10 most rightist posters on poly

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Saras


Rearming a lowtech rifle army is a lot easier than a modern mechanised one.

Thus you would agree with me then, that Versailles was much harsher than 1870's Treaty whereby the German Empire was proclaimed in that very same place, correct?

[Ned]

Well, Molly, you do have a point about Wilson being behind the proximate cause of WWII in the West: the Corridor.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Agathon

5.) But, you seem to imply that since liberalism utilizes past experiences as a guide to future actions, the two definitions seem to be quite the same.

In that respect, they do the same. However, I did not define liberalism that way. Liberalism may well break with the past based on recent discoveries.

True enough. It still doesn't mean that the two ideas are necessarily incompatible though.

6.) Therefore, by the way that you have chosen to define the twain, they are, much as you stated- similar and therefore it is impossible to differentiate between the two.

But I don't define liberalism that way. If you want a reasonable definition of liberalism it is a political system where freedom extends as far as actions that harm others. That's Mill's version, and is close to what most people mean by Liberalism. That is a goal directed definition: it says nothing about means or reliance on the past.

I would think that would be a more appropriate definition for Libertarianism than Liberalism.

A conservative can be a liberal by this definition, but a liberal isn’t always a conservative.

Liberals may pursue policies that are compatible with tradition if the circumstances dictate. That doesn't mean that they adopt the conservatives political principle. This is just an accidental agreement.

But it doesn't prove that the two are incompatible. A liberal can still do things in a conservative way.

Some liberals seek faster change.

A Conservative will always have gradual change that is well-thought out.

Based on the principle you have articulated it won't be thought out at all.

I don't think you understand my argument. Here it is in a clearer form:

1) Political theories (liberalism, conservatism, egalitarianism) have political principles as their guides to right action. For example, an egalitarian values equality as the political goal. Hence the egalitarian will take steps to achieve the goal of equality subject to practical constraints. If radical action is less likely to bring us closer to equality, the egalitarian won't do it. If it is more likely, he will. So sometimes even the egalitarian will do the same thing as the conservative, but for different reasons as the egalitarian has a different guiding principle.

2) According to you, the guiding principle of conservatism (in your revised version) is that changes to traditions should be gradual. My argument is that a principle that states "changes should be gradual" is worthless as a political principle. To see why consider the following exchange.

Liberal: "We should make some changes to society"

Conservative: "OK, but they must be gradual".

Liberal: "Which changes should we make?"

Conservative: "I don't care as long as they're gradual changes".

Liberal: "What about changing to Nazism?"

Conservative: "OK, as long as we change gradually."

3) It is obvious that the conservative position in (2) is absurd. But that's what you get if you make "gradual change" your political principle, since it doesn't matter what sort of change it is as long as it's gradual.

No it is not. Indeed, a change to nazism could be a change not necessarily based upon conservative motions- it could be based upon the liberal notion of progress through Socialist practices. Also, Nazism wouldn't necessarily be bad for a society if it led to greater happiness in that society. (Though it would definately be very bad for any jewish people in that society, and frankly I would never wish to live in a Nazi-state) and also a Conservative only believes in those changes that are necessary to preserve order in society. Conservatives seek order above all else- that's why they utilize tradition, in order to preserve order since order is stability and tradition is a stable thing.

Perhaps I should redefine conservativism again, to become more exact as: "Valuing Tradition, and willing to change gradually so that order is preserved and that society continues to funciton fruitfully."

Though I think what you want me to do is to define Conservativism as adherence to 'long defined absolutist values' and 'traditional biblical/koranic/religious/soviet morality and imposing those beliefs upon others in order to preserve the stability of society' whereas liberalism looks to 'institute only those rules that prevent person A from violating person B's natural and innate rights.' Right?

4) Since that's insane, let's go back to tradition. Let's say that conservatives seek in most cases to preserve tradition as much as they can. They don't have any other principle than that according to you. Take the following exchange.

Liberal: "We should make some changes to society"

*Snip*

I think that my revised definition addresses this. Admittedly my original definition had holes since I didn't define what tradition was to be upheld- but it quickly becomes apparent through your great socratic questioning of myself that the tradition was Order- I should have remembered that all along, in fact and I thank you for reminding me.

[Agathon]

Perhaps I should redefine conservativism again, to become more exact as: "Valuing Tradition, and willing to change gradually so that order is preserved and that society continues to funciton fruitfully."

You still do not seem to me to grasp my argument.

This doesn't make the principle any more useful than before as a guide to action. Assigning any sort of value to gradual change in itself introduces the insane conclusion of the previous argument.

If you say that the whole point of this is "to ensure that society continues fruitfully" everyone will agree with that, even Liberals. But then tradition as a a guide becomes subordinated as a means to ensuring benefit and has no value in and of itself. It opens you up to having to prove that tradition has value, rather than asserting that it does as a matter of principle.

Read my arguments again and see if you get it. Your objections do not in any significant way engage with my actual argument. It's not the definition per se that I am objecting to. I am objecting to its usefulness as a principle that guides action.

Again.

Conservative: "We should value tradition, and be willing to change gradually so that order is preserved and that society continues to function fruitfully."

Liberal: "But that doesn't tell us which traditions we need to make changes to."

Conservative: "Presumably they would be the ones that enable society to continue more fruitfully."

Liberal: "But tradition can't tell us which ones to change, we need an independent standard."

Conservative: "OK - the standard is what makes society run for the best, and I say traditions do for the most part."

Liberal: "Yes, but now you've admitted that it's an open question as to whether any particular tradition makes society run for the best, and that means you have to defend them on utilitarian grounds – you can't defend them just as tradition."

Conservative: "So what?"

Liberal: "Then you can't assume as a matter of principle that tradition is of any use in guiding right action, you have to subject each tradition to a cost benefit analysis to see whether it is worth keeping. Hence, just appealing that something is traditional has absolutely no bearing on whether we should keep it. Therefore tradition is no guide to right action."

Conservative: "But I believe we will be better off sticking mostly to tradition and changing gradually."

Liberal: "So what, you have to defend this belief empirically on a case by case basis. It is no longer a matter of moral principle (if it ever was), rather it is an empirical claim that must be tested on a case by case basis. Articulating the conservative principle as a guide to what we should do is useless, since you have admitted that utility is what matters, and that has to be defended on a case by case basis. In other words appealing to tradition will be of no use against a Liberal reformer, you will need an entirely separate argument. Hence your conservative principle is useless as a guide to right action."

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm certainly not having any problem with dates, but thanks for your inattention.

Really?

In the spring of 1874, a Japanese military expedition departed the Japanese port of Nagasaki bound for southern Taiwan

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/107.2/ah0202000388.html

Christ molly, its bad enough that you continue to ignore the historical context of events you cite as evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China, but now you're refusing to even admit you made a mistake on a date? Honestly its not that big a deal that you're wrong; we all mess up a date now and then, especially when dealing with historical subjects we have little grounding in.

[Saras]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


Thus you would agree with me then, that Versailles was much harsher than 1870's Treaty whereby the German Empire was proclaimed in that very same place, correct?

No, the point was that requiring to disarm in a low tech world is meaningless, hence was not forced. Rifles are too easy to hide, unlike subs, tanks and bombers.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I'm certainly not having any problem with dates, but thanks for your inattention.

Really?

Christ molly, its bad enough that you continue to ignore the historical context of events you cite as evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China, but now you're refusing to even admit you made a mistake on a date? Honestly its not that big a deal that you're wrong; we all mess up a date now and then, especially when dealing with historical subjects we have little grounding in.

Yes really. I said attack China- not invade or occupy. Are you having problems with reading English as well as paraphrasing it ?

The fact that the conflict wasn't concluded with a peace treaty until 1874 and had also involved a Japanese invasion of Formosa/Taiwan wasn't my point.

The casus belli was the killing of 'Japanese' sailors by Chinese subjects- in 1871. The Japanese demand for action by the Chinese was the first step in their attack on China's position in East Asia, and a step in the reversal of the traditional relationship between the two powers.

As for me 'citing evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China'- are you sarcastically suggesting it didn't have them ? When after all, the Treaty of Shimonoseki was designed to put it on the same commercial footing as the Western powers, entailed that China give up suzerainty over Korea and also included China ceding Formosa/Taiwan- which hadn't even been involved in the war.

And do please keep attempting to patronize me- it affords me no end of amusement.

[Al B. Sure!]

Agathon:

Conservatism in brief- if it aint broke, don't fix it.

[curtsibling]

On the topic of this thread:

I have never read anything on poly by any poster that I found really offensive - I am sad to say!

I expect better.

[Ned]

Albert, Darkcloud, et al., the problem with your definitions is that today it is the Democrats who are resisting change as they are out of power. The people out of power always resist change but they are not all considered rightists.

"Tradition" is a very loose definition as well as I pointed out before. History has both the Caltholic Church and Martin Luther. Which is tradition?

People are much more confortable with libertarians as they know where they stand on issues. Ditto socialism to a degree. But the right? No one seems to agree on a good definition.

That is why the left can say that fascism is on the right when most rightists would consider fascism a form of socialism and definitely on the left.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Agathon:

Conservatism in brief- if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Everyone believes that. It is not a distinguishing mark of conservatism.

[Drake Tungsten]

The casus belli was the killing of 'Japanese' sailors by Chinese subjects- in 1871.

I suppose you think WWI really started when Franz Ferdinand got shot...

The Japanese demand for action by the Chinese was the first step in their attack on China's position in East Asia, and a step in the reversal of the traditional relationship between the two powers.

If you're going to buck the conventional wisdom that considers the first Sino-Japanese War as the first military encounter to demonstrate the reversal in fortunes between China and Japan, you could at least be a little more ballsy. Japan took the Ryukyus in 1609. Hell, Hideyoshi tried to take over China via Korea in 1592. Why don't we call those incidents the start of Japan's long road to ascendance over China? If you're going to engage in historical revisionism, at least be a man about it...

As for me 'citing evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China'- are you sarcastically suggesting it didn't have them ?

The only plans Japan had for China during the period from the start of the Meiji Restoration to the end of WWI was to become an equal participant in the imperialism going on there. Hardly that nefarious a scheme, seeing as Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the US has already beat them there. Things change greatly after WWI, but I doubt you want to delve into the reasons for that, as they give some credence to Ned's arguments.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I suppose you think WWI really started when Franz Ferdinand got shot...

*** NEWS FLASH ***
Arch Duke Ferdinand found alive! World War I a Mistake!

[Ben Kenobi]

Everyone believes that. It is not a distinguishing mark of conservatism.

Yes it is, because it implies that change can disrupt the status quo, and that change can be worse than leaving things alone.

Liberals tend to believe that change is always superior to the status quo, or that the burden must be placed on those who support the status quo to defend themselves in the face of change.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Yes it is, because it implies that change can disrupt the status quo, and that change can be worse than leaving things alone.

Liberals tend to believe that change is always superior to the status quo, or that the burden must be placed on those who support the status quo to defend themselves in the face of change.

No they don't. That's making Dark Cloud's mistake of misdescribing liberalism as the equally insane opposite of conservatism. Liberalism in its various guises sets down particular moral principles as political goals (things like equality, or Rawls' conception of justice, or EOO). Of course there are various ways that this might be brought about more effectively, but that is a practical question.

No one values change for its own sake, because that's insane. Similarly, no one should value the status quo for its own sake, because that is plainly insane too. Making conservatives value change for its own sake means that they don't have a compelling moral principle for aorganizing political action.