• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frauke Petry: meet the smiling new face of Germany's far-right

german hick said:
Sounds nice. But in my opinion you are not able to give equal chances for all with uncontrolled capitalism.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement. That is why capitalism needs to be regulated - controlled if you prefer that word.
 
german hick said:
same here... I tend to think left and green - but I also prefer supporting personal responsibility and freedom. Not a Topic of the "Linke". And I have some fears the Greens want to create a "Ökokratie" (hope the not German speaking understand my neologism ;) )

social democrats is no alternative for me because of the reasons you mentioned - they are not very social any more...
Click to expand...
And I have some fears the Greens want to create a "Ökokratie" (hope the not German speaking understand my neologism :wink: )
Click to expand...
You may have added a new term (concept) to the English language.

Merriam-Webster should be defining "ecocracy" as dictatorship by tree huggers. :mrgreen:
 
Chagos said:
You may have added a new term (concept) to the English language.

Merriam-Webster should be defining "ecocracy" as dictatorship by tree huggers. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:D

And it may be worse... I went to the lokal Greens some times because I thought it´s time to engage a little bit. But there was no green policy at all. All they were talking about was gender mainstreaming, especially in orthography :slapme: - things I really think the world does not need. And I´m really a fan of equality...

edit: don´t think I change my postings because of the editing - my PC - according to German orthography - alwas wants to write words in upper case...
 
Last edited:
german hick said:
:D

And it may be worse... I went to the lokal Greens some times because I thought it´s time to engage a little bit. But there was no green policy at all. All they were talking about was gender mainstreaming, especially in orthography :slapme: - things I really think the world does not need. And I´m really a fan of equality...
Click to expand...
well, I'm certainly in favour of women being persuaded to use proper orthography as well :mrgreen:

edit: don´t think I change my postings because of the editing - my PC - according to German orthography - alwas wants to write words in upper case...
Click to expand...
I think I have that feature somewhere as well on mine, I just don't allow the darn presumptuous machine to do anything other than what I type.;)
 
German guy said:
In case you speak German, this book is helpful:

Konservativismus (Elemente der Politik) eBook: Sven-Uwe Schmitz: Amazon.de: Bücher

Short summary: Conservativism is a unique branch of ideology, next to liberalism and socialism. With its own unique roots and views. It sharply differs from (classical) liberalism (which you claim is identical to conservatism) in its view on human nature, the role of society and state, and several other points.

Many parties that are often colloquially referred to as "conservative" are actually (classically) liberal, or at least ecompass classical liberalism on a spectrum.
Click to expand...

No I don't speak German and can only read simple passages - and I have feeling that the linked book would be anything but simple!

British conservatism arose out of the landed interests who wished to block free trade, specifically the import of wheat. The proto-liberals wanted cheap imported grain to enable manufacture workers to feed themselves on low wages. If I said or implied that liberalism and conservatism are identical - or even have the same roots - I was quite wrong.
 
Sweden said:
No I don't speak German and can only read simple passages - and I have feeling that the linked book would be anything but simple!

British conservatism arose out of the landed interests who wished to block free trade, specifically the import of wheat. The proto-liberals wanted cheap imported grain to enable manufacture workers to feed themselves on low wages. If I said or implied that liberalism and conservatism are identical - or even have the same roots - I was quite wrong.
Click to expand...

In that book, you find an approach for an outline of the basics of conservative philosophy, in contrast to non-conservative (liberal or socialist) stances.

- Conservatives view property as positive, but it isn't an end in itself, but responsibility is attached to it; in has to be used in unity with law tradition and ethics. Whileas non-conservatives either see property as an end in itself (liberals) or are skeptic of it (socialists).

- Basis for conservative views is the individual, but the individual is bound by superior obligations and duties, whileas liberals set the individual absolute and socialists emphasize the collective. Conservatives emphasize positive freedom ("freedom to do something") rather than negative freedom ("freedom from coercion or state") as liberals do.

- A given moral order has priority for conservatives, it can be religious, naturally grown or historically tested, whileas both liberals and socialists believe the way things are says nothing about how they are supposed to be, hence they feel justified changing it according to their views.

- Conservatives see the state as organically grown community, ordered by authority and oriented towards the common good. For liberals and socialists, the state is a means to an end, and its scope either encompassing (socialists) or minimal (liberals).


I had the chance to learn a lot about the views of a German hardcore conservative, who's of the kind you hardly find anymore after 1945. He supported monarchic order, as only traditional monarchies are organically grown communities with an organically grown authority; constitutionalism in liberal tradition is "tyranny of money", and money flows will destroy morals, natural order and authority. He loathes both liberal and socialist materialism, because emphasis should be on the spirit rather than matter.

The political order of republicanism is nothing but a degenerate form of government by people with money, which occurs with natural necessity when strong, noble monarchic orders degrade from "culture" into "civilization", but they won't persist, because "tyranny of money" will eventually destroy itself, so republics eventually become empires (he got these ideas from arch-conservative German political philosopher Oswald Spengler and his "Downfall of the Occident").

Democracy in particular is a degenerate idea in his eyes, because it gives the dumbest, least skilled and least moral people a maximum of power; the strong, smart and good only are suited to truly rule, in the best interest of the community, and the ideal form to do that is traditional monarchy.
 
German guy said:
In that book, you find an approach for an outline of the basics of conservative philosophy, in contrast to non-conservative (liberal or socialist) stances.

- Conservatives view property as positive, but it isn't an end in itself, but responsibility is attached to it; in has to be used in unity with law tradition and ethics. Whileas non-conservatives either see property as an end in itself (liberals) or are skeptic of it (socialists).

- Basis for conservative views is the individual, but the individual is bound by superior obligations and duties, whileas liberals set the individual absolute and socialists emphasize the collective. Conservatives emphasize positive freedom ("freedom to do something") rather than negative freedom ("freedom from coercion or state") as liberals do.

- A given moral order has priority for conservatives, it can be religious, naturally grown or historically tested, whileas both liberals and socialists believe the way things are says nothing about how they are supposed to be, hence they feel justified changing it according to their views.

- Conservatives see the state as organically grown community, ordered by authority and oriented towards the common good. For liberals and socialists, the state is a means to an end, and its scope either encompassing (socialists) or minimal (liberals).


I had the chance to learn a lot about the views of a German hardcore conservative, who's of the kind you hardly find anymore after 1945. He supported monarchic order, as only traditional monarchies are organically grown communities with an organically grown authority; constitutionalism in liberal tradition is "tyranny of money", and money flows will destroy morals, natural order and authority. He loathes both liberal and socialist materialism, because emphasis should be on the spirit rather than matter.

The political order of republicanism is nothing but a degenerate form of government by people with money, which occurs with natural necessity when strong, noble monarchic orders degrade from "culture" into "civilization", but they won't persist, because "tyranny of money" will eventually destroy itself, so republics eventually become empires (he got these ideas from arch-conservative German political philosopher Oswald Spengler and his "Downfall of the Occident").

Democracy in particular is a degenerate idea in his eyes, because it gives the dumbest, least skilled and least moral people a maximum of power; the strong, smart and good only are suited to truly rule, in the best interest of the community, and the ideal form to do that is traditional monarchy.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this most interesting post. Surprisingly present day Sweden has no conservative party. Moderaterna - the Moderate is sometimes wrong ly described as such, but in reality is very imilar to the UK's Liberal Democrats.
 
Sweden said:
Thank you for this most interesting post. Surprisingly present day Sweden has no conservative party. Moderaterna - the Moderate is sometimes wrong ly described as such, but in reality is very imilar to the UK's Liberal Democrats.
Click to expand...

You're certainly correct when you say there are often certain intersections between (center-right) libertarians/classical liberals and conservatives, as oftentimes, you find political parties that encompasses both streams.

And when you look at the outline above, you see that conservatives support "a given moral order has priority for conservatives, it can be religious, naturally grown or historically tested" -- and in most Western republics, a liberal model of economy, capitalism in some form, indeed is a "historically tested" order.

I think this goes especially for America, as the country was founded on classically liberal principles. So the pinnacle of traditionalism in America are classical liberal values, a constitutional republican system and capitalist economy. Liberalism has become tradition there. Because of that, this intersection between libertarians and conservatives is especially strong, I guess.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
It's along the lines that a policeman has the right (in some countries) to end up shooting you if you don't take a parking violation ticket. I don't see it as a last resort but a failure of dealing with a foreseeable problem in a more civilised and less brutal manner.
Click to expand...
No. Complete apples and oranges.
Illegals crossing your border is in no way comparable to a parking violation.
I agree that if the refugee or illegal immigrant is unarmed then proper authorities should be able to arrest them without shooting them. But I also doubt that every illegal is unarmed.
If they are armed they are fair game as far as I'm concerned. No matter the country.

I also wanted to thank German Guy. I learned some things about German politics I had not known (always enjoy expanding my knowledge base).
 
Ntharotep said:
No. Complete apples and oranges.
Illegals crossing your border is in no way comparable to a parking violation.
I agree that if the refugee or illegal immigrant is unarmed then proper authorities should be able to arrest them without shooting them. But I also doubt that every illegal is unarmed.
If they are armed they are fair game as far as I'm concerned. No matter the country. ~
Click to expand...

The point is about escalation not so much about how similar or dissimilar a particular crime may be. A nation's authorities should arrest an illegal without resource to shooting. As for if they are armed; there is a much lower likelihood of our police shooting armed criminals unless a recognisable threat is involved. However, I don't want to digress into a US vs UK policy on armed response policy difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom