Conservative: Believe predominantly in self-reliance, and self-responsibility

Liberal: Believe predominantly in group-reliance, and guilt by association.

Conservtaive believe they are guilty by their own actions. Liberals believe they are guilty becuase they system made them do it.

These are, of course, gross over-simplifications.

Ignore Thucy the Libtard attack dog. He is not interested in a conversation, only attacking. Go away Thuc-wad...go practice your coloring and let the grown ups talk.


SYn - got a busy day - won't be responding as often, but will gladly discuss, if you can keep Thuc-wad from fouling up the thread with his hate.

Conservative: Believe predominantly in self-reliance, and self-responsibility
Liberal: Believe predominantly in group-reliance, and guilt by association.

I don't think this is correct. Liberals are the self-reliant one, as they believe that people should be as free as possible without interfering with the rights of others. What your're describing in fact is socialism, which is completely opposite to liberalism...

Just ignore thucy in this thread, I'm glad to see you are open to discussion today

@Synapse, i believe there are those who call social democrats 'liberals'
While libertarians are called Conservatives.

Unfortunately i think this confusion largely arises from democracy and brand values. As opposed to any real substance. Pure semantics.

What bothers me is that I also believe in personal responsibility. Krellin is right to say that his is a gross oversimplification.

Or maybe it is that I'm not exactly a liberal. Shocking, I know. Not that krellin will acknowledge this possibility.

Conservative is really a political branding of sorts. There's a Conservative Party in Canada, one in England, and I'm sure in many other places. The general idea I see defended in those approaches to political life seems to be that there should be as little government as possible. This principle, of course, can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Libertarianism is, I believe, a conception of justice that resembles the one defended by Adam Smith in his conception of the market and the invisible hand. I think it silently rests on metaphysical ideas regarding the order of the universe and how the freedom of all is 'in tune with' that order. Here again, it must be noted, there are various interpretations available. Generally, they all seem to ignore the idea that equality is a preoccupation of justice as it would naturally occur "as it should" in a perfectly free state.

Liberalism: there are political and economical liberalisms, and it can also denote a view on justice. Rawls is a good example of the latter. Social Democracy a good example of the former. As for economical liberalism, it is often coined as Neo-liberalism and stems from theories that, in some respect, stem from the principle of the free market.

Conservatism is often confused with Republicanism, which is the view that the government, as minimal as it may be, must also defend a certain number of core values that identify the Republic and its citizens as what they are. Religious governments are of that ilk ("In God We Trust" is an example of how the USA are, in significant ways, built around core values that the government must ... conserve/protect)

Of course, this is just a general idea, not a thesis per se. And I recognize that some of what I've said here could be debated.

In today's terms, Liberals believe in State Solutions. If there is a problem, design a government program! Throw money at it! There ought to be a law!

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be more suspicious of the efficacy and the wisdom of State Action.

That's too short, dipplayer:

Liberals believe that the government has a role to play in the distribution of justice in its community. Which is really another way to say that Liberals hold that the perks of freedom are not evenly accessible to all free individuals and that it's up to the institution that sees to the ordering of society to try and mitigate the effects of the natural lottery (the effects of the fact that you're not responsible for where you're born, in what family, and that there is therefore no sense in which the natural lottery is fair or just).
Hopefully, intelligent liberals have more means at their disposal than "throwing money" at problems. Structuring a community can happen in a number of ways. Education is an important mean to that end.

"Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be more suspicious of the efficacy and the wisdom of State Action."

Except when it comes to issues of sexuality. In that case, better legislate the problem away. If gay marriage is illegal, it can't exist in the conservative fantasy world.

Conservatives believe in economic freedom, and that it is better to have uneven happiness rather than equal misery. We also believe in government deregulation, and that the free market is the best regulator out there. However, we believe that the government's job is to protect the security of every life in its country, thus, we believe that abortion is murder and should be illegal. We believe in ZERO subsidies, either to business or to individuals. We believe in States' Rights, that the States should have more power than the Central government, as the Founders intended. And finally, we adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, as it is the ONLY way to prevent tyranny.

'distribution of justice "

EXTREMELY poor and disengenuous use of the word Justice, which is a LEGAL term.

@Krellin I think he was referring to 'Social Justice'

But that is what makes Liberals so dangerous to argue with – they have this *nasty* tendency to co-opt language with well known, long-standing definitions and redefine the terms. “Justice” has always been a legal term, generally set aside for criminal behavior. Liberals co-opt it, add “social” to it – social justice – to take what is right (government enact justice – a legal/criminal thing) and pervert it to something it wasn’t intended to be (government enact “social justice” – and every-aspect-of-life thing).

"Or maybe it is that I'm not exactly a liberal. Shocking, I know. Not that krellin will acknowledge this possibility." -Thucy

That's because you're a Commie...

@Krellin: That's how Alinsky designed it

And...in devious Liberal fashion, once they establish a term “social justice”…they slowly DROP the “social”…and just say “justice” as some all-emcompassing principle, now redefined from a criminal arena to an everything arena. “Justice” means everything in society to a liberal, not locking up a criminal.

And, in a kafkatrap argument, Thucy will say that if you don’t think Justice encompasses all aspects of society, you are guilty of anti-social/anti-justice behavior. Watch…he won’t be able to help himself.

Basically, the Libs hijacked Catholic Social Justice, which is based on the Ten Commandments, then redefined it to fit their own image. Leo XIII clearly stated what Social Justice is, but of course he has been conveniently erased from history

No, justice is a philosophical concept.

As is truth.

The word is used in the courts because courts are founded on philosophical aims, namely, the pursuit of justice.

In the same way, science is the pursuit of truth, which is firstly a philosophical concept, and latterly a quotidian norm such as "the earth is round."

Also, krellin, you should thank your merciful God that I don't spend all my time talking about your faulty argumentation.

Actually, you should thank your self-reliant self, because the reason I do not do so is that I know already that you would categorically ignore my critiques.

You demonstrated as much with JECE yesterday.

What bothers me is that I also believe in personal responsibility. Krellin is right to say that his is a gross oversimplification.

Or maybe it is that I'm not exactly a liberal. Shocking, I know. Not that krellin will acknowledge this possibility.

Thuc-wad - if you were forced to declare as Liberal versus Conservative at gun point, you would be a Liberal. Everyone here is intelligent enough to understand that we are all flavors of a grouping label…no need to get your undies in a bunch and pic nits. Seriosuly, man…this is just you deflecting…

These terms in an of themselves are meaningless. They differ between countries and over time to such an extent that they cannot satisfactorily describe coherent political positions.

"Liberal" in Saudi Arabia means you want gays imprisoned rather than beheaded. "Conservative" in China means you want to continue communist party rule with minimal reforms, if any. In America in 1900 even the most swivel-eyed "liberal" wouldn't have supported the current abortion-on-demand and even abortion-is-a-good-thing positions many contemporary "liberals" do. In 1900 an American "conservative" would have been against women's suffrage, which is so universally accepted now we can sometimes forget they didn't always have it.

The best you can do is say a "liberal" in America today supports greater government intervention in the economy and greater government intervention in society to attempt to protect the rights of designated groups. A "conservative" supports less government intervention in the economy and minimal government intervention to try and change society. Even that, though, is so general and imprecise as to be quite useless.

Thucy, read Rerum Novarum and Quod Apostolici Muneris. You might learn something.

"We believe in ZERO subsidies, either to business or to individuals."

That's the biggest bullshit line I've ever read. Just a few weeks ago, the House passed their version of the farm bill, which contained *billions* in subsidies for farmers and big agribusiness.

@2WL, You're right. That was passed by the Moderates and Liberals. Conservatives (i.e. The Tea Party, was opposed to it)

Calvin Coolidge vetoed the Farm Subsides bill in the 1920s.

@Sbyvl,
Would true conservatives then support the closing of business tax deductions? The Grover Norquist crowd has strongly opposed efforts to eliminate deductions and move toward a flatter system, even with a marginal rate decrease.

We want a complete overhaul of the tax system. Personally, I would abolish all federal taxes, and go back the Tariff system, which kept government spending in check until 1913.