Liberal vs. Conservative Ideology

[Idolfan]

I am only just coming to terms of understanding these phenomena. I guess it can be simplified to conservative = tradition and liberal = freedom. If that's wrong correct me. So, effectively, conservatives can't trust people to live their lives while liberals can. Which way is the right way? I feel very liberal minded and I am totally opposed to tradition, but where does the problem of 'trust' come in? Why do conservatives feel that if we take away these traditions and rules, that people are just going to rape and riot?

[Universal Mind]

I am only just coming to terms of understanding these phenomena. I guess it can be simplified to conservative = tradition and liberal = freedom. If that's wrong correct me. So, effectively, conservatives can't trust people to live their lives while liberals can. Which way is the right way? I feel very liberal minded and I am totally opposed to tradition, but where does the problem of 'trust' come in? Why do conservatives feel that if we take away these traditions and rules, that people are just going to rape and riot? I am a hybrid of liberal and conservative and also a major valuer of freedom, so I will tell you how I think both political extremes suck. The original definition of "liberal" had to do with wanting change, and that change usually had to do with increased liberties and rights. However, what we have today is a new "liberal" perspective. "Liberals" now want to seriously limit economic freedom and have the government control way too much about business. That is not freedom. Conservatives want to greatly limit individual liberties, such as the right to smoke pot, marry a person of one's own gender, and abort one's own cell blobs that have not developed consciousness and therefore have not become human. Neither extreme sufficiently values freedom. Libertarians greatly value freedom, for people of their own nations. However, they believe in ignoring the levels of freedom of people in other nations. Barack Obama is against every one of those types of freedom, except maybe abortion. Most other Democrats are too.

[Descensus]

I am a hybrid of liberal and conservative and also a major valuer of freedom, so I will tell you how I think both political extremes suck. The original definition of "liberal" had to do with wanting change, and that change usually had to do with increased liberties and rights. However, what we have today is a new "liberal" perspective. "Liberals" now want to seriously limit economic freedom and have the government control way too much about business. That is not freedom. Conservatives want to greatly limit individual liberties, such as the right to smoke pot, marry a person of one's own gender, and abort one's own cell blobs that have not developed consciousness and therefore have not become human. Neither extreme sufficiently values freedom. Libertarians greatly value freedom, for people of their own nations. However, they believe in ignoring the levels of freedom of people in other nations. Barack Obama is against every one of those types of freedom, except maybe abortion. Most other Democrats are too. I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think your definition/explanation of libertarian is a little off. Libertarians are not hybrids of conservatism and liberalism, nor are they in the middle-ground. They are a completely different group all-together.

[Universal Mind]

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think your definition/explanation of libertarian is a little off. Libertarians are not hybrids of conservatism and liberalism, nor are they in the middle-ground. They are a completely different group all-together. That is not true. 100% pure libertarians are liberal to the extreme on issues involving civil liberties and foreign policy while conservative to the extreme on issues of economics and social programs.

[Sornaensis]

lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n) n. 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. That is exactly what a hybrid of liberalism and conservatism is.

[Descensus]

Wrong. What you describe are known as liberal moderates. Minarchists, even. http://mises.org/story/3660 <-- Article that nicely sums up what a libertarian is. To quote a friend: If they support the use of force against people exercising any of their rights, or they support the minimal state, or if they support the notion of a social contract (Constitution), then they are not libertarians. They are just petite statists. Classic liberals at best.

[Sornaensis]

Libertarianism isn't a hybrid?

[Descensus]

Libertarianism isn't a hybrid? The political compass is a terrible way to gauge what Libertarianism is and isn't.

[Sornaensis]

It's a spectrum.

[Descensus]

It's a spectrum. Semantics. My argument applies either way.

[ninja9578]

Here's the spectrum from the last couple of presidents. Left Small government Small business Controlled capitalism Women's rights Gay rights No religion in government Balanced budget Scientists > Politicians People have right to use drugs if they choose No torture, not even prisoners of war Governments provides basic needs Right Big government Big business Unrestricted capitalism Women have no right to their bodies Gays have no rights to marry Law of God > Law of US Spend money, but don't tax to pay for it Politicians > Scientists Drugs are bad, mkay? Torture is ok, but only for non-americas Basic needs have to be paid for

[Descensus]

Right Unrestricted capitalism Whaaaaaat?

[ExoByte]

Unrestricted Capitalism is a bad thing.

[Descensus]

Unrestricted Capitalism is a bad thing. Now where is that :headdesk: icon we used to use on MSN... Anyway, my comment was more of a question, asking how the last few right-wing presidents have even come close to unrestricted Capitalism, because...That has never ever happened.

[ExoByte]

Are you kidding? Big time oil companies have been able to run rampant, pharmaceutical companies allowed to patent gene sequences and with hold important medical discoveries and information that could hurt profits. Not to mention the whole copyright issue with the RIAA and MPAA. Big time companies allowed to do what they want with no real government intervention. Its the right wing that let these big time corporate entities into the government in the first place, which has allowed them to run wild, no matter the party in place. They have very little in regulations, allowing them to do what they want and essentially monopolize.

[Descensus]

Are you kidding? Big time oil companies have been able to run rampant, pharmaceutical companies allowed to patent gene sequences and with hold important medical discoveries and information that could hurt profits. Not to mention the whole copyright issue with the RIAA and MPAA. Big time companies allowed to do what they want with no real government intervention. Its the right wing that let these big time corporate entities into the government in the first place, which has allowed them to run wild, no matter the party in place. They have very little in regulations, allowing them to do what they want and essentially monopolize. Oh boy... I think you've gotten capitalism confused with the corporatism/neo-mercantilism system we have going now. Never in the United States has capitalism been unrestricted. Not even close.

[ExoByte]

cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism   /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA Use capitalism in a Sentence See web results for capitalism See images of capitalism –noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. When those corporations aren't regulated, and are allowed to run rampant, It fits the definition of unrestricted capitalism.

[Descensus]

When those corporations aren't regulated, and are allowed to run rampant, It fits the definition of unrestricted capitalism. Or, you know, when they're effectively bought-out by the state. State-Capitalism...Corporatism...Get it?

[ninja9578]

It's never happened because this country is centre-left. Unrestricted capitalism is what they want, not what's going to happen. And FYI, it did happen once, in the late 90s. The internet market grew too fast and was too international for the lawmakers to keep up with it and restrict it. It causes huge amounts of wealth to be accumulated very quickly, then like the liberals predicted, it fell apart. It was called The Bubble.

[Descensus]

It's never happened because this country is centre-left. Unrestricted capitalism is what they want, not what's going to happen. And FYI, it did happen once, in the late 90s. The internet market grew too fast and was too international for the lawmakers to keep up with it and restrict it. It causes huge amounts of wealth to be accumulated very quickly, then like the liberals predicted, it fell apart. It was called The Bubble. Actually the dot-com boom/bubble, like any and all booms/bubbles, was caused by the Federal Reserve. Read some Rothbard for history's sake.

[Universal Mind]

Blueline, it's very simple. Libertarians are hybrids because they are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Name an issue, any issue, and I will tell you whether pure libertarians are liberal or conservative on it.

[ExoByte]

Actually the dot-com boom/bubble, like any and all booms/bubbles, was caused by the Federal Reserve. Read some Rothbard for history's sake. Even if it was caused by the Federal Reserve, it has to act within regulations. Without such regulations, it was allowed to boom. The law-makers didn't touch it, and as you say the Federal Reserve did its thing and voila. Boom. No matter how you look at it, it was still due to an unrestricted part of a capital system.

[Descensus]

Blueline, it's very simple. Libertarians are hybrids because they are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Name an issue, any issue, and I will tell you whether pure libertarians are liberal or conservative on it. No. Libertarians are libertarian on some issues and even more libertarian on others. That is libertarianism. Conservatives and liberals need not apply.

[Universal Mind]

No. Libertarians are libertarian on some issues and even more libertarian on others. That is libertarianism. Conservatives and liberals need not apply. Supporting high level capitalism is not conservative? Supporting gay marriage rights is not liberal? Supporting abortion rights is not liberal? Opposing the welfare system is not conservative? Supporting gun rights is not conservative? Opposing prayer in public schools is not liberal? Uh, wrong.

[ExoByte]

Taking a look at it now, I think what Blueline is trying to say is in disagreement with "2 Party Categorizing." Meaning, rather than simply tossing things to either Conservative or Liberal, that things can be categorized more broadly. That something that is a conservative ideal, can ALSO a libertarian ideal, and can ALSO be a Green ideal. So that when you speak in reference to that party, it takes on that category. Basically I think Blueline is trying to say that things aren't simply Black/White, or in this case Red/Blue. However, to Blueline, UM isn't trying to explain it party by party, but term by term. Liberal and Conservative are descriptive terms, not simply party names. They do apply to a stance on issues. Right is conservative, and Left is Liberal. Which is why socialists, communists, libertarians, green, etc. can be described as Liberal or Conservative on this issue or that issue and can have a liberal or conservative stance.