- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
Ok–That is a working definition and many people see the cavalcade of history as a struggle between classes. However, that does not mean they pay homage to Marx nor do they necessarily desire a classless society. In my experience with my many LIBERAL kindred spirits, I have concluded that the last thing they want is to be forced to hobnob with the hoi polloi. This may something to discuss at a party, but fewif any consort with the working class either at work or in their leisure activities. How can they be expected to deal with people who prefer Rolling Rock to Sam Adams or Kirin beer and read People instead of Harpers? Not only Conservatives live in gated communities.
1. I don't think that Marxism today needs to be full-blown in order to be felt. Even if they don't expressly promote the idea of a classless society, they still want to “give it to the man” and swipe the haves with the sword as a matter of “justice” and let the have-nots collect whatever spills on the ground. In liberalspeak this normally involves language like having the “rich pay their fair share” (because 39% to the government is not “fair”) while enlargening the public dole for the poor to drink out of…all administered by the hand of the government bureaucrat. 2. What you are observing is one of the contradictions within liberalism. Liberals claim to be populists and like to pit themselves against wealthy and special interests. We know, however, that this is not the case. In a similar way, how many liberal celebrities have we seen advocate to the masses that they should adopt “green” lifestyles. This sounds fine until the masses realize that it means a substantial increase in the cost of living. To the celebrities with their millions, it's no problem at all. Only the commoner ends up suffering.
1. I don't think that Marxism today needs to be full-blown in order to be felt. Even if they don't expressly promote the idea of a classless society, they still want to “give it to the man” and swipe the haves with the sword as a matter of “justice” and let the have-nots collect whatever spills on the ground. In liberalspeak this normally involves language like having the “rich pay their fair share” (because 39% to the government is not “fair”) while enlargening the public dole for the poor to drink out of…all administered by the hand of the government bureaucrat. 2. What you are observing is one of the contradictions within liberalism. Liberals claim to be populists and like to pit themselves against wealthy and special interests. We know, however, that this is not the case. In a similar way, how many liberal celebrities have we seen advocate to the masses that they should adopt “green” lifestyles. This sounds fine until the masses realize that it means a substantial increase in the cost of living. To the celebrities with their millions, it's no problem at all. Only the commoner ends up suffering.1. Then in the interests of accuracy and to preclude confusion, you ought to choose another word. Marxism is one of those explosive words that we have been conditioned or taught or learned to equate with something bad or un-American. In my limited experience few people can really tell you what the principles of Marxism or “scientific socialism” are. They are content to use it as describing something not to their liking. The words Conservative, Liberal and Socialist have the the same problem–they have morphed to the point where using them without adjectives is hardly worth the time as no real communication takes place. I do not have the temerity to suggest just what word you might choose, but in my mind Marxism does not cut it.2. There are many good thinking and generous people who we might call, with all the problems associated with the words, Liberal and Conservative. Neither group is composed of all devils or all angels. My group–roughly called Liberals–has lots of people who wish to be considered kind sophisticates, enlightened, educated and freed from the shibboleths of their narrow minded upbringing. They also wish to be cool and typically display their concern by driving certain kinds of cars, displaying certain modes of behavior and mouthing platitudes that annoy and disgust the true believers in our ranks. We also have lots of people who sincerely believe that in order to preserve our way of life, we must support policies and fund causes that reduce the gaps that exist between the haves and the have-nots. In their opinion, this is as great a threat to “America” as any terrorist organization. They really fear corporations and see in their machinations a threat to their own middle-class status. Their worst fear is being ousted from their perch and tumbling into the pit with the great unwashed. Not all are celebrities, but they do seem to share the idea that the progressive income tax and levies of like kind are the appropriate way to close the income gap and fund the programs they see as necessary to maintain our democracy. I am one of them.
1. Then in the interests of accuracy and to preclude confusion, you ought to choose another word. Marxism is one of those explosive words that we have been conditioned or taught or learned to equate with something bad or un-American. In my limited experience few people can really tell you what the principles of Marxism or “scientific socialism” are. They are content to use it as describing something not to their liking. The words Conservative, Liberal and Socialist have the the same problem–they have morphed to the point where using them without adjectives is hardly worth the time as no real communication takes place. I do not have the temerity to suggest just what word you might choose, but in my mind Marxism does not cut it.
Well, I actually am using the word “Marxism” here to refer to something bad. I admit here that I am not distinguishing between “full blown” Marxism and Marxist-influenced thoughts. I do think that both are rooted in the same sentiments. If you want, I can use the word “socialist” instead.
2. There are many good thinking and generous people who we might call, with all the problems associated with the words, Liberal and Conservative. Neither group is composed of all devils or all angels. My group–roughly called Liberals–has lots of people who wish to be considered kind sophisticates, enlightened, educated and freed from the shibboleths of their narrow minded upbringing. They also wish to be cool and typically display their concern by driving certain kinds of cars, displaying certain modes of behavior and mouthing platitudes that annoy and disgust the true believers in our ranks. We also have lots of people who sincerely believe that in order to preserve our way of life, we must support policies and fund causes that reduce the gaps that exist between the haves and the have-nots. In their opinion, this is as great a threat to “America” as any terrorist organization. They really fear corporations and see in their machinations a threat to their own middle-class status. Their worst fear is being ousted from their perch and tumbling into the pit with the great unwashed. Not all are celebrities, but they do seem to share the idea that the progressive income tax and levies of like kind are the appropriate way to close the income gap and fund the programs they see as necessary to maintain our democracy. I am one of them.
I will agree with you that the motivation behind liberalism is not necessarily vile, and I'm sure that there are many liberals who honestly believe themselves to be following a morally superior path. My problem with liberalism (let's focus on the the ideology) is that it is fundamentally flawed because it incorrectly regards the human person and nature in general, but nevertheless it invites action based on these errors. I can't emphasize how bad this erroneous philosophy is when it is manifested in public policies. Again, this wrong way of thinking is separate from sincerity in believing one is doing the “right” thing.I sometimes like to think of how the different socio-political philosophies would play out if we were escape society as we know it for a moment and enter into the wilderness without any pre-existing governments or economy. I am quite confident that what you would find is that all the people would by necessity adopt conservative principles of life out of necessity. Liberalism would simply fall apart because it would be so impractical in the face of life's realities.
Right–peudo Socialism or Liberal dreamworks would be better.Your comments vis a vis human nature harken back to the Greeks but are bestexemplified in the writings of people such as Calvin, Knox, Rousseau and Hobbes.The question was and is–what is the essential nature of man–is he a creature born good and then corrupted by society or is he by nature evil. Having been raised aCatholic ,I was told I was a sinner at birth and it was my nature to sin. My only salvation was in the arms of mother Church. That lasted about 12 years.Most people I know who claim to be LIBERALS see man as a tabula rasa with an footnote–some people are just born bad.Most people I know who claim to be CONSERVATIVES see man as essentially inclined tobe bad.Both these terms are essentially useless in common parlance, but I feel confidant using them here as I know there will be no misunderstanding.Life in the wild: Rousseau: The Noble Savage–life is good–no sin–cooperation–dance in the sushineHobbes: Nasty, Brutish and Short–Dawinian–nature red in tooth and clawKnox/Calvin Man is essentially sinful–only the “elect” are savedWhat would happen if we had the ability to start over? Ha!My opinion of your thesis is that we would be wise to arm ourselves, sieze the foodsources, control the waterholes, build walls and force the weaker of the group towork for the benefit of the strong. In short–we would replicate our society of today ina truncated version.Concern for others usually takes place when one's own needs and desires are fulfilled.Remember the old adage–no sweeter meat exists than that which clings to my bones?
Most people I know who claim to be LIBERALS see man as a tabula rasa with an footnote–some people are just born bad.Most people I know who claim to be CONSERVATIVES see man as essentially inclined tobe bad.
This may be partially true, but I see liberalism as considering only two real “evils” in society – greed and power/control. Other “sins” to liberals flow from these two – from polluting the earth (greed) to racism, sexism, etc. (power/control) to everything in between. Other areas of life where conservatives find morality to be concerned are dismissed in the liberal outlook. I would say the conservative view is far more in keeping with classical ideas of virtue and vice than liberalism is.As for conservatism, it recognizes that evil is in the world and that there is no way to eradicate it completely – at least not in this world. I am not sure that liberals truly think this.
What would happen if we had the ability to start over? Ha!My opinion of your thesis is that we would be wise to arm ourselves, sieze the foodsources, control the waterholes, build walls and force the weaker of the group towork for the benefit of the strong. In short–we would replicate our society of today ina truncated version.Concern for others usually takes place when one's own needs and desires are fulfilled.Remember the old adage–no sweeter meat exists than that which clings to my bones?
You're forgetting that without someone to supply the arms, without someone to buy the food or drink, without someone to employ to build the walls – non of that “brutish” world can get done. I would think that man would recognize his need for his neighbor and the necessity to cooperate with him. If I protect my own interests exclusively I will be at a disadvantage, but if I protect the interests of my family and community I will be far better off. If I want to increase my wealth, I need to trade, which requires cooperation with others. But this is aside the real point, which was that liberals would not survive because they tend to look to the government for answers to their problems, while conservatives tend to look to themselves for the answers.
You're forgetting that without someone to supply the arms, without someone to buy the food or drink, without someone to employ to build the walls – non of that “brutish” world can get done. I would think that man would recognize his need for his neighbor and the necessity to cooperate with him. If I protect my own interests exclusively I will be at a disadvantage, but if I protect the interests of my family and community I will be far better off. If I want to increase my wealth, I need to trade, which requires cooperation with others. Protest the interests of the Community? Welcome my brother!
Other areas of life where conservatives find morality to be concerned are dismissed in the liberal outlook. Please expand on this
But this is aside the real point, which was that liberals would not survive because they tend to look to the government for answers to their problems, while conservatives tend to look to themselves for the answers.This may be more true than false, but it is not a character question, but deals with one's view of thepurpose and functions of government. We both agree that the government has the duty to protect,but from what? I would argue that the protection is required against foreign foes. domestic lawbreakersand those who take advantage of the halt, lame, blind and stupid. This is where regulation and lawflow together and where Liberal and Conservative viewpoints diverge. I might also point out that thishas become a chliche as bad as the” Republicans are the party of big business.” All parties feed at thetrough of big business–it is the American way–and Conservatives ask the government for help when they feel the necessity–banks, car companies for example.
NOT PROTEST–protect–my error!
Willy,You know you can hit the modify button in the post in which you made an error and fix it right? You can also hit the quote button in the posts you want to quote; this puts the quote in a box and makes it much less confusing for others to figure out where the quote ends and your reply starts.
Protest the interests of the Community? Welcome my brother!
Yes – if I want to trade my corn for my neighbor's wheat, I most certainly won't want to alienate him by “controlling the waterholes” as you had previously mentioned. I probably wouldn't wanted to get killed by him, either, if I figured he would come to the waterhole with guns drawn. I am guessing you are interpreting my statement to mean that the federal government needs to run the healthcare system, which is a leap too far.
This may be more true than false, but it is not a character question, but deals with one's view of thepurpose and functions of government. We both agree that the government has the duty to protect,but from what? I would argue that the protection is required against foreign foes. domestic lawbreakersand those who take advantage of the halt, lame, blind and stupid. This is where regulation and lawflow together and where Liberal and Conservative viewpoints diverge. I might also point out that thishas become a chliche as bad as the” Republicans are the party of big business.” All parties feed at thetrough of big business–it is the American way–and Conservatives ask the government for help when they feel the necessity–banks, car companies for example.
I think the difference is that conservatives do not see corporations or capitalism as the “enemy”, and so there isn't much need for “protection” against them. But I don't think that you mean this simply, or at least not other liberals. The whole idea of a “windfall tax” that democrats threaten companies with every so often has more to do with socialist class-punishment rather than “protection”. Also, I should ask when conservatives have felt the need for govt to take over car companies, per your example. As for the bank takeover, not all conservatives were on board with this, and that may be cited as an exception to the rule.
Other areas of life where conservatives find morality to be concerned are dismissed in the liberal outlook. Please expand on this
Well, this could go way off topic, but for example, liberals tend to reduce sexual morality to the issue of mere consent, whereas conservatives have a higher threshold of morality here.
Yes – if I want to trade my corn for my neighbor's wheat, I most certainly won't want to alienate him by “controlling the waterholes” as you had previously mentioned. I probably wouldn't wanted to get killed by him, either, if I figured he would come to the waterhole with guns drawn. I am guessing you are interpreting my statement to mean that the federal government needs to run the healthcare system, which is a leap too far.N0–I know that would be an impossible position for you–but you have a chink in your armour and for now 'tis enough.
I think the difference is that conservatives do not see corporations or capitalism as the “enemy”, and so there isn't much need for “protection” against them. But I don't think that you mean this simply, or at least not other liberals. The whole idea of a “windfall tax” that democrats threaten companies with every so often has more to do with socialist class-punishment rather than “protection”. Also, I should ask when conservatives have felt the need for govt to take over car companies, per your example. As for the bank takeover, not all conservatives were on board with this, and that may be cited as an exception to the rule. I think corporations ought to be watched carefully. Because of their charter–no community obligations–no national obligations–just shareholders–we should view them as valuable and wonderous things that must be overseen lest they turn and bite us.
Also, I should ask when conservatives have felt the need for govt to take over car companies, per your example. As for the bank takeover, not all conservatives were on board with this, and that may be cited as an exception to the rule. D'accord mon frereWe are in accord my brother–Conservatives like Liberals, but less so, have factions.
