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
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 176
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?Page 8 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
When I think of the group who hates Jews the most, I think of the cross-eyed rednecks down in those southern states who only vote for Republicans


Oh don't forget those conservative who are waiting to re emerge from their Jew hating closets should they not garner Jewish support of right wingers in the next election.

Oh, how quickly is forgotten the immoralistic bashing/hating of Jews that conservatives have done over the past many years. Perhaps, God told them to accept the Jewish vote with open arms, and maybe convert a few to christianity on the way.
 lacalli
Joined: 11/27/2011
Msg: 177
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/12/2011 11:08:38 AM

Obama hates Jews soooo much that he made one his first Chief of Staff.
There are Jews like him throughout history. Here's a current example: the King of Bahrain has a appointed a Jewish woman (one of only 37 Jews in the country) as his ambassador to the US. Bahrain does not recognize Israel. When asked by reporters about her country's stance on Israel, she replied, "What's Israel?" There will always be sellouts in any culture.

Not to mention the Jewish vote predominately goes to Democrats.

Not anymore, he's lost their money and their votes. Much has been made of this in the media.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 178
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/12/2011 11:22:32 AM

Why don't you start rounding people up and re-educating them.


You may not be so far off the mark. You can see it in the star chambers that still operate on many college campuses. God forbid anyone should have to deal with insults about their race, or sex, or religion, or sexual tastes, or body shape in the time-honored ways. Canada has even set up special courts where those who have said things which fall short of the official standard of sensitivity are taken to task.

Conservatives support freedom of speech. We hate the idea of "political correctness," which was the creation of Marxists of the "Frankfurt School." Its distinctly undemocratic purpose is to coerce people whose views you don't like into toeing the party line. The proponents of PC know they're making people swallow a bitter pill when they try to dictate what they may and may not say. So they sugar-coat it with the claim they're only encouraging us all to be more considerate. How very nice and moral that sounds.


And the problem is that in economics collectivism creates monsters that live under beds


The statist monstrosities that existed in Italy, Russia, and Germany during the last century grew from many sources. But one of the most important was the dislike of capitalism, with its reliance on a marketplace regulated, day in and day out, by the countless self-interested economic decisions of millions of people. Central economic planning was at the heart of both Communism and Fascism. And with economic control comes personal control.

If each person's duty is not to his own interest, but to serve the state or the common good, individual liberties have to be curtailed. Collectivist systems can't work if everyone is free to pull in his own direction. Individual efforts have to be harnessed and aligned, so everyone is pulling toward the same officially approved state goals. The never-ending calls we hear so-called liberals make today for different parts of our government to cooperate, so that we can "get something done," reflects this totalitarian urge for concerted action.

It was to prevent that very kind of centralized control--which always tends toward despotism and tyranny--that the men who designed the United States, in its constitution, strictly limited its powers. In domestic affairs, the branches of the federal government are *supposed* to be in conflict, so that it's hard for that government to act on an issue unless a strong consensus on it has built up. It was left to state and local governments to get things done, where the people most directly affected have the greatest say in what gets done, and how, and when.
 lacalli
Joined: 11/27/2011
Msg: 179
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/12/2011 8:05:21 PM
Bullshit. I personally don't know one Jew who's voting for him. Including those ultra-libs who supported him before. And it's my community so I know which way the wind is blowing. He's dead in the water. The only group that still supports him are the Che Guevarra progressives. Young people who were the ones who got him elected are enraged as well.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 180
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/12/2011 8:18:33 PM
Bullshit. I personally don't know one Jew who's voting for him.


Hmmm...Gallup or a conservative...who to believe???


Young people who were the ones who got him elected are enraged as well.


The issue now is whether to vote for President Obama or either of the 2 dismal flip-floppers that are the current GOP frontrunners...one a slimy businessman who's modis operandi while in business was to leverage buy companies and then layoff the workers to improve the balance sheet and then unload the companies on unsuspecting buyers....who's already implimented Obamacare in his own state-....the other candidate run out of congress on ethics violations turned corporate lobbist...who's moral character sux....neither are conservative enough for the extremists.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 181
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 6:21:41 AM

You may not be so far off the mark. You can see it in the star chambers that still operate on many college campuses.

Using the McCarthy 'star chamber' model?



Conservatives support freedom of speech.

Yes, one can sense the real outrage of those noble defenders of free speech, the Florida Family Association, now that they've been hacked by 'Anonymous' and their website, one of the platforms by which they communicate, has been shut down.
Here is their plaintive statement, the sadness and sense of unfairness at having their 'voice' taken away is palpable.

No further proof is needed of the potential for vicious action then exactly what these folks are trying to do to this web site!

The attack has been extremely mean spirited. In a country that supposedly embraces free speech, those that oppose our postion have no qualms about destroying our free speech. Yet, these same folks claim the Internet should not be restricted in any way. How the two conflicting postions can be reconciled in their minds is beyond comprehension.

Because of our real concern for the terrorism that is a way of life for some folks, we ourselves have become victims. Because we urge others to be vigilant, we become the targets. Don't let it happen folks, take a stand before it is too late.
http://floridafamily.org/

Gosh, what a shame...

We hate the idea of "political correctness," which was the creation of Marxists of the "Frankfurt School." Its distinctly undemocratic purpose is to coerce people whose views you don't like into toeing the party line. /snip/
How very nice and moral that sounds.

Talking of coercing "people whose views you don't like into toeing the party line."
It sounds just like the bad old days when 'thoughtcrime' got on to legal statutes through the backdoor and thousands of unfortunates were hauled before inquisitions to justify their associations and political ideologies.

Who was responsible for that black stain of terror with its suppression of free speech that infected American politics in the 40's and 50's again? Must have been nasty (jew hating grandma killing terrorist supporting) leftists I guess...


Read more about the campaign by the filled with the love of christ Florida Family Association and their attempts to support free speech here -
http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-family-association-all-american-muslim-2011-12
http://entertainment.newsplurk.com/2011/12/lowe-pulls-ads-us-muslim-reality-tv.html
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 182
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 10:51:58 AM
It sounds just like the bad old days when 'thoughtcrime' got on to legal statutes through the backdoor


Do tell. Any statute which made simply thinking a thing a crime would violate due process. You can't identify these "thoughtcrime" statutes, or who they were used against, or when, because you've made them up.

Yes, one can sense the real outrage of those noble defenders of free speech, the Florida Family Association, now that they've been hacked by 'Anonymous' and their website, one of the platforms by which they communicate, has been shut down.


The 1st Amendment protects the freedom of speech from undue interference by the government, not by private persons. I don't know anything about the Florida organization you mention, except that you apparently disapprove of it. I also don't know what its outrage at having someone--presumably a private person--interfere with its website has to do with the freedom of speech. Were you trying to make some point?


thousands of unfortunates were hauled before inquisitions to justify their associations and political ideologies . . . Who was responsible for that black stain of terror with its suppression of free speech that infected American politics in the 40's and 50's again?


I don't know what you're referring to. But considering your reference to Joe McCarthy's investigations, I guess you mean him. If so, I doubt my limited knowledge of this "black stain of terror," as you call it, can match yours. Even so, I will be happy to debate any matter involving Senator McCarthy with you or anyone else, any time.

Here are a few things I know:

The U.S. Senate has very broad power to investigate public matters.

McCarthy was himself a lawyer and former state court judge.

His main research assistant, Roy Cohn, was a very accomplished lawyer.

His second research assistant was the future U.S. Attorney General, Robert Kennedy.

Many other U.S. Senators took part in McCarthy's hearings, which were public.

The people McCarthy questioned often had their lawyers at the hearings.

The people McCarthy questioned could, and sometimes did, invoke their 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions.

At that time, the Communist Party in the U.S. adhered to the policies of Stalin's USSR.

Many of the people questioned were federal officials whose actions affected foreign policy and national security.

Most of these federal officials were either Communists or were very sympathetic to the Soviet Union.

Many of these officials were actively working against the United States, and for the USSR or the Chinese Communists.

Some of these officials were KGB agents.

Some of the information passed to the Soviet Union revealed extremely important military secrets.

Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by giving the USSR secret information about nuclear weapons, were only the tip of the iceberg.

Communists and their sympathizers hate the United States for defeating the USSR in the Cold War, and they hate Joe McCarthy for defending the U.S.


Whether someone or something unconstitutionally and systematically suppressed free speech in this country during that period is mostly a question of fact. Since you don't state any of those facts--don't say who you're alleging did what, and when, and to whom, and how it was unconstitutional--I take that to mean you're only offering your opinion for what it's worth.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 183
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 2:33:23 PM
Rhetoric and counter-rhetoric.

If there were a morally superior ideology, what would it look like?

Would it be superior to every other ideology no matter what the context, no matter the era?
 NonamousDog
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 184
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 3:29:24 PM
The House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was established during WWII, and it was used to investigate and intimidate anyone who was not enthusiastic enough about US involvement in the war, including 'isolationist' Republicans.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 185
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 3:40:05 PM
If there were a morally superior ideology, what would it look like?


A lot like the one the U.S. Constitution embodies. The men who founded this country were visionaries, designing a new form of government from scratch. Never in the history of the world, with all its wretchedness, savagery, mayhem, and tyranny, had there been an arrangement that let so many people live together in so much peace, and freedom, and justice, and prosperity. It was as if in a world of dilapidated oxcarts, with beat-up stagecoaches here and there, and a couple Model T's, a bullet train had appeared.

There's an interesting feature of American (and English) law that points up a difference between our traditional view of the relation of the individual to his government, and the view the rest of the world takes. Most countries have laws that make it a crime not to help another person who's in danger, if you reasonably can. But with a few exceptions, we don't.

In most states, if not all, a man could stand and watch a helpless child drown a few yards away, just because he couldn't be bothered to interrupt his sunbathing, even he were a swimming champion and had a rope and a life preserver right beside him, to boot--without breaking any law.

Why? The assumption behind this is that we don't need any government to force us to do right by our fellow citizens; each of us will do that naturally as an individual, because we are a free and moral people.

It's as if to say, "It's so unimaginable to us to let a person be harmed when we could prevent it that we don't even have a rule to cover the situation. We'll leave those laws to the rest of the world. People need them there, because they've come to rely on their governments for so much that they've gotten unaccustomed to acting on their own initiative."


The House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was established during WWII


Not quite. What would become a standing committee called the House Committee on Un-American Activities was formed as a special panel in 1938. Rep. Martin Dies, a Texas Democrat, was its first chairman and served seven years. The HUAC was concerned with investigating subversive activities, mainly but not exclusively by Communists, which posed risks to national security. Similar committees had existed for shorter periods in the early 1930's and in the WWI era.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 5/13/2006
Msg: 186
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 3:42:54 PM
"If there were a morally superior ideology, what would it look like?

Would it be superior to every other ideology no matter what the context, no matter the era?"

As I had stated a few pages ago, I think the very idea of a morally superior ideology, as evidenced by the volume of posts, is divisive. That is perhaps the greatest challenged in any area where the objective is people coexisting and working together, whether it be a country, a church or a workplace. Maybe ideology isn't the most correct word, but I tend to think of it as a yardstick whereby decisions are made regarding morality. Companies have mission statements, but that's more policies and procedures, churches have doctrines (history is evidence of how that works), etc.

The problem with divisiveness is that instead of working together for the greater mutual good, people tend to take sides and waste shameful amounts of resources because of divided ideologies.

Now, the big question, IMO, is WHO decides which ideology is morally superior? Because whoever decides is going to have accountability as to how it's put into practice.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 187
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 3:45:22 PM

If there were a morally superior ideology, what would it look like?

Would it be superior to every other ideology no matter what the context, no matter the era?


edit: Please feel free to roll your eyes now. It's time for a bit of fiction....

I thought of one this morning. It is actually pretty simple and would be based on the link posted before about the differences in the brain of conservatives and the link regarding the liberal gene.
And again… this is another of the “I MADE IT UP” series. So feel free to call BS :) With just a bit of cleanup and tweaking out some details, and a bit of research I could have a full hypothesis going.

Origin based that there would be two tribes... way way back.

One tribe.
Conservative.
Higher function of the amygdala. Protection.
Socially they are more independent hunter not trusting of groups
Being independent they sense spiritual as individualized, personalized, and guided
Most characteristics are based upon independence
When threatened they tend toward isolation and strong defensive actions

Other tribe
Liberal
Higher function in social organization
Socially they are communal and find strength in numbers
Being more socially inclined their sense of spiritual connectedness is in surroundings and what can be provided through the environment
More on the agrarian side and less hunter driven
When threatened they find strength in numbers and are more prone to attack rather first when threatened.

Somewhere along the lines these two groups met and they had similar physical appearance and genetically compatible so they mixed. If it was by invasion or other would not be known and not relevant at this point.

What does matter is that evolution would determine that both groups would survive better together. Interestingly, I think this would be supported by the fact that there would be a third tribe (asian) which although highly communal does not easily integrate with others.

What I find fascinating in my own made up world here is that this does leave open the possibility that we do operate on some form of genetic memory. This memory has been passed on forever. We just don't know that we know the language. Primarily it is because the memory is not in the form of language. It would be in the form of chemical reactions and emotional triggers that have specific types of outcomes such as leaning towards what we call today, ‘conservative or liberal'.

The basis I would assert for this thinking would be: Alien hand syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome. It is shown that the non-language side of the brain is capable of independent thought, action and understanding without the use of language which makes it appear totally outside of the control of the person which relies on the language side of the brain to determine thoughts.

So, the end result is that we are all acting as we were genetically designed and that both sides are good and have a function.

1 - the liberal side of us keeps us functioning together as a society and together as there is peace, strength, and comfort in being together

2 - the conservative side is the protection of the individual within that society to maintain identity and freedom and strength.

Right now we all feel threatened and are acting out these built in base actions of reacting to that threat.

1 - liberals are reacting in trying to grow the size of the tribe to counter act the threat as a group acting as one.

2 - conservatives are fighting for identity and individualism and their guiding spirit without compromise

The problem is that we are acting out of base instincts without realizing why. The acting out is occurring through political and financial ideologies and both of those must never be allowed to become fully polarized to one ideology or the other due to the negative aspects of every ideology. We are genetically programmed to feel threatened by the complete takeover of any opposing side. When threatened we act as expected.

Our successful ideology would be in the understanding of the origins of these two opposing ideals and how together they work together to strengthen and make the species more adaptable and better survivors.

This is napkin philosophy on a dating site. Take it for what you will but I made it up :) Anyone want to fund the study to prove it? I think it is provable and with Alien hand syndrome would be super awesome to show that we do in fact maintain some form of genetic memory.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 188
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 3:51:16 PM

There's an interesting feature of American (and English) law that points up a difference between our traditional view of the relation of the individual to his government, and the view the rest of the world takes. Most countries have laws that make it a crime not to help another person who's in danger, if you reasonably can. But with a few exceptions, we don't.

I haven't read one of this guy's posts in a long, long time. And this might as well stand as an example of why.

He starts off factually wrong. Just flat out, bald faced lying. Yeah, there are some countries that have a "responsibility to rescue", but not many (Australia, France and Germany come to mind). And there are some states where you have a responsibility to rescue (Minnesota, New Hampshire [I think] and a few others). It's actually more common in the US to see this kind of law than in the rest of the world.

And of course, then everything that follows from the lie has a lie as a foundation.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 189
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 4:40:07 PM
Just flat out, bald faced lying.


I realize envy of my country gives rise to angry insults, and I will try to allow for that. Calling me a liar is not exactly in the spirit of this forum, but it's just what I've come to expect from the likes of you. If I were you, which thank God I am not, I'm sure I'd be tattling on anyone who had done that.

You are in no position to accuse anyone of lying, in any case. Your claim that you haven't read any of my posts "in a long, long time" is flat out false. You've responded to several of them within the past week or less. But as lame as your attempts to refute what I said have been, you have good reason to want to disown them.


It's actually more common in the US to see this kind of law than in the rest of the world.


I said there was no legal duty to rescue in most states, if not all. If someone wants to take the time to research the codes of all 50 states to prove that statement wasn't accurate, have at it. Given the drift of this country toward nanny state status, more statutes may have changed the common law rule.

If so, it would only underscore the point I was making by showing the U.S. has lost one of the features that's made it exceptional. Although I mentioned states, I also made clear I was talking about what English and American law had said *traditionally*--that is, the common law rule. If you think you know better about the legal duty to rescue under common law, prove it.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 190
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 4:45:32 PM
This is two in a row now, and you're also lying in your response.

I haven't read, much less responded to any of your posts in the last week, much less "several of them."

I responded to what you wrote, which was factually wrong. As this seems common in your posts, I'm concluding that this is deliberate. Which means you are lying. Look up "Responsibility to rescue" on quick law or any other site - it's more common in the US than in the rest of world. It's not hard.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 191
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 5:22:03 PM

I haven't read, much less responded to any of your posts in the last week


Really? Anyone can read your post #182, right on this thread. Although you didn't have the guts to say so, you were obviously responding to my comment in the last paragraph of #179.

I don't know why you'd deny saying things that are so easy to check. If you want to me to give more proof that you are not telling the truth here, I will. Unlike you, I'll let other people draw their own conclusions about whether you're doing it intentionally.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 192
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 5:35:24 PM
In post 182 I was responding to the post directly above mine.

The reason I didn't know who he was quoting was because, as always, I just passed over your post without reading it. If I had read your original post I certainly wouldn't have said "I don't believe anyone is crazy or stupid enough to actually believe..." I had honestly forgotten just how crazy and stupid some people can be.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 193
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/13/2011 5:53:30 PM
Case in point:


I haven't read one of this guy's posts in a long, long time. And this might as well stand as an example of why.


A classic display of a group call to arms. Wherein we see the declaration that the subject is against the interests of the group.

Then


I realize envy of my country gives rise to angry insults

Here we have the pronouncement of protection. Individuality and connection with/of, 'my country'.

One side calls the group while the other is individual protector.

I win!

 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 194
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/14/2011 5:55:48 AM
Let us, oh wise and knowledgeable POFers, consider the following creed. Is it morally sound? What side, conservative or liberal, holds closest to such virtues?

"I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

"I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.

"I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that government is the servant of the people and not their master.

"I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living, but that it owes every man an opportunity to make a living.

"I believe that thrift is essential to well-ordered living and that economy is a prime requisite of a sound financial structure, whether in government, business, or personal affairs.

"I believe that truth and justice are fundamental to an enduring social order.

"I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man's word should be as good as his bond; that character—not wealth or power or position—is of supreme worth.

"I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free.

"I believe in an all-wise and all-loving God … and that the individual's highest fulfillment, greatest happiness, and widest usefulness are to be found in living in harmony with His will.

"I believe that love is the greatest thing in the world; that it alone can overcome hate; that right can and will triumph over might."

John D. Rockefeller.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 195
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/14/2011 8:51:39 AM
This is as bad as what I made up above...




"I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

conservative - should be obvious
liberal - just as much but with slightly different details. Believe in those rights even for those that can't do it for themselves.



"I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.

conservative - pretty close to as written
liberal - Yes, every right is a responsibility and opportunity and possessions also come with the obligation to consider your neighbor



"I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that government is the servant of the people and not their master.

conservative - Correct again
liberal - fair laws, government is of the people to service the people



"I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living, but that it owes every man an opportunity to make a living.

conservative - this one can be said to be the correct words
liberal - dignity of labor and not to be taken advantage of, fairness for those that can't provide for themselves



"I believe that thrift is essential to well-ordered living and that economy is a prime requisite of a sound financial structure, whether in government, business, or personal affairs.

conservative - would probably agree that this sounds made up just to have it as a line
liberal - would probably agree because there is no real substance to this line 'be thrifty"



"I believe that truth and justice are fundamental to an enduring social order.
conservative - of course

liberal - definitely and it is called social justice



"I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man's word should be as good as his bond; that character—not wealth or power or position—is of supreme worth.

conservative - Usually agree but not always including the god bond
liberal - usually agree but not always including or excluding the god bond either




"I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free.

conservative - yes, sacrifice is in accepting the individual responsibility
liberal - yes, sacrifice is accepting the individual responsibility to support socially



"I believe in an all-wise and all-loving God … and that the individual's highest fulfillment, greatest happiness, and widest usefulness are to be found in living in harmony with His will.

conservative - mostly but not all agree
liberal - some but not most agree



"I believe that love is the greatest thing in the world; that it alone can overcome hate; that right can and will triumph over might."

conservative - some but not all agree
liberal - most but not all agree


There wasn't anything here that is exclusive to liberal or conservative. In fact claiming that one side or the other only serves to take away the humanity of the other side as being somehow deficient in character, heart, soul, or virtue. That is incorrect.

The true base belief is really the only separating factor between both sides is HOW to make these things real.

Conservatives believe that the free individual is the best method to allow the greatest amount of people to be lifted

Liberals believe that if society provides for fundamental basics that will allow the greatest amount of people to be lifted

And as conservatives believe, allowing society to do this takes away an individual’s freedom and drive to succeed.

And as liberals believe, we are stronger together.

The fundamental belief that socialism and communism and leads to a loss of freedom and rights is the philosophical difference. If you ask a liberal they think it is ridicules to believe this. This is the sticking point. It is fundamental point of belief. Socialism is a faster path to tyranny because of the points listed above. For liberals, because of everything above socialism is the faster path to freedom and equality.
 Bishopboat
Joined: 9/3/2010
Msg: 196
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/14/2011 11:26:34 AM
I'm a Libertarian, so I guess I'm both?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 197
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/14/2011 11:35:34 AM
This is a definition of liberalism:

‘By definition’, Maurice Cranston rightly points out, ‘a liberal is a man who believes in liberty’ (1967: 459). In two different ways, liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value. (i) Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’ (1963, vol. 21: 262). Recent liberal thinkers such as as Joel Feinberg (1984: 9), Stanley Benn (1988: 87) and John Rawls (2001: 44, 112) agree. This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. It is for this reason that social contract theory, as developed by Thomas Hobbes (1948 [1651]), John Locke (1960 [1689]), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1973 [1762]) and Immanuel Kant (1965 [1797]), is usually viewed as liberal even though the actual political prescriptions of, say, Hobbes and Rousseau, have distinctly illiberal features. Insofar as they take as their starting point a state of nature in which humans are free and equal, and so argue that any limitation of this freedom and equality stands in need of justification (i.e., by the social contract), the contractual tradition expresses the Fundamental Liberal Principle.

(ii) The Fundamental Liberal Principle holds that restrictions on liberty must be justified, and because he accepts this, we can understand Hobbes as espousing a liberal political theory. But Hobbes is at best a qualified liberal, for he also argues that drastic limitations on liberty can be justified. Paradigmatic liberals such as Locke not only advocate the Fundamental Liberal Principle, but also maintain that justified limitations on liberty are fairly modest. Only a limited government can be justified; indeed, the basic task of government is to protect the equal liberty of citizens. Thus John Rawls's first principle of justice: ‘Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of equal basic liberty compatible with a similar system for all’ (Rawls, 1999b: 220).

Now before anyone claims that this is correct for historical liberalism, you should note the last quote is from John Rawls - who is about as far left as you're legally allowed to be in America.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 198
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/14/2011 1:11:48 PM
What are you saying?

Liberalism is for small limited government and individual liberty over social government controls?

Ok... and Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved.

So define however you want but how do you behave. Any group can hijack the words and language of any other group. That would also explain why republican/democrat has swapped positions in the past. What matters is how you behave. Hmmm and here we have an 'unspoken' language.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 199
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/14/2011 1:26:36 PM
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 - the only restrictions they consistently oppose and remove are restrictions on corporate actions and profits. They're more than happy to restrict access to abortion; happily restrict the right of free association if you want to belong to a union; restrict building a mosque; restrict free speech if you're an atheist or a Dixie Chick; restrict access to the courts if you're injured by a corporation (they call it "tort reform"); restrict the right to gather unless you're lining up to buy something; restrict what facts children can be taught; restrict the use of copy-written material that has been allowed by fair use provisions. I could literally go on and on - Paul Robeson didn't get his passport taken away because he was too conservative; Nazi sympathizers weren't black listed.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 200
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/14/2011 1:57:17 PM
ugggg

For every single complaint you place on conservatives it can be shown an equal oppressive action by the left that could be extrapolated to any degree wanted.

It is absolutely legitimate to protect corporate actions and profits. That doesn't mean all actions and all profits. There are a ton of laws on corporations.

Abortion... if you paid attention to the constitutional argument.... the question is if the federal government has / should have the legal authority to determine that question. If the people of a state agree why would you be morally superior to tell the majority of another state that you do not live in that they are wrong?

Restriction of building a Mosque. That’s ludicrous. The action was to maintain a preservation of respect and not a religious intolerance.

Free speech for atheist or Dixie chicks? Do you see them being put in jail and tortured? They are literally free to say what they want. Does not mean that anyone is required to listen or to like or to believe anything that they say.

Tort Reform... Yes, but unfortunately the trial lawyers don't want this... that is their money. Totally unrelated to anything here. Many problems can be resolved with this. This could be an entirely new topic and unrelated to anything conservative or liberal. So... skip.

Restricting the right to gather... It's a tough call but how do you grant unrestricted gathering when it does impact health, safety, and the normal flow of life in the big city. Like you would be some awesome mayor and would have hung out on the lawn. Join the real world. You would have acted the same way regardless of your beliefs when it came down to destroying the property you were elected to maintain.

restrict the use of copy-written material that is allowed by fair use... Ok, please go write a song, have it become a hit, and please allow for that song to make everybody but you money. I cannot stand our IP laws. Different topic.

As for a large part of this thread being about the constitution and the defense act... It is a really easy argument to make that a country has the right to protect itself from a threat. The words used and the actions taken are the debate. On the face of it the extent the words used do limit it but I myself think its a bad step in the wrong direction but it is not the death of humanity as being decried.

So, again... what is your point? Something about you feeling you were morally superior? Case not made. Sorry.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?