I was curious to see what people would say to this question:
How would you describe liberal?
Conservative?
Libertarian?
Lets see how crazy the answers get.
These are my answers in theory...
My response:
Liberal:
Someone who wants everyone to be equal. They think that the world is full of injustice and through protest and govt programs they can solve the problems of the world.
Conservative:
Believes in the free will of humanity. For the most part, people can take care of themselves, but individuals helping eachother is fine. Handouts and dependency only hurts those in need. In the end, free markets and free will are the way to go. Govt's job is to protect us and provide services that people can not do on their own, such as roads and water treatment plants.
Libertarian:
In theory they are for almost no govt. People do what they want. What it ends up being is a party of pot smokers and druggies who want every drug legal
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Was is a liberal? Conservative? Libertarian?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
My quick definitions:
Conservative: Someone who believes traditions and institutions contain the latent knowledge of centuries past and shouldn't be needlessly changed. Men are moved more by passion, imagination, and habit than they are by reason. Rapid change unleashes the dark side of man.
Liberal: Holds liberty as the fundamental value. Rational adults are in charge of their own destinies. Supports liberal democracy abroad and open markets at home.
Socialist: Believes world is divided between greedy capitalists and noble victims. Wants a USSR-command economy and social engineering for the benefit of the working class. Anti-war since all violence is a conspiracy to benefit elites.
Fascist: Seeks third way between Liberal democracy and socialism. Feels liberal democracy corrupts man's intellect, morality, and inspiration. Groups are manifestations of Spirit; demands a holistic society where men can be authentic. Believes in moral purification through violence, war, and death.
The GOP is a mix of liberalism and conservatism; the Democratic Party is mainly a socialist party today. Iran is a fascist society.
Under Game and Jasons definitions of conservative and liberal I think I could say I adhere to portions of both. However I do not totally agree with their descriptions. Especially Jasons fascist description. Too me, not the or an authority, Fascism is tantamount to totalitarianism. One of overriding autocratic government control,forceful nationalism, an insistance on social conformity and suppression of opposition or alternative thought. Quite like the direction many would like to lead us today.
Socialists, to me,indicate much of the same as above without the autocratic nature and insistance of social conformity. The main difference between the two however is Fascists favor a power center in business and socialists favor widespread distribution,of wealth anyway, on an "equal" basis.
I am neither. Most democrats I know are not what I have described above or what jason describes as a socialist.
Dude, thats not even close.
thanks for the enlightenment rhyno
Cuz JASON can tell the diff between fascist and GWB -- lol.
Actually, there is no difference. Conservatives & liberals alike are socialist, or at least have socialist tendencies:
lib·er·tar·i·an:
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
con·ser·va·tive:
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
1. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
2. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
lib·er·al:
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
Now here's me, and it sure in the hell isn't Lieberman:
in·de·pen·dent:
1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
4. often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
5. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
6.
1. Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
2. Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working: a person of independent means.
Let's see any of you be so wise, suckas.
Dedanna, thanks for refering to the dictionary. I think that is what any thinking person would do when trying to accurately communicate. I thought of doing it my self but I think it is interesting to see how sematics plays the major role in this and our entire political life..
The elliot post is the most prime of examples of brainwashing and the twisting that has gone on in our political debate.
Liberals:
Do NOT want everyone to be equal. They want everyone to have an equal chance. They believe that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. They believe that some people sometimes need help and are willing to help those who would help themselves. Kind of like God. Liberals believe that there is little "black or white" in this world, that complex problems often require deep thinking and debate to solve. Liberals believe that sometimes military force is necessary and that it should be used wisely and effectively. Liberals believe that America is a great country and would not want to live anywhere else. Liberals believe that there are other countries in this world who are worthy of our respect and our partnership. Liberals believe that being exceptional does not grant a country the right to police the world and insist that all countries adopt our culture and our type of government.
Conservatives:
"Believe in the free will of humanity" as long as it is the Conservatives' will. Conservatives believe that the Bill of Rights is only as good as what the majority of voters want. Conservatives believe that there is no such thing as having enough money. Conservatives believe in the inherent laziness of people and the inherent righteousness of corporations. Conservatives believe that corporations left to themselves will always do the right thing for their employees, their customers, and their environment. Conservatives do not believe in government. That's why they are incompetent at it. Conservatives believe that they make America an exceptional nation and if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can go fuck themselves.
Libertarians:
Think government should defend them against foreign attack and give them a road to drive on and otherwise fuck off.
Jim, I relate to your description of liberal. On the conservative I relate to much of what you say except this...you say they dont believe in government. This USE to be true. They were most suspicious of much the government did. Now all they can do is sheeple along. Which is why I keep insisting they are not true conservatives. Rather they are truly, literally the radical right..or wingnuts as I so lovingly like to call them.
Here's a piece from the American conservative on this particular issue.
http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article18.html
I would not ascribe to the conservative philosophy in large measure..even old style but this statement from the article makes perfect sense to me:
How well I can recall the years from 1992 to 1996, when the Republican Party was against government expansion and Clintonian foreign intervention.
But it was a brief moment. We might say that time revealed the truth. To be a conservative in this country means to hold a deep and implacable attachment to the regime insofar as it is run by the Republican Party. Note that I’m not saying that this is a corruption of the term “conservative” or a misunderstanding. This is what the word means in reality, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
I think there are intellectual reasons for this. A crude form of Hobbesianism has corrupted every conservative thinker in this country. They sincerely believe that it is not liberty that gave rise to civilization but state-generated law, without which society would crumble. So when push comes to shove, they defend the state, no matter how bloody it becomes.
Do you protest? Have I misstated your own political views? You truly love liberty and hate the state and all its works? Good. Bail out of conservatism. Call yourself a libertarian, a liberal, an anarchist, an independent, a revolutionary, a Jeffersonian radical. Or make up your own name. But please, wake up and smell the massivo espresso: when it comes to mindless party loyalty, conservatism today is as bad as communism ever was.
Ron:The same effect is what has caused me to quit calling myself a "Christian".
And there are aspects of both that I disagree with. Which is why I'm neither.
I do not believe in free hand-outs to anyone any more due to too much abuse of the system, unless they are willing to use them wisely and effectively for the long term -- even then, we should be extremely careful.
I do not believe in corporate whores, or that corporations are the answer to anything governmentally. This idea is the true socialistic one (i.e. corporations run the country, not people; they in turn can change the laws of the country effectively; they have the money, influence, and power to do so, rather than the people of the country), and leads to masses against the classes, giving no one an opportunity.
I do not believe, at the same time, that government should fuck off entirely. I believe that there is a place for government, but like everyone else, government doesn't realize it's time or place, nor does it stick to it.
I believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they were presented originally should be stuck to like glue, and protected to a fault, whatever it takes. If there are changes to be made for any reason, it should be strictly at the people's will and vote.
I believe in compassion for man and woman alike; however, I also believe in tough love in every aspect, and that it should be used toughly when it is needed.
I do not believe in foreign policy; I believe in the policy of the country that I'm currently living in. If that policy is straight, then the foreign policy will be, too.
There are several other aspects where I disagree; however, this post is long enough.
Ron, your last post here is ever so true.
Game, when the hell are you going to get rid of this word verification thing? I'm about to go on strike against you, it's so annoying. I've already posted about it once.
"They sincerely believe that it is not liberty that gave rise to civilization but state-generated law, without which society would crumble."
I do. Without Rule of Law, there is no social equality, no open markets, and no separation between civilian life and military life. The Jacobin impulse for the revolutionary, hip, new kind of freedom that doesn't need umpires always leads to the guillotine.
There's none or very little anyway any more, Jason. And you support the cronies who make it that way.
Jason said-I do. Without Rule of Law, there is no social equality, no open markets, and no separation between civilian life and military life. The Jacobin impulse for the revolutionary, hip, new kind of freedom that doesn't need umpires always leads to the guillotine.
Jason- We agree!
Maybe you two do, but it isn't reality any more.
It's a fantasy world -- and, as I said, it's the one that isn't there any more because of the current administration.
Call this sheer perspective if you want, but unfortunately, no one lives by principles like that any more.
Post a Comment