who at the same time protects workers rights, believes in progressive and effective social welfare and supports equal protection and civil lberties for all citizens including gay marriage, abortion, and a total unwillingness to let religion influence politics, and I will vote for this person for whatever office he or she seeks.
One can dream.

Ah, you may notice that I don't say that anything should be done about this. Only that I think their behaviour is in error.

The fiscal mismanagement of some poor people prevents them from ever getting out of poverty.

The wastefulness of others will cause disadvantage to everyone in the future, so in that case yes I think that recycling should be encouraged and subsidised if necessary by the government. It's working in my country.

Then if they chooses to mismanage they choose poverty. Freedom is not about no concenquences - quite the opposite. Meanwhile - if they place a value on these ornaments they likely may have scrimped on areas which you would otherwise place value on (such as a PC). You have no right to judge their choices.

I have no issue with the government encouraging constructive behavior. (Home ownership, recycling, alternative energy, etc.) The thin line is between encouraging and mandating.

Wait a minute, you can buy tasers down in the states?

No, try pointing a Les Baer 1911 at someone's face.

It seems to calm people down, and restore their sense of rational thought.

Also very persuasive if it appears without warning.

Yes, you can buy a taser if you want, in most states. Tasers are largely restricted on a state by state basis.

Here in Virginia, you can either carry a real pistol openly, or you can get a concealed carry permit as long as you take a concealed carry class and are not a felon.

Then if they chooses to mismanage they choose poverty. Viva freedom.

I have no issue with the government encouraging constructive behavior. (Home ownership, recycling, alternative energy, etc.) The thin line is between encouraging and mandating.
Exactly. People should not be rewarded for their idiocy.

Liasia']*cough* 1930s*cough*
It's all good until something like the great depression comes along, and capitalism fails.
Hoover tried to get the government involved in fixing the problem, thus making it much much larger, then FDR just elongated it till the government got out of the market after the war.

you sir are a libertarian. (though I'd rather not even let the government hold my social security money. I am perfectly able to determine what a good or bad investment is. I can do a heluvalot bettter than t-bills thank-you)

I refuse to call myself a libertarian in that I believe in taxation for certain things like schools, public health, social welfare etc. I think when money is taken and placed in the general pool to provide general services that is ok. Social security however is not, or at least should not, be a general ppool, it is MY money which I invest for MY retirement, either make sure that it remains MY money, or give me a way to hold it for my own damned self.

I also believe in governmental regulation to some extent, minimum wage, and rights favoring unions, which are NOT libertarian beliefs.

But no, I will not go so far as calling myself a full on libertarian, i prefer "social libertarian/liberal with a mix of conservative and liberal economic leanings".

In short, as I said, that which is taxed for "public good" is acceptable, that which is taxed for my benefit I should have some control over it.

I refuse to call myself a libertarian in that I believe in taxation for certain things like schools, public health, social welfare etc. I think when money is taken and placed in the general pool to provide general services that is ok. Social security however is not, or at least should not, be a general ppool, it is MY money which I invest for MY retirement, either make sure that it remains MY money, or give me a way to hold it for my own damned self.

I also believe in governmental regulation to some extent, minimum wage, and rights favoring unions, which are NOT libertarian beliefs.
You are, for the most of it though, a libertarian. And some libertarians, like myself, also support unions. As for things like schools, public health, social welfare etc., here I support the last-solution government notion; ie, the government provides what the private sector cannot, once the latter has been milked for all it can offer.

In short, as I said, that which is taxed for "public good" is acceptable, that which is taxed for my benefit I should have some control over it.
If you can afford to pay for education and healthcare, you should have the freedom to choose who you give your cash to. Public provision should be strictly limited to those who can't afford it.

Because history shows that conservative economic policies lead to greater overall prosperity, a mitigation of poverty, and an incentive to innovate and produce. Innovation and competition leads to lower prices for consumers and greater access to goods and services.

Liberal economic poicies tend to restrict overall prosperity by discouraging production and innovation. By taxing the rich, liberals discourage people from working hard enough to become rich. By offering a generous welfare program, liberals create an incentive not to produce at all, and instead to live off the work of others as much as is possible. Liberal economic policies also tend to place greater power in the hands of government, and government has exactly one purpose - to grow. Governments don't necessarily produce anything, so expeditures there are unproductive. If governments do produce things, they do so without a profit motive, and thus are more likely to tend toward inefficiency.


i have to concur with you,however our commander and thief is so far from being a true conservative he gives me hives.

as far as the social aspect of the differences between the 2 extremes goes,i feel(may be me only)that liberals are more for the nanny state,and a general sense they know what is better for me in all aspects of my life....and i despise that.

as an example..the gun issue,north east liberals(wrongly assume guns are evil..and unneccassary for modern life)and since it is p.c. to be antigun in metro areas if your a liberal,they want to force their fears/opinions/misguided prejudices down the rest of the countries throats...cause of coarse they know best!

that said,i understand their fear and misguided opinion(in my opinion)but what may work in metro areas,sure as hell does not in rural areas.
oh,and i live in both(gathered i enjoy firearms)

i tend to care about most issues the left care about,but i despise their stance on guns obviously,i disagree with their economic stance on many issues,and as stated...i hate the whole nanny state/we know whats best for you attitude.
and dont get me started on the whole smugness they bring to the table with regards to many issues,like i am to stupid to know what i want,or what is best for me.

i also take issue with alot of blatant lies they spout on issues,especially gun control,or the way they try to spin it to fit their talking points or agenda.

example:everytime their is a shooting(usually with a felon..who legally cant have a gun,and it is always an illegal gun,and it happens to be a semi auto "evil rifle" they always call it an "assault rifle" and/or an ak-47

i happen to own an ak..legally...and it is NOT an assault rifle...it is a semi auto just like my .22 plinker.
but the liberals try to spin it as some machine gun to the uninformed,that are not knowledgeble about guns to scare the sheeple or uninformed that people like me are running about with assault weapons so the average non gun owner says..jeez...that aint good.(never mind that legally owned semi's and even legally owned machine guns account for less then 1/10th of 1 % of crimes commited by guns)
that is intellectually dishonest to an unreal scale...used to scare and sway the public to their pov of no guns period.
which i said earlier is not realistic for many people not in urban areas.(discounting the fact that most urban crimminals prefer shotguns and handguns for concealment and less cost.and they are not legally acquired)

that duplicisousness (sp) really rankles me to know end.
so if they are willing to distort the truth to fit their agenda,what else are they willing to distort?

all that said....neocons are just as guilty of distorting facts to push their agendas,and lie to attain their aims.

and bush and his so called conservatives are neither fiscal conservatives or social conservatives....if they were,they would strictly follow the constitution and the patriot act would be history,as would the enormous deficit.

they as well have an agenda,just like the liberals,and to accomplish their goals..will lie and distort the truth to achieve their aims...none of which are good for me.

vote third party is my advice.

oh,and it is pathetic to think both sides are not beholden to special interests to fill their campaign coffers.

sickening.

sorry for the book,and i did not intend to make it into a gun thing,i was just using it as an example that affects me directly.:headbang:

as much as i hate to say it,if i HAD to choose between bush/or the so called conservatives to be in power,over liberal dems....i would choose republican,not just about the gun issue,but it does factor in(we could solve the gun problem without the libs bs agenda,just by enforcing laws on the books)

but i am pro choice,and i want a safety net for people,i also dislike the conservatives stance on the enviroment.
but i am unwilling to trade my fear of gov and and belief in small gov for the majority of the lefts stance on many issues.

What so great about being conservative? you can point at the other side and laugh at their stupidity.


And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".you get pointed at, laughed at, and get called names by the other side.

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.you want the real stuff? the Real POV? the truth is, these are the same reasons why it's great to be "Liberal" and what is wrong with being "Conservative".

ibut i am pro choice,and i want a safety net for people,i also dislike the conservatives stance on the enviroment.
but i am unwilling to trade my fear of gov and and belief in small gov for the majority of the lefts stance on many issues.

For me, it's the other way. Yes the right to bear arms is in the constitution and yes it's a right that we should protect, like all other rights. However, for ME, and again just for me, I would gladly sacrifice my right to own a gun if it ment a solid and undeniable right to an abortion for women. I would give up the right to bare arms if it would mean that marriage would be a union open to ANY adults who wished to engage in it. I would forever swear off any claim to a fire arm if it ment that everyone in this country was afford the same liberties and full equal protection under the law, and that our laws were based on compassion, and rationality, and not thinly veiled attempts to bring religion into government.

To me, the conservative party is the mountain of hypocracy that it is. It is a party that fiercly defends the right to own guns because "omg it's in the constitution" while at the same time viciously seeks to evicerate the rights of minorities, women, and gays in this country.

All rights are important yes, but to defend one right with vehemence and venom while at the same time attacking organizations like the ACLU which exist to propmote the rights of americans, ALL rights, for ALL americans as some damned irritation is to me the mountain of hypocracy, and one that should be fought against at all legal opportunity.

If you can afford to pay for education and healthcare, you should have the freedom to choose who you give your cash to. Public provision should be strictly limited to those who can't afford it.

Sure I support private hospitals and schools myself, but public schools and hospitals can only exist if the "rich" provide some taxes towards such services even though ultemately they might not use it. And secoundly surely public provisions should be for everyone to use, what good is paying the majority of the bill for public healthcare if you're then forced to go private because you can afford it.

Sure I support private hospitals and schools myself, but public schools and hospitals can only exist if the "rich" provide some taxes towards such services even though ultemately they might not use it. And secoundly surely public provisions should be for everyone to use, what good is paying the majority of the bill for public healthcare if you're then forced to go private because you can afford it.

I don't suport public schools because they're often used to indoctrinate the children with pro-government ideals.

I don't suport public schools because they're often used to indoctrinate the children with pro-government ideals.

So only the children of those who can afford private school deserve an education? Or only those who can afford private schools should have children?

I don't suport public schools because they're often used to indoctrinate the children with pro-government ideals.

I'm sure we'd live in a much safer country should we have an educated society, not to mention appealing to rationality might actually work ;)

And having gone to a comprehensive school aside from slightly lower quality teaching and larger class sizes the only problem I ever had was being forced to do a unit on British history because I chose American history :rolleyes:

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.
What's so great? The idea that one supports the first principles of freedom. Those first principles are individual liberty, the preservation of private property, the rule of law, free markets, and choice and responsibility over government coercion. One day we may even see a return to those principles.

What's so bad? Modern day liberals think all of the above is nonsense.

And, as a follow up question. What is so bad about being "liberal".

Give me real stuff, I'm tired of seeing flip trash from pre-school minded idiots.

Personally I want to know some POVs so that I know what lies to fight against.

I don't see anything wrong with either one. The only thing I don't like is when someone else's (liberal or conservative) beliefs get shoved down my throat. I think everyone has a way of thinking and a lifestyle and we should all respect eachother's lifestyles whether or not we agree with them. I think people, liberals AND conservatives (because liberals can be alarmingly close minded, which is ironic) should remember one word: TOLERANCE.

I can't really speak to conservatism and liberalism on a economic standpoint because I don't agree with capitalism period. I tend to be moderate economically.

When I was growing up, "liberal" meant big, nanny government trying to dictate everything "for our own good". It meant cradle-to-grave welfare. It meant giving lip-service to "the common man" when it was clear that the people preaching it didn't give a *censored* about the common man.

The conservatives were for small government, low taxes, self-responsibility.

Of course, now that the "conservatives" are in power, the similarity between both groups is apalling. Small government is out the window, they're still trying to dictate everything, and low taxes are an illusion as long as spending continues without limit. I agree with the conservative ideals, but our current government is shitting on those ideals!

So only the children of those who can afford private school deserve an education? Or only those who can afford private schools should have children?

If there were no public schools, lower cost private schools would provide the same service. They don't now because they can't compete with free public schools.

If there were no public schools, lower cost private schools would provide the same service. They don't now because they can't compete with free public schools.
No, no, no! The government doesn't give us free schools. We subsidize those schools with our taxes. The true statement is that private schools can't compete with government-subsidized schools.

No, no, no! The government doesn't give us free schools. We subsidize those schools with our taxes. The true statement is that private schools can't compete with government-subsidized schools.

Well its free at the point of use, and free for those non taxpayers.

Anyway the whole arguement for purely private schools is a poor one. Firstly if you think government subsidized schools teach "pro government" stuff, just look at the pro religious moral conservatism thats ripe across most private schools I've seen.

Secoundly its just in our own best interest. Investing money in everyone not only is ethically better and allows for a true meritocracy (boardering on equality of some opportunity) but an educated workforce is going to be the only thing that drives a company to our contry to utilise this labour.

If we let people go to crappy private schools because they can't afford better we'll live in a country of poorly educated unskilled workers and we all know theres no way we can compete with China or Eastern Europe for cheaper unskilled uneducated workers.

[cut]
If we let people go to crappy private schools because they can't afford better we'll live in a country of poorly educated unskilled workers and we all know theres no way we can compete with China or Eastern Europe for cheaper unskilled uneducated workers.
But we are content with government-subsidized schools that cost more per pupil than good private schools. These same government-subsidized schools in Georgia can't produce students with the ability to read or calculate themselves out of a paper bag.

Government school proponents have to address the fact that their cherished schools are nothing more than social experiments. They are not the institutions that they were as recently as the sixties and seventies.

But we are content with government-subsidized schools that cost more per pupil than good private schools. These same government-subsidized schools in Georgia can't produce students with the ability to read or calculate themselves out of a paper bag.

Government school proponents have to address the fact that their cherished schools are nothing more than social experiments. They are not the institutions that they were as recently as the sixties and seventies.

Let's compare, for instance, the kind of stuff they teach in US schools today - half the day is wasted on politically correct topics in history, or teaching sex education, or lambasting dead white men, rather than concentrating on what schools in other countries concentrate on - math, science, and reading.

It's no wonder our schools suck. You're right - we waste our money in government subsidized experiments in political correctness.

It's no wonder our schools suck. You're right - we waste our money in government subsidized experiments in political correctness.

And the deeply religious disciplined private schools all across America and Britain are much better alternatives,

It just sounds to me you need a bit of a reform. Put in an independent examining body than can put on a good curriculum of english/maths/science and try and give them knowledge useful for the working world. Then the investment becomes more than worth it.

Let's compare, for instance, the kind of stuff they teach in US schools today - half the day is wasted on politically correct topics in history, or teaching sex education, or lambasting dead white men, rather than concentrating on what schools in other countries concentrate on - math, science, and reading.

It's no wonder our schools suck. You're right - we waste our money in government subsidized experiments in political correctness.

Politically correct topics in history? Such as what? And what the hell is wrong with sex education, exactly? Lambasting dead white men?

Hoover tried to get the government involved in fixing the problem, thus making it much much larger, then FDR just elongated it till the government got out of the market after the war.

Wherever did you get that idea? Speaking as someone who took an exam on the New Deal last week this is utterly wrong.

Hoover refused to get the government involved in fixing the problem, insisting that the market would sort itself out and that the federal government shouldn't get involved.

Lets look at some hard statistics:

Roosevelt came into power in 1933.


Banking
5,500 banks collapsed between 1929 and 1933 due to out-of-work labourers being forced to live on their savings, forcing the banks to call in loans from companies, forcing companies to sack their workers etc..

The day after Roosevelt passed the Emergency Banking act more money was deposited that withdrawn. The banks were saved by his swift action. If the banks had collapsed then the USA would have been utterly screwed.

Agriculture
Average farm incomes fell by over 50% between 1929-33. One in twenty farmers were evicted because they were unable to keep up with their mortgage payments. Ed O'Neil (head of the farmers union) declared that "Without action we will have a revolution in the countryside within twelve months"; this claim was supported by violence in Ohio.

Thanks to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration farm incomes had doubled by 1936, this saved America from potential famine.

Unemployment
1929= 3%
1933= 25% (13 million)
1937 (7.7 million)

Conservative ideology is good for many good reasons, just as Liberalism is.

Conservative ideology applies the terms of preserving your interests in the private ownership second to a minimalised state and incorporates just systems to uphold such.

Liberalism focuses rather more on your individual rights and how your property relates to your freedom. A basic difference can be seen in the Norwegian Liberal party's old slogan "My freedom ends where yours begins".
Conservative ideology seems to expand the private ownership aspect though,
but I suppose that you would have to agree with the basic political ideals to find yourself capable of being conservative.

And the deeply religious disciplined private schools all across America and Britain are much better alternatives,

It just sounds to me you need a bit of a reform. Put in an independent examining body than can put on a good curriculum of english/maths/science and try and give them knowledge useful for the working world. Then the investment becomes more than worth it.
All private schools are not based in religion. That's one of those things that you wouldn't figure out from reading the postings on this, or any other liberal forum. There are a good many private schools in Atlanta that have absolutely no ties to any church, yet provide an excellent education for less than the City of Atlanta pays for each of it's students.

Politically correct topics in history? Such as what? And what the hell is wrong with sex education, exactly? Lambasting dead white men?
Kids that my wife teach are taught social studies. That is roughly the same as history, although calling it history must sound too tough. They learn very little about the history of the United States, yet they manage to spend an entire year on Africa. WTF?

Grammar isn't taught. Language Arts is. That usually means reading and discussing. Classics like Ulysses? No. If it hasn't been authored in the past fifty years by a Black American author, it doesn't qualify. They watch movies. Classics? What do you think.

They learn math with calculators. There is NO math that requires a calculator in 6th, 7th, OR 8th grade.

Schools have become the refuge of the lazy and the politically correct, not of scholars.

Conservative ideology is good for many good reasons, just as Liberalism is.

Conservative ideology applies the terms of preserving your interests in the private ownership second to a minimalised state and incorporates just systems to uphold such.

Liberalism focuses rather more on your individual rights and how your property relates to your freedom. A basic difference can be seen in the Norwegian Liberal party's old slogan "My freedom ends where yours begins".
Conservative ideology seems to expand the private ownership aspect though,
but I suppose that you would have to agree with the basic political ideals to find yourself capable of being conservative.
Do I see a Libertarian in the making?

All private schools are not based in religion. That's one of those things that you wouldn't figure out from reading the postings on this, or any other liberal forum. There are a good many private schools in Atlanta that have absolutely no ties to any church, yet provide an excellent education for less than the City of Atlanta pays for each of it's students.

Well often those donating to keep such a school open have invested interest, especially in whats taught. And since theres no public money there is very little control over whats taught which is a big weakness nonetheless.

In Britain private schools (before New Labour) spent more than twice as much as government funded ones per pupil. While I think its fine to privately educate or home school a child educaton is one of those things like healthcare, the court system or police that regardless if you use them everyone needs to contribute because it will still benefit everyone, including yourself.

Do I see a Libertarian in the making?

Do you seek an honest answer on the internet? :/

A large number of conservatives are rich. Therefore it makes sense to try to connect yourself to the conservative comunities no matter how stupid their politics are.

That being said the only thing worse then a conservative is a liberal.

Two different sides on the same corrupt and disgusting coin.

Then if they chooses to mismanage they choose poverty. Freedom is not about no concenquences - quite the opposite. Meanwhile - if they place a value on these ornaments they likely may have scrimped on areas which you would otherwise place value on (such as a PC). You have no right to judge their choices.
I am still undecided about this one. I'm aware that the consequence of fiscal mismanagement is relative poverty, but I'm not entirely convinced that the choice of poverty does not affect anyone else.

I have no issue with the government encouraging constructive behavior. (Home ownership, recycling, alternative energy, etc.) The thin line is between encouraging and mandating.
I have no problem with mandating if it becomes necessary.

Is it just me or are you incredibly ideological and not pragmatic at all?

