What's the point of being conservative?

[MyAmericanDream]

Because this is being liberal:

[TaQud]

Because this is being liberal:

(Image)

wouldn't the 1861 part be only for the South Democrats not all Democrats?

[Priory Academy USSR]

Britain, and now the United States. Permanent Security Council cockblocks on your side are good for doing shit as you please.

That's not how colonialism works. If Israel were a colony, it would have a parent country that governs it, like the 13 Colonies back before the American Revolution.

Israel is not a colony or colonialism. It is an independent country set up by people that lived there and recognized by the international community.

Edit: Further, Britain was against the creation of Israel at the time, and even recognized Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria. British military commanders were training Arab pilots in Israel's Independence War.

America didn't use a veto in the UN Security Council on Israel's behalf until 1972, and their performance as a friend of Israel in the UN has been less than stellar, to say the least. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... icy.html#6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

If the British were so against an independent Israeli state, why did they make one?

[Jewcrew]

That's not how colonialism works. If Israel were a colony, it would have a parent country that governs it, like the 13 Colonies back before the American Revolution.

Israel is not a colony or colonialism. It is an independent country set up by people that lived there and recognized by the international community.

Edit: Further, Britain was against the creation of Israel at the time, and even recognized Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria. British military commanders were training Arab pilots in Israel's Independence War.

America didn't use a veto in the UN Security Council on Israel's behalf until 1972, and their performance as a friend of Israel in the UN has been less than stellar, to say the least. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... icy.html#6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

If the British were so against an independent Israeli state, why did they make one?

Britain didn't 'make' Israel. The Zionist movement started in 1897, 20 years prior to the Balfour Declaration. Britain withheld it's recognition of Israel for 8 months after Israel's Declaration of Independence, trained the Arabs during the Independence War and recognized Jordan's illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria.

[Enadail]

Because this is being liberal:

(Image)

wouldn't the 1861 part be only for the South Democrats not all Democrats?

Not even. The Democratic and Republican parties have changed names multiple times.

The Democratic-Republican Party from the end of the 18th century was commonly known as the Republican Party, and eventually split up a bit, a large chunk becoming what is today the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party as known today really just formed in the mid 1800's, and is derivative of another party, who's name I cannot remember, but do remember had the word Democrat in it.

While its more complicated, the two parties have essentially flipped names from their historic counterparts.


Besides, everyone having healthcare is in the best interest of everyone. By someone not having health insurance, it costs the rest of us more. It avoids epidemics, and people live and work longer. So just like its in our communal interest to have roads and public works, its in our group good for everyone to be healthy.

[Jewcrew]

Because this is being liberal:

(Image)

wouldn't the 1861 part be only for the South Democrats not all Democrats?

I've read places previously that in the 19th century, Northern Democrats had enacted racist laws on several occasions. I can't find it again, however, I did find this little gem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_seg ... _the_North

The next section states that the top ten most segregated cities are all in the Rust Belt, which is mostly in New England.

[Saluterre]

wouldn't the 1861 part be only for the South Democrats not all Democrats?

Not even. The Democratic and Republican parties have changed names multiple times.

The Democratic-Republican Party from the end of the 18th century was commonly known as the Republican Party, and eventually split up a bit, a large chunk becoming what is today the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party as known today really just formed in the mid 1800's, and is derivative of another party, who's name I cannot remember, but do remember had the word Democrat in it.

While its more complicated, the two parties have essentially flipped names from their historic counterparts.

This is true in principle, but is historically inaccurate. The Republicans were founded by remnants of the Whig party. I wouldn't say they've switched names; I'd say they switched principles.

[Priory Academy USSR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

If the British were so against an independent Israeli state, why did they make one?

Britain didn't 'make' Israel. The Zionist movement started in 1897, 20 years prior to the Balfour Declaration. Britain withheld it's recognition of Israel for 8 months after Israel's Declaration of Independence, trained the Arabs during the Independence War and recognized Jordan's illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria.

Britain was in a tricky situation. No solution was going to appease everyone. Also, Britain withheld it's recognition only because the official boundaries of Israel were only created in 1949-

Recognition:
For there to be International recognition of an independent sovereign State, the boundaries of the sovereign state must be defined in order to know exactly the extent of the territory being claimed as sovereign. Israel’s boundaries were defined when the Jewish People’s Council accepted and declared sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in UNGA res 181, in order to be recognized as a Sovereign State. The Israeli Government confirmed it’s declared boundaries in statements to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949

If Britain wanted to make Israel one big Palestine, they could have. But they didn't, because they didn't want any more bloodshed, so they tried to reach a compromise.

And ultimately, Britain followed the UN suggestion on how to do it-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

[Old Tyrannia]

After discussing how there are so many left-wingers on NSG, I want to ask another question to you guys. If liberals and progressives always win in the long run (which I noticed very quickly when studying history), what's the point of being conservative on any issue, if you're going to lose anyways?

Who says left-wingers and "progressives" always win? And if you truly believe in something, are you really going to give up on it just because you're not sure you'll be succesful?

Just to tell you where I'm coming from, I'm an American, and I'm considered liberal in the US but very conservative by Europeans, and while on this site I've always felt this sense of guilt that whenever I take a stance that the leftists on NSG disagree with, I feel like I'm standing on the wrong side of history and that I'm holding back human progress.

Because all change is inherently good, the left represents progress and the right are just holding us back, right? Wrong. The rise of the Nazis was a change. The Russian Revolution was a change. The division of Korea was a change. The introduction of apartheid was a change. Change can be a bad thing. Some things are worth holding on to.

More questions to consider for the progressives on this site: What, in your mind, will or should society eventually evolve to? What is the progressive ideal? Is it possible to attain something close to it, given reality and human nature? Can human nature as a whole be changed and if so, what should it be? I want well informed answers- I've already been alternately praised to the sky and called barbaric and cruel by the same people on different threads because I didn't always agree with the self-described progressive views of the majority of NSGers.

Probably because there are a lot of self-righteous, narcissistic and intolerant people on this forum, on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'm a conservative (though a British conservative, I tend to disagree more often than I agree with what Americans call "conservatives") because I look at my country, and I don't think "it'll all have to go." I think, "actually, there's a lot here worth keeping." I don't think religion is a bad thing if it helps promote moral values and makes people feel better about life. I don't think having a distinct culture and identity is a bad thing- in fact, I think the world is better for it's variety. I look at history and I see attempts by "revolutionaries"- radical theorists who think they know better than everyone else- to create utopia; what they create instead is Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the First French Empire, the Khmer Rouge etc. And I think, "well, clearly not all change is good, and clearly a stable nation is not something that can be created by design." Instead, I find that the most succesful nations are those that develop and grow over time, and I see that gradual change and reform is almost always preferable to revolution. And I see that sometimes, rationalism just doesn't cut it and you need a bit of irrationality to make things work. So there. That's why I'm a conservative.

[Genivaria]

Because this is being liberal:

(Image)

And that was when your opinion no longer mattered.

[Greed and Death]

After discussing how there are so many left-wingers on NSG, I want to ask another question to you guys. If liberals and progressives always win in the long run (which I noticed very quickly when studying history), what's the point of being conservative on any issue, if you're going to lose anyways?

Just to tell you where I'm coming from, I'm an American, and I'm considered liberal in the US but very conservative by Europeans, and while on this site I've always felt this sense of guilt that whenever I take a stance that the leftists on NSG disagree with, I feel like I'm standing on the wrong side of history and that I'm holding back human progress.

More questions to consider for the progressives on this site: What, in your mind, will or should society eventually evolve to? What is the progressive ideal? Is it possible to attain something close to it, given reality and human nature? Can human nature as a whole be changed and if so, what should it be? I want well informed answers- I've already been alternately praised to the sky and called barbaric and cruel by the same people on different threads because I didn't always agree with the self-described progressive views of the majority of NSGers.

If you define progressiveness as Change sure progressiveness always wins.

But, really the change enacted is a middle grown between two competing groups. In that sense neither side totally wins or loses.

As for where progressive-ism loses, clearly the more extreme forms have lost consistently, forced equality ala communism has failed. The comunards have failed.

None of the more extreme left forms of govnerment will succeed.

Even more moderate progressivism has failed in some respect, remember the kyoto protocol?

[Jinos]

Because this is being liberal:

(Image)

You're confusing liberal and democrat. Back then the Republican party was the liberal party and the Democrats were conservative.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Hurdegaryp]

Besides, everyone having healthcare is in the best interest of everyone. By someone not having health insurance, it costs the rest of us more. It avoids epidemics, and people live and work longer. So just like its in our communal interest to have roads and public works, its in our group good for everyone to be healthy.

A good infrastructure and a good public health system are signs of a proper functioning civilization. Personally I can't see how anyone can be against such societal improvements, unless you're an uncaring psychopath.

[The Reasonable]

Besides, everyone having healthcare is in the best interest of everyone. By someone not having health insurance, it costs the rest of us more. It avoids epidemics, and people live and work longer. So just like its in our communal interest to have roads and public works, its in our group good for everyone to be healthy.

A good infrastructure and a good public health system are signs of a proper functioning civilization. Personally I can't see how anyone can be against such societal improvements, unless you're an uncaring psychopath.

...of course, it would be in our communal best interests if all our needs were served by an all-encompassing government, but that failed. I'm a supporter of universal health care, I'm just saying that there has to be some kind of dividing line between what's best served by government and what's best served by the private sector.

[Hurdegaryp]

...of course, it would be in our communal best interests if all our needs were served by an all-encompassing government, but that failed. I'm a supporter of universal health care, I'm just saying that there has to be some kind of dividing line between what's best served by government and what's best served by the private sector.

I agree. The ideal is an enlightened and smoothly operating humanist technocracy, but reality often gives us bureaucratic control freaks instead. The problem, as always, is of course the multitude of fallacies within the fragile mind of the human beast.

[The Reasonable]

...of course, it would be in our communal best interests if all our needs were served by an all-encompassing government, but that failed. I'm a supporter of universal health care, I'm just saying that there has to be some kind of dividing line between what's best served by government and what's best served by the private sector.

I agree. The ideal is an enlightened and smoothly operating humanist technocracy, but reality often gives us bureaucratic control freaks instead. The problem, as always, is of course the multitude of fallacies within the fragile mind of the human beast.

My country is actually a somewhat flawed reflection of that ideal- but I do install checks and balances just to make sure 1 person can't have 100% complete power.

[Hurdegaryp]

Unless we start improving ourselves as a species, I guess that one day I will happily greet our sentient machine overlords. It's not like intelligent machines could ruin the world harder than humanity already did.

[Imsogone]

Unless we start improving ourselves as a species, I guess that one day I will happily greet our sentient machine overlords. It's not like intelligent machines could ruin the world harder than humanity already did.

Read Saturn's Children by Charles Stross.

[Christian Democrats]

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

There are plenty of lower-class morons that have little to no comprehension of the social reality they inhabit, and will have conservative tendencies because of the way they were brought up, or whatever. And it is these people who fuel the electoral success of conservative and reactionary parties, in Western Democracies.

Actually, it is quite the opposite . . . at least in the United States.

The Republican Party, which is conservative, consistently wins the votes of those who are more wealthy and college educated. In an average general election for the U.S. House of Representatives (since 1984), 49 percent of Republican voters have graduated from college while only 47 percent of Democrats have such degrees. The strongest supporters of the Democratic Party are those who have not graduated from high school (three percent of the American population); this demographic votes for the Democratic Party 61 percent to 39 percent.

Looking at U.S. House of Representatives elections:

• In every election since 1992, the Democrats have won the vote of those from families with annual incomes of less than $30,000.
  
• Since 1982, people from families with annual incomes from $30,000 to $49,999 have voted for the Democrats ten times and the Republicans three times.
  
• Since 1982, people from families with annual incomes of $50,000 or more have vote for the Republicans thirteen times and the Democrats one time.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/07/weekinreview/20101107-detailed-exitpolls.html

In the United States at least, the electoral success of the conservative party is fueled by upper-middle class and college educated voters.

The electoral success of the primary left-wing party is fueled by the working class, which is less likely to be college educated.

You are wrong that "lower-class morons" vote for conservatives, and you show a left-wing elitism and disparage those who are more likely to vote for your side.

[Jewcrew]

Britain didn't 'make' Israel. The Zionist movement started in 1897, 20 years prior to the Balfour Declaration. Britain withheld it's recognition of Israel for 8 months after Israel's Declaration of Independence, trained the Arabs during the Independence War and recognized Jordan's illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria.

Britain was in a tricky situation. No solution was going to appease everyone. Also, Britain withheld it's recognition only because the official boundaries of Israel were only created in 1949-

Recognition:
For there to be International recognition of an independent sovereign State, the boundaries of the sovereign state must be defined in order to know exactly the extent of the territory being claimed as sovereign. Israel’s boundaries were defined when the Jewish People’s Council accepted and declared sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in UNGA res 181, in order to be recognized as a Sovereign State. The Israeli Government confirmed it’s declared boundaries in statements to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949

If Britain wanted to make Israel one big Palestine, they could have. But they didn't, because they didn't want any more bloodshed, so they tried to reach a compromise.

And ultimately, Britain followed the UN suggestion on how to do it-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

A tricky situation of their own making. There were numerous instances of the British encouraging the Palestine Arabs to attack Jews and giving Arab instigators of violence a free pass while cracking down on the Jewish defense organization. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ate.html#6

[Lakeland]

Conservatism is just laziness, Progressivism is just Communism without the rough edges. The true path is Radical Traditionalism.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Britain was in a tricky situation. No solution was going to appease everyone. Also, Britain withheld it's recognition only because the official boundaries of Israel were only created in 1949-

Recognition:
For there to be International recognition of an independent sovereign State, the boundaries of the sovereign state must be defined in order to know exactly the extent of the territory being claimed as sovereign. Israel’s boundaries were defined when the Jewish People’s Council accepted and declared sovereignty over the boundaries recommended in UNGA res 181, in order to be recognized as a Sovereign State. The Israeli Government confirmed it’s declared boundaries in statements to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949

If Britain wanted to make Israel one big Palestine, they could have. But they didn't, because they didn't want any more bloodshed, so they tried to reach a compromise.

And ultimately, Britain followed the UN suggestion on how to do it-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

A tricky situation of their own making. There were numerous instances of the British encouraging the Palestine Arabs to attack Jews and giving Arab instigators of violence a free pass while cracking down on the Jewish defense organization. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ate.html#6

They only took control of it after the Ottoman Empire fell. The situation was tense already. The British had promised Palestine to the Arabs too, before the Balfour Declaration, in return for helping them defeat the Ottomans. They had to choose who they were going to give it to. Also, they probably quite liked the Arabs over the Jews after this.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Because this is being liberal: [Image]

...I want my five seconds back.

[Not Safe For Work]

Reckless with people's lives? Enlighten me.

The attempted reforms of the left are almost never gradual.

Going more slowly = making fewer mistakes.

Perhaps. On the other hand, sometimes it's worth the risk.

e.g. America's hellhole healthcare system. Sure, taking decades to get there means making fewer mistakes - but in the meantime millions of people die unnecessarily.

[New New Capston]

After discussing how there are so many left-wingers on NSG, I want to ask another question to you guys. If liberals and progressives always win in the long run (which I noticed very quickly when studying history), what's the point of being conservative on any issue, if you're going to lose anyways?

Just to tell you where I'm coming from, I'm an American, and I'm considered liberal in the US but very conservative by Europeans, and while on this site I've always felt this sense of guilt that whenever I take a stance that the leftists on NSG disagree with, I feel like I'm standing on the wrong side of history and that I'm holding back human progress.

More questions to consider for the progressives on this site: What, in your mind, will or should society eventually evolve to? What is the progressive ideal? Is it possible to attain something close to it, given reality and human nature? Can human nature as a whole be changed and if so, what should it be? I want well informed answers- I've already been alternately praised to the sky and called barbaric and cruel by the same people on different threads because I didn't always agree with the self-described progressive views of the majority of NSGers.

Ha! But that's why ideologies exist. If everyone was embracing the ideology that was going to win, then all the people would have the same ideology and so on...

People feel the urge to defend their ideology, anyway.