Page 12 of 14 [ 213 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 3:43 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
I'm sorry, but most conservatives aren't libertarians and they sure as bloody hell are NOT anarchists! If you truly understand liberalism, you will realize that it is deeply and fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.


While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism. When you bring up liberalism, I'm assuming you are referring to classical liberalism, not modern liberalism. Classical liberalism actually did have some anti-authoritarianism, but modern liberalism only has that feature when it is a group they are opposed to. I would argue classical liberals are an endangered species, having long been replaced by modern liberals.

Republican does not necessarily mean one is a Conservative, the Republican party is made up of liberals, Centrists, and Conservatives. The Democrat Party used to be the same way, but Conservative Democrats are largely an endangered species and I don't know of any that are currently in government.

AspieRogue wrote:
Conservatives are anti-communist but can be very pro-authoritarian because they are believe that social hierarchy is a good thing. This is the reason for their fanatical support for organized religion: Because religion is the most effective and time tested tool for maintaining the Status Quo and preserving tradition.


Wrong, while Conservatism is anti-communist, Conservatism is not pro-authoritarian in the slightest (if we are referring to American Conservatism, European Conservatism has some different roots). American Conservatism looks at religion as a foundation of right and wrong. There is a reason why the Republican Party was formed specifically in opposition to Slavery, it was out of a core conviction that one human being owning another human being was wrong. It was due to their religious beliefs that they opposed slavery.

While you are correct that religion can be used as an excuse for great evil, it can also be the driving force for incredible good.

The Republican Party was formed by people whom were called radicals then, but would be considered Conservatives today and many of today's conservatives are pro-life for the same reason their fore-fathers were anti-slavery. They believe that one person cannot be owned by another, they view the child in the womb as being a person, not property.

Now as to where you're getting the authoritarian nonsense, Conservatives believe that some rules do need to exist, however they also believe that there is such a thing as too much Government. When we talk about religion, one thing one's religious beliefs do is provide one with a sense of what is ethical and what isn't; right and wrong.

Libertarians, whether they realize it or not, probably have more in common with Conservatives than they often realize. Just the things that Libertarians think need to be legalized (like marijuana), is the same stuff liberals have been eyeing as a way to keep the masses under control.


This is all very abstracted and idealized argumentation.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Oct 2012, 3:50 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
I'm sorry, but most conservatives aren't libertarians and they sure as bloody hell are NOT anarchists! If you truly understand liberalism, you will realize that it is deeply and fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.


While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism. When you bring up liberalism, I'm assuming you are referring to classical liberalism, not modern liberalism. Classical liberalism actually did have some anti-authoritarianism, but modern liberalism only has that feature when it is a group they are opposed to. I would argue classical liberals are an endangered species, having long been replaced by modern liberals.

Republican does not necessarily mean one is a Conservative, the Republican party is made up of liberals, Centrists, and Conservatives. The Democrat Party used to be the same way, but Conservative Democrats are largely an endangered species and I don't know of any that are currently in government.

AspieRogue wrote:
Conservatives are anti-communist but can be very pro-authoritarian because they are believe that social hierarchy is a good thing. This is the reason for their fanatical support for organized religion: Because religion is the most effective and time tested tool for maintaining the Status Quo and preserving tradition.


Wrong, while Conservatism is anti-communist, Conservatism is not pro-authoritarian in the slightest (if we are referring to American Conservatism, European Conservatism has some different roots). American Conservatism looks at religion as a foundation of right and wrong. There is a reason why the Republican Party was formed specifically in opposition to Slavery, it was out of a core conviction that one human being owning another human being was wrong. It was due to their religious beliefs that they opposed slavery.

While you are correct that religion can be used as an excuse for great evil, it can also be the driving force for incredible good.

The Republican Party was formed by people whom were called radicals then, but would be considered Conservatives today and many of today's conservatives are pro-life for the same reason their fore-fathers were anti-slavery. They believe that one person cannot be owned by another, they view the child in the womb as being a person, not property.

Now as to where you're getting the authoritarian nonsense, Conservatives believe that some rules do need to exist, however they also believe that there is such a thing as too much Government. When we talk about religion, one thing one's religious beliefs do is provide one with a sense of what is ethical and what isn't; right and wrong.

Libertarians, whether they realize it or not, probably have more in common with Conservatives than they often realize. Just the things that Libertarians think need to be legalized (like marijuana), is the same stuff liberals have been eyeing as a way to keep the masses under control.


This is all very abstracted and idealized argumentation.


I'm not being idealistic, the only reason the Tea Party didn't go off and form a third party (much to the chagrin of the Democrats whom wanted the opposition divided so they wouldn't loose their total control of government), is cause they felt the Republican Party could be salvaged.

As far as abstract thought, yeah I seem to be able to think about things in abstract, wasn't easy to learn to be able to do, but I've found it helps in understanding people sometimes.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

13 Oct 2012, 3:56 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism.


I've met a lot of socially authoritarian conservatives. They exist pretty much everywhere. Genuinely liberal (or libertarian) conservatives do exist, though. There are lots of illiberal 'liberals', too.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 3:57 pm

I meant that you're essentially arguing about the conservatism in reference to the kind that is in your belief system. The conservatism that exists throughout History wasn't the pet of the abolitionists, it's the baby of the plantation owners.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Oct 2012, 4:00 pm

Tequila wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism.


I've met a lot of socially authoritarian conservatives. They exist pretty much everywhere. Genuinely liberal (or libertarian) conservatives do exist, though. There are lots of illiberal 'liberals', too.


You live in Europe though, Tequila. American Conservatism split off from European Conservatism a long time ago. While there are similarities there are also stark differences.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 4:13 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism.


I've met a lot of socially authoritarian conservatives. They exist pretty much everywhere. Genuinely liberal (or libertarian) conservatives do exist, though. There are lots of illiberal 'liberals', too.


You live in Europe though, Tequila. American Conservatism split off from European Conservatism a long time ago. While there are similarities there are also stark differences.


What are these differences that you keep bringing up?



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Oct 2012, 4:16 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism.


I've met a lot of socially authoritarian conservatives. They exist pretty much everywhere. Genuinely liberal (or libertarian) conservatives do exist, though. There are lots of illiberal 'liberals', too.


You live in Europe though, Tequila. American Conservatism split off from European Conservatism a long time ago. While there are similarities there are also stark differences.


What are these differences that you keep bringing up?


This is a decent rundown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

13 Oct 2012, 4:20 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
You live in Europe though, Tequila. American Conservatism split off from European Conservatism a long time ago. While there are similarities there are also stark differences.


I'm sorry, I'm not having you tell me that there isn't a huge strain of authoritarianism in much of American conservatism. What about social and religious conservatives that are so dominant in America - the anti-gay crowd?

I understand that you tend towards libertarianism (as do I, although mine is a milder and different strain) but you're talking complete nonsense.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Oct 2012, 4:41 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
While Conservatives are not anarchists, they are also totally opposed to authoritarianism.


I've met a lot of socially authoritarian conservatives. They exist pretty much everywhere. Genuinely liberal (or libertarian) conservatives do exist, though. There are lots of illiberal 'liberals', too.


You live in Europe though, Tequila. American Conservatism split off from European Conservatism a long time ago. While there are similarities there are also stark differences.


What are these differences that you keep bringing up?


It's fairly simple, countries in Europe have a history of being ran by authority figures (Kings and Queens). The United States of America's was formed by kicking out the English, their king, etc. We started out as a Constitutional Republic (albiet on the 2nd attempt, 1st time was Confederacy that fell apart), our entire culture is centered around individualism, self-reliance, etc.

American Conservatism just has some different historical roots, those roots are the origin of how American Conservatism has fundamental differences from what we see with European Conservatism.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Oct 2012, 4:51 pm

- When your idea of fair is that I get to do whatever I want and everyone else have to pay for it.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 4:59 pm

TM wrote:
- When your idea of fair is that I get to do whatever I want and everyone else have to pay for it.


Then you're a plutocrat. Welfare people didn't crash the economy and then ask to be bailed out by everyone.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Oct 2012, 5:12 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
- When your idea of fair is that I get to do whatever I want and everyone else have to pay for it.


Then you're a plutocrat. Welfare people didn't crash the economy and then ask to be bailed out by everyone.


That depends entirely, who took out all the mortgages that ended up crashing the economy? Quite a few of the banks were forced to take money by the government, and wouldn't have needed bailouts in the first place if government policy didn't mandate that "everyone should own a house".

Banks also wouldn't have needed bailouts if government actually did their job of regulating financial markets properly or not at all. The bailouts weren't for the "plutocrats" they were for the people who'd find themselves without jobs, without pensions, without public utilities and so on if the banks ran out of cash.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Oct 2012, 5:12 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
- When your idea of fair is that I get to do whatever I want and everyone else have to pay for it.


Then you're a plutocrat. Welfare people didn't crash the economy and then ask to be bailed out by everyone.


No. They just collect their welfare which you and I pay for.

The middle class has been compelled to bear the burden of the dead beats. The Rich Folk see to that.

ruveyn



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 5:28 pm

TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
- When your idea of fair is that I get to do whatever I want and everyone else have to pay for it.


Then you're a plutocrat. Welfare people didn't crash the economy and then ask to be bailed out by everyone.


That depends entirely, who took out all the mortgages that ended up crashing the economy? Quite a few of the banks were forced to take money by the government, and wouldn't have needed bailouts in the first place if government policy didn't mandate that "everyone should own a house".

Banks also wouldn't have needed bailouts if government actually did their job of regulating financial markets properly or not at all. The bailouts weren't for the "plutocrats" they were for the people who'd find themselves without jobs, without pensions, without public utilities and so on if the banks ran out of cash.


Yes, I agree that this thing is a grade A gold standard clusterfuck that reflects on the government too but your willingness to pity the banks and the ruling class is just breathtaking. Do you not see how all of this neoclassical economics that you take the side for is just as culpable for the abuses of the treasury? From the Gipper to W., everytime the neoclassical guys get to dominate the table all kinds of innovation happens in the fraud sector of the economy. Do you not see the connection between this gutting of regulations and the explosion of new and exciting ways to rip honest people off for a buck to avoid working for a living?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Oct 2012, 5:32 pm

DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
- When your idea of fair is that I get to do whatever I want and everyone else have to pay for it.


Then you're a plutocrat. Welfare people didn't crash the economy and then ask to be bailed out by everyone.


That depends entirely, who took out all the mortgages that ended up crashing the economy? Quite a few of the banks were forced to take money by the government, and wouldn't have needed bailouts in the first place if government policy didn't mandate that "everyone should own a house".

Banks also wouldn't have needed bailouts if government actually did their job of regulating financial markets properly or not at all. The bailouts weren't for the "plutocrats" they were for the people who'd find themselves without jobs, without pensions, without public utilities and so on if the banks ran out of cash.


Yes, I agree that this thing is a grade A gold standard f**** that reflects on the government too but your willingness to pity the banks and the ruling class is just breathtaking. Do you not see how all of this neoclassical economics that you take the side for is just as culpable for the abuses of the treasury? From the Gipper to W., everytime the neoclassical guys get to dominate the table all kinds of innovation happens in the fraud sector of the economy. Do you not see the connection between this gutting of regulations and the explosion of new and exciting ways to rip honest people off for a buck to avoid working for a living?


Actually the Government forcing banks to do these loans started under Lyndon Johnson (D), was expanded some under Jimmy Carter, and a core safeguard got removed at the end of the Clinton Presidency. President George W. Bush had been trying to fix the situation starting in 2003.



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

13 Oct 2012, 5:40 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
- When your idea of fair is that I get to do whatever I want and everyone else have to pay for it.


Then you're a plutocrat. Welfare people didn't crash the economy and then ask to be bailed out by everyone.


That depends entirely, who took out all the mortgages that ended up crashing the economy? Quite a few of the banks were forced to take money by the government, and wouldn't have needed bailouts in the first place if government policy didn't mandate that "everyone should own a house".

Banks also wouldn't have needed bailouts if government actually did their job of regulating financial markets properly or not at all. The bailouts weren't for the "plutocrats" they were for the people who'd find themselves without jobs, without pensions, without public utilities and so on if the banks ran out of cash.


Yes, I agree that this thing is a grade A gold standard f**** that reflects on the government too but your willingness to pity the banks and the ruling class is just breathtaking. Do you not see how all of this neoclassical economics that you take the side for is just as culpable for the abuses of the treasury? From the Gipper to W., everytime the neoclassical guys get to dominate the table all kinds of innovation happens in the fraud sector of the economy. Do you not see the connection between this gutting of regulations and the explosion of new and exciting ways to rip honest people off for a buck to avoid working for a living?


Actually the Government forcing banks to do these loans started under Lyndon Johnson (D), was expanded some under Jimmy Carter, and a core safeguard got removed at the end of the Clinton Presidency. President George W. Bush had been trying to fix the situation starting in 2003.


For the past 30 years, both parties have been dancing to the neoclassical music. The names of the bands change but the song stays the same.