Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Apr 28th, 2003, 04:52 PM        I have alot to learn
I don't claim to be politically savy, nor do I ever plan to, but it seems like there is a very large and obvious logical inconsistency in the world of politics.

Up until about 2 days ago I still hadn't come to a clear conclusion on just what the difference between Liberals and Conservatives was, because both support a strong government. Apparently people place such faith in an institution based on coercion that they honestly think there is a distinction between various forms and exmaples of coerced cooperation.

If I am seriously (that means if I am so off base that it is simply ridiculous) flawed in the following statements then feel free to correct me:

Liberals: Believe that the government should control your money, not your personal life.

Conservatives: Believe that the government shoudl control your life, not your personal income.

What I fail to understand is how one comes to such a conclusion. Where do you draw the line in deciding how much control an institution based on threatened force should be able to have over you. If the government should control your personal decisions then why not your spending? If they should control your income (keep in mind by forceable coercion) then why not your life?

From my very young and admittedly ignorant mind it seems that there are only two forms of political ideology.

Those who believe that the government should hold only enough power to allow citizens to live freely as they choose.

Those who believe that the government should be totalitarian. (Theocracy in the case on many conservatives I've heard voicing their views)

The flaw I think, is that too many trust that the government is willing to make distinctions like, "ok, well obviously we can't coerce them into obeying us this way, but so and so way is still ok." Since when was that realistic? This is not a rhetorical question. When did that become realistic? Keep in mind I am not very intelligent.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Apr 28th, 2003, 07:49 PM       
Actually, a true conservative believes in smaller government and strict interpretation of the constitution. Thats why Bush is called a moderate. True conservatives don't believe in corporate welfare and farm subsidies and all that other crap. They are almost Libretarians. The problem there is it leaves people hanging a lot.

Liberals believe in having a government that assists people in every problem. The problem with that is that it puts the government in more control of your life.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Apr 29th, 2003, 12:04 AM       
If you want the best balance in life. Be a fiscal conservative and social libertarian.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 29th, 2003, 12:59 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Liberals believe in having a government that assists people in every problem. The problem with that is that it puts the government in more control of your life.
Well, this isn't classically what liberals believe, nor is it really what most Liberals believe, but I digress. Liberals of FDR's ilk do believe more so in welfarism, but if you ask someone like my grandmother who lived through the depression, although she's a conservative, she certainly didn't then mind the government "controlling her life," or whatever (btw, are people in Sweden, France, and Germany really controlled by the state???).

CB, your best best is to avoid titles, avoid labels, and avoid ideology. "Classical liberals," "Liberals," "Moral Conservatives," "Neo-Cons," "Rockefeller Republicans," etc. etc.

The meanings of these things have changed throughout history. What Adam Smith called liberal is now called conservative, and so on.

Your best bet is to judge every issue on its own, use your OWN brain to decide how you feel, and go from there.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Apr 29th, 2003, 01:27 AM       
yes, try not to place yourself in one ideology or party. most of the people in America that actually consider all the complexities of an issue are moderates, the rest are either morons or politicians.


go for the obvious and get -1000000 points and an all expenses paid trip to Hell.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.