Is non existent. All forms of conservatism and their parties seem to be replaced by more and more liberal parties. Over time, political parties evolve in a liberal manner.

Discuss...

12/15/2006 9:50:23 PM

So why not tie that to a liberalizing society instead of applying it exclusively to one side of the political spectrum?

12/15/2006 9:53:12 PM

Quote :

"All forms of conservatism and their parties seem to be replaced by more and more liberal parties"

Ah, that's the truth. Just look at what happened to the Republican party in the last 10 years. They should probably change their name to the "Radical Progressive Party"

12/15/2006 9:57:02 PM

Quote :

"So why not tie that to a liberalizing society instead of applying it exclusively to one side of the political spectrum?"

/thread

12/16/2006 3:56:55 AM

Yeah, society as a whole keeps getting more liberal as time goes on. I think the parties are just along for the ride.

12/16/2006 11:51:48 AM

How do you see that? Economic Liberalism was predominantly abandoned in the latter half of the 20th century. Today I cannot engage in economic activity without the approval of a government beurocrat and I am not free to contract my labor as I see fit.

Today, Classical Liberalism (individual self-determination) is almost non-existant idiologically.

12/16/2006 12:46:45 PM

Quote :

"Today, Classical Liberalism (individual self-determination) is almost non-existant idiologically."

Exactly, we have a new form of liberalism, and conservatism has adopted the old.

12/16/2006 1:14:36 PM

Of course society is getting more liberal, but I think many people fail to realize how that relates to the political sector.

The reason I thought of this is todays gay marriages were yesterdays school integrations - so why do the conservatives fight such evolutions? Republicans who are against gay marriages are going to look exactly like Strom Thurman in the years to come.

12/16/2006 2:26:14 PM

So you meant to apply this only to social conservatism? Or is that the only way you know the word is used?

12/16/2006 2:29:56 PM

It works for both, but fiscal philosophies don't really have the same social stigmas with them, except for perhaps communism, but that tends to be for socially based reasons rather than economic ones.

12/16/2006 5:04:17 PM

No shit. Friggin' atheists.

Quote :

"The reason I thought of this is todays gay marriages were yesterdays school integrations - so why do the conservatives fight such evolutions? Republicans who are against gay marriages are going to look exactly like Strom Thurman in the years to come."

Because that's what conservatives fight to do: to preserve a culture, or idea of culture, or image, or whatever you want to call it. You seem to be missing the freakin' axioms of conservative thought. They seek to conserve culture and tradition.

12/16/2006 5:26:37 PM

Quote :

"The reason I thought of this is todays gay marriages were yesterdays school integrations - so why do the conservatives fight such evolutions? Republicans who are against gay marriages are going to look exactly like Strom Thurman in the years to come."

In short, because they are conservative.

Modern politics is split essentially between Radical Liberals, known in the US as liberals as Conservative Liberals, known in the US as conservatives.

But the underlying doctrine is basically liberal. Few Americans are actually authortarian they way the Al Queda is, for example. Few people believe that fundamentally indivdual rights are a bad idea.


Some people, however, feel that we should progress slowly with a respect for tradition. Or that government is inherently dangerous and should be limited in its ability to push people along a path, even if it is morally right. Those two groups, traditionalists and libertarians used to be united in the Modern Conservative movement, but are now falling out of sorts.

12/16/2006 7:19:01 PM

I don't think you should put evolution and conservatism together............. monkeys everywhere would laugh.

12/17/2006 12:25:17 AM

There are many sides to every coin. "Few people believe that fundamentally indivdual rights are a bad idea." Fine, what ever happened to my fundamental individual right to economic liberty? What about my right to financial privacy? My right to be treated equally by governmental institutions?

We live in a somewhat democratic society, so my rights end wherever the majority says they do. You may feel lucky that your pet-rights are in vogue, but it is not a given; just ask those unlucky enough to be in jail for years without charges, suspected of terrorist activity. Ask the millions of Americans rotting in Jail thanks to the drug war.

"It’s a two-way street. And indeed, under the aegis of the Living Constitution, some freedoms have been taken away." - Supreme Court Justice Scalia

Quote :

"Exactly, we have a new form of liberalism, and conservatism has adopted the old."

I convinced myself that was the case at one point, but it is not true at all. Neither political party represents 19th century liberalism, what is today called libertarianism. Or is it your assertion that Republicans are isolationist and therefore strongly opposed to a standing army?

12/17/2006 1:36:08 AM

"Conservative" by it's very name means keeping things the way they are. Times are good, right? Why screw with it? Gay Marriage for example would be a change from current policy, thus the conservative position falls against it. Conservatives tend to want to preserve power for those whom have it, namely themselves. After all those that have power have either (1) successfully used the system to their advantage, or (2) inherited power thanks to that system.

If you like things they way they are, your political positions are conservative. If you believe things need or can get better through change, then you tend to be more liberal.

12/17/2006 1:41:36 AM

Ok, so, I feel the Government has grown too large and powerful, which means I want the current situation to change in favor of liberty, so I should vote liberal? More specifically, I should vote for Democrats?

Ending the electorial process, dispanding congress, and granting the President totalitarian control over the country would be substantially different from current policy, I guess that makes it supported by liberals? I guess the conservatives would be against this change?

Saying "liberals are in favor of change" is irrelevant, it ignores the question of "What type of change?"

12/17/2006 1:58:05 AM

^F U NGR

12/17/2006 2:00:25 AM

I want to conserve our natural resources....

12/17/2006 9:21:05 AM

Quote :

""Conservative" by it's very name means keeping things the way they are."

Technically sure. Pragmatically no.

Quote :

"If you like things they way they are, your political positions are conservative. If you believe things need or can get better through change, then you tend to be more liberal."

Certainly not social conservatives. Something like 50 million babies have been slaughtered "legally" in this country for more than a generation now. We are interested in change from the current status quo. Also public education has been more or less the same for at least 50+ years, many of us are interested in a radical change in that equation as well. I could go on, anyway to say conservatives are against change is just plain wrong.

Also, I doubt many fiscal conservatives are content with the current level of federal spending either. We don't wish to maintain the power where it currently resides. We'd like to strip the federal government of its huge piggy-bank and let people spend their own money where they see best. This is again a radical change from the status quo of at least 50+ years.

Conservatives are also for change, just not towards the socialist amoral nanny-state.

12/17/2006 12:39:13 PM

amoral?

12/17/2006 12:56:10 PM

Quote :

"Something like 50 million babies have been slaughtered "legally" in this country for more than a generation now."

If you and other conservatives really believe this, how is there not rioting in the streets? If I thought babies were being legally murdered, I wouldn't stop throwing a fit until I brought an end to it.

This is why I don't believe conservatives when they claim this. If you think its murder, how do you justify your cowardice?

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2006 2:10:51 PM

Rioting in the streets is considered counter-productive nowadays. Better to spend your time secretly maiming abortion doctors and throwing blood at abortion clinic customers.

Then again, it is kinda silly to suggest others should be committing crimes to protest the crimes being committed by others...

Anti-abortion advocates are just being pragmatic. They feel it is murder, sure enough, but realize that others disagree.

BTW, if you don't believe they actually consider it murder, then what do they believe? Why would anyone be anti-abortion unless they believed there was something wrong about an abortion?

12/17/2006 6:11:31 PM

Quote :

"Conservatives tend to want to preserve power for those whom have it, namely themselves. After all those that have power have either (1) successfully used the system to their advantage, or (2) inherited power thanks to that system."

I disagree with this, because it seems to me that most of the people that want to prevent me from having power, be it financial or otherwise seem to be on the left side of the isle

ie: the kennedys, kerry, etc

they have all the wealth they could ever need but yet try their best to prevent "commoners" from becoming wealthy

12/17/2006 6:22:48 PM

Quote :

"Then again, it is kinda silly to suggest others should be committing crimes to protest the crimes being committed by others... "

If it's really genocide, then something should be done about it.

Quote :

"Anti-abortion advocates are just being pragmatic. They feel it is murder, sure enough, but realize that others disagree. "

If abortions are really murders, then abortion in this country is an order of magnitude worse than the holocaust. I guess it's pragmatic to stand by and watch the slaughter, sure.

Quote :

"BTW, if you don't believe they actually consider it murder, then what do they believe? Why would anyone be anti-abortion unless they believed there was something wrong about an abortion?"

Of course they think it's wrong, but they claim it's just as bad as murder (or IS murder). They clearly don't believe this.

12/17/2006 7:06:12 PM

Quote :

"PinkandBlackamoral?"

from dictionary.com,
"having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person."

Quote :

"McDangerIf you and other conservatives really believe this, how is there not rioting in the streets? If I thought babies were being legally murdered, I wouldn't stop throwing a fit until I brought an end to it. This is why I don't believe conservatives when they claim this. If you think its murder, how do you justify your cowardice?"

We don't do this because we don't believe that the means justifies the end. We wish to repeal the injustice legally. If progressives have any political advantage it must be this. You don't seem to mind the law being mocked in so far as it supports your objectives. As much as I hate the government's position, it is still the government and I have to respect that.

On a personal level if I knew someone who was about to get an abortion I would do everything within my power to stop it.

Quote :

"LoneSnarkRioting in the streets is considered counter-productive nowadays. Better to spend your time secretly maiming abortion doctors and throwing blood at abortion clinic customers."

I don't think most of us approve of these tactics, I don't. Anyway, much could be done to help the situation by simply putting some reasonable restrictions on abortion. Parental notification to start. It's absurd it can be done anywhere without parental permission.

Quote :

"LoneSnarkBTW, if you don't believe they actually consider it murder, then what do they believe? Why would anyone be anti-abortion unless they believed there was something wrong about an abortion?"

Bingo. ( of course I assume you are not including politicians in this sentiment )

Quote :

"McDangerOf course they think it's wrong, but they claim it's just as bad as murder (or IS murder). They clearly don't believe this."

No we really do. Frankly, it is the political issue I have the least doubt about my position. Other things like taxes and social programs I often see as a question of personal preference, but abortion is black and white,I don't see grey there. There is no way killing a baby can be a little bit right or defensible. It ought to be the government's role to protect those who cannot protect themselves. That's pretty basic. "Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", see right there "life".

I will admit you are correct in that many social conservatives have not been nearly aggressive enough in our attempts to repeal Roe. vs. Wade.

12/17/2006 8:15:18 PM

^durrrrrrr, yeah, i didnt know that word

i was going to ask you to clarify what you think is so "amoral" about socialism, but i think you've answered that pretty well w/o actually...answering it. weren't you the one that wanted to end public schools specifically b/c they refuse to teach students about the importance of christianity in the formation of america, or something like that?

12/17/2006 9:00:49 PM

mathman

I know this is a common example but...
In the case that your own daughter is raped, would you push for her to have the baby?
If your own daughter has a condition (discovered after the fact) that she will die if she gives birth, would you push for her to have the baby?

These are extreme examples and I realize they do not fit the situation of all people seeking an abortion, but where do you draw the line?

12/17/2006 9:29:41 PM

Quote :

"Of course they think it's wrong, but they claim it's just as bad as murder (or IS murder). They clearly don't believe this."

You can believe Nazi Genocide of Jews is murder and still be in favor of keeping the U.S. out of the war. It isn't that you believe killing innocent people is fine, simply that: a) you don't believe declaring war with help the situation, or b) entering the war will replace current horrors with new more horrible horrors.

Quote :

"but where do you draw the line?"

And where do you draw the line? Perhaps abortions should be legal right up to the 40th trimester?

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/17/2006 11:17:35 PM

^Exactly! I do not have the answer, and I do not think anyone does.

But per subject, the line should be drawn in error of the under represented / taking into account the possibility of an extreme situation - to a certain degree.

Is our justice system failing us because many convictions have been overturned due to DNA testing? Does anyone still believe in "letting 10 guilty men free before 1 innocent man is convicted"? Maybe that is an example of a line not drawn with enough error...

12/18/2006 12:48:15 AM

Quote :

"And where do you draw the line? Perhaps abortions should be legal right up to the 40th trimester? "

Or maybe you could exercise a bit of common sense and draw the line at a reasonable point in the brain's development?

12/18/2006 3:11:01 AM

^

Or perhaps at the point of metabolic independence.

A little talked about postion is that abortion is homocide (since few people in the technical sense want to apply murder to it), but that it is also the right of the mother.

Yes, abortion is the taking of a life, but your right to life can't come before someone elses right to blood and body. That is, if your life can only be sustained by taking the blood or body of a particular indivdual and that indivdual does not consent then you do not have an enforcable right to life.

This is important for two reasons

1) If you don't think liberty is more important than life, then how can you kill people (including innocent collateral damage) to protect freedom

2) If we want to put life before liberty then there are millions of people we could save by taxing the crap out of Americans and sending the revenue to the Third World


I think most people want to argue that the mother has contracted herself to the child by getting pregnant and therefore has a special obligation. However, part of the thirteenth amendment is that contracts of servitude are non-eforcable. You cannot sell yourself into bondage to another person.

Or to be more exact, you could sell yourself but it is an "on your honor" system. The government cannot enforce the contract.

12/18/2006 7:01:35 AM

hearing relatively liberal people describe conservatism is kinda cool.

from what i can tell, conservatism has evolved from people who hold tight to the core principles, to more of a dichotomous party, the schism being between those who remain actual conservatives, and those who have adopted conservatism as a veil for hatred, intolerance, and fear.

i don't think that conservatism and hatred/intolerance/fear are intrinsically linked, I know several conservatives that aren't. However, recently, and perhaps it's my surroundings, what I see out of the extreme right is such shit that it makes me, a moderate-to-right guy, look like al fucking franken.

like i said, i'm skewed by my surroundings, but the more i hear the extreme right praddle on about how much they hate others just because of what they believe... i dunno, it's sickening.

thats my rant though. had to put it somewhere... move along

12/18/2006 7:18:43 AM

Quote :

"This is why I don't believe conservatives when they claim this. If you think its murder, how do you justify your cowardice? "

McDanger, I'm going to use this line to show that you are in favor of what is going on in the Sudan and don't think it is genocide.

I mean, you haven't been to the Sudan to stop it lately, have you?

12/18/2006 7:42:34 AM

^^ Yes, maybe some conservatives hate minorities (blacks, gays, whatever). But liberals hate everyone's rights. They feel every-damn decision should be made by them and paid for by us.

I conceed that most Republican Politicians are liberals.

12/18/2006 9:44:12 AM

I tend to think of it from a more abstract context.

Liberals are the force that push for change in society, conservatives are the ones who restrain them. You need the former to allow for civilization to constantly improve itself and prevent stagnation, but you need the latter to pace that change and shoot down unwise ideas and proposals. It's a balancing act of sorts.

12/18/2006 9:54:52 AM

Where are people getting the idea that society "constantly improves itself"? It is a daily struggle to convince liberals (of both parties) that economic change is "worth it." In response they throw back how heatless we must be to put people through such uncertainty. Well, screw them, if the price of progress is just a little job insecurity then so be it.

12/18/2006 11:19:36 AM

Liiberals hate everyone's rights? Is that a joke?

12/18/2006 1:43:49 PM

Yes, Liberals hate everyone's rights. But they do not hate all of everyone's rights, only most of them. Then again, they have not been legal rights for 50+ years, so I suppose I should say "Liberals hate everyone's rights so much they already took them away."

12/18/2006 2:22:16 PM

Quote :

"In response they throw back how heatless we must be to put people through such uncertainty. Well, screw them, if the price of progress is just a little job insecurity then so be it."

you are confusing progress in terms of society and progress in terms of monetary gain.

Quote :

"Yes, Liberals hate everyone's rights."

what rights do we hate?

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ,]

12/18/2006 2:28:54 PM

Quote :

"pmcassel I know this is a common example but... In the case that your own daughter is raped, would you push for her to have the baby?"

Of course I would expect her to have the baby. I would not condemn her to lifetime of guilt over murdering her own child. It is much better for her to forgive the rapist and go on with her life. Lowering herself to the level of the rapist and stealing her own child's life solves nothing. I would remind her that it is not the child's fault his/her father was a rapist. Life is precious whether its planned or not.

This said, pragmatically less than 5%( and that's generous) of abortions are performed for the reason of rape or life of the mother. MOST abortions are elective and do occur when the baby can feel pain. It's not just a lump of flesh, its a human, with time it will develop into a full-functioning human just on the basis of its own genetic content ( and nutrition from mom ). This is true from the point of conception onward.

Quote :

"pmcassel If your own daughter has a condition (discovered after the fact) that she will die if she gives birth, would you push for her to have the baby? These are extreme examples and I realize they do not fit the situation of all people seeking an abortion, but where do you draw the line? [/user] Not necessarily. But this is not and has never been the question. Even before Roe. vs. Wade we allowed abortions in the case it saved the life of the mother. Such cases are exceedingly rare. I'd draw the line where we draw the line for the rest of humanity. If there are two people and one or the other is going to die because of some hypothetical which neither of them has caused then we do not consider it murder when one or the other causes the other's death. Usually there should be some higher probability that one or the other will survive. I'm not sure who to choose in general ( if I were king and such), but it is certainly noble to let the other live. Besides that case there is no line to draw, we have the right to life. [quote]kwsmith2 A little talked about postion is that abortion is homocide (since few people in the technical sense want to apply murder to it), but that it is also the right of the mother. Yes, abortion is the taking of a life, but your right to life can't come before someone elses right to blood and body. That is, if your life can only be sustained by taking the blood or body of a particular indivdual and that indivdual does not consent then you do not have an enforcable right to life. "

Obviously a concept invented for the reason of rationalizing abortion. I would err on the other side here even hypothetically. For example, if I was stuck in a locked room( for a time long enough he's gonna die without my help) with a hemophiliac of the same blood type and I refused him a transfusion then I would consider this murder. The mother is no different in the sense she is the baby's only lifeline at least until technology progresses.

Quote :

"kwsmith2 This is important for two reasons 1) If you don't think liberty is more important than life, then how can you kill people (including innocent collateral damage) to protect freedom 2) If we want to put life before liberty then there are millions of people we could save by taxing the crap out of Americans and sending the revenue to the Third World "

1.) while liberty is important life of others always comes before liberty. When collateral damage is incurred it is done so in the hope that more life can be saved ultimately. Not "saved" in the sense of having a "decent quality of life etc..." but saved in the sense of not dead. Abortion does not save any life, it only kills (modulo life of mother case of course).

2.) $$$ are not enough, its how you spend them. Otherwise you're just proping up the bad goverment that is keeping the people in abject poverty. Democracy is probably a more humane export than cash. I do think we should do more to help avert extreme loss of life overseas.

Quote :

"kwsmith2 I think most people want to argue that the mother has contracted herself to the child by getting pregnant and therefore has a special obligation. However, part of the thirteenth amendment is that contracts of servitude are non-eforcable. You cannot sell yourself into bondage to another person. Or to be more exact, you could sell yourself but it is an "on your honor" system. The government cannot enforce the contract. "

while creative this argument is, the fact remains the mother has sold nothing. She is in a situation which demands she help another. When others need our help to survive ( and I can think of no more dramatic example than a pregnant mom and the helpless infant inside her ) we should give it. The law should reflect this basic moral precept.

I apologize for any grevious gramatical errors, I have been order to shop, and shop I must.

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2006 2:45:18 PM

Quote :

"She is in a situation which demands she help another. When others need our help to survive ( and I can think of no more dramatic example than a pregnant mom and the helpless infant inside her ) we should give it. The law should reflect this basic moral precept."

That's in direct contradiction to the 13th amendment. Furthermore, when does life begin? If you are going to make this argument, you have to clearly define when life begins

12/18/2006 2:48:34 PM

Day 12, good enough?

12/18/2006 2:50:11 PM

day 12 of what?

12/18/2006 2:55:25 PM

Quote :

"what rights do we hate?"

I don't know you personally, I guess you consider yourself a liberal... My right to the product of my labor. My right to seek medical treatment before FDA certification. My right to choose my career without first getting local guild approval (you call them business licenses). My right to risk my life if I so choose. My right to self defence with an automatic weapon. My right to make improvements to my property regardless of woodpeckers. My right to contract freely with other citizens for labor, gasoline, milk, new cars, and capital however we choose. My right to financial privacy: used to require a search warrant to get my financial records, now the IRS gets a copy every year.

I'm not saying all these rights were worth fighting for, but there is no doubting the liberals/progressives of both parties took them away.

12/18/2006 5:48:32 PM

You are misguided in what is a right.

12/18/2006 6:32:09 PM

Well, it all extends from the ideals listed in the declaration of independence: "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness." These ideals were killed by liberals/progressives long ago. However, I believe that was a mistake, so I still list them as rights [in exile]. You, however, are glad they are gone, so you consider them something other than rights.

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 7:40 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/18/2006 7:39:28 PM

Quote :

"nutsmackr That's in direct contradiction to the 13th amendment. Furthermore, when does life begin? If you are going to make this argument, you have to clearly define when life begins"

No it is not. The 13th amendment clearly is about "contracts of servitude", this was intended for the slaves and was a response to the south's role in the civil war. It is not about a pregnant mom no matter how sloppy your thinking might be. Even if I accepted your point here I would point out that I am obviously not for the current interpretation of the constitution as it is so vague as to allow pretty much any immorality to become enshrined as a government sanctioned morality. Thank you activist judges.

btw, a nice article outlining some activist judge history can be found at
http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000653.cfm

Also, I said when life began in my last post.

Anyway, the right to life is very clearly outlined in the 14-th amendment as well,

"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I don't need some convoluted reinterpretation to twist the meaning. It says what it says. If you believe the law ought to be followed then there is really only one logical option for the pro-aborts. You must say that the fetus is not truly a human and as such it is not entitled to the same protection under the law as you or I. I find it preposterous that you can go to jail for murdering a newborn, but it's ok to kill it a month or two before that. With modern medicine the fact that abortion is murder is even more apparent as we have extended our knowledge of the functionality and structure of the fetus even in the first trimester. A "fetus" is much more "human" that we realized when Roe vs. Wade passed.

one attempt to remove the ambiguity and legal mumbo-jumbo from this generation long debate is to pass an amendment that unambiguously deals with the issue. Personally, I don't think its logically necessary since the constitution already guarantees the right to life, we just need for some bad past decisions to be dumped from precedent.

here's one attempt at the amendment,

http://www.rtlamendment.org/spectator.htm

12/18/2006 8:15:53 PM

Quote :

"When others need our help to survive ( and I can think of no more dramatic example than a pregnant mom and the helpless infant inside her ) we should give it. The law should reflect this basic moral precept."

I think there is a big difference between what is immoral and what should illegal. I stipulate that abortion is immoral but to outlaw it would defy our basic right to liberty.

For example, refusing to help a homeless person in distress, cheating on your spouse or emotionally abusing your children are all immoral. None of them, however, should be illegal.

You have a right to be a selfish self-serving prick who never takes even the most basic steps to help those in need. You don't have the right to take from someone of something they would have had in your absence.

The fetus, however, could not have life in the absence of the mother, at least not until the second and probably third trimester. In the third, I am think it is probably okay to outlaw abortion, and it is certainly okay to outlaw partial birth abortion, since the fetus is in the process of vacating the womb.

Ultimately the woman's right is to demand vacation of the womb. If the fetus is leaving then you can not kill it on the way out.

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 8:45 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2006 8:42:57 PM

Quote :

"Well, it all extends from the ideals listed in the declaration of independence: "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness.""

well, my idea of happiness involves my ex-girlfriend still dating me. Likewise, what libertarians seem to forget is that the declaration of independence is not codified into law.


As for mathman, I do not see where you say a specific time frame in which a fetus is a life.

12/18/2006 11:05:45 PM

Who said it was codified in law? I said it extends from the "ideals listed" there-of. As I said, it is your belief that the only rights that exist are those currently legally enforced. This makes you a defender of the status quo, and me a dissident, as I believe we have rights that are being violated on a daily basis.

Sorry to hear about the girlfriend, though.

12/18/2006 11:37:07 PM