Total Posts:125|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conservative island

philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 6:59:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've noticed that there has been a dramatic drop in the number of conservatives on this site in the past few months.
The main active ones such as diabloschaosbreaker, labrat, (the guy with the darth vader picture, i forgot his name), etc have all left.
It seems there are very few left.
It seems as if the majority of the site are moderate, independate/mized views, left side.
I was wondering if there was a specific reason for this?
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 7:04:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 6:59:07 AM, philosphical wrote:
I've noticed that there has been a dramatic drop in the number of conservatives on this site in the past few months.
The main active ones such as diabloschaosbreaker, labrat, (the guy with the darth vader picture, i forgot his name), etc have all left.
It seems there are very few left.
It seems as if the majority of the site are moderate, independate/mized views, left side.
I was wondering if there was a specific reason for this?

The liberal left winged people here swaying them!
Here's looking at you Volkov!
(JK)

I really do not know the exact reason.
I just think that it is hard to express being conservative openly, with out people looking in the beliefs and analyzing for themselves.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 10:24:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I remember not too long ago, this site was filled to the brim equally with both sides!

Now, its becoming dull... :(
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 11:00:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have to ask why this is called "Conservative Island"....

You do have a few conservatives floating around. In particular, comon, yourself (philosphical), wjm (he's libertartian, but acts like a conservative socially), Cody could be considered a social conservative, um.. yeah.

I guess maybe the number has dropped. The main, er, "opposition" I suppose to liberals on the site, tends to be the various libertarians that float around, which is probably bad considering that liberals and libertarians can find more in common than liberals and conservatives.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:09:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 11:00:55 AM, Volkov wrote:
I guess maybe the number has dropped. The main, er, "opposition" I suppose to liberals on the site, tends to be the various libertarians that float around, which is probably bad considering that liberals and libertarians can find more in common than liberals and conservatives.
Wat
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:14:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:09:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 11:00:55 AM, Volkov wrote:
I guess maybe the number has dropped. The main, er, "opposition" I suppose to liberals on the site, tends to be the various libertarians that float around, which is probably bad considering that liberals and libertarians can find more in common than liberals and conservatives.
Wat

Liberals - Pro civil liberties, Pro Welfare state

Conservatives - Pro Traditional values, Pro fiscal conservatism

Libertarians - Pro Civil liberties, pro abolish stuff.

The only difference is conservatives aren't anywhere near as slash and cut as libertarians, whereas most liberals are socially in tune with Libertarians. We only have economic qualms.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:21:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:19:03 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that many of the conservatives here tend to shift over to libertarianism.

Yes. I used to be conservative, but progressed to libertarianism. So have mongoose and wjmelements.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:23:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:14:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:09:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 11:00:55 AM, Volkov wrote:
I guess maybe the number has dropped. The main, er, "opposition" I suppose to liberals on the site, tends to be the various libertarians that float around, which is probably bad considering that liberals and libertarians can find more in common than liberals and conservatives.
Wat

Liberals - Pro civil liberties, Pro Welfare state

Conservatives - Pro Traditional values, Pro fiscal conservatism

Libertarians - Pro Civil liberties, pro abolish stuff.

The only difference is conservatives aren't anywhere near as slash and cut as libertarians, whereas most liberals are socially in tune with Libertarians. We only have economic qualms.

Socially in tune with Libertarians?

Human Rights Commissions?

Campus speech codes?

Hell, wasn't it the Progressives who went nuts for Prohibition?

Economics is a huge issue btw. It's easier to buy a hooker on the black market than it is to make a profit when there isn't any market but a black one. And note that trade IS a social behavior.

In most cases, which one will be closer to the libertarian depends on which liberal and which conservative. "Ideal" conservatism is about equidistant from it with "ideal" modern liberalism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:27:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hey, Ragnar, I didn't say buddy-buddy - I said libertarians and liberals can probably find more in common, which is true. Will it be a perfect match? No. I never said that.

Besides, I don't consider you "libertarian" in the normal sense of the word. I would have no interest in co-operating with you, any more than you with me. People like Nags, or the Mongs, yes - you're a completely different sotry.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:28:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:23:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:14:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:09:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 11:00:55 AM, Volkov wrote:
I guess maybe the number has dropped. The main, er, "opposition" I suppose to liberals on the site, tends to be the various libertarians that float around, which is probably bad considering that liberals and libertarians can find more in common than liberals and conservatives.
Wat

Liberals - Pro civil liberties, Pro Welfare state

Conservatives - Pro Traditional values, Pro fiscal conservatism

Libertarians - Pro Civil liberties, pro abolish stuff.

The only difference is conservatives aren't anywhere near as slash and cut as libertarians, whereas most liberals are socially in tune with Libertarians. We only have economic qualms.

Socially in tune with Libertarians?

Human Rights Commissions?

Protects people rights. Bad how?


Campus speech codes?

Disagree with at any rate. Most liberals here do anyway. I was mainly referring to this site.


Hell, wasn't it the Progressives who went nuts for Prohibition?

Remember the fact the political parties had a huge shift around the early 1900's? Not reflective of modern liberalism.


Economics is a huge issue btw. It's easier to buy a hooker on the black market than it is to make a profit when there isn't any market but a black one. And note that trade IS a social behavior.

So do a lot of Liberals on this site.


In most cases, which one will be closer to the libertarian depends on which liberal and which conservative. "Ideal" conservatism is about equidistant from it with "ideal" modern liberalism.

True.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:35:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ah. so what you meant was poseurs have more in common with liberals than conservatives, not libertarians.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:37:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:21:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:19:03 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that many of the conservatives here tend to shift over to libertarianism.

Yes. I used to be conservative, but progressed to libertarianism. So have mongoose and wjmelements.

Yea, I think my ideology is changing too. I doubt I could ever be libertarian though.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:38:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:35:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ah. so what you meant was poseurs have more in common with liberals than conservatives, not libertarians.

If that is how you wish to put it, then yes. However, les poseurs outnumber les vérités by a large amount.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:39:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:35:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ah. so what you meant was poseurs have more in common with liberals than conservatives, not libertarians.

No. Not all libertarians are Randian, fyi.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:41:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:28:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:23:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:14:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:09:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 11:00:55 AM, Volkov wrote:
I guess maybe the number has dropped. The main, er, "opposition" I suppose to liberals on the site, tends to be the various libertarians that float around, which is probably bad considering that liberals and libertarians can find more in common than liberals and conservatives.
Wat

Liberals - Pro civil liberties, Pro Welfare state

Conservatives - Pro Traditional values, Pro fiscal conservatism

Libertarians - Pro Civil liberties, pro abolish stuff.

The only difference is conservatives aren't anywhere near as slash and cut as libertarians, whereas most liberals are socially in tune with Libertarians. We only have economic qualms.

Socially in tune with Libertarians?

Human Rights Commissions?

Protects people rights. Bad how?
What? Human Rights commissions protect people's rights like the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms task force protects the owners of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

Or do you just not know what they are? Their most notable purpose is prosecuting cases of "hate speech."



Campus speech codes?

Disagree with at any rate. Most liberals here do anyway. I was mainly referring to this site.
Liberals on average don't. And I was responding to Volkov not you



Hell, wasn't it the Progressives who went nuts for Prohibition?

Remember the fact the political parties had a huge shift around the early 1900's? Not reflective of modern liberalism.
Um, yes, it is. The "Progressive Party" was more allied with the Republicans -- then folded into the Democrats and became modern liberals. Modern liberals are the descendants of those Republicans/Progressives.



Economics is a huge issue btw. It's easier to buy a hooker on the black market than it is to make a profit when there isn't any market but a black one. And note that trade IS a social behavior.

So do a lot of Liberals on this site.
That didn't even make grammatical sense.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:42:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:39:43 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:35:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ah. so what you meant was poseurs have more in common with liberals than conservatives, not libertarians.

No. Not all libertarians are Randian, fyi.
Irrelevant. All libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. Rand wasn't at issue.

If that is how you wish to put it, then yes. However, les poseurs outnumber les vérités by a large amount.
Doubtless.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:44:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Irrelevant. All libertarians who are not consequentalist libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.

True.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:48:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyways, to make a point...

The shift of conservatives to libertarians isn't unprecedented. In general, modern conservatism in North America has essentially been a mix of social traditionalism and economics rooted in classical liberalism. It isn't hard for "conservatives" to make that jump to libertarianism. What is more, I'm willing to bet that most of those that made the shift are still social traditionalists. What Ragnar said about les poseurs is probably more true than most 'libertarians' would like to admit.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:51:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:44:57 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Irrelevant. All libertarians who are not consequentalist libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.

True.

Consequentialism is a general set of ethical positions. Many consequentialists exist who believe in the nonaggression principle-- myself, for example, Objectivism is very consequentialist.

But no, I said all libertarians. Even if you're consequentialism, it's not an escape. It makes you at best classically liberal. You can qualify as libertarian without a qualifier like "paleo" or "moderate" or "poseur" or "wuss" if and only if you accept the NAP. Should you accept it just to get the label? No, that would be stupid, just like you shouldn't accept sex just to get the label "gay." But if you don't want sex with the same sex, calling yourself gay is a lie. Likewise with the NAP and libertarianism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:55:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:51:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:44:57 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Irrelevant. All libertarians who are not consequentalist libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.

True.

Consequentialism is a general set of ethical positions. Many consequentialists exist who believe in the nonaggression principle-- myself, for example, Objectivism is very consequentialist.

But no, I said all libertarians. Even if you're consequentialism, it's not an escape. It makes you at best classically liberal. You can qualify as libertarian without a qualifier like "paleo" or "moderate" or "poseur" or "wuss" if and only if you accept the NAP. Should you accept it just to get the label? No, that would be stupid, just like you shouldn't accept sex just to get the label "gay." But if you don't want sex with the same sex, calling yourself gay is a lie. Likewise with the NAP and libertarianism.

No, you're just wrong. The NAP states that all initiations of force, or "aggression", is inherently immoral or inherently wrong. Consequentialist libertarians don't believe in such.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:56:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:55:32 PM, Nags wrote:
No, you're just wrong. The NAP states that all initiations of force, or "aggression", is inherently immoral or inherently wrong. Consequentialist libertarians don't believe in such.

Oh no you didn't.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 2:58:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 2:55:32 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:51:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:44:57 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/25/2010 2:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Irrelevant. All libertarians who are not consequentalist libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.

True.

Consequentialism is a general set of ethical positions. Many consequentialists exist who believe in the nonaggression principle-- myself, for example, Objectivism is very consequentialist.

But no, I said all libertarians. Even if you're consequentialism, it's not an escape. It makes you at best classically liberal. You can qualify as libertarian without a qualifier like "paleo" or "moderate" or "poseur" or "wuss" if and only if you accept the NAP. Should you accept it just to get the label? No, that would be stupid, just like you shouldn't accept sex just to get the label "gay." But if you don't want sex with the same sex, calling yourself gay is a lie. Likewise with the NAP and libertarianism.

No, you're just wrong. The NAP states that all initiations of force, or "aggression", is inherently immoral or inherently wrong. Consequentialist libertarians don't believe in such.

I'm consequentialist. I'm also libertarian. So that doesn't work. Unless you mean something different by consequentialist libertarian than consquentialist who is libertarian.

Like maybe someone who would be a libertarian except they aren't beause they think consequentialism means they can't be. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 3:01:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Perhaps better phrased "consequentialist who wishes he's libertarian but isn't and so pretends to be."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 3:03:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's like I'm saying "native-born Scots are from Scotland" and you say "Except South African native-born Scots."

No, the ones who aren't from Scotland aren't native-born scots.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 3:07:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ehh, well one can't be a consequentialist libertarian if one believes in NAP, because one can't believe that any and all forms of aggression is inherently wrong if one is a consequentialist libertarian. I'm not sure if one can be a consequentialist, libertarian, and believe in the NAP. If one can, then I'm sure that's what you are.

This is what I am (a consequentialist libertarian):
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 3:14:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 3:07:59 PM, Nags wrote:
Ehh, well one can't be a consequentialist libertarian if one believes in NAP, because one can't believe that any and all forms of aggression is inherently wrong if one is a consequentialist libertarian.
Sure one can. You believe that the consequences of aggression (initiation of force or fraud against a person or property) are bad.


This is what I am (a consequentialist libertarian):
http://en.wikipedia.org...
If you don't believe in the NAP-- you do not qualify as a libertarian. You're a consequentialist classical liberal.
Since libertarianism is a political theory, not an ethical one, the wiki's explanation is incoherent.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
And this explores the basis some people have for libertarianis, but does not contradict the fact that it refers to a believer in the NAP.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 3:24:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 3:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sure one can. You believe that the consequences of aggression (initiation of force or fraud against a person or property) are bad.

NAP states that aggression is always bad. Ergo, I don't believe in NAP.

If you don't believe in the NAP-- you do not qualify as a libertarian. You're a consequentialist classical liberal.

In your opinion. Truth =/= your opinion, though.

Since libertarianism is a political theory, not an ethical one, the wiki's explanation is incoherent.

Lol. The wiki never said anything about libertarianism or consequentialist libertarianism being a theory of ethics. I'm more inclined to believe myself, with backing of wiki, than you.

And this explores the basis some people have for libertarianis, but does not contradict the fact that it refers to a believer in the NAP.

What it means to be a "libertarian" in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree.

The article never said that one must believe in NAP to be libertarian.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2010 3:29:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2010 3:24:30 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/25/2010 3:14:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sure one can. You believe that the consequences of aggression (initiation of force or fraud against a person or property) are bad.

NAP states that aggression is always bad. Ergo, I don't believe in NAP.
Ergo you are not libertarian.


If you don't believe in the NAP-- you do not qualify as a libertarian. You're a consequentialist classical liberal.

In your opinion. Truth =/= your opinion, though.
Copout.


Since libertarianism is a political theory, not an ethical one, the wiki's explanation is incoherent.

Lol. The wiki never said anything about libertarianism or consequentialist libertarianism being a theory of ethics.
Yes, it did. It said that natural rights libertarianism was where the initiation of force was "always immoral regardless of consequences (which is an ethical statement), and consequentialist was where liberty (which means not having force initiated against you) was "moral because of results" (incidentally, due to the inclusion of the word liberty, both requiring essentially political adherence to the NAP and defining it in terms of an ethical base).


And this explores the basis some people have for libertarianis, but does not contradict the fact that it refers to a believer in the NAP.

What it means to be a "libertarian" in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves
Copout.

There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory
I just did. Safe from what?

and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree.
Just identified the one that is the whole point of libertarianism. Without it libertarianism is a contrdiction.


The article never said that one must believe in NAP to be libertarian.
Didn't say it did, said it didn't contradict :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.