10 most rightist posters on poly

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Agathon

An attempt to maintain the status quo, whether that means preserving inequality or equality.

If that is the true definition, then conservatism is plainly idiotic. It's as dumb as desiring revolution for its own sake.

But Agathon- what works- WORKS. That's why Conservativism Works. Unless things radically change in the world, Conservativism will ALWAYS be the best answer. It is time tested, and proven... as winston churchhill said "by the time a man is old, if he is not a conservative, he has no brain."

We don't desire these things for their intrinsic value, but for their leading to some other good. Communists believe, rightly or wrongly, that a socialist revolution will make the world better because it will remove exploitation, improve equality, etc. They don't just want a revolution for its own sake (well, some loons might).

Wanting things to stay the same because you want them to stay the same is completely bat**** crazy, to borrow Plato's terminology. Likewise, valuing tradition purely because it is tradition is barmy.

It's not really crazy. It worked in the past. Therefore, there is a high probability that it will work in the future.

A slightly less idiotic version would be to claim that conservatives support tradition as a means to an end -- such that reforms are opposed because on the balance of things they tend to produce worse results.

At least that isn't obviously silly.

Unfortunately it still doesn't work. It is simply false that reforms always on the balance of things make life worse, and even if it were true of the past that is no reason to expect it to continue in the future. Moreover, the obvious response is to look at the merits of each case, rather than adopting some blanket strategy. And even worse, this latter view does not really distinguish conservative values from liberal values, since the aims are the same utilitarian ones and the disagreement is only over means.

Well, of course it's a good idea to consider things merit by merit- only an ignorant non-thinking conservative would admit that everything ALWAYS stays the same. But things relaly only change gradually, as Imran states. THings gradually come to a head. Therefore, change needs to be gradual, well thought out and planned- lest a revolution occur and their be mass death, etc. upheaval and unrest that will lead to the starvation of millions (eg: Russia prior to Lenin's NewEconomicPolicy, the French Revolution, failed utopian socialist experiments)

Conservatives realize that due to ecological changes and the changes inherent in human psychology (induced by wars, etc) that some things will change- but most things stay the same, and therefore time tested methods do apply.

Liberals are more radical in their approach for change, believing that changes should be pursued strongly- and sought after.

Conservatives deal with change, they don't seek it out. They will respond to it, but only change under pressure.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Agathon

And there can never be equality.

This is irrelevant. There can never be a zero murder rate, but we try to lower it nonetheless. It's generally considered ridiculous to abandon a goal because you can't achieve perfection.

Yes, but in attempting to lower it, you might cause other problems. You don't realize the principle of cause and effect. Just becuase you might raise the minimum wage, doesn't mean that you're going to improve people's earning power- I mean, there's a little thing called inflation at work here

Conservatives deal in practical proven data and experiences that they know work! And which will ensure the functioning of the government/society.

They do not. They are quite prepared in practice to allow for radical change like the destruction of entrenched institutions like the welfare state.

1.) The US never had a welfare state.
2.) Welfare, etc. started in the 1930s under the Great Depression, I'd hardly call it absolutely entrenched.
3.) Destruction? No. Conservatives merely want people to be self-sufficient. and it seems that many Democrats agreed as Bill Clinton himself signed the Amazing Welfare Reform Act of 1996 into law.

Liberals deal with unproven new ideas which they think can solve old problems and perhaps completely reform/remake government/society.

Again, this is not true. Both conservatives and liberals deal in both proven and unproven ideas.

I disagree.
What unproven ideas have true conservatives advocated.

Bush's foreign policy is NOT a reasonable explanation- bush is NOT a conservative at least on that policy.

[DarkCloud]

Ned

Imran, your point is well taken. I prefer to define the axes and state where I see myself and where I see fascism, communism, socialism, etc. Conservatism is somewhat understood in the US, which is why we all have to say that we are, for example, economic conservatives but social liberals, to further define ourselves precisely.

Darkcloud raised another interesting point: how active a foreign policy one has or desires in another axes. Thus one can be an economic conservative, social liberal, favor democracy (a given for most Americans) over statism, and favor an activist (liberal) foreign policy. That fairly well describes me.

Interesting post there.
Makes a good idea for improvements to the politicalcompass.org 4 way-chart.

Social Issues
Economic Issues
Foreign-Policy Issues

appear to be the main issues of divergence for most people on conservativism v. liberalism.

Personally I consider myself a:
Social Liberal
Economic Conservative
Foreign Policy Conservative

In contrast to yourself Ned, I believe that although Democracies MAY be IN THE LONG RUN best for people ,that dictatorships can indeed prove beneficial to the nations and people- examples of this nature would be Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, Josip Broz [Tito] in Yugoslavia, and Gamal Nasser in Egypt (to a lesser degree).

Tito kept the many differing ethnicities from fighting in Yugoslavia, preserving life and creating a modern, functioning nation. After democracy entered into the Balkans, strife returned.

As for Economic Conservativism- I support, quite openly, any administration that supports the interests of the nation where I reside (at this time America) however, I acknowledge that Socially Repressive nations such as Saudi Arabia may implode at some time, and would hope that they pursue some progressive solutions. However, it must be noted, in teh case of the Saudis that any democracy will quickly become theocratic and hostile to the Untied States because of Wahabbi influences. Thus the issue is a difficult one.

As a side note, perhaps off-topic, I recently had this suggestion made to me- has there ever been a Democratic Socialist state extant? I mean, a state where the nation doesn't necessarily practice Social Welfare policies to the extreme such as the Scandinavian nations or France or Germany, but where the state owns the major businesses and yet allows free elections?

Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and nowadays Communist China come the closest to this plan.

Despite being a conservative uber-freemarket capitalist, I have to say that the model seems promising- as China's massive economic growth demonstrates. Hoewver, Germany despite following the buisness policies, had a rotten core at the heart of its economic growth- and therefore China may as well due to rising inflation, and an overheated economy. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

[Agathon]

But Agathon- what works- WORKS. That's why Conservativism Works. Unless things radically change in the world, Conservativism will ALWAYS be the best answer. It is time tested, and proven... as winston churchhill said "by the time a man is old, if he is not a conservative, he has no brain."

No it won't things are changing all the time. Some laws from 20 years ago don't work now. The economic policies of 30 years ago don't work now.

But that's besides the point. Policies are debated on their merits, not because they are what we happen to be doing. To say its the best way because we are now doing it that way is the daftest thing I've ever heard.

If anyone is a conservative they have no brain – it doesn't make any sense.

It's not really crazy. It worked in the past. Therefore, there is a high probability that it will work in the future.

That's a lousy reason. Better to ask why it worked in the past, rather than repeating, slack-jawed, "we always done it that way, ain't we?"

Conservativism as you describe it is just an excuse for not thinking. And your description is wrong anyway, self styled conservatives are quite prepared to engage in radical change when it suits them.

Well, of course it's a good idea to consider things merit by merit- only an ignorant non-thinking conservative would admit that everything ALWAYS stays the same. But things relaly only change gradually, as Imran states. THings gradually come to a head.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. One has to apply reason to each case.

Therefore, change needs to be gradual, well thought out and planned- lest a revolution occur and their be mass death, etc. upheaval and unrest that will lead to the starvation of millions (eg: Russia prior to Lenin's NewEconomicPolicy, the French Revolution, failed utopian socialist experiments)

This doesn't follow. One can easily object that those policies were enacted too swiftly, but it's plainly insane to generalize that to all policies.

What you really want to say is that we should change slowly when that's the right thing to do and more quickly when that is the best thing to do. But everyone believes that – it's just common sense.

Conservatives realize that due to ecological changes and the changes inherent in human psychology (induced by wars, etc) that some things will change- but most things stay the same, and therefore time tested methods do apply.

The problem is that they don't. This might have been a viable proposition 200 years ago or in some mediaeval village knee-deep in cow dung, but with the pace of change we now enjoy it's completely ridiculous.

Liberals are more radical in their approach for change, believing that changes should be pursued strongly- and sought after.

No they aren't. Liberals want to make some changes, but not others. But their reasoning is not that they want change for the sake of change. Besides, it is conservatives over the last 25 years who have been busy with radical monetary and welfare reforms, not Liberals.

Conservatives deal with change, they don't seek it out. They will respond to it, but only change under pressure.

That's a blatantly false statement. One only has to look at the antics of the last three Republican administrations to know that's not true.

1.) The US never had a welfare state.

Bull****. What do you call Social Security, et al.

2.) Welfare, etc. started in the 1930s under the Great Depression, I'd hardly call it absolutely entrenched.

Come on!!! Most people alive now weren't even born then. If we've lived our whole lives with it, I'd call it entrenched.

3.) Destruction? No. Conservatives merely want people to be self-sufficient. and it seems that many Democrats agreed as Bill Clinton himself signed the Amazing Welfare Reform Act of 1996 into law.

They do not. Corporate Welfare anyone? They want poor people to be "self sufficient" but they don't want it for themselves.

Liberals deal with unproven new ideas which they think can solve old problems and perhaps completely reform/remake government/society.

Whereas conservatives deal with old discredited ideas like completely free markets and deregulation, abstinence programs, religion, etc.

You must be joking....

What unproven ideas have true conservatives advocated.

Energy deregulation, mass privatizations, abstinence programs, various market reforms, welfare to work, monetarism, school vouchers, etc. etc.

Jesus Christ...

[Agathon]

Y'know DarkCloud... here's what conservatives are like.

Lubbock, Texas has an abstinence only sex education program. This is enforced by the extremely conservative Lubbock community who do everything they can to prevent high school kids receiving proper sex education, abstinence pledges are common.

Yet, if you look down a high school corridor you'll see girl after girl with a bun in the oven. For some reason (I wonder what) it appears that the abstinence campaign just isn't working. It's either that or the Lord has been having his way with the girls of Lubbock, but my money's on less divine beings as the causes of these pregnancies.

So what do the good people of Lubbock do? Nothing. They keep the abstinence program. They pretend everything is alright, even though the teen pregnancy rate continues to rise – even when the school principal responsible for the program (and a staunch conservative advocate of the program) is fired for having a woman strip and **** him in his school office. The whole town is seething with hypocrisy, yet conservative values are professed by all.

And people think Liberals are wackjobs? These people need to be beaten with sticks.

[MrFun]

Too many conservatives also have a blatant disrespect for the US Constitution by advocating a new amendment that would legalize discrimination against a minority group.

[Kidlicious]

Don't forget trickle down economics.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Agathon

But Agathon- what works- WORKS. That's why Conservativism Works. Unless things radically change in the world, Conservativism will ALWAYS be the best answer. It is time tested, and proven... as winston churchhill said "by the time a man is old, if he is not a conservative, he has no brain."

No it won't things are changing all the time. Some laws from 20 years ago don't work now. The economic policies of 30 years ago don't work now.

The problem is that the laws should still work. IT's only when other things such as economic policies change that the laws need to change.

The law is the law is the law. What's right is right. That's the way that conservatives see it. And frankly, that's the best way to look at it.

Personally though, I'm for changing the law- but only because it was badly written in the first place. But then again, I NEVER claim to be a social conservative. I'm a social liberal. I personally don't believe in good or bad. I believe in what pragmatically works I don't care if something is 'inherently' evil or not.

But that's besides the point. Policies are debated on their merits, not because they are what we happen to be doing. To say its the best way because we are now doing it that way is the daftest thing I've ever heard.

Conservatives never say that- they say that it's more likely to be right than wrong because it didn't destroy society when it was implemented. It has a track record. New ideas most certainly DO NOT.

If anyone is a conservative they have no brain – it doesn't make any sense.

Says the man who supports the policies that led to Nazism, Communism, and everything else that's good and bad under the sun

If everyone was conservative- adam and eve would never been tossed from the garden- they would have known better than to challenge the status quo

Personally I'm glad that they got tossed in that allegorical tale because once again, I'm a social liberal, and believe in dynamically changing socieites based upon shared experiences and couldn't care less what's universally 'right' or 'wrong.'

It's not really crazy. It worked in the past. Therefore, there is a high probability that it will work in the future.

That's a lousy reason. Better to ask why it worked in the past, rather than repeating, slack-jawed, "we always done it that way, ain't we?"

Conservativism as you describe it is just an excuse for not thinking. And your description is wrong anyway, self styled conservatives are quite prepared to engage in radical change when it suits them.

THose people aren't real conservatives- they've appropriated the term and are misusing it.

And no, it's not an excuse for not thinking. Admittedly it isn't as creative as liberalism, but it's also not likely to lead to the self-implosion of a society either.

And frankly the definition I give is THE definition of Conservativism.

Therefore, change needs to be gradual, well thought out and planned- lest a revolution occur and their be mass death, etc. upheaval and unrest that will lead to the starvation of millions (eg: Russia prior to Lenin's NewEconomicPolicy, the French Revolution, failed utopian socialist experiments)

This doesn't follow. One can easily object that those policies were enacted too swiftly, but it's plainly insane to generalize that to all policies.

What you really want to say is that we should change slowly when that's the right thing to do and more quickly when that is the best thing to do. But everyone believes that – it's just common sense.

Actually I stated that Conservatives believe that people should change more slowly almost all the time, making plans for contingencies, etc, as Imran stated (I believe).

And also I did not generalize that all liberal experiments were bad- it's just that they bring change and change brings upset and if change's full effects are not planned for, the results can, and often are, disastrous, or have to be dealt with through excessive expenditures of capital to right wrongs.

Conservatives realize that due to ecological changes and the changes inherent in human psychology (induced by wars, etc) that some things will change- but most things stay the same, and therefore time tested methods do apply.

The problem is that they don't. This might have been a viable proposition 200 years ago or in some mediaeval village knee-deep in cow dung, but with the pace of change we now enjoy it's completely ridiculous.

Whatever...

Conservatives may not always realize that technology changes the paradigm, or adapt to it quickly enough, but human nature is human nature nad things like murder, adultery, etc. aren't going to change just because of technological advances. It's always going to be more prudent to condemn them than to not.

Liberals are more radical in their approach for change, believing that changes should be pursued strongly- and sought after.

No they aren't. Liberals want to make some changes, but not others. But their reasoning is not that they want change for the sake of change. Besides, it is conservatives over the last 25 years who have been busy with radical monetary and welfare reforms, not Liberals.

Last 25 years perhaps- but in actualilty those conservative reforms are reactionary- not liberal or conservative.

They want to reduce welfare- that's pre 1930's.
They want to do supply-side, that hearkens back to mercantilism (eh, it's a stretch, but I'll put it out there)

They don't like Keynes' theories. Keynes was a liberal. His theories in the 1930s were untested.

Conservatives deal with change, they don't seek it out. They will respond to it, but only change under pressure.

That's a blatantly false statement. One only has to look at the antics of the last three Republican administrations to know that's not true.

Once again, Bush Jr. is NOT a conservative.
Bush Sr... can't say too much about him, don't remember him too well.
Reagan... a true conservative from what I remember.

1.) The US never had a welfare state.

Bull****. What do you call Social Security, et al.

Actually, All you say is BS. I'm sure most european posters here, or any canadian will agree that their economies are amazingly more socialist than the americans. Social Security isn't a big deal. It's not like in France or Gemrany where people are paid well to be unemployed. (remember the Rolf John incident around decembertime right before Germany reformed its Unemployment policies?)

With the rise of Medicare, some argument can be made that the US is moving TOWARD a welfare state, but it most certinaly is NOT A WELFARE STATE.

Sweden has 70-80% tax rates. The highest the us has is 30-50% at the HIGHEST for individuals.

2.) Welfare, etc. started in the 1930s under the Great Depression, I'd hardly call it absolutely entrenched.

Come on!!! Most people alive now weren't even born then. If we've lived our whole lives with it, I'd call it entrenched.

Okay, then call welfare reform reactionary, but it's certainly not liberal.

3.) Destruction? No. Conservatives merely want people to be self-sufficient. and it seems that many Democrats agreed as Bill Clinton himself signed the Amazing Welfare Reform Act of 1996 into law.

They do not. Corporate Welfare anyone? They want poor people to be "self sufficient" but they don't want it for themselves.

Could you perhaps explain this further? Corporate WElfare, to what degree and in what instances? The Double-taxing of dividends discount benefitted taxpayers much more than large businesses.

Liberals deal with unproven new ideas which they think can solve old problems and perhaps completely reform/remake government/society.

Whereas conservatives deal with old discredited ideas like completely free markets and deregulation, abstinence programs, religion, etc.

You must be joking....

Free Markets- that's an old idea that isn't discredited.
Dereglation- neither has that one
Abstinence Programs- debatable.
Religion- not discredited. disputable but not discredited.

What unproven ideas have true conservatives advocated.

Energy deregulation, mass privatizations, abstinence programs, various market reforms, welfare to work, monetarism, school vouchers, etc. etc.

Jesus Christ...

Uproven Ideas-

Energy Deregulation- other industries weren't regulated, so why should energy be regulated?
The reason California had a problem was because of idiotic liberal policies forbidding the construction of new power plants and byzantine laws for the commissioningof new ones- therefore they can't exploit their energy and have to buy it from afar.

Privatizations of Social SEcurity- okay, that's a new program. A quite liberal one. REPUBLICANS support it- not conservatives.

Abstinence Programs- a moral traditionalist program. Not necessarily a conservative one.

Market Reforms- toward free market- a classical tested idea.

School Vouchers- admittedly a liberal idea- one that I like!

Welfare to work- another liberal idea- and a good one

I think you're confusing the republican party with conservatives- they're not synonomous

[DarkCloud]

Don't forget trickle down economics.

It works, dammit.

Y'know DarkCloud... here's what conservatives are like.

Lubbock, Texas has an abstinence only sex education program. This is enforced by the extremely conservative Lubbock community who do everything they can to prevent high school kids receiving proper sex education, abstinence pledges are common.

Yet, if you look down a high school corridor you'll see girl after girl with a bun in the oven. For some reason (I wonder what) it appears that the abstinence campaign just isn't working. It's either that or the Lord has been having his way with the girls of Lubbock, but my money's on less divine beings as the causes of these pregnancies.

So what do the good people of Lubbock do? Nothing. They keep the abstinence program. They pretend everything is alright, even though the teen pregnancy rate continues to rise – even when the school principal responsible for the program (and a staunch conservative advocate of the program) is fired for having a woman strip and **** him in his school office. The whole town is seething with hypocrisy, yet conservative values are professed by all.

And people think Liberals are wackjobs? These people need to be beaten with sticks.

Don't blame me, that's theocons.

True conservatives would realize that X isn't working and step up enforcement- enforcing the death penalty or imposing harsh jail sentences.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

It works, dammit.

Oh please tell me you are joking. You just blew any credibility you had.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

The problem is that the laws should still work. IT's only when other things such as economic policies change that the laws need to change.

That is patently absurd. It's been a long time since I've seen someone so obviously ignore reality. There are all sorts of things that change extremely quickly. Information technology is one reason why this has accelerated. The introduction of effective and cheap contraception in the 20th century was another.

Humanity simply has no time for people who want us to wait and wallow in tradition. New problems are appearing all the time – problems that demand new solutions, which in turn create new problems. Relying on tradition will in many cases get us nowhere, and relying blindly on tradition will most likely lead to disaster. The example of sex education in my previous post is a particularly egregious example of the conservative mentality – you guys are like King Canute trying to stop the tide.

The law is the law is the law. What's right is right. That's the way that conservatives see it. And frankly, that's the best way to look at it.

It's revealing that you claim this is the way that conservatives look at it when you have just proposed two tautologies. FYI a tautology is a statement that conveys no new or useful information. Laws are in constant need of reform because the world is changing all the time. Sometimes it is better to engage in mild reform, sometimes more extreme measures are required, and sometimes we have to take risks. An ideology which attempts to hamper us by an unexamined worship of tradition is of little or no use in solving the practical problems that human communities face.

Personally though, I'm for changing the law- but only because it was badly written in the first place. But then again, I NEVER claim to be a social conservative. I'm a social liberal. I personally don't believe in good or bad. I believe in what pragmatically works I don't care if something is 'inherently' evil or not.

Well this contradicts your earlier statement. I can't see any reasonable distinction between being a social and ecnomic conservative or liberal anyway. Social issues and economic issues are too intertwined to make for a clean distinction.

In any case, if you believe that something works, then you believe that we must attempt to always do what works, and this sometimes involves changing things and taking risks. The metric by which we plan such changes is just using the familar cost benefit, opportunity cost, concepts, etc. by which human beings plan things. There is nothing especially conservative about that, and it would be ridiculous to prejudge any particular issue by just dogmatically asserting that the old ways are the best.

Conservatives never say that- they say that it's more likely to be right than wrong because it didn't destroy society when it was implemented. It has a track record. New ideas most certainly DO NOT.

Again, that is irrelevant. If a social more works in 1950, there is no reason to think that the same more will work in 1990. People change, culture changes and society's expectations change.

To say that it is the best choice because it worked in the past is to implicitly ignore the possibility that we can and often must make educated guesses about how to solve new problems, and that we should consider ideas on their own merits not on their longevity or traditional stature. Slavery and witch burnings are good examples of traditions that were absolutely repugnant, yet your version of conservatism would have us refrain from abolishing them or at least slow down the process.

There is nothing sacrosanct about a tradition. Just because it is a tradition does not in any way prevent us from attacking it on its own merits. Nor is their any set pace by which change is best effected. Sometimes it is better done slowly, sometimes quickly, but there is no hard and fast rule for every case – that's just life.

Says the man who supports the policies that led to Nazism, Communism, and everything else that's good and bad under the sun

But I'm not the one offering up absurdities, platitudes or tautologies as a political ideology.You have not provided one decent response to my argument. Instead you have simply repeated your original claim.

Again, why does it make better sense to say that we must always prefer tradition instead of dealing with each issue on its own merits. You can't say that it has always been better that way, because it hasn't. Sometimes rapid changes have made things better, sometimes slower ones and vice versa.

Personally I'm glad that they got tossed in that allegorical tale because once again, I'm a social liberal, and believe in dynamically changing socieites based upon shared experiences and couldn't care less what's universally 'right' or 'wrong.'

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

THose people aren't real conservatives- they've appropriated the term and are misusing it.

They're the vast majority of conservatives including almost the entire Republican Party. I can't think of more than a couple of people who declare themselves conservatives who didn't support the whole reforms nonsense of the 1980s.

And no, it's not an excuse for not thinking. Admittedly it isn't as creative as liberalism, but it's also not likely to lead to the self-implosion of a society either.

You are ignoring the same problem once more. You say that it is not likely to lead to the self implosion of a society. That is a completely unfounded generalization which is completely at odds with recent historical experience. Sticking to tradition in the dynamic age we live in is far more likely to be a recipe for disaster, as the attitude of conservatives towards sex and marriage shows.

And frankly the definition I give is THE definition of Conservativism.

And if it is, it exposes the intellectual poverty and sheer absurdity of the position.

Actually I stated that Conservatives believe that people should change more slowly almost all the time, making plans for contingencies, etc, as Imran stated (I believe).

But that's the problem. It's a ridiculous rule to operate by. It is far more rational to take each case on its own merits. The Liberal will say we must change slowly when our best guess is that this will be more beneficial and more quickly when our best guess is that that will be more beneficial – we must be open to either possibility.

Now either the conservative agrees with the liberal on this, or he is forced into the absurd position of stating that it is better to change slowly no matter what our best guess is.

So either conservatism is daft, or it is no different from liberalism or to tell the truth, common sense.

And also I did not generalize that all liberal experiments were bad- it's just that they bring change and change brings upset and if change's full effects are not planned for, the results can, and often are, disastrous, or have to be dealt with through excessive expenditures of capital to right wrongs.

But that's life. What you are ignoring is the price of not changing. Sometimes that can bring on equally disastrous consequences. It is simply ridiculous to prejudge the matter or make a useless generalization about it. Even if it did turn out that slower change was generally better, that would not mean that we should adopt that as our principle, We would still be better to decide each case on its own merits, even if it turned out that we decided for gradual change in a majority of cases.

Conservatives may not always realize that technology changes the paradigm, or adapt to it quickly enough, but human nature is human nature nad things like murder, adultery, etc. aren't going to change just because of technological advances. It's always going to be more prudent to condemn them than to not.

The problem with this view is that it is simply false. People have changed a great deal in only the last 500 years. If you want proof, just look at the history of table manners or of the history of punishments handed out for crime (very severe just over 200 years ago). We are a considerably better mannered and more law abiding race than we were even 250 years ago. We know that crime rates vary, which tells us that social and ecnomic circumstances rather than human nature have a lot to do with crime.

People used to think that women were naturally subservient and that they could not perform complex mental operations. Yes, people believed that this was natural and such beliefs reinforced a social order that most people, including women, took to be natural. Human nature, as it is used in political discourse, is no such thing – it is largely a social construct depending on the beliefs of the day. For example, since Freud most people believe that they have an unconcious mind. George Washington would have found this to be an absurd proposition, yet it comes quite naturally to us as does a lot of Freudspeak – one only has to watch a talk show to know that it is true.

Last 25 years perhaps- but in actualilty those conservative reforms are reactionary- not liberal or conservative.

They want to reduce welfare- that's pre 1930's.
They want to do supply-side, that hearkens back to mercantilism (eh, it's a stretch, but I'll put it out there).

Which was such a magnificent success that it resulted in the Great Depression. In fact they are keen on dismantling things like social security that people are used to and which have been proven over and over again to be the most effficient solutions to many of the problems we face. They wish to replace these with market driven institutions which are unproven.

They don't like Keynes' theories. Keynes was a liberal. His theories in the 1930s were untested.

But they worked. The post war period was the greatest period of sustained economic development in history. Living standards in all developed countries rose.

But the truth is that they don't like Keynes or welfare because it doesn't suit their class interest. They may drag some poor morons with them, but the truth is that they don't like the idea that they might have to sacrifice something so that others might reap a much greater benefit.

Once again, Bush Jr. is NOT a conservative.
Bush Sr... can't say too much about him, don't remember him too well.
Reagan... a true conservative from what I remember.

That's comical. Reagan was a big spending, big government man despite his media image.

Actually, All you say is BS. I'm sure most european posters here, or any canadian will agree that their economies are amazingly more socialist than the americans. Social Security isn't a big deal. It's not like in France or Gemrany where people are paid well to be unemployed. (remember the Rolf John incident around decembertime right before Germany reformed its Unemployment policies?)

That's not my claim. My claim has little to do with the extent of the program and everything to do with the fact that social security is a welfare statist program.

With the rise of Medicare, some argument can be made that the US is moving TOWARD a welfare state, but it most certinaly is NOT A WELFARE STATE.

It is, it just isn't as extreme as Germany. Neither is Canada, but all Western countries are versions of welfare liberalism. All have mixed economies and some form of the welfare state. Even the US.

Sweden has 70-80% tax rates. The highest the us has is 30-50% at the HIGHEST for individuals.

That doesn't matter. Welfare statism is not a matter of degree, it is a kind of economic system in which public spending replaces the private market for the provision of social welfare in some areas of the economy. That is what social security is.

Okay, then call welfare reform reactionary, but it's certainly not liberal.

No. It is in fact conservative - real conservatism - which means the protection and extension of interests of the wealthy and property owning classes.

Could you perhaps explain this further? Corporate WElfare, to what degree and in what instances? The Double-taxing of dividends discount benefitted taxpayers much more than large businesses.

Corporate Welfare is when public monies are used to purchase things like ridiculous military hardware that will never be used, for the simple reason of keeping Boeing et al. in existence, or when massive tax breaks are given to corporations (i.e. shareholders) at the public expense, or when really rich people have trust funds that aren't taxed and never pay any tax.

And don't start with that double taxing nonsense. People may be subject to more than one tax for reasons of efficiency. For example smokers pay tax on cigarettes and on their incomes. There's nothing weird about this and it may in many cases make more sense than simply raising one tax to the exclusion of all others.

Free Markets- that's an old idea that isn't discredited.

It has been handily discredited. Most economists worth the name will inform you that markets fail to deal with certain problems. There's a whole branch of economics about market failures – you should read up on it before you respond.

Dereglation- neither has that one

In the sense of the mindless deregulations undergone in the 1980s it sure has been discredited. These cretins thought that the market would magically fix things and make them run more efficiently. You should have been a New Zealand customer of an electricity utility in the 1990s. Deregulation meant: higher prices; power shortages; the main economic center of our major city being without power for six weeks, and other assorted crap.

In that case deregulation meant less reliable power, worse service and higher prices. Look at British Rail for another example. I would never have believed that people would pine for the old British Rail instead of the private services, but they did.

Or take the best case: Russia. After communism, idiot westerners told the Russians to do nothing and that markets would magically arise and solve all their problems. Well the mafia arose...

Abstinence Programs- debatable.

Don't be ridiculous. These are a miserable failure and everyone knows it.

Religion- not discredited. disputable but not discredited.

Gone. 200 years ago people in universities would have taken scriptural authority seriously in almost every debate. No-one does any more.

[a]Energy Deregulation- other industries weren't regulated, so why should energy be regulated?

Because its the sort of thing that is cheaper and more efficient that way.

The reason California had a problem was because of idiotic liberal policies forbidding the construction of new power plants and byzantine laws for the commissioningof new ones- therefore they can't exploit their energy and have to buy it from afar.

I'm not going to get into that case, but our experience in NZ was much more obviously a failure of deregulation.

Privatizations of Social SEcurity- okay, that's a new program. A quite liberal one. REPUBLICANS support it- not conservatives.

Republicans, not conservatives. I'll have to find room for that in my sig.

Abstinence Programs- a moral traditionalist program. Not necessarily a conservative one.

Conservatives = moral traditionalists.

Market Reforms- toward free market- a classical tested idea.

By the great depression, the South Seas Bubble, etc.

School Vouchers- admittedly a liberal idea- one that I like!

A failure when we tried it (we called it school choice - same thing. Didn't work).

Welfare to work- another liberal idea- and a good one

No. A stupid idea that either spends more money and produces no more jobs, or spends the same amount of money and results in increased poverty and its associated social problems.

I think you're confusing the republican party with conservatives- they're not synonomous

Your whole political program is based on stereotypical and false beliefs. It's quite sad. The fact that you want to deny that the Republicans are conservatives speaks volumes.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Free market ain't always a right wing position. There is a reason the original capitalists (Adam Smith, etc) were called liberals. They were considered to be on the left wing.

The classical liberal is different to the modern US liberal.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

As for WWI, you must be correct in saying that Japan acted completely on its own intiative, with no input from the British. Why else would the Japanese navy be protecting British interests in Singapore during the war?


I'd go on, but it's time for bed here...

Except of course that's not what I actually said, is it ?

'The Japanese went to war against the German colonies in China and the Pacific on their own initiative- John Keegan in his book on WWI calls it a 'liberal interpretation' of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty.'

That's what I said.

Yes, British Empire troops did fight alongside the Japanese against the German forces in China- presumably that's what an Anglo-Japanese Treaty provides for, once war has been declared and there is a common enemy.

I haven't denied that the British were at war with Imperial Germany, but what I have said is that Japan took advantage of the situation to acquire land and resources overseas.

Not quite the same thing as Ned saying that Great Britain is reponsible for the enmity between Japan and China.

On 16 August 1914, one week before the formal Japanese declaration of war with Germany, General Mitsuomi Kamio was ordered by the Japanese government to make ready for a siege of German-controlled Tsingtao.

" Japanese Prime Minister Count Okuma's Ultimatum to Germany, 15 August 1914

We consider it highly important and necessary in the present situation to take measures to remove the causes of all disturbance of peace in the Far East, and to safeguard general interests as contemplated in the Agreement of Alliance between Japan and Great Britain.

In order to secure firm and enduring peace in Eastern Asia, the establishment of which is the aim of the said Agreement, the Imperial Japanese Government sincerely believes it to be its duty to give advice to the Imperial German Government to carry out the following two propositions:

(1) Withdraw immediately from Japanese and Chinese waters the German men-o'-war and armed vessels of all kinds, and to disarm at once those which cannot be withdrawn.

(2) To deliver on a date not later than September 15th, to the Imperial Japanese authorities, without condition or compensation, the entire leased territory of Kiao-chau, with a view to the eventual restoration of the same to China.

The Imperial Japanese Government announces at the same time that in the event of its not receiving, by noon on August 23rd, an answer from the Imperial German Government signifying unconditional acceptance of the above advice offered by the Imperial Japanese Government, Japan will be compelled to take such action as it may deem necessary to meet the situation. "

from: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. III, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923


As for Japanese ships in the Mediterranean- well, Austria-Hungary was Germany's ally, Austria-Hungary had broken off diplomatic relations with Japan, Austria-Hungary had a military presence in the Far East (the warship Kaiserin Elizabeth) and commercial interests in China.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, there are bombs and there are fuses. Britain lit the fuses.

Feel free to buttress the tottering outhouse of your assertion with a few facts, Ned.

So far you've been on what appears to be an information fast.

[Ramo]

The classical liberal is different to the modern US liberal.

Imran's point's that Smith was to the left of someone like Burke.