Liberal or Conservative? Whos side are you on?

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

A government which has been given to much power is a dangerous thing. Already in this country our government has done more harm to our people and to the world than any in the past. This is because we have let them either step over their bounds or completely ignore what they are really doing.

Even if you get the most infallible, pure, and honest people in power, eventually some power hungry person is going to get the power and use it for bad. The only preventative measure we have against that is to never give those people the power.

It's a lost cause because we have already given our government to much power that they'll never give back because to many people require them to survive. We have probably gone past the point of no return and no good will come of it. I just hope I can live my life free from government interference.

magicalclick

When you limit the size of government you leave a power vaccuum that is quickly filled up with powerful multinational corporations. As strong economic power can be transformed into strong political power, that small government will quickly grow corrupt and the best way of fighting the powerful corporations will be gone. The corporations will use this to their advantage to further cement their control over the market and drive out competition.

This can be said from other side too. The more power the government is, the more incentive for rich man to use government as leverage. And this happened to quite many corrupted countries.

Which is why campaign finance reform is necessary to limit undue influences on government which might undermine good government as I think happens here in the US. Why point to "corrupt countries", why not to western europe or canada?

I somewhat ascribe to a modern day version of ordoliberalism.

"Ordoliberalism is a school of liberalism that emphasises the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential (see allocative efficiency). The theory was developed by German economists and legal scholars such as Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Hans Grossmann-Doerth and Leonhard Miksch from about 1930-1950. Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke (who spent the Nazi period in exile in Turkey) and Friedrich von Hayek are associated with this theory. Ordoliberal ideals (with modifications) drove the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder. The term was coined 1950 by Hero Moeller referring to the academic journal ORDO. The term is used by some in the German language as synonym for the term neoliberalism or as concretization to label the neoliberalism of the Freiburg School. However, ordoliberals promoted the concept of the social market economy, and this concept promotes a strong role for the state with respect to the market.

Ordoliberal theory holds that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition through measures that adhere to market principles. The concern is that, if the state does not take active measures to foster competition, firms with monopoly (or oligopoly) power will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine good government, since strong economic power can be transformed into political power. Quoting Stephen Padgett: "A central tenet of ordo-liberalism is a clearly defined division of labor in economic management, with specific responsibilities assigned to particular institutions. Monetary policy should be the responsibility of a central bank committed to monetary stability and low inflation, and insulated from political pressure by independent status. Fiscal policy—balancing tax revenue against government expenditure—is the domain of the government, whilst macro-economic policy is the preserve of employers and trade unions." The state should form an economical order instead of directing economical processes.

Wilhelm Röpke considered Ordoliberalism to be "liberal conservatism," against capitalism in his work Civitas Humana (A Humane Order of Society, 1944). Alexander Rüstow also has criticized laissez-faire capitalism in his work Das Versagen des Wirtschaftsliberalismus (The Failure of Economic Liberalism, 1950). The Ordoliberals thus separated themselves from ****cal liberalism."

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

Woah woah guys. I'm not saying for you guys to decide for me. I plan on picking which side of the political coin i want. I was just wondering where your beliefs lie.

Former_Slacker

You're British, are you not? Where ever you fall on your spectrum you'll be to the left of the US. :P

Topic title was a bit misleading :P I was gonna say if you were talking about registering to vote as a Liberal or Conservative then I would've been a bit confused, since they're more like ideologies instead of an actual party, lol

I'm not with the conservatives.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

This can be said from other side too. The more power the government is, the more incentive for rich man to use government as leverage. And this happened to quite many corrupted countries.

magicalclick

Which is why campaign finance reform is necessary to limit undue influences on government which might undermine good government as I think happens here in the US. Why point to "corrupt countries", why not to western europe or canada?

We are talking about failures, are we not? Although French is having major crisis right now, tons of strikes. I don't see that as a good example.

I believe in a restrained but strong state that regulates business to promote competition and fair play and that also provides for a social safety net for the well being of everyone. France isn't in a major crisis or even a crisis. If there isn't some group staging a protest or rioting in France then I would be surprised.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] I can't say I would've inferred that from your title and OP, but sorry. Anyway, I'm neither liberal or conservative. Dunno where I am ideologically at the minute.T_P_O

You're British, are you not? Where ever you fall on your spectrum you'll be to the left of the US. :P

The new labour leader seems to genuinely want to move the spectrum back to the left and turn away from "new labour" policies.

Woah woah guys. I'm not saying for you guys to decide for me. I plan on picking which side of the political coin i want. I was just wondering where your beliefs lie.

Capitan_Kid

I'm pro-life and I identify as a libertarian. The reason I don't identify as a conservative is best explained by Ayn Rand. It should be noted that Ayn Rand rejected the label of libertarian even though that's what best describes her. She considered libertarianism to be anarchistic, which is incorrect. She was also anti-fetus, which I profoundly disagree with, as I see life beginning from the moment at conception. Here is what Ayn Rand has to say about conservatism:

"There are three interrelated arguments used by today's "conservatives" to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith-the argument from tradition-the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many "conservatives" decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies-that one has no rational arguments to offer. The "conservatives'" claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith-that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the "conservatives" concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists' irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits . . . .

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word "conservative" into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a "conservative" means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old . . . .

The argument that we must respect "tradition" as such, respect it merely because it is a "tradition," means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them-with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man's self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man's nature are obvious.

This leads us to the third-and the worst-argument, used by some "conservatives": the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man's depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship-this theory asserts-believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man's goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom-that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships-this theory declares-and all the other disasters of the modern world are man's punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again-in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men's existence. "You can't change human nature," is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism-a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one's own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of "conservatism," do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists."

The new labour leader seems to genuinely want to move the spectrum back to the left and turn away from "new labour" policies.Former_Slacker

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Liberal, because the Conservative philosophy usually adds government to our lives.Pirate700

What?! I thought the whole idea of Conservatives was LESS government involvement?

No they are both bad in adding government.. i guess people forgot the Patriot Act.. A government building bill that was spearheaded by a republican congress and presidency.. Neither side is for less government in multiple areas.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

What?! I thought the whole idea of Conservatives was LESS government involvement?

sSubZerOo

No they are both bad in adding government.. i guess people forgot the Patriot Act.. A government building bill that was spearheaded by a republican congress and presidency.. Neither side is for less government in multiple areas.

Precisely. Talk about "getting government out of your life" is generally just talk.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

We are talking about failures, are we not? Although French is having major crisis right now, tons of strikes. I don't see that as a good example.

magicalclick

I believe in a restrained but strong state that regulates business to promote competition and fair play and that also provides for a social safety net for the well being of everyone. France isn't in a major crisis or even a crisis. If there isn't some group staging a protest or rioting in France then I would be surprised.

No oil and 2/3 of subway are not working. I would be in panic state already.

2/3s of the subway and no oil? Anyway how is this a failure of government?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]It does. He's...mistaken.

SgtKevali

No they are both bad in adding government.. i guess people forgot the Patriot Act.. A government building bill that was spearheaded by a republican congress and presidency.. Neither side is for less government in multiple areas.

Precisely. Talk about "getting government out of your life" is generally just talk.

Yeah this is coming from the side that was in favor of illegal wiretapping.. Being able to hold American citizens with out due process indefinitely, as well as torture.. To be frank when it comes to the argument, the hypocrites here are the Republicans.. They consistently make excuses in increasing government power or regulation with social issues claiming its for "security" reasons or other such things.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Liberal, because the Conservative philosophy usually adds government to our lives.Hemmaroids

No one wanted the bailouts. The fact that they happened shows a failure to regulate properly.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No they are both bad in adding government.. i guess people forgot the Patriot Act.. A government building bill that was spearheaded by a republican congress and presidency.. Neither side is for less government in multiple areas.

sSubZerOo

Precisely. Talk about "getting government out of your life" is generally just talk.

Yeah this is coming from the side that was in favor of illegal wiretapping.. Being able to hold American citizens with out due process indefinitely, as well as torture.. To be frank when it comes to the argument, the hypocrites here are the Republicans.. They consistently make excuses in increasing government power or regulation with social issues claiming its for "security" reasons or other such things.

Let's not forgot about "deficits don't matter."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Liberal, because the Conservative philosophy usually adds government to our lives.Capitan_Kid

What?! I thought the whole idea of Conservatives was LESS government involvement?

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

No oil and 2/3 of subway are not working. I would be in panic state already.

magicalclick

2/3s of the subway and no oil? Anyway how is this a failure of government?

I am saying it is not a good example. I never said it is a failure in the first place.

Not a good example of what? Government? How does this relate to that?

The subway and oil is due to workers on strike. How is that a failure of government?

social democratic, although as with everyone, there are certain parts of conservatism that make sense.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

I am saying it is not a good example. I never said it is a failure in the first place.

magicalclick

Not a good example of what? Government? How does this relate to that?

Huh? Your were talking about Canada and West Europe. I am saying West Eruope is not that a good example. I guess my assumption is that you are saying those two are good example, which never did. So, yeah, my bad.

Western Europe is not a good example of what? Strikes happen everywhere.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

Huh? Your were talking about Canada and West Europe. I am saying West Eruope is not that a good example. I guess my assumption is that you are saying those two are good example, which never did. So, yeah, my bad.

magicalclick

Of what? Strikes happen everywhere.

Ok, Ok, it is normal to have massive strikes. They are perfectly fine.

Sorry but what was your original point and how does that relate back to it? Western Europe is not a good example of what?

I'm a centrist.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

Ok, Ok, it is normal to have massive strikes. They are perfectly fine.

magicalclick

Sorry but what was your original point and how does that relate back to it? Western Europe is not a good example of what?

A good counter example of my "corrupted countries"?

How does a strike make france corrupt and how does what happens in france apply to the rest of western europe?

I'd say I'm more with the conservatives on 90% of the issues, however I tend to side with liberals when it comes to issues dealing with education funding.UT_Wrestler

So you can flip flop between each side?

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

A good counter example of my "corrupted countries"?

magicalclick

How does a strike make france corrupt and how does what happens in france apply to the rest of western europe?

I never said France is corrupted. This is just so odd.

I am saying they are not AAA, doesn't mean they FFF.

Oh. Eh, there's a saying that France would be a wonderful place to live if it weren't for the French. :P

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I'd say I'm more with the conservatives on 90% of the issues, however I tend to side with liberals when it comes to issues dealing with education funding.Capitan_Kid

So you can flip flop between each side?

:| The average person has a share of conservative and liberal ideas..

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I'd say I'm more with the conservatives on 90% of the issues, however I tend to side with liberals when it comes to issues dealing with education funding.Capitan_Kid

So you can flip flop between each side?

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Hemmaroids"] That's not how it works out. As for me, I'm an Independent. Some stuff I want the govenment involved (such as economic regulations) but don't want too much govt. involved (like bailing out companies, owning GM, etc).Hemmaroids

No one wanted the bailouts. The fact that they happened shows a failure to regulate properly.

As much as I dispise megacorporations and would like to finally see them fail the bailout was sadly needed. Too many people would have lost their jobs and it would have been disasterous, not to mention the effects of the major banks going down on everybody. I don't think the banking regulations that the Dems passed go far enough either.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Hemmaroids"] That's not how it works out. As for me, I'm an Independent. Some stuff I want the govenment involved (such as economic regulations) but don't want too much govt. involved (like bailing out companies, owning GM, etc).Hemmaroids

No one wanted the bailouts. The fact that they happened shows a failure to regulate properly.

........... These businesses weren't bailed out for their own benefit.. They were bailed out for the sake of millions that would have been affected.. If Michigan's economy during the time wasn't the worse in the nation, jobs were plentiful, and GM wasn't a key part of Detroit's economy.. Then it would have gone bankrupt, the government would not have helped.. When the economy is melting down around your ears, you do not do nothing.. Hoover did this, its why he is ranked lowly as a president..

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I'd say I'm more with the conservatives on 90% of the issues, however I tend to side with liberals when it comes to issues dealing with education funding.T_P_O

So you can flip flop between each side?

The fact that people do that and how much the media helps them to do it by telling them exactly what they want to hear contributes heavily to our polarization.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Liberal, because the Conservative philosophy usually adds government to our lives.Capitan_Kid

What?! I thought the whole idea of Conservatives was LESS government involvement?

Which is why whenever we have a thread about the government taking away citizen ship from "anchor babies", making gay marriage illegal, keeping DADT, and making abortion illegal, the conservatives are on the opposite side of those stances because those stances are obviously more government.

Liberal. To Americans I am no doubt a dirty socialist tree hugging hippy though.Ace6301

Yup :P Just kidding I am slighly more liberal than conservative. It seems to me that there are more liberals than conservatives on Gamespot. Maybe because of the average age of those who play games?

As for me, liberal. I think the only time I ever sided with conservatives on an issue was when I was against banning toys in happy meals.