10 most rightist posters on poly

[DarkCloud]

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.

I believe the examples of a successful private-account-managed program would be 'chile??" I think that's it. I know that at least one nation has successfuly attempted the Bush's plan for social security reform. Which, indeed, is a liberal plan

once again proving that Bush is not a conservative on economic policies.

and also demonstrating that while he may practice so-called 'moral conservativism' he is very open to disproving your statmeent that one can not be a social conservative/economic liberal since he is indeed an economic liberal in the sense that he seeks change and revision.

The lovable democrats, however, are standing in the way of change, arguing that these accounts will not work- they are being... shall we dare say it? Oh, yes we shall- CONSERVATIVES.

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.

Class interest? How so? In any greater degree than the Democrats?

The entire American legislature is composed of millionaires.

However, Tom Delay (3rd most powerful Repblican) was an exterminator before he made it into the house- talk about rags to riches... and he's a republican.

Meanwhile- John Kerry (rich rich rich.)

As for class interests- i would argue that would ONLY happen as an accident of one OBVIOUS thing.

1.) BUsinesses contribute money
2.) Richer people vote.

3.) poorer people dont' contribute money or pay attention to politics becasu they dont think that it concerns them.
4.) poorer people don't vote.

Why create programs for people who don't vote in the first place? They're the dregs of society, unuseful to anyone. They basically coudl be argued as to have NO OPINION because they certainly aren't voicing it in a democratic way.

quote:
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.

Yes, the US does practice some form of 'welfare,' as I earlier pointed out. But the US is not a welfare state. It gives out much less welfare than any other nation. You didn't disprove my point.

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

Once again, talk about the fallacy of persuasive definition. tsk. tsk. tsk.

I'm sure that the people advocating against same sexmarriage are protecting the interests of the wealthy. Gay unions could treaten to undermine economic security - oh my! Let's all string up EvC and red Jon and starchild before they start destroying the US. (after immigrating there, in the latter two's cases)!

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

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

And then of course 'disinflation' means nothing to you? the recession of the 70s, the discrediting and revision of many of Keynes theories (with looks back to the old way of doing things) and the rise of the New Economics?

The fact that you want to deny that the Republicans are conservatives speaks volumes.

Once again, as already argued- just because Bush misrepresents himself as being a conservative doesn't mean that he is one.

[DarkCloud]

THERE!

done

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Another note that should be restated, since you seem to have lost track of it agathon- enlightened conservatives aren't for tradition for tradition's sake- they're for tradition because tradition WORKS. There is no need to twist the words that I am saying and misinterpret, then attack that misinterpretation. The fallacy of persuasive definition will not serve you well in this debate.

I'm not twisting your definition at all.

"Conservatives are for tradition because it works."

That statement can I suppose be taken two ways, one is uncontroversial, but has the unfortunate consequence of not being unique to conservatism – the other is manifestly false.

(1) If conservatives are for tradition because it works, then either they believe it always works, or that it works only sometimes or most of the time.

(2) If conservatives believe tradition always works, then they are insane and can be dispensed with.

(3) On the other hand, if they believe that it works some or most of the time then they admit that tradition is not a universal guide to what to do.

(4) If conservatives admit (3) then what they are really interested in is what works, whether or not it is traditional. But that just makes them the same as everyone else, including Liberals, who are just interested in what works.

(5) Conservatives might admit that tradition is not a universally correct guide to what works, but try to argue that we must follow it anyway because it is more likely to be right.

(6) But (5) is obviously stupid because it is more effective to examine each policy purely on its own merits. A conservative who wants to argue that we should follow tradition is placing himself in the ridiculous position of denying that we should examine ideas based on their own merits, even though he admits that tradition can go wrong. This is like calling for voluntary stupidity.

(7) But a conservative could claim that (6) is ridiculous, but that it turns out that if we do the sensible thing and examine each idea based on its own merits, it turns out that tradition is right more often than not.

(8) I'm quite prepared to accept that (7) might be the case, but it will not save conservatism for the simple reason that it admits that tradition is no longer a guide to right action.

[b]What does this mean? It means that a political principle is supposed to be a guide to action. A socialist principle would be equality of condition – it thereby states a goal for socialist policies. The libertarian political principle is liberty – it states a goal for the libertarian policy. But the conservative principle of following tradition doesn't work for the following reasons: (A) If we follow it blindly, we end up doing dumb things; (B) If we instead evaluate each policy on its own merits, we have abandoned tradition as a guide; (C) even if it turns out that evaluating policies on their own merits leads to following tradition more often than not, tradition is no longer a guide to our actions, but just consistent with them.[/q]

That's why conservatism as you read it is silly. Either it is just the same as liberalism (doing what works) or it is useless as a guide to practical action.

That's my argument. It is not that tradition might not be right most of the time, but that even if it is, it is of little or no use as a guide to policy. My argument is aimed at the conservative principle as a guide to action, and I think I have shown that it fails miserably in that respect because it is absurd as a guide to action.

Essentially, the form of conservatism you advocate is a version of the precautionary principle, and that has been disproven using similar reasoning.

This argument is not directed against particular conservative policies (like school vouchers), rather it is a dagger aimed at the central claim of the theory – a claim that turns out upon examination to be trivial (do what works) or completely stupid (abandon reason and follow tradition). The conservative principle is too vague to be of any real use.

Until you rid yourself of this confusion, you are doomed to make the same error again and again.

Laws are more in need of reform becuase it is near-impossible for human beings to anticipate every single situation that may arise before the law[..].

This doesn't make sense. Laws are in need of reform when they don't work well. It may be true that it is near impossible for human beings to anticipate every possible situation, but we aren't helpless – we get it right most of the time.

Therefore, laws need to be reformed not becuase they are bad- but because they were not correctly written the first time.

You appear to be contradicting yourself here. What does "not correctly written" mean, such that it requires reform? Does it mean that they have bad consequences and are ergo bad?

Conservatives are required to agree with the laws' principles... they don't have to agree with the implementations.

This is a vague and almost meaningless statement. Being required to agree with the law no matter what it says is daft. No-one disputes that you can disagree with the implementation of a law, but it is again voluntary stupidity to hold that you must agree with the law in principle. People make laws, and they sometimes make bad ones.

No. They're not.

As a further personal statement- according to the politicalcompass.org site I was only .14 social conservative and a .28 economic conservative (that was 3 years ago) I figure that I've moved more toward social liberalism since then, though. But none of my economic ideas have changed (to my knowledge) Thus, if you really want- then don't call me an overall conservative- I'm a centrist, more so than most people. Everyone who knows me in real life and has debated with me finds me very disturbing in that: "I never know whether you're going to agree with my ideas or rip them apart- some of the things you say are very common and well-tested ideas, but others- they're out in left field- I don't know when you're going to be a Liberal, a Conservative, a Socialist, a Communist, a Statist, a Fascist, a Republican or a Democrat."

So I'm wrong because an internet survey site told you something.

And yet, my synthesis of these ideas is, as far as I know- logically consistent,[..]

Well it isn't logically inconsistent, but it's inconsistent with the facts (just like believing in flying pigs is not logically inconsistent but inconsistent with the facts).

Economic systems affect social life. Even so-called "conservatives" implicitly agree to this when they complain that equal pay legislation is destroying the family because it gives women more financial independence.

People like to think that they can keep their social values distinct from their economic values, but that is just ignoring the fact that economic reforms can have social consequences and vice versa.

Actually, as terrible as this might sound- I think that it is POSSIBLE that without a civil war, slavery should have been ended by the 1890's-1900's due to intl. pressure and lack of economic benefits. Then, blacks would gradually have been assimilated, and by the 20's/30's have been considered more 'citizen' than they were in our real world. They would have been equal fully by the 40's at the very least and there would have been no need for the civil rights movement, and persecution would have lasted less time. Through a gradual evolution, people would have come to respect each other, etc. and indeed, full equality would have been assured at LEAST 20 years before it truly was.

I'm sorry, this sounds like a dream.

then again- I could be wrong in the above, but slavery would NOT have survived into the 20th century, regardless and I think that If people had orgianicaly assimilated together, then there could have been less strife.

And you would have forced this how? Black people and abolitionists couldn't do it peacefully, what makes you think that they can.

That being said, I'll repeat a disclaimer- i definately do not support slavery.

I'm not claiming you do – I'm claiming that your support for tradition ignores the fact that some traditions are obviously pernicious and ought to not be respected at all. Gradual change is not good enough in these cases, things have to be stopped immediately because the alternative is worse.

Either you haven't been reading closely enough or you failed to state your argument clearly enough.

No it's crystal clear. You just can't yet see the absurdity of your position.

I think you're attacking a strawman here.
Conservatives use traditional procedures to figure out new implementations when new situations arise. If, however, it's an old situation they utilize pre-established statutes...

Which doesn't really distinguish them from everyone else. Everyone else will use pre-established solutions if they are proved to work most efficiently, but they will choose them because they have been proved to work most efficiently, not because they are pre-established.

You're doing it again. You're trying to pretend that tradition has some value just because its tradition. If it has any value it is because it works, and can be determined to do so independently of the fact that it is a tradition. Same logical mistake again...

Imagine for a moment if you will, a legal system based on no precedents... well, that's a non-codified system right there where arguments can just be made in a vaccum and the judge has full discretion. It MIGHT work for a time, but since judges are individuals, they can abuse their power and there will be corruption.

But no-one of any political stripe (even anarchists) is talking about this sort of case, so it is irrelevant.

Admittedly, some regulations are outdated or terrible, but at least they are codified and can be examined or repealed. In a system where rules aren't codified or standardized, then everyone can pretty much do as they please and some people are going to get burned.

Again, this doesn't tell us anything. Perhaps all the rules are so bad that we would be better off starting afresh. On the other hand, perhaps we need radical reform or perhaps we don't. We appeal to reason to determine this, not to the pre-existing rules which we are trying to change, because they can only tell us to obey themselves.

Yes, of course. *sarcasm* I'm sure that if america doesn't legalize gay marriage that there'll be a revolution, etc.

*rolleyes* people lived for years without it. IT didn't destroy society then, it won't destroy society now.

*note: Personally I don't care whether gay marriage is legalized or not. It doesn't affect me, and in my mind, hurts no one. But pragmatically-- legalizing it may upset a good deal of people, leading to further hate crimes, etc, thus legalization should be proceeded with a great deal of caution.

None of this has anything to do with conservatism as you stated it. The question of what the consequences of gay marriage would be should be investigated before the change is made (everyone agrees on that for almost every law), but you can't just throw up "what ifs"; you need to prove that there are substantial risks. There might be substantial benefits to gay marriage which outweigh the risks, but you need to make educated guesses about them too.

I suppose I'm not the only one here who allegedly provides statements without arguments to back them up, statements which are merely personal opinions and not true arguments.

In this case you are because you don't really have an argument that I can see. You just seem to be relying on a version of the discredited precautionary principle.

[Agathon]

So this is your point here?

Your main argument with conservativism is that it is self-contradictory?

I would argue, however, that conservativism states to keep the same policies when the SAME SITUATIONS are at stake, or to utilize the same procedures always when reacting to changes or different situations.

Then your definition is absurd. Every rational person ought to keep the same policies in the same situations with the rider that we keep them if they are the best ones, or if it is too costly to change them to better ones.

A Liberal can accept this.

A liberal would like to revise those procedures, sometimes beneficially, sometimes disastrously (as American education reform has had with its many failed experiements in the past 30 years and declinign reading/math scores, etc)

You are trying to pretend that the Liberal is an equal and opposite to your absurd definition of a conservative. You seem to think that Liberals value change for its own sake.

They don't. They value change only when they have reason to think it works. The reason Liberals think that more change is required isn't because they are addicted to change, but because society fails in many obvious ways to live up to their political goals. After all, you don't see liberals calling for abolition of public pensions or other things that we've had for ages.

There. Is that sufficient for your understanding?

Yeah, it made me giggle alright. You have a bizarre understanding of what a Liberal is. Let's say for the sake of argument that Liberals value equality (which many do). That is their goal -- there's nothing logically absurd about it, since equality is their goal and they can be flexible in the means to achieving it, or in how far it can be achieved.

That's different from people valuing tradition because they think it works. Conservatives, as you define them, are being dogmatic about means rather than ends, and that is silly because the changing world means that the most effective means for achieving an end is changing all the time.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Of course, that's only common sense.

But that's not what the main argument was. The main argument was what a conservative and what a liberal was.

I dispute the fact that a liberal is only for small change, etc.

Liberals, like conservatives may be for small changes- but both groups' definitions of changes are different.

To abolutise each groups postions:

A Conservative ALWAYS wants to stay the same
A Liberal ALWAYS wants to change

would be ludicrous as was already agreed upon. Their attitudes, however is more along the lines that:

A conservative agrees that the same will usually work.
A liberal argues that change may be for the best.

And that, I think, makes sense to all.

No. You are getting it wrong again.

Liberals do not argue that change may be for the best. If we lived in a society that was consistent with Liberal values (e.g. non-racist, non-sexist, relatively egalitarian) no Liberal would want to change. In fact no conservative as you have defined it should want to change

Liberals are determined by their goals, not their attitude towards change.

But having "the same will usually work" as your guide to action is ridiculous for the reasons stated above – it is virtually an oath of stupidity.

[Kuciwalker]

No person who is a Liberal today would want to change. But the people who become Liberals in that society... probably would.

[Agathon]

I believe the examples of a successful private-account-managed program would be 'chile??" I think that's it. I know that at least one nation has successfuly attempted the Bush's plan for social security reform. Which, indeed, is a liberal plan

You mean the usual case that right wingers trot out? This was discredited ages ago.

once again proving that Bush is not a conservative on economic policies.

Give me strength. Private social security accounts a liberal plot?

and also demonstrating that while he may practice so-called 'moral conservativism' he is very open to disproving your statmeent that one can not be a social conservative/economic liberal since he is indeed an economic liberal in the sense that he seeks change and revision.

I've never said that no-one could believe it or try to be one, but only that the integration of social issues with economic policy means that it won't work.

The lovable democrats, however, are standing in the way of change, arguing that these accounts will not work- they are being... shall we dare say it? Oh, yes we shall- CONSERVATIVES.

OK. Why don't we play a game. Dark Cloud decides that words no longer have their accepted meanings.

Class interest? How so? In any greater degree than the Democrats?

The entire American legislature is composed of millionaires.

You may have noticed that most on the Left no longer have any confidence in the Democratic Party.

However, Tom Delay (3rd most powerful Repblican) was an exterminator before he made it into the house- talk about rags to riches... and he's a republican.

One person? Clinton was the son of a handyman IIRC. But DeLay, who is the most corrupt individual in American politics, is a good choice when you want to illustrate the thrift and honest industry of Republican Party members.

Meanwhile- John Kerry (rich rich rich.)

As for class interests- i would argue that would ONLY happen as an accident of one OBVIOUS thing.

1.) BUsinesses contribute money
2.) Richer people vote.

3.) poorer people dont' contribute money or pay attention to politics becasu they dont think that it concerns them.
4.) poorer people don't vote.

Because they know it doesn't make a difference.

Why create programs for people who don't vote in the first place? They're the dregs of society, unuseful to anyone.

You're the dregs of society for having an attitude like that.

They basically coudl be argued as to have NO OPINION because they certainly aren't voicing it in a democratic way.

Well, they have a realistic choice between the pro-business party that pays no attention to them and the other pro-business party that pays no attention to them.

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.

You are changing the meanings of terms to suit yourself.

I'll repeat... 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.

Yes, the US does practice some form of 'welfare,' as I earlier pointed out. But the US is not a welfare state. It gives out much less welfare than any other nation. You didn't disprove my point.

Being a welfare state does not depend on how much you hand out, but whether you do it at all in any significant way, and the US, like all other developed nations, does.

Once again, talk about the fallacy of persuasive definition. tsk. tsk. tsk.

This is called the reality of the obvious fact.

then of course 'disinflation' means nothing to you? the recession of the 70s, the discrediting and revision of many of Keynes theories (with looks back to the old way of doing things) and the rise of the New Economics?

This doesn't help your argument much. If both Keynes and the previous theory were wrong, it would be ****ing moronic to go back to either of them.

Once again, as already argued- just because Bush misrepresents himself as being a conservative doesn't mean that he is one.

But the Republican Party? Give me a break...

You'll have to do better than this.

[Agathon]

No person who is a Liberal today would want to change. But the people who become Liberals in that society... probably would.

This displays a complete ignorance about the meaning of "Liberal". As I said above, liberals are not the equal and opposite idiot to the conservatives.

[Kuciwalker]

Since the meaning of the word Liberal has seemed to change over time, exactly as if my definition was correct...

[Agathon]

Since the meaning of the word Liberal has seemed to change over time, exactly as if my definition was correct...

No.

Poltical Liberalism means something like Mill. In US usage it means centre-left. Liberalism is associated with progressivism and reformism because societies are so illiberal. It wouldn't be associated with reforms if it achieved its goal.

[Alexander's Horse]

there is a theory that political orientation is related to sibling position and rivalry. First children are more conservative because they get authority from the parents.

[Ned]

The point was made that the Republicans have been the party of change since 1994 and the Dems have been the party of the status quo since that date. During the Bush admin, the Dems have put up one hell of a fight to resist change. Under traditional definitions, that makes the Dems "conservative" and the Republicans "liberal" since '94. But to say that would only confuse people, as the Republican Party is associated with

1) lower taxes;
2) freeer markets;
3) private ownership;
4) and generally more conservative social values.

These are all right wing positions.

In addition, the neocons want an activist foreign policy to spread freedom and human rights, and bring aid to the needy. The Dems only seem to support the latter part of the Republican foreign policy agenda. That makes the Republicans liberals on foreign policy as well. They are for change and progress in the world. The Dems are for the status quo.

But, what the Republicans want is to move the world to the "right": to a place of more freedom both politically and economically. The Dems seem to favor dictatorships and what they call "fair" trade, which means protectionism for union jobs in the US.

[Wycoff]

Ned, you forgot 5) Create an obscenely huge national debt...
besides, what do you have against protecting American jobs? I thought you were patriotic.

[Odin]

Ned, the Republicans are reactionaries since they want to turn the clock back regarding economic policiy and "moral values". The "moderate" Republicans like McCain are the true conservatives.

[DarkCloud]

But, what the Republicans want is to move the world to the "right": to a place of more freedom both politically and economically. The Dems seem to favor dictatorships and what they call "fair" trade, which means protectionism for union jobs in the US.

Ned That statement is both intellectually and factually incorrect.

the right has traditionally been associated with dictatorships and repression and control and remaining with the status quo. Pinochet was right, etc.

Whereas Gamal Nasser, Kemal Ataturk and indeed, even Ayatollah Khomeni were popular leaders with the majority of their people. (something bush can only now say after the 2004 election- which is NOT A MANDATE- how the he** can 55-60% of a vote be a mandate- that still means 40% of the nation disliked him!~!!!!

as for favoring dictatorships- answer me this- who is supporting the Saudi 'dictatorship?' who is supporting Musharraf in Pakistan?

Republicans. That's who.

IT's in their interest to support dictators. They're just being pragmatic and hypocritical- and middle easterners realize it- and it's going to come and hurt the US in the future. The US is terrible at PR because its policies in the middle east are so obviously against its stated goals of freedom, etc.

Frankly support for even the Syrian troop withdrawal coudl be argued to be supporting Sunnis versus Shiites since the Alawites control Syria, and they are the 'patriots of Ali', one of the most holy Shiite Saints. Whereas in Lebanon, a nation created by colonialism to protect Marionite Christians, the majority is now Sunni and Christian over the Shiites.

Freedom. Blah. It's all about the money and the defense and the pragmatism.

As for your being against 'fair' trade- consider this: okay, so India produces things for a fraction of the value... hmm... now of course it costs less to live there- but the workers are still starving. They need their wages raised 2 dollars to eat. Only two dollars. But the companies won't rise it. Well, this doesn't bother the US... But when living standards in india rise- then their wages will increase... and then the costs of export will increase... then the cost of oil will rise starting around 2040 as china/india start competing with the US for Russian/Middle Eastern oil... Understand that we are at peak oil right now- the most oil that is available nad that most chinese and indians do not yet have cars.

They will be a huge demand on the international markets.

Well, then the costs of shipping will go up, and production because of higher payments.

And the US will be unable to seek out cheaper markets because nothing will be produced in the United STates...

and all because the Government doesn't practice 'fair' trade... not trade protectionism- but 'fair trade'...

I'm all for Free markets as long as the people producing the goods can survive. I'm not saying they should receive as much as americans, I'm just stating that they should receive maybe 50 cents more or a buck, or something so that the nations that manufacture things cheaper aren't ripping off the united states. as it stands, nations in some places pay their employees the equivalent purchasing power of 10% of a US employee.

Now of course, US employees are overpaid, and the regulations in the USA about pollution, procedures to protect workers from occupational injuries are very high- but still, the US should 'protect' its markets just enough so that they expect other nations to have the same standards.

Now, my rant above may have sounded a little less free market than I really am, but please understand, I believe that MOST nations practice fair trade already, it's just a few companies and a few offending areas, and I'm willing to disregard the environmental damages. All I ask is to protect the workers and pay them reasonable wages.

---
I'll get back to agathon later.