Conservative?/Liberal?

greyfan
I'm coming to like you more and more.

I'm impressed with Greyfans comment too

Greyfan - The problem I have with the "centrist" label is that it suggests to me that the person has views in the middle, when most people really have views at both poles of the spectrum, more than any in the middle. (Isn't in the middle just not caring either way?) :wink:

I'm found on the conservative side on some issues, and on the liberal side of others. Does that make me a "centrist"? I don't think so. And if it does, isn't the term meaningless? What if you and I hold exactly opposite views on all issues? We'd both be conservative on this and liberal on that, but clearly would not share a political viewpoint deserving of a name; calling us both "centrists" would suggest agreement between us where none existed.

I think it makes the most sense to try to speak and write in terms of where we fall on the issue at hand, or perhaps where we tend to fall on the majority of issues. I do agree that the two labels don't really tell us much, which is why taking time to discuss issues without throwing labels around is the best course.

I am a High Contrarian.

I, having been to rural Missouri, will have to disagree. I'd say the challenge is about the same - at least ghetto members grow up in a city. There is a larger number of poor white people with no real education z9who barely speak the English language) living in the rural areas in the US than all the ghettos combined. And not all black people live in ghettos - to judge on skin color is to assume being black makes you automatically poor or stupid/undereducated. I think, in this aftermath of the civil rights movement, there are certainly still rascists biggots out there (I'm not questioning that) but rascist (especially against blacks) bigots are a minority of the populus. We don't need quotas, and if they must be there they should be based on somthing more logical than the skin appearance of a couple of majority minority voting blocs.

My school says it institutes affirmative action to "promote diversity" and that's supposed to make the atmosphere of learning better. But I think Asians and Indians and Pacific south Islanders are just as "diverse" as black people (most of whom share my American culture,) but those people don't get benefited by this program. If they really wanted diversity they would lower tuition rates for foreign students and exchange students.

I am also greatly bothered by the diversity of what "white" encompasses. If you are from spain, bulgaria, are a poor russian immigrant, an englishman, a new-zealander, an Australian, an American, if you are Irish, you are "white." If you have dark skin and are not Indian you are "African American" or "Black." Oh, and "Asian" which is discriminated -against- based on the fact that Asians are stereotyped to be smart. But would a rural Thai or communist Chinese person have the same chances as someone from a wealthy Japanese family?

The government shouldn't be second guessing these things because it can't, and shouldn't. I'm a firm believer that the law should apply equally, but not make equal. People are not equal and people don't have equal chances starting out - but they should have the opportunity to pursue happiness, to pursue work and a family and all of those things. In my opinion, it is not the government's job to provide them with these things, but their job to make sure they are not prohibited.

Maybe when the Mounties is no longer high (or simply temporarily not high), he can explain why he is so contrary . . .

I hold that human social behavior is, at root, Hobbesian...it is selfish and often cruel and seeks dominance for self and kin, neighbors be damned. You and I are NO DIFFERENT, genetically, from the crowds who cheered the drawing and quartering of their neighbors, or who are hacking them into bits with machetes.
Evidence: look to present societies where institutions have broken down, eg Serbia, Rwanda, etc.

I further hold that 'neighbors be damned' actually minimizes the problem, because status is relative. Therefore, in establishing or achieving status, neighbors are often not merely benignly left alone, but are purposefully oppressed or disadvantaged.
Evidence: any elementary schoolground.

I also hold that it is our cultural institutions, and only our cultural institutions, which provide surcease from the worst parts of our nature, and which have allowed us (most of us here) to live lives of personal physical autonomy and safety, intellectual autonomy, peace, and health which are without comparison in history.

Thus I conclude that the role of governance ought first and foremost to involve the creation, maintenance and the increase of such institutions as have made life so damned fortunate for us.

I do not hold that government, so designed as above, to be a negative arrangement regardless of its size or of its pervasiveness.

I do hold that attempts to limit the power of social institutions, such as described above, are likely to be (though not certain to be) a reflection of the worst parts of ourselves.

Nothing above contradicts either a Millian position on our intellectual lives or on our liberties, nor on the rewarding of unusual effort, or unusual prudence, or unusual talents. But it does suggest a communitarian identity and membership, and from that, certain policies such as charitable and equitable redistribution of wealth. It also suggests institutional safeguards against internal entities which can or do operate in contradiction to the above, such as 'unfettered capitalism', or corporate entities, and certainly, safeguards against singular ideological movements such as the church has been in western history.

Lastly, I think it prudent to assume that if everyone agrees upon something, it's probably wrong.

set

LOL...the last sentence above is your answer.

Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, huh? What saddens one, is that Hobbes described this world of "no society, no arts, no letters, and what is worse, the constant fear of violent death" more than three centuries ago, in a call to the rational to end such conditions, as an expression of their self-proclaimed rationalism. What he described as the "war of all against all," is in your statement, a description of the contemporary world as well.

Seems the appeal largely fell upon the deaf ear of mankind . . .

Mr. Mountie, i invite you to drop by and give your consideration to a thread which i started on the topic of Hobbes' view of the world in a state of nature:

Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short

Scrat wrote:



I think of "centrist" as someone who cannot decide which of the alternatives he or she prefers, and it does seem unlikely someone could be undecided on all issues. It is entirely possible my understanding of the term is in error here. I agree with the essence of your point, however.

edgar and solar, thank you for the kind words.

I believe conservative/liberal to be as the two sides to a coin. A yin/yang sort of thing. It's not being one who chooses this liberal position, that conservative one, but integrating the elements into one whole. Putting the two philosophies to work in harmony as opposed to class and political warfare. In today's climate, such an ideal can't work, because the process is lopsided in favor of the extreme far right and the neocons.

So, you admit it. I knew I liked something about you.

My views of human nature and the proper role of government are nearly opposite to those of Blatham - who is generally wrong about nearly everything. Human nature is a mixture of good and evil. Government is an undesirable necessity, and its organs should be subject to continued scrutiny to ensure they are dismantled before they become utterly self-serving, self-perpetuating and oppressive. Those who believe in the perfectability of human nature (or behavior) and who are willing to act on that belief are the real enemies of mankind.

Wish I'd written that.

I just started a new party. It's called the "People Who Hate People" (PWHP) party. We are very liberal in our hatred and disdain for all people, equally, whether they be conservative, liberal, or any combination thereof. Our view is that humanity is a nothing more than a virus with shoes. Won't you join us?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20814&highlight=

Ireland...that lovely northern Bermuda Triangle where Enlightenment ideas all sank without a trace.

An old idea. One can trace its path out of the middle east, through Rome, via Donegal and Lubbock - the McManichean heresy.

Other than the five words preceding the first comma, this is as fine a prescription for the present government as I've EVER seen. Other than the tar/feathers/neutering notion, of course.

Perfectable!? Hell, only a dreamy-eyed fool would suppose that human nature is even in the slightest degree improvable. Lace underwear, red garters, and those long black she-wolf boots being the singular exception. As to spotting the real enemies of mankind, my mother, an anabaptist lass of exquisite bosom, made this question her life's work. Tossing out formula after formula, she one day, on the wings of some heavenly inspiration, again played a recording of a Barabara Bush speech, but this time, she played it BACKWARDS...

"Bwowdwinga lowumph mwowwd I am satan fshowwing bomeleele"

I tink I go home now.

Well, thanks to O'Blatham, I now know what kind of heretic I am. McManichean indeed! This and the Enlightenment slur on Saint Patrick's Day ! Beware - they are preparing your place now - raking the coals.

Besides the Irish did absorb the Enlightemnent far better than their Pommie cousins, they threw off their English overlords & imported Kings and created a Republic.

I would also note for the record that the notion of a basically evil human nature, requiring government to sustain merciful and benevolent features in society, is itself a decidedly anti Enlightenment notion.

The Mountie seems to take a perverse pleasure in slandering the Irish, O'George, i wouldn't sweat it if i were you. There is more of wit, music and laughter in a small village in the west of Ireland than in entire counties of Merry Old--we should pity such types, rather than be angry with them.