Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 2, 2011 20:45:24 GMT -5
<<< The typical liberal argument is that centralized governance is necessary to guarantee equality. That local governance inevitably results in unequal application of law and unequal guarantees of right. The conservative argument is that local governance provides protections tailored to the population being served rather than governance which treats everyone the same even though the needs are different. They believe that local governance can provide more individualized treatment ~ as opposed to standardized treatment. >>> ...agreed... Some of us are hopeful that a balance can be achieved between the two.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 4, 2011 17:00:15 GMT -5
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 4, 2011 17:12:31 GMT -5
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 4, 2011 18:06:35 GMT -5
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 4, 2011 18:12:56 GMT -5
People still use angelfire??
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 4, 2011 18:27:36 GMT -5
It's where I found the article by F. A. Hayek. You can't do better than that?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 4, 2011 23:56:17 GMT -5
<<< all Western countries have been forced, in order to secure adequate employment at the wages driven up by trade union action, to pursue an inflationary policy which makes monetary demand rise faster than the supply of goods. >>> ...iow, we're up the creek until we get a new paddle?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 5, 2011 1:07:08 GMT -5
It's where I found the article by F. A. Hayek. You can't do better than that? Oh I could care less about the article itself (though interesting). I'm just genuinely surprised that people still use angelfire. I think it's only used by luddites and extremists
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 5, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 5, 2011 11:06:23 GMT -5
<<< it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance >>> ...this makes me scratch my head a bit, because I value individual freedom to choose our own direction... to me, conservatives may be ambitious or complacent by their chosing... and they would likewise advocate the same "freedom" for others... ...almost as if their conservatism only actively imposes a DMZ of sorts with their liberal neighbors... ...interesting...
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 5, 2011 13:22:52 GMT -5
Hakek considers himself a liberal because he believes in the principles of classical liberalism. He feels that the collectivists, socialists, etc. have appropriated the term liberal. He discusses this in the article [taken from one of his books]. If you read the article you'll find that he considers real liberalism is closest to what we term Libertarian.
I find myself more as Hayek defines conservative. I see the movement of history and tend to believe that the best we can do is slow the progress of socialism and perhaps prevent some of its worst manifestations. Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the path of democracy in the US and, thus far, he has been proved accurate.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 5, 2011 14:20:36 GMT -5
<<< there is justification for saying that the liberal occupies a position midway between the socialist and the conservative: he is as far from the crude rationalism of the socialist, who wants to reconstruct all social institutions according to a pattern prescribed by his individual reason, as from the mysticism to which the conservative so frequently has to resort. >>> ...and astute observation, imo... <<< I find myself more as Hayek defines conservative. >>> ...and I find myself labeled "a conservative" because I'm a staunch believer in free will... which begets personal responsibility... which begets an isolationism, of sorts... ...over the years, my beliefs have been countered by those "on the left," but never corrected... so, as a result, I stay my course... I can't deny that as culture shifts "to the left," I'm left standing on further and further "over on the right" ground... and labeled accordingly... I can take it, so-to-speak... ETA: and who knows? maybe this is where we can see a rise in modern conservatism? a de facto growth in numbers that is simply the exposure of those rooted in ground that the tide has left behind?
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 5, 2011 16:13:46 GMT -5
First: Hayek is dead and the articles I quoted were written in the last century. I found it interesting that Hayek didn't mention William F. Buckley who was already, by 1960, a major force in the conservative movement along with Barry Goldwater [also not mentioned] who was more libertarian than conservative. The problem with the terms is that the socialists [communists, collectivists, etc.] have in the United States and Western Europe, adopted the title of "Liberal." There is really no way that socialists are legitimately liberals, but the current crop solve that dilemma by denying that they are socialists at all. If you've followed the discussions on this board or its predecessor you will have noticed that there's the; "Obama is not socialist," "Democrats are not socialist," "Pelosi and Reid aren't socialist." In fact no one is socialist, even European nations. Socialism is just a conservative scare word like communist. It really doesn't exist, and even if it did, it wouldn't apply to anyone you know. Progressive and liberal are terms used by socialists to hide the fact that they are socialists. They claim that those who call them socialist are demeaning them. That of course is interesting since there is nothing wrong with socialism. It is a legitimate choice which peoples and countries make. The Scandinavian countries are unashamedly socialist and proud of it. What then is the reason that American Socialists tend to deny their inclination? That too is an interesting question. I'm inclined to think that they deny their socialist tendencies because they know that if they were honest about it, the American People in mass would reject them. To them, socialism is like the castor oil that they are trying to disguise with orange juice [In case you're wondering, it doesn't work.]
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 5, 2011 16:33:59 GMT -5
... Socialism is just a conservative scare word like communist. ...
...What then is the reason that American Socialists tend to deny their inclination? That too is an interesting question. I'm inclined to think that they deny their socialist tendencies because they know that if they were honest about it, the American People in mass would reject them. ... I am inclined to believe it is because there are many Americans who are against the word "socialism" but if you present a policy/program that is "socialist" in nature, they support it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 5, 2011 16:59:14 GMT -5
I've got no problem with being called a Socialist. Fine with me. In some matters, I certainly am. In others, I'm certainly not. Call me what you like. The one who knows who, and what I am is ... me.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 5, 2011 18:29:33 GMT -5
The article quoted is not concerned with socialism or socialists as such, concerning itself entirely with distinguishing real liberalism from conservatism. No one could mistake socialism for liberalism although socialists like to pretend to be liberals, usually by [falsely] denying socialism or by denying that socialism contradicts liberalism. A study of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, etc. would be enlightening for many. Ronald Reagan was a New Dealer refugee from the New Left Democratic Party. It is likely that libertarians, the Austrian School of Economics, the Ron/Rand Paul Republicans and some of the Tea Partiers are the real heirs of classical liberalism.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 5, 2011 18:45:48 GMT -5
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 5, 2011 21:08:21 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 5, 2011 21:19:28 GMT -5
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 5, 2011 23:06:39 GMT -5
I don't disagree with your point except [as usual] it doesn't relate to the point. The question was, "Why do socialists hide the fact that they are socialists?" Your answer doesn't address that. On your point: That is the real danger of "creeping socialism." Once benefits are awarded, they are very difficult to withdraw. The truth is that the reason that it's against the law to sell oneself into slavery is that, if one could, some would do so that they could enjoy "free" benefits. Although they would complain later of course. Embracing socialism is actually selling oneself into slavery ~ slowly of course [creeping socialism]. It's just that the loss of real freedom in exchange for benefits occurs slowly so that one don't notice it until it's too late. That is the purpose of some provisions in Obamacare which come into effect in 2013 [after the next election]. Do they really think we're that stupid? Yes they do. Are we? I'll let you know before December 2012.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 6, 2011 0:10:22 GMT -5
I don't disagree with your point except [as usual] it doesn't relate to the point. The question was, "Why do socialists hide the fact that they are socialists?" Your answer doesn't ... Yeah, blah, blah, blah I am inclined to believe it (i.e. the reason that they hide the fact that they are socialist) is because there are many Americans who are against the word "socialism" but if you present a policy/program that is "socialist" in nature, they support it. Therefore they deny that they are socialist in order to advance their agenda without the knee jerk rejection they would face if they labeled it "socialism" instead of "liberalism". EDIT: I should note that this is true of those who are truly aware. Most are just fooling themselves, i.e. being a socialist is bad, I am not bad, therefore I am not a socialist.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 6, 2011 9:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 6, 2011 9:33:32 GMT -5
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 6, 2011 9:46:37 GMT -5
Actually, to be a socialist, you have to want to socialize something, not just regulate it to protect workers and customers from greedy Pub bastids....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:08:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2011 10:50:09 GMT -5
Lets see... the 'successful counterattack' of the Conservatives in the Roaring Twenties led to?... what event? ... I'm thinking... I'm thinking....
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 6, 2011 11:13:55 GMT -5
I believe that that article defines the "successful counterattack" as 1920-28 which of course led to the election of a "progressive" which led to a depression which led to the election of another "progressive" who couldn't resolve the depression until he got us involved in a world war. FDR simply continued Hoover's programs, adding a few innovations, which hail back, of course, to the first "progressive" President Teddy Roosevelt. You're apparently confused by assuming that all Republicans were [are] conservative or "business friendly." Richard Nixon is a good example of a "liberal" Republican President. Liberalism/Progressivism is no more effective for Republicans than it is for Democrats.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 7, 2011 15:04:36 GMT -5
It appears that this thread has about run its course. I hope that those who were interested learned something. I know that I did in seeking appropriate quotes although I'll no doubt forget some of it and need to be reminded. I think it's helpful to define terms as best we can so that a fruitful discussion is possible for those interested. Conservatism is obviously difficult to define and won't fit neatly in a short concise definition. I think that it's fairly obvious that Libertarians are most similar to "Classical Liberals," but conservatives are close on economic issues. Modern liberals are also difficult to pigeonhole since they bear no relation to classical liberals, but they do tend to fall in to the category with collectivists, socialists and Fabians ~ apparently choosing the name liberal only because they like the way it sounds and think that many will follow them if they don't really know what they stand for.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 23, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Neoconservatism:
|
|