The Liberal vs. The Conservative

[Modbert]

Yeah, that wasn't really an unfair representation.

They had arsonists on their payrolls to keep business up. Pay the wrong people and the competition would burn you down.

Gotta love capitalism.

I figured it wasn't such Martin usually is really good about historical accuracy.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Addressing the OP I forgot one thing, don't correlated liberal with Democrat and Conservative with Republican, nor should you label a person with some liberal views as Democrat, nor should any far rightist be labelled a conservative, some people think its all or nothing with no gray areas.

 

[bucs90]

One problem is the label itself. "Liberal" isn't exclusive to Democrat, nor "Conservative" to GOP.

"Liberals" today are more of the modern liberal, not the classical liberal. .

"Classical Liberal" is a made up term used by Conservatives to latch themselves on to "some" liberal values without having to dive into the Liberal ocean.

"Classical" Liberals implies there is never growth in the mindset. That's not Liberal in any sense of the word. Liberals are constantly growing. They are open to new ideas and adapt them if those are ideas are deemed worthy.

Conservatives are steeped in Tradition..and do not grow.

That's the difference.

In that regards, liberalism is like cancer. Both grow. Neither end well.

 

[bucs90]

In fact, thats a perfect analogy for liberalism. Cancer.

Some forms of ideological cancer have not grown to lethal or dangerous levels. Like Denmark. Norway. They are fairly benign. But the malignant forms of ideological left wing cancer grows into a ruthless, lethal tumor of government: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nat'l Socialist Party of Germany, North Korea. Thats a deadly, advanced and continuously growing form of liberal ideology.

Me? I'd rather just not have cancer at all!

 

[Avorysuds]

Rand Paul advocates the abolition of all market regulation, the repeal of the clean air and water acts, the dissolution of the FDA and all police and fire departments, the end of paved roads and letting your infant starve to death if it can't raise its own capital?

We are all socialists. Some of us just more so than others.

I do not think "socialists" means what you think it means.

Socialism originally referred to a stage of socioeconomic development following capitalism and preceding communism. It then came to mean any of a number of systems which might emerge during that period and share its defining traits. It then came to mean advocacy of such systems, especially when they are advocated as the ends rather than as a step towards communism. Today it stands as a blanket term encompassing everything from libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to anarcho-socialism.


Learn to read.

What I mean is that just because someone is ok or supports some socialist views does not make them a socialist. There is a point where you become more of 1 thing than anything else I guess would be a way of putting it... that is when someone steps over from being lets a say a free market capitalist supporter to a socialist.

Thanks, I can read btw...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Rand Paul advocates the abolition of all market regulation, the repeal of the clean air and water acts, the dissolution of the FDA and all police and fire departments, the end of paved roads and letting your infant starve to death if it can't raise its own capital?

We are all socialists. Some of us just more so than others.

I do not think "socialists" means what you think it means.

Socialism originally referred to a stage of socioeconomic development following capitalism and preceding communism. It then came to mean any of a number of systems which might emerge during that period and share its defining traits. It then came to mean advocacy of such systems, especially when they are advocated as the ends rather than as a step towards communism. Today it stands as a blanket term encompassing everything from libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to anarcho-socialism.


Learn to read.

Why are you such a condescending dick?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

opens a can of worms and dumps them out on the table...

And with that, what exactly is your reason for such a reaction specifically?

You're new to political message boards, I'm guessing?

1/3 of the people on this site will swear up and down that Liberals are Satan worshipping mass murderers and Conservatives are angelic perfect beings. Another 1/3 will simply switch it around.

And the last 1/3 will probably just drop in and make snarky comments. (Like this one.)

Looks like I was about right....

 

[georgephillip]

In fact, thats a perfect analogy for liberalism. Cancer.

Some forms of ideological cancer have not grown to lethal or dangerous levels. Like Denmark. Norway. They are fairly benign. But the malignant forms of ideological left wing cancer grows into a ruthless, lethal tumor of government: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nat'l Socialist Party of Germany, North Korea. Thats a deadly, advanced and continuously growing form of liberal ideology.

Me? I'd rather just not have cancer at all!

Do you see a more efficient malignancy on the planet than finance capitalism?

Cancer or Goldman Sachs?

 

[Avorysuds]

In fact, thats a perfect analogy for liberalism. Cancer.

Some forms of ideological cancer have not grown to lethal or dangerous levels. Like Denmark. Norway. They are fairly benign. But the malignant forms of ideological left wing cancer grows into a ruthless, lethal tumor of government: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nat'l Socialist Party of Germany, North Korea. Thats a deadly, advanced and continuously growing form of liberal ideology.

Me? I'd rather just not have cancer at all!

Do you see a more efficient malignancy on the planet than finance capitalism?

Cancer or Goldman Sachs?

The main difference I see is that companies are held accountable and usually end up paying out large sums of money or even fully dissolved... people can go to jail and so on.

When Government spends near a trillion dollars or rapes SS they claim the "smart" Intelligent" thing to do is raise taxes. No one goes to jail, no accountability and no pay out.

 

[georgephillip]

That door between Wall Street and DC is revolving so fast it's impossible to know where Big Business ends and Big Government begins.

Hundreds of white collar criminals went to prison in the aftermath of the S&L looting.

Not a single Wall Street player has even been charged from the much bigger swindle we're currently trying to recover from.

Imagine the difference if Ralph Nader or Ron Paul (Libertarian version) had moved into the White House in 2009.

Republicans AND Democrats ARE the problem.

 

[Avorysuds]

I agree, but if Government steps in the way and allows some people to get off then... Is that free market or Government?

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe it's an example of crony capitalism crossed with a criminal state?

If it's true for the last 500 years the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught conspiring with organized crime is to lose control of the money criminal activity generates, that would explain why there haven't been any prosecutions for securities fraud since Obama took office.

My very limited understand of the "free market" is that it was tried in this country very briefly and found to be inadequate for generating large concentrations of wealth.

Real competition seems to have that effect:

"For those who are interested in the real world, a look at the actual history suggests some adjustment -- a modification of free market theory, to what we might call 'really existing free market theory.'

"That is, the one that's actually applied, not talked about.

"And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That's, again, near a universal.

"So you -- whoever you may be -- you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it's good for your character, it's tough love, and so on, and so forth.

"But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State.

"And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks.

"If anything goes wrong, you bail me out."

Free Market Fantasies

 

[JBeukema]

One problem is the label itself. "Liberal" isn't exclusive to Democrat, nor "Conservative" to GOP.

"Liberals" today are more of the modern liberal, not the classical liberal. .

"Classical Liberal" is a made up term used by Conservatives to latch themselves on to "some" liberal values without having to dive into the Liberal ocean.

"Classical" Liberals implies there is never growth in the mindset. That's not Liberal in any sense of the word. Liberals are constantly growing. They are open to new ideas and adapt them if those are ideas are deemed worthy.

Conservatives are steeped in Tradition..and do not grow.

That's the difference.

In that regards, liberalism is like cancer. Both grow. Neither end well.

Then America was fucked from the beginning


The United States of HeLa?

 

[JBeukema]

I do not think "socialists" means what you think it means.

Socialism originally referred to a stage of socioeconomic development following capitalism and preceding communism. It then came to mean any of a number of systems which might emerge during that period and share its defining traits. It then came to mean advocacy of such systems, especially when they are advocated as the ends rather than as a step towards communism. Today it stands as a blanket term encompassing everything from libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to anarcho-socialism.


Learn to read.

What I mean is that just because someone is ok or supports some socialist views does not make them a socialist. There is a point where you become more of 1 thing than anything else I guess would be a way of putting it... that is when someone steps over from being lets a say a free market capitalist supporter to a socialist.

Thanks, I can read btw...

You do realize that the market is not incompatible with socialism, right?


In fact, a truly free market with meaningful competition can only exist in the modern age in the presence of socialist measures to prevent oligopolies. Hence Competition laws

 

[JBeukema]

I do not think "socialists" means what you think it means.

Socialism originally referred to a stage of socioeconomic development following capitalism and preceding communism. It then came to mean any of a number of systems which might emerge during that period and share its defining traits. It then came to mean advocacy of such systems, especially when they are advocated as the ends rather than as a step towards communism. Today it stands as a blanket term encompassing everything from libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to anarcho-socialism.


Learn to read.

Why are you such a condescending dick?

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"
"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.
"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"
"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"
"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.
"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.
"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

 

[JBeukema]

In fact, thats a perfect analogy for liberalism. Cancer.

Some forms of ideological cancer have not grown to lethal or dangerous levels. Like Denmark. Norway. They are fairly benign. But the malignant forms of ideological left wing cancer grows into a ruthless, lethal tumor of government: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nat'l Socialist Party of Germany, North Korea. Thats a deadly, advanced and continuously growing form of liberal ideology.

Me? I'd rather just not have cancer at all!

Do you see a more efficient malignancy on the planet than finance capitalism?

Cancer or Goldman Sachs?

The main difference I see is that companies are held accountable

 

[code1211]

Privatized fire was tried some time ago. Read a history book to see why New York and the rest of the nation gave up that stupidity.

I'm reminded of the scene in Gangs of New York where the two different firemen groups arrive at a fire at the same time, and end up fighting each other while the houses burns.

That was how it was done 100 or so years ago.

The employment of private comapnies to do public work has come a long way since that time. In my neighborhood, garbage is picked up by private companies contracted to the city to do public work.

Ambulance companies are privately owned and contracted to hospitals or communities. It happens all the time.

In some cases this is a fit and others not so much. It does happen and the use of private companies to do public work is expanding, not shrinking.

 

[kaz]

What are some of the Primary problems between Liberals and Conservatives today? What are Key differences and beliefs between the 2 groups and how are these issues addressed and taken?

What are negatives and positives of Liberals and Conservatives and how they deal with issues? Which group in your opinion seems to make better sense and more credible decisions when dealing with issues and Why?

There is nothing wrong with having liberal and or conservative opinions, most Americans have elements of both, the problem is when people go to the extremes with both. It doesn't help that people use fallacious reasoning to label someone as either conservative or liberal.

That sounds nice. But name two Democrats who actually have actually different views on any relevant issue. I mean that they actually fight for different sides. So not that some want to leave Iraq now and some in a year. Not that some want "healthcare reform" to go further faster then others. Actual, bonafide disagreement between any two Democrats. Should be easy if what you say is true.

 

[kaz]

I agree with you, but in today's political environment can you actually name any major Democrat who is liberal but not socialist?

Can you name any Republicans who aren't socialists?

America is a socialist society and has been for some time.

Before bed tonight, and when you wake in the morning, be sure to thank a Wobbly.

I'm just gonna give my answer even though the question was not to me... Ron Paul.

I went with Rand Paul. Same idea

 

[kaz]

I know you're new, but you might want to read some of my threads/posts before you make a fool of yourself.

Wow, not knowing your views makes me a fool? How do you get your head through doorways?