NationStates Jolt Archive

Both words are ideology labels that associate way too many separate opinions on separate issues with each other at the same time to make sense.

For my 100th post I'm talking about various problems with ideology labels. Words like "liberal" and "conservative" are cases of so many different views being described with the same words, as if they would all point in the same direction (for each respective label, that is) even when these are separate opinions on separate issues, but what is it that such a supposed "spectrum" trying to measure opinions in "sets" of opinions, is supposedly measuring? Let's say, hypothetically, two people agreed with each other on most issues except two issues; person 1 has a "liberal" opinion on issue A and a "conservative" opinion on issue B, and person 2 has a "conservative" opinion on issue A and a "liberal" opinion on issue B. These people disagree on both issues, yet they would be placed closer together on the political spectrum than either would be to someone who had "liberal" opinions on both issue A and B OR "conservative" opinions on both issue A and B, despite disagreeing to a further extent.

Even with the political compass, it's a little better, as it gives some deviance from the spectrum with a bit of ability to classify sets of opinions, but still doesn't work, because within their axes they still associate separate opinions with each other. My analogy in the previous paragraph also applies to the axes in the political compass as well. The general problem is that people extrapolate from someone's views on one issue to their views on other issues, and that just doesn't reflect individual variation in terms of one's own set of opinions.

What might be worse, depending on how you see it, is the opportunities given by this to politicians. Now, I remember back since elementary school learning about how businesses sometimes try to use their more popular products to sell their less popular products. But think about it, who has more reason to use what's more popular to sell what's less popular, businesspeople or politicians? Businesspeople are in it for the money, politicians for the power, and power has more reason to be used to sell what's less popular; as in, a less popular agenda, whereas (I'm guessing) the money would lie in just cashing in on whatever's popular. Now think about it, with something aligning so many separate opinions at the same time as if they point in the same direction, that gives some good opportunities for guilt by association; just point to whatever label is put on a specific stance on one issue and you can associate it with a stance on another issue; such as, "it's you [insert one ideology label here] who [insert rival's less popular policy here] whereas it's us [insert opposite ideology label here] who [insert speaker's more popular policy here]" in which case, the solution for most people, as to the other problems with such labels, is to just think for ourselves, and, well, try to avoid such labels, (I'll admit I sometimes use them myself when I'm not thinking carefully) and form our own "set" of opinions, and the more you deviate from the associations of these separate opinions with each other by these ideology labels, the better.

Particularly in Canada, where many of our Conservatives are actually just classical liberals, and our Liberals are kind of an amalgam of classical liberals and liberal welfarists.

Both words are ideology labels that associate way too many separate opinions on separate issues with each other at the same time to make sense.

except that ideas form natural clusters, either because of logical connections and coherence or because of historical and social forces. just the way of the world and of social animals like ourselves.

I think your best bet is to dig up the reasons people hold opinions on various issues and then try for common reasoning, consistency and motives. That way you could classify people more accurately, and maybe even tell them something about themselves that they don't already know. Alas, I don't have the programming skills to make such a test happen.

It would also make for the addition of another category, which is thinking vs feeling. People hold contradictory opinions astonishingly often, which leads me to conclude that they don't actually think about why they go one way or the other, but just do for no reason they can identify. Rational thought doesn't tolerate inconsistencies, feeling and emotion does.

In other news...

-Water is wet
-Fire is comparatively hot
-2+2=4
-Fast food can make you fat

Rational thought doesn't tolerate inconsistencies, feeling and emotion does.

Assuming all thoughts can be rationalized.

Assuming all thoughts can be rationalized.
I don't think actual thoughts can be irrational. The purpose for the thought can be, but the process of thinking (ie understanding relationships and properties etc) has to be rational.

Anyways, I think that many people can hold inconsistent stances on various issues because they don't know why they hold their stances in the first place. And if you ask them to explain them, their choice is between some version of "just because" or actually thinking about it - in which case you dig down further and further until the inconsistencies become glaringly obvious. And then they might feel the need to resolve them by revisiting their stances, but this time from the ground up.

The problem is that statements like "liberals and conservatives are the same" and "democrats and republicans are the same" generally come from people that are a HUGE distance away politically. If you're in (say) a theocracy where being a female driver is punishable by stoning, then yes, republicans and democratcs do seem fairly suimilar. Or, from another point of view, I see no difference between sunni and shia (as both halves of islam are so different form my atheism), yet in Iraq they have a civil war over it.

except that ideas form natural clusters, either because of logical connections and coherence or because of historical and social forces. just the way of the world and of social animals like ourselves.

Exactly. And eloquently put.

I hate labels, in any shape and form. But we use them to communicate big ideas in smaller form. They are a necessary evil in language.

Rock on! Fight linguistic imperialism!

<snip>
And that’s why ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ should be used responsibly; to describe a political philosophy which stresses the importance of individual liberty, and a political philosophy that stresses the status quo and traditionalism, respectively.

As opposed to describing the left and right of whatever the political centre in the USA is on a particular day.

Really, it gets most confusing...

I don't think actual thoughts can be irrational. The purpose for the thought can be, but the process of thinking (ie understanding relationships and properties etc) has to be rational.

I just meant some thoughts cannot be rationalized because some assumptions have to be made and not all factors can be taken into account. Rationality is limited.


Anyways, I think that many people can hold inconsistent stances on various issues because they don't know why they hold their stances in the first place. And if you ask them to explain them, their choice is between some version of "just because" or actually thinking about it - in which case you dig down further and further until the inconsistencies become glaringly obvious. And then they might feel the need to resolve them by revisiting their stances, but this time from the ground up.

Agreed. Is it cognitive dissonance or doublethink?

I don't think actual thoughts can be irrational. The purpose for the thought can be, but the process of thinking (ie understanding relationships and properties etc) has to be rational.Your feet are full of moose because moose moo, and therefore your nose has a carrot mop window. The window is shown on your screen and displays NSG with maniacal glee.

I don't think actual thoughts can be irrational. The purpose for the thought can be, but the process of thinking (ie understanding relationships and properties etc) has to be rational.

Anyways, I think that many people can hold inconsistent stances on various issues because they don't know why they hold their stances in the first place. And if you ask them to explain them, their choice is between some version of "just because" or actually thinking about it - in which case you dig down further and further until the inconsistencies become glaringly obvious. And then they might feel the need to resolve them by revisiting their stances, but this time from the ground up.

Yet even if one knows why he holds an 'irrational' stance it does not necessarily negate that stance. Not all thought is rational.

"Liberals" and "Conservatives" have a fair bit in common;Of course. They - like all ideologists - refuse to think, and prefer to follow the streamlined thoughts of a handful of demagogues to death, rather than thinking for themselves - which generally tends to make people form opinions incompatible with any ideology since there's always a few ideas incompatible with a specific ideology.

That's why it's called an ideology. That's why ideologies know things such as 'Traitors' (As opposed to to 'Disagreements'), Myrmidinosias, 'Partylines' (Hey, lets just shut down our brains and babble after the head-ape!), Andaras Primes, the likes.

Now, different ideologies will of course still propagate their content differently, depending on the ideology's presominant views (Namely its view on what human beings should be considered to be like) - it can be a more subtle approach (American liberals), or it can be a kind of sledgehammer approach (The conservatives). Likewise, different ideologies do not necessarily feature the same ratio of errors or lies. But it still essentially amounts to the same.

And?

I don't think actual thoughts can be irrational.

really? have you ever watched people try to reason?

Yet even if one knows why he holds an 'irrational' stance it does not necessarily negate that stance.
Yeah, but then he or she would be irrational. Which is fine, it would just put them down that side of my proposed compass.

Not all thought is rational.
Sure it is. "Thought" is the use of one's capacity to apply logical and causal relationships to the world in order to solve some problem or achieve some goal. And the world ultimately demands rational thought, because if you fail at it, nothing you do in the real world will ever end up like you want it. The world is full of logical and causal relationships, and you ignore them at your peril.

Of course, if you refuse to think, this will not become apparent, and you'll be placed on the irrational axis. I'm not necessarily passing judgement, but I suspect that if you do it long enough, reality might.

really? have you ever watched people try to reason?
Maybe I should qualify: one can make a mistake trying to be rational, due to knowledge gaps for example. I'm not sure whether one can have all the input required and still make a mistake - that would just be not thinking hard enough.

But the purpose of thought is to be rational, and to the degree that you choose to think, you choose to be rational.

I think your best bet is to dig up the reasons people hold opinions on various issues and then try for common reasoning, consistency and motives.
What about the similar reasoning between arguments used against gun control and those against drug prohibition, which are considered to be on opposite sides of the "political spectrum"?

What about the similar reasoning between arguments used against gun control and those against drug prohibition, which are considered to be on opposite sides of the "political spectrum"?
Then the spectrum as it is right now is wrong.

Liberal and Conservative are just words for political attitudes, not political ideologies. An American Liberal is a British Conservative and a Chinese Radical. A Russian Reactionary is an American Radical. Of course it is hard to tell them apart.

Then the spectrum as it is right now is wrong.
Exactly. Especially when people extrapolate to views on a separate issue based on it.

EDIT: Though are you saying there could be an alternative spectrum that could fix the gun control vs. drug prohibition problem? If so I guess that's reasonable, I think IF there's to be a spectrum then communitarian vs. libertarian would be a better scale, but again, I just don't agree with the whole idea of classifying separate opinions into ideology labels, it just doesn't reflect individual differences enough...

Liberal and Conservative are just words for political attitudes, not political ideologies. An American Liberal is a British Conservative and a Chinese Radical. A Russian Reactionary is an American Radical. Of course it is hard to tell them apart.
Only if we misuse the terms.

The political ideologies of liberalism (note the small ‘l’) and conservatism (note the small ‘c’) are quite clearly defined in political philosophy; as the ideology that stresses personal liberty and the ideology that stresses traditionalism and the status quo, respectively.

Many political parties have the terms ‘Liberal’ (note the capital ‘L’) and Conservative (note the capital ‘C’) in their name, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the parties are follow the liberal or conservative ideologies.

And that’s the problem with calling people liberal or conservative when we are meaning ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’; there are liberals on both the left and right of the political economic spectrum, for example.

Wait, what was that?
People have a fair bit in common?

What about the similar reasoning between arguments used against gun control and those against drug prohibition

While there are certain areas of similarity, there is nevertheless one crucial difference: gun ownership, because it involves threats to other people's lives, is necessarily a public concern.

Drug use, on the other hand, for the most part only harms the individual who engages in it.

Drug use, on the other hand, for the most part only harms the individual who engages in it.
That depends on how we define ‘harm’, which is a notoriously difficult job.

One could claim that unless the drug user was in a complete social vacuum, harm could conceivably be done to others, directly or indirectly, through an individual’s drug use.

And even if the drug user were in a complete social vacuum, some conceptions of harm (wobbly conceptions admittedly) would class drug use as harmful to others because of the user’s inactivity within the community.

This is a big issue, but I think it’s easy to see that deciding whether or not an action is harmful is not as straight-forward as it first seems.

If you think about it, you do have some similarities, you have the Liberal-Conservative tradition in the British Commonwealth (hence the Liberal Party in Australia).

However, there is still a massive difference between Liberals and Conservatives - the Democrats are lefties and the Republicans are rightists and never the twain shall met.

However, there is still a massive difference between Liberals and Conservatives–the Democrats are lefties and the Republicans are rightists and never the twain shall met.
But the point is that ‘left’ does not equate to ‘liberal’ and ‘right’ does not equate to ‘conservative’.

We can have left-wing and right-wing liberals as well as right-wing and (conceivably) left-wing conservatives. Plus, the Dems and Reps have both liberals and conservatives within their ranks.

To top it all off, one can quite rationally be a conservative liberal; namely one who believes in upholding both the status quo and personal liberty.

This is a big issue, but I think it’s easy to see that deciding whether or not an action is harmful is not as straight-forward as it first seems.

Yes, I agree, which is why I said "for the most part." It can be questioned whether "victimless crimes" actually exist... though I would maintain that the "victimless crimes" argument is a bad one even if we actually could find a "perfect" case of a behavior that only harmed consenting participants. But that is another argument.

My point was simply that is on an entirely different level from gun ownership--the ownership of weapons designed to harm others, and therefore almost trivially a theoretically legitimate area for government regulation. (Which is not to say that all such government regulation, or even any at all, is actually justified.)

Yes, I agree, which is why I said “for the most part.” It can be questioned whether “victimless crimes” actually exist... though I would maintain that the “victimless crimes” argument is a bad one even if we actually could find a “perfect” case of a behavior that only harmed consenting participants. But that is another argument.
Quite. An interesting one though.

My point was simply that is on an entirely different level from gun ownership—the ownership of weapons designed to harm others, and therefore almost trivially a theoretically legitimate area for government regulation. (Which is not to say that all such government regulation, or even any at all, is actually justified.)
Indeed, the harm principle seems a rather shaky condition for government intervention/legislation.

Thinking about it, I don’t know if gun and drug legalisation is very different. Firstly, it’s disputable whether guns are only designed to harm others; personally I would want to say they are, or at least the vast majority of them, but the hunting argument still creeps in.

Secondly, although a gun’s harm is much more obviously apparent, when you put it in an argument, the tricky definition of harm seems, to me at least, to mire any clear water between gun and drug legalisation arguments.

Perhaps a solution would not be to look for a catch-all harm principle-based necessary condition for government intervention/criminalisation, but to instead look at a qualitative argument; ‘how many people die each year from drugs/guns?’, for example.

This has its own problems and objections, obviously, but it’s perhaps a starting point.

As an aside, I’m sorry if I’ve hijacked both the thread, and the original point you were trying to make. Political philosophy is to much of a temptation. :p

While there are certain areas of similarity, there is nevertheless one crucial difference: gun ownership, because it involves threats to other people's lives, is necessarily a public concern.

Drug use, on the other hand, for the most part only harms the individual who engages in it.
Depends on how you look at it, drug use could be argued to be a motive for crimes and as such just as public a concern, and gun ownership could be argued to only be a bad thing in the hands of people who would commit violent crimes. But the extent to which they are issues doesn't determine the direction of similarity; the idea that gun control increases gun crime, drug prohibition increases drug use, etc... shows that in terms of the general approach and reasoning they are similar, whatever the level of public concern they are.

The problem is that statements like "liberals and conservatives are the same" and "democrats and republicans are the same" generally come from people that are a HUGE distance away politically. If you're in (say) a theocracy where being a female driver is punishable by stoning, then yes, republicans and democratcs do seem fairly suimilar. Or, from another point of view, I see no difference between sunni and shia (as both halves of islam are so different form my atheism), yet in Iraq they have a civil war over it.
Well, actually with regards to that point I agree to some extent there as well, it's really too relative to be able to say just what would be the "center" of such a spectrum to "measure" opinions, but I was referring more so to specifically the issue of how it lumps views on separate issues together than the other clear flaws of such measurements.