Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Aug '14 22:36 / 1 edit
    I think that most regular contributors on this forum consider themselves, to one degree or another, "conservatives." Norm, Sasq, SG, El, QQ, whodey and myself are just a few. When challenged with a doctrine of a "conservative" political party or politician, a line about that party or politician not being a real conservative invariably surfaces.

    To me, conservatism means allow people self-determination and all people the chance to excel through talent and work. I look at Milton Friedman as the archetype for true conservative. Who would you look at as the archetypical true conservative?

    How would you define the "conservative" position on each of the following issues:

    - abortion

    - gay rights

    - law and order

    - using force as diplomacy

    - healthcare

    - taxation

    - welfare

    - corporate regulation

    - securities and banking regulation

    - laborer rights


    I'd be interested in hearing the same from the self-avowed "liberal" members of the forum such as Shav, KN and Finn as well. What constitutes the "liberal" position on each issue? (Not necessarily your position, but the liberal one)
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    03 Aug '14 23:00 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that most regular contributors on this forum consider themselves, to one degree or another, "conservatives." Norm, Sasq, SG, El, QQ, whodey and myself are just a few. When challenged with a doctrine of a "conservative" political party or politician, a line about that party or politician not being a real conservative invariably surfaces.

    To me, conser ...[text shortened]... tutes the "liberal" position on each issue? (Not necessarily your position, but the liberal one)
    "How would you define the "conservative" position on each of the following issues:"

    - abortion: Satan

    - gay rights: Satan

    - law and order: Are the victims white?

    - using force as diplomacy: Talk loudly and carry a big stick

    - healthcare: If passed by Republicans: good. If not: bad.

    - taxation: Raping the rich

    - welfare: Screw those bums

    - corporate regulation: Raping the rich

    - securities and banking regulation: Raping the rich

    - laborer rights: screw those bums
  3. 03 Aug '14 23:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that most regular contributors on this forum consider themselves, to one degree or another, "conservatives." Norm, Sasq, SG, El, QQ, whodey and myself are just a few. When challenged with a doctrine of a "conservative" political party or politician, a line about that party or politician not being a real conservative invariably surfaces.

    To me, conser ...[text shortened]... tutes the "liberal" position on each issue? (Not necessarily your position, but the liberal one)
    "...the self-avowed 'liberal' members of the forum such as Shav, KN ..."
    --Sh76

    As I recall, KazetNagorra wrote he does *not* consider himself a 'liberal'.

    If you would like to make a more meaningful comparison between 'conservatives'
    and 'liberals', then may I suggest that you limit it to the American writers?
    A 'leftist' by US standards may be regarded as 'rightist' by some European ones.
  4. 03 Aug '14 23:14
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that most regular contributors on this forum consider themselves, to one degree or another, "conservatives." Norm, Sasq, SG, El, QQ, whodey and myself are just a few. When challenged with a doctrine of a "conservative" political party or politician, a line about that party or politician not being a real conservative invariably surfaces.

    To me, conser ...[text shortened]... tutes the "liberal" position on each issue? (Not necessarily your position, but the liberal one)
    - abortion - a womans right and choice.

    - gay rights - should be equal to heterosexuals.

    - law and order -yes please.

    - using force as diplomacy - is usually a mistake.

    - healthcare - free for all.

    - taxation - you earn more you pay more.

    - welfare - is important but not a way of life.

    - corporate regulation - is a good thing.

    - securities and banking regulation - are a good thing.

    - laborer rights - are basic human rights.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Aug '14 23:30
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...the self-avowed 'liberal' members of the forum such as Shav, KN ..."
    --Sh76

    As I recall, KazetNagorra wrote he does *not* consider himself a 'liberal'.

    If you would like to make a more meaningful comparison between 'conservatives'
    and 'liberals', then may I suggest that you limit it to the American writers?
    A 'leftist' by US standards may be regarded as 'rightist' by some European ones.
    I understand that to an American, a liberal might be the same person as a European moderate or even conservative. Still, I think those terms have basic meanings across borders, even if the spectrum is set a bit differently.

    In fact, getting different people from different political systems to weigh in might make it more interesting.

    Not sure about KN. He seems generally in favor of high taxes and wealth equalization. I could be wrong, but seems pretty liberal. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. )
  6. 03 Aug '14 23:35
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...the self-avowed 'liberal' members of the forum such as Shav, KN ..."
    --Sh76

    As I recall, KazetNagorra wrote he does *not* consider himself a 'liberal'.

    If you would like to make a more meaningful comparison between 'conservatives'
    and 'liberals', then may I suggest that you limit it to the American writers?
    A 'leftist' by US standards may be regarded as 'rightist' by some European ones.
    The discussion should also be limited to "modern (FDR thru Obama era) American liberalism" and not "classical liberalism," as classical liberalism seems downright libertarian and laissez-faire in some categories of concern that are mentioned. Our modern American liberalism was in fact tempered by failures of classical liberalism to restrain abuses such as in monopolization, trusts and labor relations.
  7. 03 Aug '14 23:50
    Originally posted by sh76
    I understand that to an American, a liberal might be the same person as a European moderate or even conservative. Still, I think those terms have basic meanings across borders, even if the spectrum is set a bit differently.

    In fact, getting different people from different political systems to weigh in might make it more interesting.

    Not sure about KN. He ...[text shortened]... ion. I could be wrong, but seems pretty liberal. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. )
    "Not sure about KN."
    --Sh76

    I can recall KazetNagorra objecting to being described as a 'liberal'.
    He may define 'liberal' differently from you.
  8. 03 Aug '14 23:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that most regular contributors on this forum consider themselves, to one degree or another, "conservatives." Norm, Sasq, SG, El, QQ, whodey and myself are just a few. When challenged with a doctrine of a "conservative" political party or politician, a line about that party or politician not being a real conservative invariably surfaces.

    To me, conser ...[text shortened]... tutes the "liberal" position on each issue? (Not necessarily your position, but the liberal one)
    I'd consider myself an economic conservative but not a spokesman for anyone other than myself. Here are my thoughts on certain issues. I understand that many people don't agree with me and that's great. I have no desire to change anyone's mind on any issue and I fully understand that none of my thought are influential.
    I find the socially conservative position on abortion and gay rights comical. From an economic point of view abortion is a money saving operation and if you don't want a fetus for any reason at time prior to birth its OK with me. I personally think it makes no sense to have a damaged child when you could subsequently give birth to a healthy one, I also think it is dumb to force someone to raise a child who isn't ready. I certainly would not make someone who is raped keep a child. Simply, you want an abortion and a doctor wants to do. It is fine by me.
    Gay rights. You want to marry someone. Great. Congrats. I wouldn't pull down any one pants and check genders. I find it 100% petty and 100% boring to discuss. There is no cost to me. I can't even fathom a reason why I should possibly object.
    Taxes: People of means pay more than their fair share of taxes. I find it mind boggling that only half the country pays income taxes and I can't see why any any person who pays income taxes would want the government to provide services when they could purchase the same service cheaper in the free market. I want a smaller government for efficiency and to lower cost to me. A graduated income tax means I pay more than others for everything the government does.
    I see no reason why everyone in society should get the same healthcare. They do not have the same house or the ability to go on the same vacation. Free healthcare to me is a pretext for redistribution. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to purchase their healthcare as the do their food or pay their rent.
    We have welfare. It seems more than sufficient. I would cut rather than add on the margins.
    There should be sensible economic regulations. Unfortunately most regulations are merely time consuming and serve little purpose. The government never accepts its fault in economic crisis (banks are a regulated industry and failed pursuant to governmental policy) and always responds with more regulations -- essentially using any crisis as a power grab and an opportunity to expand its rights. The government both is the regulator and rule maker and this conflict of interest prevents a discussing of government failure due to poorly designed regulation or allows a punishment for its poor efforts.
    Laborers have more than enough rights. If you like the paycheck Go to work and stop complaining. Otherwise don't work for others. Workers over time work less and demand more. Something seems seriously wrong with that sense of entitlement.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Aug '14 01:38
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'd consider myself an economic conservative but not a spokesman for anyone other than myself. Here are my thoughts on certain issues. I understand that many people don't agree with me and that's great. I have no desire to change anyone's mind on any issue and I fully understand that none of my thought are influential.
    I find the socially conservativ ...[text shortened]... time work less and demand more. Something seems seriously wrong with that sense of entitlement.
    I tend to agree that all of these are what I would consider the conservative positions. I don't agree with all of them (I don't think the rich are taxed too highly and I do think laborers should have some government enforced rights. But I do agree that those are all conservative positions.
  10. 04 Aug '14 02:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    I tend to agree that all of these are what I would consider the conservative positions. I don't agree with all of them (I don't think the rich are taxed too highly and I do think laborers should have some government enforced rights. But I do agree that those are all conservative positions.
    I think it is good when people who tend to have a philosophy don't look at all issues the same way. We disagree on certain economic issues and I disagree with conservative on many issues: I don't deny global warming, I am pro-choice, I believe in gay rights, I am pro gun control and I don't believe religious beliefs should ever exempt someone from an otherwise legitimate governmental responsibility.
  11. 04 Aug '14 02:32
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that most regular contributors on this forum consider themselves, to one degree or another, "conservatives." Norm, Sasq, SG, El, QQ, whodey and myself are just a few. When challenged with a doctrine of a "conservative" political party or politician, a line about that party or politician not being a real conservative invariably surfaces.

    To me, conser ...[text shortened]... tutes the "liberal" position on each issue? (Not necessarily your position, but the liberal one)
    By your choice of topics I'd say you've bought the leftist definition of right vs left. Instead I think you should concentrate on individual freedom vs government domination.
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 Aug '14 02:33
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think that most regular contributors on this forum consider themselves, to one degree or another, "conservatives." Norm, Sasq, SG, El, QQ, whodey and myself are just a few. When challenged with a doctrine of a "conservative" political party or politician, a line about that party or politician not being a real conservative invariably surfaces.

    To me, conser ...[text shortened]... tutes the "liberal" position on each issue? (Not necessarily your position, but the liberal one)
    - abortion - against the murder of the unborn babies

    - gay rights - equal but separate

    - law and order - a must

    - using force as diplomacy - when necessary

    - healthcare - a benefit that must be earned or paid for

    - taxation - keep as low as possible

    - welfare - limited

    - corporate regulation - stifles the economy

    - securities and banking regulation - made stronger

    - laborer rights - the right to work
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    04 Aug '14 04:46
    I'll get back on this (duty calls I'm afraid), however, I don't consider myself a liberal.
    I think I'm probably an atheist - communist if anything.
  14. 04 Aug '14 05:33
    Insofar as there is a genuine "liberal" vs. "conservative" dichotomy, globally, it tends to be more about general ideas/character traits than specific policies.

    Self-described "conservatives" tend to value order, authority and tradition, while "liberals" value individualism and change.
  15. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    04 Aug '14 06:36 / 1 edit
    I find it amusing that conservatives have this dick measuring contest between them: "who's the real tory?" and "I'm more conservative than you."
    To me it's like people trying to be as close to facist as possible, without actually raising their right hand in a salute.
    "I want to crack down on immigration to such an extent it makes the death camps during the boer war in South Africa look like summer camps for kids."

    There's also a tendency to mix conservative economics (laissez faire capitalism as the most extreme variant) with... uh... rural... attitudes in respects to morality.
    So complete "individualism and freedom" in finances mixed with authoritarian attitudes to do with other aspects of life.
    To sum it up:
    Free movement of goods over the whole world = good.
    Free movement of people over the whole world = bad.

    Anyhoo. This is what I think conservatives think of the following issues:

    - abortion
    We're pro death penalty and we side with Israel bombing and burning kids in Gaza... .but you're not allowed to decide what to do with a clump of cells in your own body.

    - gay rights
    Keep it in the closet. It's not right for men to hold hands in public.

    - law and order
    Corporations and banks can do what they want. Poor folk need to be kept in line. As restrictive as possible. Harsh sentencing... because we don't believe in revalidation (unless you're a banker).

    - using force as diplomacy
    What's diplomacy? We've got the guns... use them!

    - healthcare
    Guns are basic human right. Health is not.

    - taxation
    Tax = bad. We don't need roads, bridges, health care, sewerage, etc.
    Tax = needed. Otherwise we can't pay for our armies.
    Tax the poor instead of the corporations and banks. The working classes are a means to production and shouldn't be thought of as anything else.

    - welfare
    This is why we have privatised prisons. That's welfare enough for the likes of you!

    - corporate regulation
    Corporations have the same rights as individuals, but since they're not individuals, they don't have to abide by any of the strict rules which apply to the means of production which filth up the streets.

    - securities and banking regulation
    See the above.

    - laborer rights
    These only serve to undermine the glorious banks and corporations which have the same rights as individuals, but which are exempt from criminal punishment or taxation, because that could undermine their strengths on the market.

    Needless to say, I don't really like conservative politics...