Liberalism Vs Conservatism

[DanishDynamite]

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.

This hardly clarifies the issue. At most, it places you to the right of center (in Denmark, anyway).

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.

Still somewhat to the right of center.

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.

Approaching the center.

I socially accepting - homosexuals can marry, women can have abortions, etc. so long as I do not have to pay for it.

Going slightly to the right of center again.

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."

Definitely right of center. But not all that much, Danish politics-wise.

What is your personal philosophy on these issues?

My personal philosophy is to lower taxes, to curb social programs which are getting out of control, to keep guns banned, to let the restrictions on the personal use of drugs be reduced, to let homosexuals do as they please (including marriage), to obviously let women decide whether they want an abortion.

But then, I'm Danish (and right of center here).

 

[Ausmerican]

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.

I live on Ralphs side of the island.

 

[AmateurScientist]

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.

I'm with you right up until that last clause. Al Bundy does not deserve the death penalty.

OK, seriously, I am anti-death penalty, even for the Ted Bundys of the world (and fortunately, they are exceedingly rare). The reason is that I believe government should not have the power to take the lives of the people it governs. Ceding to government that power is one scary proposition. It cannot wield it appropriately, assuming there is such a thing. The existence of the anomalous Ted Bundy and the heinousness of his crimes does not negate that truth.

That one quibble aside, very well stated.

AS

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Not sure where I fall.

Let's see:
I believe people ought to marry and f k whomever they please(Provided it's consensual, of course...)
In fact, I can't see any consensual act being a crime, ie prostitution, drug use...

I believe censorship is a great evil that we, as citizens, must guard against.

I believe we ought to tax church property.

I am pro-choice, and pro-death penalty, though I think the standards of evidence for death penalty cases ought to be higher. (DNA and such. No death sentences on circumstantial evidence!)

I think we need to be fiscally responsible. I am for welfare reform. I am also for some sort of national healthcare policy. I do not think the socialized healthcare as per the European models will work here in the US. I am thinking that there needs to be a balance. I am very open to ideas, BTW..

I do not think that tax cuts will help us balance our budget. In reality, we need a tax raise. It's the truth, even if an unpopular stance.

I favor a line-item veto.

I am pro-gun. I tend to think that if you do not have a firearm in the US, that we ought to issue you one.

I believe rape is a worse crime than murder and more deserving captial punishment, especially if it involves a child.

I believe in ending all monetary contributions from lobbyists to politicians.

I believe in funding stem cell research. I believe that the International Space Station needs a higher financial priority. I believe in saving the Hubble Space Telescope.

I believe all candidates ought to have equal airtime, even the fascists, socialists and the Green party.

I believe that Presidential debates should never have questions that are 'off limits'.

I beleive we ought to re-write the tax code from start to finish. If the members of Congress cannot fill out their own taxes without mistakes, then it isn't good enough.

I believe that all politicians ought to make the average wage of their constituents.

I believe there ought to be a balance between free enterprise and regulation.

So. Left, Right or Radical Centrist?

I don't even know anymore.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Not sure where I fall.

Let's see:
I believe people ought to marry and f k whomever they please(Provided it's consensual, of course...)
In fact, I can't see any consensual act being a crime, ie prostitution, drug use...

I believe censorship is a great evil that we, as citizens, must guard against.

I believe we ought to tax church property.

I am pro-choice, and pro-death penalty, though I think the standards of evidence for death penalty cases ought to be higher. (DNA and such. No death sentences on circumstantial evidence!)

I think we need to be fiscally responsible. I am for welfare reform. I am also for some sort of national healthcare policy. I do not think the socialized healthcare as per the European models will work here in the US. I am thinking that there needs to be a balance. I am very open to ideas, BTW..

I do not think that tax cuts will help us balance our budget. In reality, we need a tax raise. It's the truth, even if an unpopular stance.

I favor a line-item veto.

I am pro-gun. I tend to think that if you do not have a firearm in the US, that we ought to issue you one.

I believe rape is a worse crime than murder and more deserving captial punishment, especially if it involves a child.

I believe in ending all monetary contributions from lobbyists to politicians.

I believe in funding stem cell research. I believe that the International Space Station needs a higher financial priority. I believe in saving the Hubble Space Telescope.

I believe all candidates ought to have equal airtime, even the fascists, socialists and the Green party.

I believe that Presidential debates should never have questions that are 'off limits'.

I beleive we ought to re-write the tax code from start to finish. If the members of Congress cannot fill out their own taxes without mistakes, then it isn't good enough.

I believe that all politicians ought to make the average wage of their constituents.

I believe there ought to be a balance between free enterprise and regulation.

So. Left, Right or Radical Centrist?

I don't even know anymore.

Far-Left except for the Death penality.

 

[davefoc]

I think CBvan would fit roughly into the group that has been variously called moderate libertarian, moderate Republican or fixcal conservatives.

Most of the people in this group have voted Republican in the past and their ideology had some effect on Republican policy. I think as currently constituted people in this group have little or no effect on Republican policy. The word conservative has gradually lost most of its connection to small government ideology and today is used to refer more to social conservatives or even just partisan Republicans.

I have wondered if one of the reasons that this group has lost power is gerrymandering. Today in many districts moderates of any kind have been at least partially disenfranchised. The districts are designed to guarantee the electin of one party or the other and moderates that used to serve as swing voters that could change election outcomes no longer have that role in much of the US.

 

[joobie]

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.

can you think of many instances in which a "drugs made me do it" defense kept someone from being punished in a court of law?

 

[Elentar]

I'm not sure that right vs. left is really where the action is anymore, although that's where the rhetoric is. The real antagonism is moderate vs. extremist, reasoned vs reactionary. The rest of the noise is just about selling books and trying to get elected. When the politically correct on the left join with religious fundamentalists in support Muslim extremists, left and right become irrelevant. The leftists argue for cultural relativism and call any criticism of Islam Islamophobia; the fundamentalists argue that it's an attack on religion.

This is just one example of how the extremes on the left and right become almost identical. The similarity becomes even stronger when you realize that religious absolutism masks and is defended by epistemelogical relativism which is shared by the far academic left. This is the "just a theory" crowd of ID and postmodernism. But if there is no truth, and no way to establish it--if even science is just another way of knowing, along with theology, biblical study, new age magic, and any primitive belief system you care to mention--then there is no right or wrong either. Contrary to claims of the religious basis of morality, theodicy, the attempt to reconcile God with the existence of evil, leads to the absurd position that we cannot really know what's good, that it may be right that people suffer, and that God allows innocent children to die horribly because ultimately, it's the correct thing to do. Grant this, and you find yourself in a moral vacuum with only a collection of bronze age scribblings for company.

Both sides of the left/right political divide want to cut the other sides programs and fund their own, but at least liberals will tax and spend; there hasn't been a fiscally responsible conservative government since Margaret Thatcher because conservatives are so enamoured of military spending and tax cuts that they run up huge deficits, and they cut infrastructure, escalating and shifting costs into the future. Both sides support some form of the nanny state; conservatives want to follow you into your bedroom and tell you what you can watch and hear, liberals want to follow you into your workplace and tell you what's politically correct to speak and write. Conservatives support initiative, personal economic freedom, and voluntarism, but don't trust people to do the right thing socially, so they want lots of police and prisons. Liberals support artistic freedom and government safety nets, but don't trust business to do the right thing economically, so they want lots of regulations.

Here I'd have to side with Liberals, except for the politically correct part. Conservative economics is largely based upon the myth of the informed consumer. In fact, consumers usually make the unspoken assumption that if a business was doing harm, the government would have done something about it--blow the whistle, at the very least. No one not involved in it full time can actually grasp all of the externalities created by a particular business or industry; we pay our government to have specialists in that sort of thing and to catch it before it can do too much harm. Seeing an item on the shelf, I cannot tell whether choosing it over the item next to it will put people in my own country out of work, support child labour, encourage environmental destruction, or put money in the pockets of hostile regimes. I found it revealing that my father, who was an arch conservative, bemoaned the fact that deregulation of his industry by a conservative government ruined the business. Yet he never connected the dots.

Furthermore, voluntarism is good when it works, but volunteers may shy away from more intractable problems and go for the more rewarding low-hanging fruit. And as the population becomes more urbanised, more people will fall through the cracks and vanish. A more systematic approach is needed to catch these. It has to be someone's job.

Perhaps one of the deepest splits between the two is that liberals take progress as a given, and so aren't afraid to attempt grand experiments, while conservatives believe civilization to be precarious and fragile, and focus on consolidating previous gains and preserving the status quo. The liberal attitude is most strongly expressed in the Marxist idea of historical inevitability; this is an idea that the neo-cons picked up, and explains why they thought Iraq would magically become a peaceful democracy when Hussein was deposed. G. W. Bush is neither liberal nor conservative--the best description of him and his tribe would be "wing nuts"--they are radicals who do not fit into either camp; the very word conservative has lost it's meaning, and the word liberal has been made into a strawman charicature.

Conservatives tend to have a deeply pessimistic view of human nature, and believe that morality must be imposed by the threat of force (hence their belief that without the ultimate enforcer, God, there can be no morality.) Totalitarianism is a constant temptation, but this ignores the fact that the people at the top are also human, and just as open to corruption as anyone else. Religious conservatives would like to overcome this by putting God in charge, but of course, he doesn't exist. Liberals tend to have a more optimistic view, trusting people to make the right choices unconstrained. The problem with both is the one-size-fits-all approach. Many people really are locked into good-boy authoritarian morality, and rely on external discipline to be good (this doesn't bode well for religious believers who think morality requires God.) But authoritarian morality clips off the high end, which we rely on to advance and meet new challenges. In psychological studies, pessimists are more realistic, but optimists have higher success rates. You need both to succeed. Fortunately, most democracies employ a sort of gridlock to force all sides to work together, and courts to resist populist surges. Unfortunately, everything is now held by one side, which holds judges in contempt.

 

[CBVan]

Boy, its hard not to let this become personal, but I'll do my best. Some responses to arguments:

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.

I disagree with this statement in its basis. Its not that I think using drugs is immoral - which I do - its that I think drugs dumb down society as a whole. Society ought to be focused on the advancement of knowledge and understanding. How do drugs aid this? They don't. When a particular activity results in a cessation of rational thought, it is harmful.
Do I favor prohibition? Yes - alcohol is bad for you, healthwise and is dangerous to others as well when consumed in large quantities. Do I really expect to see it ever happen again? Nope. I'm not stupid. America loves its booze, and has repeatedly fought against those who would take it away. Trying to ban booze may in fact be less likely to succeed than trying to ban religion.

When have people gotten off do to a "drugs made me do it!" argument?
In drunk driving cases where there are deaths/injuries, the guilty often gets a much lighter sentance than they truly deserve. (*cough* Ted Kennedy *cough*) (Ok, he was somewhat special, but the results were sadly typical)

On the death penalty:
I like the old "penal colony" idea, but harsher. Instead of killing criminals for their terrible crimes, dump em on an island with nothing but the clothes on their back. If they survive, its by their own efforts, but they are clearly not fit to interact with society at large any more.

Conservatives tend to have a deeply pessimistic view of human nature, and believe that morality must be imposed by the threat of force

I disagree with this statement. Doesn't small government (and hence, smaller enforcement) imply an optimists view of human nature? In that, left alone, most humans won't get up to anything bad, generally?

From my perspective, if liberalism truly took control, morality would be imposed by indoctrination "for the people's good." I think of the USSR, and Orwellian scenarios.
Caveat: All cultures indoctrinate the children growing up in them, simply through exposure. State-sponsered, state mandated indoctrination along the lines of brain washing is what I am referring to.

Final thought: Don't all cultures, regardless of their core beliefs, draw a line in the sand and say "this is moral, and that is not. Do something immoral, and you will be punished."? Isn't imposing morality simply a method of keeping the culture alive? I'm not advocating anything here - this is me, trying to be objective.

 

[Tony]

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".

Yes it is. As long as conservatives are allowing the government to define marriage, as long as they want government to endorse religious beliefs and practices, and as long as they want government to decide what we put in our bodies, what we watch, what we say and what we read, they are against limited government.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes it is. As long as conservatives are allowing the government to define marriage, as long as they want government to endorse religious beliefs and practices, and as long as they want government to decide what we put in our bodies, what we watch, what we say and what we read, they are against limited government.

"Conservatives" are allowing all that? I'm sure you've got evidence to that effect. I can pin a party label on almost everyone in congress with good accuracy, but "liberal" and "conservative" is a little more difficult. Not to mention, since not everyone who voted for republicans is a conservative (or even a registered republican), and not everyone who is conservative voted for republicans (or is even registered republican), it's kind of hard to make such blanket charges. In fact, it's not even USEFUL to make such charges - unless, of course, partisan interests are all you're interested in advancing, rather than any actual discussion.

 

[Tony]

"Conservatives" are allowing all that?

Yes.

I'm sure you've got evidence to that effect.

Actually. Do you have any evidence, apart from their words, that conservatives support limited government?

Not to mention, since not everyone who voted for republicans is a conservative (or even a registered republican), and not everyone who is conservative voted for republicans (or is even registered republican), it's kind of hard to make such blanket charges. In fact, it's not even USEFUL to make such charges - unless, of course, partisan interests are all you're interested in advancing, rather than any actual discussion.

Not really. I'm making said statement based on the actions and words of politicians and organizations who label themselves conservative. I'm not talking about voters. Conservative organizations and politicians have consistently come out against gay marriage, drug legalization, pornography, lowering "decency" standards, legalizing prostitution and have come out for censorship on television, banning certain books from libraries, school sanctioned prayer and religious instruction.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually. Do you have any evidence, apart from their words, that conservatives support limited government?

I don't think I need any other evidence for that. I believe in taking ideologies at their word in terms of what self-professed adherents desire. You'd think it strange if I asked you for evidence that liberals care about helping the poor, wouldn't you? And yet, the only real evidence I have to that affect is their own word.

Not really. I'm making said statement based on the actions and words of politicians and organizations who label themselves conservative.

Politicians? Sure, I'll buy that. Organizations? Nope. Plenty of conservative organizations aren't happy with the big-government instincts of the current Republican leadership.

I'm not talking about voters.

Of course not. Because, after all, voters can't be conservatives.

Conservative organizations and politicians have consistently come out against gay marriage, drug legalization, pornography, lowering "decency" standards, legalizing prostitution and have come out for censorship on television, banning certain books from libraries, school sanctioned prayer and religious instruction.

"Consistently"? Nope. Plenty of conservative organizations don't like things on that list. Conservatives are not monolithic, despite your attempts to paint them that way. And I know you'd howl in protest if I claimed that liberals were all closet communists, just because there are a few who are. And you'd be right to. But you don't making the same mistake when it's pointed in the other direction.

 

[CBVan]

Kudos to Ziggurat, for some illumination.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Both sides support some form of the nanny state; conservatives want to follow you into your bedroom and tell you what you can watch and hear, liberals want to follow you into your workplace and tell you what's politically correct to speak and write.

You're misrepresenting liberals here. Most true social liberals don't support regulation on what can be spoken or written in the work place or anywhere else for that matter.

Conservatives support initiative, personal economic freedom, and voluntarism, but don't trust people to do the right thing socially, so they want lots of police and prisons. Liberals support artistic freedom and government safety nets, but don't trust business to do the right thing economically, so they want lots of regulations.

What sort of business regulations are you thinking liberals support?

G. W. Bush is neither liberal nor conservative--the best description of him and his tribe would be "wing nuts"--they are radicals who do not fit into either camp; the very word conservative has lost it's meaning, and the word liberal has been made into a strawman charicature.

The best way to describe G.W. Bush would be "Neo conservative" NeoCon's support big govt with big spending as well as support "crusades" to "fix" other countries like Vietnam or Iraq.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I disagree with this statement in its basis. Its not that I think using drugs is immoral - which I do - its that I think drugs dumb down society as a whole. Society ought to be focused on the advancement of knowledge and understanding. How do drugs aid this? They don't. When a particular activity results in a cessation of rational thought, it is harmful.

You're making many baseless assumptions here.

1. You're assuming that all drugs "dumb down" rational thought when this is NOT the case. Carl Sagan for instance smoked Marijuana often and often wrote his publications while high on marijuana. Many famous thinkers and scientists have. Did you know the DNA helix was discovered by a scientist while he was tripping on Acid? Little known fact that you seem to be unaware of. Not all drugs "dumb down" people. Sometimes drugs help clear their mind or let them see things in a different way.
2. You're assuming that if people sometimes do drugs that numb their minds that would hurt their productivity when this is not the case. Many people drink on the weekends and are very productive at other times. Concluding anyone who does a drug will lose productivity is false. Many people use drugs like alcohol as a release which can actually INCREASE productivity.
3. You're assuming that individuals don't have the right to be stupid. When in reality they do. If an individual wants to numb his mind and be stupid then he has the right to do so. It's his body and his mind. You have no right to decide what he can or can't do with his mind. Saying people can't numb their mind or be stupid will lead to a slippery sloap to forcing people to think a specific way or act a specific way that you or whoever is in charge thinks is "smarter".

Do I favor prohibition? Yes - alcohol is bad for you, healthwise and is dangerous to others as well when consumed in large quantities. Do I really expect to see it ever happen again? Nope. I'm not stupid. America loves its booze, and has repeatedly fought against those who would take it away. Trying to ban booze may in fact be less likely to succeed than trying to ban religion.

Trying to prohibit ANY substance that people want to use will fail and is failing. Be it alcohol or marijuana or whatever else. In the 1930's we saw how prohibiting alcohol increased gang violence and brought out bootlegging and in the 1960's-present we see how the "war on drugs" has increased gang violence and has introduced black market drugs which anyone can easily get and which are much more dangerous than if they would be made by regulated companies.

When have people gotten off do to a "drugs made me do it!" argument?
In drunk driving cases where there are deaths/injuries, the guilty often gets a much lighter sentance than they truly deserve. (*cough* Ted Kennedy *cough*) (Ok, he was somewhat special, but the results were sadly typical)

Actually Drunk Drivers usually get harsher sentences because simply the act of drinking and driving is in itself a crime and can be added to the other crimes.

On the death penalty:
I like the old "penal colony" idea, but harsher. Instead of killing criminals for their terrible crimes, dump em on an island with nothing but the clothes on their back. If they survive, its by their own efforts, but they are clearly not fit to interact with society at large any more.

That doesn't even warrant a response.

I disagree with this statement. Doesn't small government (and hence, smaller enforcement) imply an optimists view of human nature? In that, left alone, most humans won't get up to anything bad, generally?

Firstly not all conservatives support small govt.

Secondly, modern conservatives in America support a govt that is small in that it doesn't intrude on what conservatives think is ok but does intrude on what others think is ok..I.E. drug use. Modern American conservatives want a small govt on everything they support but a big govt on things others support.

From my perspective, if liberalism truly took control, morality would be imposed by indoctrination "for the people's good." I think of the USSR, and Orwellian scenarios.

By DEFINITION "liberal" means preserving personal liberty at all costs. How you conclude a liberal society could turn into a distopian orwellian society is beyond me.

Caveat: All cultures indoctrinate the children growing up in them, simply through exposure. State-sponsered, state mandated indoctrination along the lines of brain washing is what I am referring to.

Wouldn't happen in a truly liberal society.

Final thought: Don't all cultures, regardless of their core beliefs, draw a line in the sand and say "this is moral, and that is not. Do something immoral, and you will be punished."? Isn't imposing morality simply a method of keeping the culture alive? I'm not advocating anything here - this is me, trying to be objective.

It doesn't matter if a culture believes something is moral or immoral. The thing that should not be done is to try to regulate morality in any cases other than those cases to protect individuals from harm done by others.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"Conservatives" are allowing all that? I'm sure you've got evidence to that effect. I can pin a party label on almost everyone in congress with good accuracy, but "liberal" and "conservative" is a little more difficult. Not to mention, since not everyone who voted for republicans is a conservative (or even a registered republican), and not everyone who is conservative voted for republicans (or is even registered republican), it's kind of hard to make such blanket charges. In fact, it's not even USEFUL to make such charges - unless, of course, partisan interests are all you're interested in advancing, rather than any actual discussion.

By definition conservatives are those individuals who want to "conserve" past values or norms and want to prevent a lot of change. Conservatives want to keep things the way they always were and don't like change. By this definition in America today it is the conservatives who oppose gay marriage and abortion and stem cell research and personal liberty as far as drugs go etc. Conservatives oppose all of these things. Even if they call themselves liberals.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't think I need any other evidence for that. I believe in taking ideologies at their word in terms of what self-professed adherents desire. You'd think it strange if I asked you for evidence that liberals care about helping the poor, wouldn't you? And yet, the only real evidence I have to that affect is their own word.



Politicians? Sure, I'll buy that. Organizations? Nope. Plenty of conservative organizations aren't happy with the big-government instincts of the current Republican leadership.



Of course not. Because, after all, voters can't be conservatives.



"Consistently"? Nope. Plenty of conservative organizations don't like things on that list. Conservatives are not monolithic, despite your attempts to paint them that way. And I know you'd howl in protest if I claimed that liberals were all closet communists, just because there are a few who are. And you'd be right to. But you don't making the same mistake when it's pointed in the other direction.

The most prominent conservative think tanks the Heritage foundation and the American enterprise institute oppose gay marriage, Abortion, Stem cell research, Porn, Drug legalization, Global warming consensus, Evolution Etc.

 

[ghost707]

The best way to describe G.W. Bush would be "Neo conservative" NeoCon's support big govt with big spending as well as support "crusades" to "fix" other countries like Vietnam or Iraq.

JFK and LBJ were neo conservatives?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

JFK and LBJ were neo conservatives?

Not really. The neo conservative movement really got going during the Reagan administration. Before that there weren't many notable neo conservatives. LBJ and JFK would be probably be considered simply social conservatives.