Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Levantine » Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:47 pm

Except when they want the government to tell people they can't do something. Lel rights of the individual my arse. I don't know what conservative party you've been subscribing to lately, but it isn't the Republican one, that's for sure.
User avatar
Levantine
 
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: NQ, Aus

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:28 am

Yes please lecture me on where my belief's and those of my piers, with whom I have in the past been actively involved with politically falls...

Lets cut to it specifically:
Paxen wrote:Fridmarr seems to think that Conservatism is the ideology of personal freedom - it's not, Liberalism (US: Libertarianism) is. Conservatism is concerned with preventing rapid changes and the defense of existing privileges.
You seem to mix terms a ton, sometimes correctly, and other times not so much. For instance, do you know what Libertarians are called? They are called conservatives. So it's an oxymoron to suggest that libertarians believe X and conservatives do not. Libertarians are generally at the "far right" end of conservatism, but they are definitely there. We covered this quite a bit very early in the thread, I understand the Libertarian party pretty well, in fact I've voted for a few of them over the years. I am not one however, and they aren't a huge group overall.

Another example:
Paxen wrote:("socialism as being based upon a commitment of an individual to a community"). Some values are not conservative values but are still values that are right-wing ("domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior, who were said to be a threat to national survival", nationalism). Some values they shared with current conservatives ("Nazism favoured private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of a national solidarity that would transcend class differences.") Hitler claimed that Nazism was neither right-wing nor left-wing, and it seems to me to be correct.

Here you recognize the difference between right wing and conservative (think Libertarians vs Neo Nazis), and therefore specifically acknowledge that a lot of Nazism is in fact not conservative though some of it is right wing, while at the same time chastising me for making the same claim. Read your own words here, I don't really need to add anything.

One you got right:
Paxen wrote:The american right wing doesn't really have much credibility on freedom issues, as long as it contains social conservatives.

In the end, the right wants freedom on some issues, and not on others, and the same is true of the left.
That's true and you made a very important distinction. Social conservatives, who are generally what we call "the religious right" don't deserve a whole lot of credit for personal freedoms, and they do fall under right wing and even the conservative nomenclature. In particular, they are pro life (though plenty of non religious folks are as well) and against things like gay marriage, more than abstinence only education etc etc. They are a fairly powerful group, especially in the republican party, that's why many conservatives including myself are not republicans. They are conservative only in the sense that their views are old fashioned (usually labelled as traditional).

Sadly, they are what the media and many people in this thread define conservatives as. They make having a reasonable debate pretty difficult. Lord knows I've tried, I think there is a stretch in this thread where I offered up my position several times in a row, only to have a link of a comment from a social conservative thrown back at me. I couldn't even get my point considered.

That said social conservatives aren't exactly silenced by other conservatives and certainly not the Republican party because of their size and power, but I'll get back to that. Most conservatives that aren't in the religious right don't really consider the religious right as conservative because the idea of legislating morality is directly opposed at a fundamental level.

The other group, in which I and the aforementioned Libertarians fall, are those that refer to themselves as fiscal conservatives or limited government conservatives. It's not nearly as small a group as I think many people here believe.

Ross Perot managed to get almost 20% of the popular vote, almost entirely from this group where they were willing to break from the republican party and vote for someone that was certain to lose, and at the same time ensure a democrat won the white house. It's hard to say how many were not willing to "waste" their vote in such a way. They followed that up with a historic 1994 trouncing of the democrats, giving republicans control of the house for the first time in 40 years.

More recently you had the tea party, which made a splash and undid not just the super majority in both houses but the outright majority in one. Unfortunately, the tea party fairly quickly turned socially conservative in a massive way, and is all but dead now. A substantial portion of their early success was a lot of antiestablishment candidates and the party was willing to ignore their social stance for some fiscal conservatism, which ended up just turning them into social conservatives that wanted lower taxes.

Consider this, the percentage of people who claim to be conservative are almost twice that of those that consider themselves to be liberal. It's more than 10% (relative not actual) bigger than those that consider themselves moderate, yet a democrat won the last two presidential elections pretty handily. Further, that while Obama was winning his first election and ushering in an almost unheard of super majority in both houses, the number of people calling themselves conservative, was rising significantly. As the number of conservatives has been rising, the number of republicans has been dropping. Democrats are winning because many conservatives don't vote for republicans, the republican party is shrinking because many conservatives don't even call themselves republicans, because the republican party has been dominated by (especially of late since fiscal conservatives are bailing) those social conservatives.

I've mentioned it before in this thread, the Republican party is a mess. I think satisfaction within (even before the last election) was less than 25%, because there is a massive group there that aren't on board with the social conservative agenda and another massive group that has simply fled or never joined in the first place because of it. Although there are some fiscal conservatives in the democratic party (generally called the blue dogs), the democratic platform overall doesn't fit well.

Brekkie wrote:Fridmarr has a different definition of "Conservative" than every single other Conservative I have ever met.
If I'm being honest, your summaries of "conservative" positions throughout this thread have frankly, astonished me. If I didn't otherwise respect you, I'd think you were just trolling. They are literally worse than I would expect to read from the "Think Progress Playbook for Conservatives are Idiots herp durp"

Although my personal experience couldn't be more different than yours (and I don't think any of the other conservatives that have posted in this thread fall under your definition either), there's really not much I can say about the folks you've met. I'm glad that you find me different than the other conservatives you've met because they sound like real assholes.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:31 am

Levantine wrote:Except when they want the government to tell people they can't do something. Lel rights of the individual my arse. I don't know what conservative party you've been subscribing to lately, but it isn't the Republican one, that's for sure.
Well he said he's a Libertarian. Of the main stream conservative parties (which basically consists of republicans and libertarians at the moment), they are the one that basically doesn't want the government telling folks what they can or can't do pretty much at all. Especially at the federal level.

Again, republican and conservative shouldn't be considered synonyms. It's fair enough to group them together, after all Republicans are the largest conservative party in the US, but they are definitely not the same thing.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Torquemada » Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:57 am

I tend to vote Republican, because I view the needs of putting our fiscal house in order as more important than the social rights agenda. That said, I'm originally from the district that Gabby Giffords represented, and had I not been in the military and changed my state of residence at the time, I probably would have voted for her. Completely as a side note, before that it was represented by Jim Kolbe, one of the first openly gay Republicans in Congress. Also off topic, I went to the same high school as Gabby (10 years later), and was in the same graduating class as Gabe Zimmerman, her aide who was murdered.

I can't find the exact graph I like to use, but there was a quiz I once took on the internet that divided political philosophy basically thusly:
Image
Typically on quizzes about such matters I would fall into the individualism quadrant, somewhere close-ish to the Right-ism quadrant. But as far as conservative rights, there are plenty. Consider the Bill of Rights: free speech, assembly, expression, the right to defend yourself through the ownership of firearms, the right not to incriminate yourself, and the concept that the federal government is a LIMITED body, constrained by the Constitution to ONLY perform those actions enumerated ss federal powers. Everything else specifically not listed is supposed to be a freedom to the people, or to be managed by the several states.

I personally support gay marriage. I don't support abortion, and I think it's generally a necessary evil and the least awful of several decisions. I knew several women who had them, and saw how absolutely crushing the ordeal was and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. That said, I believe they should be legal. I just don't support paying for them save in exceptional circumstances.

Once upon a time I subscribed to a series of ideals that I was given on a piece of paper in high school:
I am a Republican Because...
I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.


That said, the last several years continue to demonstrate to me that the Republicans have not been living up to this creed, despite my wishes that they would. I fervently wish for them to get on board, and I had hoped the Tea Party would do it, but they were co-opted by the Religious Right, as Frid pointed out. I generally don't vote Libertarian because I'm willing to work with a partial solution and work on it progressively as the the Progressive movement did so successfully, and that was one of the reasons I initially backed Newt before his meltdowns: because I felt he could get shit done and at least get a partial solution. Deadlock is fine and well and it slows down legislation, which was intended by the founders, but the level of retardation the nation has reached with the 24 hour news cycle and partisan hatred is beyond exhausting at this point.
User avatar
Torquemada
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Virginia

