Conservatism

af_thefragile

^Just to let you know, don't take everything i say for as word.

The main point is to "think for yourself".
A concept i try to push forward with most "creative and artistic" things i do. The last thing i'ld want is people following what i say for word. Instead i want people to listen to my words, reflect on them and then put across their response to it. People to make up their minds for themselves. People need to learn to do that. To lead, not follow. Only then will we be able to progress as humanity onto the next level.

"Leaders don't create followers, they create more leaders".

turgon

Of course! As I said I still have to do a bit of reading and determine my own views on issues rather than just taking what other people say

ChocolateSauce

af_thefragile wrote: »

Without competition only one progress will be made. Government military progress. Also over there the state is competing with other states or competing to take control over its people... so really, at the end of the day, without competition there would have been nothing!

+1

Adam Smith said that if goods cannot cross borders, armys will.

Leonid

Here's one for ya http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/191.html

,8,1

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

"Libertarian conservative" is surely an oxymoron, because libertarianism cuts the ground from under conservativism.

Libertarianism does not seek to "conserve" anything. It wants individualism, atomisation and to keep the State out of everything (or almost everything). The mindset is highly anarchist. The application of libertarian ideas leads to a permissive (or liberal) society.

Libertarians spend much of their time denying or speaking against collectivism. Conservatives will often see problems with a society's collective values - such as its moral attitudes and culture. However libertarians deny that we should ever concern ourselves with, let alone seek to change, collective values. So one of the core drives of conservatism is disallowed.

Libertarianism does have one collective value for a society. And that is that the role of the State should be minimised and that people should not be penalised for any action. We should have no collective value or morality other than permissivity.

One of the tragedies of the current political reality is that libertarians are accepted as part of the conservative cause. They are given agency from this unlikely alliance.

"Libertarian conservatism" is seen most obviously in the political system of America. But it's a phenomenon occuring in conservative movements/parties throughout the world.

Amconmag.com - Marxism of the Right

Belfast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Could anyone give me a broad overview of conservatism in the 21st century ? What are its general aims and policies of its Ideology ?
I've tried looking into the conservative parties of many countries but they vary to much to give a broad definition. I have noticed however that they all tend to be Right Wing and slightly Authoritarian.
Any help would be appreciated. :cool:

Conservatism from an American point of view.

Define Conservatism (Book)
"A Conservative is someone who believes in

1. Respect for the Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. Less Government
4. Personal Responsibility"
rest of the article in the link below
http://www.defineconservatism.com/



Jonathan Krohn - CPAC - The Future Of Conservatism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUbkdwpZ2o

The Definition of Conservative
http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-conservative.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

,8,1

Why should conservatism be "respect for the Constitution"? If the American Constitution or its application is liberal, which it is, then this is counter-productive.

Less Government and Personal Responsibility, also, do not capture the conservative spirit. Both concepts can be and are stretched so that they feed into the liberal agenda.

Indeed, donegalfella. "Libertarian conservatism" exists as an alliance only. It does not work ideologically.

turgon

Conservatism is "protecting the people and their rights." Could be seen as a possible a pre-requisite for tyranny.

,8,1

The same could be said of liberalism/libertarianism, turgon. Also, define tyranny.

Are Conservatives Really Radicals? - FreeRatio.org

The dictionary definitions of "conservative", "liberal", and "radical" have little relevance to the political definitions of said terms.

The political definition of any term is "believes in x, y, and z." If those are in place, the conservative, liberal, or radical wants to keep things the way they are, and if those are not in place the conservative, liberal, or radical wants to change things.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

The same could be said of liberalism/libertarianism, turgon. Also, define tyranny.

Are Conservatives Really Radicals? - FreeRatio.org

From what i see conservatism and liberalism are two opposite ends of a pole and libertarianism is a completely different end. You could be a liberal libertarian or a conservative libertarian.

Basically conservatives don't want "wrong" or "bad" things in their society. Like they don't want any drugs, prostitutes, abortion, gambling, gay marriage stuff like that and wanna make these things illegal... They could be religious or non-religious.

Liberals on the other hand are fine with pretty much everything. They want to make everything legal. From drugs, prostitutes, abortion, gambling, the whole lot...

You could be either a strong righty conservative or a lefty liberal or even something inbetween where you might think something like drugs should be made legal but prostitution should be illegal, kinda like that.

Anyway, you shouldn't confuse liberalism with libertarianism. They're two different things.
Liberals say the government should make everything legal.
Libertarians say there should be no central government or the central government should have no (or very little) authority over the people. The people should be left alone to decide to make their own local laws.

turgon

Tyranny, as in a group of people imposing their will over others. For "the good of the people."

,8,1

You could be a liberal libertarian or a conservative libertarian.

You could label yourself a liberal or conservative libertarian but the application of libertarian ideas will have the same ends either way.

Anyway, you shouldn't confuse liberalism with libertarianism. They're two different things.

There is a great degree of similarity.

Liberals say the government should make everything legal.
Libertarians say there should be no central government or the central government should have no (or very little) authority over the people.

The way I see it these are both essentially the same thing. Or if not, they are highly complementary.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

You could label yourself a liberal or conservative libertarian but the application of libertarian ideas will have the same ends either way.

Libertarianism will give people the freedom to form their societies the way they want to without any outside intervention. So the liberals can form their liberal society and the conservatives can form their conservative society. All the liberals can live in the liberal county and all the conservatives can live in conservative county.

There is a great degree of similarity.

Liberals end up forcing their liberal ideologies onto everyone in the state.
Libertarians give people the freedom to live their lives according to their own ideologies.
There is a difference.

,8,1

Libertarianism will give people the freedom to form their societies the way they want to without any outside intervention. So the liberals can form their liberal society and the conservatives can form their conservative society. All the liberals can live in the liberal county and all the conservatives can live in conservative county.

Perhaps this illustrates why this idea does not work:

Amconmag.com wrote:

Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

Libertarianism disallows truly conservative corrective action. So while you argue that a "conservative county" can be formed within a libertarian regime, as soon as that county wants to do something about say, pornography, libertarians step in and say you can't do that.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

Perhaps this illustrates why this idea does not work:

I've got an exam tomorrow so i really can't read all of that today. Sorry mate.

Libertarianism disallows truly conservative corrective action. So while you argue that a "conservative county" can be formed within a libertarian regime, as soon as that county wants to do something about say, pornography, libertarians step in and say you can't do that.

Why would they step in? The whole point of libertarianism is to not tell people what to do. We libertarians say people should be free to run their society as they want it. If they don't want pornography, we won't stop them.

,8,1

Perhaps this illustrates why this idea does not work:

I've got an exam tomorrow so i really can't read all of that today. Sorry mate.

The paragraph quoted is what I wanted to draw attention to.

Libertarianism disallows truly conservative corrective action. So while you argue that a "conservative county" can be formed within a libertarian regime, as soon as that county wants to do something about say, pornography, libertarians step in and say you can't do that.

Why would they step in? The whole point of libertarianism is to not tell people what to do. We libertarians say people should be free to run their society as they want it. If they don't want pornography, we won't stop them.

Actually you are wrong there. Although libertarians speak much about how being pro freedom, they do not allow people the freedom to make laws against the availability of pornography.

Libertarians will fight such action every step of the way and will say essentially that it is an illegitimate idea.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a libertarian state would act similarly against a conservative county.

af_thefragile

,8,1 wrote: »

Actually you are wrong there. Although libertarians speak much about how being pro freedom, they do not allow people the freedom to make laws against the availability of pornography.

Libertarians will fight such action every step of the way and will say essentially that it is an illegitimate idea.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a libertarian state would act similarly against a conservative county.

From where i see it (or how i believe it should be) libertarians should let people form the laws for their societies themselves which can abide under one basic common law.
So every state/county can have the freedom to set up their laws according to the will of the members of the state/county. So if the people of the county decide (maybe by voting) against pornography, they shouldn't be stopped from doing so.

Ron Paul is quite conservative himself. But he says it should be left to the individual states to decide their drug, prostitution etc laws rather than the central government deciding it all for everyone.

turgon

,8,1 wrote: »

Actually you are wrong there. Although libertarians speak much about how being pro freedom, they do not allow people the freedom to make laws against the availability of pornography.

That is because porn is matter for each individual, not the majority to decide what everyone gets to do.

What difference does it make to your if I watch porn?

af_thefragile

To note turgon is quite liberal while i'm slightly conservative...
But we both believe in the libertarian agenda.

MikeC101

I just cannot understand the driving need some people have to control others.

Especially on moral issues - What is with statists needing to take freedom away from others, and using such twisted logic to justify it?

