Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Libertarian, Liberal, and Conservative.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 10:41:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In purely democratic concept, what is the different between libertarian and liberal, and liberal and conservative?

I am always confuse by the definition of this term, especially between democratic liberal and conservative.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 10:55:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Problem is there's no real objective definition for them. So defining these terms are incredibly difficult. I'd also say that there's a lot more that one can identify as than these three, and often time most people don't fit 100% in these categories since they have diverse opinions on issues. I'm really neither libertarian, liberal, or conservative. I choose a side on an issue based on evidence and want policy that would mainly benefit myself. However, since we are social creatures, policy that benefits others around me also benefit me. I care more about others besides issues of equality or even equality of opportunity, which might make me seem more right-wing. I also hold some radical social views as well (by modern day standard).

Libertarian - One who wants limited government in both social affairs and economic affairs.

Conservative - Usually wants limited government involvement in the economy (although usually not as much as libertarians). There main concern though seems to be that they don't want to raise taxes and do not favor social welfare.

Liberals - Wants limited government in some circumstances in social issues (drugs, gay marriage and women issues). However, again they tend to still want the government to be involved in regulated food and certain drugs (pharmaceuticals). Want government to be involved in providing more social services and some government regulations.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:01:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.

So that how it is. Pardon me but how can anybody who belief in government intervention and at the same time have no interest in defense policy? I thought the two tend to be anonymous (for me any way). How can they expected to make effective intervention without the use of force?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:06:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 10:55:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Problem is there's no real objective definition for them. So defining these terms are incredibly difficult. I'd also say that there's a lot more that one can identify as than these three, and often time most people don't fit 100% in these categories since they have diverse opinions on issues. I'm really neither libertarian, liberal, or conservative. I choose a side on an issue based on evidence and want policy that would mainly benefit myself. However, since we are social creatures, policy that benefits others around me also benefit me. I care more about others besides issues of equality or even equality of opportunity, which might make me seem more right-wing. I also hold some radical social views as well (by modern day standard).

Libertarian - One who wants limited government in both social affairs and economic affairs.

Conservative - Usually wants limited government involvement in the economy (although usually not as much as libertarians). There main concern though seems to be that they don't want to raise taxes and do not favor social welfare.

Liberals - Wants limited government in some circumstances in social issues (drugs, gay marriage and women issues). However, again they tend to still want the government to be involved in regulated food and certain drugs (pharmaceuticals). Want government to be involved in providing more social services and some government regulations.

in other word,

Libertarian: Classic free economy

Conservative: Free economy, less fee than Libertarian economy

Liberal: Socialist, under a disguise of free government?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:14:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:06:54 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/12/2013 10:55:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Problem is there's no real objective definition for them. So defining these terms are incredibly difficult. I'd also say that there's a lot more that one can identify as than these three, and often time most people don't fit 100% in these categories since they have diverse opinions on issues. I'm really neither libertarian, liberal, or conservative. I choose a side on an issue based on evidence and want policy that would mainly benefit myself. However, since we are social creatures, policy that benefits others around me also benefit me. I care more about others besides issues of equality or even equality of opportunity, which might make me seem more right-wing. I also hold some radical social views as well (by modern day standard).

Libertarian - One who wants limited government in both social affairs and economic affairs.

Conservative - Usually wants limited government involvement in the economy (although usually not as much as libertarians). There main concern though seems to be that they don't want to raise taxes and do not favor social welfare.

Liberals - Wants limited government in some circumstances in social issues (drugs, gay marriage and women issues). However, again they tend to still want the government to be involved in regulated food and certain drugs (pharmaceuticals). Want government to be involved in providing more social services and some government regulations.

in other word,

Libertarian: Classic free economy

Conservative: Free economy, less fee than Libertarian economy

Liberal: Socialist, under a disguise of free government?

Socialist and liberal are a bit more different. Liberals still support capitalism, but more regulated and controlled.

Like I said, a lot of these classifications can be a bit murky, and there's no real objective definitions. There are some republican states with very business unfriendly economies, while some democrat sates with business friendly economics. I think a conservative might actually be more willing to support price controls than a liberal.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:33:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:01:22 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.


So that how it is. Pardon me but how can anybody who belief in government intervention and at the same time have no interest in defense policy? I thought the two tend to be anonymous (for me any way). How can they expected to make effective intervention without the use of force?

They believe in taxes and regulations imposed upon business, but they oppose 'peace through strength.' Why is that hard to understand.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:01:22 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.


So that how it is. Pardon me but how can anybody who belief in government intervention and at the same time have no interest in defense policy? I thought the two tend to be anonymous (for me any way). How can they expected to make effective intervention without the use of force?

No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics, AKA the Republican pejorative approach to politics.

In reality libertarianism is nothing other than, really, another word for classical liberalism. To provide something that'll be actually agreed upon as objective:

Liberal: Supports individualism, liberty, justice, tolerance, and reason and almost always (exception of Hobbes) constitutionalism and Capitalism. Liberty can be either emphasised negatively (classical liberals) or positively (social or modern liberals). To be clear, those two terms aren't pejoratives, but are the technical terms used by Isaiah Berlin. Defined by a mixed view of human nature as being egoistical, selfish, and yet rational and economic. All other values are derived from this one.

Classical Liberal: Believes liberal values, with support of small state, heavily defends the private sphere as the non-governmental, strongly opposes collectivism on principle. Usually atomistic (people are atoms; communities are purely and only multiple individuals), and almost always strongly constitutionalist (doesn't mean pro-constitution, means all constitutional measures e.g. devolution, federalism, etc.). Is essentially defined by a complete support for negative freedom.

Modern Liberal: Believes in liberal values, with support of a small state (compared to conservatives, socialists, hegelians, fascists, nationalists, feminists etc. it is still by far and away a supporter of small state), but larger than the classical liberal. Heavily defends the private sphere as the non-collectives. Strongly supports positive freedom (defined by it in fact), constitutionalism, and support for welfare-to-work programmes (welfare is for the aim of either rewarding hard work [pensions] or for putting you back into it [directly through jobseeker's allowance, indirectly to keep you surviving by free bus tickets etc]).

Libertarians: Classical Liberals with an attitude. Basically can be put down to people not wanting to be associated with the modern liberals, or more cynically to be able to insult liberals whilst not seeming to harm their own stance.

Conservatives: Strong support of skepticism and empiricism. Defined by a negative view of human nature, where humans are selfish and egoistic, but also irrational in the main. All other values are derived from this. Strongly supports tradition, empiricism, private property, and most importantly law and order; stability. Revolutionary countries tend to by virtue of being revolutionary not be conservative. It is very difficult to say much more than this - Capitalism tends to be supported, but usually supplemented by either neo-conservatism or neo-feudalism (the neo is ironic really as they're "blast to the past" rather than "going forward" supplements). Tend to avoid needless change.

Politics in society of course is usually made up of a combination of these (and socialism of course). If you have any questions, feel free to send me a pm. I can also provide citations for most of these claims (primary and secondary - political philosophy student) and answer any questions (such as how to derive values). This should clear up most of the misconceptions thrown about by partisan individuals however.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:17:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:01:22 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.


So that how it is. Pardon me but how can anybody who belief in government intervention and at the same time have no interest in defense policy? I thought the two tend to be anonymous (for me any way). How can they expected to make effective intervention without the use of force?

No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics, AKA the Republican pejorative approach to politics.

In reality libertarianism is nothing other than, really, another word for classical liberalism. To provide something that'll be actually agreed upon as objective:

Liberal: Supports individualism, liberty, justice, tolerance, and reason and almost always (exception of Hobbes) constitutionalism and Capitalism. Liberty can be either emphasised negatively (classical liberals) or positively (social or modern liberals). To be clear, those two terms aren't pejoratives, but are the technical terms used by Isaiah Berlin. Defined by a mixed view of human nature as being egoistical, selfish, and yet rational and economic. All other values are derived from this one.

Classical Liberal: Believes liberal values, with support of small state, heavily defends the private sphere as the non-governmental, strongly opposes collectivism on principle. Usually atomistic (people are atoms; communities are purely and only multiple individuals), and almost always strongly constitutionalist (doesn't mean pro-constitution, means all constitutional measures e.g. devolution, federalism, etc.). Is essentially defined by a complete support for negative freedom.

Modern Liberal: Believes in liberal values, with support of a small state (compared to conservatives, socialists, hegelians, fascists, nationalists, feminists etc. it is still by far and away a supporter of small state), but larger than the classical liberal. Heavily defends the private sphere as the non-collectives. Strongly supports positive freedom (defined by it in fact), constitutionalism, and support for welfare-to-work programmes (welfare is for the aim of either rewarding hard work [pensions] or for putting you back into it [directly through jobseeker's allowance, indirectly to keep you surviving by free bus tickets etc]).

Libertarians: Classical Liberals with an attitude. Basically can be put down to people not wanting to be associated with the modern liberals, or more cynically to be able to insult liberals whilst not seeming to harm their own stance.

Conservatives: Strong support of skepticism and empiricism. Defined by a negative view of human nature, where humans are selfish and egoistic, but also irrational in the main. All other values are derived from this. Strongly supports tradition, empiricism, private property, and most importantly law and order; stability. Revolutionary countries tend to by virtue of being revolutionary not be conservative. It is very difficult to say much more than this - Capitalism tends to be supported, but usually supplemented by either neo-conservatism or neo-feudalism (the neo is ironic really as they're "blast to the past" rather than "going forward" supplements). Tend to avoid needless change.

Politics in society of course is usually made up of a combination of these (and socialism of course). If you have any questions, feel free to send me a pm. I can also provide citations for most of these claims (primary and secondary - political philosophy student) and answer any questions (such as how to derive values). This should clear up most of the misconceptions thrown about by partisan individuals however.

I had a debate that goes into this in similar detail as to what SH wrote here:

http://www.debate.org...

Unfortunately it was not much of a debate, as my opponent insisted upon discussing matters that had nothing to do with the resolution.

If you just read my side of it, ignore all of CON and ignore any rebuttals PRO made against CON, then you'll get my opinion on the words you cited in your OP.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:28:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics,

I don't recall rednecks reading Ludwig von Mises. I was a registered Democrat raised in the North in a Democrat/Independent state, started a lucrative career in the Southwest at age 17 before attending college studying philosophy, political science and political philosophy.

So this idea that I'm the redneck and you're the political science expert is utterly false.

AKA the Republican pejorative approach to politics.

It is rather duplicitous on your behalf to label my approach as pejorative when I invoked no insults whatsoever in my analysis, meanwhile it is in fact your approach that applies the use of a pejorative in the form of labelling my views as redneck.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:01:22 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.


So that how it is. Pardon me but how can anybody who belief in government intervention and at the same time have no interest in defense policy? I thought the two tend to be anonymous (for me any way). How can they expected to make effective intervention without the use of force?

No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics, AKA the Republican pejorative approach to politics.

In reality libertarianism is nothing other than, really, another word for classical liberalism. To provide something that'll be actually agreed upon as objective:

Liberal: Supports individualism, liberty, justice, tolerance, and reason and almost always (exception of Hobbes) constitutionalism and Capitalism. Liberty can be either emphasised negatively (classical liberals) or positively (social or modern liberals). To be clear, those two terms aren't pejoratives, but are the technical terms used by Isaiah Berlin. Defined by a mixed view of human nature as being egoistical, selfish, and yet rational and economic. All other values are derived from this one.

Classical Liberal: Believes liberal values, with support of small state, heavily defends the private sphere as the non-governmental, strongly opposes collectivism on principle. Usually atomistic (people are atoms; communities are purely and only multiple individuals), and almost always strongly constitutionalist (doesn't mean pro-constitution, means all constitutional measures e.g. devolution, federalism, etc.). Is essentially defined by a complete support for negative freedom.

Modern Liberal: Believes in liberal values, with support of a small state (compared to conservatives, socialists, hegelians, fascists, nationalists, feminists etc. it is still by far and away a supporter of small state), but larger than the classical liberal. Heavily defends the private sphere as the non-collectives. Strongly supports positive freedom (defined by it in fact), constitutionalism, and support for welfare-to-work programmes (welfare is for the aim of either rewarding hard work [pensions] or for putting you back into it [directly through jobseeker's allowance, indirectly to keep you surviving by free bus tickets etc]).

Libertarians: Classical Liberals with an attitude. Basically can be put down to people not wanting to be associated with the modern liberals, or more cynically to be able to insult liberals whilst not seeming to harm their own stance.

Conservatives: Strong support of skepticism and empiricism. Defined by a negative view of human nature, where humans are selfish and egoistic, but also irrational in the main. All other values are derived from this. Strongly supports tradition, empiricism, private property, and most importantly law and order; stability. Revolutionary countries tend to by virtue of being revolutionary not be conservative. It is very difficult to say much more than this - Capitalism tends to be supported, but usually supplemented by either neo-conservatism or neo-feudalism (the neo is ironic really as they're "blast to the past" rather than "going forward" supplements). Tend to avoid needless change.

Politics in society of course is usually made up of a combination of these (and socialism of course). If you have any questions, feel free to send me a pm. I can also provide citations for most of these claims (primary and secondary - political philosophy student) and answer any questions (such as how to derive values). This should clear up most of the misconceptions thrown about by partisan individuals however.

It's pretty amusing how w/ those traits, conservatives, at least those in the US, are pretty anti-science.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:36:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:28:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics,

I don't recall rednecks reading Ludwig von Mises. I was a registered Democrat raised in the North in a Democrat/Independent state, started a lucrative career in the Southwest at age 17 before attending college studying philosophy, political science and political philosophy.

So this idea that I'm the redneck and you're the political science expert is utterly false.

AKA the Republican pejorative approach to politics.

It is rather duplicitous on your behalf to label my approach as pejorative when I invoked no insults whatsoever in my analysis, meanwhile it is in fact your approach that applies the use of a pejorative in the form of labelling my views as redneck.

I don't recall any rednecks not reading Ludwig von Mises :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:40:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:28:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics,

I don't recall rednecks reading Ludwig von Mises. I was a registered Democrat raised in the North in a Democrat/Independent state, started a lucrative career in the Southwest at age 17 before attending college studying philosophy, political science and political philosophy.

Sorry, let me rephrase.

"This is the Geolaureate definition, synonymous to the Redneck definition, synonymous to the Republican pejorative approach to political philosophy."

And by pejorative, I mean your approach is partisan, propagandist and obfuscates actual knowledge. While this is ignorant when discussing political matters, it is downright vile and disgusting when someone asks a serious knowledge and is trying to get a better grip of political philosophy. Using someone else's desire to learn to propagate your own prejudice against liberalism is an insult to anyone who is both trying to learn and trying to teach, and sets back this individual's knowledge in the subject as well as the others who will read you.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 4:09:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:35:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's pretty amusing how w/ those traits, conservatives, at least those in the US, are pretty anti-science.

I'd dispute any proper conservatives even being in the US. Of course, in political science there are, but none really from the Burke or Disraeli or Coleridge (I am amazed at the difficulty I am having coming up with non-British traditionalists...) though I guess in America you had Santayana.

America has always been however anti-conservatism in its proper form. A colonial country without an aristocracy of old money and the American Dream kept conservatism at bay. Ironically, your conservatism was liberalism - which is very much the state of conservatism now in most countries. Liberalism currently works, so, as conservatives are pragmatists and empiricists at heart, they accept this tried and tested ideology to fight back socialism.

In other words, yeah, it really is quite funny how conservatives in the US seem to go against what conservatism even really stands for.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 4:11:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:28:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So this idea that I'm the redneck and you're the political science expert is utterly false.

I'd also like to take the time to insult the subject of political science. Political science is a stupid subject. Don't like the phrase "political science". It's like saying "literary science" to analyse Shakespeare. No, it's either an art or a philosophy, but there's no scientific method. Rant rant rant.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 4:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 10:41:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
In purely democratic concept, what is the different between libertarian and liberal, and liberal and conservative?

I am always confuse by the definition of this term, especially between democratic liberal and conservative.

OK, first off when people use the term "Liberal" in the US they usually mean "Progressive".

Conservatives are reactionaries who oppose political or social reform. Conservatives are the epitome of the right wing.
Progressives are radicals who advocate thorough or complete political or social reform. Progressives are the epitome of the left wing.
Libertarians are individualists who puts the needs of each individual within the community over that of the aggregated community. Libertarians are the epitome of individualism.

Individualists try to maximize the welbeing of every individual within the community, without favoritism, whereas Collectivistists try to maximize the welbeing of the community as a whole.

Left Wing Libertarians are Anarchists, and Right Wing Libertarians are Classic Liberals.

Individualist Progressives are Social Liberals aka Radical Liberals aka Modern Liberals, while Collectivist Progressives are Populists. Individualist Conservatives are Liberal-Conservatives aka Modern Conservatives, while Collectivist Conservatives are Traditional Conservatives.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 4:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 4:11:05 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:28:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So this idea that I'm the redneck and you're the political science expert is utterly false.

I'd also like to take the time to insult the subject of political science. Political science is a stupid subject. Don't like the phrase "political science". It's like saying "literary science" to analyse Shakespeare. No, it's either an art or a philosophy, but there's no scientific method. Rant rant rant.

Dispute the terminology all you want, but political science courses, in my experience, differ greatly from political philosophy courses.

Political science focuses on political history of the U.S., parties, contemporary wedge issues, branches of government, etc.

Political philosophy focuses on systems of governance, political philosophers, economic theory, etc.

There is a clear distinction and I really don't see an issue with the semantics surrounding "political science."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 4:57:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:40:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:28:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I don't recall rednecks reading Ludwig von Mises. I was a registered Democrat raised in the North in a Democrat/Independent state, started a lucrative career in the Southwest at age 17 before attending college studying philosophy, political science and political philosophy.

Sorry, let me rephrase.

"This is the Geolaureate definition, synonymous to the Redneck definition, synonymous to the Republican pejorative approach to political philosophy."

And by pejorative, I mean your approach is partisan, propagandist and obfuscates actual knowledge. While this is ignorant when discussing political matters, it is downright vile and disgusting when someone asks a serious knowledge and is trying to get a better grip of political philosophy. Using someone else's desire to learn to propagate your own prejudice against liberalism is an insult to anyone who is both trying to learn and trying to teach, and sets back this individual's knowledge in the subject as well as the others who will read you.

While mine had a slight slant (though could be argued it is entirely factual) admittedly, what I saw you write and try to pass off as fact was even more repulsive.

Mine was kind of obvious that it was biased while yours appeared to come off as totally objective while distorting the truth in an even grander manner. So shame on your false analysis.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 2:57:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:33:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:01:22 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.


So that how it is. Pardon me but how can anybody who belief in government intervention and at the same time have no interest in defense policy? I thought the two tend to be anonymous (for me any way). How can they expected to make effective intervention without the use of force?

They believe in taxes and regulations imposed upon business, but they oppose 'peace through strength.' Why is that hard to understand.

But how can you enforce peace, especially when it is done via intervention, without strength? That is the most confusing concern on my part, I assume that the government who would like to make extensive intervention on social affair will at least would like to have some mean to doing it. Thus, if they don not want an armed conflict with other nations - fine but they still probably need to invest more in domestic security issue such as a certain degree of spy network to watch out potentially dangerous individual, make sure the entrepreneur and corporation do follow the intervention they made.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 3:00:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:40:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:28:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics,

I don't recall rednecks reading Ludwig von Mises. I was a registered Democrat raised in the North in a Democrat/Independent state, started a lucrative career in the Southwest at age 17 before attending college studying philosophy, political science and political philosophy.

Sorry, let me rephrase.

"This is the Geolaureate definition, synonymous to the Redneck definition, synonymous to the Republican pejorative approach to political philosophy."

And by pejorative, I mean your approach is partisan, propagandist and obfuscates actual knowledge. While this is ignorant when discussing political matters, it is downright vile and disgusting when someone asks a serious knowledge and is trying to get a better grip of political philosophy. Using someone else's desire to learn to propagate your own prejudice against liberalism is an insult to anyone who is both trying to learn and trying to teach, and sets back this individual's knowledge in the subject as well as the others who will read you.

I don't really mind though, any input is welcome, I will have to think about it myself anyway.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 3:06:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One more question then, if conservative is free government, free economy, with heavy involvement in foreign affair, what would it means to be a bit toward authoritarian government with free economy?

i.e. a political belief that do not support democracy but play along with it, a belief that is personality focus rather than an philosophical idea, like I don't care what this guys is after but it is this guy so I follow him?

Something like a Singaporean government. and I guest a lot of political system in local level would be like this.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 5:14:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:06:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
One more question then, if conservative is free government, free economy, with heavy involvement in foreign affair, what would it means to be a bit toward authoritarian government with free economy?

Yes. Conservatism isn't free market anyway, only in practice. And even then, not really. By "free government" if you mean low power, then that is anathema to conservatism. Again, America lacks conservatism in many cases in the economy, as it is politically unpopular, but conservatism very much supports ideas like protectionism and the moral economy in order to keep the people following the straight and narrow and not committing crime.

i.e. a political belief that do not support democracy but play along with it, a belief that is personality focus rather than an philosophical idea, like I don't care what this guys is after but it is this guy so I follow him?

Kinda. Imagine a free market in Iran. Many liberals would say, because human nature is universally self-interested bit rainfall, democracy would work well. Capitalism works best, etc. Conservatives question this, saying human nature is either irrational am FD we must have what works to keep order and thus disagree in practice with these revolutionary reforms, or a conservative a la Popper or Santayana argue that
Human nature is not universal, so disagree in principle with the argument.

Same goes for people. Or polity. 'Conservatives reject argument in favour of evidence' is a way of remembering it. This explains why conservatives usually reject change based on argument, but have no massive problems when it has been tried and tested like capitalism. It also explains why conservatives reject multiculturalism: doesn't work in practice they may argue.

All of this is political ideologies here to be clear. In politics in countries, usually these terms are pejoratives or simply don't exist so people ignore the actual philosophy and lump people together.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 10:03:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, there tends to be no set definition. I usually look at the three ideologies in terms of the "ultimate value" that they adhere to. So:

Libertarianism views liberty and freedom as the ultimate political goals, manifesting as looser regulations all around on the part of the government, a smaller government, reduced taxation, etc.

Liberalism views social progress as the ultimate political goal. This results in policies such as laxer laws surrounding interpersonal issues and recreation, but generally speaking more regulation on the part of the government and bigger government to accommodate more people economically, with the goal of progress in mind (progress of living conditions).

Conservatism views tradition and maintenance of the status quo as the ultimate goals. This usually means that conservatives support increased policy and regulation to maintain traditions/traditional ideals, while also trying to bring back the freer market of the past.

Of course, those are generalizations that are not completely full and detailed descriptions, and really are more specific to the United States, but I hope that helps.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 6:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Classical Liberal: Believes liberal values, with support of small state, heavily defends the private sphere as the non-governmental, strongly opposes collectivism on principle. Usually atomistic (people are atoms; communities are purely and only multiple individuals), and almost always strongly constitutionalist (doesn't mean pro-constitution, means all constitutional measures e.g. devolution, federalism, etc.). Is essentially defined by a complete support for negative freedom.

Fantastic definition.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 6:18:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 6:11:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Classical Liberal: Believes liberal values, with support of small state, heavily defends the private sphere as the non-governmental, strongly opposes collectivism on principle. Usually atomistic (people are atoms; communities are purely and only multiple individuals), and almost always strongly constitutionalist (doesn't mean pro-constitution, means all constitutional measures e.g. devolution, federalism, etc.). Is essentially defined by a complete support for negative freedom.

Fantastic definition.

Thanks! I plan to go into political philosophy as a profession (as well as practical ethics) so it's good to know that this is quite clear.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 6:23:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 4:57:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Mine was kind of obvious that it was biased while yours appeared to come off as totally objective while distorting the truth in an even grander manner. So shame on your false analysis.

It comes off as objective because it is objective. No part of what I stated is false. Seriously: how many citations do you want for each example and trait of the ideology? Or perhaps I can walk through how you conclude each from the starting point of the view of human nature? Or I can cite you the numerous textbooks? Maybe the classical secondary source political books where you can similarly get this information? Or the primary sources where you can derive these ideas from? Scholars? Arguments? Case studies?

Oh wait, but to do this, I'd need any point I made that is false. Which there are none, evident by the fact that you can't point out any of them. Which hopefully is useful to the OP knowing which of us to trust.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Guy_D
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 7:08:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:05:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:01:22 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/12/2013 10:54:23 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberal: Centralized control, collectivism, intervention in market economy, anti-Constitution, progressivism, high taxes, no belief in national defense, and political correctness.

Conservative: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, the Constitution, national defense, and traditional family.

Libertarian: Economic freedom, civil liberties, free market Capitalism, individualism, and the Constitution.


So that how it is. Pardon me but how can anybody who belief in government intervention and at the same time have no interest in defense policy? I thought the two tend to be anonymous (for me any way). How can they expected to make effective intervention without the use of force?

No it's not. That's the GeoLaureate approach to politics, AKA the Redneck approach to politics, AKA the Republican pejorative approach to politics.

In reality libertarianism is nothing other than, really, another word for classical liberalism. To provide something that'll be actually agreed upon as objective:

Liberal: Supports individualism, liberty, justice, tolerance, and reason and almost always (exception of Hobbes) constitutionalism and Capitalism. Liberty can be either emphasised negatively (classical liberals) or positively (social or modern liberals). To be clear, those two terms aren't pejoratives, but are the technical terms used by Isaiah Berlin. Defined by a mixed view of human nature as being egoistical, selfish, and yet rational and economic. All other values are derived from this one.

Classical Liberal: Believes liberal values, with support of small state, heavily defends the private sphere as the non-governmental, strongly opposes collectivism on principle. Usually atomistic (people are atoms; communities are purely and only multiple individuals), and almost always strongly constitutionalist (doesn't mean pro-constitution, means all constitutional measures e.g. devolution, federalism, etc.). Is essentially defined by a complete support for negative freedom.

Modern Liberal: Believes in liberal values, with support of a small state (compared to conservatives, socialists, hegelians, fascists, nationalists, feminists etc. it is still by far and away a supporter of small state), but larger than the classical liberal. Heavily defends the private sphere as the non-collectives. Strongly supports positive freedom (defined by it in fact), constitutionalism, and support for welfare-to-work programmes (welfare is for the aim of either rewarding hard work [pensions] or for putting you back into it [directly through jobseeker's allowance, indirectly to keep you surviving by free bus tickets etc]).

Libertarians: Classical Liberals with an attitude. Basically can be put down to people not wanting to be associated with the modern liberals, or more cynically to be able to insult liberals whilst not seeming to harm their own stance.

Conservatives: Strong support of skepticism and empiricism. Defined by a negative view of human nature, where humans are selfish and egoistic, but also irrational in the main. All other values are derived from this. Strongly supports tradition, empiricism, private property, and most importantly law and order; stability. Revolutionary countries tend to by virtue of being revolutionary not be conservative. It is very difficult to say much more than this - Capitalism tends to be supported, but usually supplemented by either neo-conservatism or neo-feudalism (the neo is ironic really as they're "blast to the past" rather than "going forward" supplements). Tend to avoid needless change.

Politics in society of course is usually made up of a combination of these (and socialism of course). If you have any questions, feel free to send me a pm. I can also provide citations for most of these claims (primary and secondary - political philosophy student) and answer any questions (such as how to derive values). This should clear up most of the misconceptions thrown about by partisan individuals however.

Bingo! Being a libertarian minded person, I used to sometimes describe myself as a classic liberal and confuse the hell out of people.
Gd
markuswashere
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 10:52:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libertarianism is simply liberalism that doesn't want to associate itself with what it thinks are other liberals. Libertarianism and liberalism is the same thing, only the people of it can differ.