Liberalism

[Whaleboy]

Odin: Things are a little more complex than that, in the real world, things aren't as clear cut as that. The political spectrum is not 1 dimensional. Its not even 2 dimensional as it is with the political compass. I can think of at least 4 dimensions, there are probably loads required in order to create a representative picture or map of people's views.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Liberalism since then has learned from the c0ck up that lead to.

Yes, and? Conservativism hasn't been the same since Burke's era either.

Its cruel, needless, pointless, idiotic and completely unjustified.

A Bear killing a deer is cruel, let's ban it. Why is it needless? People buy organic vegitables, what is wrong with wanting pure meat, without all the chemicals pumped in to eat? Why is it pointless, idiotic, and completely unjustified? It provides food and nourishment.

Are you also for banning fishing? Because that is a form of hunting as well.

Some of the best food I've ever had was fresh meat from a hunting trip (GREAT Venison!)

[Whaleboy]

A Bear killing a deer is cruel, let's ban it

The bear doesn't know better, and its behaviour, necessary to its survival which is not the case with us, is no justification for us to imitate.

Why is it needless?

Because you can go down to your local shop and eat a pie!

Hunting is not necessary to eating meat. While I am trying to be vegetarian (with the exception of tuna), putting an animal through unnecessary suffering for our benefit is unjustified imo, especially as many game animals are intelligence, and probably sentient (scientifically in this situation, we have to assume they are until we can prove otherwise).

Ideally, I would like rights for any animal that is more than a biological machine, but determining that is difficult, and I am not personally strong willed enough to be totally vegetarian... I wish I was. Still lets not spam this thread, you can start another if you wish.

What did you think of the site design?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Some say that liberalism is inherently more idealistic than conservatism, which is more realistic.

You either don't know what I'm talking about or are intentionally setting up your own strawman. Regardless of the cause, stop it.

[Whaleboy]

You either don't know what I'm talking about or are intentionally setting up your own strawman. Regardless of the cause, stop it

I said "some" may say that, it is easy to see how. However, my personal view is that the notion of idealism is an entirely seperate entity.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
Neo-cons are evil, self-serving, intelectual ideologes.

Irman, Neos don't give a sh!t about democracy.

Odin, there is something about your extreme liberalism that I really like. I find myself laughing hysterically when I read your posts!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
Radical- want of extreme change(socialists, libertarians, greens)

Liberal- want some change (far-left democrats)

Moderate- open to minor changes (mainstream democrats)

Conservative- want the status quo (mainstream republicans)

Reactionary- want to return to past policies (far-right republicans)

So a Republican who wants to overthrow socialist dictatorships ala Saddam's Iraq is what? A Radical or a Reactionary? If the Republican is a reactionary, what is his Democrat ally?

[Odin]

The Left-right line is only one part of my 3-D political system, it represents social issues, so I am not what Irman and Ned say. I was trying to post this earlier but Internet Explorer seemed to keep crashing on me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hunting is not necessary to eating meat. While I am trying to be vegetarian (with the exception of tuna), putting an animal through unnecessary suffering for our benefit is unjustified imo, especially as many game animals are intelligence, and probably sentient

Oy... one of those, eh? Animals eat animals. Humans are animals. I see nothing wrong with hunting in order for food. That is the way it works. It would be just as dumb as asking a bear to stop eating meat. There is a reason we can eat and digest meat (and it is probably healthier for us as well... which is the basis for the Atkins diet).

[Proteus_MST]

After all our Teeth and Intestines considers, we are Omnivores, born to eat Meat and Plants.

But as we miss natural Weapons other predators have, like Fangs or sharp Claws, we can be considered to be more Carrion-Eaters than Predators.

After all without Tools you could have big Problems in successfully hunting animals.
With some Animals, like Deer or Boars you even could experience a rapid transformation from the Hunter to the Hunted

[Berzerker]

Then why does Shrub only "liberate" countries that give us a return on investment (OIL! ).

Liberia doesn't count

[Imran Siddiqui]

After all without Tools you could have big Problems in successfully hunting animals.

Which is why God or evolution gave us brains that can reason .

[GePap]

The idea that conservatives don;t want change is silly. Of course they understand there will be change. What they advocate is the continuation of todays institutions. There is a difference. Burke opposed the revolution not becuase it brought change, but becuase he did not believe in the ability of man through reason to make a whole, new, better world out of whole cloth. He believed that the institutions of the day were the result of endless back and forth, slow evolution as it were by the people, and as such were the best possible ones, since they were the outcome of the history of the people. Each people had different institutions cause each had a different history. The reovlutionary idea that all peoples should live under the same paradime was foreign to him: if that were so, all people would be the same already, as far as Burke was concerned.

The reason that the term libertal once reffered to ones who wanted widespread change before, people whom to day would fit the category (in the US) of conservatives, is because they did back universals like democracy and free trade. That universal paradime has won completely, since even todays "conservatives" believe some institutions should and can be universal to man. They even go so far as to believe they can impose them by force.

I think that is one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals: how far does your faith in Reason and the ability of man to, simply from an idea create a whole new world, extend. I would say that conservatives are in general more wary of those notions that liberals (US meanings).

[Whaleboy]

I dont believe liberalism is synonymous with reformism, it only appears so because human societies always move in a more libertarian direction over a long period of time. It is conceivable that the two can separate, indeed I would imagine they have, but were not recognised as liberalism and reformism because of the myriad interpretations of both.

GePap, you have convinced me of a fundamental notion of idealism and pragmatism varying respectively with liberalism and conservatism, particularly the interpretations we use.

My article on the other hand, most cleanly refers to neo conservatism, for example that which Imran supports. On an abstract, conceptual level, it can apply to more, but face value is what most people only read.

[Ned]

Labels aside, once upon a time liberals in United States favorite actively using US power and foreign-policy in favor of advancing democracy and resisting fascism and communism. At the same time America's conservatives were strongly isolationist, more interested that military power to be used in defense of America's interests without regard to democracy outside the United States. It seemed to me that the Democratic Party continued its interest in advancing democracy until the Clinton presidency. Clinton, after Mogadishu and the embarrassment of his China policy collapse, appeared very reluctant to actively use US power to advance democracy in the world. Thus those who continue to be interested in a proactive US policy to advance democracy and human rights in the world began to call themselves neo-conservatives. They now find a home in the Republican Party.

Neoconservatives are yesterday's liberals on this issue.

Just my two cents.

[GePap]

The question is not about whether one spread democracy or not, but HOW. I myself are rather warry of the ntoion that one state can, unliterally, invade another and then bring about democracy by itself (at this point, the US is, for all intents and purposes, alone in Iraq. )

[Ned]

GePap, but my point is that Democrats once were the party of active use of America's miliatry to advance democracy and human rights. Roosevelt did not sit passively by and let the Japanese run over China and IndoChina. He acted.

So to talk about liberalism and conservatism in the context of foreign policy is probably not the right dichotomy as not that long ago, liberal were activists on the foreign policy scene while today the neo-cons are the activists.

[Whaleboy]

Neoconservatives are yesterday's liberals

Indeed, thats why I say conservatism is a force constantly trying to live up to a new high watermark, whereas liberalism tends to be more consistent, albeit not american liberalism, rather traditionally it is based on more solid philosophies that contemporary pragmatism would seem to reject.

The question is not about whether one spread democracy or not, but HOW

A great question, theres an article on my site called "the Mill Limit" which may help. To cut a long story short, you can influence or impede. Impedence can be cut down into environmental/passive impedence, like, being who you are, taking what you need, and then active, so hitting someone, or declaring war on someone. Influence of course is like talking to them. The Mill Limit, as the apex of liberty, and the best balance between tyranny by majority and minority imo, prevents active impedence. However, if we believe in democracy etc, we can still advocate it, or maybe even create certain economic conditions within our legitimate power to make democracy etc more likely. The wisdom of that of course is dependent on each situation, but the Mill limit would prevent us from declaring war to impose our will on others.

Its also something of a moral relativist issue too - that philosophy holding that it is illogical to impose our subjective point of view onto another equally valid subjective view. Our believe in our society is not justification or objective evidence to warrant our forcing it onto others, thus that tenet of neocon is false.

[Ned]

I hardly think that liberalism is about the equality of philosophies. Such thinking is the absence of philosophy.

Moreover, if one is ultimately unwilling to declare war, one ultimately has no influence and will be ignored. Look what happened to Chamberlain.

[GePap]

MIlitary force is not the only method of foreign policy activism there is.

People forget how popular Chamberlain's move was. Few people were in any mood for a war over Czechoslovakia in 1938, or even in March 1939 when the rest of the country was inaded. If Chamberlain was so weak willed, he could have kept out once Poland was attacked, no? There was ntohing forcing him to guarantee Poland's territorial integrity.

[Az]

This is a weird article. I don't see it's point.

[Whaleboy]

I hardly think that liberalism is about the equality of philosophies

It isn't and I never said it was. The closest thing to that is the limitation of the implications of preference.

Cheers Azazel!