Liberalism and Conservatism

[Taxman]

What do you view as the core difference between these two broad philosophies?

For me, Conservatism is based on the idea that our rights are inherently ours and cannot be dictated by the State. Furthermore, the State exists solely at the will of the people.

Liberalism, conversely, believes that it is the State that grants us those rights and in return is right in consolidating as much control as possible.

Agree? Disagree?

[telos2000]

I think that is too cut and dry if you mean "you either is or you ain't" one of the two. I have always said that I am morally conservative and fiscally more liberal. I don't think that stance is outside of the definition of a conservative (mine not yours. )

Individual rights remain in tact and the state exists at the will of the people. If the people vote for higher taxes by electing officials who are in favor of that, then that is the will of the people. So rights in that sense are of a collective nature. The majority rules. I don't believe that a conservative believes that each individual has rights that cannot be bent by the majority. That is anarchism and I really don't believe anybody wants that.

Taking that even further, if a conservative believes in individual rights, then they must believe in homosexuals marrying and so forth. If not, then the state is dictating against the will of these individuals. I can't buy that either and that is why I say I am morally conservative and it has nothing to do with individual rights (or perceived rights.)

I believe that taking care of individuals that are not capable of taking care of themselves is the responsibility of any humane society. These are reasons why I say I am fiscally liberal. However, even that is controlled by the majority of the voters.{edited to say, "However, I do control my own pocket book and I give to organizations that do take care of those who are not capable of taking care of themselves.}

I have another responsibility. That is to obey authority even if I don't agree with it. Our elected officials are the will of the people. Even Bush was elelcted by the will of the people, because we have approved the electorial college. If the will of the people changes that, then there will not be another president that didn't receive the majority of the popular vote. But right now, that is a mute point until the will of the people changes it. Regardless, he is my president until the will of the people says he isn't and replaces him. I may not vote to replace him, but I am under an obligation to support the person that the people elect (Bush or Kerry.)

There is more to my conviction than this though. It would take about 66 books to describe them all. No wait, that has already been done. Those books are written and bound together in one cover.

Having said all that, I am not trying to be confrontational. I just want to speak for those who really don't want to be pigeon holed as a conservative or a liberal. I don't even want to be called a moderate. Call me a CM/LF (ConservativeMoralist/LiberalFiscallist)

[Taxman]

I think that you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say that Conservatism believes that rights are determined on an individual basis. Rather, that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that no government can either grant or deny those rights.

[telos2000]

As you continuing developing your definition, it quits being so cut and dry. The trouble with trying to make a complicated definition fit the confines of a short post is that people cannot understand what you have not said or what you know in your own mind to be what you mean.

I am not trying to be picky, but some people define rights as "mine" and not "our's." The form of government that you choose changes the definition of conservative and liberal.

Under a democracy it is the rule of the people, which means the majority. The government carries out the will of the people. I think a conservative would say, therefore, that the majority rules and not the minority. A liberal would say that the minority should have an equal or greater voice than the majority. I am a conservative under this definition as it pertains to a democracy.

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by telos2000

I think that is too cut and dry if you mean "you either is or you ain't" one of the two. I have always said that I am morally conservative and fiscally more liberal. I don't think that stance is outside of the definition of a conservative (mine not yours. )

I think that's entirely possible to do. Many people feel the same way that you do. I'd call that being a moderate, but that's just my definition.

Individual rights remain in tact and the state exists at the will of the people. If the people vote for higher taxes by electing officials who are in favor of that, then that is the will of the people. So rights in that sense are of a collective nature. The majority rules.

I see what you're saying, but that's not a "right" in my view. IMO, we have a right to free speech, to assembly, ect. We don't have a right to low taxes.

I don't believe that a conservative believes that each individual has rights that cannot be bent by the majority. That is anarchism and I really don't believe anybody wants that.

I disagree. Our rights are inflexible. If we deny those rights to an individual, we are all in danger of loosing them. For example, think about that guy who got caught abducting that little girl on videotape. We all know that he's guilty as sin, but if we deny him his due process we all loose.

Taking that even further, if a conservative believes in individual rights, then they must believe in homosexuals marrying and so forth. If not, then the state is dictating against the will of these individuals. I can't buy that either and that is why I say I am morally conservative and it has nothing to do with individual rights (or perceived rights.)

However, since there is no right to marriage (or abortion, or wealth, or...) that doesn't apply.

I believe that taking care of individuals that are not capable of taking care of themselves is the responsibility of any humane society. These are reasons why I say I am fiscally liberal. However, even that is controlled by the majority of the voters.{edited to say, "However, I do control my own pocket book and I give to organizations that do take care of those who are not capable of taking care of themselves.}

I agree that society must take care of the less fortunate, but it's not the states responsibility to do so.

I have another responsibility. That is to obey authority even if I don't agree with it. Our elected officials are the will of the people. Even Bush was elelcted by the will of the people, because we have approved the electorial college. If the will of the people changes that, then there will not be another president that didn't receive the majority of the popular vote. But right now, that is a mute point until the will of the people changes it. Regardless, he is my president until the will of the people says he isn't and replaces him. I may not vote to replace him, but I am under an obligation to support the person that the people elect (Bush or Kerry.)

Agreed.

There is more to my conviction than this though. It would take about 66 books to describe them all. No wait, that has already been done. Those books are written and bound together in one cover.

Having said all that, I am not trying to be confrontational. I just want to speak for those who really don't want to be pigeon holed as a conservative or a liberal. I don't even want to be called a moderate. Call me a CM/LF (ConservativeMoralist/LiberalFiscallist)

lol Gotcha...

[ShainaT]

I've posted this before but it is always worth repeating!


A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested.

A conservative is a liberal who has just been robbed.

[pandybat]

The goverment carries out the will of the people???? Since when? That's a new one on me...lol

[Rockabillie]

Yeah, it is so hard to rigidly separate them now. We used to say conservatives were anti-governmental involvement, but it is conservatives who want to restrict abortion, birth control, civil unions, etc. They have become more in favor of governmental control than the classic definition.

And Libertarians. Where do you put them? In some ways they're classically liberal (believe in legalizing pot, etc.), but in others classicaly conservative (vehemently agaist taxes).

You just can't clearly label anyone!


Sometimes I think both parties want to control society more, but the conservatives want to control individual behavior and the liberals want to control corporate crimes.

Also: Liberals want to help people in need but conservatives want them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without any help or compassion.

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

Sometimes I think both parties want to control society more, but the conservatives want to control individual behavior and the liberals want to control corporate crimes.

Also: Liberals want to help people in need but conservatives want them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without any help or compassion.

I agree with the majority of the first part of your post, but not this (although I can see how it may be a matter of perspective). In my view, both want to control individual and corporate behavior. The difference is in methodology. A conservative believes that the private sector (i.e. the individual) is the force that should regulate society. The liberal believes that gov't should. A "true" conservative doesn't want the Federal gov't to decide matters that are far outside the bounds of the Constitution such as the examples you gave earlier. A "true" liberal, however, looks to the Federal gov't first to decide matters.

Also, conservatives DO help people in need. We believe in the old saying that "you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, he can feed himself". In other words, instead of simply throwing money at the problem, we believe that helping the individual to help themselves is the only lasting solution. If only the "Great Society" had used this approach we wouldn't have been forced to watch generations of destitute dysfunctional people stuck in the welfare system.

[prism68]

Originally Posted by Rockabillie

Also: Liberals want to help people in need but conservatives want them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without any help or compassion.

LOL, I was so excited to read your post, thinking, "Wow, I actually agree with Rockabillie on something!" ... then I got to this line and my balloon lost a little steam

It really gets old hearing that conservatives don't offer any help or compassion to people in need... it just doesn't wash.
Having taught LOTS of children from families 'in need', I have seen the damage all the social programs have done. The BEST possible solution to the ills of society IS to "teach them to fish", period.

Which brings up a thing that has been bothering me... I keep hearing how the 'poor' suffer under our current taxation. Well I have news for y'all... I watch the 'poor' pick up federal refunds of $5,000-$7,000.00 EVERY day. Almost all of this money is EIC (Earned Income Credit). My husband only made $32,000 last year; about $2,000 too much for EIC. So we end up getting back about $400.00.
You would be amazed at what goes on with that EIC; you can only get credit for up to two children. So folks with extra kids left over sell their social security numbers to other people to claim.
It is a racket like you wouldn't believe Makes me sick, 'cause I know I am paying for that nonsense.

By the way, as for the comment about conservatives becoming liberal when they get arrested- that is cute But I have to say, I have a brother who served 4 yrs. in prison... a husband who is a counselor in a prison, and I also worked as a Correctional Officer for a year. All of that made me MORE conservative; trust me.

[mayor]

Originally Posted by prism68

It really gets old hearing that conservatives don't offer any help or compassion to people in need... it just doesn't wash.
Having taught LOTS of children from families 'in need', I have seen the damage all the social programs have done. The BEST possible solution to the ills of society IS to "teach them to fish", period.

The difference is that liberals TALK about helping the poor. Conservatives actually take action. Liberals are well-meaning. Conservatives get the job done.

This is from my personal experience since I have run in both circles. Conservatives, in general, are far more generous than liberals.

[chippers21]

LOL So we are back to thinking that Conservatives lack compassion? I am sorry but that is just not so. We have plenty of compassion. We just don't think you ultimately help people by giving them everything.

Most of this post was way too involved for me. I am a very simple soul. I view conservativism as the belief that people should and can be more responsible for themselves without so much government.
I view liberalism as the belief that government can solve all ills by taking from those who have and giving to those who do not.

[luvmetender]

From the Oxford American dictionary...

The very first definition under LIBERAL is "given generously."

The very first definition under CONSERVATIVE is "disliking or opposed to sudden or great change."

[pandybat]

Originally Posted by mayor

The difference is that liberals TALK about helping the poor. Conservatives actually take action. Liberals are well-meaning. Conservatives get the job done.

This is from my personal experience since I have run in both circles. Conservatives, in general, are far more generous than liberals.

This has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard! LOL

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by pandybat

This has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard! LOL

Let's look at it another way: Who do you think utilizes your money more efficiently, the gov't or you? That's the central question between fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism.