Reply
Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:50 am
Lets say that the objective of the political ideologies is creating individual freedom. I know there are other motives, but this is the ideal one.
I define the general ideologies, liberalism and conservatism, in how they attempt to achieve individual freedom.
By conserving or liberating/abolishing the rules of society.
Liberalism, in the extreme, sees individual freedom as the highest good intrinsically, not as the highest goal.
Which has the nasty effect, that there is no restriction of individual freedom enshrined in liberalism itself.
Liberalism has to assume the common sense of the people applying it. Which means that no separate rule of society can stand enough scrutiny. And since the nature of a rule, that effectively restricts, will always be that it has many opponents, this leaves liberalism unable to keep any rule.
This leaves us with a slow slide into lawlessness, in which there is little individual freedom.
In the extreme, conservatism on the other hand sees individual freedom as the highest goal, which means that some restrictions of it are acceptable for the overall benefit of keeping the rules of society intact. The rules of society, which ensure the most individual freedom of all, are required to be immutable. Because if we allow changing or interpreting no rule is secure.
This leaves us with a constitution set in stone, that might not apply to changing times.
To put it all in an analogy:
Lets say individual freedom is like chocolate ice cream, which we want. And having ones individual freedom restricted by rules is like eating apples.
If we eat nothing but chocolate ice cream, we starve.
So we have to sometimes eat apples, which also means we can live longer to eat more chocolate ice cream.
The amount of apples and chocolate ice cream we can eat every day are mutually restrictive. So always having a reason for not eating apples today, in this very instance right now, but maybe tomorrow, leaves the potential of never eating an apple at all. We starve.
The alternative is having the immutable rule to always eat three apples every day.
Which might not allow us to eat as much chocolate ice cream as we optimally could have.
Objections to my simplifications.?
@EmperorNero,
The only sense in which the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' make any sense is in the use of the police power of the state to coerce compliance from individuals.
As in 'liberal' with the use of force, and 'conservative' with the use of force.
Both views hold individual liberty in low esteem.
@jimkass,
Liberalism's objective is to promote
positive rights such as health care, education, fair wages, etc. Liberalism also wants to promote
social progressivism and a mixed economy in order to create a more fair and balanced society.
Conservatism's objective is to promote classical social values regardless of the time or circumstance and to minimize the role of the state in society to just protecting
negative rights.
I find conservatism to be more ideological than practical. I believe that we should reach a consolidation on ethics in society, and that those ethics should remain absolute from the time of consolidation. I also would like to see the state minimized to simply protecting the rights of persons and other organisms, but I believe that our economic system necessitates a bigger role for the state in modern society.
I choose liberalism for our contemporary society because I believe it's more practical (for creating a more just society) and more progressive. I believe that all people should have the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential. I agree with liberalism more than conservatism, but I agree with both ideologies to some extent. I just believe that liberalism is the better half.
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;59424 wrote:Liberalism, in the extreme, sees individual freedom as the highest good intrinsically
Ironic, then, that it's
libertarians and not
liberals who are the loudest champions of individual freedom in (American) society, and they are about the most conservative people out there...
@Aedes,
I didn't think this thread would still take off.
I wrote it over a month ago, and revised some of the opinions I expressed in it since.
hue-man;66219 wrote:Liberalism's objective is to promote
positive rights such as health care, education, fair wages, etc. Liberalism also wants to promote
social progressivism and a mixed economy in order to create a more fair and balanced society.
Can you tell me what "fair" and "balanced" even mean?
hue-man;66219 wrote:Conservatism's objective is to promote classical social values regardless of the time or circumstance and to minimize the role of the state in society to just protecting
negative rights.
Even with your definition, I pick that over "fairness" any day.
Aedes;66222 wrote:Ironic, then, that it's libertarians and not liberals who are the loudest champions of individual freedom in (American) society, and they are about the most conservative people out there...
Yes, liberalism is about the anti-thesis of libertarianism. To create "fairness" you must always abolish freedom.
@Aedes,
Nice summary Hue,
Yea, I find that on many issues I'll end up with a more conservative view, while on others its quite the opposite. I think the proper mix is situational, depending on the subject at hand and other variables. Socially, I tend to lean more liberal but this is no means concrete.
The way I view the terminology, as it sits, is how it relates to change; that one is either conservatively favorable to change or liberally favorable. Although this jives with Hue's description, it too is not so fine a line
Aedes;66222 wrote:Ironic, then, that it's libertarians and not liberals who are the loudest champions of individual freedom in (American) society, and they are about the most conservative people out there...
Good case-in-point.
Thanks
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;66255 wrote:Can you tell me what "fair" and "balanced" even mean?
Liberalism's objective is to create a more fair and balanced society in terms of social, political, and economic equality while still retaining a capitalist economy where the state does not own the means of production (socialism).
EmperorNero;66255 wrote:Yes, liberalism is about the anti-thesis of libertarianism. To create "fairness" you must always abolish freedom.
Nonsense; why does freedom need to be abolished to have an egalitarian society? Anarcho-Communism, for example, is a fully egalitarian society with a maximum amount of freedom. What freedoms have been taken away in the name of liberalism?
@hue-man,
hue-man;66271 wrote:Liberalism's objective is to create a more fair and balanced society in terms of social, political, and economic equality while still retaining a capitalist economy where the state does not own the means of production (socialism).
So fair means fair. Can you explain it without using the word itself?
hue-man;66271 wrote:Nonsense; why does freedom need to be abolished to have an egalitarian society? Anarcho-Communism, for example, is a fully egalitarian society with a maximum amount of freedom. What freedoms have been taken away in the name of liberalism?
Equality is the anti-thesis of Freedom. One is the move towards anarchy and the other is a move towards order. You cannot have both.
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;66274 wrote:So fair means fair. Can you explain it without using the word itself?
Come on, Nero; I told you what I meant by fair. Now you want me to tell you what I meant by fair without using the word? Just edit the word fair out of my quote if it helps.
EmperorNero;66274 wrote:Equality is the anti-thesis of Freedom. One is the move towards anarchy and the other is a move towards order. You cannot have both.
Equality is not the antonym of freedom. Freedom and equality are entirely compatible ideas; just read the constitution of the United States of America if you don't believe me. The antonym of freedom or libertarianism is authoritarianism or dictatorship.
@hue-man,
hue-man;66271 wrote:Liberalism's objective is to create a more fair and balanced society in terms of social, political, and economic equality while still retaining a capitalist economy where the state does not own the means of production (socialism).
hue-man;66278 wrote:Come on, Nero; I told you what I meant by fair. Now you want me to tell you what I meant by fair without using the word? Just edit the word fair out of my quote if it helps.
So that means we should create equality of outcome? That goes always at the cost of freedom.
hue-man;66271 wrote:Equality is not the antonym of freedom. Freedom and equality are entirely compatible ideas; just read the constitution of the United States of America if you don't believe me. The antonym of freedom or libertarianism is authoritarianism or dictatorship.
I don't see a lot of freedom happening in a lawless world ruled by warlords.
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;66298 wrote:So that means we should create equality of outcome? That goes always at the cost of freedom.
Once again you are assuming that equality of outcome (whatever that even means) equals diminished freedom. You didn't answer my question; what freedoms have been lost due to liberalism? My individual freedoms are no different than they were under conservative presidents.
EmperorNero;66298 wrote:I don't see a lot of freedom happening in a lawless world ruled by warlords.
I assume that by lawless world ruled by outlaws you mean an anarchistic world. I can't fully support anarchism, but there is no reason to believe that the world would be run by warlords in an anarcho-communist society. That certainly didn't happen to the anarchist sections of Spain before the Spanish revolution. That's not the point either way. The point is that an egalitarian society does not necessitate or entail authoritarianism.
@hue-man,
hue-man;66303 wrote:Once again you are assuming that equality of outcome (whatever that even means) equals diminished freedom.
If we have equality of opportunity, we both have the same chance to get ahead. If I waste that chance by smoking pot, I am worse off than you.
Equality of outcome means that we both have the same outcome, hence that we not only had the same chances but also got the same out of it.
Do you support the latter?
hue-man;66303 wrote:You didn't answer my question; what freedoms have been lost due to liberalism? My individual freedoms are no different than they were under conservative presidents.
Well, for example if my income is taken and given to someone else in the name of fairness.
Actually, there's a whole list here:
hue-man;66303 wrote:I assume that by lawless world ruled by outlaws you mean an anarchistic world. I can't fully support anarchism, but there is no reason to believe that the world would be run by warlords in an anarcho-communist society.
Of course more and more freedom reaches a tipping point where we just get anarchy and we have very little freedom.
hue-man;66303 wrote:The point is that an egalitarian society does not necessitate or entail authoritarianism.
If you expect equality of outcome, it does. As if you work hard, and I don't, but we are still supposed to have the same. Your freedom to achieve needs somehow to be reduced.
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;66308 wrote:If we have equality of opportunity, we both have the same chance to get ahead. If I waste that chance by smoking pot, I am worse off than you.
Equality of outcome means that we both have the same outcome, hence that we not only had the same chances but also got the same out of it.
Do you support the latter?
If someone makes bad life decisions then needless to say they will not have the same outcome. I believe that we should have economic equality, which means that I believe we shouldn't have economic classes. If that's equality of outcome, as you call it, then I'm all for it.
EmperorNero;66308 wrote:Well, for example if my income is taken and given to someone else in the name of fairness.
Actually, there's a whole list here:
Tax is redistribution by definition. I don't like taxes either, but that's what our economic system necessitates. The underlying problem is the monetary system itself.
This link that you gave me can't be serious. Have you actually read this list? It's an embarrassment to the conservative movement. This list is incredibly ridiculous.
Here are some examples from the link:
Support of obscenity and pornography as a
First Amendment right
The denial of inherent
gender differences
Support of
labor unions
Legalized
same-sex marriage
Government programs to
rehabilitate criminals
Abolition of the death penalty
Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy
In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that
liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of
evolution is a key component of
atheistic ideologies in the
Western World.
You actually believe in this stuff???
EmperorNero;66308 wrote:If you expect equality of outcome, it does. As if you work hard, and I don't, but we are still supposed to have the same. Your freedom to achieve needs somehow to be reduced.
You believe that someone who is unemployed and on welfare has equal outcome as you? What is freedom to achieve? Give me an example of someone's freedom to achieve being taken away by the state?
@EmperorNero,
Liberalism will accept a certain amount of restriction on individual freedom for the sake of social justice.
Libertarianism takes a more 'sink or swim' approach to social justice, and upholds individual freedom as the highest goal.
Another way to think of it is that liberals have a generally hopeful view of government while libertarians have a generally suspicious view of government.
@Aedes,
hue-man;66219 wrote:Liberalism's objective is to promote
positive rights such as health care, education, fair wages, etc. Liberalism also wants to promote
social progressivism and a mixed economy in order to create a more fair and balanced society.
Conservatism's objective is to promote classical social values regardless of the time or circumstance and to minimize the role of the state in society to just protecting
negative rights.
Since such things as health care, education are wages that are provided by other people. your 'positive right' to these thing constitute a 'positive right' to coerce them from others.
Your 'social justice ' is just another rationale for subjugation.
Aedes;66361 wrote:Liberalism will accept a certain amount of restriction on individual freedom for the sake of social justice.
Libertarianism takes a more 'sink or swim' approach to social justice, and upholds individual freedom as the highest goal.
Another way to think of it is that liberals have a generally hopeful view of government while libertarians have a generally suspicious view of government.
Regarding libertarianism, you're confusing the goals and values of the individual with the goals of the system, which maintains the environment in which the individuals operates.
Most libertarians I know are perfectly willing to provide help - which is what you appear to be calling 'social justice' - to other people. Just not at the point of a gun which is essentially what a 'socially just' government does.
'Social justice' is just a euphemism for slavery on some scale.
JIM
@jimkass,
jimkass;66374 wrote:Since such things as health care, education are wages that are provided by other people. your 'positive right' to these thing constitute a 'positive right' to coerce them from others.
Your 'social justice ' is just another rationale for subjugation.
The government forces taxation regardless of whether or not the citizen is for taxation. The anarchist would argue that he doesn't want to pay taxes because he doesn't believe in the existence of the state, and that he is being forced to pay against his will. The argument can apply to the very system of taxation itself, and I agree with the argument, but we're talking about practicality here. The only time a conservative seems to value government programs is when he loses his livelihood against his own will and the taxes are redistributed back to him.
@EmperorNero,
As far as I'm concerned, a true political Liberal would take a law that has a negative impact on the people and get rid of it and begin anew. A true political Conservative would take that same law and get rid of the negative and fix it for society. Those who at times profess themselves as a "Liberal" are not but socialists although still of the left. The same can be said about some "Conservatives", they are not but fascists who are of the right. In my opinion, for what it's worth, a true political Liberal and Conservative are on the Libertarian side and the other two are Authoritarians.
@Strodgers,
Aedes;66222 wrote:Ironic, then, that it's libertarians and not liberals who are the loudest champions of individual freedom in (American) society, and they are about the most conservative people out there...
Conservative because they are suspicious of the government? I am a social liberal, but I believe that there are solutions that both protect individual freedom and help to solve the fiscal problems of the common man. Take the Public option: Why is it superior to a risk pool that could be set up by donation? You could have an option box on your tax return for donation and you would be given a tax deduction proportionate to how much you donate. This way it is not coercive. The money would be doled out in the form of vouchers for private insurance. At a rate of around $2000 a head you could insure 15,000,000 people with $30,000,000,000 (which comes to an average of $165 per tax payer assuming there are around 185,000,000 tax paying adults). Of course there would be costs for managing the money, but perhaps the insurance companies would cut the costs back some due to an increase in business. They could bid for the contracts each year.
The main objection would be the lack of guarantee as far as donations, but I think that the American taxpayer on average would be very receptive to such a plan and would donate.
Another big thing to tackle would be tort reform. I'm sure that hospital costs could be cut by implementing good tort reform measures.
@EmperorNero,
In fact progressive liberalism (the notion that the proper role of government is to make everything fair and equal) is the biggest threat to individual liberty imaginable.
It denies the competitive and aquisitive nature of man and the fact that nature itself is unpredictable,unfair and unequal. Equality of opportunity does not equate to equality of outcome and no amount of goverment effort or intervention will make it so. In fact no amount of government effort will even result in equality of opportunity, bad parents, bad genes, etc.
The effort to use government in this manner will result in huge bureacracy, inefficient allocation of resources, stiffling of innovation, dependency on the state and an overall poorer society. American has done so well this far because it championed individual liberty and self reliance over collectivism and dependency.
@prothero,
You guys are arguing over the definitions of words denoting a position on some kind of political scale, but never get to the discussion of what the scale measures.
Conservative ? What do you conserve ?
Liberal ? Of what are you 'liberal'?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace