• 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!

Understanding the political spectrum

J

jdog

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
661
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It frustrates me immensely to hear people speak of conservatism without understanding what it really is.

While it is true that conservatism and liberalism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, Republicans are not conservatives. They are less liberal than Democrats, but they are liberals all the same.

To understand the political spectrum you must understand that it is based on the belief that either the individual is sovereign or that the individual is a subject and subservient to the State, whether that be a Monarchy, or a elevated class of Royalty called government.

To the degree that you believe the people are the masters of government, then you are conservative.
To the degree that you believe the government is the masters of the people, then you are liberal.

To the degree you believe the government derives its power directly from the people, you are conservative.
To the degree you believe the peoples rights are given to them from an all powerful and omnipotent government you are a liberal.
 
Ummm...no. :no:

Socialist's have co-opted the term "Liberal" and people have bought into this. It is something that has annoyed me immensely.

The root word is the Latin word Liber, which translates as "the free one."

The modern basis is Liberty, the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

Thus you see in Libertarian, Liberal.

Liberty has nothing to do with government being the master of the people.

As for Conservative?

The root word is "conserve," to protect from loss, preserve.

To be Conservative stands for favoring traditional views and values and tending to oppose change.

One can be a conservative Nazi, or a conservative Commie. All it takes is a desire to preserve the traditional status quo over change.

People claiming to be "Liberal" while demanding government control over how others express free speech, freedom of association, even freedom to think differently, etc. have nothing to do with Liberalism.
 
Last edited:
jdog said:
It frustrates me immensely to hear people speak of conservatism without understanding what it really is.

While it is true that conservatism and liberalism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, Republicans are not conservatives. They are less liberal than Democrats, but they are liberals all the same.

To understand the political spectrum you must understand that it is based on the belief that either the individual is sovereign or that the individual is a subject and subservient to the State, whether that be a Monarchy, or a elevated class of Royalty called government.

To the degree that you believe the people are the masters of government, then you are conservative.
To the degree that you believe the government is the masters of the people, then you are liberal.

To the degree you believe the government derives its power directly from the people, you are conservative.
To the degree you believe the peoples rights are given to them from an all powerful and omnipotent government you are a liberal.
Click to expand...

So as an anarcho-communist, I'm a conservative? Good to know.
 
spud_meister said:
So as an anarcho-communist, I'm a conservative? Good to know.
Click to expand...

Really? As a communist, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual over the State? No discrepancy there.....
 
jdog said:
Really? As a communist, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual over the State? No discrepancy there.....
Click to expand...

Since anarcho-communists advocate for the abolition of the state, I don't see a discrepancy.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Since anarcho-communists advocate for the abolition of the state, I don't see a discrepancy.
Click to expand...

So how do you maintain a true communist system without a central authority?
 
jdog said:
Really? As a communist, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual over the State? No discrepancy there.....
Click to expand...

That's what communism is about. But we, unlike liberaltarians, also recognise tyranny comes from individuals, not just from the state. The whole point of communism is that every individual has their needs met, and there is no cause to exploit others for profit. Libertarians simply advocate for unrestrained tyranny by individuals, and promote slavery, class warfare and inequality.
 
jdog said:
It frustrates me immensely to hear people speak of conservatism without understanding what it really is.

While it is true that conservatism and liberalism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, Republicans are not conservatives. They are less liberal than Democrats, but they are liberals all the same.

To understand the political spectrum you must understand that it is based on the belief that either the individual is sovereign or that the individual is a subject and subservient to the State, whether that be a Monarchy, or a elevated class of Royalty called government.

To the degree that you believe the people are the masters of government, then you are conservative.
To the degree that you believe the government is the masters of the people, then you are liberal.

To the degree you believe the government derives its power directly from the people, you are conservative.
To the degree you believe the peoples rights are given to them from an all powerful and omnipotent government you are a liberal.
Click to expand...

This country was founded on what was known as Classic Liberalism. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. Protecting both social and economic civil liberties. A classic Liberal much like a conservative would be against big government, power to a central government taken from the people.

The framers, being classic liberals wrote the constitution to limit the power of the center or federal government. The federal or central governments power was to be limited to Article I Section 8 and to ensure the federal government power remained limited and its size small, adopted the 10th amendment.

The liberal of today is no classic liberal, the world liberal is the wrong word for them. Progressive probably fits. Ben Franklin after the constitutional convention when asked what type of government it had wrought replied, "A constitutional Republic, if you can keep it."

He is also credited with stating, "Those who chose security over liberty, will soon have neither."
 
Perotista said:
This country was founded on what was known as Classic Liberalism. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. Protecting both social and economic civil liberties. A classic Liberal much like a conservative would be against big government, power to a central government taken from the people.

The framers, being classic liberals wrote the constitution to limit the power of the center or federal government. The federal or central governments power was to be limited to Article I Section 8 and to ensure the federal government power remained limited and its size small, adopted the 10th amendment.

The liberal of today is no classic liberal, the world liberal is the wrong word for them. Progressive probably fits. Ben Franklin after the constitutional convention when asked what type of government it had wrought replied, "A constitutional Republic, if you can keep it."

He is also credited with stating, "Those who chose security over liberty, will soon have neither."
Click to expand...

Actually, the country was founded primarily on the principals of libertarianism. As I explained before, there is only two states of existence for people. Either you are a sovereign citizen in which your rights are absolute in the context of your own life and person, and acquired at birth, or you are a subject of a higher authority.

The United States was founded as a Republic in which the powers of government are given to government by the people, and therefore limited by the same. The government was something that was feared from its conception because of the experience of the forefathers who knew that men were totally corruptible and that any powers given government would be abused and used to take the liberty of the people.

The original political spectrum was between the Federalists, who wanted a system similar to the Monarchy of England and the class divided society with the government being similar to the royalty of Europe, and the anti-Federalists who believed every man was born with the rights of a king, and that government is and should always be subservient to the citizens.

The downfall of the United States began with the implementation of Maritime law onto the land, and the first central bank. The rights of the citizens and the States were further eroded by the tyranny of the Civil War, and the final blows came when the Federal Reserve was created and the 16th and 17th amendments were implemented.

Today we are no longer free and sovereign citizens, we are simply well kept serfs who are subservient to a tyrannical government of which we have completely lost control.
 
spud_meister said:
That's what communism is about. But we, unlike liberaltarians, also recognise tyranny comes from individuals, not just from the state. The whole point of communism is that every individual has their needs met, and there is no cause to exploit others for profit. Libertarians simply advocate for unrestrained tyranny by individuals, and promote slavery, class warfare and inequality.
Click to expand...

What you want is your mommy to take care of you because you do not want to take responsibility for your self. The only way any communist system can possibly work is for a central "authority" to confiscate all the fruits of labor and then distribute them as they see fit. The problem is, they will always allow their human ego's to influence them to keep the vast majority of the fruits of the peoples labor for their own. Communism as a system has never worked, and it never will. It always metastasizes into a tyrannical monarchy of the State, and the people always end up starving and living as peasants and serfs.

There is nothing tyrannical about keeping the fruits of your own labor. There is nothing tyrannical about accepting responsibility for your own life. Tyranny only exists when men attempt to justify the robbing of others by force. Liberalism and communism cannot exist without the robbery of others by force. That is why they are evil by nature.
 
jdog said:
What you want is your mommy to take care of you because you do not want to take responsibility for your self. The only way any communist system can possibly work is for a central "authority" to confiscate all the fruits of labor and then distribute them as they see fit. The problem is, they will always allow their human ego's to influence them to keep the vast majority of the fruits of the peoples labor for their own. Communism as a system has never worked, and it never will. It always metastasizes into a tyrannical monarchy of the State, and the people always end up starving and living as peasants and serfs.

There is nothing tyrannical about keeping the fruits of your own labor. There is nothing tyrannical about accepting responsibility for your own life. Tyranny only exists when men attempt to justify the robbing of others by force. Liberalism and communism cannot exist without the robbery of others by force. That is why they are evil by nature.
Click to expand...

Communists believe people are entitled to all the fruits of their labour, not simply the percentage that bourgeois think they should keep. An anarcho-communist society sees voluntary labour replace wage-slavery; the means of production held commonly, not by thieves passing themselves of as government or corporate bureaucrats; it sees voluntary association replace economic coercion. How can an individual be free if they are violently coerced to sell their labour for less than its value to a corporation in order to survive? How can they be free if a government steals what little they get of their labour as taxes?

Your system is one of exploitation where those with money but their way out of personal responsibility for their actions. They can destroy land, poison rivers, release toxic chemicals and carcinogens into the biosphere, and escape any responsibility. They can destroy the livelihood of thousands, and then be bailed out by a corporatist government. They can blatantly violate the law, and buy their freedom. In your system, personal responsibility is only for those who cannot afford to escape it.
 
jdog said:
Actually, the country was founded primarily on the principals of libertarianism. As I explained before, there is only two states of existence for people. Either you are a sovereign citizen in which your rights are absolute in the context of your own life and person, and acquired at birth, or you are a subject of a higher authority.

The United States was founded as a Republic in which the powers of government are given to government by the people, and therefore limited by the same. The government was something that was feared from its conception because of the experience of the forefathers who knew that men were totally corruptible and that any powers given government would be abused and used to take the liberty of the people.

The original political spectrum was between the Federalists, who wanted a system similar to the Monarchy of England and the class divided society with the government being similar to the royalty of Europe, and the anti-Federalists who believed every man was born with the rights of a king, and that government is and should always be subservient to the citizens.

The downfall of the United States began with the implementation of Maritime law onto the land, and the first central bank. The rights of the citizens and the States were further eroded by the tyranny of the Civil War, and the final blows came when the Federal Reserve was created and the 16th and 17th amendments were implemented.

Today we are no longer free and sovereign citizens, we are simply well kept serfs who are subservient to a tyrannical government of which we have completely lost control.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. We have elections controlled by the two major parties to give us a feeling that we are free and have the liberty to choose our elected leaders or those who rule over us. The problem is both parties want and succeed in enhancing the power of government over its citizens. Both parties govern about the same. They play around the edges, develop different political rhetoric, but both work to make the power of government over the people absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom