NationStates Jolt Archive

Up until recently, the popular notion of Conservative meant small government and low (relatively) spending. It meant minimal interference in private lives and respect (sic) for the law by the government. With the war in Iraq, government spending is at an all time high. With Homeland Security and the selective disregard for Habeas Corpus, interference in private lives and respect for the law has suffered a sharp decline, both in government and in the governed. Executive powers are being used, even abused, without any checks.

The popular (not classical) notion of liberal has been one of unchecked government and spending and disregard for such things as legal and Constitutional niceties.

Except for motive, I see no difference between Bush and the popular liberal.

(Disclaimer: I am being horribly simplistic, and this is offered only for the sake of argument in any case).

Up until recently, the popular notion of Conservative meant small government and low (relatively) spending. It meant minimal interference in private lives and respect (sic) for the law by the government.

It hasn't meant that since nixon.


The popular (not classical) notion of liberal has been one of unchecked government and spending and disregard for such things as legal and Constitutional niceties.

No it isn't. It's a nice "let's pretend" by the conservatives who like to turn "liberal" into an insult, but it is a made up meaning that doesn't actually match up, in any way, to reality.

People, especially republicans, like to pretend about how Bush "isn't a real conservative", but he stands for everything that the conservative movement has stood for in the last 30 years. Military aggression, unchecked spending on bloated programs, disregard for basic civil liberties, and completely gutting valuable government programs.

Bush wasn't a "surprise", he wasn't a "shock". He didn't "turn out" to be anything. He is now exactly what any semi intelligent person knew he would be back in 1999, and he is exactly the same person that all the conservatives voted for in 2000 and 2004.

People who want to lie to thesmevels that Bush "isn't a true conservative" are basically trying to pretend that bush somehow turned out to be something we didn't think he was. That somehow if he just stayed a "true conservative" things would be OK. Thing is, Bush is a perfect conservative, and stands for everything that the conservative movement of the last 30 years stood for, and the problems he has wrought on this country are not because he strayed from the conservative ideology, but because he followed it perfectly.

Up until recently, the popular notion of Conservative meant small government and low (relatively) spending.

If by "Up until recently," we really mean "Not since the end of World War II has"

Although I'd go even further back and say the conservative train derailed somewhere around September of 1901 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt).

Anti-Social Darwinism,
You're right. Bush has become the very thing that most right-wingers used to rail against. The only thing he's still undeniably conservative on is taxes because he hasn't been made famous for lots of hikes but that is little comfort or help when the spending isn't slashed every time there's a tax cut.

Bush and Conservative goes together as much as oil and water does. *nods*

Bush and Conservative goes together as much as oil and water does. *nods*

and there's my point made for me. Nobody, not a single person, should act surprised about how Bush turned out. Bush got monumental conservative support, and he is today exactly who he was 8 years ago. He is the same person everybody knew him to be, and all the conservative voted for him.

The idea that somehow he is not a "true" conservative is bullshit. Every conservative knew exactly who they were voting for, and to somehow to pretend now, 8 years later, that somehow he's not "truly" a conservative is to ignore that conservatives turned out in droves to vote for him, and he did everything that they expected him to do, and it's turning this country to shit.

To argue now that he's not "really" a conservative is to ignore the fact that self identified conservatives turned out in droves to vote for him. Twice!

and there's my point made for me.

Glad I could help, that'll be $200 please.

A lil' Lawyer joke. ;)

I agree with Indri. Taxes are the only thing Bush is conservative on. It's people like him that have corrupted the Republican Party in recent decades.

The only possible relief I see from that is if Ron Paul takes office. He is a true conservative.

The only possible relief I see from that is if Ron Paul takes office. He is a true conservative.

Racist, mysoginistic, with no respect for basic human rights and policies that would drive this country into ruin if ever implemented.

Yup, he is indeed a true conservative.

Hell no. Bush represents a hybrid of the worst of both parties.

Actually, Bush is exactly what the libertarianism 'Reaganomics' is all about, namely tariffs and state protectionism for the rich, and the free market for the poor. So the rich can have state protection through tax reform and capital investment from the state, while the poor get no protection at all - even labor unions are now powerless after the Reagan reforms.

Bush's reforms and policies accurately represent libertarian conservatism and it's practical effects.

Up until recently, the popular notion of Conservative meant small government and low (relatively) spending. It meant minimal interference in private lives and respect (sic) for the law by the government. It hasn't meant that since nixon.If by "Up until recently," we really mean "Not since the end of World War II has"

Although I'd go even further back and say the conservative train derailed somewhere around September of 1901 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt).

come on guys, it never meant that. ever, at all, in the slightest. conservative has always and forever meant support for some earlier, usually mythical, social order, and a generalized favoring of militarism, hierarchy, order, and obedience.

Up until recently, the popular notion of Conservative meant small government and low (relatively) spending. It meant minimal interference in private lives and respect (sic) for the law by the government. With the war in Iraq, government spending is at an all time high. With Homeland Security and the selective disregard for Habeas Corpus, interference in private lives and respect for the law has suffered a sharp decline, both in government and in the governed. Executive powers are being used, even abused, without any checks.

The popular (not classical) notion of liberal has been one of unchecked government and spending and disregard for such things as legal and Constitutional niceties.

Except for motive, I see no difference between Bush and the popular liberal.

(Disclaimer: I am being horribly simplistic, and this is offered only for the sake of argument in any case).

And here I remember the popular conception of Conservatism meant social regulation to within an inch of our lives, corporate welfare, utter disregard for legal and Constitutional nicieties(think think Mccarthy trials as one example) except the right to bear arms, high tariffs(pre WWII), bloated military budgets(post WWII), and massive budget deficits(since Reagan).

Up until recently, the popular notion of Conservative meant small government and low (relatively) spending. It meant minimal interference in private lives and respect (sic) for the law by the government. With the war in Iraq, government spending is at an all time high. With Homeland Security and the selective disregard for Habeas Corpus, interference in private lives and respect for the law has suffered a sharp decline, both in government and in the governed. Executive powers are being used, even abused, without any checks.

The popular (not classical) notion of liberal has been one of unchecked government and spending and disregard for such things as legal and Constitutional niceties.

Except for motive, I see no difference between Bush and the popular liberal.

(Disclaimer: I am being horribly simplistic, and this is offered only for the sake of argument in any case).
No people are truly of any political party or movement, though they can affiliate themselves with one or more that they agree with (or they found their own, in which case they can be truly of a political party or movement until they die and others twist the meaning of the original idea).

So, that in mind, is Bush a Conservative? Depends on how you define conservatism, at first. If you use the regional definition of liberalism and conservatism, then actually, he is. You see, violating certain, albeit key, criteria of "conservatism", Bush still maintains a position that is in line with what it means to be conservative in America. Now, while his position is a stark contrast to someone that would be considered a classic liberal in the real world, this by no means makes both members of different political ideologies. By grace of having only two parties, America has come to equate "conservative" with Republican. And the Republican party is the party of everyone between classic liberal to conservative to zealous theocrat and neo-nazi.

Is Bush a conservative? FUCK NO!! Who the hell cuts taxes and increases spending??? That's not the trademark of a liberal or conservative, just a complete moron.

Is Bush a conservative? FUCK NO!! Who the hell cuts taxes and increases spending??? That's not the trademark of a liberal or conservative, just a complete moron.
Well, he did want to increase taxation, actually. Only it would have only affected overseas citizens and luckily got stopped.

Up until recently, the popular notion of Conservative meant small government and low (relatively) spending.

If by "popular" you mean "basically only in the USA".

i would question has so called conservatism ever been anything it claimed to be, rather then a thinly vailed excuse for infantile arrogant belligerance?

yes it has always claimed to be about fiscal restraint and responsibility. but has it ever actuallly practiced what it claims to, rather then kissing the ass of whatever economic intrest it at some moment be seduced by?

=^^=
.../\...

The popular (not classical) notion of liberal has been one of unchecked government and spending and disregard for such things as legal and Constitutional niceties.

Except for motive, I see no difference between Bush and the popular liberal.
That's because the "popular liberal" doesn't exist - it's a creation by certain fear- and hatemongers...
Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.
...and yeah, you knew what you were getting with Bush. There were few surprises. People wanted someone who would run the government like a corporation, and they got exactly that.

Yes, Bush is a conservative. And it's his last year in office, so all we can do is stock up on Champagne and wait.

It hasn't meant that since nixon.

Except to Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuiliani, apparently. And Ronald Reagan at least tried, though he made one very dismal mistake at the beginning that destroyed his hopes of lowering nonmillitary spending, which was closing down the national mental institutions. By doing that, he painted himself as an uncouth extremist and politically neutered himself ala Pelosi.

No it isn't. It's a nice "let's pretend" by the conservatives who like to turn "liberal" into an insult, but it is a made up meaning that doesn't actually match up, in any way, to reality.

People, especially republicans, like to pretend about how Bush "isn't a real conservative", but he stands for everything that the conservative movement has stood for in the last 30 years. Military aggression, unchecked spending on bloated programs, disregard for basic civil liberties, and completely gutting valuable government programs.

Bush wasn't a "surprise", he wasn't a "shock". He didn't "turn out" to be anything. He is now exactly what any semi intelligent person knew he would be back in 1999, and he is exactly the same person that all the conservatives voted for in 2000 and 2004.

People who want to lie to thesmevels that Bush "isn't a true conservative" are basically trying to pretend that bush somehow turned out to be something we didn't think he was. That somehow if he just stayed a "true conservative" things would be OK. Thing is, Bush is a perfect conservative, and stands for everything that the conservative movement of the last 30 years stood for, and the problems he has wrought on this country are not because he strayed from the conservative ideology, but because he followed it perfectly.

Bush is a social conservative. They need to be owned, disemboweled, and put back in their proper place, Kansas. Thankfully, the fact that Giuliani would have won this primary easilly without a whole series of scandals that put a dent in his credibillity is a sign of hope.

For the period between 1954 and 1994, the Liberal Democrats controlled Congress. And they were clearly for nanny-state, socialism, government controlling everything, etc. The Conservatives CLAIMED to be for small government and less nannyism. We didn't have a conservative Congress until 1994, and a "conservative" president until 2001. Obviously, in retrospect, Bush clearly is NOT for small government or less nannyism, or even less government payouts (corporate subsidy is still subsidy). Neither is the Republican Congress. However, many people who call themselves "conservatives" are, and many of us are really p*ssed off at the phony "conservatives" in government.

Unfortunately, our choices seem to be between people who admit they plan to screw us (the Democrats), and the people who lie about planning to screw us (the Repubs).

In the US, political labels like "liberal" and "conservative" and even "libertarian" don't mean a damned thing because US politics is all about salesmanship, and the labels get redefined to mean whatever the top tier of campaign managers think the voters want to hear in any given election cycle, and whatever they think will create an obvious and simplistic contrast between their candidate and the opposing candidate. So, if a candidate who calls themselves "liberal" likes to eat cashews, then cashews are a liberal nut and it is "conservative" to eat peanuts.

"Conservative" has meant at least two different things since the concept of American conservatism was invented by Barry Goldwater. It has meant three things if you include the recent input of the religious right, who Goldwater considered anti-conservative anathema. And more things if you include the retroactive application of "conservative" to various political groups, movements, ideas, and cabals of the 19th century, when the notion didn't even exist.

"Liberal" has meant at least four -- and likely more -- things since Thomas Jefferson's day, and today, it means virtually nothing at all because of the way rightwingers have tried to redefine it to be a gross insult against a person's character.

As for "libertarian," it may be the most purely American political label of all, since it apparently means whatever any given person wants it to mean at any given moment in any given conversation on any given topic. Political discourse a la Humpty Dumpty (of Lewis Carroll fame).

So what does all that make Bush? It makes him a liar and a corrupt politician. It makes him the head -- at least figurehead -- of a group of liars and corrupt politicians who do not uphold the US Constitution or US law, who do not believe in democracy, and who do not have the best interests of the nation at heart, who in fact do not even engage in public service while in office. Instead, all their time is devoted to their true goal, which is to dismantle the legal and political structure of the US, which still is the largest established economy in the world, with the largest (and most lucrative for contractors) military, and rearrange it to support the profit-making schemes of the corporations run by them and their friends.

If Bush and Cheney had their way to the full extent, the US would consist of a very small, virtually aristocratic elite who hold all the money and all the power, commanding a vast labor force that works nearly for free and is maintained rather like slaves were (with their employers providing (or not) all their housing, food, etc), and a legal system whose sole purpose is to keep down the lesser classes while staying out of the way of the ruling class. If there is a modern word for that way of thinking, then we might choose to apply it to Bush. Personally, however, I would not call him American (not ideologically).

And I agree with Neo Art that anyone who claims to be surprised to learn the truth about Bush now is either a liar or dangerously unobservant. He has never acted like anything but what he is -- just like his father, Cheney, and all the other woodland critters. Bush's "base" always knew what he was and didn't care what label he used to get into the White House. As for the rest, if they honestly were so dazzled and blinded by whatever magic word the campaign managers used to sell this un-American bastard as president, then I give up. America is doomed because Americans have their heads up their asses.

Bush is an American conservative. That may not match with any traditional definition of the word conservative, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush acted more or less the same as any other 'conservative' president in America would have. He started a war, he took a great big shit on civil liberties and he acted as though the constitution was more of a list of suggested guidelines. Maybe another president would have been better at stringing a sentence together, though.

Is Bush a conservative? FUCK NO!! Who the hell cuts taxes and increases spending??? That's not the trademark of a liberal or conservative, just a complete moron.

Yeah. He cuts taxes like a madman.

Executive powers are being used, even abused, without any checks.

I didn't know that such a thing was possible in the US anymore... so... Bush has disbanded Congress then? Oh wait, you merely think that because Congress isn't stopping Bush that he is abusing executive powers without checks and balances, someone needs to retake ninth grade civics I think.

NOTE: There are checks to every branch of government, executive powers (all of them) can be overridden in Congress, blame Congress for not stopping Bush, remember, you elected them to represent you as much as you elected Bush to represent you.

(Disclaimer: I am being horribly simplistic, and this is offered only for the sake of argument in any case).

Probably the reason that this thread was pretty off-base. Simplicity doesn't work well on such a complicated topic.

Bush's policies are essentially Reagan's all over again... so if they are so shockingly un-conservative, conservatives should have been surprised and disgusted two and a half decades ago. Instead they deified him as some kind of conservative hero.

Bush's policies are essentially Reagan's all over again... so if they are so shockingly un-conservative, conservatives should have been surprised and disgusted two and a half decades ago. Instead they deified him as some kind of conservative hero.

Indeed. How does pushing for militarism and outlawing activities deemed immoral support small government and reduce government intervention in people's lives?

I didn't know that such a thing was possible in the US anymore... so... Bush has disbanded Congress then? Oh wait, you merely think that because Congress isn't stopping Bush that he is abusing executive powers without checks and balances, someone needs to retake ninth grade civics I think.

NOTE: There are checks to every branch of government, executive powers (all of them) can be overridden in Congress, blame Congress for not stopping Bush, remember, you elected them to represent you as much as you elected Bush to represent you.

well, the fact that congress hasn't done even more is a tragedy. but there is no denying that the bush admin has made them into a largely symbolic body, even when they actually try to do something. shit, it is now the case that people can just not obey congressional subpoenas if bush says they don't have to.

Bush is an American conservative. That may not match with any traditional definition of the word conservative, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush acted more or less the same as any other 'conservative' president in America would have.

Why?

He started a war,

Wasn't LBJ a liberal?

It's funny that so many peoples' problems with conservatives has been their inflexibility/ability to embrace change.
Bush is a prophit!

Bush isn't a conservative; he is a statist. Like every president for the last eighty years, and most of them since the beginning of the Federal government, he has worked to centralize and extend the power of the state, most especially through war, and grant special privileges to his supporters. The claim that he has lowered taxes is a smokescreen; because of his deficit spending, which is based upon payment from future taxes and the devaluation of the currency, he has actually increased the financial burden of the state. He is a politician acting out of his own parasitic interests, like any others of his ilk.

The idea that somehow he is not a "true" conservative is bullshit. Every conservative knew exactly who they were voting for, and to somehow to pretend now, 8 years later, that somehow he's not "truly" a conservative is to ignore that conservatives turned out in droves to vote for him, and he did everything that they expected him to do, and it's turning this country to shit.!

You're ignoring one major thing: Bush's campaign rhetoric in 2000 did not match his actions after he was elected. He campaigned as a pro-peace, pro-small government candidate, and the sheeple voted for him accordingly. Conservatives only re-elected him because he wasn't Kerry, and to them, all Democrats are the Devil incarnate.

In reality and practise libertarianism is about state protection (tariffs, subsidies etc) for the rich and powerful, while the 'free market' and no protection for the poor, 'tough love' if you will, the love for the rich and tough for the poor.

I would ask you to prove that, but I won't hold my breath.

Bush isn't a conservative; he is a statist. Like every president for the last eighty years, and most of them since the beginning of the Federal government, he has worked to centralize and extend the power of the state, most especially through war, and grant special privileges to his supporters. The claim that he has lowered taxes is a smokescreen; because of his deficit spending, which is based upon payment from future taxes and the devaluation of the currency, he has actually increased the financial burden of the state. He is a politician acting out of his own parasitic interests, like any others of his ilk.

I disagree, an attempt by libertarians to distance themselves from the Reaganomics which Bush follows is at best contrary to the facts. In reality and practise libertarianism is about state protection (tariffs, subsidies etc) for the rich and powerful, while the 'free market' and no protection for the poor, 'tough love' if you will, the love for the rich and tough for the poor. If you look to the policies of Mayor Giuiliani or typical Reaganomics, you'll see the eliminationist logic of the rich, they see the rich as the perfect examples of rugged individualism and the poor as sad examples of personal failure and attachment to socialism (welfare etc). In theory libertarianism is about equal rights for all, but in practise the inability to 'wipe the slate clean' or have a 'Year Zero' means that the rich already start with a massive advantages in capital and state protection. Libertarianism in reality is horrible and ugly, tax plunder for the rich and widescale privatization has left much of America looking like a run-down peasant dwelling, while New York and the fortune 500 cities are better than ever. It's like '2 worlds', in one you have the horrible world poverty, homelessness, hopelessness and run-down neighbourhoods, housings closing everywhere, an welfare reducing people to the state of indentured servants. The other world is a super rich sleek world of riches and extravagance. Libertarians don't realize that their ideology is in practise today in the real world through 'free markets' and it's effects are horrible and ugly.

Bush isn't a conservative; he is a statist. Like every president for the last eighty years, and most of them since the beginning of the Federal government, he has worked to centralize and extend the power of the state, most especially through war, and grant special privileges to his supporters. The claim that he has lowered taxes is a smokescreen; because of his deficit spending, which is based upon payment from future taxes and the devaluation of the currency, he has actually increased the financial burden of the state. He is a politician acting out of his own parasitic interests, like any others of his ilk.

Hey, get on MSN. :)

Actually, Bush is exactly what the libertarianism 'Reaganomics' is all about, namely tariffs and state protectionism for the rich

You have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is.

You have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is.

I know what it means in practise, and in reality that's all that matters.

-snip-

Could you possibly be bothered to use paragraphs?

And seeing as how I support the abolition of the state, and am a libertarian, your statement about libertarians wanting state protection for the rich is a non-sequitur. As is the statement about all libertarians seeing the rich as 'perfect'; most of the rich nowadays got there by cooperating with the state in a joint offensive against all those who stand outside the state, (for the rich, their competitors; for the state, the subsidiary institutions such as the family and community.) All done by way of preying upon and encouraging the envy, fear, hate, and other destructive tendencies of the masses to make them tremble at every crisis and enemy, real or otherwise, and decivilizing them at every turn as they assume total power.

So in fact our modern rich are not above the mob, but are really just the part with the cunning to know how to whip them into a frenzy.

Hey, get on MSN. :)

Can't, not at home. I'll be back tomorrow, though, so I guess I'll see you then. :)

The term "conservative" is really only meaningful in the context of "liberals." Bush is definitely not a liberal. Thus, by definition, he is a conservative.

Is this system of labeling over-simplistic and unhelpful? Yes, but coming up with abstract ideas of what a conservative believes or what a liberal thinks doesn't really help.

You're ignoring one major thing: Bush's campaign rhetoric in 2000 did not match his actions after he was elected. He campaigned as a pro-peace, pro-small government candidate, and the sheeple voted for him accordingly. Conservatives only re-elected him because he wasn't Kerry, and to them, all Democrats are the Devil incarnate.

self-identified conservatives are effectively his biggest/only supporters and have been the entire time.

I would ask you to prove that, but I won't hold my breath.
Reality and the practise of libertarianism and neoliberalism worldwide proves my point, and you know it.

. With Homeland Security and the selective disregard for Habeas Corpus, interference in private lives and respect for the law has suffered a sharp decline, both in government and in the governed. Executive powers are being used, even abused, without any checks.

Lincoln did this also/

I disagree, an attempt by libertarians to distance themselves from the Reaganomics which Bush follows is at best contrary to the facts.

Increasing spending and decreasing taxes IS NOT Reaganomics. Spending did end up going up under Reagen, but that's because it had to and he did his best (which apparently was not good enough) to decrease non-military spending. Indeed, Mr. Bush is far more similar to Juan Peron of Argentina in spending then he is to Reagen.

In reality and practise libertarianism is about state protection (tariffs, subsidies etc) for the rich and powerful,

You're working on the false assumption that they need protecting. You're also working on the false assumption that libertarians support tarriffs, subsidies, et cetera, which they don't.

while the 'free market' and no protection for the poor, 'tough love' if you will, the love for the rich and tough for the poor. If you look to the policies of Mayor Giuiliani or typical Reaganomics, you'll see the eliminationist logic of the rich,

What eliminationist logic? Rudy reduced crime rates. He brought New York back from the dead. Of course maybe you're talking about the liberal property taxes that forced them out of their homes once they were worth something.

they see the rich as the perfect examples of rugged individualism

Those which create their own riches yes. Those who inherit them no.

and the poor as sad examples of personal failure and attachment to socialism (welfare etc).

Personal failure is defined as not achieving. As such, they are examples of personal failure, unless they are poor by choice, which we have no problem with. Attachment to socialism is a serious problem in many areas.

In theory libertarianism is about equal rights for all, but in practise the inability to 'wipe the slate clean' or have a 'Year Zero' means that the rich already start with a massive advantages in capital and state protection.

Such is life. Look, there are two kinds of rights, those that are given and those that you naturally have already and can only be interfered with. Libertarians believe in preventing interference and allowing individuals to be responsible for their own actions. And yes, life is not particularly fair. It won't be fair under a statist system either, it will just be a different kind of unfair, as in, you'd best know the President or his family if you want a good job.

Libertarianism in reality is horrible and ugly, tax plunder for the rich and widescale privatization has left much of America looking like a run-down peasant dwelling,

Really? And that is anything new? "Run down peasant dwelling," sounds like you have purposefully described all of Europe before the rise of the free market.

while New York and the fortune 500 cities are better than ever. It's like '2 worlds', in one you have the horrible world poverty, homelessness, hopelessness and run-down neighbourhoods, housings closing everywhere, an welfare reducing people to the state of indentured servants. The other world is a super rich sleek world of riches and extravagance. Libertarians don't realize that their ideology is in practise today in the real world through 'free markets' and it's effects are horrible and ugly.

Hence the fact that, with the greatest implementation of free market economics ever seen in the history of the world, Africa is growing at a steady rate of 6% a year, India's & China's middle class is expanding at a breakneck pace, and poor blacks in Atlanta are being represented in Georgia's middle class in ever greater numbers. Meanwhile, previously wealthy areas like Boston, Detroit, San Francisco and Los Angeles are tanking gloriously, thus proving that the only way to be rich is to start that way! :p

...and the sheeple voted for him accordingly.

If I may be permitted a small sidetrack/threadjack:

Is referring to them as "sheep" supposed to convince the people to sympathize with, and thus adopt, your views? Wouldn't such flattery actually result in precisely the opposite?

I ask this question because I think I've noticed a tendency for Libertarians to take contradictory views concerning the individual. On the one hand, Libertarianism exalts individual liberty, positing that the individual possesses free will and is thus capable to handle the responsibility of making his or her own choices and accepting the consequences there of. On the other hand, it also seems popular among Libertarians to insult the intelligence of the "sheeple," who are too ignorant or stupid to be trusted with the ability to make political decisions. Often coupled with this second view is the assertion that some kind of centralized authority is necessary to direct the "sheeple" so that they make the correct choices; these authorities often take explicitly [i]non-democratic (again, the "sheeple" are too stupid) economic and even aristocratic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353896&postcount=77) forms.

My question is thus rather short: how does one reconcile these contradictory views of the individual?

You have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is.That is because in the US no such thing exists. What is called liberal in the US is called right-wing everywhere else.

That is because in the US no such thing exists.
More silly idealism once again, neoliberalism has horrible examples worldwide in reducing common people to basic serfs of the market. "libertarianianism" is the empowerment of the rich to exploit the poor.

The greatest myth of the neoliberal camp is that the bourgeois 'build' capital, this is patently false, the proletariat build capital, and they must continue to build more and more capital to feed the overgrowing markets, while their own wages and conditions go down and down, thus the 'high growth, low wages' phenomenon. 'Libertarianism' is patently wrong because it purports to give equal freedom to all, but in reality this won't happen because the bourgeois need the productive forces of the working class to support free market growth, and to continue and increase this growth they need lower labor costs, people are more commodified into 'resources'.

Libertarianism won't work because the worker's would never willingly work for the wage-slave system of the bourgeois, without the overriding oppressive apparatus of the state to force them to work for their capitalist overlords they would never yield.

So yeah, if you 'libertarians' want no state, that's fine with me, but your only digging your own grave, your taking away the only protection the bourgeois has to keep it's dictatorship alive, without that state apparatus of the police and military, they will be toppled. So yes, the bourgeois dictatorship needs protection, because without guns it would have already gone the way of the dustbin.

The libertarian idea of private property can only be sustained by having a permanent working underclass so they can increase capital, the market will die unless it doesn't constantly expand, and it needs an organized labor force to do this, and because you need to treat them like animals you need instruments of oppression. No worker would ever willing be a wage-slave, your 'free market' is simply the carry-on from the ruins of feudal serfdom.

Their is no 'libertarian order', 'democracies' 'corporate states', their is only the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeois, both classes are antagonistic to each other because their innate interests are mutually exclusive, they will struggle until one comes out on top or both are destroyed in equal ruin.

Libertarian 'theory' is contrary to reality and practise because it makes the false assumption that the bourgeois will willingly give up power, libertarianism is simply a bourgeois-intellectual attempt to give pseudo-credence to class oppression. The attempts at making 'class collaboration' (that is to force the workers to submit to the bourgeois state) have their clear examples in fascist national syndicalist and Nazi literature, that resulted in the mass enslavement of working class Jewish people and communists and extermination of dissenters. Fascism is capitalism in decay, when all the pretenses and trivialities of class oppression (as seen here in the West in terms of 'rule of law','civil liberties' etc) have been stripped away and all that is left is raw, naked, brutal class exploitation.

In the US, political labels like "liberal" and "conservative" and even "libertarian" don't mean a damned thing because US politics is all about salesmanship, and the labels get redefined to mean whatever the top tier of campaign managers think the voters want to hear in any given election cycle, and whatever they think will create an obvious and simplistic contrast between their candidate and the opposing candidate. So, if a candidate who calls themselves "liberal" likes to eat cashews, then cashews are a liberal nut and it is "conservative" to eat peanuts.

a-men. and that's exactly the long and the short of it right there.

bush is a spoiled retard who gets to warm a fancy chair in a fancy office to act as a lightning rod and hood orniment for his string pullers. his culpability is the enthusiasm with which he actively supports going along with doing so.

but let's not loose sight of what's really been going on.

and that is a political system usurped by self serving economic intrests and owe no fealty to any nation and don't care who nor how many are outright killed or more lingeringly deprived of the means of survival. mostly their rapacity has been directed away from western/northern nations that give them shelter, but even those of us in these nations have not be immune to their callus and indiffernt deprivity.

victums of the AFTERMATH of katrina are one example. and almost certain only among the first (in contemporary times) of many if this condition continues and continues to advance. (historicly you can also count colorado mine workers, and railway pullman porters and even the genocide of indiginous cultures of the western hemisphere. every form of prejudice and discrimination may even have this at its root. yah, you can't blame bush for those becuase he wasn't even born then, but its the same mentality and misplaced priorites that he both represents and serves).

=^^=
.../\...

Bush is not conservative.

Conservative means limited government, low taxes, low spending, a humble foreign policy, "social conservatism", etc.

Conservative means limited government, low taxes, low spending, a humble foreign policy...

no, it doesn't and never has. not a single thing there is either a defining or even identifying characteristic of conservatism. in fact, at least 2 of them are the exact opposite of what is associated with generic conservatism.

More silly idealism once again, neoliberalism has horrible examples worldwide in reducing common people to basic serfs of the market. "libertarianianism" is the empowerment of the rich to exploit the poor.

The greatest myth of the neoliberal camp is that the bourgeois 'build' capital, this is patently false, the proletariat build capital, and they must continue to build more and more capital to feed the overgrowing markets, while their own wages and conditions go down and down, thus the 'high growth, low wages' phenomenon. 'Libertarianism' is patently wrong because it purports to give equal freedom to all, but in reality this won't happen because the bourgeois need the productive forces of the working class to support free market growth, and to continue and increase this growth they need lower labor costs, people are more commodified into 'resources'.

First of all, the proletariats conditions do not go down. If they did, we would not have the huge majority middle class in America that we have, and you'd have no complaining to do about SUV's. Second, yes, the bourgeois do build capital by organizing the assets, dealings, and labor required for production, something which the proletariat by definition cannot do because if he does so he will no longer be a member of the proletariat. As for lower labor costs, they will seek cheaper production out, and they do have a right to do that. But sometimes they will also stay, because labor is hardly the only cost, and for many businesses, like cement production, it is almost insignificant in comparison to the cost of carrying freight, which goes down in many developed countries

There are two things that determine wages: first, the demand for the labor. Second, the ability of an industry to pay the laborer, as determined by the amount of profit he generates, which serves an effective ceiling. If the demand rises, and the company will lose far more from firing the workers then keeping them, the wages will rise, as they are currently rising in China and India:

Food Prices rise due to greater demand (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420)

Libertarianism won't work because the worker's would never willingly work for the wage-slave system of the bourgeois, without the overriding oppressive apparatus of the state to force them to work for their capitalist overlords they would never yield.

They had to have willlingly worked for the "wage-slave" system, because otherwise it would not have come about. The workers would not have travelled to London if they did not perceive the work they'd get there as being better, and industrialization would've taken long enough, with enough communication back to the countryside, to inform those coming in if things were truly terrible there.

Maybe you just don't recognize how terrible the medieval world was.

So yeah, if you 'libertarians' want no state, that's fine with me, but your only digging your own grave, your taking away the only protection the bourgeois has to keep it's dictatorship alive, without that state apparatus of the police and military, they will be toppled. So yes, the bourgeois dictatorship needs protection, because without guns it would have already gone the way of the dustbin.

The police spend far more time protecting poor people in Inner City areas then they spend protecting the rich in their suburbs. And most poor people have obviously neither time nor inclination to assault those suburbs, as there is more then enough reason for them to do so, so if they were going to do it they would've done it already.

The libertarian idea of private property can only be sustained by having a permanent working underclass so they can increase capital, the market will die unless it doesn't constantly expand, and it needs an organized labor force to do this, and because you need to treat them like animals you need instruments of oppression. No worker would ever willing be a wage-slave, your 'free market' is simply the carry-on from the ruins of feudal serfdom.

Not neccesarilly. Automation and giving the worker the ability to produce more creates far more economic growth then a little cheap labor. With robotics and machinery you can potentially triple, quadruple, quintuple the amount of production coming off your lines, with the same or fewer workers, while with cheap labor you reduce your costs only by a small amount. Add to this the fact that cheaper labor prices also make it harder for them to buy your goods, and all and all increasing productivity is far more beneficial to businesses then attempting to cut costs towards the workers.

Their is no 'libertarian order', 'democracies' 'corporate states', their is only the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeois, both classes are antagonistic to each other because their innate interests are mutually exclusive, they will struggle until one comes out on top or both are destroyed in equal ruin.

More likely it will be the proletariat who are destroyed, and they'll be killed by mechanization. The small number of industrial workers who will remain (mainly mechanics and programmers) will be promoted up to the level of bourgeoise, and a new culture garnered around new forms of occupations will create a new, likely wealthier, second class.

Libertarian 'theory' is contrary to reality and practise because it makes the false assumption that the bourgeois will willingly give up power, libertarianism is simply a bourgeois-intellectual attempt to give pseudo-credence to class oppression.

We never assume that. We do, however, notice that the kind of things which make the proletariat wealthier (mechanization, globalization, increased education levels) are often far more beneficial to business owners then a little cheap labor, and if that weren't true, there would be no corporations left in the United States of America, France, Germany, or Sweden, as all of these countries are comparatively expensive, labor-wise, to operate in. This is clearly not true, as most people in those countries still have jobs and most of those jobs are with businesses.

The attempts at making 'class collaboration' (that is to force the workers to submit to the bourgeois state) have their clear examples in fascist national syndicalist and Nazi literature, that resulted in the mass enslavement of working class Jewish people and communists and extermination of dissenters. Fascism is capitalism in decay, when all the pretenses and trivialities of class oppression (as seen here in the West in terms of 'rule of law','civil liberties' etc) have been stripped away and all that is left is raw, naked, brutal class exploitation.

It is true that sometimes the fears of a class uprising are used to secure Fascism from the rich mans side, but really, you're working on the false assumption that Fascism is an ideology. It isn't. Fascism is nothing but a modern ediface on the face of the ancient institution of tyranny, and states like Fascist Italy and Spain have existed far longer then the free-market and have far more to do with psychopaths who yearn for absolute power then "Capitalism in Decay." If you don't believe me, you need only glance at the histories of Nero Ceasar, Herod, the Ancient Aztecs, the Spanish Inquistion, and Ivan the Terrible, all of whom came about before the free-market and certainly before it fell in to decay.

no, it doesn't and never has. not a single thing there is either a defining or even identifying characteristic of conservatism. in fact, at least 2 of them are the exact opposite of what is associated with generic conservatism.

Conservative just means resistant to radical change. If the standards and traditions in politics they want to uphold are liberal economics and more authoritarian social policies like what was present in the past, then that's what them being a conservative would mean.

Conservative just means resistant to radical change. If the standards and traditions in politics they want to uphold are liberal economics and more authoritarian social policies like what was present in the past, then that's what them being a conservative would mean.

it actually means more than that, as far as the passions that animate it goes. it isn't so much about the past per se. it is about hierarchy and domination and obedience and all that, which they take some other era to be closer to. but conservatives are all about the radical change provided that it is approved by their accepted leaders.

When people say that Bush isn't really a conservative, what they really mean is "Bush did all these conservative things and it turns out they are horrible ideas that are ruining the United States, so let's pretend we never supported them."

Conservatives may oppose spending on social programs, but they never opposed lavish military spending, which is what Bush is doing.

When people say that Bush isn't really a conservative, what they really mean is "Bush did all these conservative things and it turns out they are horrible ideas that are ruining the United States, so let's pretend we never supported them."

Conservatives may oppose spending on social programs, but they never opposed lavish military spending, which is what Bush is doing.

No, but they would consider lavish federal mass-transit spending in New York and Seattle, building bridges to uninhabited islands in Alaska, subsidizing steel mills, driving food prices up with Ethanol, and other such "government investment" hardly passe.

To be honest with you, I suspect it was these kinds of measures that did the most harm, especially since in some cases (like the ethanol), secondary economic damage accompanied the debt, thus draining tax receipts.