Liberals vs Conservatives, Who's Smarter?

[-Jrabbit]

Obviously, it's only possible to have one of two political viewpoints:
"liberal" or "conservative."

[SlowwHand]

Jaguar, that was really meaningful input. I take it you consider yourself a liberal?

Case closed.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Jaguar

An idiot?

****

That's a stupid poll btw.

[Kidlicious]

Bk,

You said conservatives don't have an ideology. Would you agree with me that conservatives are anti-ideology, anti social liberalism?

[Kidlicious]

Oh, and this idea that conservatives believe that things shouldn't change because they work is very strange. Do we not have war and poverty and all kinds of problems? Have we not always had them?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Jaguar, that was really meaningful input. I take it you consider yourself a liberal?

No, actually, I don't.

[DinoDoc]

Shouldn't the fact Agathon actually suggested an internet poll as if it were something to be taken seriously disqualify him from judging the intellect of others?

[DaShi]

Not if I agree with him.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Shouldn't the fact Agathon actually suggested an internet poll as if it were something to be taken seriously disqualify him from judging the intellect of others?

Pray tell, where did I say this? I said that Ben's poll was unscientific.

You aren't helping your side here.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh, and this idea that conservatives believe that things shouldn't change because they work is very strange. Do we not have war and poverty and all kinds of problems? Have we not always had them?

They like war and poverty. It appeals to their authoritarian natures.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Pray tell, where did I say this?

In the other thread where you told me to make a poll.

[SlowwHand]

You can't please him. Why try? See how he is?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Yes. The whole idea of an ideology started with the Enlightment, the idea that the principles were required to be formulated in a particular manner, like Rawls or the Manifesto.

Not really. The idea is as old as political philosophy.

Inherent in the idea is that the term 'Communist' originates from the manifesto, there weren't communists before the manfesto or classical liberals before Rawls. Conservatives are like stones. We've always been here, therefore if someone were to write a manifesto defining conservativism, it would not be definitive. Who are the people we look up to? Burke is one, and I'm sure you know. Another is Adam Smith and Ricardo in economic theory. Deeper then that is a good question.

It's not good just listing these things. A political ideology is not a stew. How do these things fit together?

The whole concept of natural law which Burke refers to comes from Aquinas and his formulation.

Cough... Chrysippus and Zeno.... cough.

Conservatives, if they can be called that have a number of people who have important contributions, but to make an 'ideology' or a plan of action, is a foreign concept.

But that's completely hopeless when we want to know what we are supposed to do.

One of the conservative principles is pragmatism, if it works, they use it regardless of it's origins. If it doesn't work, it goes by the wayside and something else must be tried.

And what do we mean by "works"? Are you utilitarians?

The same is true of the contrary if something is working it ought to remain so. If there is a problem, the solution must be effective in fixing the problem and not creating new ones.

This is not a distinctive feature of conservatism. Pretty much any political ideology believe this.

This is where the love of tradition comes in. Tradition is not arbitrary, if people did things one way they had a reason for doing so, even if that reason is not readily apparent.

But what was the reason? Surely, conservatives are going to agree that traditions sometimes need to be changed. But on what grounds do we decide when that is the case and when that is not the case. We can't appeal to tradition to decide that.

Conservatives believe that human nature does not change. This is why Rousseau is not a conservative despite his skepticism of society and progress. They believe that society moulds itself to the peculiarities of man, and that regardless of the political plan or program, human nature will remain the same. Hobbes, despite his irreligiousity is a conservative.

This is not a distinctive feature of conservatism. Nor is it a prescriptive principle. It's also demonstrably false. One need only consider people's attitude towards severe punishments, or the history of etiquette to understand that.

Conservatives take what they need from whomever. We don't have a conservative manifesto. If someone writes something we like, we pass it on to each other, and if it's really good people keep using it.

But this is empty. You could say this of liberals. If someone writes what they like... etc.

We don't have a manifesto where you point out and say, hey, this is what it means to be a conservative.

There doesn't have to be a manifesto, just some indication of what it means to be a conservative. Some principle or set of principles that you all stand for.

Well even that principle is contested. What is 'reason?' Should everything be explained or understood by reason?

So you think it is OK for a political ideology to propose certain things for no reason at all...

Look at physics. Physicists believe that the world is undergirded by laws of nature which are compatible with each other and can be apprehended by reason. However, when you get to the nitty gritty, there are areas that don't fit, and don't seem to work together. Physicists believe that once we know more that they will work and make sense. Conservatives I think see that as a fundamental balance between reason and chaos for lack of a better world. It doesn't make sense, and nor should it. Reason has limitations, and not everything should fit together.

This is descriptive. What is needed is prescriptive. Facts on their own don't tell us what to do. You know that Ben.

There isn't, and nor do Conservatives see that as a problem. The same thing with having an unwritten constitution. We believe, and have been proven right that to enumerate rights on a page, is to give men power over them, to change and alter them as time suits.

And not to say what they are gives people even greater power, since one can substitute any arbitrary old thing. At least if it is written down, there are only a certain number of interpretations that are going to make sense.

Oh, I think you can label an idea as conservative. Does it fit together in a coherent program? No.

Then what's the point of being a conservative. One may as well have no political program at all. Although we often aren't in practice, it is completely fair to expect an individual to be as coherent as possible in their reasons for action. All this boils down to is asking that if someone prohibits doing X in one circumstance, that they prohibit it in all similar circumstances. That's just asking for consistency.

Yes, and conservativism doesn't play by the same rules as all the others. It rejects some of the core tenets that the others must all accept in order to be a 'coherent philosophy'.

The problem with this is that the rules are universal. They're called the laws of logic.

If someone says that doing X is the right thing to do in situation A, then you at least have to expect consistency from them. That is, if they say that doing X is wrong in situation B, they have to come up with a reason why B is different from A. Otherwise they are being illogical. A political philosophy is simply the result of the iteration of that process over all likely occurrences and distilled into common rules.

Conservatives are not immune from these types of questions, because nobody is. If you are going to claim that other people should act in a certain way, you have to accept that they will want to know why. Otherwise it doesn't come down to rational persuasion, but to rhetoric or force, and there we have moved beyond reason.

That's not to say that we necessarily have to come up with infallible moral principles. It's perfectly acceptable, given human limitations, to come up with a single or series of defeasible principles that are not defeated in common practice.

The problem with conservatism is that it appears to be a series of prejudices that appear to conflict with each other in many situations. That means that the solutions to conflicts are mostly arbitrary and decided on a whim. That's simply not good enough, since it embodies a refusal to acknowledge the laws of logic.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In the other thread where you told me to make a poll.

Did I say it would be authoritative? At most it would be a weak confirmation.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's your certificate mate.

According to agathon there is no middle. There are liberals and there are conservatives.

Just pick the one that applies most to you.

There's no middle only because he's so far over the horizon that he can't see it.

Depending on one's point of view, I'm either a liberal (to Berzerker, Ben, etc.) or a conservative (to Aggie, chegitz, etc.) So am I a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal?