• 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!

Conservative vs. Liberal worldviews

Kobie said:
Ugh. You can't be serious. I've never read more peurile, idiotic drivel in my entire life.
Click to expand...

Then you should be able to easily rebut it with your own definitions, yes?
 
Praxas said:
Ummm, they do that by using GOVERNMENT to enforce the bolded part. So spare us your drivel.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they do it via social contract to form those governments rather than an authoritarian central government given power to override all those local governments.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes, but they do it via social contract to form those governments rather than an authoritarian central government given power to override all those local governments.
Click to expand...

tyranny of the majority IS authoritarian. Having two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is still authoritarian.
 
Goshin said:
Could be handled by contract between those involved.
Click to expand...

It could but I think that would make it much harder than it has to be.

The marriage laws in all 50 states were originally intended to protect children that could result from those marriages. Therefore laws set age limits for legal marriage, laws forbidding multiple marriages, laws forbidding close relatives from marrying, and at one time laws that required the parties to be informed of certain communicable diseases before they marry, laws requiring a waiting or 'cooling off' period after the marriage license is obtained in hope that the choice to marry would be intentional and not due to rash impulsiveness, and such as that. (None of these laws are practically necessary in the case of same sex marriage in which no children will result.) And because marriage laws were a binding legal contract on the parties re financial circumstances and provided certain protections, the state also requires certain conditions and processes to be met when the parties dissolved a marriage.
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
Ummm, they do that by using GOVERNMENT to enforce the bolded part. So spare us your drivel.
Click to expand...

May be drivel to you, but I am pretty sure you can't rebut the definitions with any credibility.
 
ataraxia said:
I am not sure what this means. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems it should be the opposite: Shouldn't it be "Children that ARE socialized and educated properly reduce society's level of possible general welfare"?
Click to expand...

I don't quite follow. If children are properly socialized and educated they are less prone to commit damage by crime, be less likely to go on welfare and will tend to be more productive. All of these things will, if not overdone, either decrease costs to society or increase productivity and reduce it and thus the level of potential general welfare. So, I believe my original is correct. Please tell me, if you disagree.
 
Praxas said:
tyranny of the majority IS authoritarian. Having two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is still authoritarian.
Click to expand...

That is true. But it is the ONLY way to resolve the issue when everybody cannot agree. So you have laws to protect the sheep from exploitation by the wolves while recognizing that the majority must otherwise prevail. That is why we have an electoral college. That is why we elect representatives to vote on our behalf what policy/laws will exist and how our money will be managed.
 
OK. That makes more sense. I just misunderstood.
 
In broad terms:

Being conservative means that you see things that the country is doing right and you want to keep things the same.

Being liberal means you see things that the country is doing wrong and you want to see change.

Everyone has conservative and liberal view points.
 
Goshin said:
For starters, liberal vs conservative is a vast oversimplification (albeit a common and popular one) of the political spectrum.


Under the banners of the two main political parties (R and D) you will find libertarians, socialists, environmentalists, constitutionalists, neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives, progressives, and so on. You will find many individuals who mostly vote one side but who have some views associated with the other side.


As for conservatives, some are concerned more with maintaining cultural values and norms, some with economics and taxation, some with both. Some are more conservative than average, some less. If they have a single unifying factor, it is a distrust of Government in general, and a tendency to view Gov benevolence and utility with skepticism, and to assume powers assigned to Gov will likely be abused.

However this isn't 100% universal... there are big-Gov types under the conservative banner as well, differing from progressives in the details of WHAT they want Gov to manage and what to leave alone.


For some the dividing line boils down to one or two issues, often abortion or gun control or taxation or constitutional constructionism, or something else.



It isn't simple.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with one party "owning" all three branches of government that over the next 4 years we're going to get a pretty clear idea of what most people who call themselves "conservatives" support, based on the legislation that will be passed and laws that are overturned by the SCOTUS?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I have found that we have a lot of the same views. I support legalizing marijuana. I support environmental issues. I think the problem is how we go about solving the problems.

Take smoking in a bar. I do not smoke. Yet I am willing to compromise and have designated smoking areas while liberals are completely intolerant.
Click to expand...

Really? All liberals are completely intolerant? What about liberals who smoke? Where did you get this information? I've never heard of anyone opposing a designated smoking area.

PIPEWRENCH said:
There is a solution that allows for tolerance but most liberals are intolerant.
Click to expand...

You're cracking me up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
lurchadams said:
Do you agree with one party "owning" all three branches of government that over the next 4 years we're going to get a pretty clear idea of what most people who call themselves "conservatives" support, based on the legislation that will be passed and laws that are overturned by the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...


This isn't new; we've seen it before where one party holds both Houses, the WH, and has more influence in the Court than the other.... both R and D.


Frankly I don't find either to be a very good situation. Each party tends, IMO, to be overly authoritarian (albeit in different areas) than I care for when they hold the full reins.


I prefer gridlock, where relatively few bills succeed in becoming law. Keeps the damage down.


My own worldview and policy positions are chiefly conservative-to-libertarian, but I have some views more commonly associated with progressives (mostly relating to economical issues and the need for a social safety net). Thus I am not overly fond of either side.
 
Goshin said:
This isn't new; we've seen it before where one party holds both Houses, the WH, and has more influence in the Court than the other.... both R and D.


Frankly I don't find either to be a very good situation. Each party tends, IMO, to be overly authoritarian (albeit in different areas) than I care for when they hold the full reins.


I prefer gridlock, where relatively few bills succeed in becoming law. Keeps the damage down.


My own worldview and policy positions are chiefly conservative-to-libertarian, but I have some views more commonly associated with progressives (mostly relating to economical issues and the need for a social safety net). Thus I am not overly fond of either side.
Click to expand...

Well, again. We're not going to have gridlock over the next 4 years. If you agree with that, then over the next 4 years laws will get passed and others will be overturned. We will therefore get a pretty clear idea of the GOP agenda. For the record, most GOP pols call themselves "conservatives" even if others feel they're really not.
 
lurchadams said:
Really? All liberals are completely intolerant? What about liberals who smoke? Where did you get this information? I've never heard of anyone opposing a designated smoking area.
Click to expand...

If the people are tolerant then why is smoking banned instead of having designated areas? Liberals are very intolerant especially when they lose. Just look how adamant they were there was no voter fraud until they lost.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
If the people are tolerant then why is smoking banned instead of having designated areas? Liberals are very intolerant especially when they lose. Just look how adamant they were there was no voter fraud until they lost.
Click to expand...

You're pulling your information out of your bottom. No one I know is against designated smoking areas and no one I know is claiming Trump won due to voter fraud. The investigation in WI revolves around inconsistencies in the electronic voting machines that still don't provide a paper trail of voting records to verify the results.

Your guy won! You won! Try to put a hand brake on your hatred of liberals. You won't have to worry about us for another 4 years, dude.
 
ataraxia said:
This thread is not meant to be inflammatory. It is meant to clarify some things that are unclear to me. I will admit that I am approaching this as someone with a liberal bias. But the reason I am opening this thread is so I can be open and learn more.

What exactly distinguishes "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints? any given political candidate has certain rhetoric that appeals to followers of one or the other of these ideologies. But they may call themselves one thing and, when push comes to shove and they actually have to govern, do things which are the opposite. But speaking purely from the ideological standpoint, what is it that distinguishes these ideologies today?

In your answers, please try not to be vague, or use empty, inflammatory slogans, like that "Liberalism is just Marxist communism", or that "Conservatives just want to advance the interests of the top 1% on the backs of the rest of us". These are OK for political campaigns. But I would like this discussion to be a little more informative and sophisticated.

Personally, I don't see that there is too much difference. Let me summarize and you can correct, or just fine tune, what I write.

Liberals today are certainly not communists. Communism, in the classic Soviet style, has been tried in numerous countries in the world, and they have all had the same outcome: failure. Liberals today, whether in the US or the "socialist" Eureopean countries like England, Scandinavian nations, France, Germany, etc... all believe firmly in the free market. It seems the main difference comes down to a belief in the the idea of the necessity of a bare bottom safety net to catch those at the very bottom from hitting bare concrete when they hit tough times (ACA for the poor, Medicare, SS, school lunch for poor kids, welfare, help for new immigrants, etc...), whereas conservatives see any safety net at the bottom as a slippery slope which will ultimately lead to communist tyranny. They believe that the best way is to just leave everything free and up to nature.

Now, these conservatives seem to me to subdivide further into two groups. The first, the ones I shall call "compassionate conservatism", in honor of the phrase coined by, I believe, George W. Bush, have faith that if these safety nets are removed and everything is left free, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the free markets will ultimately create equal opportunities, fairness, and justice for all. The markets are perfectly self-correcting. There is faith that there will ultimately be "trickle down" of the wealth generated at the top to all. Any attempt to force safety nets will only lead to tyranny and burdensome regulations for those at the top, keeping them from generating money, and ultimately hurting those at the bottom as well. This was, I believe, the premise of Reaganomics.

But there are other conservatives, the ones I would call the "social Darwinists", who have no illusions about what happens when you remove those safety nets at the bottom. They know that individuals, or entire families, or even entire communities, will crash down into solid concrete and crack their skulls open there. And that's OK with them. This sort of survival of the fittest is what works in nature, where the strong survive and thrive, and the weak are killed and eaten for lunch. But that's what keeps nature healthy and strong. It is a natural mechanism to keep the weak from overpopulating and dragging down all society.

Is this an accurate summary? Feel free to comment. But please, try to keep it informative and cordial. Thanks.
Click to expand...

A bit over simplified but aill give it a shot. First, Conservativism is intrinsically compassionate, so I reject the term " Compassionate Conservatism".

As for Liberalism, there's nothing compassionate about a ideology that dependent on perpetuating dependence and division. Compassion isn't driven by pity, or guilt.

As a Conservative I believe in the power of the individul over the State and see Govt as a necessary evil that needs to be held to the restrictions spelled out in our Constitution

I believe that the concpets and principles written into our Constitution are timeless and a relevent as ever and I believe that this Nation is absolutely exceptional.

I believe in the Free market, free trade and believe individual liberty and private property rights are closely linked.

I believe thats there's wisdom in tradition and that deference should be given to convention and established societal norms.

I believe in a established moral order, natural law , the rule of law, a strong military and the celebration and defense of western culture

I understand that life is anything but fair and reject the idea that the Govt could or should be the arbiter of fairness.
 
Fenton said:
A bit over simplified but aill give it a shot. First, Conservativism is intrinsically compassionate, so I reject the term " Compassionate Conservatism".

As for Liberalism, there's nothing compassionate about a ideology that dependent on perpetuating dependence and division. Compassion isn't driven by pity, or guilt.

As a Conservative I believe in the power of the individul over the State and see Govt as a necessary evil that needs to be held to the restrictions spelled out in our Constitution

I believe that the concpets and principles written into our Constitution are timeless and a relevent as ever and I believe that this Nation is absolutely exceptional.

I believe in the Free market, free trade and believe individual liberty and private property rights are closely linked.

I believe thats there's wisdom in tradition and that deference should be given to convention and established societal norms.

I believe in a established moral order, natural law , the rule of law, a strong military and the celebration and defense of western culture

I understand that life is anything but fair and reject the idea that the Govt could or should be the arbiter of fairness.
Click to expand...

Conservatives believe in a big, strong government, a 'daddy state', that requires obeisance and obedience. The conservative daddy state is a firm-but-fair authority that rewards loyalty and punishes transgressors. Conservatives believe that laws can shape society and police should be powerful enough to realize that aim. Conservatives believe that if you should do something, there needs to be a law that you must- if you shouldn't do something, there needs to be a law that you can't. Conservatives will trade rights for security and be glad they had the opportunity. If anyone ever said to you, "What are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide?", you were talking to a conservative.

Liberals have always fought for individual rights and freedoms. Every right you enjoy was won for you by liberals, and it was conservatives they fought against. The fight continues. The next cause will be assisted suicide- liberals will fight for the right and conservatives will resist it. And the beat goes on...
 
Grand Mal said:
Conservatives believe in a big, strong government, a 'daddy state', that requires obeisance and obedience. The conservative daddy state is a firm-but-fair authority that rewards loyalty and punishes transgressors. Conservatives believe that laws can shape society and police should be powerful enough to realize that aim. Conservatives believe that if you should do something, there needs to be a law that you must- if you shouldn't do something, there needs to be a law that you can't. Conservatives will trade rights for security and be glad they had the opportunity. If anyone ever said to you, "What are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide?", you were talking to a conservative.

Liberals have always fought for individual rights and freedoms. Every right you enjoy was won for you by liberals, and it was conservatives they fought against. The fight continues. The next cause will be assisted suicide- liberals will fight for the right and conservatives will resist it. And the beat goes on...
Click to expand...

Looks like you're confusing Liberty with anarchy. Laws protect our rights and our civil liberties. Otherwise whats stopping you or anyone elss from infringing upon my Liberty or vice versa ?

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to pass laws and it also sets specific prohibition on Govt authority over civil liberties. Pretty straight forward.

Funny how so many on the Left have a problem with the Constitution, a document that was written by true Liberals.
 
Fenton said:
Looks like you're confusing Liberty with anarchy. Laws protect our rights and our civil liberties. Otherwise whats stopping you or anyone elss from infringing upon my Liberty or vice versa ?

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to pass laws and it also sets specific prohibition on Govt authority over civil liberties. Pretty straight forward.

