This ought to piss off the lefties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess it depends if you are a 'liberal'

[GePap]

While I agree with Liberals [AM], my views are more complex than that. I do now is that I don;t agree with many of the basic tenets of conservatism, so I can't possibly be one.

[Dinner]

No! It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Just ask Clinton.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I'm not sure if we decided whether or not by 'liberal' elijah is refering to libertarians. Of course this makes the claim even more interesting because Berzerker, Wraith, and David Floyd, the biggest libertarians around are absolute moralists. And, in fact, I thought that absolute morality was a bedrock tenant of libertarianism (which is why I refer to myself as a moderate or pragmatic libertarians), because everyone's got rights under that view (or so I thought).

[GePap]

Well, in theory you could come up to libertarianism both ways. Either you say :everyone has fundamental inalienable rights than can under no circumstance ever be broken!, or you can say: no one has any rights or privaledges under nature, so you can't really ask or demand anything of anyone else unless they willingly give it to you.

[Dom Pedro II]

And if we're getting into a general definition of these things...

then a liberal is someone who wants moderate change.
a conservative is someone who wants no change.
a radical wants immediate and extreme change.
and a reactionary wants dramatic changes back to the way things used to be.

I consider myself a reactionary...

but then what a reactionary is in America is different from a reactionary in Europe. An American reactionary would want smaller government and more freedom, a European reactionary would want bigger governments, monarchies, removal of democracy, etc.

But then many radical Europeans want bigger governments too, but not the same kind, they want Socialist governments, which when one thinks about it is like the monarchies in certain ways...

so when an American conservative says he's conservative, does that mean that he wants things exactly as they are because sometimes they don't, and they want things as they were, but then that's why American conservatives differ from the classical definition...

[Odin]

Did you guy's hear me? Democratic Socialists and Libertarians are both liberals. Conservatives are Stalinists, Fascists, Monarchists, Christian Democrats (like the US Republicans), etc.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
And if we're getting into a general definition of these things...

then a liberal is someone who wants moderate change.
a conservate is someone who wants no change.
a radical wants immediate and extreme change.
and a reactionary wants dramatic changes back to the way things used to be.

I consider myself a reactionary...

but then what a reactionary is in America is different from a reactionary in Europe. An American reactionary would want smaller government and more freedom, a European reactionary would want bigger governments, monarchies, removal of democracy, etc.

But then many radical Europeans want bigger governments too, but not the same kind, they want Socialist governments, which when one thinks about it is like the monarchies in certain ways...

so when an American conservative says he's conservative, does that mean that he wants things exactly as they are because sometimes they don't, and they want things as they were, but then that's why American conservatives differ from the classical definition...

I have to disagree. As I said elsewhere, it is not true that conservatives want no change. They aren't stupid, they know change will happen. They differ with liberals as to the proper method of change. Now, the method they favor is slower, but change invariably happens.

As for reactionaries being inherently monarchists: well, how reactionary? A Stalinist in Russia is a reactionary, no?

[Odin]

Dom, US Reactionaries are the Racists, Religious bigots, etc.

[Dom Pedro II]

GePap: Much of that was supposed to be rambling... (opening myself up to a remark ) point being that political definitions such as these get very complicated and often times muddled.

Yes, you're right... conservatives don't want to halt change completely, and a Russian reactionary could be a Communist, true.

But here's the thing... change is inevitable... but to what end? I mean, we say sometimes when talking about seemingly stubborn people in history that have fought to maintain a dying system that they couldn't accept the changing times. And often times we sort of laugh at them for choosing to hold onto something that couldn't be held on to, but when do we say: "Ok, this is where we need to be. No more change is needed."?

[Dom Pedro II]

Dom, US Reactionaries are the Racists, Religious bigots, etc.

That's not completely true... it depends on which capacity you're talking about. Politically, that is not necessarily true. Socially, it certain can be.

I am a political reactionary but a social liberal/libertarian.

[Odin]

The Liberal conservative scale is no longer valid in today's world. It is part of a 3D grid alonf with Socialism/Capitalism and Idealism/Realism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
But here's the thing... change is inevitable... but to what end? I mean, we say sometimes when talking about seemingly stubborn people in history that have fought to maintain a dying system that they couldn't accept the changing times. And often times we sort of laugh at them for choosing to hold onto something that couldn't be held on to, but when do we say: "Ok, this is where we need to be. No more change is needed."?

Were we go is a function of how we go primarilly. I view the basic distinction between a liberal [AM] and a conservative in the idea that a liberal might say "this end outcome would be the best cause of X and Y: lets build the institutions to get there!". A conservative is more apt to say " C and Y today are sound basis and whatever change they bring about will be good, so lets make X and Y strong". Both sides seek positive change, but their vision of how one gets there, what it takes, and whatr the foundation should be is very different. I myself favor the liberal notion more, if only becuase I don't particualrly think that today's X and Y are in any way inherently good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, in theory you could come up to libertarianism both ways. Either you say :everyone has fundamental inalienable rights than can under no circumstance ever be broken!, or you can say: no one has any rights or privaledges under nature, so you can't really ask or demand anything of anyone else unless they willingly give it to you.

Hmmm... I guess that is true. The later is more rare from what I've seen... especially in an American context.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by elijah


Why not? There is a logical argument for that being the case.

Just because it is not politically correct, or it might offend peoples naive sensibilities is no justification for me not to say it, and support it. Lets not delude ourselves, where is my argument flawed?

It's not about f*cking political correctness -- it's about common sense and logic. Political ideology does not determine one's intelligence.

Geez -- pull your head out of your *ss.