Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 205
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?Page 10 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Let’s try some basic logic.

You are over the top in support that a republican view is to abolish Medicare and leave millions of seniors to suffer and die in poverty. Ok.

I would say to please consider this. How moral is a society or a political ideology that could ever get to the point where that could even be possible?

The only way it would be possible for a government entity to have the ability to cause millions of seniors to suffer and die in poverty would be for them to have been given that control in the first place, ie Medicare. Once that system was created millions of Seniors became dependent on it with the basic principle that their future medical needs are now in the hands of politicians meeting in a glorified conference room making economic concessions and arguments and using the threats of reduction or increase as a mechanism of influence over the opposition.

You can say that it’s just the morality of one party that causes them to be used in this manner but it is the only possible outcome. Both sides can use this as a platform to reduce or garner support for anything that can be tacked on with things like earmarks. It is now a tool to be used by both sides and in no case is that Just or moral.

On just the basis of being able to hold millions of people hostage from a central government program alone makes the entire program immoral and better off being abolished. Creating an environment where local governments can take the responsibility for those that cannot provide for themselves and not providing benefits to those that truly do not need it is a way to take away this awful outcome that you are so very much against.

It is easy to say that you want to provide for the health and welfare of seniors. Doing it from a central single authority as you can plainly see is dangerous and should only be considered as a very last resort when alternatives have failed, i.e. (family, community, local government, state government, federal government).

So, the federal government can even maintain a program of last resort however the health of any state would be judged by the lack of beneficiaries to the federal program

Not having the answer about how to properly care for the health and welfare of seniors is actually the correct answer at the federal level. Their only possible answer is the option no one should want.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 206
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 2:08:20 PM
I wish someone would explain to me what the constitutional basis for Medicare is--or for Social Security, or most of our social welfare programs. It's a very serious, basic question, and it goes right to the heart of what makes this a free country. Arbitrary rule is the essence of tyranny. It is always unjust and wrong, and we should fight it to the last inch.

Whether there's constitutional authority for a thing is not just a legal question, but also a moral one. The Constitution is a social contract between the people of this country and their government. What is the moral authority for arbitrarily changing the terms of that contract?

It's to preserve that moral authority--to make sure our government is never arbitrary--that amendments require such a large majority. The idea is to make certain that if we're going to change one of those terms, most of the American people agree to that change.

When the men who wrote the Constitution authorized Congress to "provide for the general welfare," or to make "all laws that shall be necessary and proper" to carry out the listed powers it had been given, or to "regulate commerce among the several states," it was not issuing a blank check to 51% of the representatives serving in congress at any given time to control whatever they thought needed controlling.

This is a *federal* government, not a *national* one, as the 9th and 10th Amendments and everything we know about the history of the Constitution make very clear. American exceptionalism, which Mr. Obama sneers at, means that here, more than anyplace ever before or since, government is our servant--it is OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE.

It is not worth--not even nearly--destroying our liberties and our prosperity to try to achieve the pipe dream of a utopian society. Anyone who wonders where that road leads only needs to look at what Europe has become. We're right behind them.
 DJoseph54
Joined: 11/16/2011
Msg: 207
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 4:36:05 PM
gent:
If there were a morally superior ideology, what would it look like?


....Outside of the political BS being hashed and rehashed with the same end result for no matter which party is in power today, I would like to think the superior ideology would be comprised of the "Golden Rule."

"One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

....But, this world is comprised of an increasing number of masochists and sadists, where what they want returned is not exactly a positive thing for the majority.

============


halftime:
Well, yeah. Conservatives have hijacked the words and language of liberalism.
And by actions, it's clear that American conservatives don't believe in liberty - etc.


....Please, as your country recently banned the Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" because of one, just one complainer. Recently, the ban was lifted, but mainly because of the outcry from the world, specifically the USA and the UK that was asking "I thought Canada was liberal?"

....Personally, I think you folks have enough of your own problems (although you don't need much of a military, because you do have us) but contrary to many of your posts, here is how the political stage in the USA really is.

....50 years or so ago, the Democrat party represented the "working man" and the Republican party represented "business," which included the farmer/agriculture". It was pretty cut and dry, as prior, the unions struggling for better pay and especially better working conditions (think coal mines), were all strong Democrats.

....At that same time, we had small groups of Communists, Socialists and Marxists (even the Green folks) that individually, had no home of voice in the political arena. Thus, under the guise of "liberal" they infiltrated the path of least resistance, which was the Democrat party and why many of the ideologies of that party are now far, far to the left of where they were.

....Liberal, albeit confusing for the masses, has taken on many connotations for about the past 400 years, including our own Revolutionary War. Nevertheless, Liberal, Liberty, Libertarian, Libertine, etc., all 'appear' to trace their history to Latin "liber," which means "free".

But, if anyone in this country "hijacked the words and language of liberalism," it was the self coined US "Liberals."

And here is why....

....For a fact, there is nothing free for half of the population, when about 50% of the population that pays no taxes, but by far majority, coined themselves as being Liberals.... and living off the other 50% that pays all the taxes. The only thing free about the majority of Liberals in this country is when someone else is paying for it, which now consumes over half of all taxes collected (about $2.1 Trillion total taxes collected by the Feds) and growing.

....But, debt creates profits for those lending and we get to the far right, where just a handful of corporations (about 5) control most of the national politics, and the privately held Federal Reserve that prints money out of thin air to then exponentially loan out as a fiat currency.... which incidentally, and depending on how you view our accounting, pays for the $1.025 Trillion/annual and growing that we spend on Welfare to mostly the Liberal left.

Both the Left and the far Right are bed partners, period.

....What we are seeing, is a growing number of swing voters, as myself, that do not subscribe to the ideology of either of the two party lock we now have. Sure, the very new grass roots Tea Party is a part of this group that leans to the right, but swing voters are increasingly deciding the outcome of national elections because most of us do not subscribe to the specific ideologies of either the right, or the left, that are both equally responsible for the demise of this country.

Note: History shows political ideology shifting under a party name and as an example, from the Lincoln era, or very recently, by the Neocons that were all Democrats (see below).

============


earthpuppy:
Neoconservatives were prominent in the George W. Bush administration by supporting a strong foreign policy, and especially favored the Iraq War and its efforts to spread democracy worldwide.


....I am not going to cite your whole post that was rather left leaning, but our first "Neocons" were:


Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism


Hint: They were all Democrats.

==============
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 208
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 4:39:50 PM

...Please, as your country recently banned the Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" because of one, just one complainer. Recently, the ban was lifted, but mainly because of the outcry from the world, specifically the USA and the UK that was asking "I thought Canada was liberal?"

This is where I stopped reading your screed. Mostly because it's bullshit. The CBC (one station) decided not to play the song for a little while. It wasn't "banned."

I'm guessing the rest of your post is full of similar crap.
 DJoseph54
Joined: 11/16/2011
Msg: 209
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 4:55:44 PM
halftime:
This is where I stopped reading your screed. Mostly because it's bullshit. The CBC (one station) decided not to play the song for a little while. It wasn't "banned."


....Like I said, you don't know "shit" about your own country, so it must be easier to expel your ongoing ignorance about mine.

Hint: It was not "CBC," but rather "CBSC" .... Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.


Canada's Broadcasting Standards Council bans Dire Straits song....

Google it and learn something...




PS: Like I said, it was eventually repealed because of world outcry, but although three stations (Alberta and Halifax) objected , the song was not played nationwide until then.

PPS: I am thinking a "full time Dad" would be better.


=======================
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 210
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 4:57:23 PM
....For a fact, there is nothing free for half of the population, when about 50% of the population that pays no taxes, but by far majority, coined themselves as being Liberals....

That is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation and either you known that and are just a troll or not smart enough to fact check talking points.




....Please, as your country recently banned the Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" because of one, just one complainer. Recently, the ban was lifted, but mainly because of the outcry from the world, specifically the USA and the UK that was asking "I thought Canada was liberal?"

Congratulations on your fail as you are wrong again.




This is where I stopped reading your screed. Mostly because it's bullshit. The CBC (one station) decided not to play the song for a little while. It wasn't "banned."

Actually it was banned and the CBC was one of the only radio stations that could play the song (without fear of getting a fine) as they are a public broadcaster and not subject to the same regulations as private broadcasters.

It was the private radio stations that played the song and basically said to the CBSC (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ) to go ahead and fine them. Since the initial announcement no one has been fined.
 DJoseph54
Joined: 11/16/2011
Msg: 211
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 5:00:15 PM
AA:
That is a complete frabication and misrepresentation and either you known that and are just a troll or not smart enought to fact check talking points.


.... another clown from Canada that knows nothing about the USA tax and Welfare system.

You need to get out more and maybe try paying some USA taxes and know where they go.

=================


AA:

Actually it was banned and the CBC was one of the only radio stations that could play the song (without fear of getting a fine) as they are a public broadcaster and not subject to the same regulations as private broadcasters.


Not sure if that is fact or not, but thanks for proving my point to halftime.

Hint: A fine is for an infraction.

PS: Yea, China and other Communist countries do the same thing... different set of rules for government ran and public ran.

 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 212
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 5:08:23 PM
^^^^

I am smart enough to know the difference between federal and state taxes and that emoticons are for 6 year olds.

With respect to federal taxes only about 50% pay in because the rest do not earn enough money to contribute or they qualified for a refund that equalled what they paid in.

These people are mostly repented by the elderly and corporations like GE.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 213
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 5:29:33 PM

They gave Congress the authority to make laws


That's true.


and change the Constitution.


Just where is that authority granted? Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by itself. Three-fourths of the states have to approve.


They weren't so arrogant as to believe they were making a perfect Constitution that would suffice for all time.


That's true. And the proof is that they dedicated the fifth article of that constitution to the process of amending it.

Technical advances don't make the design principles of a political system any less relevant, just as the principles of logic and geometry the Greeks worked out 2,500 years ago are just as valid today.

The men who designed the Constitution had read various political philosophers, all the way back to Plato. They didn't consider their ideas outdated, any more than we consider the ideas of Spinoza or Rousseau or Locke or Hume or other philosophers who wrote centuries ago obsolete and irrelevant today.

Human beings haven't changed significantly, and neither have the characteristics human governments should ideally have.


Did they even have a need for health insurance in 1787?


The guys who sacrificed their fortunes and even their lives to get this country started sure could have used it.
 DJoseph54
Joined: 11/16/2011
Msg: 214
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/15/2011 5:30:47 PM
AA offers:

With respect to federal taxes only about 50% pay in because the rest do not earn enough money to contribute or they qualified for a refund that equalled what they paid in.




Hint: Welfare does not need to make anything. The median Welfare benefits for a family of five is about $53,000/annual, which is about $2,000 more than the median income in the USA.

....The only ones suffering in this country at this time, are the old folks and the single folks that do not have babies. As an example, you, as a single male, could be sleeping on a park bench and too bad. But, if you have a boy and a girl child living with you.... it is three bedroom house, all utilities, daycare, medical, dental, food (about $800/month besides free breakfast, lunch and dinner in many places), phone, cell phone, transportation, education, cash, etc. and etc.

....And then there is the $10 Trillion in Fannie and Freddie loans that were made to subprime borrowers that has been consumed by the taxpayer under the Stimulus Bill. Did you realize that Welfare can actually buy a house under their Section 8 housing payments... that is afforded by the taxpayer?

Etc. and etc... for which you know absolutely nothing about our true economics.

....Welfare in this country has not a clue about poverty.

....I cannot blame folks for not wanting a job that pays far less than Welfare, but it is all coming to a head very soon. As well, I have no issue with a hand up, but a perpetual hand out is the demise of this country.... but, it took since 1964 to consume all of the surplus FICA payments and now consuming all the surplus Medicare payments ($500 Billion this year to Welfare Medicaid that pays for baby crowns and even pays the idiots to come in for their appointments via a credit card) from the productive.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 215
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/16/2011 10:39:03 AM
quote] Hint: Welfare does not need to make anything. The median Welfare benefits for a family of five is about $53,000/annual, which is about $2,000 more than the median income in the USA.

....The only ones suffering in this country at this time, are the old folks and the single folks that do not have babies. As an example, you, as a single male, could be sleeping on a park bench and too bad. But, if you have a boy and a girl child living with you.... it is three bedroom house, all utilities, daycare, medical, dental, food (about $800/month besides free breakfast, lunch and dinner in many places), phone, cell phone, transportation, education, cash, etc. and etc.

....And then there is the $10 Trillion in Fannie and Freddie loans that were made to subprime borrowers that has been consumed by the taxpayer under the Stimulus Bill. Did you realize that Welfare can actually buy a house under their Section 8 housing payments... that is afforded by the taxpayer?

Etc. and etc... for which you know absolutely nothing about our true economics.

That seems to be very revealing information. Would you please give a source?

Searching for Welfare statistics that could prove or disprove your info didn't lead to those averages that you cite.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 216
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/20/2011 6:52:19 AM

....The only ones suffering in this country at this time, are the old folks and the single folks that do not have babies. As an example, you, as a single male, could be sleeping on a park bench and too bad. But, if you have a boy and a girl child living with you.... it is three bedroom house, all utilities, daycare, medical, dental, food (about $800/month besides free breakfast, lunch and dinner in many places), phone, cell phone, transportation, education, cash, etc. and etc.


Well, if this were true then it would be immoralistic...but, the plain fact is that anyone on welfare gets rental assistance for section 8 housing, food stamps, and nothing more.
 SweetLilGTP
Joined: 10/22/2010
Msg: 217
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/20/2011 9:11:35 PM

Welfare does not need to make anything. The median Welfare benefits for a family of five is about $53,000/annual, which is about $2,000 more than the median income in the USA.


If that is true; that really blows goats.

What probably blows even more is that people, en masse, wont rally and war for higher wages and standard of living for themsleves. Nope; they will take the why are they better off than us route; and demand that welfare people get LESS. (Tell me I'm wrong)


Fourteen months after being "let go" by GE Financial Services, with no notice and no severance, he's just today been evicted from his apartment for not being able to pay his rent.


Ya; but G.E. is a titan, a corporation.

In America; they are Gods, and can do no wrong.

In India; those execs would be locked in a room and beaten until they came clean with their obligations. At that point; the finer legal points of "how you let us screw you over" would not have mattered.
 MOTD2010
Joined: 5/18/2010
Msg: 218
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/26/2011 3:52:35 PM
There is a difference between changing the Constitution and just flat out ignoring it which is done routinely by both sides.

By many our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are considered the most near perfect documents except for various religions bibles.
 DuncanRnB
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 219
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/26/2011 7:14:27 PM
Neither, the "liberalism" in America is a total joke. It's actually only slightly less conservative than Conservatism. Also Obama isn't a "liberal" eaither. He's like a watered down version of Bush.

But morality is non-existant and thus like I said, I can't make a definate statement one way or another.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 220
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/27/2011 4:55:34 AM
Conservatives tend to have a more flexible morality and superior double standards. I agree that Obama is republican lite to republican moderate, that the bar to the faaaaar right is moving so rapidly even the current crop of extremist Republican presidential contenders are not radical enough for the kkkonservative movement.
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-2012-1/

The old white party is deeply concerned about the inevitable white minority coming soon in the US and consequently embrace racists like Ron Paul as the great white hope.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/753852/white_supremacists_just_love_ron_paul/
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

The tea bagger knuckle draggers are driving the repubs deeper into fascist territory.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153534/The_Great_Republican_Crackup%3A_How_Angry%2C_White%2C_Southern_Men_Took_Over_the_GOP_and_Made_Our_Government_Into_a_War_Zone/

Ignorance is not only bliss, but an inalienable right.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 221
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/27/2011 9:30:19 PM

Conservatives tend to have a more flexible morality and superior double standards


It is nearly impossible to define "conservative" as being flexible in morality. It just happens to be that people are azzhats regardless of political affiliation for whatever anecdotal evidence you think you have.

If everyone turned against people that spoke without conscience the world would be a much better place.

Oh, and I wasn't referring to Ron Paul.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 222
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/27/2011 10:04:49 PM

If you are concerned with social justice--meaning achieving a society in which there is a decent standard of living for EVERYONE (even if you don't think EVERYONE morally "deserves" it), then you are a more moral person than the guy (or girl) who thinks it is OK for some to prosper and some to live in miserable squalor.


You missed a big point of your own argument.


We are not all equal when it comes to ability or physical strength or even, perhaps, moral compass. But the moral position is to advocate for a civil society that exists in order to establish practical/political/moral equality through its CARE of its members.


The concept of 'Conservative' and self reliance is viewed as the best means to elevate the most amount of people to standards that you would equate to being "a decent standard of living" and to those that have the ability to excel the upper classes are accessable. The conservative position is that Socialism, (the position you are advocating) leads to a lower class of living for everyone with the exception that the Elite class will have the best standard of living to the exclusion of all beneath their class.

Social Justice leads to social classes. It is unavoidable.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 223
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/27/2011 10:29:32 PM

I don't accept that the goal of conservatism is the greatest good for the greatest number--indeed, the conservative agenda has always been (historically) to protect the privileges of the already privileged (that's why it's called conservatism....to conserve?). How that could be considered a MORAL agenda is beyond me


Everything you have accepted as conservatism is just plain wrong. The conservative agenda is individual rights, property ownership, and freedom to succeed which by definition includes the freedom to fail. It is the base concept that people will achieve greater heights if given the opportunity without being told that they will be taken care of if they fail.

It is the highest respect for the individual person. The individual that you are. Not the individual that your government/ society wants you to be.

The funniest thing about conservatism is that it leads to its own ends. You are permitted the freedom to choose socialism. Socialism does not permit anything but what is in its own benefit.

Just think about it. It is the reason this question exists today. :)
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 224
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/27/2011 11:05:50 PM

There is a difference between political rhetoric and reality. No offence, but to me that just sounds like a story produced by a propaganda machine that has little real relationship to a real conservative political agenda (as pursued by people with actual political agency.


Sorry you feel that way. As you can see, no one busted down your door :) Hold these ideals in China and speak them publicly. Not only should you speak them publicly but publish your beliefs. Not only should you publish them but you should also identify the current government as being in opposition to what you believe is best.

You only know the freedom you have because it is permitted. To take that freedom for granted will eventually lead to it being given/taken away.

It's not rhetoric. It is reality. The rhetoric is in the indivdual proponets that you see which are almost literally a result of the war against the fundamental core nature of the american ideal. Everything you see is a natural occurence. The question that still remains is if the United States of America is strong enough to survive.

Capitalism is the same way. Look at Michael Moore. He despises capitalism. However, he was able to reach investors of the capitalist system and was able to convince them to fund his movies about the evils of capitalism while he also made a fortune. The capitalists funding the movie did not prevent him from giving his message. It was fully permitted with closed eyes despite his deeply anti-capitalist message and intent.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 225
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:45:46 AM

Everything you have accepted as conservatism is just plain wrong. The conservative agenda is individual rights, property ownership, and freedom to succeed which by definition includes the freedom to fail. It is the base concept that people will achieve greater heights if given the opportunity without being told that they will be taken care of if they fail.


I go by what I see in reality. Not everyone who becomes successful is the same as the other one who achieves great heights. Some do it without hurting or exploiting others to the extremes of poverty, while some others enrich themselves by illegal means, and what is the height of immorality is seeing those who preach the gospel of conservatism as a saintly ideology, enriching themselves by purposely impoverishing others who are less educated or less powerful than they are. Those entrepreneurs who hire people for under living wages, those who ask the government to bring them foreign workers to undercut the wages of the local teenagers and laborers, those who illegally recruit undocumented workers to keep the wages of everyone else as low as possible so that the conservative entrepreneur can take advantage of the opportunity and his/her freedom to succeed, those people are the most immoral of all, especially when they rail against the "illegal aliens" and how badly we are as a country because of those "illegals."


It is the highest respect for the individual person. The individual that you are. Not the individual that your government/ society wants you to be.


How much respect for the individual person does the successful individual conservative is demonstrating to the rest of society when he is becoming richers and more successful when he is paying people less that what he/she needs to survive in our society. Is it moral for the rich entrepreneur to employ people who have to go to the food pantry of charities in order to be able to feed his/her family, and have the rest of society pay for their housing and medical care?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 226
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/28/2011 5:19:15 AM

Everything you have accepted as conservatism is just plain wrong. The conservative agenda is individual rights, property ownership, and freedom to succeed which by definition includes the freedom to fail. It is the base concept that people will achieve greater heights if given the opportunity without being told that they will be taken care of if they fail.

It is the highest respect for the individual person. The individual that you are. Not the individual that your government/ society wants you to be.

The funniest thing about conservatism is that it leads to its own ends. You are permitted the freedom to choose socialism.


Yup, that is the reason why this whole THREAD, and anything in the media related to the subject area, has been nearly impossible to respond to with any validity.

In addition to "conservatism" having been misrepresented every day by opponents and self-proclaimed supporters alike, so have liberalism and socialism.

What everyone who wants to argue that one side or the other is INHERENTLY better in any way, really needs to step back and appreciate, is that NEITHER one of these words stands for what they think it does. Even the claim in this quote, that conservatism is only about what the writer says, is functionally wrong, even as he says it, not because he's trying to mislead, but because he's not in control of the definition, any more than are the people who say that conservatism is about blindly supporting the status quo, with all of it's inherent injustices, racism, sexism, and any other ism you can think of.

I myself, would MOSTLY consider myself to be fairly conservative, in the sense that I believe in seeking logical, optimalist solutions solutions to problems, that include respect and knowledge of all the entities that have a stake in the outcome. I find that by following this line of logic, that I get both self-proclaimed conservatives, and self-proclaimed liberals mad at me.

When it comes to judging moral superiority of a given "ism," the simple problem I have is, that each and every "ism" is defined, NOT by it's most thoughtful members alone, but by the ENTIRETY of it's membership. Thus I have come to see in my life, that EVERY "ism" includes members who are despicable, selfish, thoughtless, violent, or who otherwise regularly demonstrate that they really have NO idea what their proclaimed "ism" is really supposed to be about.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 227
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/28/2011 9:57:22 AM

Even the claim in this quote, that conservatism is only about what the writer says, is functionally wrong, even as he says it, not because he's trying to mislead, but because he's not in control of the definition


Appreciate and have to agree.

I didn't really entirely notice it myself until the past few months. I have basically been shut down. I do not want to hear a word any of the current demagogues have to say anymore. The only one that speaks in a language I do like has some of his ideas to far into his own world that it almost makes him unelectable.

So, I have my definition of what I think it means. I try to use that to some extent but I am not brain dead. I do see the same things that others see in what is 'called' conservative.

And again I basically agree with the point that every "ism" includes members who are despicable. A despicable leader with a set of true believers is even more fun.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 228
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:36:51 PM
This is sort of interesting, in that you agree that there are misconceptions.

But how do you reconcile saying "Look at Michael Moore. He despises capitalism." Now Michael Moore despises a lot of things, but he doesn't despise capitalism. He's a pretty big booster of capitalism. He's not much of a fan of the short term corporatism that has caused so much chaos lately, but that's not what capitalism is all about. Go back to Adam Smith. Take a look at what he says about "enlightened self interest." Even 250 years ago it was apparent that short sighted, greedy self interest is a path to disaster.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 229
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/28/2011 3:07:38 PM

Michael Moore despises a lot of things, but he doesn't despise capitalism. He's a pretty big booster of capitalism.


Funny, I really don't know where you get that from.

Interview with Larry King:
http://goo.gl/5K33n



King: Are you saying capitalism is a failure?
"Moore: Yes. Capitalism. Yes. Well, I don't have to say it. Capitalism, in the last year, has proven that it's failed."


http://goo.gl/5pG3M


"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.

"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."


He is a proponent of one of the worst forms of government... Democracy. We would be in utter chaos if we turned over the federal government to popular vote. I hope at least that is understood.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?