Liberalism vs conservatism

Author: TheUnderdog ,

Posts

Total: 23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,206
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
Conservatives have a bunch of things they want.  For instance, they want more gun rights because of their, "small government" ethos.  They want to ban abortion because of the safety of the unborn.  Some of them even want to ban homosexuality because "the bible says so".  Pretty much every republican wants to deport undocumented immigrants because of "nationalism; America first".

So there are 4 values here; small government, safety, theocracy, and nationalism.

Conservatives aren't consistent with the first value; small government because if they if their value is freedom, then surely they must also be in favor of the recreational legalization of all drugs, they would be in favor of abortion rights with no restrictions, they would support open borders, they would want to end all the foreign wars, and they would essentially be libetarians.  Conservatism can't mean freedom because if it was, there is a party that already exists that consistently believes in freedom; libetarians.  Conservatism therefore has to mean something else.

Another value conservatives have; safety.  They apply this value towards the unborn.  They call it the "right to life".  I call it safety.  It's the same thing.  However, they don't apply this logic to letting undocumented immigrants in, even though America is a safer place for the undocumented than their home country.  They often claim that the undocumented immigrants are a danger to America (which they aren't)(Undocumented immigrants far less likely to commit crimes in U.S. than citizens (wisc.edu)).  They oppose welfare programs which keep the poor safe from starvation.  They support these foreign wars whenever Trump wages a war even though it causes foreign civilians, our troops, and even the United States to be less safe because as we wage endless war, more countries hate us and are therefore more likely to fund terrorist attacks on us.  They oppose the concept of safety on gun, insisting that their freedom to own guns is more important than the safety of others.  You'd figure the conservatives (if safety was their value) would want to disarm everybody to make society as safe as it can be.  Conservatives often claim it's impossible, however THEY ARE THE REASON IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.  If every conservative wanted to ban all guns, they would immediately turn all of their guns in.  This would only apply if the conservative value was safety.

If the conservative value was theocracy (implementing black and white biblical law into society), then conservativism calls for treating the undocumented just like the native born (Exodus 12:49) and a 100% wealth tax on anyone with more than enough money to survive (unless they were a ruler, the bible lets rulers keep their money, just like communism)(Mark 10:21)

If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade, Affirmative action, and not cutting taxes because off of this goes against the status quo/nationalism (the belief that your nation is great just the way it is)


The liberals on the other hand, they have a value, but they never state what their value is, which is how they lose support from the independents who think, "How is this party consistent with any of their beliefs?"  The left wing value is anti pain.  All of their beliefs follow a consistent anti pain ethic.  Abortion?  Let the people abort to minimize pain.  The liberals have mixed views on late term abortions, where some support them if it prevents future maternal pain and others oppose them on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain.

On guns; minimize the pain from school shootings while also trying to appease the conservatives by trying to ban semi automatic guns.  This view is greatly distorted because mass shootings are a small portion of homicides, but the liberals don't care.  They want to minimize pain that they see; they don't care that much about pain they can't see unless it's super graphic.  This is why you see liberals caring a little bit about starving people in Africa.  If those starving people were here, liberals would be demanding that we give free housing and healthcare to the suffering people that we can see merely because we can see them.  If those people are suffering far away, then the left doesn't care as much.

On taxes, they want higher taxes on those whom the sacrifice would be minimal to minimize the pain of other people that they can see.

Conclusion:

The conservatives have no principles.  The liberals have a principle (anti pain ethic (but only for the pain they can see)), but it is based off of emotion, news stories, anecdotal data (they are more upset about a mass shooting that kills 26 people than they are about traffic deaths that are responsible for 30,000 American deaths a year (the deaths from traffic accidents are more painful and graphic usually than dying from a gun), but if traffic deaths were broadcasted as much as school shootings per death, the liberals would want to reduce speed limits).

With one party having no principles, and another party having principles that are partly based on emotion rather than reality, I think both parties are absolutely horrible.  It's time for DART members to break away from the democrat and republican parties.  The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.



Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,977
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @TheUnderdog
If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade,

Pretty sure nationalism is about national security and not about killing babies.

That being said, neither party is above selling out to foreign interests.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 1,724
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @TheUnderdog
There's so much wrong with your O.P. so I'll approach it bit by bit:

For instance, they want more gun rights because of their, "small government" ethos.
Conservatives don't want "more" gun rights; they want their gun rights (in reality, privileges) respected. Their contention against a large government is with respect to its capacity to modify or transmute their liberties which are described as inalienable and immutable in the Bill of Rights.

They want to ban abortion because of the safety of the unborn.
Not just that; abortion with respect to their reasons is tantamount to murder.

Some of them even want to ban homosexuality because "the bible says so".
Some of this may be true, but you have to understand that "marriage" is historically a Christian ceremony. No, I'm not talking about "maritaticum"; I'm talking about circa 1300 France from which the ceremony originated. And yes, according to Christian principles, it is wrong for a man to lay with another man, much less for a man to "marry" another man. However, since the Roman Catholic church sought to bond itself with the government, civil unions became fused with "marriage." And it's interesting that the gay marriage agenda never found its way to Islam or Judaism, i.e. gay nikkahs (Islamic marriage) or gay nisuins (Judaic marriage.) And this was done on purpose, but that's a conversation for another time.

Pretty much every republican wants to deport undocumented immigrants because of "nationalism; America first".
No. The prevalent reason is the tax burden created by undocumented immigrants. I'm sure there's a bit ethnocentrism playing a factor as well. 

small government because if they if their value is freedom, then surely they must also be in favor of the recreational legalization of all drugs
Fair enough.

they would be in favor of abortion rights with no restrictions
Once again, according to their reasons, abortion is murder.

they would support open borders
Ask them what they'd think of open borders if they didn't have to pay taxes.

they would want to end all the foreign wars
How do foreign wars undermine freedom?

and they would essentially be libetarians.
This is perhaps your best point. This is the biggest contention I've levied against conservatism. If they followed conservatism to its logical conclusion, they would essentially be Libertarians. Libertarians would be Libertarians. But they're in fact minarchists in disguise.

Conservatism can't mean freedom because if it was, there is a party that already exists that consistently believes in freedom; libetarians.  Conservatism therefore has to mean something else.
Unfortunately, not even Libertarians consistently believe in freedom.

Another value conservatives have; safety.  They apply this value towards the unborn.  They call it the "right to life".  I call it safety.  It's the same thing.  However, they don't apply this logic to letting undocumented immigrants in, even though America is a safer place for the undocumented than their home country. 
Denying someone refuge is not the same as murder. (Ironically, this also applies in favor of the right to an abortion.)

They oppose welfare programs which keep the poor safe from starvation. 
One does not keep another "safe" from starvation.

They support these foreign wars whenever Trump wages a war even though it causes foreign civilians, our troops, and even the United States to be less safe because as we wage endless war, more countries hate us and are therefore more likely to fund terrorist attacks on us. 
Name one (new) war waged by Trump. Just one. As far as presidents go, Trump was relatively among the most peaceful and diplomatic. 

They oppose the concept of safety on gun, insisting that their freedom to own guns is more important than the safety of others.  You'd figure the conservatives (if safety was their value) would want to disarm everybody to make society as safe as it can be. 
"Disarming everybody" would not make society as safe as it can be. 90's Australia, and 2000's U.K. would see to that. And it has not been substantiated that owning and possessing a firearm in and of itself poses a threat.

Conservatives often claim it's impossible, however THEY ARE THE REASON IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.  If every conservative wanted to ban all guns, they would immediately turn all of their guns in.  This would only apply if the conservative value was safety.
You have not substantiated how gun ownership/possession undermines safety.

If the conservative value was theocracy (implementing black and white biblical law into society), then conservativism calls for treating the undocumented just like the native born (Exodus 12:49)
As long as they're all circumcised, I'm for it. Or did you forget that part of the passage? I'm going to venture a guess and presume you didn't read the whole chapter, or you did, and you purposefully omitted details:

40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.
42 It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.
43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
50 Thus did all the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
51 And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade, Affirmative action, and not cutting taxes because off of this goes against the status quo/nationalism (the belief that your nation is great just the way it is)
It would then be impossible to express conservative nationalism in a democracy where policy is subject to referendum.

On taxes, they want higher taxes on those whom the sacrifice would be minimal to minimize the pain of other people that they can see.
Liberals want higher taxes because they're entitled and spoiled. They are in denial about the practicality of their agendas especially if it comes at the expense of those for whom they bear jelly. (Anyone has some peanut butter?)

The conservatives have no principles.
They do have principles. Some of them, they follow inconsistently.

The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.
Independents don't think for themselves; they're just contrarians.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,799
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @TheUnderdog
I agree with your take on conservatives but safety is actually more of a left-wing concern than a right-wing concern. Conservatives intentionally provoke and combat other nations/powers more readily (especially America's conservatives) than the left-wing progressives.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,206
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @Greyparrot
If national security is what conservatives want, then why don't they support UHC, mask mandates, and vaciene mandates?  I mean, covid is a national security threat bigger than terrorism (because covid is responsible for more American deaths than terrorists are).

I'm just asking for consistency from these right wingers.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,062
3
3
8
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
3
3
8
--> @TheUnderdog
Small government, and a valuation of freedom, does not mean anarchy.
Nor does a dislike of war, disregard it's perceived necessity at times.

Safety of the tribe, does not mean safety to strangers.
Though safety to 'invited guests, is not bad.

Your logic involves too many sudden jumps, black and white, extremes.
An absence of gray and nuance.

To me, Conservativism, 'roughly means tradition.
Groups are groups, and individuals are individuals.
People always have principles, just sometimes we don't like the one's people have.
Which is what we 'call unprincipled I suppose.
But groups and individuals are like the waves,
Appearing and falling, sometimes with honor, sometimes without.
I'm rambling.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,206
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @Athias
Conservatives don't want "more" gun rights; they want their gun rights (in reality, privileges) respected.
Their whole montra is, "Shall not be infringed" with guns.  Meaning they want to remove all gun restrictions.  Some want background checks, but the majority are more pro gun than some blue states are.

they would support open borders
Ask them what they'd think of open borders if they didn't have to pay taxes.
If undocumented immigrants don't pay taxes and the right wing approach was to replace the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax, then undocumented immigrants would pay the same amount of taxes as documented citizens.  Why doesn't the right support this policy?

they would want to end all the foreign wars
How do foreign wars undermine freedom?
Because they cost a lot of money, so the government has to force you to give money to them to fight all these wars.  If theft isn't freedom, than neither is war because taxpayers have to pay for it without their inherit consent.

Unfortunately, not even Libertarians consistently believe in freedom.
True.

Once again, according to their reasons, abortion is murder.
Conservatives believe that abortion is an unjustified killing, but not murder.  Murder has to be illegal as a requirement to be murder.

But should abortion be classified as murder?  No, for 2 reasons:

1) If it was classified as murder, then the penalty for abortion would be the same as murder (life in jail or the death penalty).  This would lead to mass incarceration.

One does not keep another "safe" from starvation.
If the starving person gets fed, then they are temporaraly safe from starvation.


Name one (new) war waged by Trump. Just one. As far as presidents go, Trump was relatively among the most peaceful and diplomatic. 
Trump's Endless Wars - CounterPunch.org states a bunch of wars Trump caused.  Granted, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Biden and Regean also caused horrible wars, but Trump is as bad as the other presidents for the most part on war.

"Disarming everybody" would not make society as safe as it can be. 90's Australia, and 2000's U.K. would see to that. And it has not been substantiated that owning and possessing a firearm in and of itself poses a threat.
Both these regions have low levels of homicide and the UK used to have a lot of guns.  It's how America became so gun friendly.  But the UK lost their gun pride and America has expanded it.  I'm not saying implement gun control.  But if saftey is your value, you should support gun control.

Independents don't think for themselves; they're just contrarians.
Not inheritely.  Independents tend to come up with some sort of principle that partisan hacks don't abide by.  You don't have to agree with the left or the right all the time.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,206
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @Lemming
To me, Conservativism, 'roughly means tradition.
Then why don't conservatives support Roe V Wade?  I mean, that's tradition.  For the past 50 years, America has had abortion legal.  Roe V Wade is an American tradition.


Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,062
3
3
8
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
3
3
8
--> @TheUnderdog
I 'did say roughly,
Since tradition can be convoluted or complicated.
New one's created.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,206
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @Lemming
Yeah, but if someone said that they were libetarian on everything except X, then that's fine.  You just need a justification for that.  That justification is going to be your 2nd value.

Everyone gets 1 value unless they are independents (because often values contradict each other).  If one person values freedom and another person values saftey, then they will disagree on some things.  The person that values freedom will want more gun rights and an easier time getting abortions, whereas the person that values saftey would want more gun control and more laws that restrict abortion.

The values disagree with each other, so pick a value or be an independant.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,062
3
3
8
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
3
3
8
--> @TheUnderdog
I think people can pick certain values, in certain situations.
Rather than pick a value for 'all situations.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,977
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @TheUnderdog
then why don't they support UHC, mask mandates, and vacciene mandates?

Because that has nothing to do with protecting a country from being invaded or having their culture erased from the planet? A nation can survive the flu without mandates from a tyrannical government. They can't survive an invasion. Or an invasion of infected people.

Ask the Native Americans about nationalism...oh wait...

Too bad they didn't mask up for the small-pox... durr
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,977
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
Honestly, Nationalism shouldn't be a left or right issue. It's just fabricated that way to divide the people as government gets unlimited power.

The biggest threat to the government is it's own people, so they don't give a fuck about foreign threats. Regardless of the propaganda lines.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,275
4
6
10
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
10
--> @Greyparrot

If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade,

Pretty sure nationalism is about national security and not about killing babies.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure nationalists would be repulsed by the idea of killing their lifeblood.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,275
4
6
10
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
10
--> @TheUnderdog
If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay)
That is not what a nationalist is. They are generally- but not necessarily- the polar opposite of that. They are, the vast majority of the time, reactionaries.

As in: "In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which that person believes possessed positive characteristics absent from contemporary society."
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,179
3
2
4
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
4
--> @TheUnderdog
This view is greatly distorted because mass shootings are a small portion of homicides, but the liberals don't care.
Liberals talk about gun violence in a general sense all the time. What are you talking about?

they are more upset about a mass shooting that kills 26 people than they are about traffic deaths that are responsible for 30,000 American deaths a year
Traffic deaths are accidents which occur as a result of our dependence as a society on transportation. Given how many people travel every single day, some level of casualties are inevitable. It’s a trade off we make to be able to live eventful and productive lives. Even then, vehicle safety is something we have been working on for decades and continue to make progress on every year.

Mass shootings are intentional and heinous acts which in many cases are entirely preventable but because of the right wing obsession with guns in this country we can’t do anything about.

These are not comparable issues.

With one party having no principles, and another party having principles that are partly based on emotion rather than reality, I think both parties are absolutely horrible.  It's time for DART members to break away from the democrat and republican parties.  The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.
Smugness and ignorance is a terrible combination. Not agreeing with someone else doesn’t mean they don’t think for themself, it might just mean you don’t know what you’re talking about.



Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 1,724
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @TheUnderdog
Their whole montra is, "Shall not be infringed" with guns.  Meaning they want to remove all gun restrictions.
Exactly. The rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are supposed to be inalienable. Why then would they indulge said rights being subject to infringement and restriction?

If undocumented immigrants don't pay taxes and the right wing approach was to replace the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax, then undocumented immigrants would pay the same amount of taxes as documented citizens.  Why doesn't the right support this policy?
Why would they? Sales taxes are consumption taxes which account for just a little over 10% of all tax revenue; and as far as capital gains taxes, undocumented immigrants cannot legally purchase or sell securities.

Because they cost a lot of money, so the government has to force you to give money to them to fight all these wars.  If theft isn't freedom, than neither is war because taxpayers have to pay for it without their inherit consent.
This is valid only with respect to governments waging wars.

Conservatives believe that abortion is an unjustified killing, but not murder.  Murder has to be illegal as a requirement to be murder.
No. Murder has description outside legal purview.

But should abortion be classified as murder? 
In and of itself--no.

If the starving person gets fed, then they are temporaraly safe from starvation.
Starvation is a physiological event resulting from lack of nutrition. It's not a subject of "safety." For example: antiperspirants keep me "safe" from body odor.

Trump's Endless Wars - CounterPunch.org states a bunch of wars Trump caused.  Granted, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Biden and Regean also caused horrible wars, but Trump is as bad as the other presidents for the most part on war.
There hasn't been a single War on that list that has been waged by Trump; cold and trade wars don't count.

Both these regions have low levels of homicide and the UK used to have a lot of guns. 
The reason I mentioned those two nations because immediately after their gun restrictions, violent crime and homicide skyrocketed. The U.K. was known as the world's Violence Capitol in the early 2000's. It turns out that people don't need guns to harm others.

I'm not saying implement gun control.  But if saftey is your value, you should support gun control.
This has not been substantiated, i.e. gun control = safety; hence, my earlier references.

Not inheritely.  Independents tend to come up with some sort of principle that partisan hacks don't abide by.  You don't have to agree with the left or the right all the time.
It's not just that. They take no real position; they just object to the policy implementations of conservatives or liberals, all while their proposed solutions--as scarce as they are--are still subject to the conservative-liberal binary.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,723
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @TheUnderdog
which is why I wish conservatives would drop the whole "small government" talking point and focus on social issues
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,977
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
which is why I wish conservatives would drop the whole "small government" talking point...

Last time they did that, Trump won the primaries without their consent.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,723
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Greyparrot
true
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,128
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
In my 57 years I have observed the following when it comes to liberalism and conservatism in govt politics. I would like to point out that living a liberal lifestyle or a conservatives lifestyle  is not the same as liberalism and conservatism govt. In govt, liberalism is really the only thing you have to choose from. Conservatism is just a dog and pony show to make people who live conservatively have representation in govt. Govt always sides with liberal policies and ideas. It never moves in any other direction.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,206
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
Now I think even the left is inconsistent with their anti pain ethos.  Otherwise, they would be theocrats as theocrats attempt to minimize pain by preventing people from burning in hell forever (which is way more painful than anything experienced on earth if God exists).
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,799
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @TheUnderdog
Solid analysis, the evil liberal leftists who know Hell is real are dooming us all to Hell by not blackmailing their citizens to believe in the conservative-backed religion.