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:52 am

Conservative as a label, especially in the US, is so wide that it has become almost meaningless. It's very obvious in the split between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives in the US Republican party - they manage to live together in the same party only because they have different priorities. A fiscal conservative is often (but not always) a person who wants personal freedom over anything else, and wouldn't mind it for social questions like gay marriage, the right for a woman to have an abortion and such. But small government is paramount. A social conservative is one who puts issues such as protection of marriage and all that comes under that (opposition to gay rights, no sex before marriage and such), issues like being pro-life, and sometimes also the more lunatic positions like intelligent design or wanting the US to be a totally christian nation. Fiscal issues are secondary. They usually haven't got a very clear position on that, wanting small government on some things (taxes) and big government on others (no abortions, no gay marriage).

How can these positions both be "conservative"? Well, it's pretty easy if you look at the defintion of conservative that wikipedia uses:

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[3] The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues.


This is a very wide definition. But at the core, it highlights what makes conservative philosphy so confusing: It's not about how you want society to be, it's about how you want society to change - ie slowly or not at all. It's a philosophy of stability, or of stagnation (take your pick), not a philosophy of values. The values of a conservative are whatever he percieves as being the traditional values of his nation/culture/region.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:59 am

Oh, and a final thing about "freedom" not being a right-wing value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

Anarchism had close ties to early communists, and was widely regarded as a left-wing philosophy.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:12 am

I just think the gop has shifted so much to the right, that what fridmarr calls conservative and what the gop does are on two totally different parts of the political spectrum...


Hence the graphic i posted earlier...

Here: Everybody’s So Different, I Haven’t Changed
Courtesy of Stonekettle Station.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:06 am

Paxen wrote:How can these positions both be "conservative"? Well, it's pretty easy if you look at the defintion of conservative that wikipedia uses:...

This is a very wide definition. But at the core, it highlights what makes conservative philosphy so confusing: It's not about how you want society to be, it's about how you want society to change - ie slowly or not at all. It's a philosophy of stability, or of stagnation (take your pick), not a philosophy of values. The values of a conservative are whatever he percieves as being the traditional values of his nation/culture/region.

It's really not that hard. The groups fall under one umbrella because we have a two party system. It's hard to fit 300million people into two buckets without some significant contradictions, both sides have them. Wikipedia and your desire to label people is really causing you issues though. Libertarians and fiscal conservatives want massive change from the current system, and I would presume that they want it to occur at a reasonable clip. It can be considered traditional I guess based on the constitutional model, but what difference does it make?

Paxen wrote:Oh, and a final thing about "freedom" not being a right-wing value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

Anarchism had close ties to early communists, and was widely regarded as a left-wing philosophy.
Who ever said freedom is exclusively a right wing value? That said, stop with the freaking Wikipedia, it's just confusing you. Collective anarchy is not particularly free, under that system the government controls the entire economic system, including how much money everyone makes.

When you talk about US parties/groups, the conversation basically assumes a free market system. You have to get pretty far away from center to find groups that want a government controlled economic system. When you move more right to the fiscal conservatives and libertarians, individual rights take precedent over the group concept and the role of government particularly at a federal level is reduced.

If you're actually interested understanding conservatives as opposed to trying to specifically find a negative way to define or label them, maybe you should start here.

Klaudandus wrote:I just think the gop has shifted so much to the right, that what fridmarr calls conservative and what the gop does are on two totally different parts of the political spectrum...
I don't think the GOP has a definition of conservative. The GOP does campaign on fiscally conservative principles at times, but also those socially conservative values too. There are elected members of the party from each faction and a lot that try to represent both. (Aside: it's widely accepted that both parties notoriously campaign on far more conservative values than they actually follow through with.)

As I said, the party is shrinking and it's mostly the fiscal conservatives leaving, so the result is that the needle has moved for the party. Though from my perspective, that's a movement to the left, not the right. Based on the links you post and therefore the sources you read, they are going to provide a pretty narrow view of the party, so your perception is understandable.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:35 am

Fridmarr, what is your defintion of Conservative? (The link you posted contains no meaningful information about that.) It has to encompass both Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives, because both those groups self-identify as conservatives and are also generally percievd as conservatives.

I find it curious that you in this thread have labeled liberals, communists, anarchists, nazis and social conservatives as all being "left". There is more to the political spectrum than your narrow less/more government spending axis.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:10 am

@Torquemada I think the "quiz" you took was The Political Compass.
(I would be interested in seeing where everyone falls on it in here, I know I've moved left over the years)

Edit: in fact, I think it could be fun, within this thread to have a crowd chart - if you wanna be on it, just reply with your "score".
I'll go first; -7.6, -4.0

Edit 2; just so I can remember where I put it; link to the current crowdchart - I will update it and the link as more people post their scores;
Maintankadin Crowd Chart
Last edited by Nooska on Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:06 am, edited 3 times in total.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:31 am

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

It does miss the distinction between "social" authoriarians and "fiscal" authoritarians. edit: Or maybe that's the entire point, that economic left is the equivalent of fiscal autoritharians. But that misses some points too, I think economic left/right is more about enforcing economic equality vs accepting some economic inequality.
Last edited by Paxen on Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:37 am

Paxen wrote:Fridmarr, what is your defintion of Conservative? (The link you posted contains no meaningful information about that.) It has to encompass both Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives, because both those groups self-identify as conservatives and are also generally percievd as conservatives.

I find it curious that you in this thread have labeled liberals, communists, anarchists, nazis and social conservatives as all being "left". There is more to the political spectrum than your narrow less/more government spending axis.

For the record, you labeled anarchists as left. I didn't, but I think classically they do go there. I think maybe that our disconnect is that I do not consider Conservative and The Right as synonyms. For instance, you responded to my point about nazism not being conservative by hilighting some nazi principles that are on the right. Which is true, but that doesn't mean they are conservative, and in fact you specifically said that they were not conservative, which is very confusing. It was like you were arguing with me while trying to prove my point at the same time.

The Right is far more broad a term, and while conservatism is a part of it, not everything on the right is part of conservatism. They can often be polar opposites. I think I've been pretty clear about the groups that are considered conservative in the US. All are pretty much free market capitalists, then that breaks down into the social traditionalists and the fiscal/limited govt folks. Though they aren't the same thing, but there's a lot of cross over there, where they come out on the same side of issues for different reasons.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:45 am

Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:24 pm

In the US Conservatism is primarily represented by the Republican party, which I oppose on the basis that they still cling to the idea of trickle-down economics, and they hitched their wagon to the bat-crap-crazy religious nuts in order to secure a voting block.

Trickle-down economics only works in a closed system. If you give tax breaks to the rich to encourage investment, the rich will invest where they can get a return - they didn't get rich by being stupid. If your country is not providing a return, they will invest overseas. That doesn't solve the economic problem; it makes it worse.

Fundamentally, the tenets of Christianity are liberal. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked - the idea that society should take care of its less fortunate is wheelhouse stuff for liberals. Yet somehow, the religious folks attached to the Republicans who really couldn't give a rat's ass about the hungry or sick unless they can make a buck off of them.

That has created this absolutely psychotic party where businessmen rub shoulders with religious wackos and people like my loving mother vote against the very programs they need going into their twilight years.

It's just nuts.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:07 pm

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:07 pm

Fundamentally, the tenets of Christianity are liberal. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked - the idea that society should take care of its less fortunate is wheelhouse stuff for liberals.


Actually, using the word "liberal" here is a misnomer - while it may be accurate yo the US usage, its actually a socialist or socialdemocratic tenet. Liberalism (everywhere but the US it seems) is about freedom versus control (Liberalism is opposed to authoritarianism) where socialism is opposed to the individual selfsustainability (economically) or lack thereof - actually the far left of the economic gradation would be ur-communism or utopian socialism, with modern socialism somewhere closer to the center (but still further than close) - like a third of the way from the left towards the center. Then you have almost limitless distinctions in between each extreme.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:24 pm

Nooska wrote:
Fundamentally, the tenets of Christianity are liberal. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked - the idea that society should take care of its less fortunate is wheelhouse stuff for liberals.


Actually, using the word "liberal" here is a misnomer - while it may be accurate yo the US usage, its actually a socialist or socialdemocratic tenet. Liberalism (everywhere but the US it seems) is about freedom versus control (Liberalism is opposed to authoritarianism) where socialism is opposed to the individual selfsustainability (economically) or lack thereof - actually the far left of the economic gradation would be ur-communism or utopian socialism, with modern socialism somewhere closer to the center (but still further than close) - like a third of the way from the left towards the center. Then you have almost limitless distinctions in between each extreme.

Yeah it's a dual purpose term here. When people use it in reference to say the liberalizing of the middle east, they'll usually mention that they aren't talking about "US liberals", but the concept of freedoms. When people choose to describe themselves with a term, they tend to use glowing words like liberal or progressive. The label may stick, but it doesn't mean it's entirely accurate.

To avoid confusion some will use the term western in place of liberal when talking about freedoms.

Koatanga's use of it there is reasonable in the US vernacular.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:03 pm

"Freedoms" are often in the eye of the beholder, anyway. Some people think freedom means being able to walk from one place to another without being restrained. To some it is the freedom not to worry about terrorism, so they exchange a bit of walking-around freedom for some peace-of-mind freedom.

Some thing freedom means being able to say whatever they want. Others think freedom means not having to listen to what they don't want to hear.

For some, freedom is doing what you want when you want and living for the moment. For others, freedom means being financially secure for the future.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:21 pm

I have to disagree that "freedom" in a political sense can be made subjective, especially in the context of liberty and liberalism (in the non-US context). Liberalism is the belief that is opposed to authoritarianism, where there (at the extreme end) is actual anarchic beliefs - disguising authoritarian measures as freedom or liberal measures is an oft-used ploy throughout history, especially in regards to safety. These days the watchword of the ploy is terrorism, previously its been foreign threats (cold war had the opposite side), and further back there has been (mostly false) religious differences where the belief was that the other side wanted to make you do things their way (and further back it was actually so).

Backing any restrictions from teh state moves you from the liberal end towards the authoritarian end, as well as backing any freedom from the state moves you from the authoritan towards the liberal end of the scale.

Specific example, the patrio act was a very very authirtarian measure - it enjoys (enjoyeD) the backing of people that thought of it as necessary, and that doesn't mean they were wrong, on unpatriotic (as some people would make it out), it just means that their idea of government was more authoritarian than those that opposed it.

Likewise the scale is not about specific issues - the pro-life movement are authoritarian in their belief that the government should enact laws that limit the choice of women (more than it is today). That doesnt mean that they support all authoritarian measures, or even that they are in agreement with others that end up teh same place. the scales are merely a picture of how liberal/authoritarian you are, not what your specific stances or issues are.
The same goes for the left/right (or ur-communism/individualism*) scale.

* I'm really lacking a good word, the political compass uses "libertarianism for the right, but uses the word "libertarian" for the liberal end of the liberal/authoritarian scale - I think individualism covers it fairly (if you (collective you) object, I'll happily listen to other suggestions for my future usage).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:35 pm

You'll never have a completely lawless society, so extreme "liberalism" or "individualism" or whatever you want to call it simply doesn't exist.

There are conflicting freedoms that are not reconcilable. One person's freedom to practice his religion, if it involves human sacrifice, would be irreconcilable with the sacrificial person's freedom to live.

So you have to come up with a moral/legal/ethical restraint that takes away the freedom of one or the other.

No State exists without laws. It can't because Law #1 is the existence of the state. Law #2 is that the State is empowered to enforce and protect Law #1. So you automatically have those two laws, then you add on additional ones - many of which we all agree upon, like not killing people so you can use their entrails to pick the Super Bowl winner.

So if you accept that there can be no State without laws, then the difference becomes how the laws are applied. Does the man have a right to sacrifice a person as part of his religious freedom, or does the other man have a right to life? Which freedom gets upheld then forms the ideology of the government.

So freedoms are relative. If the will of the people is that sacrifices make better crops and allow the population to grow, then the freedom to sacrifice is upheld over the freedom to live. If the will of the people is that life is sacred and the religion is poppycock, then the freedom to live is upheld over the freedom to practice religion.

I don't think you can talk about liberalism/individualism from an anarchic standpoint at all, because in order to have an -ism you have to have a society and you cannot have a society without some rules.

So then it becomes a trade-off of freedoms, and we get back to the idea that freedoms are relative to the desires of the people who want to be free.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:43 pm

Nooska wrote:Likewise the scale is not about specific issues - the pro-life movement are authoritarian in their belief that the government should enact laws that limit the choice of women (more than it is today). That doesnt mean that they support all authoritarian measures, or even that they are in agreement with others that end up teh same place. the scales are merely a picture of how liberal/authoritarian you are, not what your specific stances or issues are.
The same goes for the left/right (or ur-communism/individualism*) scale.

That's a troublesome example. First, the intent of pro-life isn't to limit women's choice, it's to protect the baby. That's why it's pro-life and not anti-choice. The sticky part is, that mechanically it's no different at all between a lot of pro-choice folks. Most pro-choicers, and we saw plenty of examples of this in this thread on the topic, also want to (in your words) "limit the mother's choice" at a certain gestational period of the pregnancy, usually viability. They try to rationalize the difference that at the point of viability the baby is a person with rights, but viability is a medical term, not at all related to the concept of sentience. Pro-lifers feel the same way, the more ardent among them deem it a baby with rights at conception. There may not be a clear answer as to when sentience occurs, but it is highly probable that both sides are wrong.

Beyond that though, I do agree with your post. Liberalism in the political freedom sense is not generally viewed as a subjective thing but it's really focused on basic political freedoms at a high level. There's a ton of nuance with that range.

Individualism is probably fair enough for the Libertarian party. It might not be perfect, but I think it gets the point across.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:35 pm

Time for White America to boycott the NFL.
The league is anti-white, proves it more and more with every passing year.
Let the homosexuals and the filthy degenerate communists and welfare cases buy tickets to these thug fests.
I will never spend another dime on the NFL again.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... ge=267#267

Checking the Freepers is funny as hell...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:44 pm

Step one to the boycott, pull the plug???
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:48 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Step one to the boycott, pull the plug???


I guess =P
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:20 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Nooska wrote:Likewise the scale is not about specific issues - the pro-life movement are authoritarian in their belief that the government should enact laws that limit the choice of women (more than it is today). That doesnt mean that they support all authoritarian measures, or even that they are in agreement with others that end up teh same place. the scales are merely a picture of how liberal/authoritarian you are, not what your specific stances or issues are.
The same goes for the left/right (or ur-communism/individualism*) scale.

That's a troublesome example. First, the intent of pro-life isn't to limit women's choice, it's to protect the baby. That's why it's pro-life and not anti-choice. The sticky part is, that mechanically it's no different at all between a lot of pro-choice folks. Most pro-choicers, and we saw plenty of examples of this in this thread on the topic, also want to (in your words) "limit the mother's choice" at a certain gestational period of the pregnancy, usually viability. They try to rationalize the difference that at the point of viability the baby is a person with rights, but viability is a medical term, not at all related to the concept of sentience. Pro-lifers feel the same way, the more ardent among them deem it a baby with rights at conception. There may not be a clear answer as to when sentience occurs, but it is highly probable that both sides are wrong.

Beyond that though, I do agree with your post. Liberalism in the political freedom sense is not generally viewed as a subjective thing but it's really focused on basic political freedoms at a high level. There's a ton of nuance with that range.

Individualism is probably fair enough for the Libertarian party. It might not be perfect, but I think it gets the point across.


I apologize if that is the way it came off. My intention wasn't to talk to the intentions of pro-lifers, but the method which by definition limits the "freedom of choice" is authoritarian rather than liberalistic - it doesn't swing to one end of the spectrum by itself, it was just he easiest example I could come up with, and not intended to open the debate again.
And yes, the pro-choice crowd are also authoritarian on the issue, just slightly less so in this regard as they stille want the state to limit the "freedom of choice", just slightly less.

(Heck I'm pro-choice, but also thing that abortion is "too easy" an option and way overused, and think it would be better if more people were personally responsible, so abortions would de facto be limited to rape cases that result in pregnancy, or to situations where birth control failed and a child would not be of benefit to anyone including itself)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest