OFFLINE

It's simple:

I am a conservative because not everyone can be on the dole.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


funny how blatant anti-americanism/anti-capitalism is becoming more and more mainstream on the left. if the republicans were only as effective at brand messaging as the democrats were, then there would be no democrats in office. or should i say, if only all americans woke up to the fact that they're being manipulated by the left, then it would be game over.

Even funnier is how most media outlets don't even cover thing like what the anti-Tea Party people do. They just try their hardest to make the Tea Bag people look like the bad guys. There are even some here who claim to be tolerant but insist upon using a derogatory name for them.....all the while claiming innocence....what a joke....pure hypocrisy. It seems that, in regards to the media, the only extremists are right wing people. They even tried to make Loughner a right-winger when he was obviously a no-winger. He was just friggin crazy.

OFFLINE

[Rant]  I think the characterization of liberals as anti-American, as asserted by a few posters, is incredibly far from reality.  I know several people who are fairly leftwing (some more so than others).  Of them, several have served in the military.  I've never heard any of them ever make the kind of 'down with America' remark that some of you have tried to brand them with.  There are a few leftist crack pots on the fringe who do harbour such views, however characterizing the rest of us because of them is just as bad as saying that all the Tea Party folk are racist because there are a minority of racists amongst them.  [/Rant]

Now to something on topic!  I tried writing a long response trying to systematically separate liberals and conservatives based separately on economic and social views and came to the conclusion that its all very inconsistent.  With economics its somewhat manageable in that one can set up a spectrum ranging from no government intervention in economics to complete government management of the market with the 'mainstream' moderate view being in favor of a regulated free market system.  

With social issues everything seems convoluted and I don't know how to make an easy spectrum.  I think both sides could rightfully claim that they want their government to have the power to insure that their fundamental rights (both from an ethical or constitutional perspective) are upheld, however they tend to disagree on what some of those rights are.  How would you guys try to treat this (being serious, actually trying to come up with a logical system of classification and not just bashing others)?

OFFLINE

i'm sorry but the ideology of the left IS anti-american. collectivism, socialism, communism, IS anti-american. well, maybe not the america of today, which has been influenced by leftist ideology for the past 50 years, but the historic america. no, sure, the left does believe in america, just a socialist utopian version of america. i mean where do you think all the ideas behind what we colloquially call "liberalism" come from? you think it's unique? no, it's the same communist philosophies that have already been tried all over the world. there are just different means to get to the same end.

but i will say this. there are two kinds of lefties. there are the normal, bleeding heart types that have been sold the lie that the left is all about helping the disadvantaged, and there are the committed leftists, mostly in leadership positions, who know good and well what their ideology leads to, and thats an authoritarian state.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
[Rant]  I think the characterization of liberals as anti-American, as asserted by a few posters, is incredibly far from reality.  I know several people who are fairly leftwing (some more so than others).  Of them, several have served in the military.  I've never heard any of them ever make the kind of 'down with America' remark that some of you have tried to brand them with.  There are a few leftist crack pots on the fringe who do harbour such views, however characterizing the rest of us because of them is just as bad as saying that all the Tea Party folk are racist because there are a minority of racists amongst them.  [/Rant]

Now to something on topic!  I tried writing a long response trying to systematically separate liberals and conservatives based separately on economic and social views and came to the conclusion that its all very inconsistent.  With economics its somewhat manageable in that one can set up a spectrum ranging from no government intervention in economics to complete government management of the market with the 'mainstream' moderate view being in favor of a regulated free market system.  

With social issues everything seems convoluted and I don't know how to make an easy spectrum.  I think both sides could rightfully claim that they want their government to have the power to insure that their fundamental rights (both from an ethical or constitutional perspective) are upheld, however they tend to disagree on what some of those rights are.  How would you guys try to treat this (being serious, actually trying to come up with a logical system of classification and not just bashing others)?

Come on Line, I don't think anyone claims that liberals are anti-American, at least I don't. I myself am liberal on many issues. Of course  if we look through the jaded glasses of modernism, many seem to attribute a liberal view on certain issues as somehow conservative (example: firearms).

Most of us are liberal if we see what liberalism really is (a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties). Progressive is another matter altogether.

I find myself more conservative than progressive, but do find myself agreeing with progressives on several issues. Some things however are good enough if left as is, but a progressive is never happy. There is always a new fight to fight and a new wrong to be righted.....we can never have everyone happy.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
[Rant]  I think the characterization of liberals as anti-American, as asserted by a few posters, is incredibly far from reality.  I know several people who are fairly leftwing (some more so than others).  Of them, several have served in the military.  I've never heard any of them ever make the kind of 'down with America' remark that some of you have tried to brand them with.  There are a few leftist crack pots on the fringe who do harbour such views, however characterizing the rest of us because of them is just as bad as saying that all the Tea Party folk are racist because there are a minority of racists amongst them.  [/Rant]

Now to something on topic!  I tried writing a long response trying to systematically separate liberals and conservatives based separately on economic and social views and came to the conclusion that its all very inconsistent.  With economics its somewhat manageable in that one can set up a spectrum ranging from no government intervention in economics to complete government management of the market with the 'mainstream' moderate view being in favor of a regulated free market system.  

With social issues everything seems convoluted and I don't know how to make an easy spectrum.  I think both sides could rightfully claim that they want their government to have the power to insure that their fundamental rights (both from an ethical or constitutional perspective) are upheld, however they tend to disagree on what some of those rights are.  How would you guys try to treat this (being serious, actually trying to come up with a logical system of classification and not just bashing others)?

Come on Line, I don't think anyone claims that liberals are anti-American, at least I don't. I myself am liberal on many issues. Of course  if we look through the jaded glasses of modernism, many seem to attribute a liberal view on certain issues as somehow conservative (example: firearms).

Most of us are liberal if we see what liberalism really is (a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties). Progressive is another matter altogether.

I find myself more conservative than progressive, but do find myself agreeing with progressives on several issues. Some things however are good enough if left as is, but a progressive is never happy. There is always a new fight to fight and a new wrong to be righted.....we can never have everyone happy.

Really needed to point out that once a progressive becomes happy with whatever gains they have accomplished they have become....well.....conservative.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

but i will say this. there are two kinds of lefties. there are the normal, bleeding heart types that have been sold the lie that the left is all about helping the disadvantaged, and there are the committed leftists, mostly in leadership positions, who know good and well what their ideology leads to, and thats an authoritarian state.

Yup, because right wing leaders are sooo much more into freedom of speech, freedom of religion, smaller government, the rights of the individual over the rights of big business etc, and they've done so much better with the economy than the left. Of all the governments in Europe who are most in **** with the debt crisis and are needing to be bailed out (the so-called "PIGS" countries and Iceland), all but one have had right wing governments for the last few years, with the worst-hit countries having had right-wing governments for the longest.  

OFFLINE

miles, it's incredibly frustrating when you make statements like this, because we might as well be talking about two different planets, with different histories. where are these right wing governments at? there are no right wing governments left in the west. there's left, and then there's less left. seriously, america is far less left-leaning than anywhere in europe, and we haven't had a truly conservative government here in decades. you think george bush was right wing? is that why for the time he was running up the largest debts in our history? is that why he was creating multiple new tiers of government and bureaucracy, just as the democrats do?

i mean this gets right down the title of this thread. i just don't see where you get your definitions of right and left, or liberal and conservative. whether it's defense or domestic programs, whether it's for conservative social applications or liberal social ambitions, the size, scope, and cost of our governments has continued to expand year after year. more laws and more avenues of our lives are regulated, subsidized, and taxed with each passing year. you can be on the left track or the right track, but they're both going in the same direction.

but here's my main point. if "right wing governments" have screwed everything up, then why the introduction of so many austerity measures across europe. wouldn't that be because youre governments are too large, and too expensive, and too involved in micromanaging?

my definition: liberals = statists, who believe in centralized planning, distribution, and control. conservatives = those who believe in personal liberty, responsibility, and individualism.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

but i will say this. there are two kinds of lefties. there are the normal, bleeding heart types that have been sold the lie that the left is all about helping the disadvantaged, and there are the committed leftists, mostly in leadership positions, who know good and well what their ideology leads to, and thats an authoritarian state.

Yup, because right wing leaders are sooo much more into freedom of speech, freedom of religion, smaller government, the rights of the individual over the rights of big business etc, and they've done so much better with the economy than the left. Of all the governments in Europe who are most in **** with the debt crisis and are needing to be bailed out (the so-called "PIGS" countries and Iceland), all but one have had right wing governments for the last few years, with the worst-hit countries having had right-wing governments for the longest.  

...but by comparison, the majority of the states that are having the toughest time over here are left leaning in nature.

OFFLINE

So, where ppl here come on this scale then:

http://politicalcompass.org/test

I'm apparently a libertarian centrist.....

OFFLINE

i hate  these load of bull tests, because not only are the questions leading, but they also deal in absolutes. the world is a bit more nuanced than that.

anyway, i'm right in the middle on the authoritarian/libertarian scale, and two boxes to the right economically. but i question the accuracy of these things.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
So, where ppl here come on this scale then:

http://politicalcompass.org/test

I'm apparently a libertarian centrist.....

Kinda agree with Dod that this is a BS test. Lots of questions should not be answered as they are worded. They are too broad in nature.

I am only one square to the left and six squares down the Libertarian path.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
miles, it's incredibly frustrating when you make statements like this, because we might as well be talking about two different planets, with different histories. where are these right wing governments at? there are no right wing governments left in the west. there's left, and then there's less left. seriously, america is far less left-leaning than anywhere in europe, and we haven't had a truly conservative government here in decades. you think george bush was right wing? is that why for the time he was running up the largest debts in our history? is that why he was creating multiple new tiers of government and bureaucracy, just as the democrats do?

i mean this gets right down the title of this thread. i just don't see where you get your definitions of right and left, or liberal and conservative. whether it's defense or domestic programs, whether it's for conservative social applications or liberal social ambitions, the size, scope, and cost of our governments has continued to expand year after year. more laws and more avenues of our lives are regulated, subsidized, and taxed with each passing year. you can be on the left track or the right track, but they're both going in the same direction.

but here's my main point. if "right wing governments" have screwed everything up, then why the introduction of so many austerity measures across europe. wouldn't that be because youre governments are too large, and too expensive, and too involved in micromanaging?

my definition: liberals = statists, who believe in centralized planning, distribution, and control. conservatives = those who believe in personal liberty, responsibility, and individualism.

so miles, have i at least made any progress with you over the years, trying to get you to come around to my way of thinking on left v. right, or "lib v. con?" because i just can't get on board with the european model. i mean what does it matter if a government is fascist or communist, if the result of repressive regime is the same? it is statism that is the enemy of freedom loving people. the state has very important roles to fill in a free society, yet time, after time, after time nations take it too far, and when they do, people suffer. liberty suffers.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
miles, it's incredibly frustrating when you make statements like this, because we might as well be talking about two different planets, with different histories. where are these right wing governments at? there are no right wing governments left in the west. there's left, and then there's less left. seriously, america is far less left-leaning than anywhere in europe, and we haven't had a truly conservative government here in decades. you think george bush was right wing? is that why for the time he was running up the largest debts in our history? is that why he was creating multiple new tiers of government and bureaucracy, just as the democrats do?

i mean this gets right down the title of this thread. i just don't see where you get your definitions of right and left, or liberal and conservative. whether it's defense or domestic programs, whether it's for conservative social applications or liberal social ambitions, the size, scope, and cost of our governments has continued to expand year after year. more laws and more avenues of our lives are regulated, subsidized, and taxed with each passing year. you can be on the left track or the right track, but they're both going in the same direction.

but here's my main point. if "right wing governments" have screwed everything up, then why the introduction of so many austerity measures across europe. wouldn't that be because youre governments are too large, and too expensive, and too involved in micromanaging?

my definition: liberals = statists, who believe in centralized planning, distribution, and control. conservatives = those who believe in personal liberty, responsibility, and individualism.

so miles, have i at least made any progress with you over the years, trying to get you to come around to my way of thinking on left v. right, or "lib v. con?" because i just can't get on board with the european model. i mean what does it matter if a government is fascist or communist, if the result of repressive regime is the same? it is statism that is the enemy of freedom loving people. the state has very important roles to fill in a free society, yet time, after time, after time nations take it too far, and when they do, people suffer. liberty suffers.

Thats too simplistic.  According to your model either your an anarchist (in the traditional since) or you are all for communism, when in reality very few fall into either camp.

The way I see it there are three general types of activities a responsible government should engage in (to varying degrees):

1.  Protecting the people from physical harm from external forces.  In other words, provide a military capable of protecting the country from an invading military.

2.  Protect the rights of the people from their peers.  This sounds simple enough, but this is actually a rather complex field.  Who has what rights, and what do you do when they conflict.  This includes the regulation of activities perpetrated by individuals or corporations against other individuals or corporations (ie its illegal to murder someone, whether by gun or poisoning their water supply).  This function justifies the existence of the police, the courts, the EPA, etc.

3.  Provide for the common good in areas not related to defense or liberties, and where private organizations are ether unable, unwilling, or ineffective in order to boost the people's standard of living.  This would include such things as building and maintaining roads, bridges, harbors, airports, and other infrastructure.  This would also include such activities as providing for universal education, scientific research, medical assistance for the poor, etc.

OFFLINE

sounds like i need to go into a bit more depth. i'm not arguing for no government, nor am i suggesting that it must be all government or no government. obviously there has to be a mix somewhere between the two, which accounts for all of the various systems we've seen throughout history. though it would take time for america to evolve into a truly just society (i.e. every human being having all the same rights), i feel that the american model was the right mix. the ideals of its founding were a philosophical awakening that kicked off our western perceptions of what government should be. but in the time sense, we've drifted a long way from its fundamental principals.

a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, has inevitably turned into a strong, centralized government that rules over the people. and the founding fathers knew that this was the natural order of government, which is why the entire bill of rights is meant to protect the people FROM the government, AND is the reason they decentralized the power structure of the u.s.a.  it's the classic federalist v. nationalist debate, and we've gone from a predominantly federalist founding, to a strong, burdensome nationalist state.

why does this matter? because the larger and more powerful the government, the more corruption and consolidation of power you will find; and the further removed it will be from its subjects. government is self-serving. if it can get away with it, a government will increase its authority, its jurisdiction, its revenues, its agencies, its staff, and its overall scope, every time. that's what government is about; governing. look up governmentalism.

i mean let's just look at the word government. taking away our modern interpretation of the word as this big thing that runs the country, it is simply the noun form of the word govern. govern~ment. etymologically speaking, it means "the act of governing or ruling." in a legal sense, it means "the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

it's very function is to govern, so naturally it's going to want to govern more and more. sure it may provide services, but it's purpose is to govern; otherwise it would be called the servicement instead. and with each new service, comes another layer of governing. another layer of "direction or control." also comes another agency to monitor and oversee, and of course the money for all these services has to come from somewhere; i.e. the taxpayers. so in essence, we're paying more to be controlled or "directed" more. it's a self-feeding loop.

anyway, in closing, i agree with some of your points, but not the third. and if i were king of america, here's the system i would enact.

the federal government, itself, only has the following obligations. to provide for the common defense (similar to point one), to guarantee the constitutional rights of those in its boundries; a.k.a. the federal justice system (like point two), to mediate any interstate quarrels, and to maintain a uniformed monetary system. that's it. the implementation of social programs, building of infrastructure, education, and all that, should be left to the states, who cannot exceed the limitations placed on the federal government in the constitution. doing so would drastically lessen the federal tax burden, and states would be free to make their own revenues, compete with each other to draw in new residents and businesses, and more importantly, give americans the ability to choose under what type of system they want to live. do you want a state with great social services but high taxes, or do you want a state with less generous entitlements, but lower taxes?

but it'll never happen. at least not without a total restructuring of america, which would only come after a tragic fall.


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George washington