I don't suport public schools because they're often used to indoctrinate the children with pro-government ideals.
Only in dictatorships, really.

What's so great? The idea that one supports the first principles of freedom. Those first principles are individual liberty, the preservation of private property, the rule of law, free markets, and choice and responsibility over government coercion. One day we may even see a return to those principles.

What's so bad? Modern day liberals think all of the above is nonsense.
This is nonsense. Liberals support all of those things. You're thinking of anarchist communists.

But we are content with government-subsidized schools that cost more per pupil than good private schools. These same government-subsidized schools in Georgia can't produce students with the ability to read or calculate themselves out of a paper bag.

That's not an inherent problem with public education, it's a problem with Americans. Look at Finland. Their education is the best system in the world, and almost entirely nationalised.

It's no wonder our schools suck. You're right - we waste our money in government subsidized experiments in political correctness.
I didn't know that creationism was considered politically correct!

Kids that my wife teach are taught social studies. That is roughly the same as history, although calling it history must sound too tough. They learn very little about the history of the United States, yet they manage to spend an entire year on Africa. WTF?

Grammar isn't taught. Language Arts is. That usually means reading and discussing. Classics like Ulysses? No. If it hasn't been authored in the past fifty years by a Black American author, it doesn't qualify. They watch movies. Classics? What do you think.

They learn math with calculators. There is NO math that requires a calculator in 6th, 7th, OR 8th grade.
This is shocking. Though still, I wouldn't give Ulysses to a bunch of teenagers.

This is shocking. Though still, I wouldn't give Ulysses to a bunch of teenagers.

Why not? It might challenge them.

hello again :)

while i dont know american politics very well, i do understand the politics of the UK pretty well and they work something like this:

traditionally, the conservative party is ever so slightly right of "centre", advocating privatisation of national industries economic grounds, asupporting private businesses, private home ownership and the interaction of freem market forces.

traditionally, the labour party is ever so slightly left of "centre", advocating a welfare state, nationalised industries, government leased homes and supporting unions and workers over private businesses.

in recent decades the country has started to move to the right, the conservatives party privatised many industries, subjecting them to internional market forces and pushing for private investment, the "national health service" has suffered from additional management strata which have improved its economic efficiency at the expense of the welfare of the citizens that rely upon it.

the labour party fell apart in the 80's and early 90's and reformed as "new labour" in the early 90's to win the next election, the national health service continues to degrade under over-management, private health care is in a boom in this country, and the prevalence of market forces make it all but impossible for first time buyers to enter the housing market at a reasonably level (trust me, ive JUST made it in). the introduction of horrendously draconic "anti-terrorism" legislation granting the government the right to imprison without trial, and national identity cards indicate a heavily right wing slant to the current government. conversely the labour party's immigration policy has left people fuming.

"far right" parties such as the "british national party" (BNP) have made huge leaps and strides on the back of recent conservative and labour party actions, advocating closed borders, reduced welfare (especially to immigrants) and various draconic measures.

the interesting this is that the rise of the BNP has many people shitting a brick and voting for the first time ever to prevent their ascendancy, granting additional votes to new labour and keeping them in power. the country is poised to swing HEAVILY to the left in the near future, whilst at the same time maintaining the potential for heavier progression to the right as people become increasingly pissed off with the welfare system and the prevalence of over-compensation for immigrants and foreign labour, recent legislation has hit foreign labour hard.

The United Kingdom stands on the edge of a precipice at present. on the one hand we may step forward into hte abyss of becoming a heavily right wing country which may become dominated by the racist and the religiously bigoted (unfortunately many may well welcome this advent as it will mark a turning point where the country no longer "lives in fear" of minority religious and political viewpoints). on the other hand we may step back too far and become a country with little independent freedom, a "nanny-state" that over legislates every action, where the concept of freedom of speech extends to harrassment, intimidation and unwarranted vilification.


either prospect terrify me, i want a country where i can do as a i will (within reason), where religious and political freedom is espoused, as is freedom from harrassment, where common sense and historical precedent of law (a concept that has served us VERY well historically) prevail.

darkside

You get to conserve... or something