Why does it matter so much to them if someone uses pornography, or smokes marijuana?

The sheer irony that someone can claim libertarians want to take away their "freedom to make anti-pornography laws" takes my breath away.

Porn: You don't like it, don't view it. If other people choose to it DOES NOT AFFECT YOU.

Hysterical claims that you are being forced to live in a society "vulgarised by porn" smack of self indulgent fantasizing, and the ever present need of the statist to claim their moral and intellectual superiority.

,8,1

That is because porn is matter for each individual, not the majority to decide what everyone gets to do.

What difference does it make to your if I watch porn?

That's not really the question. The question is should pornography be freely available.

Porn doesn't have to be a "matter for the individual" only. It can be a societal issue also. It can be an issue of societal values.

Of course libertarians sidestep this by denying the existence of society - we only have individuals, society's not deemed a valid concept.

In denying all things collective, libertarians deny society and they also deny collective values.

What is your position on child porn, turgon?

Is not the restriction level of 18 ultimately arbitary? If you're willing to accept a ban on porn which features participants below a certain arbitrary age, why are you not willing to accept restrictions on pornographic content generally.

Really it boils down to the same thing: it's a restriction on the range of acceptable activities among individuals, enforced by the State, based on societal values.

The prohibition of under-18 content is also a good response to those who say "there's no point banning porn". Yes you can effectively ban porn; it's already being done. It's a proof of concept.

The flawed "just consenting individuals" paradigm begins to fall apart as we probe this issue further.

Let's try this:

That is because child porn is matter for each individual, not the majority to decide what everyone gets to do.

What difference does it make to your if I watch child porn?

So everything changes if the individuals featured are under 18. But we have to ask ourselves why is this: why is the negation of social/moral values, the focus on individuals, and the prohibition of prohibition so easily suspended? Because they are loose, flawed concepts in the first place.

,8,1

To note turgon is quite liberal while i'm slightly conservative...
But we both believe in the libertarian agenda.

Libertarianism is a liberal framework regardless. If you accept a liberal framework you basically espouse liberal values whether you admit it or not.

The sheer irony that someone can claim libertarians want to take away their "freedom to make anti-pornography laws" takes my breath away.

Well if you really believe in giving people self-determination you have to accept the possibility that they will do things you do not necessarily like - such as rolling back permissivity.

Otherwise you are just enforcing your own amoral, anarchist point of view and not actually giving people genuine freedom at all.

My point was that a libertartian state would not allow a conservative county to address issues such as pornography however they like.

Again I quote af_thefragile:

af_thefragile wrote:

Libertarianism will give people the freedom to form their societies the way they want to without any outside intervention.

There were no privisos given there.

There is actually a kind of inverse authoritarianism within libertarianism. They tell us we should have "freedom to do whatever we want" but yet they dictate that we cannot look at sensitive issues a certain way. They tell us responses we make to perceived/actual problems are "not allowed".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

,8,1 wrote: »

Porn doesn't have to be a "matter for the individual" only. It can be a societal issue also. It can be an issue of societal values.

How so?

I could simply pop open a new tab, hit some hard core porn and return here 10 minutes later. You wouldn't have noticed. No one else in my house would have noticed. Your "society" wouldn't have noticed. So what difference does it make to everyone else?

,8,1 wrote: »

What is your position on child porn, turgon?

Unlike DF, I wouldnt be as pro full anarchism. I believe that parent have responsibility for their children up to certain age. Thus the children cant be in a child porn movie against their parents will. I also believe that children should be protected by some things against their parents, like porn and rape. I believe that parent giving consent for children in a porn movie should be illegal.

,8,1 wrote: »

If you're willing to accept a ban on porn which features participants below a certain arbitrary age, why are you not willing to accept restrictions on pornographic content generally.

Libertarianism demands responsibility, and people below a certain age dont have this concept, imo.

,8,1 wrote: »

societal values.

Im all for societal values, like the banning of murder. However what values are societal and individual makes a huge difference. Whether or not to watch porn is matter for an individuals values, not societies. I dont watch porn because I dont believe I need to.

,8,1 wrote: »

So everything changes if the individuals featured are under 18. But we have to ask ourselves why is this: why is the negation of social/moral values, the focus on individuals, and the prohibition of prohibition so easily suspended? Because they are loose, flawed concepts in the first place.

As above, "Libertarianism demands responsibility, and people below a certain age dont have this concept, imo."