Has the Bush administration signaled the end of conservatism?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
I would argue that denying basic freedoms is something intrinsic to, and an inevitable by-product of, conservatism. Someone like Stalin was simply a conservative of a different color.

Conservativism basically == capitalism.

How is capitalism denying basic freedoms?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Ned, you're an idiot. Your definition of conservatism is wrong, conservatism is maintaining the status quo. Your not thinking of Communism, your thinking of Stalinism. You are almost as bad as Fez in your BAMs. True Communists like democracy, but a nation cannot be truely democratic unless society controls the economy as well, "Capitalist Democracy" is an oxymoron since the elite capitalists are the ones who have real power. The US is not a Democracy, it is a corporate oligarchy. Only Communism can bring democracy.

HershO: I would call it Right-wing Populism

Conservativism (in a modern sense) != maintaining the status quo. Conservativism == capitalism (basically).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Ned, you're an idiot. Your definition of conservatism is wrong, conservatism is maintaining the status quo. Your not thinking of Communism, your thinking of Stalinism. You are almost as bad as Fez in your BAMs. True Communists like democracy, but a nation cannot be truely democratic unless society controls the economy as well, "Capitalist Democracy" is an oxymoron since the elite capitalists are the ones who have real power. The US is not a Democracy, it is a corporate oligarchy. Only Communism can bring democracy.

HershO: I would call it Right-wing Populism

How do the "elite capitalists" hold the real power? Unless the election is rigged (which happens far more often in "communist" governments), your vote counts just as much as anothers.

Communism is slavery, as I have said time and time again. If I am not allowed to keep the money I recieve in return for my labor, I no longer own my labor, and therefore I am a slave.

[GePap]

Conservatism does NOT equal capitalism. Anyone who defines it as such knows nothing of definitions.

Saudi Arabia is a conservative regime, so is Iran.

The word liberal was first applied to free-traders taking on the conservative agrarian land-owners of Britian.

The "modern" deinition of conservatism does not exist as you make the claim, so before you continue arguing, get straight what you actually mean.

[Kuciwalker]

Saudi Arabia also has a relatively free-market economy.

[GePap]

And Iran does not. So conservatims has no inherent connection to capitalism. if anything, capitalism, as a universalist creed runs counter to several basic tennets of conservatism.

[Ned]

As I said, we definitely have a problem with definitions.

Let is just say I think I am a conservative. I believe in a free market (with regulation to prevent abuses), political freedom, free speech and free exercise of religion, the right to privacy and personal freedom to the extent it does not interfere with others, etc.

I do not agree than anyone can be a conservative if he or she would deny to others any of the basic freedoms or civil rights. Thus communism is the enemy of economic freedom and the enemy of conservativism.

If an elite were to control the economy to the exclusion of all but their small club, independent of political control, obstructing the entry of newcomers, well I would be against this as well. I would also object to calling such a government "conservative." An aristocracy or oligarchy might be better.

Now why are the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran conservative? They deny basic freedoms to their people. They are against liberty and the free exercise of religion. In this, they are almost like the communists.

Labels without some agreement on definitions leads to lack of communication. Thus the attack on conservatism because it is an "elitist" aristocracy is misplaced if conservatives themselves would find such an elite objectionable.

[GePap]

I do not agree than anyone can be a conservative if he or she would deny to others any of the basic freedoms or civil rights. Thus communism is the enemy of economic freedom and the enemy of conservativism.

English land-owners of the 17th century denied economic freedom to their serfs, and were conservatives. Many mnastic orders are communist" monastci orders are conservative.

Man, that was easy.

Conservatism is a political ideology which places the protection and continuation of social and cultural institutions as its primary goals, becuase they see those institutions as central to the identity of the polity and as the result of the polity's experiences, and thus, invariably the best course for the polity. This was why burke did not back the Frenc revolution, for it was based on erroneous universalist creeds that ginored the founding institutions of France and anywhere else.

Almost always, conservatism is allied to Religion, the State (usually the King or so), and advocates for the family and other "institutions". IN the US, conservatives are generally pro-business becuase they view capitalism as a foundational insitution of the US. But in a place like SA, there is no such connection (in so far as the moarchy of SA decides it's to its benefit to trade freely, wel, that is were you get that).

[Ned]

Well, GePaP, if we could junk labels, you probably would find that we agree on more things than not, at least as it come to basic values. We just may disagree on implementation or nuances.

However, you are not a communist, AFAIK. I have a real beef with communists who deny virtually all freedoms to the people.

[monkspider]

Freedom can only exist in a socialist-minded society. Any society that relies on greed and murder for private gain will hold it's members permanently in chains. That's why capitalism actually provides the anti-thesis of true freedom. That is something so self-evident that I think even most of the conservatives here would agree.

[Ned]

Greed is an essential requirement of an Adam-Smith society. Murder is not. So, I do not understand where that comes from.

[Odin]

Originally posted by monkspider
Freedom can only exist in a socialist-minded society. Any society that relies on greed and murder for private gain will hold it's members permanently in chains. That's why capitalism actually provides the anti-thesis of true freedom. That is something so self-evident that I think even most of the conservatives here would agree.

exactly the point I was trying to make to Ned by calling the US a corporate oligarchy. An Adam Smith society is inherently immoral because it uses greed.

[Berzerker]

Let me explain the logical conclusion of your beliefs. If I am required to give MY money - which I was PAID in return for a certain commodity, my labor - then you are really forcing me to give my labor to someone else. That is slavery!

Ah, but our liberal slavemasters would argue we aren't really slaves because we can move out of the country or refuse to labor. Technically, they're right (although they'd have to explain that wall the communists built to prevent people from running away), and morally speaking, there ain't much difference between liberals and slave owners - both use force to steal the labor of others. The liberals just make a bigger fuss about how moral they are when committing theft and how immoral their victims are for complaining. Just look at this thread - liberals are the epitome of morality and their victims are "greedy".

monkspider -

Freedom can only exist in a socialist-minded society. Any society that relies on greed and murder for private gain will hold it's members permanently in chains. That's why capitalism actually provides the anti-thesis of true freedom. That is something so self-evident that I think even most of the conservatives here would agree.

Since when does "greed" - a desire to keep the fruits of your labor - violate the definition of freedom? Let's see, freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. So, a capitalist who agrees to give me money which I want in exchange for my labor which he wants respects my freedom while the socialist requires me to hand over my labor and in return I will be given what the socialist decides I should have.

What happens if I refuse to exchange my labor for money with the capitalist? He walks away. What if I refuse to hand over my labor to the socialist? I get jailed or killed if I can't get away. Yeah, socialism is "true freedom"...

Oh yeah, that bit about murder is . No one can compete with the communist record of slaughter... No one...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ming
While I state greed is an individual trait, and not based on political labels...

The way people vote depends on their individual traits. That's why a political ideology can be based on greed. Greedy people vote one way and compasionate people vote another way. You know that's true Ming.

[MrFun]

Hey Kidicious -- compassion is not a Democratic trait, nor is greed a Republican trait.

THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL TRAITS NOT RELATED TO POLITICAL PARTIES.