Conservatives: Do Liberals "Get It"?

Do liberals not understand you, or do liberals understand you but just don't care?

For the most part it is a mirror. But many of the young liberals are ridiculous. They neither understand nor care why I am a conservative.

Liberals do not understand that there can possibly be a principled opposition to their ideology. Having convinced themselves that their ends are good and just and moral they view any opposition as too stupid to understand their intellectual brilliance or just plain evil.

Fletch said:

Liberals do not understand that there can possibly be a principled opposition to their ideology. Having convinced themselves that their ends are good and just and moral they view any opposition as too stupid to understand their intellectual brilliance or just plain evil.

Click to expand...

I understand the existence of principled conservatism just fine. I'm simply of the opinion that most of it is bull****. Libertarianism has its merits in some aspects, less so in others.

However, libertarians too (at least most of the ones on this board), believe that their ends are just and moral and any opposition to their platform is simply the result of ignorance (i.e. the ironic claim that "you liberals just don't understand economics" all the while spewing Austrian garbage that is not backed up by any empirical data whatsoever, or that "you libs just hate freedom" without recognizing the fact that your conception of "freedom" is hardly the only one). Believing that your ends are good and justified at all costs is inherent to any ideology, so I don't know why you seem to believe that this is somehow unique to liberalism.

Daktoria said:

Do liberals not understand you, or do liberals understand you but just don't care?

Click to expand...

I can tell you this, most of the time I don't understand you but it has nothing to do with my liberalism.

StillBallin75 said:

I understand the existence of principled conservatism just fine. I'm simply of the opinion that most of it is bull****. Libertarianism has its merits in some aspects, less so in others.

Click to expand...

What sort of things do you consider bull****?

Fletch said:

What sort of things do you consider bull****?

Click to expand...

I mainly take issue social conservatism, not limited to but including opposition to gay marriage, ignorance on race issues, ignorance on LGBT issues in general. I'm generally more sympathetic to pro-lifers than other liberals, but take a pragmatic view of the abortion issue.

On economic issues I think there is more room for intelligent liberals and intelligent conservatives to disagree while both remaining reasonable, so I don't have as much of an issue with economic conservatism as I do with social conservatism.

StillBallin75 said:

I understand the existence of principled conservatism just fine. I'm simply of the opinion that most of it is bull****. Libertarianism has its merits in some aspects, less so in others.

However, libertarians too (at least most of the ones on this board), believe that their ends are just and moral and any opposition to their platform is simply the result of ignorance (i.e. the ironic claim that "you liberals just don't understand economics" all the while spewing Austrian garbage that is not backed up by any empirical data whatsoever). Believing that your ends are good and justified at all costs is inherent to any ideology, so I don't know why you seem to believe that this is somehow unique to liberalism.

Click to expand...

My favorite one is if someone disagree with a libertarian, then there is the inevitable lesson about natural rights. Here is a hint, people understand your philosophy but may disagree anyway.

StillBallin75 said:

I mainly take issue social conservatism, not limited to but including opposition to gay marriage, ignorance on race issues, ignorance on LGBT issues in general. I'm generally more sympathetic to pro-lifers than other liberals, but take a pragmatic view of the abortion issue.

On economic issues I think there is more room for intelligent liberals and intelligent conservatives to disagree while both remaining reasonable, so I don't have as much of an issue with economic conservatism as I do with social conservatism.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. Many conservative social positions are based upon ignorance and/or mysticism which as an atheist I find a bit difficult to label as 'principled.'

megaprogman said:

My favorite one is if someone disagree with a libertarian, then there is the inevitable lesson about natural rights. Here is a hint, people understand your philosophy but may disagree anyway.

Click to expand...

You are free to disagree with the concept of natural rights, but doing so makes any opposition to rights violations on your part morally baseless.

Fletch said:

You are free to disagree with the concept of natural rights, but doing so makes any opposition to rights violations on your part morally baseless.

Click to expand...

This is another thing libertarians tend to never understand. Multiple philosophies about life mean there are multiple ways in which people can come a conclusion about what rights people have, which rights are appropriate, how far rights extend (whether they are absolute or not), and the nature and context of rights. I have come across exactly one libertarian who is able to see past their tunnel vision and realize that there are multiple ways one can come to a conclusion about human society and the role of the individual vs the group.

megaprogman said:

This is another thing libertarians tend to never understand. Multiple philosophies about life mean there are multiple ways in which people can come a conclusion about what rights people have, which rights are appropriate, how far rights extend (whether they are absolute or not), and the nature and context of rights. I have come across exactly one libertarian who is able to see past their tunnel vision and realize that there are multiple ways one can come to a conclusion about human society and the role of the individual vs the group.

Click to expand...

Now you have met two. I understand that completely, but rights to be rights must be understood to be derived for human nature itself and not society. What you are doing is confusing morality with majority or societal decree. There is nothing magical and certainly nothing moral about what society or a majority determines to be right. What you are describing are privileges: things society as a whole or the leaders of that society allow an individual to do. Rights refer to things you may do by virtue of you being human.

Fletch said:

I agree with that. Many conservative social positions are based upon ignorance and/or mysticism which as an atheist I find a bit difficult to label as 'principled.'

Click to expand...

Oh, they're principled, they're just principles derived from religious belief.

Fletch said:

Now you have met two. I understand that completely, but rights to be rights must be understood to be derived for human nature itself and not society.

Click to expand...

I agree, but human nature is yet another debate. (and I hate generalizing, but I see it necessary to get my point across here, sorry). However, human nature is still up in the air and while libertarians tend to view it a certain way, it by no means set in stone and without room for debate. Given that there is plenty of room to come up with any number of variations on what rights are.

Fletch said:

What you are doing is confusing morality with majority or societal decree. There is nothing magical and certainly nothing moral about what society or a majority determines to be right. What you are describing are privileges: things society as a whole or the leaders of that society allow an individual to do. Rights refer to things you may do by virtue of you being human.

Click to expand...

Look to my other comment on this post about how I see it. While other progressives may or may not view it the way you describe (I have never cared enough to look into it, so I don't know) That is my point of view.

As an example, look at SB's post. Religion certainly can inform a person about what human nature is and thus what rights are derived, even if you just dismiss it. While I disagree with evangelicals, while still being a Christian myself, I find there is a need to see people's views where they are at, even if one disagrees and simply no to dismiss. Another example would be Islam's view of human nature being completely different and therefore natural rights derived being something libertarians may disagree with. Natural rights is not a philosophy that anyone has a monopoly over.

Overall, I tend to find this to be a HUGE blindspot in general libertarian philosophy which causes them to get into an echo chamber where they end up doing a bunch of self confirmation because they have dismissed information they disagree with. Interestingly enough, this is what I see a lot of libertarians accuse others of doing.

Fletch said:

Now you have met two. I understand that completely, but rights to be rights must be understood to be derived for human nature itself and not society. What you are doing is confusing morality with majority or societal decree. There is nothing magical and certainly nothing moral about what society or a majority determines to be right. What you are describing are privileges: things society as a whole or the leaders of that society allow an individual to do. Rights refer to things you may do by virtue of you being human.

Click to expand...

This is a philosophical discussion rather than a pragmatic one. I personally find the issue of natural rights to be completely irrelevant, as it absolutely makes no difference what types rights humans possess by nature. If you possess natural rights as a human being, but society has a whole doesn't agree that those are your rights, or otherwise denies your ability to exercise them, then it simply makes no difference. The best you can do is persuade them to come around to your point of view.

StillBallin75 said:

I can tell you this, most of the time I don't understand you but it has nothing to do with my liberalism.

Click to expand...

You can tell me lots of things. That doesn't make them true.

Daktoria said:

You can tell me lots of things. That doesn't make them true.

Click to expand...

People who profess to understand a poster better than the post itself tend to be prone to straw men and are generally not worthy of debate due to the inevitable errored assumptions that this person would make about their opponent.

Secondly, KFC

StillBallin75 said:

Oh, they're principled, they're just principles derived from religious belief.

Click to expand...

Many "conservative" views about social policy have nothing to do with religion, e.g. single parent "families" and not getting even a highschool education should NOT be rewarded with gov't assistance EVER. Since the "great society" social programs began, that very behavior has been adopted as a "right" and we have seen both increase, yet seem puzzled as to how that could be. There is no mystery at all, that offering a "living wage" for out of wedlock childbirth, begets more of it especially if no successful completion of highschool is required to get it. People are not going to expend effort that is not "required" or "rewarded". Society (especially the left) is quick to demand near perfect behavior for the right to bear arms, yet willingly rewards that SAME behavior which prevents one from keeping that right with public assistance.