Right-Wing Discussion Thread

[Northern Davincia]

And Al-Baghdadi will announce he's converting to Judaism.

But he's already a jew.

And Donald Trump is Mexican.

[Pulau Singapura]

Whaat? Why lmao

Because Singapore colonizing Syria is just as likely.

Is it unlikely that a first world nation would be able to colonise a war-torn one?

[Dinake]

Because Singapore colonizing Syria is just as likely.

Is it unlikely that a first world nation would be able to colonise a war-torn one?

It's unlikely that a stable, prosperous city-state with little power projection and little history of imperialism would take on a project like Syria.

[Morr]

Even Anglican conservatives tend to be Anglo-Catholic rather than Protestant (Scruton, John Milbank, Peter Hitchens, T.S. Eliot, etc.)

Define "true conservative". There are multiple forms of conservatism.

For the Anglosphere, any strain tracing its roots back to High Toryism.

[Quokkastan]

Was just wondering, what do you think will happen if Singapore tries to colonise Syria?

Sun Wukong would erupt from under the Republic Plaza and backhand Lee Hsien Loong in the jaw for his idiocy.

[Ikania]

Because Singapore colonizing Syria is just as likely.

Is it unlikely that a first world nation would be able to colonise a war-torn one?

That's about as possible as Lee Kuan Yew rising from the dead and turning himself into a nuke, then dropping himself on Tajikistan.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Was just wondering, what do you think will happen if Singapore tries to colonise Syria?

That is without a doubt, the most ridiculous and idiotic question I have ever heard, even by NSG standards.

[The Union of the West]

Was just wondering, what do you think will happen if Singapore tries to colonise Syria?

Pigs will fly and Satan will ice-skate around Hell.

[New Kattslant]

I'm a green capitalist, a transhumanist conservative, and a strongly anti-communist bleeding heart libertarian with some paleo-libertarian leanings. Or something like that. But if I need to define myself using the words used in the poll, I would use only "capitalist".

(and of course Singapore will not do such a stupid thing, but it seems that you've already settled that question)

[Morr]

I'm a green capitalist, a transhumanist conservative, and a strongly anti-communist bleeding heart libertarian with some paleo-libertarian leanings. Or something like that. But if I need to define myself using the words used in the poll, I would use only "capitalist".

(and of course Singapore will not do such a stupid thing, but it seems that you've already settled that question)

Transhumanism and libertarianism are completely and totally incompatible with conservatism.

[The Liberated Territories]

I'm a green capitalist, a transhumanist conservative, and a strongly anti-communist bleeding heart libertarian with some paleo-libertarian leanings. Or something like that. But if I need to define myself using the words used in the poll, I would use only "capitalist".

(and of course Singapore will not do such a stupid thing, but it seems that you've already settled that question)

Transhumanism and libertarianism are completely and totally incompatible with conservatism.

And you are absolutely correct. Freedom and progress is incompatible with tradition and superstition.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Was just wondering, what do you think will happen if Singapore tries to colonise Syria?

If that happens, then I'll be in bed with Amanda Seyfried. It's about as likely.

[Morr]

Transhumanism and libertarianism are completely and totally incompatible with conservatism.

And you are absolutely correct. Freedom and progress is incompatible with tradition and superstition.

Nice buzzwording, bruh.

[Pulau Singapura]

Was just wondering, what do you think will happen if Singapore tries to colonise Syria?

That is without a doubt, the most ridiculous and idiotic question I have ever heard, even by NSG standards.

No worries, it was just a random thought that I maybe should not have entertained much
Long live Singapore!

[New Kattslant]

I'm a green capitalist, a transhumanist conservative, and a strongly anti-communist bleeding heart libertarian with some paleo-libertarian leanings. Or something like that. But if I need to define myself using the words used in the poll, I would use only "capitalist".

(and of course Singapore will not do such a stupid thing, but it seems that you've already settled that question)

Transhumanism and libertarianism are completely and totally incompatible with conservatism.

Libertarianism and conservatism are not exactly too opposed in my opinion. I think that libertarians are more similar to conservatives than to "liberals" (I'm not American, so for me the word liberal means a classical liberal, but whatever), since the "liberals" are against "economic freedom" (as defined by libertarians) but, with political correctness and gun control, are moderate on personal freedoms. Conservatives are for economic freedom but are too moderate on personal freedoms (but as a "mirror" of the lefties).

Of course there are many kinds of subtypes of conservatism and libertarianism, and while some are really hard to mix (traditional moral conservatives with left-libs), it's not the case of guys like the paleo-libertarians, or right-libertarians with fiscal conservatives. What about Fusionism?.

About transhumanism and conservatism, well... I'm creative. And again I use my notion of subtypes, and the libertarianism as the connector node. Even a moral conservative could use a bit of transhumanism, although in a non-usual way: what about a pill that makes people less prone to deviant sexual act, for example? I'm not even talking about imposing it through state action, but it can be used by individuals). And a moderate fiscal conservative don't need to have a problem if someone wants to improve its intelligence with a cybernetic implant or replace a damaged organ with a new one (supposing the use of cellular 3D printer or voluntary organ donation, not human cloning or any action that can kill a fetus).

And you are absolutely correct. Freedom and progress is incompatible with tradition and superstition.

Conservatism is about tradition, not necessarily superstition - that's just a strawman. The wrong type of progress (aka communism) can destroy freedoms, and, for societies that have more individualistic traditions (I suppose that's the case of USA or UK, but since I don't live in these countries I can be exaggerating), the defense of these good traditions are the defense of freedom. I even heard in a skeptic forum that the Catholic Church (a conservative institution, I suppose) is against most superstitions and pseudo-science bulls**t.

[Greater Allidron]

While I don't personally object to the use of any of those words except progress(and even then, it's mostly because it gets used to describe things no reasonable person should consider progress/exclude good things), it annoys me when people misuse them incessantly.

"Progress" is probably the most irritating appeal that's consistently employed.

Ish drives me insane.

[The Liberated Territories]

Transhumanism and libertarianism are completely and totally incompatible with conservatism.

Libertarianism and conservatism are not exactly too opposed in my opinion. I think that libertarians are more similar to conservatives than to "liberals" (I'm not American, so for me the word liberal means a classical liberal, but whatever), since the "liberals" are against "economic freedom" (as defined by libertarians) but, with political correctness and gun control, are moderate on personal freedoms. Conservatives are for economic freedom but are too moderate on personal freedoms (but as a "mirror" of the lefties).

Of course there are many kinds of subtypes of conservatism and libertarianism, and while some are really hard to mix (traditional moral conservatives with left-libs), it's not the case of guys like the paleo-libertarians, or right-libertarians with fiscal conservatives. What about Fusionism?.

About transhumanism and conservatism, well... I'm creative. And again I use my notion of subtypes, and the libertarianism as the connector node. Even a moral conservative could use a bit of transhumanism, although in a non-usual way: what about a pill that makes people less prone to deviant sexual act, for example? I'm not even talking about imposing it through state action, but it can be used by individuals). And a moderate fiscal conservative don't need to have a problem if someone wants to improve its intelligence with a cybernetic implant or replace a damaged organ with a new one (supposing the use of cellular 3D printer or voluntary organ donation, not human cloning or any action that can kill a fetus).

And you are absolutely correct. Freedom and progress is incompatible with tradition and superstition.

Conservatism is about tradition, not necessarily superstition - that's just a strawman. The wrong type of progress (aka communism) can destroy freedoms, and, for societies that have more individualistic traditions (I suppose that's the case of USA or UK, but since I don't live in these countries I can be exaggerating), the defense of these good traditions are the defense of freedom. I even heard in a skeptic forum that the Catholic Church (a conservative institution, I suppose) is against most superstitions and pseudo-science bulls**t.

Classical Liberalism was first of all a radical leftist outgrowth of the Enlightenment, first of all. It's relation to "conservatism" is only appropriate in when the method of conservation is of classical liberal ideals, and not socialist, monarchist, or whatever ideals. Even then, conservatism has the tendency to attempt to conserve the bad as much as the good - note that American conservatives will often defend Medicare and Medicaid to the death while strangely at the same time opposing Obamacare. There is no more rationale for conservatism from this standpoint if you are truly dedicated to libertarianism, or liberalism. When conservatism was the enemy - when it defended and attempt to conserve objects and structures of oppression like it had in the mid-1850s, then liberalism opposed it, even to the extent of allying with socialism (anarchism, for example, as actually the product of both classical liberalism and socialism, believe it or not). But the conservatism today is a mixed deal for many true liberals and libertarians, yes we can ally with conservatives when they are truly dedicated to defending ideas that have a basis in history like the many constitutions granting freedom of speech, voting rights, et. cetera, but are frustrated when conservatives spend all their time and effort trying to retain traditions that are either destructive or antithetical to these concepts. You may disagree, and point to the belief that well grounded morality and a certain cultural structure may be beneficial to the aims and goals of liberalism. But when conservatism hyper focuses on that to the point where it forgets the relativity of the natures of man and instead seeks to impose a top down morality - especially through coercion, it then has abandoned it's goal of liberty, and no longer can be trusted to deliver libertarian aims when it instead is so fascinated by order it is willing to sacrifice liberty for that goal.

td;lr version: conservatism and liberalism have two entirely different goals and while they can be synthesized, (leading to the ideology of liberal conservatism, or the more radical American libertarian-conservatism) they must be understood to be at both of their cores fundamentally different with regards to ethics and desired outcomes.

Here's one of Hayek's more seminal works, Why I Am Not a Conservative. You should find it enlightening or thought provoking for at least someone who claims the labels of liberal, libertarian and conservative.

Also, since when did communism have a monopoly on progress? I personally define progress as anything that raises the global happiness (from a sheer consequentialist standpoint, this usually involves defending markets which tend to have that effect), so why can't I also be a progressive? Why can't you also be a progressive, if you at least agree so much that we should build a society in which people are happier, safer, etc? IMO communism is not a progressive ideology at all, not from what we have seen it in action.

[New Kattslant]

Libertarianism and conservatism are not exactly too opposed in my opinion. I think that libertarians are more similar to conservatives than to "liberals" (I'm not American, so for me the word liberal means a classical liberal, but whatever), since the "liberals" are against "economic freedom" (as defined by libertarians) but, with political correctness and gun control, are moderate on personal freedoms. Conservatives are for economic freedom but are too moderate on personal freedoms (but as a "mirror" of the lefties).

Of course there are many kinds of subtypes of conservatism and libertarianism, and while some are really hard to mix (traditional moral conservatives with left-libs), it's not the case of guys like the paleo-libertarians, or right-libertarians with fiscal conservatives. What about Fusionism?.

About transhumanism and conservatism, well... I'm creative. And again I use my notion of subtypes, and the libertarianism as the connector node. Even a moral conservative could use a bit of transhumanism, although in a non-usual way: what about a pill that makes people less prone to deviant sexual act, for example? I'm not even talking about imposing it through state action, but it can be used by individuals). And a moderate fiscal conservative don't need to have a problem if someone wants to improve its intelligence with a cybernetic implant or replace a damaged organ with a new one (supposing the use of cellular 3D printer or voluntary organ donation, not human cloning or any action that can kill a fetus).



Conservatism is about tradition, not necessarily superstition - that's just a strawman. The wrong type of progress (aka communism) can destroy freedoms, and, for societies that have more individualistic traditions (I suppose that's the case of USA or UK, but since I don't live in these countries I can be exaggerating), the defense of these good traditions are the defense of freedom. I even heard in a skeptic forum that the Catholic Church (a conservative institution, I suppose) is against most superstitions and pseudo-science bulls**t.

Classical Liberalism was first of all a radical leftist outgrowth of the Enlightenment, first of all. It's relation to "conservatism" is only appropriate in when the method of conservation is of classical liberal ideals, and not socialist, monarchist, or whatever ideals. Even then, conservatism has the tendency to attempt to conserve the bad as much as the good - note that American conservatives will often defend Medicare and Medicaid to the death while strangely at the same time opposing Obamacare. There is no more rationale for conservatism from this standpoint if you are truly dedicated to libertarianism, or liberalism. When conservatism was the enemy - when it defended and attempt to conserve objects and structures of oppression like it had in the mid-1850s, then liberalism opposed it, even to the extent of allying with socialism (anarchism, for example, as actually the product of both classical liberalism and socialism, believe it or not). But the conservatism today is a mixed deal for many true liberals and libertarians, yes we can ally with conservatives when they are truly dedicated to defending ideas that have a basis in history like the many constitutions granting freedom of speech, voting rights, et. cetera, but are frustrated when conservatives spend all their time and effort trying to retain traditions that are either destructive or antithetical to these concepts. You may disagree, and point to the belief that well grounded morality and a certain cultural structure may be beneficial to the aims and goals of liberalism. But when conservatism hyper focuses on that to the point where it forgets the relativity of the natures of man and instead seeks to impose a top down morality - especially through coercion, it then has abandoned it's goal of liberty, and no longer can be trusted to deliver libertarian aims when it instead is so fascinated by order it is willing to sacrifice liberty for that goal.

Here's one of Hayek's more seminal works, Why I Am Not a Conservative. You should find it enlightening or thought provoking for at least someone who claims the labels of liberal, libertarian and conservative.

Also, since when did communism have a monopoly on progress? I personally define progress as anything that raises the global happiness (from a sheer consequentialist standpoint, this usually involves defending markets which tend to have that effect), so why can't I also be a progressive? Why can't you also be a progressive, if you at least agree so much that we should build a society in which people are happier, safer, etc? IMO communism is not a progressive ideology at all, not from what we have seen it in action.

Lots of things here. I need to sleep now (and work after that), so I'll provide an answer tomorrow . I can say for now that I never said that communism has a monopoly of progress, only that it's one kind of possible "progress". The rest I will answer tomorrow

[Morr]

Transhumanism and libertarianism are completely and totally incompatible with conservatism.

Libertarianism and conservatism are not exactly too opposed in my opinion. I think that libertarians are more similar to conservatives than to "liberals" (I'm not American, so for me the word liberal means a classical liberal, but whatever), since the "liberals" are against "economic freedom" (as defined by libertarians) but, with political correctness and gun control, are moderate on personal freedoms. Conservatives are for economic freedom but are too moderate on personal freedoms (but as a "mirror" of the lefties).

Of course there are many kinds of subtypes of conservatism and libertarianism, and while some are really hard to mix (traditional moral conservatives with left-libs), it's not the case of guys like the paleo-libertarians, or right-libertarians with fiscal conservatives. What about Fusionism?.

About transhumanism and conservatism, well... I'm creative. And again I use my notion of subtypes, and the libertarianism as the connector node. Even a moral conservative could use a bit of transhumanism, although in a non-usual way: what about a pill that makes people less prone to deviant sexual act, for example? I'm not even talking about imposing it through state action, but it can be used by individuals). And a moderate fiscal conservative don't need to have a problem if someone wants to improve its intelligence with a cybernetic implant or replace a damaged organ with a new one (supposing the use of cellular 3D printer or voluntary organ donation, not human cloning or any action that can kill a fetus).

Conservatism is opposed to both the expanding state sphere and the expanding market sphere. Conservatism is about expanding the Church, family and community spheres (also the worker guild sphere, for more anti-capitalist conservatism), the main purpose of the state from a conservative point of view is to protect those spheres.

The idea of solving loss of sentiment and traditional value through technology is a bit ridiculous. Conservatism isn't inherently opposed to technology, but it definitely doesn't think technology holds the key to things like the decline of morality.

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

Way to prejudge people you don't even know.

This is the right-wing discussion thread. You have to be able to do that just to get in.

I am a conservative and a monarchist of Protestant faith who believes that God and Country come first before one's own politics however I also view that the left is nothing more than a pack of traitors willing to betray the people for some scraps of silver.

NO SURRENDER!!!!

Protestants make piss-poor conservatives and iffy monarchists, just saying.

See what I mean?

Well gee, I wonder why we monarchists haven't been so successful? Maybe it's because we're always bickering over meaningless crap like religion? Also yeah no Singapore is not colonizing Syria.

[Morr]

meaningless crap like religion

Yeah, it's pretty much irrelevant in traditionalism and pre-modern ideology.

[Old Tyrannia]

I am a conservative and a monarchist of Protestant faith who believes that God and Country come first before one's own politics however I also view that the left is nothing more than a pack of traitors willing to betray the people for some scraps of silver.

NO SURRENDER!!!!

Protestants make piss-poor conservatives and iffy monarchists, just saying.

See what I mean?

Demonstrably bullshit. The majority of remaining monarchies in Europe are Protestant, while the largely Protestant United States is far more conservative than, say, the largely Catholic Latin American nations. Historically we have examples of nations such as Sweden under Gustav III, England and Scotland under James VI and I and German Empire to demonstrate just how conservative and monarchist Protestants can be. Get off your Papist high horse.

[Morr]

Protestants make piss-poor conservatives and iffy monarchists, just saying.

See what I mean?

Demonstrably bullshit. The majority of remaining monarchies in Europe are Protestant, while the largely Protestant United States is far more conservative than, say, the largely Catholic Latin American nations. Historically we have examples of nations such as Sweden under Gustav III, England and Scotland under James VI and I and German Empire to demonstrate just how conservative and monarchist Protestants can be. Get off your Papist high horse.

While monarchism was in fact a major driving force behind the Reformation, since it allowed rulers to be free of the Pope and head their own churches, today things are a bit different because almost all these state churches are increasingly incompatible with the traditionalist ideology that accompanies monarchism.

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

Demonstrably bullshit. The majority of remaining monarchies in Europe are Protestant, while the largely Protestant United States is far more conservative than, say, the largely Catholic Latin American nations. Historically we have examples of nations such as Sweden under Gustav III, England and Scotland under James VI and I and German Empire to demonstrate just how conservative and monarchist Protestants can be. Get off your Papist high horse.

While monarchism was in fact a major driving force behind the Reformation, since it allowed rulers to be free of the Pope and head their own churches, today things are a bit different because almost all these state churches are increasingly incompatible with the traditionalist ideology that accompanies monarchism.

Monarchism isn't accompanied by anything. I myself am a socially liberal monarchist.

[New Kattslant]

Classical Liberalism was first of all a radical leftist outgrowth of the Enlightenment, first of all. It's relation to "conservatism" is only appropriate in when the method of conservation is of classical liberal ideals, and not socialist, monarchist, or whatever ideals. Even then, conservatism has the tendency to attempt to conserve the bad as much as the good - note that American conservatives will often defend Medicare and Medicaid to the death while strangely at the same time opposing Obamacare. There is no more rationale for conservatism from this standpoint if you are truly dedicated to libertarianism, or liberalism. When conservatism was the enemy - when it defended and attempt to conserve objects and structures of oppression like it had in the mid-1850s, then liberalism opposed it, even to the extent of allying with socialism (anarchism, for example, as actually the product of both classical liberalism and socialism, believe it or not). But the conservatism today is a mixed deal for many true liberals and libertarians, yes we can ally with conservatives when they are truly dedicated to defending ideas that have a basis in history like the many constitutions granting freedom of speech, voting rights, et. cetera, but are frustrated when conservatives spend all their time and effort trying to retain traditions that are either destructive or antithetical to these concepts. You may disagree, and point to the belief that well grounded morality and a certain cultural structure may be beneficial to the aims and goals of liberalism. But when conservatism hyper focuses on that to the point where it forgets the relativity of the natures of man and instead seeks to impose a top down morality - especially through coercion, it then has abandoned it's goal of liberty, and no longer can be trusted to deliver libertarian aims when it instead is so fascinated by order it is willing to sacrifice liberty for that goal.

td;lr version: conservatism and liberalism have two entirely different goals and while they can be synthesized, (leading to the ideology of liberal conservatism, or the more radical American libertarian-conservatism) they must be understood to be at both of their cores fundamentally different with regards to ethics and desired outcomes.

Here's one of Hayek's more seminal works, Why I Am Not a Conservative. You should find it enlightening or thought provoking for at least someone who claims the labels of liberal, libertarian and conservative.

Also, since when did communism have a monopoly on progress? I personally define progress as anything that raises the global happiness (from a sheer consequentialist standpoint, this usually involves defending markets which tend to have that effect), so why can't I also be a progressive? Why can't you also be a progressive, if you at least agree so much that we should build a society in which people are happier, safer, etc? IMO communism is not a progressive ideology at all, not from what we have seen it in action.

Liberalism was born as a "leftist" ideology, however, with the rise of other ideologies on the left (socialism and after that social-democracy), it shifted to the right. Afterall, in most countries the only big group that supports free markets are the conservatives, and the same goes for some individual or personal freedoms (the "bad" ones for most leftists, like the right to bear arms or the right to criticize minorities and the "oppressed groups" in "progressive" narrative). The goals of the ideologies are different, but if you get two conservatives or two libertarians and ask them what are their goals (what they want to achieve by being conservative of progressive), you'll get different responses. You'll also get different responses to "what is conservatism" too ("economic freedom and traditional morality", "opposition to radical changes" or even "opposition to a big government" aka libertarianism are possible responses).

About conserving the bad things, well, I'm not American, so I don't know the details about Medicare and Medicaid (and Obamacare), and I can't tell if they are really a bad thing. I'm not opposed to some public health, since many times is not your fault that you get sick, and I don't think but it needs to be efficient (I like the idea of vouchers). I live in a country with a huge and inefficient state, and it does far more worse things than hospitals (like huge wages and benefits to "public servants" and pensions of public sector, using state-owned companies as governmental propaganda and a source of corrupt money to pay to win elections, and "corporate welfare" to corrupt companies that return some part of this "welfare" to the pockets of the same politicians in power).
I need to admit that it's hard to be conservative about these things in my country, but being a libertarian is a bit too utopian - it's against our culture of loving the government. After all, the biggest opposition to the corrupt government of my country is from conservatives, and they're very much against our big government status quo, while being against the most common proposed radical changes (communism and other forms of radical leftism, not libertarianism). Maybe they shouldn't call themselves "conservative"?

About progress, I'm more or less thinking about this Mises quote:
"The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended."
If you define progress as only the "good changes", well, then communism is clearly not progress. But how can you say that a proposed change will bring good results? It's easy to point to that after the change occurred, but not before. I suppose he's defining progress as like "walking toward a goal", so if the goal is "chaos" it's bad.
That's the point of conservatism - if you don't know the outcome, it's better to be cautious. Maybe the common conservative is more cautious than he should be, but that's a question of "calibration". And, of course, if progress is defined in this utilitarian way of a greater amount of happiness, well, theoretically conservatism can achieve this, if you suppose that most radical changes bring an increase in suffering (a supposition a conservative will probably do).