10 most rightist posters on poly

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There hasn't ever been equality.

And that has what to do with my definition? (nothing)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And that has what to do with my definition? (nothing)

You are particularly difficult to reason with today. Therefore I won't try.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No. When Libertarians say they stand for Liberty they at least have a semi-coherent concept of it, even if it doesn't work in the end. When lefties say that they want equality of condition, it is reasonably clear what they mean.

Libertarians and lefties both have absurdities they want us to believe in. Just because they are 'reasonably clear' what they want doesn't mean it ain't absurd. Libtertarian views of natural rights, you can definetly agree, is absurd. It also forms the basis of their beliefs.

The problem with that is that it is a vacuous principle: apart from "destroy the earth" types everyone wants to maintain what works.

You keep saying everyone is for gradual change (a similar point to the one you just made), and so Burkian philosophy is meaningless, that but you are totally wrong.

Take gay marriage for instance. A gradual change means go step by step and go through the legislative bodies instead of the courts. The radical change view is go through the courts and strike down laws preventing gays from getting married.

I don't consider myself to be a conservative because I do believe that gays should have the right to marry as quickly as possible, HOWEVER, I do agree that the transition would be far easier (on a social level) if it was gradual change through the legislature.

The only person on this site I can really think of that actually embraces gradual change in most things is DanS.

Saying you believe in gradual change is totally false.

In a sense this is true. In a sense it is not. If a government is radical and for change, in your opinion, it is leftist. But that would place Nazi Germany at the far left because of its radicalism.

Problem with that is that Nazi Germany evoked the myths and legends of the Germanic past. It's more reactionary than radical. Fascism is an anti-enlightenment philosophy and wants to go back before that.

If conservatism is being wedded to the past only, it is inherently neither left or right if one looks at the relationships of people vs. their government in economic, social and political matters. Just being conservative does not tell me anything about what the proper role of government is in the economy, etc. The past includes the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. It includes both King Charles and Cromwell.

Indeed... though Cromwell doesn't fit the tradition that well since he was deposed and they went to a limited version of what happened before. Breaks in the tradition have some effect, but not full effect.

And your observation is why conservatism means different things in different societies. In the US, conservatives are promoting ideas of the enlightenment such as the free markets and individualism. In Europe, conservatives are the monarchists in some countries.

[Agathon]

Take gay marriage for instance. A gradual change means go step by step and go through the legislative bodies instead of the courts. The radical change view is go through the courts and strike down laws preventing gays from getting married.

You're missing my point.

My point is that valuing tradition in and of itself is absurd. You either value it for some other reason, or the absurdity remains. And if you value it for some other reason it isn't hard to show that it is based on false beliefs.

It is exactly as absurd as desiring change for the sake of change.

A desire for gradual change for its own sake is also silly. It's an open question whether any change should be made slowly or quickly and the answer depends on the merits of each case.

The conservative is just the opposite idiot to the idiot who says "we should just change everything as fast as we can because it's always better to do it fast".

It doesn't make any sense at all. At least the Libertarians have some sort of intelligible moral value at the root of their system.

[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.

[Ned]

Molly, there are bombs and there are fuses. Britain lit the fuses.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ned

Originally posted by Straybow
OK, smartypants, what "right-wing" dictator was in favor of democracy and self-determination???

I'm sorry, but no dictator, right or left, is in favor of democracy. So, what is your point?

No, I was responding to LC saying:

Believe it or not, not all political and economical positions can be placed on the same scalar left-right axis.

The assumption that just because some dictators are anti-Communist they should be assigned to the opposite "wing" is wrong. They are indeed all left-wing, whatever socio-economic model they endorse.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Straybow
The assumption that just because some dictators are anti-Communist they should be assigned to the opposite "wing" is wrong. They are indeed all left-wing, whatever socio-economic model they endorse.

Could you please explain me how Pincohet was left-wing?

[Sandman]

Because he crushed the trade unions and instituted hardcore free-market policies. Duh.

[Straybow]

I believe any actions Pinochet took against trade unions were inspired by anti-Communism, not concerns for open shop rules. Any "free market" policies were intended to line his own pockets and his monied backers.

Leftism and cronyism make frequent bedfellows.

[Imran Siddiqui]

YOU. CAN'T. BE. SERIOUS.

Pinochet, left wing! Mussolini, left wing! Franco, left wing!

Can I have what you are smoking, because you are seriously stoning. Either that, or dropped on your head as a child many times.

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.

[Spiffor]

Imran, you're a filthy Commie. Stop spreading filthy commie lies

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sorry. I'm trying to destroy capitalism... and I provide NOTHING. I'm just a criminal .