Define Conservative
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Liberals Versus Conservatives Forum Index // Conservative Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chevydriver1123
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 56
Location: Newburgh New York

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What ever happened to classic conservatism? Like small government and controlled spending? Now its all about targeting muslims/other ethinic/religious minorities and gay bashing.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
CryxicKiller
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
chevydriver1123 wrote:
What ever happened to classic conservatism? Like small government and controlled spending? Now its all about targeting muslims/other ethinic/religious minorities and gay bashing.


That's classical liberalism. 'Classical conservatism,' whatever that is, never called for small government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mulch
Registered User


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
chevydriver1123 wrote:
What ever happened to classic conservatism? Like small government and controlled spending? Now its all about targeting muslims/other ethinic/religious minorities and gay bashing.


No that is how liberals try to see us.

Gay bashing? Funny one there guy. In Oct I was home visiting my parents and there was an anti gay marrige rally in Olympia WA. I went to see what was going on and ya know what was so damn funny? Most of the people protesting the idea were gay.

Who targets mulsims? When I fought in 91 my enemy was the Iriqis who invaded Kuwait and they just happened to me muslim. Sorry about that.

Muslims have targeted themselvs. Untill the more moderate muslims denounce the TERRORISTS they will alway have problems that they bring down themselvs. When they single themselvs out for special treatment through lawsuits and openly bitching about how "badly" they are treated they will continue to have problems.

But then again why should they? The liberal MSM and the liberals in general allow it to happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mulch
Registered User


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Consertivism to ME:

Back to the constitution
Strong defence
Small federal government
Strong States/regional governemnt
destroying the welfare system as it stands today and rebuilding in to something that works
Crininals are punished and not coddeled. Just because some scumbag worte a kids book (that sold a wopping 12 copies) does not mean he should NOT be fried or hung.
Education and not that crap you get on the side in collage
Capitolism
Sociolism is not working in Europe (what a suprise that is) It won't work in the US
Communism failed and will never EVER work



Yes I am an American and I see things that way. I have been in Germany for 14 years now. I have seen with my own eyes how sociolism is failing. We are now in to our 3rd generation of professional welfare recipiants. The greens scream slobber and moan oh those people you can't take their welfare. They ahve a right to live. Well I have a right to refuse to give them anything else untill they contribute just a little.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CryxicKiller
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mulch, your own personal definition is cool and all, but I just wanted to clarify a very important, misunderstood point. Europe is by and large not socialist. This is a designation often thrown around by Americans trying to be derisive and having little knowledge of European economic systems. Fundamentally, Europe is capitalist, just like the United States. The main difference is that Europe has more socialist tendencies than the United States. These tendencies, like universal health care and free college, lead to the incorrect conclusion that Europe is somehow socialist.

Keep in mind that socialism must involve some form of large public ownership; ideally this ownership should be provided by either the proletariat or the government. The fact is that most European countries either do not meet this criteria or are/have been in the process of destroying it. France, for example, has privatized much of its industries in the past few decades; dirigisme is effectively dead. The same is true for other European nations; why would socialist countries do this now? Makes no sense if they were socialist. Well....they're not.

The final crucial point to recognize is that the distinction between these differing systems is not as clear as it once was. The introduction of communist ideology impacted many nation-states, as did, obviously, World War I and the Great Depression. Currently, no nation possesses a completely free-market system, not even the United States, though that's not to say that such a 'perfect' system existed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Even America has socialist tendencies, but you wouldn't call America 'socialist' would you? Those desires and wishes are just a bit more pronounced in Europe, but we still shouldn't call Europe 'socialist.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trollmaster
Registered User


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Conservatives stand for small government, fiscal responslbility and personal responsiblity.

I have no idea why Republicans think they're conservatives when they stand for the total oppisite of what I've described.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exton
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 298

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Trollmaster wrote:
Conservatives stand for small government, fiscal responslbility and personal responsiblity.

I have no idea why Republicans think they're conservatives when they stand for the total oppisite of what I've described.


You've merely asserted a statement; more is required in order to justifiably assert that other people are wrong in contradicting it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CryxicKiller
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Trollmaster wrote:
Conservatives stand for small government....


Sigh....again, please do us a favor and show some more historical context than what CNN and Fox provide. Classical liberals are the ones that believe in small government; conservatives advocate no such thing. But if you put the label American in front, that might help clarify what you mean.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mulch
Registered User


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
Mulch, your own personal definition is cool and all, but I just wanted to clarify a very important, misunderstood point. Europe is by and large not socialist. This is a designation often thrown around by Americans trying to be derisive and having little knowledge of European economic systems. Fundamentally, Europe is capitalist, just like the United States. The main difference is that Europe has more socialist tendencies than the United States. These tendencies, like universal health care and free college, lead to the incorrect conclusion that Europe is somehow socialist.

Keep in mind that socialism must involve some form of large public ownership; ideally this ownership should be provided by either the proletariat or the government. The fact is that most European countries either do not meet this criteria or are/have been in the process of destroying it. France, for example, has privatized much of its industries in the past few decades; dirigisme is effectively dead. The same is true for other European nations; why would socialist countries do this now? Makes no sense if they were socialist. Well....they're not.

The final crucial point to recognize is that the distinction between these differing systems is not as clear as it once was. The introduction of communist ideology impacted many nation-states, as did, obviously, World War I and the Great Depression. Currently, no nation possesses a completely free-market system, not even the United States, though that's not to say that such a 'perfect' system existed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Even America has socialist tendencies, but you wouldn't call America 'socialist' would you? Those desires and wishes are just a bit more pronounced in Europe, but we still shouldn't call Europe 'socialist.'



Well lets look at Germany for a second shall we? Deutsche Telekom? Owned partially by the government. Deutsch Bahn owned and operated by the German governemnt. Then we have Deutsche Post yet again owned and operated by the German government.

Now lets look at the voting system of Germany. A candidate is chosen by the party for the most part AFTER an election. That has been changing for the Bundistag elections but for state and local elections the candidate is not even know untill after the election. Not very demorcratic. Then in the US my home of records is still WA. I get ever 3 months a new packet of what is coming up for election. A packet of who and what. Here in Germany if a bridge is built no one is asked wether it's needed or not. It gets built and to hell with what we need.

A good example right around the corner from my house we had a wide bridge for cars and extra wide side walks for bikes and people walking. The local government spent 5 million for a foot bridge that was only 10M in front of the old bridge.

In my county in WA we would have been asked if taxes should be raised to pay for the un-needed bridge.

Not very demorcratic of those Germans is it?

I am very critical of the German government. I see it'S mistakes and can trace the paralell to the exact same mistakes made in the US 10-20 years ago.

Now how capitolistic is it to raise taxes right in the middle of a very bad recession? Instead of giving us more buying power like in the US in 2003 now more power is taken out of my already thin pocket to pay for all those wonderful free colleges and bullshit welfare programs that have never worked in the first place.

So please tell me how Germany is not sociolistic. They are and have admidted as much many times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mulch
Registered User


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Trollmaster wrote:
Conservatives stand for small government, fiscal responslbility and personal responsiblity.

I have no idea why Republicans think they're conservatives when they stand for the total oppisite of what I've described.


Because you obviously like to generalize. Not all republicans are cut from the same cloth as Bush. He is but one man and not the whole.

Just as I could ask why is the democratic party so communist like Kerry?

Now a small government is a great first step but I want the government OUT of my life. Yes I'll pay my taxes and all that but I don't need them looking down my throat when I want to expand on my house (my father) or tryingt o tell my father that since he had a heart attack he couldn't own any more guns and had to give his collection up.

I can't speak for everyone but that is my idea of smaller government.

YesI know there are laws on the books that must be follower and I do. Butt here are many things that I can choose for myself and don't need millions spent to see if I can do a good job or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CryxicKiller
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mulch, I'll get to all your points soon, but first I should address your ending comment about the Germans supposedly admitting that they are socialists. What they would label themselves is actually 'democratic socialists,' which is different from the traditional socialism that I believe you are speaking about.

Every political system has its own virtues and deficiencies. I'm not well-versed in Germany's political structure, but I could easily point out several places where it's vastly superior to that of the United States. If you want to speak about lack of democracy, then look at how people in this country have basically two choices for a party: Republican or Democrat. In Germany, people have substantive and numerous choices; it's a cornucopia of candidates! The same is true for most other European nations.

There was a point in American history where essentially House members were the only federal officials that were elected directly. The President, Senators, and Supreme Court judges were all assigned to their office through special means. That has changed for the Senate, but the President is still elected indirectly (Electoral College) and Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Yet if we go back to those times, I wouldn't hesitate to say that, contextually speaking, America was democratic.

Now I'm a little confused by all of this; it's not clear in your post, so I have to ask: are you suggesting that Germany is not democratic? If so, that is a hell of a claim, and I'm wont to discard it as irrelevant. The vast majority of the evidence, and since you love labels, including what the Germans think of themselves, indicates that the Germans are democratic, even more than here in America actually. Last time I checked, Germany has a woman leader...count the generations before that happens here in the United States (go ahead start now). This anectodal evidence is not all that important anyway; what's more critical is the general trends, and those point towards a democratic Germany.

All that aside, you still haven't shown that Germany's socioeconomic structure is compatible with that of a socialist society. You say "let's look at Germany for a second," and you almost literally do just that: you mention a few companies and hope that they're....what? Representative of the whole nation somehow? And what if someone lists the dozens of gigantic privately-owned German companies? Your argument, if it can be called that, breaks down like a twig. Yeah the German government owns a few companies, as does our government (Amtrak, UPS). Overall, on large scales, Germany is a capitalistic society with the third largest economy in the world. Strong social pressures are impacting growth, but they do not suggest that Germany is socialist or that Germany is beyond hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joshua1978
Registered User


Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="CryxicKiller"]
Joshua1978 wrote:
My definition of a conservative is one who believes in three basic principles. Individual freedom, Absolute free market, and of course state soveriegnty. Living freely is not liberal it is conseravtive. When you are preserving your own beliefs and lifestyle against unwanted radical change you are making your own status quo. So to live freely is to be conservative.


No....I appreciate the attempt at ingenuity, but this post is horribly misguided. I can also surmise that it is mostly your opinion and is not compatible with three or so centuries of literature on the subject. The very conceptions of freedom and liberty that you espouse have liberal origins; that's why we speak of 'negative liberty' or 'positive liberty.' The former states, to oversimplify a little, that liberty/freedom is experienced in the absence of coercion whereas the latter states that liberty/freedom can be asserted by individuals on their own terms. Those are very much liberal concepts; for example, one of the greatest liberal philosophers of all time, Isaiah Berlin, argued for negative liberty.

"Radical change" is a difficult term to define, but even using our intuitive understanding, liberalism does not always mean radical change. After all, if liberalism achieved all of its objectives, it wouldn't seek any more changes! Liberals don't ask for change for the sake of asking for change; they believe there are things in the world that need to be improved. If those things are improved, then that issue dies out and no more change is called for. A long time ago, for example, slavery was on the minds of many liberals, but it's now an issue that's been decisively settled in human affairs (for the good, might I add). The very idea that our world can get better is also a liberal notion dating from the Enlightenment period. Before then, people generally did not think that their lives would improve; they mostly expected to live as their predecessors had done.

" Individual freedom, Absolute free market, and of course state soveriegnty"

Every single one of those is a liberal principle. Literally....every single one. This is like re-inventing the wheel. You've just basically highlighted some of the main tenets of classical liberalism. I suggest you take a good look at this site (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on liberalism):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

You'll find that your definition, though valiant, is tautologous.[/quote


Really......Well if that is the definition of liberal than it's a shame they don't live up to such principles. I think they are the ones who need to go to that web site not me. By way read the last part where I said that protecting your own status quo. So yes living freely is being conservative! Don't play word games with me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Docsmitter
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 181
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So many of you have mastered copy and paste... I am thinking about making you guys use turn-it-in.com = )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
CryxicKiller
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By and large, liberals have done a good job at executing their own principles. Remember, classical liberalism is mostly dead now (even modern American conservatives are not fully classical liberals; they don't go as far), replaced by the appropriately-titled modern liberalism, which entrenched itself after World War I and the Great Depression. But those fundamental principles of liberal ideology have always remained in the liberal heart; that will never change.

If this issue is not covered under a cloud of semantics already, then I'll invoke the Fundamental Principle of Liberalism (FPL) on your "to live freely" hypothesis. Liberty and freedom are held as basic and fundamental in liberalism; that's essentially the FPL. "To be free," "To live freely"...these characterize the fundamental way that humans are according to liberals. So that is still very much liberal, not conservative. Remember, conservatism is mostly negativistic and reactive: it generally asserts what people should not be when another side (in this case liberalism) states what they should be or are (that is, free).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Liberals Versus Conservatives Forum Index // Conservative Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

alexisBlue v1.2 // Theme Created By: Andrew Charron // Icons in Part By: Travis Carden
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Privacy Policy