On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Ahh, for some reason I was thinking this was supposed to be about liberalism and conservatism.

Ehh seems like just another way to stereotype liberals and conservatives without really explaining much or being very useful. I mean, it’s more interesting and more useful to look at liberals and conservatives in their strongest light - see what the virtues of each are etc. It’s like if you looked into some debate in philosophy, you’ll find loads of dumb arguments/proponents on each side, right? Some people spend all their time re-hashing the common errors. All I’m saying is, wouldn’t it be more interesting, don’t we stand to learn more by focusing on the strongest arguments and the mind boggling crux of an issue?

Heh, okay. I don’t think those are the “classical” definitions.

A teacher is basically a dictator, of course, in the context of the classroom. Maybe you can clarify the analogy?

Are we talking about some kind of representative government with separate and empowered branches that must share power, or are we talking about a dictatorship? Are you saying that conservatives are really anarchists who want to get rid of government so they can be “rowdy” and go around picking on people?
These aren’t directed at your analogy, but discussing these would help me make more sense of it: why are liberals the ones who care more about security and equality vs freedom if the word liberal shares its root with liberty, or freedom? Has the meaning of liberalism and conservatism changed over time? What makes someone a liberal or conservative (besides self-declaration) ?

I know, because I omitted words like “most” or “on average”.

A nazi I guess. Aren’t you guys far-right?

Oh, no, no, no. Why would I eeever want to touch on conservatism and liberalism by bringing up the psychology of conservatives and liberals.

Makes no difference to me whether you think it’s a stereotype or you find it useful. If you don’t think it explains anything, you don’t get the analogy (TBH, I’m kinda shocked how few people are getting it). It’s meant to highlight what I think is a fundamental truth about human nature.

They have virtues?

No.

It’s what I learnt in school.

The teacher represents government. She has enough authority to come down on the bullies and the rowdies when she catches them bullying or being rowdie. This is true even in democracies or republics. The government has enough authority to come down on those breaking the law (rowdies) or abusing others (bullies); and liberals will often go to government in order to legislate new laws in order to control behaviors they don’t like (smoking bans for example).

We’re talking about human nature. In any society, there will be those who want freedom from government in order to do what they want, and those who want a more powerful government in order to provide security against the latter… and of course, there’s everyone in between. The analogy is more than an analogy. Bullies, rowdies, nerds, and wimps are real people. Just go to any high school and you will find them (…and everyone in between). They are real because this is a real phenomenon. And it doesn’t stop once they graduate… it just moves into politics.

Conservatists call those guys “libertarians” (at least Ucci did). You can consider them radical conservatists. But the moderate conservatists (from what they tell me) only want to minimize government (to its proper roll), not get rid of it (that would be silly :confused: ).

Don’t be fooled by the names. They don’t mean anything. The only answer I have is from what a few conservatives told me: that the conservatives used to call themselves liberals but then the other guys appropriated the name just to make themselves sound like they’re all about freedom… or so I’m told. I’m also told liberals do this all the time: borrow terms for window dressing, like calling themselves “progressive” in order to make it sound like the liberal agenda equals progress. But “isms” are just a label for identifying a group of people. I’m constantly amazed at how little a group’s actually ideology and value system matches the “ism” they attach to themselves. And I really shouldn’t be amazed. It’s to be expected. A group’s ideology and values will go wherever group-think takes them. A group’s ideology/values might start out at a certain position but then over the years migrate to a completely different position. It’s like a herd of “northerners” who migrate to the south and still call themselves “northerners”. And why shouldn’t they? No one really cares about changing the name until it starts to become detrimental.

Somebody else’s declaration.

To Gib:

Well, it is good that you know what over generalizing is, nazi is a derogatory term by the way.

It depends what you mean with your definition of far right. We prefer to call ourselves socialist or social conservatives. Another way to describe ourselves would be paternal conservatives.

A national socialist is a fascist, right? I know, another derogatory term, but it’s an authoritarian dictatorship, which I suppose is another derogatory term. Everything is done for the good of the people as per the judgement of a benevolent leader who favors strong borders and division of people by tribe, strong family values for building a strong population, and elimination of democratic ignorant opinions from decision making processes. It doesn’t seem so bad when I say it that way, but the risk is having a tyrannical maniac at the helm which I think explains the derogation of the former nomenclature as per history. Monarchies and dictatorships never seem to work that well and it was that impetus that formed the US.

