Ok I'm here to do a little straightening out of what is Progressive Liberalism / Classical Liberalism / Conservative / Libertarian.
Printable View
Ok I'm here to do a little straightening out of what is Progressive Liberalism / Classical Liberalism / Conservative / Libertarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Conservatism in terms of economics is regulatory and corporatist in its action. In terms of social programs, conservatism is messianic and oppressive. No pornography, no drugs, no gambling, no "vice" crimes. Yet these are victimless "crimes" so there is no physical violence utilized, no threat of physical violence, therefore no rights violations.
Compare this with libertarianism:
Libertarianism is against the regulation of businesses and calls for a free-market that is not censored or support by government
Libertarianism is against any legislation that does violate the property rights of an individual.
So if one closely looks at conservative social programs and libertarianism, one can see prima facie that they are polar opposites.
Now with progressive liberals, these are individuals who want what libertarians want [ freedom / peace / prosperity ] yet they go about it through conservative means [ statism / oppression / legislative "empowerment" ]. So in essence libertarianism is extreme 'leftism' with Socialism / Social Democracy / Progressive Liberalism being a middle of the road movement and reactionary Conservatism on the right.
As far as the republican and democratic parties go, they are both nearly identical. On all major issues, they are the same. They are both for larger government. They are both for increase regulation of the economy. They are both for higher taxes. They are both for increased spending.
To me, they are both big government parties. Libertarian is a small government. You can't really apply conservative and liberal to the parties anymore.
The republican isn't conservative, they are neoconservative. And democrats are not liberal but neoliberals. The neo in both words might as well mean, screw everyone over, and increase the size of government.
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are the same thing. Republican and democrats nearly always agree on principle, but only differ in approach. Both parties want larger government, they just disagree on how fast to grow it. Both parties love deficit spending and unbalanced budgets, they only disagree on the small details on where the dollars go. Both parties agree on contuneing the war on terror and keeping troops over sea.
Where is the party that wants smaller government, balanced buget, and personal freedoms? If you are looking at either of the two main parties, you are looking at the wrong place. No such thing exists there.
While the majority of your post is smooth, there are some snags.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Libertarianism isn't small government. Small government is minarchism. Libertarianism and minarchism are different. Libertarianism cannot mean minarchism. Even a small government is against the libertarian philosophy.Quote:
Libertarian is a small government.
Honestly, if you're looking at any political party to balance a budget, uphold freedoms, and shrink government, you're looking in the wrong place.Quote:
Where is the party that wants smaller government, balanced buget, and personal freedoms? If you are looking at either of the two main parties, you are looking at the wrong place. No such thing exists there.
This is all very true, the problem is that the Libertarian party is really a shell of its former self.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Parties change deal with it. 150 years ago the democrats were pro-slavery, the republicans were anti-slavery. 50 years ago, the democrats lead the civil rights movements and the republicans resisted it.
The war on terror needs to continue, ending it would be the biggest mistake the US could make in terms of national security.
So Blueline, do you consider Anarchist capitalists and Libertarians to be one in the same?
What makes you think that Republicans were anti-slavery?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
The war on terror is as much of a waste of money as the war on drugs. My problem with the parties is that there is no party for small government. Everyone wants huge everyone, increase in taxes, and wasteful spending that is ruining our country.
There is only a select few, like Ron Paul, who has any sense at all in the government.
Two names for the same idea, for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catbus
So yes.
Not all of them, but lots of them were. There were anti-slavery movements long before the civil war. Look up the Kansas-Nebraska Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Alright, that clears things up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Well there were Democrats who were against slavery also.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
There is no political spectrum in real life, only in utopian fantasy worlds.
In real life there is only Freedom and the State, and the ratio between them.
You talked about social conservatism vs. economic conservatism, but you didn't contradict what I said except in saying that conservatives are regulatory and that liberals support freedom in general. True conservatives are not regulatory. It is Republicans you are thinking of. Also, liberals do not support economic freedom. Having to give half of your money to the government is not freedom. Libertarians, like I said, are socially liberal and economically conservative. Liberals want social freedom but economic restriction. Conservatives want social restriction and economic freedom. Libertarians (in purest form) want freedom in both departments, but are only concerned with those things for their own countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
It is not so much that libertarians only want it for their own country. Its that they respect property and stuff. Your property is yours and my property is mine. So they don't go around interfering in other peoples lands.
That is exactly where I disagree with you and other libertarians. A country/land is not a totalitarian government's property. They are just thieves who treat it like it is. It belongs to the people, who should have ultimate authority over the government. I support turning that table around every time. You think Americans are entitled to that power, so why not people of other countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I am all for people overthrowing their government if it becomes evil and corrupt. I just do not think, we should deciding who is bad. It is the people living in the country, that has to decide such things.
Conservatism in economics is corporatist. [ Fascist ] It is the cartelization / subsidization and protection of domestic industry. That is why you see people like Sean Hannity who want to give hand outs to American auto or are exclaiming "Buy American". Liberals [ in the Progressive sense ] want to monopolize the means of production under the state apparatus. [ Communism ] Neither is freedom. So being economically "conservative" means that you essentially support big business cronyism with government. What conservatives and progressive liberals don't realize is that you cannot have social freedom without economic freedom and you cannot actually have economic freedom without social freedom. They are binary. Libertarians realize this which is why they are neither Progressive Liberals nor are they Conservatives. They are equidistant from each ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
What about those who like the government they live under? If you gather a mob and overthrow the government, have you not violated their right to live under a government they approve of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Nope, it doesn't really matter if they approve or not. If people have a legitimate reason to overthrow their own government, because its corrupt and evil and is trying to steal away their rights, then they should do it.
Other people have no right to choose if you lose your freedoms or not. Sure they can give it up, but they can't expect their neighbor to.
I'm talking about the people who approve of their government and like living under it. Are you saying that just because a majority doesn't approve and overthrows the gov, it's tough luck for the minority?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
What you are talking about it neo-conservatism. True conservatism supports free markets and does not at all condone things such as corporate bailouts. Ron Paul is a for real economic conservative, and he is baffled by corporate bailouts and subsidizing of industry and so forth. Did Sean Hannity support the bailouts? I don't know. Barack Obama did, and so did the Democrat dominated Congress. That stuff makes things confusing because when the neo versions of the philosophies get mixed in with the merging haze involving the policies of Democrats and Republicans, the pure meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" get lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
I agree with you on that. The majority has no business deciding that the minority has to be oppressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Ron Paul is an Austrian economist. Calling him an economic conservative is an insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You can call it an insult, for whatever reasons, but it is the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976