Liberalism Vs Conservatism

[CBVan]

Sorry if there is a good place to discuss this already, but I don't know of one.
I hope this will be a place to debate the merits of Liberalism or Conservatism in a rational (Oh deus, WHAT HAVE I DONE?!), logical, and polite manner.

Note: I am a US citizen.
I, personally, am a godless conservative (take THAT Ann Coulter!). I see no reason for a large government organizing peoples lives. Taxes, I believe, should be low, entitlements like welfare limited, and capitalism allowed to function as it ought to.
I am not, however a libertarian - I oppose the ownership of automatic or semi-automatic weapons, because I believe single shot weapons are fine for home defense and hunting purposes. I also oppose all hallucinogenic, psychedelic, or generally mind-altering substance use for anything other than medical purposes.
I do believe that with proper education, every one can succeed. Education ought to be one of the few entitlements all recieve. I do believe it should extend farther than it currently does in my country.
I socially accepting - homosexuals can marry, women can have abortions, etc. so long as I do not have to pay for it.
Ultimately, my philosophy boils down to:
"I don't really care what you get up to in your own time as long as I am not put at risk or have to pay for it."

What is your personal philosophy on these issues?

 

[fishbob]

I dislike the labels. Parts of your self-description would qualify you as flaming liberal in some circles.

My biggest concern with your positions is on 'generally mind-altering substances' - not because I favor them, but because prohibition has never been made to work. I suspect that dealing with these things through education and treatment would be cheaper (lower taxes) than enforcement in the long run.

Also 'capitalism allowed to function as it ought' is fraught with vagueness. Not certain what you mean.

 

[CBVan]

Fishbob, your right. I didn't ellaborate quite enough. I call myself a conservative because of my belief in small government being better than a large one (ie, I am a fiscal conservative). Socially, many would consider me a liberal, but I don't think so. (See my opinion on mind-alterers).
I agree with your assessment on prohibition - proper education is a MUST. I believe in enforcement because I believe that their is no greater possession of any person than their mind. Preventing them from harming it is like preventing suicide.
Capitalism, as I understand it, ought to mean companies are allowed to compete for employees, ideas, and resources, without ever being permitted to form monopolies. My full position on property rights is rather elaborate and perhaps best not discussed here, unless someone really wants to hear it.

 

[WildCat]

There is only one way to settle this once and for all. We will designate Ohio State University as Conservatism, and the University of Michigan as Liberalism. On Nov. 18 we will find out which is better!

Oh yeah, European-style Socialism will be represented by Temple...

 

[Piggy]

Liberalism v. conservatism is a totally b**ls**t dichotomy.

First of all, neither of these 2 camps can even agree on what constitutes their own agenda.

Secondly, they are only 2 camps among many -- they do not define the spectrum.

Asking me if I'm liberal or conservative is like asking me if I'm Nigerian or Chinese -- when I say "no" it doesn't mean I must fall somewhere in between.

I believe in minimal government, unlike today's conservatives.

I believe that if an adult wants to smoke marijuana or ingest psilocybin mushrooms on his own property, it's none of the government's business.

I do not believe that anyone with an education can succeed. Life just ain't that simple.

But it's not the government's role to see to it that everyone succeeds.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether -- let them all be civil unions as far as the government is concerned. And I don't care who else gets married, as long as they're consenting adults. It won't affect my marriage one bit.

I'm pro-death. That is, I'm in favor of legal abortion on demand, a person's right to end his own life and have medical assistance in doing so, and capital punishment in cases of repeat violent offenders like Bundy.

 

[CBVan]

Liberalism v. conservatism is a totally b**ls**t dichotomy.

First of all, neither of these 2 camps can even agree on what constitutes their own agenda.

Secondly, they are only 2 camps among many -- they do not define the spectrum.

Sure. There are many camps. But in American mainstream, its... well... I was going to say its either liberal or conservative, until I considered your next statement.

I believe in minimal government, unlike today's conservatives.

Agreed. Conservatives have turned into big budget bigots, thats the problem. That isn't conservatism, its relatively mild fascism!

I believe that if an adult wants to smoke marijuana or ingest psilocybin mushrooms on his own property, it's none of the government's business.

People under the influence of hallucinogens can and do injure their fellow citizens, and are not fully in control of their own actions. In order to prevent a "drugs made me do it!" alibi, hallucinogens really ought to be banned.

 

[Piggy]

People under the influence of hallucinogens can and do injure their fellow citizens, and are not fully in control of their own actions. In order to prevent a "drugs made me do it!" alibi, hallucinogens really ought to be banned.

I don't know of any evidence that a person under the influence of hallucinogens is more likely to actually injure another person than someone who's not. And blaming the drug has never been a legitimate legal defense.

If some cracker on a farm in Alachua County, FL wants to pull mushrooms out of the cows**t and eat them, it's none of the government's business.

If a steelworker in Pennsylvania would rather relax in front of the TV with a joint instead of a six-pack, it's none of the government's business.

 

[WildCat]

People under the influence of hallucinogens can and do injure their fellow citizens, and are not fully in control of their own actions. In order to prevent a "drugs made me do it!" alibi, hallucinogens really ought to be banned.

By the same logic alcohol should also be banned. In fact, alcohol kills many times more people every year than all illegal drugs combined. So are you in favor of a new Prohibition?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Taxes, I believe, should be low, entitlements like welfare limited, and capitalism allowed to function as it ought to ...

What is your personal philosophy on these issues?

But what you are saying is both true and meaningless.

I''m one of those pesky European social democrats.

I believe that taxes should be as low --- as is compatible wih a decent society, as do you; that entitlements should be limited --- of course --- and that capitalism should be allowed to function as it ought.

If you meant that to be a statement of right-wing American thought, you need to try harder.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

There is only one way to settle this once and for all. We will designate Ohio State University as Conservatism, and the University of Michigan as Liberalism. On Nov. 18 we will find out which is better!

Oh yeah, European-style Socialism will be represented by Temple...

Great, now I'm going to get my nose broken for cheering for "the enemy" (OSU student), over a game I usually don't pay attention to anyway.

 

[jimtron]

Taxes, I believe, should be low, entitlements like welfare limited, and capitalism allowed to function as it ought to.

Everyone wants low taxes, but we can't agree on who pays how much, and where the tax dollars go. I don't think that's necessarily a left/right issue. Many on the right support spending a lot of tax dollars on the military, afaik.

I do believe that with proper education, every one can succeed.

I think education should be a top priority. What about public inner city schools? I was fortunate enough to attend excellent public schools in a Chicago suburb. If I lived in the south or west side of Chicago, my local public school would have been far inferior. What do we do about that? Spend more on education? Some would say that's liberal.

As far as everyone succeeding, even if the playing field was level (which it certainly isn't), someone's got to drive the cabs and work at McDonald's. And I'm not sure if we can have billionaires without poor people.

...and capitalism allowed to function as it ought to.

I think there are different ideas about how capitalism "ought to" function. How do you think it shoud function?

How do you feel about deregulation?

 

[Ryokan]

I see no reason for a large government organizing peoples lives. Taxes, I believe, should be low, entitlements like welfare limited, and capitalism allowed to function as it ought to.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

You sound like a liberal to me...

I agree with almost every opinion you have, and I'm a liberal, a member of the Norwegian Liberal Party and an active member of the Young Liberals of Norway.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If some cracker on a farm in Alachua County, FL wants to pull mushrooms out of the cows**t and eat them, it's none of the government's business.

If a steelworker in Pennsylvania would rather relax in front of the TV with a joint instead of a six-pack, it's none of the government's business.

Preach it brother, in principle, but I will ask: why the racial epithet in the first line? Farmer versus cracker strikes me as equally descriptive to your scenario, and more universally applicable since the cultural / racial make up of farmers is more extensive that your postulated sub group. Also less offensive, though the penchant for giving and receiving offense on this forum by muitiple participants (me included at times) is noted.

DR

 

[Mephisto]

Liberalism v. conservatism is a totally b**ls**t dichotomy.

First of all, neither of these 2 camps can even agree on what constitutes their own agenda.

Secondly, they are only 2 camps among many -- they do not define the spectrum.

Asking me if I'm liberal or conservative is like asking me if I'm Nigerian or Chinese -- when I say "no" it doesn't mean I must fall somewhere in between.

I believe in minimal government, unlike today's conservatives.

I believe that if an adult wants to smoke marijuana or ingest psilocybin mushrooms on his own property, it's none of the government's business.

I do not believe that anyone with an education can succeed. Life just ain't that simple.

But it's not the government's role to see to it that everyone succeeds.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether -- let them all be civil unions as far as the government is concerned. And I don't care who else gets married, as long as they're consenting adults. It won't affect my marriage one bit.

I'm pro-death. That is, I'm in favor of legal abortion on demand, a person's right to end his own life and have medical assistance in doing so, and capital punishment in cases of repeat violent offenders like Bundy.

Will you PLEASE be my President?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Will you PLEASE be my President?

I'll sharpen the sticks at both ends . . .

I'm pro-death. That is, I'm in favor of legal abortion on demand, a person's right to end his own life and have medical assistance in doing so, and capital punishment in cases of repeat violent offenders like Bundy.

Who pays for that abortion?

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

I believe in minimal government, unlike today's conservatives.

Careful there. One might think you're setting up a strawman. I would agree with the statement "unlike the current Republican leadership", but that's not synonymous with "today's conservatives".

Get government out of the marriage business altogether -- let them all be civil unions as far as the government is concerned. And I don't care who else gets married, as long as they're consenting adults. It won't affect my marriage one bit.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because while other marriages may not affect your marriage, per se, it DOES affect you as a taxpayer, because marriage and proposed civil unions have tax consequences. So it's not correct to say that the public at large has no interest in who can get married and who cannot - they do, because of those tax consequences, which are a shared social burden.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sorry if there is a good place to discuss this already, but I don't know of one.
I hope this will be a place to debate the merits of Liberalism or Conservatism in a rational (Oh deus, WHAT HAVE I DONE?!), logical, and polite manner.

Note: I am a US citizen.
I, personally, am a godless conservative (take THAT Ann Coulter!). I see no reason for a large government organizing peoples lives. Taxes, I believe, should be low, entitlements like welfare limited, and capitalism allowed to function as it ought to.
I am not, however a libertarian - I oppose the ownership of automatic or semi-automatic weapons, because I believe single shot weapons are fine for home defense and hunting purposes. I also oppose all hallucinogenic, psychedelic, or generally mind-altering substance use for anything other than medical purposes.
I do believe that with proper education, every one can succeed. Education ought to be one of the few entitlements all recieve. I do believe it should extend farther than it currently does in my country.
I socially accepting - homosexuals can marry, women can have abortions, etc. so long as I do not have to pay for it.
Ultimately, my philosophy boils down to:
"I don't really care what you get up to in your own time as long as I am not put at risk or have to pay for it."

What is your personal philosophy on these issues?

You're more like a neoliberal than a conservative actually.


I disagree with you on drugs though. Marijuana should clearly be legal.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Fishbob, your right. I didn't ellaborate quite enough. I call myself a conservative because of my belief in small government being better than a large one (ie, I am a fiscal conservative). Socially, many would consider me a liberal, but I don't think so. (See my opinion on mind-alterers).
I agree with your assessment on prohibition - proper education is a MUST. I believe in enforcement because I believe that their is no greater possession of any person than their mind. Preventing them from harming it is like preventing suicide.

You have no right to decide what individuals can do with their own bodies or minds. Saying that you don't think using drugs is moral or a good thing to do doesn't give you the right to decide what others can do.

John Stewart Mill said...

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sure. There are many camps. But in American mainstream, its... well... I was going to say its either liberal or conservative, until I considered your next statement.

There are conservatives, liberals, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Etc. Many different political beliefs.

Agreed. Conservatives have turned into big budget bigots, thats the problem. That isn't conservatism, its relatively mild fascism!

The conservatives who support big spending are "neo conservatives" or neocons. Bush is one of them. Fiscal conservatives don't support big spending.

People under the influence of hallucinogens can and do injure their fellow citizens, and are not fully in control of their own actions. In order to prevent a "drugs made me do it!" alibi, hallucinogens really ought to be banned.

Firstly there is no evidence that people under the influence of hallucinogens are more likely to injure others.

Secondly, Just being "more likely" to do something isn't a just means to outlaw that act. I'm more likely to shoot someone if I possess a gun than if I don't. That doesn't mean Guns should be outlawed. Legislating based on what "might happen" isn't reasonable.

Thirdly as it's already been mentioned, Your argument would also apply to alcohol. So do you support banning alcohol? If not why not? If so..You're delusional because if you know your history you would know that was a disaster.

 

[Questioninggeller]

The two terms require context and must be defined before the "merits" can be discussed. A place to start would be Mill's "On Liberty."