Funny how so many on the Left have a problem with the Constitution, a document that was written by true Liberals.
Click to expand...

Conservatives believe in the constitution the same way they believe in the Bible. They don't get their beliefs from it, they bring their beliefs to it and look for affirmation.
And this liberal doesn't give a damn about your constitution. Liberals, the authors, are as apt to hubris as all men are.
 
Grand Mal said:
Conservatives believe in the constitution the same way they believe in the Bible. They don't get their beliefs from it, they bring their beliefs to it and look for affirmation.
And this liberal doesn't give a damn about your constitution. Liberals, the authors, are as apt to hubris as all men are.
Click to expand...

Oh I have to strongly disagree. The concepts and principles written into the US Constitution are not only timeless but selfless.
The Framers may have been arrogant, who knows, but they exhibited a amazing amount of humility and foresight when they crafted the Constitution

Arrogance at the time was tyranny, but instead of setting up a independent monarchy that would challenge the British Crown they set up a system of Govt who's legitimacy and power were given only by the consent of the governed

The concepts of natural law and inalienable rights granted by a creator and not by man, self governance, placing strict limits on Govt and the will of the people to check arbitrary power are selfless and and atruisitic, and they were written by Men who decided to craft a Constitution that insured that future generations of Americans wouldn't be subject to tyranny and oppression
 
The Mark said:
Some restrictions are unreasonable, and some are too lenient.
There's a balance somewhere, for everything, between too many/harsh restrictions and too few/gentle. And I frankly don't think anyone knows where that balance is.
Click to expand...
exactly right...there has to be a balance between throwing money/help at every problem or turning our backs on those with less ability at self survival

balance

we are not created equal, first we must acknowledge that
 
Fenton said:
I believe in a established moral order, natural law , the rule of law, a strong military and the celebration and defense of western culture

I understand that life is anything but fair and reject the idea that the Govt could or should be the arbiter of fairness.
Click to expand...

The only natural or established law I see in nature is the natural law of the jungle and Darwinism, where the strong thrive and the weak and killed and eaten for lunch. You don't seem to have watched any nature documentaries recently. Human law, civilization, and government, along with its "artificial" concepts of trying to protect the most weak and vulnerable in society- the young, the elderly, those in positions of weakness and vulnerability, from those who would eat them for lunch, are not "natural". They are man-made and quite artificial. Justice is only a very human concept and does not exist anywhere else out in nature.

And this very articial concept of justice has only been able to be implemented through human social institutions like government, civilization, and a system of law and order. And so no wonder you don't believe in government, or that the concept that humans can impose some "artificial" standards of fairness and justice on a very cold, unfair, and uncaring universe. You seem to believe in the law of the jungle and social Darwinism. I don't see anything "intrinsically compassionate" about that.

So in order to convince us of the intrinsic compassionateness of conservatism, you first have to explain how the natural or moral order of the universe is not the law of the jungle and social Darwinism.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
The only natural or established law I see in nature is the natural law of the jungle and Darwinism, where the strong thrive and the weak and killed and eaten for lunch. You don't seem to have watched any nature documentaries recently.
Click to expand...

Sure I have, I just have never seen the need to draw some tenuous connections between animals living a jungle and highly structured human societies. We're not dumb beast

ataraxia said:
Human law, civilization, and government, along with its "artificial" concepts of trying to protect the most weak and vulnerable in society- the young, the elderly, those in positions of weakness and vulnerability, from those who would eat them for lunch, are not "natural". They are man-made and quite artificial. Justice is only a very human concept and does not exist anywhere else out in nature.

And this very articial concept of justice has only been able to be implemented through human social institutions like government, civilization, and a system of law and order. And so no wonder you don't believe in government, or that the concept that humans can impose some "artificial" standards of fairness and justice on a very cold, unfair, and uncaring universe. You seem to believe in the law of the jungle and social Darwinism. I don't see anything "intrinsically compassionate" about that..
Click to expand...

When did I say I dont believe in Government ?? I said I believe in limited Government as defined by our Constitution. Powers that are delegated and rights that are enumerated as spelled out in a truly revolutionary document that restricted Govt's authority over the individual via the consent of the Governed. What truly makes our Nation exceptional is the concept of inalienable rights or natural rights as spelled out in The Declaration of Independence. Not going to get into a theological discussion with you but the idea that the foundation of our Government rest on rights that are self evident and NOT granted by man meant that no man and no Government could legally challenge those rights

And sure, we have laws as do all societies. Laws are there to protect your rights and your liberties, without them there is no freedom or liberty, just anarchy and tyranny. If anarchy is what you want may I suggest you relocate to Mogadishu.

ataraxia said:
So in order to convince us of the intrinsic compassionateness of conservatism, you first have to explain how the natural or moral order of the universe is not the law of the jungle and social Darwinism.
Click to expand...

Darwinism doesn't pertain to functional and ordered human societies so I'm not sure why you continue to bring it up
 
Fenton said:
Sure I have, I just have never seen the need to draw some tenuous connections between animals living a jungle and highly structured human societies. We're not dumb beast
Click to expand...

You are suggesting that there is some "natural law" that would naturally create justice and fairness, and we humans should not interfere in it without our own artificial man-made laws. Just leave things free and this "natural law" will have things turn out just fine. If we are endowed by our creator with some "inalienable" rights, then it seems the same natural law would apply to the animals in the jungle. And yet we know that the laws of the jungle operate very, very differently. There seems to be this tacit assumption on your part that if everything was left free and natural, things would be best- we would have freedom, liberty, AND justice and fairness. I was just showing you that that without human law and justice, regulations and safety nets, as imperfect and constantly evolving as they are- nature and its laws are not what you seem to think they are and they naturally do not deliver any guarantees of fairness or justice- the hallmarks of a civil society.

Fenton said:
And sure, we have laws as do all societies. Laws are there to protect your rights and your liberties, without them there is no freedom or liberty, just anarchy and tyranny. If anarchy is what you want may I suggest you relocate to Mogadishu.
Click to expand...

OK. But in addition to protecting my rights and liberties, don't you think civil societies should have an obligation to PROTECT their members against violations of basic human rights and dignity? And by "human rights", I am talking about something like the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human rights, which the US spearheaded, saying that governments should try to protect the rights of their citizens to basic things like food, water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Are you saying that the Declaration of Human Rights was unconstitutional, and the US should stop making such unconstitutional guarantees to its own citizens, and also stop trying to force it on other countries in the world like it has been doing for the last half century or so?

I would think that a society which cannot safeguard such basic human dignity of its citizens is just operating under anarchy and tyranny. It's the rule of the strong and privileged over the weak and vulnerable. It is a society in which if you are born to poverty, or without opportunities, you will just be crushed under its wheels, just like in the jungle. The most powerful and privileged in that society can eat the weak in there for lunch with impunity, and we will all watch the weak and vulnerable get mangled with a shrug of "oh, well, musta been their own da-n fault. They shoulda worked harder".

Really? Is that the society you want? How is that different than Darwinism and the law of the jungle?

Fenton said:
Darwinism doesn't pertain to functional and ordered human societies so I'm not sure why you continue to bring it up
Click to expand...

The only reason it doesn't pertain to such societies today is because we have systems of government enforced laws, regulations, safeguards, and safety nets. But you think they are oppressive and you want those lifted. I don't see how the kind of "freedom" and "liberty" of nature which you are envisioning will lead to anything but a society which works under social Darwinist principles. There need to be laws and regulations safeguarding orphans, the elderly, groups which have been systematically discriminated against, those without the means or access to basic opportunities like a basic education. That's the hallmark of modern civil societies. I know those things are not specifically in the Constitution. But do you really think we can have a modern civil society without such basic safeguards, ie: not just keeping each other off each others' backs, but making sure we have each others' backs?
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Conservative vs. Liberal worldviews
Click to expand...

You can fill a whole library with books answering different aspects of this question.

Conservatives are Yin and liberals are Yang. Two opposing forces that are actually complementary and interconnected. They rely upon each other to exist, in much the same way rival football teams may hate each other but at the same time rely on each other's existence to keep the sport from fading away (hard to play a game with only one team). In the same way, the United States and the Soviet Union, while ostensibly enemies, capitalized on each other's existence to force all of the other countries in the world to gravitate into their spheres of influence. As a result, both of them grew vastly more powerful than any of the other countries that had existed in human history.

One feature of conservatism almost regardless of culture or time period is that it implicitly accepts the hierarchy of relationships underwritten in social animal ethology, which is a complex way of saying that conservatives believe in alpha-beta relationships with guys like George W. Bush and Donald Trump being the alphas and all the poor/middle income blue collar conservative guys who vote for them being the betas. Pretty much the same as between fraternities and their leaders or between football jocks and their team captain. The leader and the captain get more benefits but the betas have the dubious honor of being better than the nerds outside of the football team/fraternity, who are usually liberals, homosexuals, academics, and other bookish types.

A persistent feature of liberalism is that it explicitly trivializes/challenges this hierarchy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom