Conservatism

Iwasfrozen

Could anyone give me a broad overview of conservatism in the 21st century ? What are its general aims and policies of its Ideology ?
I've tried looking into the conservative parties of many countries but they vary to much to give a broad definition. I have noticed however that they all tend to be Right Wing and slightly Authoritarian.
Any help would be appreciated. :cool:

O'Coonassa

You ought to examine the phhilosophy of the Irishman Edmund Burke. He is the Godfather of modern Conservatism. I'm so very proud For modern conservative ideology look at the work of Roger Scruton. Between the two of them you'll get the gist of it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

Conservativism can be opposed to radicalism, but perhaps it's not so simple. Conservatism, by definition, seems to represent a will on the part of people to protect the status quo - to 'conserve' what is. Radical is derived from the Latin radix, which means root - radicalism means to cut down to the roots of something.

The word 'conservatism' is the more recent of the two terms (emerging as it did in the 18th century); 'radicalism' has an older connotation, going back to at least the 17th century. Before that, historical acts/movements may be designated conservative or radical by a contemporary mind.

But neither term, beyond these definitions, necessarily implies a particular belief system - the words have meaning by virtue of their context or use. One can wish to conserve a soviet communist, feudal or fascist system as much as a liberal capitalist system; liberal capitalists or 'conservative christians' may be every bit as radical as an Islamist terrorist or evolutionary psychologist.

In other words, both terms have within them a capacity for going to extremes. And often, 'conservative' actually designates quite radical movements (e.g. Thatcher's and Reagan's economic policies) and 'radical' can mask movements seeking to bolster the status quo (which may or may not embody radical inequalities, for example).

So, donegalfella gives some good examples of these traits, but I feel any discussion on these terms should start with this more philosophical analysis.

ChocolateSauce

It's far too broad a topic to pin down without a long essay, but here's a very brief generalisation.

My opinion is that conservatism, in the important socio-political (but not economical) sense, is the opposite of liberalism, which is derived from liberty, to be free. I find conservative people tend to be very much against the notion of personal freedom, they are often very religious, usually right-wing, and seem to dislike people like me, who insist that they stay out of the personal lives of others.

The more conservative a country, the worse it usually is. For example, Yemen, Arabia, Afghanistan etc, are the most conservative countries in the world. They're also habitual human rights abusers. The Netherlands, Norway, France and other western countries are very liberal indeed, and usually have a high respect for human rights, democracy and liberty.

Generally speaking, I find conservatism abhorrent. The majority of conservatives are not happy to be conservative themselves, but insist others must abide by their morals. Liberals are the opposite, generally, and are happy to let conservatives lead their lives their own way.

For this reason I find liberalism intrinsically right, and conservatism intrinsically wrong, with the tail end of it being human rights abuse and tyranny.

Iwasfrozen

Thank you for the replies.
I think I am under-going a rather radical shift from the Social Democracy to Conservatism (I'm still only 17 so abit Politically ignorant )
In particular I think I am becoming culturally Conservative. Perhaps someone woth more Political expereince than me could tell me where I actaully stand ?
I am begining to open up the idea of a free market, but with Goverment intervention, I favour Pro-Chioce, support embryotic stem cell research, am an Atheist, support the death penalty, oppose same sex marriage (not for religious reasons), oppose drugs, porn, prostitution, and support the Nuclear Family.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

It's good to ask questions and explore different political positions. In Ireland, though, "conservative" is often a synonym for "evil Bush-loving right-wing nutjob," so be prepared for some criticism of your beliefs!

Thanks for the reply, I'm not really worried about what other people think though so that shouldn't be a problem !

A free market is one that operates without government intervention. You seem to believe in a regulated market, or so-called "managed capitalism," which would be a typically centrist position.

Yep, pretty much hit the nail on the head there, I'm opposed to completely free market as I think that large Corporations have no desire to improve society and the only morale objective of a Company is to make a profit for its shareholders, by whatever means.

Those positions are more typical of liberals. Conservatives are more likely to believe in God, and to uphold the sanctity of human life from conception.

True, I'm not a very good Right-winger :P
But I believe that Woman should be allowed to chose to have an abortion, granted nobody likes to see an unborn child die, but that is a morale decision for the mother and the mother only. I do not believe that the Government has a right to tell her what is right and wrong.
I support embryonic stem cell research because of the number of great developments that it makes possible, i.e. cure for Dementia, ability to regrow limbs etc.
And yes I can't believe in God, no matter how hard I try.

