Columbusite
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- Columbus
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
I think these definitions are subjective, and each individual person holds those definitions in their own mind, along with strong connotations associated with those words. "Neocon" holds a strong negative connotation in my mind, but that is probably not the case with other DP users such as Navy Pride, CurrentAffairs, aquapub, and other neoconservatives.
I think we should center them around how much freedom one supports in their society. ... On the one end of the spectrum there is anarchism and the other totalitarianism.
Colombusite said:So what do you all think? Is it possible to come to some sort of agreement on what we should base our labelling on?
Neocon" holds a strong negative connotation in my mind, but that is probably not the case with other DP users such as Navy Pride, CurrentAffairs, aquapub, and other neoconservatives.
there are definitions somewhere, wikipedia has some. But I don't think that you'll ever convince some neocons that liberal mans anything but cowardly. unamerican, jesus-hating idiot.
All over this site people, myself included, have to varying degrees improperly used certain adjectives incorrectly to describe others political beliefs. I think we need to come to some sort of common ground on this before moving on to any further topics to avoid confusion. So many labels have baggage attached that really shouldn't be there. Whether it be "liberal" or "conservative". Before we start stamping all sorts of labels on one another, we should decide what the labels we use should be centered upon. I think we should center them around how much freedom one supports in their society.
On the one end of the spectrum there is anarchism and the other totalitarianism. This is the context I am using when I describe myself as a liberal. For me, I want as much freedom as possible without going as far as anarchy. The term "conservative" doesn't mean anything in this context without detailing what it is that is being conserved. If you think the government should be able to liberally execute anyone they want, you're not a liberal. If you seek to conserve the idea that "all men are created equal" by supporting the equal treatment of all citizens by the government I would say that is liberal, so long as that equality guarantees lots of freedom for everyone. If you want to conserve an idea that makes some citizens 2nd class-citizens under the government, that is authoritiran. So what do you all think? Is it possible to come to some sort of agreement on what we should base our labelling on? Or are we going to have to clarify each and every time we post what we mean when we say "___" in this or that context? This should be interesting nontheless.
Cool.For reference:
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36
I do not believe this is accurate, since I am not nearly as hostile to private enterprise as Walt Brown-- and several of my "liberal" social answers are matters of accepting scientific evidence, not a laissez-faire attitude. The problem is, the desire to preserve moral order is usually paired with a stubborn insistence on using the wrong tools and ignoring the consequences of doing so.
I prefer the test offered at Moral Politics, which bases results on more philosophical questions than issue-by-issue analysis.
According to Moral Politics, I am:
Moral Order 2.5
Moral Rules 1
This places me as a Moderate Authoritarian or a Social Republican. Essentially, my problem with American politics is that our "liberals" are undisciplined, and our "conservatives" are either utterly selfish or religious tyrants.
By this, seems the british has the most balanced of parties. the Us has shifted to the right some what and the French - well they're just crazy.For comparison...
American Parties:
British Parties:
French Parties:
G8 Countries:
And for a lark, Religions:
By that measure, France and Germany are practically Buddhist, Italy isn't Catholic, Japan is a cross between Catholicism and Islam, and the UK and the US are just a bunch of Protestants and Jews.
By this, seems the british has the most balanced of parties. the Us has shifted to the right some what and the French - well they're just crazy.
The Religion post though is most interesting - Buddhism hmmm sure explains my leanings some what hahahaha.
Actually I'd find a country governed by no religious authorities more interesting - just for the sole purpose of.Yea, it is pretty interesting that in France, the "Parti Liberal" is the closest thing they have to brownshirts.:lol:
And Britain does seem to be the most balanced, closely followed by....religion. It'd be interesting to see a country actually governed by candidates from all the various religious parties.
As to the response of liberals being "undisciplined" Could you tell me what you mean by that?
I'm not sure that they had a very accurate analysis of Bush's positions though, as they claimed he was the most conservative president since WWII.
By their criteria-- high value in Moral Rules and low value in Moral Order-- do you have suggestions for who might be moreso? He's not "conservative" by my understanding of the word, but he's certainly closer to the lower right-hand corner than any other President I can think of.
Conformance is the notion of a structured moral order. People who like Conformance tend to have many steps on their moral order ladder. For instance, they may believe that:
1. God ranks above people
2. Men rank above women
3. Some cultures rank above others
4. Some countries rank above others
5. Some lifestyles rank above others
6. Some social classes rank above others...
A structured moral order brings uniformity of thought and behavior across society. It encourages each individual to respect the established moral order.
People on this side of the Matrix may support:
1. Integration of church and state
2. Family values
3. Military programs
4. Abortion-Control
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying so let me try my best here. And I say so because I don't understand how this is limited to liberals alone.I believe that they are overly concerned with whether or not people are allowed to do something, and not enough concerned with whether or not they ought to.
You see this most in all the social wedge issues-- which, for the most part, I tend to agree with them upon-- but it shows up on the financial side as well. They speak of homosexuals' right to marry and adopt, but not the importance of marriage and family to society and why, regardless of who we allow to participate in them, these institutions must be preserved. They speak of peoples' right to healthcare and education, good jobs and the necessities of life, but not of our duty to provide for ourselves and our families, and to reach out to our neighbors before they have cause to call upon the government.
I do not disagree with any of these things. But I believe that to have them-- for everyone to have them-- we have to deserve them. We have to teach our children the moral values that make these things possible, and we have to learn to uphold them ourselves.
Government can provide many services in an organized, consistent, and efficient manner, but it requires the citizens to actively support them. Schools cannot teach students disinterested in learning, and hospitals cannot treat patients unwilling to take care of themselves.
Yes, that would hold true unless you were looking at their slopes and the degree of those slopes from the center. To which then the values and postulations hold true. Carter would be the most liberal while Bush the most conservative.Well, first, even if we take their placements as true on their face, then based on their own graph and description its not necessarily true:
On this page, they say that Carter is the most liberal. Now, Carter had two presidents to the left of him (on the graph), but he's the highest, so for that statement to be true, it must mean that up/down is more translatable to liberal/conservative. By that measure, Reagan would be considered more conservative than Bush.
But to look more at the actual measuring mechanism, the left/right (on the chart) measurement is based on Moral Order and is called "conformance" on the right side.
Their description:
I would argue that other presidents such as Eisenhower/GHWB/Reagan were probably more conservative than Bush on issues such as family values, abortion, military programs, and especially the valuation of certain societies/groups/cultures over others.
On this page, they say that Carter is the most liberal. Now, Carter had two presidents to the left of him (on the graph), but he's the highest, so for that statement to be true, it must mean that up/down is more translatable to liberal/conservative.
RightatNYU said:I would argue that other presidents such as Eisenhower/GHWB/Reagan were probably more conservative than Bush on issues such as family values, abortion, military programs, and especially the valuation of certain societies/groups/cultures over others.
I assume what you are saying goes down to the sense of entitlement and responsibility. And while I kind of see where you're going with it, I simply don't see it restricted to liberals only but to Americans overall.
jfuh said:A sense of entitlement to everything without the effort put in to get it. And when the going gets thought it's time for finger pointing at whomever other then themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?