What's the point of being conservative?

[TaQud]

>Conservatives try to honestly answer the question
>Liberals go buttmad and call them stupid, etc.

when did that happen in this thread...

[Norsklow]

I never said that! I didn't! I didn't! I didn't!

Perhaps I worded it wrong then. I never intended to imply you did.

I was deliberately protesting too much.

[Capitalist America]

Because some of ideals brought forth by liberals and "progressives" are not very good, and in fact, hinder progress.

However, this does not justify conserving the status quo either. In other words, just because some liberal policies have serious flaws, doesn't mean that their conservative counterparts are flawless. Conservatives have many flaws as well.

Also, it depends what is being conserved, and what is the goal of the "progressives".

Sometimes, it's good, like in the American Revolution. The Patriots and the revolutionaries were the liberals and progressives of their era, while the Tories and the Redcoats were the conservatives.

In the end, one could ask the question, "what's the point of being liberal?", as the concept of what is liberal and conservative changes every generation.

Back in the good ol' days, liberalism meant capitalism, economic freedom and democracy, and conservatism meant the government monopolies under the various European monarchies.

And when the Soviet Union was collapsing, those still loyal to communism were called conservative, while the anti-communists were the liberals.


It really all depends on how you look at it.

I call myself a (classic) liberal, because I think that my political views could progress a society if implemented (so I guess that makes me a progressive as well). So, while I'd like to think I'm liberal and progressive, I'm not necessarily the typical left wing liberal people think of.

Also, I'm not conservative either, because in my opinion, the things that conservatives want to conserve, and the things that the liberals want, both really, really, really suck.

[The Reasonable]

Because some of ideals brought forth by liberals and "progressives" are not very good, and in fact, hinder progress.

However, this does not justify conserving the status quo either. In other words, just because some liberal policies have serious flaws, doesn't mean that their conservative counterparts are flawless. Conservatives have many flaws as well.

Also, it depends what is being conserved, and what is the goal of the "progressives".

Sometimes, it's good, like in the American Revolution. The Patriots and the revolutionaries were the liberals and progressives of their era, while the Tories and the Redcoats were the conservatives.

In the end, one could ask the question, "what's the point of being liberal?", as the concept of what is liberal and conservative changes every generation.

Back in the good ol' days, liberalism meant capitalism, economic freedom and democracy, and conservatism meant the government monopolies under the various European monarchies.

And when the Soviet Union was collapsing, those still loyal to communism were called conservative, while the anti-communists were the liberals.


It really all depends on how you look at it.

I call myself a (classic) liberal, because I think that my political views could progress a society if implemented (so I guess that makes me a progressive as well). So, while I'd like to think I'm liberal and progressive, I'm not necessarily the typical left wing liberal people think of.

Also, I'm not conservative either, because in my opinion, the things that conservatives want to conserve, and the things that the liberals want, both really, really, really suck.

You sound like a libertarian. What's the difference between that and a classical liberal?

[Capitalist America]

Because some of ideals brought forth by liberals and "progressives" are not very good, and in fact, hinder progress.

However, this does not justify conserving the status quo either. In other words, just because some liberal policies have serious flaws, doesn't mean that their conservative counterparts are flawless. Conservatives have many flaws as well.

Also, it depends what is being conserved, and what is the goal of the "progressives".

Sometimes, it's good, like in the American Revolution. The Patriots and the revolutionaries were the liberals and progressives of their era, while the Tories and the Redcoats were the conservatives.

In the end, one could ask the question, "what's the point of being liberal?", as the concept of what is liberal and conservative changes every generation.

Back in the good ol' days, liberalism meant capitalism, economic freedom and democracy, and conservatism meant the government monopolies under the various European monarchies.

And when the Soviet Union was collapsing, those still loyal to communism were called conservative, while the anti-communists were the liberals.


It really all depends on how you look at it.

I call myself a (classic) liberal, because I think that my political views could progress a society if implemented (so I guess that makes me a progressive as well). So, while I'd like to think I'm liberal and progressive, I'm not necessarily the typical left wing liberal people think of.

Also, I'm not conservative either, because in my opinion, the things that conservatives want to conserve, and the things that the liberals want, both really, really, really suck.

You sound like a libertarian. What's the difference between that and a classical liberal?

Honestly, not much.

Libertarian is just a more modern way of saying it, I guess. Most differences between the two vary from individual to individual.

[Tavok]

Because some of ideals brought forth by liberals and "progressives" are not very good, and in fact, hinder progress.

However, this does not justify conserving the status quo either. In other words, just because some liberal policies have serious flaws, doesn't mean that their conservative counterparts are flawless. Conservatives have many flaws as well.

Also, it depends what is being conserved, and what is the goal of the "progressives".

Sometimes, it's good, like in the American Revolution. The Patriots and the revolutionaries were the liberals and progressives of their era, while the Tories and the Redcoats were the conservatives.

In the end, one could ask the question, "what's the point of being liberal?", as the concept of what is liberal and conservative changes every generation.

Back in the good ol' days, liberalism meant capitalism, economic freedom and democracy, and conservatism meant the government monopolies under the various European monarchies.

And when the Soviet Union was collapsing, those still loyal to communism were called conservative, while the anti-communists were the liberals.


It really all depends on how you look at it.

I call myself a (classic) liberal, because I think that my political views could progress a society if implemented (so I guess that makes me a progressive as well). So, while I'd like to think I'm liberal and progressive, I'm not necessarily the typical left wing liberal people think of.

Also, I'm not conservative either, because in my opinion, the things that conservatives want to conserve, and the things that the liberals want, both really, really, really suck.

You sound like a libertarian. What's the difference between that and a classical liberal?

Depends. Both are just labels. Classical liberalism typically refers to economic policy, particularly the policies in place during the gilded era (1890-1930, iirc). Thomas Jefferson was basically a classical liberal, arguably among the first. Libertarianism is kinda the modern, less extreme variant of classical liberalism, though the fact that many tea-party people call themselves libertarians skews the definition. It's annoying how the US has to take political words and give them new meanings; in Europe, when you say you're a liberal, they assume you have libertarian views.

[Capitalist America]

You sound like a libertarian. What's the difference between that and a classical liberal?

Depends. Both are just labels. Classical liberalism typically refers to economic policy, particularly the policies in place during the gilded era (1890-1930, iirc). Thomas Jefferson was basically a classical liberal, arguably among the first. Libertarianism is kinda the modern, less extreme variant of classical liberalism, though the fact that many tea-party people call themselves libertarians skews the definition. It's annoying how the US has to take political words and give them new meanings; in Europe, when you say you're a liberal, they assume you have libertarian views.

Tea partiers are pretty far from being libertarian. And hey, the US didn't purposely change the meaning of words. They just emerged that way. And so what if we don't conform to European vocabulary standards? It's not like someone sat down and said, "Time to annoying the Europeans by changing the meanings of words".

[New Sapienta]

Because some social values are worth conserving, like not killing people.

[Inyourfaceistan]

This thread makes me sad.

>Conservatives try to honestly answer the question
>Liberals go buttmad and call them stupid, etc.

There are exceptions, but still, calm yer tits guys.

Wrong, Sir.

Most conservatives try to answer the question in honest and reasonable terms, some dumb assholes like to shout ignorant and stupid things and ruin it for us

Liberals don't get mad. They just talk down to you, explain how your inevitably wrong, and how awsome, mainstream and totally smarter they are than you. And occasionally if all else fails they just put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and call you racist (even though half the time they dont know your race)

[Saluterre]

You sound like a libertarian. What's the difference between that and a classical liberal?

Honestly, not much.

Libertarian is just a more modern way of saying it, I guess. Most differences between the two vary from individual to individual.

Classical liberal is the more correct term for it, while "libertarian" in it's original usage actually refers to a sort of left-anarchism.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Because some social values are worth conserving, like not killing people.

Their not people! Their parasitic fetuses! WOMAN HATER!!!

Sarcasm, hopefully obvious

[Cameroi]

mostly that being "conservative" and being "a conservative" are almost complete opposites.

[Capitalist America]

Honestly, not much.

Libertarian is just a more modern way of saying it, I guess. Most differences between the two vary from individual to individual.

Classical liberal is the more correct term for it, while "libertarian" in it's original usage actually refers to a sort of left-anarchism.

Unless you go by American definitions, as I am.

But that's why we have a shitload of names, from minarchist to (US) Constitutionalist, (anarcho-) capitalist, to classic liberal.

But generally, doesn't classic liberal mainly refer to economic policies, but can vary on social issues?

[The Reasonable]

This thread makes me sad.

>Conservatives try to honestly answer the question
>Liberals go buttmad and call them stupid, etc.

There are exceptions, but still, calm yer tits guys.

Wrong, Sir.

Most conservatives try to answer the question in honest and reasonable terms, some dumb assholes like to shout ignorant and stupid things and ruin it for us

Liberals don't get mad. They just talk down to you, explain how your inevitably wrong, and how awsome, mainstream and totally smarter they are than you. And occasionally if all else fails they just put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and call you racist (even though half the time they dont know your race)

Except...it seems like conservatives and fiscal right-wingers are inevitably wrong...and it seems like I, despite being a progressive in the US, get talked down to on the same level as Tea Partiers sometimes because I'm "not progressive enough". I just don't place enough trust in everyone's altruism to make their utopia work...

[Saluterre]

Classical liberal is the more correct term for it, while "libertarian" in it's original usage actually refers to a sort of left-anarchism.

Unless you go by American definitions, as I am.

But that's why we have a shitload of names, from minarchist to (US) Constitutionalist, (anarcho-) capitalist, to classic liberal.

But generally, doesn't classic liberal mainly refer to economic policies, but can vary on social issues?

It does, but it seems to ruin the spirit of the movement as a whole to be socially conservative. And Constitutionalists are social conservatives as well. Not to mention that anarcho-capitalism is far more economically radical than the others.

[New Sapienta]

Because some social values are worth conserving, like not killing people.

Their not people! Their parasitic fetuses! WOMAN HATER!!!

Sarcasm, hopefully obvious

I wasn't reffering to abortion. :/

It's a social taboo to head to a local market with a machete and hack away, and rightfully so.

[Capitalist America]

Unless you go by American definitions, as I am.

But that's why we have a shitload of names, from minarchist to (US) Constitutionalist, (anarcho-) capitalist, to classic liberal.

But generally, doesn't classic liberal mainly refer to economic policies, but can vary on social issues?

It does, but it seems to ruin the spirit of the movement as a whole to be socially conservative. And Constitutionalists are social conservatives as well. Not to mention that anarcho-capitalism is far more economically radical than the others.

I don't see how a Constitutionalists can be social conservatives. The Constitution makes no reference to things like abortion, weed, and gay marriage. Technically, by the Constitution, all of those things should be legal.

But, yes social conservatism kind gives all economic right-wings a bad name. People want to have economic freedom, but they don't want it bundled together with a guy like Rick Santorum.

However, anarcho-capitalism is very socially liberal. And I'm a classic liberal, but I'd say I'm socially liberal, too.

[The Reasonable]

It does, but it seems to ruin the spirit of the movement as a whole to be socially conservative. And Constitutionalists are social conservatives as well. Not to mention that anarcho-capitalism is far more economically radical than the others.

I don't see how a Constitutionalists can be social conservatives. The Constitution makes no reference to things like abortion, weed, and gay marriage. Technically, by the Constitution, all of those things should be legal.

But, yes social conservatism kind gives all economic right-wings a bad name. People want to have economic freedom, but they don't want it bundled together with a guy like Rick Santorum.

However, anarcho-capitalism is very socially liberal. And I'm a classic liberal, but I'd say I'm socially liberal, too.

By the European definition though, a social liberal is what we Americans consider just plain old liberal.

[Tavok]

Wrong, Sir.

Most conservatives try to answer the question in honest and reasonable terms, some dumb assholes like to shout ignorant and stupid things and ruin it for us

Liberals don't get mad. They just talk down to you, explain how your inevitably wrong, and how awsome, mainstream and totally smarter they are than you. And occasionally if all else fails they just put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and call you racist (even though half the time they dont know your race)

Except...it seems like conservatives and fiscal right-wingers are inevitably wrong...and it seems like I, despite being a progressive in the US, get talked down to on the same level as Tea Partiers sometimes because I'm "not progressive enough". I just don't place enough trust in everyone's altruism to make their utopia work...

Why are fiscal right-wingers inevitably wrong?

[Raumm]

Nostalgia? Lack of creativity? I don't care honestly, both US parties are maddeningly stupid.

[Ethel mermania]

To be cautious and prudent when reforming society instead of being imprudent and reckless with people's lives.

Reckless with people's lives? Enlighten me.

mao's cultural revolution

[The Reasonable]

Except...it seems like conservatives and fiscal right-wingers are inevitably wrong...and it seems like I, despite being a progressive in the US, get talked down to on the same level as Tea Partiers sometimes because I'm "not progressive enough". I just don't place enough trust in everyone's altruism to make their utopia work...

Why are fiscal right-wingers inevitably wrong?

Let's put it in a historical perspective:

Back in the Gilded Age, there were no legal protections for workers, child labor was rampant, laborers worked under brutal conditions, the rich had pretty much all the wealth, and periodic recessions left millions starving. This came to a head in the Great Depression, when the New Deal attempted to alleviate the suffering associated with a bad economy and Keynesian economics used to lower unemployment. The New Deal's policies are still popular today, and most European states have gone further, to creating a complete welfare state that redistributes wealth in order to prevent the abuses that happened in years prior. How are they faring?

Studies show, to my utter surprise when I first read them, that the Nordic welfare states are the happiest. They have a cradle-to-grave welfare system...which very few people even abuse- the European debt crisis wasn't centered around those countries. They enjoy more freedom than the US does and have lower rates of crime, higher education rates, higher per capita GDP, and their people have greater access to healthcare. I thought they would be fuming over the high taxes, heavy business regulations, and abuse of the welfare system. Turns out they were ok with the taxes because of the services they were getting, business still made profits (maybe not as much), and welfare is rarely abused in Europe. They even managed to lower crime rates by actually reducing penalties. It seems utterly absurd, really...that societies that permit the most parasitism and abuse of the system in fact have the least of it. I still don't understand how it works, especially since my own experiences have taught me that permissiveness leads to widespread abuse because there's incentive to. This is even getting me to question my beliefs on fairness, such as: how is permitting people to live off of the state for a lifetime fair? How is not punishing criminals harshly fair? How is equality of results, not opportunity, fair? How is simply making incomes more equal fair? I hope those who live in those countries or know a lot about them can answer those questions, because they are counterintuitive as all hell.

[Emile Zola]

Let's put it in a historical perspective:

Back in the Gilded Age, there were no legal protections for workers, child labor was rampant, laborers worked under brutal conditions, the rich had pretty much all the wealth, and periodic recessions left millions starving. This came to a head in the Great Depression, when the New Deal attempted to alleviate the suffering associated with a bad economy and Keynesian economics used to lower unemployment. The New Deal's policies are still popular today, and most European states have gone further, to creating a complete welfare state that redistributes wealth in order to prevent the abuses that happened in years prior. How are they faring?

Studies show, to my utter surprise when I first read them, that the Nordic welfare states are the happiest. They have a cradle-to-grave welfare system...which very few people even abuse- the European debt crisis wasn't centered around those countries. They enjoy more freedom than the US does and have lower rates of crime, higher education rates, higher per capita GDP, and their people have greater access to healthcare. I thought they would be fuming over the high taxes, heavy business regulations, and abuse of the welfare system. Turns out they were ok with the taxes because of the services they were getting, business still made profits (maybe not as much), and welfare is rarely abused in Europe. They even managed to lower crime rates by actually reducing penalties. It seems utterly absurd, really...that societies that permit the most parasitism and abuse of the system in fact have the least of it. I still don't understand how it works, especially since my own experiences have taught me that permissiveness leads to widespread abuse because there's incentive to. This is even getting me to question my beliefs on fairness, such as: how is permitting people to live off of the state for a lifetime fair? How is not punishing criminals harshly fair? How is equality of results, not opportunity, fair? How is simply making incomes more equal fair? I hope those who live in those countries or know a lot about them can answer those questions, because they are counterintuitive as all hell.

They whole point is to reduce poverty or manage it some how. You want less crime? Then ensure that people in poverty have access to good education and healthcare. Harsh penalties do not act as a deterrence.

[Norsklow]

Are you aware that these Nordic states are rather rich on extractable resources when compared to say, Greece or Portugal? It does make a difference.

[The Reasonable]

Let's put it in a historical perspective:

Back in the Gilded Age, there were no legal protections for workers, child labor was rampant, laborers worked under brutal conditions, the rich had pretty much all the wealth, and periodic recessions left millions starving. This came to a head in the Great Depression, when the New Deal attempted to alleviate the suffering associated with a bad economy and Keynesian economics used to lower unemployment. The New Deal's policies are still popular today, and most European states have gone further, to creating a complete welfare state that redistributes wealth in order to prevent the abuses that happened in years prior. How are they faring?

Studies show, to my utter surprise when I first read them, that the Nordic welfare states are the happiest. They have a cradle-to-grave welfare system...which very few people even abuse- the European debt crisis wasn't centered around those countries. They enjoy more freedom than the US does and have lower rates of crime, higher education rates, higher per capita GDP, and their people have greater access to healthcare. I thought they would be fuming over the high taxes, heavy business regulations, and abuse of the welfare system. Turns out they were ok with the taxes because of the services they were getting, business still made profits (maybe not as much), and welfare is rarely abused in Europe. They even managed to lower crime rates by actually reducing penalties. It seems utterly absurd, really...that societies that permit the most parasitism and abuse of the system in fact have the least of it. I still don't understand how it works, especially since my own experiences have taught me that permissiveness leads to widespread abuse because there's incentive to. This is even getting me to question my beliefs on fairness, such as: how is permitting people to live off of the state for a lifetime fair? How is not punishing criminals harshly fair? How is equality of results, not opportunity, fair? How is simply making incomes more equal fair? I hope those who live in those countries or know a lot about them can answer those questions, because they are counterintuitive as all hell.

They whole point is to reduce poverty or manage it some how. You want less crime? Then ensure that people in poverty have access to good education and healthcare. Harsh penalties do not act as a deterrence.

I already know that- and I fully support both free healthcare and education. However, I don't get how there are so few welfare queens in Europe or that less harsh sentencing, by itself, reduce crime- Singapore has an even lower crime rate than most European countries with punishment that would make the US cringe in their sheer severity, but they also have affordable education, housing, and healthcare for all.