Capital punishment often divides conservatives. The "eye-for-an-eye" moralists see the death penalty as justified punishment for particularly heinous crimes. But libertarian-leaning conservatives tend to believe that the death penalty is yet another outrageous abuse of state power. And many religious conservatives don't believe that any person is ever justified in taking the life of another.

I know this, but I support Capital Punishment only for very serious offences, such as a known Serial Killer, or a Serial Child Rapist. The Capital Punishment will only be used on those that rehabilitation has failed. Basically the scum of the earth that have voluntarily given up any right to live on the same world as normal Human beings.

O'Coonassa

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

normal Human beings.

Normal human beings don't kill people though on account of it not being justifiable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

And this still holds for American Christian 'Conservatives' who are terrified of the 'permissive society' and, therefore, want contemporary American society as they see it to be different? Is this not also a normative attitude?

I go back to my original, analytical point: the terms 'conservative' or 'radical' doesn't mean anything in the abstract, and can logically contradict each other. So to ask a general question requires giving a general answer. It's in the actual working through of the terms in a given context that sets the meaning for either term, neither of which are mutually exclusive, either.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

I think we're in agreement in slightly different ways. I think both terms have an abstract logic that can seem to transcend their historically specific, or contingent (and shifting) meanings. I think that bearing the abstract logic of the terms serve to focus minds on the historical meanings while at the same time keeping it within a sort of 'meta-context'.

I didn't mean to reduce the terms to an abstract and displace the discussion about actual-existing conservative, liberal or radical views/movements, just to supplement the discussion.

Do carry on.

Iwasfrozen

But look at what you're presuming here—that the state has the moral authority to revoke a person's right to life if it decides that he represents the "scum of the earth." You might find this acceptable if the state restricts the definition of "scum of the earth" to child rapists and serial killers. But what if the state then decides to expand that definition to encompass Jews, political dissidents, and so on?

But what is a political dissident ? I notice you also said Jews but if a Neo - Nazi party suddently gained power in Ireland and wanted to carry out another holocaust i.e expand the definition of Scum of the Earth to include Jews and spit on democracy then should we not lock their leaders up as political dissidents ?
Another point is that any Capital punishment sentence would only be given in extream serial cases when rehabilitation has failed due to the convicts own fault.

af_thefragile

I'm slightly conservative.
Thats mostly cuz i think religion is a good thing, i don't believe in abortion and i think it should be the job of the parents, not the state to teach children about sex education.

Also as i'm a libertarian, i believe the government should only be there to protect laws, security and rights of the people and should not interfere in people's personal lives, business and basically the society. I have a very leissez-faire approach towards business and social matters. The people and nature are the best judges and its best to leave it upto them to decide what's best for themselves in an almost anarchic way. Though i'm not an anarchist. I believe there needs to be a ruling force, but only for what i mentioned before. To make sure no one is committing any crimes, punish criminals and deal with foreign matters.

So does me being a right wing free-market advocator make me slightly conservative?
I think overall i'm very balanced between liberal and conservative.

turgon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But what is a political dissident ? I notice you also said Jews but if a Neo - Nazi party suddently gained power in Ireland and wanted to carry out another holocaust i.e expand the definition of Scum of the Earth to include Jews and spit on democracy then should we not lock their leaders up as political dissidents ?

They would have the army on their hands, they would declare a state of emergency at the outbreak of such dissent and legally start executing people.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Another point is that any Capital punishment sentence would only be given in extream serial cases when rehabilitation has failed due to the convicts own fault.

Thats well and good, but in whos opinion is it that they have failed to rehabilitate? What if, as donegalfella mentioned, the judge was annoyed that the person had failed to rehabilitate to a pro-government stance?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

^Finally someone who understands whats actually going on rather then listening to CNN all day and getting bogged down with all of their propaganda bull ****!

I think they key aspect here is that both left and right aim for a more powerful central state, taking away power from the people and giving it to the government. Thats why it makes no difference whether you're a democratic or a republican cuz at the end of the day the people are screwed either way! And thats why people are still waiting (and will keep waiting) for Obama's promised change.


About social issues, i believe everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want. People need to get responsible and start to think for themselves what is right and wrong for them. Then some righty will come and say "if we leave everything upto the people them everyone will be taking drugs and screwing around destroying society", i'ld say, well, once let them learn from their mistakes then! If they end up destroying the society, they might then rebuild a better one learning from all the mistakes they made before. People got into the hippie culture during the 60's. Then they realised those drugs were only killing themselves and they were getting all sorts of STDs, they learnt from that and people left the hippie movement.
Forcing people into believing in something will only make them rebel. Brainwashing them will make them sheep. People have the ability to think for themselves, they need to make use of that!
Though i do believe people should have the right to set up religious institutions and follow them at will. If one doesn't like the institution they can leave anytime. And many people like religion so i believe abolishment of religious institutions would not be moving towards libertarianism. As people are not bound to a religion by law, id cards, passport etc., they're only obliged towards it at their own free will. Thats liberation.

And about the business sector. Here comes the leftys with their rhetoric "people are stupid, CEO's are ugly!". All the major economic collapses have taken place because of the government interfering with businesses. Markets go down and they come back up again, its normal. But when the government starts screwing with the market, by say introducing the Fed which provided all the alcohol for the market to get drunk, thats when things get beyond repair.

I herd Peter Schiff say one of the best quotes the other day "All macro economics is government propaganda". Truer words can't be spoken!

Macro economics is government's brainwashing tool. Teaching the top economic students in the top universities how economics at the state scale won't work on its own, how the government needs to control the markets by enforcing regulations and controlling unemployment and population etc. etc.
Its all government propaganda bull crap! Truth is there is little difference between macro and micro economics. All the principles that work perfect for micro economics will work perfect at the larger state scale too. But the government likes to brainwash people into believing we need government enforcement and regulation of markets to ensure their running smoothly. What a load of crap!

Though i guess another powerful tool the lefties use is globalisation. One world, one government where we can all live together. And the leave out the last bit which says, where we all live together as slaves to the higher ruling power above us!!
Take away the government and we could all live together much better. Like the old days. You wouldn't need to take permissions of government to travel from one place to another. Without a government you'ld be free to go whereever you want, free to live where ever you want. That is true freedom, that is living together in a one world. Not by having one global state but by having small local governments and no big powerful state governments. (If you don't get it, i can explain this better sometime later).




Saying all of that i say right now, right now we need a police force. A significant one but only there to protect us, not rule us. A police force formed by the people, of the people for the people. They are there to protect our freedom and rights, punish criminals and make sure no one is doing anything wrong. That is all.
So yes, coming back, i'm not an anarchist and a state with no government, police force etc. would be the perfect society we could aim for.
But for now, we need to realise that at this point, absolute anarchy will result in absolute chaos. Instead of just letting go of everyone, we need to do it in a more gentle manner, making sure everyone is ready and prepared to live in a state with no government.
This is the mistake Marx made, this is the mistake Bakunin made. You can't just leap frog onto a system which people haven't been prepared for or seen before. You need to take the long and gentle way through the process.





To sum it all up,
I'll say i'm a slightly conservative when it comes to social issues. As i believe in religious values and such.
But i believe people need to follow them at their own will and should not be forced into follow them through the intervention of a government body. Parents forcing their kids to follow rules and values, i'm fine with that, its their job after all. The religion doing it, i'm fine with that too as people are not obliged to follow a religion, they can leave if they don't like it. The government doing it, i'm not ok with that cuz the government shoves it down as a law destroying liberty and freedom.
Business matters, i'm a right wing free market advocator.

ChocolateSauce

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Thank you for the replies.
I think I am under-going a rather radical shift from the Social Democracy to Conservatism (I'm still only 17 so abit Politically ignorant )
In particular I think I am becoming culturally Conservative. Perhaps someone woth more Political expereince than me could tell me where I actaully stand ?
I am begining to open up the idea of a free market, but with Goverment intervention, I favour Pro-Chioce, support embryotic stem cell research, am an Atheist, support the death penalty, oppose same sex marriage (not for religious reasons), oppose drugs, porn, prostitution, and support the Nuclear Family.

Where you stand is a little odd: It's rare to find someone (particularly an atheist) who is pro-choice, pro-death penalty, anti-gay marriage, anti-porn, pro stem cells!

Anyway, I find it interesting that you support a woman's choice to abort, but not a gay couple's choice to make a legally binding affirmation of partnership. If it is her business, why do you not agree it is their business? When you say you're anti-porn and prostitution, do you mean you simply don't like it and find it distasteful, or that you think it should be illegal?

And while I believe that some people deserve to die, I don't think anyone has the right to take a life, and governments certainly shouldn't have the right to confer upon themselves that power. This doesn't even take into account the risk of executing the wrong person, a truly grim prospect which has been known to happen.

As for me, I believe in relatively small government with a regulated capitalist system. I'm less libertarian than most Americans, but more than most Europeans. I believe that personal liberty, though it must be invoidable, should be combined with social responsibility.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Anyway, I find it interesting that you support a woman's choice to abort, but not a gay couple's choice to make a legally binding affirmation of partnership. If it is her business, why do you not agree it is their business? When you say you're anti-porn and prostitution, do you mean you simply don't like it and find it distasteful, or that you think it should be illegal?

Because child abortion does not damage society as a whole, marrige I belive should only be between people of the opposite sex, this comes back from the whole "support the nuclear family" arguement. Child abortion does not interfere with the position of the nuclear family and only serves as a way of disposing of a mistake.

And while I believe that some people deserve to die, I don't think anyone has the right to take a life, and governments certainly shouldn't have the right to confer upon themselves that power. This doesn't even take into account the risk of executing the wrong person, a truly grim prospect which has been known to happen.

But you agree that some people diserve to die ? Surly if some people diserve to die then the people that kill them should act on behalf of the people, yes ? Plus if we treat scum like they are, scum. Then we will find that crime rates will drop as criminals realise that they cannot act the way they do.

As for me, I believe in relatively small government with a regulated capitalist system. I'm less libertarian than most Americans, but more than most Europeans. I believe that personal liberty, though it must be invoidable, should be combined with social responsibility.

I believe in a reletively large government with a regulated capitalist system.

turgon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surly if some people diserve to die then the people that kill them should act on behalf of the people, yes ?

By "on behalf of the people" you probably mean "on behalf of the majority". So the 50%+1 can force everyone else to be killed for their crime, right?

Excellent post af_thefragile. There are a number of things that I feel necessitates as state at the most basic level:

- Justice, the courts etc. I dont see how "private courts" would work?
- Police force, to help with law as said above.
- Partial management of school curriculum. There is one reason for this: if schools are allowed set their own curricula, parents can pick and choose what their kids will learn, so they might intentionally send them to a school that forces anti-sex doctrine down their throats and refuses to prepare them for the real world.
- Still not fully convinced on a privatized roads system.

I thought I had more, damn those convincing libertarians.:)

Basically, as af_thefragile said, people will need to be weaned into thinking for themselves (shock horror). For example I was thinking of adding like regulation of substances to the above. But then I realized its up to the individual person to find out if the alcohol they are drinking is safe, and in the capitalist economy it will be in the interest of the company to provide safe beverages. At the moment companys are forced to produce safe beer, whereas it should be the consumer who chooses to ignore unsafe alcohol.

Iwasfrozen

By "on behalf of the people" you probably mean "on behalf of the majority". So the 50%+1 can force everyone else to be killed for their crime, right?

Not really, opposition parties do have a say in the Government relitive to the amout of votes recieved y'know.

I thought I had more, damn those convincing libertarians.

Indeed, I'm actually surprised there is not a Libertarian party in Ireland, if they had half as many relitive supportors as there are on this thread they would do very well.

turgon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not really, opposition parties do have a say in the Government relitive to the amout of votes recieved y'know.

Yeah but you want to introduce the death penalty which would requite 50%+1. It is illegal under EU law though I think.

Plus the government doesnt have to listen to opposition.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Indeed, I'm actually surprised there is not a Libertarian party in Ireland, if they had half as many relitive supportors as there are on this thread they would do very well.

Well more extremest views will generally be disproportionately expressed on an Internet forum than common life methinks.

Thats why those Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland thread are such a nightmare.

Edit: but if you want to create a libertarian party work away, I might even support you

Iwasfrozen

Yeah but you want to introduce the death penalty which would requite 50%+1. It is illegal under EU law though I think.

Plus the government doesnt have to listen to opposition.

Yes, it would require a referendum, which needs the majority of support from the people. Should we have passed the Lisbon treaty because the majority should not make decisions for the minority ? If we where to introduce the Death Penalty it would require a referendum vote.

Well more extremest views will generally be disproportionately expressed on an Internet forum than common life methinks.

Thats why those Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland thread are such a nightmare.

Can't argue with that...

Edit: but if you want to create a libertarian party work away, I might even support you

Haven't you read my earlier posts ?

I believe in a reletively large government with a regulated capitalist system.

turgon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, it would require a referendum, which needs the majority of support from the people. Should we have passed the Lisbon treaty because the majority should not make decisions for the minority ? If we where to introduce the Death Penalty it would require a referendum vote.?

Can you see then how the majority can force things on the minority?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Haven't you read my earlier posts ?

Yeah I was only messing

Iwasfrozen

Can you see then how the majority can force things on the minority?

Exactly, welcome to democracy.

Yeah I was only messing

I know, pity there isn't a sacrasm function.

turgon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Exactly, welcome to democracy.

Yeah well thats one of the arguments of some libertarians - that democracy is simply the rule of the majority. Some people see the outlawing of abortion as the majority forcing their view of life on the minority.

Like this guy.

<_<

>_>

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

Excellent post af_thefragile. There are a number of things that I feel necessitates as state at the most basic level:

- Justice, the courts etc. I dont see how "private courts" would work?
- Police force, to help with law as said above.
- Partial management of school curriculum. There is one reason for this: if schools are allowed set their own curricula, parents can pick and choose what their kids will learn, so they might intentionally send them to a school that forces anti-sex doctrine down their throats and refuses to prepare them for the real world.
- Still not fully convinced on a privatized roads system.

I thought I had more, damn those convincing libertarians.:)

Basically, as af_thefragile said, people will need to be weaned into thinking for themselves (shock horror). For example I was thinking of adding like regulation of substances to the above. But then I realized its up to the individual person to find out if the alcohol they are drinking is safe, and in the capitalist economy it will be in the interest of the company to provide safe beverages. At the moment companys are forced to produce safe beer, whereas it should be the consumer who chooses to ignore unsafe alcohol.

You kinda get it. I was a big commie lefty before i realised how wrong i was! I believed if the state could have all the man and monetary power, it could make amazing scientific and economic progress but then comes the question... Who would rule such a state? How could you make sure the person continues to remain determined and focused towards discovery and progress rather than personal goals. Its gonna be impossible to find such a person. To best put it in a quote from one of NIN's songs "don't tell me that some power can corrupt a person, you haven't had enough to know what its like!". "Absolute power corrupts absolutely!".
It'ld inevitably destroy freedom and liberty and no one likes the idea of living in a totalitarian state unless they're being brainwashed by the state into submission.


Anyway, my point is. I was big anti-drugs, anti-alcohol and all that too. But then i realised wait, people need to realise themselves those things aren't good for them and only then will they stop using them. If one ban such drugs, it only makes people do it more, just out of their curiosity of giving it a try. Like now everyone has realised smoking is bad for you and people aren't smoking as much as they used to a couple of decades ago.

And this ties in with the whole concept of people taking responsibility for themselves which the whole libertarian state focuses around. A lot of factors contribute to this in a libertarian state. Firstly without government social welfare, people won't have a soft cushion to fall back on. "Oh, if i get sick, its not gonna make a difference, the government will pay for my hospital expenditure". Instead if it was more like "oh, if i drink too much, i could end up losing my job and worse i'll **** up my liver and then who is gonna pay my hospital bill?!". Yup, that will give them more sense of responsibility!
Then there will always be the ones who are gonna do the drugs anyway without caring about themselves. Well, let them destroy themselves! If they're stupid enough to do it, them probably they deserve the consequence. The government isn't gonna pay for their mistakes. They could also end up becomes excellent examples for people to see first hand the dangers of drugs and other toxic substances.

Now i'm not gonna go into the music industry propaganda of "do drugs and **** up your life, then you'll be totally cool!!". Yeah, people will soon realise once they get responsible how destructive that ideology is and will stop buying into it sooner or later.

Same goes for schools, same goes for roads, same goes for everything.
In business there has to be competition cuz only through competition is progress achieved. If it wasn't for Soviet Russia and USA competing with each other for space dominance, we wouldn't have had people walk on the moon or living up in a space station. Competition in F1 racing has lead to many technological advances we see in cars of today.
Competition will give you a better, more efficient, more green car. Competition will give you better roads to drive that car on. Competition will give you cheaper energy to run it on and many more things.

Without competition only one progress will be made. Government military progress. Also over there the state is competing with other states or competing to take control over its people... so really, at the end of the day, without competition there would have been nothing!

turgon

^^ Thank you for another great post.

I haven't done that much reading into political and economic thinking to be quite frank. Im going to read "The Road to Serfdom", which DF and nesf both recommended. I might then read some books on general political economic theory. When Im in the company of posters like yourself and DF I always feel out of my depth

af_thefragile

^Just to let you know, don't take everything i say for as word.

The main point is to "think for yourself".
A concept i try to push forward with most "creative and artistic" things i do. The last thing i'ld want is people following what i say for word. Instead i want people to listen to my words, reflect on them and then put across their response to it. People to make up their minds for themselves. People need to learn to do that. To lead, not follow. Only then will we be able to progress as humanity onto the next level.

"Leaders don't create followers, they create more leaders".

turgon

Of course! As I said I still have to do a bit of reading and determine my own views on issues rather than just taking what other people say

ChocolateSauce

af_thefragile wrote: »

Without competition only one progress will be made. Government military progress. Also over there the state is competing with other states or competing to take control over its people... so really, at the end of the day, without competition there would have been nothing!

+1

Adam Smith said that if goods cannot cross borders, armys will.

Leonid

Here's one for ya http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/191.html

,8,1

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

"Libertarian conservative" is surely an oxymoron, because libertarianism cuts the ground from under conservativism.

Libertarianism does not seek to "conserve" anything. It wants individualism, atomisation and to keep the State out of everything (or almost everything). The mindset is highly anarchist. The application of libertarian ideas leads to a permissive (or liberal) society.

Libertarians spend much of their time denying or speaking against collectivism. Conservatives will often see problems with a society's collective values - such as its moral attitudes and culture. However libertarians deny that we should ever concern ourselves with, let alone seek to change, collective values. So one of the core drives of conservatism is disallowed.

Libertarianism does have one collective value for a society. And that is that the role of the State should be minimised and that people should not be penalised for any action. We should have no collective value or morality other than permissivity.

One of the tragedies of the current political reality is that libertarians are accepted as part of the conservative cause. They are given agency from this unlikely alliance.

"Libertarian conservatism" is seen most obviously in the political system of America. But it's a phenomenon occuring in conservative movements/parties throughout the world.

Amconmag.com - Marxism of the Right

Belfast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Could anyone give me a broad overview of conservatism in the 21st century ? What are its general aims and policies of its Ideology ?
I've tried looking into the conservative parties of many countries but they vary to much to give a broad definition. I have noticed however that they all tend to be Right Wing and slightly Authoritarian.
Any help would be appreciated. :cool:

Conservatism from an American point of view.

Define Conservatism (Book)
"A Conservative is someone who believes in

1. Respect for the Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. Less Government
4. Personal Responsibility"
rest of the article in the link below
http://www.defineconservatism.com/



Jonathan Krohn - CPAC - The Future Of Conservatism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUbkdwpZ2o

The Definition of Conservative
http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-conservative.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

,8,1

Why should conservatism be "respect for the Constitution"? If the American Constitution or its application is liberal, which it is, then this is counter-productive.

Less Government and Personal Responsibility, also, do not capture the conservative spirit. Both concepts can be and are stretched so that they feed into the liberal agenda.

Indeed, donegalfella. "Libertarian conservatism" exists as an alliance only. It does not work ideologically.

turgon

Conservatism is "protecting the people and their rights." Could be seen as a possible a pre-requisite for tyranny.

,8,1

The same could be said of liberalism/libertarianism, turgon. Also, define tyranny.

Are Conservatives Really Radicals? - FreeRatio.org

The dictionary definitions of "conservative", "liberal", and "radical" have little relevance to the political definitions of said terms.

The political definition of any term is "believes in x, y, and z." If those are in place, the conservative, liberal, or radical wants to keep things the way they are, and if those are not in place the conservative, liberal, or radical wants to change things.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

The same could be said of liberalism/libertarianism, turgon. Also, define tyranny.

Are Conservatives Really Radicals? - FreeRatio.org

From what i see conservatism and liberalism are two opposite ends of a pole and libertarianism is a completely different end. You could be a liberal libertarian or a conservative libertarian.

Basically conservatives don't want "wrong" or "bad" things in their society. Like they don't want any drugs, prostitutes, abortion, gambling, gay marriage stuff like that and wanna make these things illegal... They could be religious or non-religious.

Liberals on the other hand are fine with pretty much everything. They want to make everything legal. From drugs, prostitutes, abortion, gambling, the whole lot...

You could be either a strong righty conservative or a lefty liberal or even something inbetween where you might think something like drugs should be made legal but prostitution should be illegal, kinda like that.

Anyway, you shouldn't confuse liberalism with libertarianism. They're two different things.
Liberals say the government should make everything legal.
Libertarians say there should be no central government or the central government should have no (or very little) authority over the people. The people should be left alone to decide to make their own local laws.

turgon

Tyranny, as in a group of people imposing their will over others. For "the good of the people."

,8,1

You could be a liberal libertarian or a conservative libertarian.

You could label yourself a liberal or conservative libertarian but the application of libertarian ideas will have the same ends either way.

Anyway, you shouldn't confuse liberalism with libertarianism. They're two different things.

There is a great degree of similarity.

Liberals say the government should make everything legal.
Libertarians say there should be no central government or the central government should have no (or very little) authority over the people.

The way I see it these are both essentially the same thing. Or if not, they are highly complementary.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

You could label yourself a liberal or conservative libertarian but the application of libertarian ideas will have the same ends either way.

Libertarianism will give people the freedom to form their societies the way they want to without any outside intervention. So the liberals can form their liberal society and the conservatives can form their conservative society. All the liberals can live in the liberal county and all the conservatives can live in conservative county.

There is a great degree of similarity.

Liberals end up forcing their liberal ideologies onto everyone in the state.
Libertarians give people the freedom to live their lives according to their own ideologies.
There is a difference.

,8,1

Libertarianism will give people the freedom to form their societies the way they want to without any outside intervention. So the liberals can form their liberal society and the conservatives can form their conservative society. All the liberals can live in the liberal county and all the conservatives can live in conservative county.

Perhaps this illustrates why this idea does not work:

Amconmag.com wrote:

Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

Libertarianism disallows truly conservative corrective action. So while you argue that a "conservative county" can be formed within a libertarian regime, as soon as that county wants to do something about say, pornography, libertarians step in and say you can't do that.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

Perhaps this illustrates why this idea does not work:

I've got an exam tomorrow so i really can't read all of that today. Sorry mate.

Libertarianism disallows truly conservative corrective action. So while you argue that a "conservative county" can be formed within a libertarian regime, as soon as that county wants to do something about say, pornography, libertarians step in and say you can't do that.

Why would they step in? The whole point of libertarianism is to not tell people what to do. We libertarians say people should be free to run their society as they want it. If they don't want pornography, we won't stop them.

,8,1

Perhaps this illustrates why this idea does not work:

I've got an exam tomorrow so i really can't read all of that today. Sorry mate.

The paragraph quoted is what I wanted to draw attention to.

Libertarianism disallows truly conservative corrective action. So while you argue that a "conservative county" can be formed within a libertarian regime, as soon as that county wants to do something about say, pornography, libertarians step in and say you can't do that.

Why would they step in? The whole point of libertarianism is to not tell people what to do. We libertarians say people should be free to run their society as they want it. If they don't want pornography, we won't stop them.

Actually you are wrong there. Although libertarians speak much about how being pro freedom, they do not allow people the freedom to make laws against the availability of pornography.

Libertarians will fight such action every step of the way and will say essentially that it is an illegitimate idea.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a libertarian state would act similarly against a conservative county.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

Actually you are wrong there. Although libertarians speak much about how being pro freedom, they do not allow people the freedom to make laws against the availability of pornography.

Libertarians will fight such action every step of the way and will say essentially that it is an illegitimate idea.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a libertarian state would act similarly against a conservative county.

From where i see it (or how i believe it should be) libertarians should let people form the laws for their societies themselves which can abide under one basic common law.
So every state/county can have the freedom to set up their laws according to the will of the members of the state/county. So if the people of the county decide (maybe by voting) against pornography, they shouldn't be stopped from doing so.

Ron Paul is quite conservative himself. But he says it should be left to the individual states to decide their drug, prostitution etc laws rather than the central government deciding it all for everyone.

turgon

,8,1 wrote: »

Actually you are wrong there. Although libertarians speak much about how being pro freedom, they do not allow people the freedom to make laws against the availability of pornography.

That is because porn is matter for each individual, not the majority to decide what everyone gets to do.

What difference does it make to your if I watch porn?

af_thefragile

To note turgon is quite liberal while i'm slightly conservative...
But we both believe in the libertarian agenda.