conservative vs. liberal

[PeterAngelo]

The "founding fathers" called it a living document. You are right - it is pure horseshit.

Roosevelt packed the LOWER Federal Courts with judges that started this commie bureaucracy we have.

Remember - what we hated about Soviet and Chinese so-called communism was that it was a TOTAL bureauocracy run by a few byllies.

That is what we are now.

A total bureaucracy wanting to control every aspect of our lives, asking us to spy on each other, and turning the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Wrongs.

We are now more commie than Russia.

I agree that personal responsibility is paramount.

We have a governmant that works against personal responsibility, makes policies that cause unemployment, dumbs down the schools, and then blames the victims for being lazy and stupid.

Get real. This government is the enemy of real Americans and is trying to enslave us like the other "commie" countries.

I believe in true conservatism. I believe in ethics, equity, and helping the disabled and the elderly. I believe that healthcare is sacred - not for profit. I believe that government should be limited to infrastructure maintanamce, defense, and keeping domestic peace.

I do not believe in a bloated bureaucracy that needs new tricks to steal money from us to feed itself.

Keep politics mostly local. Give states more power - but not to persecute, cheat or lynch people like in the past.

We all want freedom and peace.

Our enemy is a government that needs division, terror, and eternal war to feed an evil war machine.

[Eulux]

Roosevelt pulled our asses out of depression with those commie programs, peter. Without those programs, there would have been no jobs, and nothing to stimulate the economy...Local politics is a plan that will never work, at least with our current population, as well with our technology. Perhaps you like kaczynski's(sp?) ideas...that's kinda suprising. Eh, on the good-lawyer thing, that isn't the majority, now is it? Your relatives are doing what they think is right, but it still isn't exactly a small paying job...

You believe in true conservatism...could you explain that a bit further?

[Section 8]

The problem with this, is that people are automatically equating conservatism with a large state. I happen to be a capitalist, and an anarchist, not exactly big government eh? In fact, the government is the one restricting capitalism and freedom.

[Eulux]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In fact, the government is the one restricting capitalism and freedom.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Yeah...not to be an ass, but that is fairly obvious.

[castille]

The US government is restricting capitalism. Australia is constantly asking the US to lower tariffs, and the Republicans are constantly putting up enormous tariff walls to "protect" American industries.

True capitalism is when the world becomes a global village. Imagine it as a regular village; China mass produces steel products, exchanges them with the US for wheat, etc etc.

Like the woodsman who produces furniture and exchanges them for food from the farmer....so too is true capitalism based on this simple act.


Of course, constantly educating our children how to be slaves and never think for themselves kind of impedes real capitalism....you're a capitalist when you think of a creative solution to a problem, not when you give up halfway, or when you do what everyone else does.

[Anarchist Patriot]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fellvoice21,)
Despite all the rather interesting surveys out there which try to determine ideological standings (with questionable results), it seems to me there's but one essential difference between a conservative and a liberal.

(I prefer to use the terms conservative and liberal rather than Democratic and Republican, because so often the parties stray from their promises to appeal to voters, or don't have definable platforms. Term limits all the way!)

A conservative believes that people are essentially bad; a liberal believes people are essentially good. This explains socialism. Liberals believe a human will work out of compassion and ethics, even if he doesn't have any motivation; thus, we have communism. Conservatives realize man is lazy at heart, and thus advocates capitalism, which forces man to work for status and survival.

Thoughts, anyone?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Simplistic explaination but basically true.

"Liberal" and "Conservatism" can be deceiving though. Some see Clinton as a liberal though I consider him the best Republican president the US ever had. In fact he was the very thing that Conservatives like the most: He was opposed to Organized labor, pro-death penalty, pro war-on-drugs, supportive of promoting american intrests abroad by force and so on and so forth.

[castille]

You have to remember that liberal socially doesnt mean you're also liberal politically. Clinton was conservative politically, but I dont call getting a blowjob from your secretary "conservative socially".

I'm tended to be liberal on a social level (ie. I'm opposed to the traditional family, enjoy sex before marriage, dislike morality, don't really mind homosexuality/prostitution/gambling)

But in a political scale I'm American-conservative, but Chinese-liberal.

[PeterAngelo]

Eulux:

Roosevelt and his "make work" policies did help build an infrastructure - but it bankrupted the banks - and terrified the ruling elite.

WWII happened because the Western banking systems broke down. The war was a giant urban-renewal, and population reduction project, that is still being played out.

The prosperity post WWII was a brief period due to the lack of world competition while Europe and Japan rebuilt (with our help), and Russia and China used slave labor to build their modern infrastructure.

Roosevelt was a patrician working to keep the British Empire alive and well.

It worked - temporarily - the bill is now due and the former "weak" allies (Middle East) want what was promised in 1916 - autonomy.

Your "version" of history is "nice", but wholly inaccurate. It supports your world view - but it is not the view of the world.

True conservatism would include integrity in "small" government to do the street repair, policing, and national "defense". It would not deliberately hold down the worker and then blame him/her for being lazy and irresponsible. It would not blame the victim of corrupt government policies for "losing" a rigged game.

Personal responsibility is paramount - but so is respect for individual justice and fairness.

I do not believe in feeding people - I do believe in teaching them how to grow food.

If they are mentally or physically disabled, everything possible should be done to promote what they CAN do and not punish them for what they CANNOT do.

Integrity is the key - integrity is what is missing.

[Eulux]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
....you're a capitalist when you think of a creative solution to a problem, not when you give up halfway, or when you do what everyone else does.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Eh, so all people who think of creative ways to solve problems are capitalists? nonsence.

Now to peter: Not that I am agreeing, (that part will be explained later) but my version of history could by all means be just as accurrate as the next fool's...but I never really provided a world history approach in any of my posts above. I was simply referring to roosevelts programs, which did work...and it is good that he terrified the ruling elite, but I don't see how it really terrified them further than the depression did.

How did he bankrupt the banks? I would prefer a source, I seem to have not heard this...

Thanks for the explaination of true conservatism.

[forecg]

Personally, I don't like the terms "liberal" and "conservative" because the words have been abused for so long that they don't mean the same thing to everyone who uses them. Does "liberal" mean you support centrally funded social welfare, or does it mean that you support free market economics? Believe it or not, BOTH are in fact commonly accepted definitions.

Labels are great when they mean the same thing to everyone who uses them, but "liberal" and "conservative" don't. Wouldn't we have better luck trying to debate and understand each other if we just called a spade a spade? I think we can save time and energy if we concentrate on debating the policies themselves (by clearly defining them from the start) rather than debating what these labels mean to each of us.

I'll start. I'd like to understand the axioms a person can use that support the policy of levying taxes and spending the money on federal-level social programs in the U.S. Can someone who supports this policy please explain the reasoning behind it?

[decoy]

As a libertarian, I couldn't agree more with forecg. The terms are incredibly muddled. Depending on where you come from, liberalism can indeed be synonymous with "leftist", whatever that means, or libertarian, and conservatives, well, they aren't too conservative these days. Not around these parts, nor stateside.

But even if we work with the American definitions, I don't think conservatives view people as being inherently bad. I mean, my own ideology is often called conservative, even when its underpinnings are decidedly humanistic and optimistic.

Rather I think most political ideologies differ in their societal ideals. Conservatives yearn for the return of the (imaginary) good old times, with stalwart men, nuclear families and picket fences. Liberals instead go for a Third Way egalitarian utopia where uncertainty and poverty has been dealt with by the state. And libertarians, well, you probably already know what we want so I won't go there in my first post.

My point is, differences between political ideologies aren't primarily psychological or philosophical. They are political, plain and simple.

[PeterAngelo]

The unemployed weren't satisfied with "Sherley Temple" movies in the thirties. There was a serious threat of civil unrest. Roosevelt had no choice but to "make work" with all the federal projects. It was a great thing - but it cost money. Someone had to cover the paychecks, equipment, and supplies.

It staggers the mind to think of putting millions of people to work on a giant construction project as big as the WPA.

WWII was a necessary evil to provide a fast "fix" of population reduction, urban renewal, and a guaranteed post war boom.

It ended the depression, and the West has ridden the wave - until now.

We are now at the time when the bill is really due. The promises made to the Arab world for their cooperation since 1916 are due. It is all due and they are calling in the debts.

The thing about history is that it is really a big soap opera. No person or event is seperate from all others. It is a progression of struggle that IS our social evolution. It is slow and painful - but predictable.

[forecg]

Painful, yes. Slow, no (compared to any other time in history). Predictable - I wish! I'd be rich!

This reminds of me of an anecdote:

An engineer is hired to help the People's Republic of China build a dam. He is walking across the construction site when he sees dozens of workers digging with shovels. "Why don't you rent out a backhoe for this?" he asks the foreman. "It will be faster and cost less money too."

The foreman shakes his head. "That may be true, but it would put all of these men out of work. How are we going to find jobs for them?"

"If jobs are the goal then I know just what to do," says the engineer. "If we take away the shovels and tell them to use spoons, then we'll have jobs for HUNDREDS of workers."

[PeterAngelo]

Too many workers? - have a war and kill them - it has worked since antiquity.

[NittLion78]

PeterAngelo, you are one sick $#&% if you think WWII was a "necessary evil to provide a fast 'fix' of population reduction, urban renewal, and a guaranteed post war boom". Consider yourself lucky that you or your predecessors weren't killed in the conflict so you can even make an outlandish and borderline maniacal statement like that.

It also shows that you have no concept of economics. War is the single worst thing for an economy, victor or loser. What did the US do? Transferred all its car plants and other manufacturing into war factories. So did Japan, Germany, and the USSR. The difference is that we didn't have to dig out millions of corpses from under their ashes. We got the luxury of retooling - much preferred to scorched earth and mass death. And yet, the spectre of WWII haunts us still with our hegemony.

The idea of "making jobs" is incredibly thick-skulled. If there is no demand, then there is no job to fill that demand - plain and simple. There simply is NO MAKING WORK. If there is no demand in the world for something, then a creation of that something won't somehow make widespread demand for it. If you tell me you're starting a company with my money that makes widgets to put some folks to work, I say, "Hey, that's great. But, who the hell's buying them, and when do I see a return on my investment?"

All those steel jobs that people like those in my hometown of Pittsburgh yearn for are gone, and they're not coming back. Why? Because American plants are run inefficiently, and there not enough need for it. Japan and Germany needed boatloads of steel to rebuild their economies after WWII. They got it. When the rebuilding was over, they didn't need it anymore. Detroit and the domestic construction industry can only buy so much of our steel. After a while, there's just no desire or need for it.

Take Social Security. In an average American's lifetime, he'll pay in $723,591. He'll get back $140,000. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1350

If you were to privately invest that same money and your stockbroker gave you that sort of return, you might be acquitted in court when you murder the incompetent prick.

So a -80.7% return on investment is what we give our citizens? They don't even have to be intelligent to turn that money into something. Invest money market and make 2%. Invest in S&P 500 and historically return 11%! Even if you screw up, you're still MAKING money, at least!

The more of these New Deal/WWII dinosaur socialist programs they come up with, the worse our quality of life gets, the more our rights erode, and the more we become slaves to our once-limited gov't.

ALL HAIL FDR THE BRILLIANT!

[adima]

I think the first poster made a good point as to the differences between a liberal and a conservative. However, i tend to see these days, kids my age(highschool) thinking that since they like freedom and to say what they think, they are liberals just because they know the definition of liberty. And I dont know that saying liberals think humans and good and conservatives think humans are bad. Thats not such a good way to put it.

According to Liberalforum.org a liberal is defined as follows:
"[Liberalism] is generic for people who believe in individualism, freedom, equality, the social contract and rational evidence-based (as opposed to morality-based) public policy but often disagree on the application of these principles."

A liberal may believe in these things, but whos to say conservatives dont. However, one thing troubles me about the site saying liberals believe in equality and freedom. Everytime i see a conservative state his/her mind to a liberal, the liberal points out where and why they are wrong. Not saying its not possible for a conservative to do it (I do it all the time), but to do it in the media is another thing. It is provoking a young generation to fight, ultimately leading to a point where they will take up a segragation. Not between races, but between beliefs. Don't think, "Oh hypocrite, I see conservatives do it all the time." Normally, (Not saying always) the first strike is made by a liberal.
I believe it was a good move, electing Bush. Some say he is corrupting our country with this war. Think hypophetically here, we never began chasing Osama Bin Ladin, never came across evidence that there might be WMDs in Iraq, never started this "war" (i think of it as a liberation). What would have happened then? Who knows? When you play a game of poker do you go all in with a pair of 5's? (you shouldnt if you do) Bush was dealt a full house with jacks and queens, and bet a large pot (we still havent seen the opponents' hands). Don't say that if this was a game of cards you wouldn't have done the same. If none of the previously mentioned had happened: Osama wouldn't be on the run, and could be spending his time plotting terror, Saddam wouldn't be a prisoner and could be torturing or using his WMDs (not saying they exist for sure), liberals wouldn't be upset and telling us how much we screwed up. Listen, this country is based on freedom, if conservatives didn't believe in it, they wouldn't be running it. So seriously, quit with the personal attacks. They are what is really corrupting this country. I know this may sound attacking, and I'm sorry if it does. I just wanted people to see it from a 15 year old's point of view.


Any questions, comments, criticisms, notes, ect, send a message and let me know. Again, no offense should be taken by this to anyone except maybe the certain liberals (most often democrats) that have been engaging in "The War on Harmony" to whom this message was concerned

[adima]

hmm

[adima]

Quote by: G. Adams Firstly, your all allowing liberalism to be blurred with socialism. Liberals are centerist, some of their policies match socialists because they feel that people can only be free if they get equal oppurtunities. He is correct in highlighting conservatism's view of humanity is negative. It remains focused around law and order policies, and maintaining the status quo (as in social heiarchy) I believe, Omega, that you are a neo-liberal, as in Thatcher and Reagan style. A strong state (not neccesarally large though, Thatchers cut hundreds of thousands from the civil service, one thing I do like her for), minimising on restrictions on business, lowering taxes etc The problem is that the two major parties, in Britain and the USA, absorb the ideas of those around them at different times. So people, who because they support, for example Republicans for their low tax and easy ride for business, assume they are conservative because thats how Republicans are generally seen, but it isn't the case. It's equally applicable to the Democrats. As has happened on this thread, people have quickly blended liberalism into socialism, when they are very far apart in reality. This is because the Democrats picked up on working class issues, and Roosevelt 50 years ago was pursuing a temporary social democrat agenda, but overall the Democrat Party remains a liberal (of the Gladstone streak) party. This is what happens when your political education comes from the media. Pick up a book on politics, please. And then for once people complaining about me being a communist would have some idea what they are talking about.

you sound like an intelligent person and i dont know how the media is in the UK but in America over two thirds of the popular television networks are run by liberals. Fox is the only local network In St. Louis, MO that has a conservative standpoint on anything at all. The other 4 networks that run a daily news program are liberal. but like i said, thats just america.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: adima you sound like an intelligent person and i dont know how the media is in the UK but in America over two thirds of the popular television networks are run by liberals. Fox is the only local network In St. Louis, MO that has a conservative standpoint on anything at all. The other 4 networks that run a daily news program are liberal. but like i said, thats just america.

To say that 2/3's of the US msm is run by liberals is to misunderstand the paradigm. These claimed "liberals" and "conservatives" believe in a different managerial style, but both work for the same cause - other peoples money.

And just a point from your earlier definition of a liberal...when it says equality, it should say equality before the law. When equality starts to mean equalisation, your into social democrats if not full on socialists. I think this distinction is lost on a number of people who mistakenly think themselves liberals.

NB. I am no longer a communist but a libertarian.

[JohnMK]

G. Adams, do you have any idea with what relative frequency is the transition made from libertarian to communist?