Why did George Washington turn down an offer to become a king?

Washington once said “I didn’t fight George III to become George I.” He didn’t believe the office of the president should resemble a European monarchy. He became president with some vision of what the country and the office of president should and shouldn’t be. He set one precedent even before becoming president when he resigned his commission as General instead of turning it into a springboard for political power.

Democracy is run by the mob and a majority of uneducated idiots or bozos that should have no power to make political decisions for everybody else. To hell with democracy, the constitution, and the founding fathers. The modern United States is a sick decadent nation that needs to simply die which is why I am a crash enthusiast. You could call us fascist but I prefer the term authoritarian in that fascism is more in line with Italian corporatism and I don’t consider myself a corporatist either. No, I define myself as an authoritarian. Yes, there is the threat of maniacal dictators but the same could be said about maniacal presidents or prime ministers also. I am very aware of the abuse of power and believe it should be avoided at all costs.

At any rate I’m a firm believer in a benevolent dictatorship through a nation state.

Oh, excuse me Mr. Fascist Prick.

(kidding! kidding! kidding! :smiley: )

With all the different terms people like to use, it’s hard to keep track of what one really is. Now I need to know what you mean by social conservative.

Paint me a picture of your perfect world, and then I will see where you stand.

Well technically I admit being a prick so that is actually a factual statement.

A socialist conservative merely means I am a conservative that is a socialist that believes economically and socially that socialism should prevail over society.

A big part of my conservatism of course is ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism.

Representative Republic with separate branches of tiered government slows the progress of mob rule. Then tying the system to a Constitution rooted absolutely philosophically is a further necessity. America did all that. But of course any system is subject to entropy and decay.

Then how does a dictatorship avoid the perils of mania? Presidents and prime ministers can be thrown out or not re-elected, but what can be done when a dictator abuses power? That was precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid by having lots of checks n balances in government. They also recognized the idiocracy of a democracy which is why the US is a republic.

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Benjamin Franklin saying, “I have often looked at that behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now I… know that it is a rising…sun.”

Were the Victorians cleverer than us?

Using psychometric meta-analysis we computed the true correlation between simple reaction time and g, yielding a decline of − 1.16 IQ points per decade or − 13.35 IQ points since Victorian times. These findings strongly indicate that with respect to g the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western populations.

It’s likely that what they conceived is the best possible.

As Ben Franklin said: pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html

Mr. President:
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others.

Snip

[i]In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another’s throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. [/i]

You gotta stop using “isms” to explain your position. Most conservatists I’ve met seem to be against socialism (they lump it together with liberalism, communism, being Canadian, etc.), which suggests you think of “socialism” and “conservatism” in different ways from most.

What I need is a picture. Paint me a picture of how you think the perfect society would be structured (politically, economically, culturally, etc.).

Your ethnocentrism helps–it tells me you believe in racial segragation (or religious, or familial, or something along those lines); or perhaps the domination and subjugation of one race/ethnicity over another.

Here’s what I understand of the terms “socialism” and “conservatism”:

Socialism: the view that one of the primary functions of government is to take care of the people, to make life better, more comfortable, safer, happier, etc. and this is done through social services (ex. health care) paid for by taxes–typcially without any kind of social segregation (i.e. everyone gets equal access to these services and everyone gets taxed equally).

Conservatism: the view that the roll of government should not stray from its original intent as laid out in its constitution (as opposed to the view that government should heed to the whims of the people or the sway of the social tides). This of course means that a conservatist’s values may differ from another’s depending on his country of origin and the constitution therein, but generally it means honoring tradition and resisting change unless it’s necessary.

Very well said. =D>

No, it doesn’t. Republican parliamentarianism also revolves around voting which is why democracy is its bastard child. Democracy was born out of the ideals that is republicanism and both are equally flawed. I want to make it clear that I neither favor a democracy or republic equally, both are terrible as a whole. Both were born out of philosophical liberalist ambitions.

Yes, the ideals of a democratic republic are so great that is why we find ourselves in the sick decadent environment that we live in now. If anything the history of democratic republics or republics in general is their lack of efficiency which is why we live in the world we have today.

None of their so called safeguards of political power has amounted to much of anything at all and today’s environment only illustrates that historical point.

An abusive dictator can be thrown out of power by either a coup or violent uprising. Was it not one writer in American literature that said the tree of liberty must constantly renew itself in blood and revolution every so often?

Presidents are not so easy to be voted out of office especially if they’re in the pockets of the wealthy establishment. As a whole especially with modern democracies the general population has very little control and influence over its leadership where voting is just a symbolic act of the illusion of freedom or political choice. A dictatorship on the other hand sees little need of maintaining such delusions. No, it’s clear if anything democracy is a system of division controlled by oligarchs and enticed by a majority of slavish idiots who think themselves as being free. None are more slaves that those that delude themselves as being free.

What’s the problem utilizing isms? As long as one understands what those isms convey it makes conversation a lot easier in articulation.

Segregation isn’t enough, I’m a full blown separatist. Europe use to be a very socialist conservative area of the world until globalist democracy became a thing but yes few people in Canada, Australia, and the United States know what social conservatism means.

It is a view unfortunately that only a few seem to embrace although I would like to change that overtime.

I don’t know how well I can explain my views to you in depth however if you have questions I’ll gladly do my best in answering them.

The most basic definition of what I believe in is a conservative ethnocentric nationalist state whose political economy is both socialist and autocratic in leadership. This isn’t to say I would get rid of all market forces being socialist in that I support a mixed economy but where instead is more socialist leaning overall.

I suspect that is going to be true of any system. The problem is: humans. I wonder if an AI bot possibly could be a benevolent dictator :-k

I’m not sure I see the illustration. We’re 250 years out and life isn’t so bad. I can say what I want to say and mostly do what I want.

If no writer said it, then they should have. I’m not sure it’s so easy to overthrow a dictator. It took the US military to remove Saddam and it took the entire world to remove Hitler. Dictators spend all their time figuring ways to cement their power. Saddam said “A dead friend is better than a live enemy.” If he even smelled insubordination, he’d kill you just to be sure. Every monarch and dictator sends the gestapo to root-out dissidence to prevent exactly what you’re suggesting as a check n balance.

Hence the term limits. Anyway, what about the coup?

There is a lot of truth to that, but it may be the least of all evils. If the conservative party would go extinct, the oligarchs would disappear since big business wouldn’t be favored, but big gov instead, which is ruled by the constitution. We’re just waiting for the Baby Boomers to pass before making advancement.

Many people do not really want freedom because freedom means self responsibility. This is a problem.

Both have to understand… otherwise you’re just talking passed each other. And I think that’s what happens half the time in political arguments. I think all these terms–liberalism, socialism, conservatism, authoritarianism–have as many meanings as there are people (bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). And the worst part is everyone thinks we all share the same meanings–so we end up just talking past each other.

When I hear, for example, socialist conservative, I can’t help but to think it’s a contradiction in terms. Usually, socialism is what conservatives are against. So I have to pry into what you mean by “socialism” and “conservatism” in order to understand how they’re compatible. ← This is why I ask you to paint a picture of the world as you, a socialist conservative, would have it. If I understand the state of affairs in the world that such terms denote for you, then I’ve got it.

Do you see it being anything like Hitler’s Third Reich?

Well, let’s just start with my definitions of socialism and conservatism. You tell me: do those come close to the mark for you?

Ok, so much like most Western nations today, except with an autocrat instead of a president or prime minister, a dictatorship instead of a republic/democracy.

If you study Strasserism it is one of the main proponents of conservative national socialism. There really isn’t anything contradictory of having a political ideology that is both conservative and socialist where I would challenge anybody that says there is. Yes, it is a relatively unheard of ideology because of the dominance of neo liberal capitalism here in the west that overshadows such a notion into relative obscurity. Again I am not sure how to specifically describe what conservative socialism is until you give me some specific questions which I will be more than willing to answer the best that I can. Give me all the questions that you have.

Globalist democracy I mean democratic political structures that revolve around global civicism.

Yes, different nations for different races and at this rate of ethnic or racial balkanization here in the west nations are going to splinter splitting themselves apart eventually.

There would be some commonalities with Hitler’s Third Reich yes, but it wouldn’t be entirely the same thing either. Otto Strasser under Strasserism and who was the original architect of German national socialism had many disagreements with Adolf Hitler for instance ideologically.

He didn’t think Adolf Hitler was socialist enough.

Come close to the mark? What?!

Except most western nations are not even remotely socialist enough where capitalism pervades everything. Total destruction of capitalism and marxism is the maximum ideal of a conservative national socialist. Yes autocracy would be the norm, fuck this democratic shit show that promotes the illusion of free choice.

No man or woman is an island. Radical individualism is a poisonous ideology that sets people against each other. It divides people and does nothing in uniting them collectively or socially.

We need to stop looking at society in terms of class and economic output where instead we look at all of society as one whole or one biological super organism. We need to stop looking at the rights of individuals and be more concerned with the rights of society as a whole that encompasses all individuals.

Got none at the moment. But just to linger a bit more on your conservative socialism–would you describe that as a balance between conservative values and socialist values? Like a mixed market?

Yeah… probably… so who gets Alabama?

Ok. Could we say that Hitler is to Strasser as Stalin was to Marx? A lot of people believe that Marxism could still work, that Stalin just misapplied it, and that it should be given another chance. The same argument, I suppose, could stand for Strasser, that Hitler just misapplied it, and it should be given another chance.

Never mind.

Yeah, fuck it!!! :character-beavisbutthead:

Neo liberal capitalism essentially is what dominates all western nations these days. Political conservative movements are effectively dead despite what their supporters might say because essentially conservatives have become too moderate where they act or behave much like their liberal counterparts. Any more there is very little difference between conservatives and neo liberals anymore where they act much like the same party with feigned pretend cosmetic differences for public consumption of their political bases. There use to be fiscal financial conservatives for instance but anymore all parties agree upon on reckless unlimited amounts of government spending where fiscal conservatism has become a sort of laughing stock of an ideal. What exactly anymore are conservatives conserving? The answer to that question is nothing. Neo liberalism dominates western civilization now and conservative political movements has been absorbed or co-opted by that. In the west essentially all political affiliations are being controlled or co-opted by the oligarchy that directs and controls everything where it is abundantly clear that neo liberalism is their preferred ideology for mass public consumption.

For me the reason that not many people have heard about conservative socialism is because much of the political process in the west is controlled by the economic power structure and because of that dominance they don’t want the public at large to know about any kind of social political alternatives out there that might threaten their tightly knitted system of control.

Democratic movements in the west are effectively globalist and anti nationalism, they’re entirely international in scope. The west has become all about internationalism, unlimited foreign immigration, military imperialism, economic exploitation, and anti nationalism to its very root.

Yes, I am a promoter of a mixed market economy but one of which leans more towards a socialist economy.

I have somewhat of an idea what’s going to happen when balkanization eventually fractures and splinters entire nations a part. At some point I am going to write more on this subject. There are two options when this occurs. A.) Go through a very violent and horrendous civil war revolving around total war ethnically.

B.) Transitional secession with minimal conflict in which all ethnic groups compromise or negotiate separation amongst themselves something that all can agree upon.

At this point I am not sure which will happen but I do have a basic rudimentary understanding of both in terms of possibility.

Hitler was to Strasser what Stalin was to Marx? In some ways we could say that, yes. I would say that I have a frustrating understanding of Adolf Hitler revolving around admiration but also harsh criticism. Many of the things he did and said I like however there is also some things that he did that was disastrous that I don’t like which ultimately cost the Germans to lose the war in World War II. Adolf Hitler had many faults and certainly wasn’t perfect where he made many mistakes but I don’t think this in any way detracts his importance in history or the national socialist movement. There wouldn’t be much of a movement without him to his credit.

I aspire towards a more evolved, rejuvenated, and well adapted model of national socialism. The one I have in mind doesn’t revolve around a bunch of skinhead swastika brandishing individuals or people wearing world war II regalia shouting seig heil everywhere. The movement I support is an intellectual one with individuals wearing suits and ties, dresses, or just casual wear. It is is a movement that is philosophical, intellectual, social, political, and economic.

It is a movement of ideas, justice, social order, nationalism, and permeates the idea that we as Europeans have the right to exist.

I am serious about my comment on democracy in the west as I view it to be rotten and corrupt to its core. I don’t see how anybody but the naive and stupid can deny this.