Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[Sava]

Most of us realize that that balance is necessary, because anyone who claims a pure socialist or pure capitalist society is ideal is criminally naive.

[molly bloom]

Does your Neimoller argument count as Godwin by proxy?

No.

Then you read more into it than I wrote.

I did nothing of the sort- difficult to read anything into such a vague remark.

My point was that wealthy people like him did enact the social reforms.

Really ? Then why say this:

Men like Winston Churchill grew up in privilege afforded by the wealth of the industrial revolution and fought for better working conditions, women's suffrage, etc.

You didn't provide any evidence whatsoever of either Churchill or 'people like him' fighting for better working conditions or women's suffrage. Given he was the Home Secretary of a government which did its best to harass and hinder the Women's Suffrage movement, it might well have been difficult.

The reforms came about through constant campaigning, by mass demonstrations and ultimately by women showing in WWI that they were perfectly capable of performing arduous tasks usually carried out only by men.

He had the sense to leave the left once he recognized their political aims were Marxist rather than just reformative.

Which party are you confusing which with here ? The early 20th Century Liberals 'Marxist' ? Are you actually deranged ?

Not being a citizen of the Commonwealth I never bothered with the who's who of British political parties and lumped the Liberals and Labour together.

If you're going to talk about British social and political history you might want to brush up on the differences between the three main parties- they're fairly crucial.

My point was that they were there, thank you.

And ?

So were the self-organising working classes. Robert Owen started his working life as a child shop worker.

If MPs and Lords made wealthy in the industrial revolution didn't vote for it there wouldn't have been suffrage and work reform for decades.

The Industrial Revolution is said to begin about 1750 or so. Women's Suffrage ? Achieved 1918. Good grief.

[Straybow]

No, the early 20th c Liberals were not Marxist. Labor leaders in general were the biggest supporters of the Communist Revolution.

Women's Suffrage wouldn't have passed in 1918 if it weren't for votes cast in favor by wealthy MPs and Lords. They would have had to wait for another generation or two.

[Straybow]

Can you imagine the look on Straybows face the day he figures out there are more than two political ideology's?

Yes there are other ideologies. Dictatorship, for one. Most socialism, and certainly Communism, is actually a mix between liberal social contract and simple dictatorship.

I'm not a pure socialist, you dip****, I'm a UK conservative. The fact that you can't tell the difference shows exactly how polarizing the word 'socialism' is to far too many Americans. All our western societies are a mix of capitalism and socialism, the only question is what the balance between the two should be. Most of us realize that that balance is necessary, because anyone who claims a pure socialist or pure capitalist society is ideal is criminally naive.

You may think of yourself as conservative for whatever reason, but your primary political theory is social contract. It is a deeply flawed theory.

Aside from that you apparently have no understanding whatsoever of American conservatism or its political history, and you seem to buy into all the media misinformation on it. So you don't strike me as much of an independent thinker in that respect.

[kentonio]

Aside from that you apparently have no understanding whatsoever of American conservatism or its political history, and you seem to buy into all the media misinformation on it. So you don't strike me as much of an independent thinker in that respect.

Most of the conservative thinkers of the 20th century wouldn't recognize what you think of as American conservatism.

[Straybow]

You mean guys like Friedrich von Hayek? Milton Friedman? Russell Kirk? Richard Weaver? William F. Buckley?

[regexcellent]

Most of the conservative thinkers of the 20th century wouldn't recognize what you think of as American conservatism.

This is hilarious coming from you. Not a single conservative thinker of the 20th century from anywhere would recognize you for one, even though you claim to be one.

[kentonio]

This is hilarious coming from you. Not a single conservative thinker of the 20th century from anywhere would recognize you for one, even though you claim to be one.

The radical bunch of extremists you currently support would have purged any one of the Republican presidents of the 20th century from the party leadership, including Reagan. You've all gone criminally insane, and the sad part is you think you have history behind you.

[Straybow]

Criminally insane? I think you lack any form of factual support for either part of that epithet.

[kentonio]

I have a broader definition of crimes against humanity than a lot of people. Personally I think trying to remove the safety net that keeps millions out of homelessness and poverty and the inevitable millions of unnecessary deaths that go with it, is no different morally from just killing a load of people every year.

[Dauphin]

Do you restrict your view in someway - if a net doesn't currently exist and you oppose the plan to enact one, is that just as bad?

What if you choose not to help people by other means - by not giving all your disposable time and money away (to feed and shelter people), are you killing people by such inaction? Or is it only actions rather than inactions that you have a problem with?

[Straybow]

Hmmm, "millions" of deaths... I can see how that would distress you if you are gullible enough to buy into that kind of unsupported assertion. Reminds me of the "five thousand deaths a year" NARAL claimed resulted from "back alley abortions," and that Nathanson later admitted was an outright lie invented to sway the public and the Supreme Court.

Your "broader definition" seems to be a textbook example of leftist propaganda. Don't you feel the cognitive dissonance at calling yourself a "conservative," yet you seem to agree with the libs (and the dumbest of them at that) on almost every point?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't you feel the cognitive dissonance at calling yourself a "conservative," yet you seem to agree with the libs (and the dumbest of them at that) on almost every point?

Talk about narrow mindedness. Worldwide "conservatives" are closer to the European kind than the American kind. It'd be like someone chiding you for the cognitive dissonance at calling you a "conservative", yet you seem to agree with the reactionaries.

[Sava]

Straybow is just another moron. Nothing to see here.

[kentonio]

Do you restrict your view in someway - if a net doesn't currently exist and you oppose the plan to enact one, is that just as bad?

What if you choose not to help people by other means - by not giving all your disposable time and money away (to feed and shelter people), are you killing people by such inaction? Or is it only actions rather than inactions that you have a problem with?

No, not acting to help is a passive act, it may be contemptible but it's not morally a crime IMHO. Actively taking a deliberate course of action that leads to deaths however is a moral crime to me, when the outcome is easily predictable. When it comes to things like safety nets, instead of holding people accountable for the outcome we tend to pretend its just an intellectual or ideological debate and act as if the real world consequences are just regrettable accidental side effects. I hate that.