It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Conservatives Are Liberal Next To Libertarians

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


I had put up a thread a while back in an attempt to clarify and disabuse people from the common perception of the political spectrum.

Circular Thinking - Graphic Analogs of the Political Spectrum - An Ideology Refresher

Yes, libertarians are socially liberal. In fact, libertarians are liberal. Which is to say that they do not believe that government should criminalize non criminal behavior or have economically interventionist policies, they believe in free market capitalism. That is what it used to actually mean less than a century ago.

Conservatism is just too relative a moniker to take seriously as the context completely changes the definition.

Those who consider themselves conservative or liberal in the modern popular definitions are socialist. That is, they want government to intervene in society in one way or another.
edit on 2-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Skyfloating



I'm stealing that, Sky. Seriously, I'm holding a stack of yellow post-its and will start pre-writing those as soon as I hit "reply". extra DIV



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Wouldn't the (conservative) term be more "classical liberal"?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 





Do we need gov? Yes,


Obviously I am going to disagree. I think we need government like we need another hole in our heads.




I just feel extreme viewpoints are harbored in the black and white perspective. -


I don't because that is why the US constitution was created for and the systems of checks, and balances was created.




I am not here to fight, that's for sure, I am just trying to learn and find middle ground for many of us. Guess I can't expect to find it everywhere though -


Neither am I I hate arguing for the record.

The middle ground is the constitution.

Picking when it applies, and when it doesn't is what is creating those shades of grey.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

So you do think we can operate with zero gov? How can that be? I am down if it can be done without causing more mayhem, but I think we need it for some things. That is another discussion though. And looking back at this op I see I mixed a couple of issues trying to make a point. It is the flexibility and limitations of labels that contribute to a circular logic, and the gist that we have to chose one and one only makes it tough becasue issues often spill beyond the limits of one party, and the definition of the parties keeps evolving.

I personally want find out how folks arrive at their conclusions, then make a decision, rather than seeing left or right an deciding to limit my own perspective.


The middle ground is the constitution.


But we still have to deal with the contemporary aspect of our growth, industrialization and international trading(I am against the trading part) since the constitution was written.
edit on 2-4-2014 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 






So you do think we can operate with zero gov? How can that be?


Mankind got along for centuries before the US government ever came along.





I personally want find out how folks arrive at their conclusions, then make a decision, rather than seeing left or right an deciding to limit my own perspective


There is no singular path for that. People are the sum total of their experiences. That lead them to go one way or the other.

Since most people do not have the same experiences they will come up with different answers.

In the op's case either right or left.

Democrat of Republican.

Reality versus idealism.

Reality wins every time.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
People call me a liberal but im not sure if i really am.

I am againts abortion, but i am not a doctor or a women so my say is only an opinion.

I am not found of guns but again its not for me to decide what people need or want

I am for a strong military but againts war if that makes any sense

I am for social programs to a certain point

I am againts religion in goverment

I am for a smaller government

I am not againts paying taxes to help my fellow man

I am for isolationist hate it when my goverment points fingers and tells people how to live there lives

Can anyone tell me where i stand on the political spectrum



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I think you sound exactly like a Libertarian!


dukeofjive696969
People call me a liberal but im not sure if i really am.

I am againts abortion, but i am not a doctor or a women so my say is only an opinion.


Yep. I am against it too, except where it is absolutely medically necessary, but it isn't my decision to make for someone else. I would certainly use my powers of persuasion for a direct family member, but for a stranger, I would only offer my condolences and support of whatever decision they might make.


I am not found of guns but again its not for me to decide what people need or want


I happen to LOVE guns, but I certainly don't want folks who don't like them to be out wielding them around dangerously. I also, despite my Libertarian leaning, am not a fan of open carry. The people I have met who choose to open carry are usually out to prove a point and have a certain amount of ego problem. I believe open carry makes you the first target and escalates otherwise mundane situations. Folks who choose to carry, should have every right to do so, and should do it concealed. This includes cops. I don't like the tension that cops create when they walk in to buy a donut.


I am for a strong military but againts war if that makes any sense


The point of a strong military is to prevent war. Makes perfect sense. However, when you plant that military on everyone's backdoor, it is the same as the gun on the fat cops hip. It is a bully move, and it escalates tension. Strong military, but they should stay home.


I am for social programs to a certain point


History has shown that a civilized society should take care of its weaker and elderly elements. It should be done through family members, churches, job training, strong economy, strong education, and strong healthcare. Social programs are important, but they should not be a career choice.


I am againts religion in goverment


Perfectly Libertarian stance. I'm a religious man, but I don't run around shoving it down folks throats, and I don't want any specific religion being the basis of political decisions. I stray a bit here from the Libertarian leaning. I do think a man should have a religion. I don't care which one. I don't care if it even has a name, but they should stand for something, have a strong moral backbone, and believe there is more to life than the physical and carnal realm.


I am for a smaller government


No brainer. As small as possible, and then just a little bit smaller than that!


I am not againts paying taxes to help my fellow man


I'm afraid I disagree somewhat here. I'm not against paying or helping my fellow man, but the government is the worst way to distribute it. The only thing worse than government might be United Way or Goodwill, LOL! Helping your fellow man is charity, not a tax. Support a cause, support a church, volunteer somewhere, mow a ditch, or sweep a sidewalk, do whatever your skills allow you to do, but don't pay charity to the government.


I am for isolationist hate it when my goverment points fingers and tells people how to live there lives


Yep.


Can anyone tell me where i stand on the political spectrum


Unfortunately, you are not on the political spectrum. You are on the common sense, personal responsibility, Libertarian spectrum, but it has almost no presence whatsoever in politics. Politics is about big government, big smiles, big hats, nice suits, and patting each other on the back. Too bad though, because all of those beliefs would make a GREAT political platform.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 






So you do think we can operate with zero gov? How can that be?


Mankind got along for centuries before the US government ever came along.





There's where your logic breaks down and fails miserably. There has always been some kind of government, class structure, religion or other controlling entity. And it didn't always "get along"

If it's anarchy you want..you wouldn't last very long.




Reality wins every time.


At least you got that right!
edit on 2-4-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

olaru12
There's where your logic breaks down and fails miserably. There has always been some kind of government, class structure, religion or other controlling entity. And it didn't always "get along"

If it's anarchy you want..you wouldn't last very long.


...you seem to be of the mindset that government starts and stops on the national level. Ever hear of state & local government? See as many folks complaining as much about there state government as they do about the federal government?

This is a broken mindset the US has become mired in. The feds have defied the 10th amendment and have hijacked the spirit of the supremacy clause thanks to their bought and paid for federal judges. If the system were not broken, we'd see a fraction of our laws living at the federal level and the majority of our laws residing at the state level. Instead we see utter nonsense like the feds threatening states for passing legalization laws related to grass, threatening states for actually enforcing laws related to illegal immigration, and steamrolling states into compliance with federal laws for crap like the ACA, which isn't even remotely a power granted to the feds by the Constitution in the first place.

The nation is jacked up beyond all recognition, so one can easily see that it is time for the nation to step aside and give the individual states a shot at straightening things out.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



...you seem to be of the mindset that government starts and stops on the national level. Ever hear of state & local government? See as many folks complaining as much about there state government as they do about the federal government?

This makes sense, but would be a huge transition and I am not sure a state could manage itself without the funding from the feds. I am not well versed in this area though, so I am just speculating. It sounds sad and I would like to believe otherwise, but do you think states(majority of voters) would vote to ban the fed gov? That would be some news there! Heck it is becoming a more appealing option but I do wonder how intertwined states dependency on gov is.

ETA: Was curious what the main programs states use fed money for.

Public welfare
Health care
Highways
Police and fire protection
Interest on debt
Utilities and liquor stores

www.ushistory.org...

So yea, I can see a state stepping up to handle these I suppose. 2 not mentioned are education and military.
I just suspect lack of funding would send a withdrawn state spinning in a downward spiral. I wonder also about major natural disaster and the funding required to recover.
edit on 2-4-2014 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

olaru12
There's where your logic breaks down and fails miserably. There has always been some kind of government, class structure, religion or other controlling entity. And it didn't always "get along"

If it's anarchy you want..you wouldn't last very long.


...you seem to be of the mindset that government starts and stops on the national level. Ever hear of state & local government? See as many folks complaining as much about there state government as they do about the federal government?



Your moderator arrogance has no idea of my mindset. And of course I have heard of a state and local government as I am involved in both. Why the snarky insulting tone??? And if you had of read my previous posts you would also know I worked for Gov Gary Johnson in his bid for the WH.

At least I'm working to improve things locally as I feel completely impotent on a federal level even though i'm still involved. I'm all for giving the states more power but your agenda and ideology is showing with your insults of anyone that has a differing opinion.
edit on 2-4-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Poor guy didn't know what was coming at him. He might not realize it now but Adam did him a solid in opening his eyes and to force him to think by himself instead of regurgitating what is spoon fed to him.

Any conservative that is happy with what the GOP has been pumping out is not an educated conservative but a spoon fed conservative.

Props to the guy for keeping a cool attitude despite being slowy chopped bit by bit. I think he might have it in him to question what he has been fed after that interview.




edit on 28430America/ChicagoWed, 02 Apr 2014 21:28:00 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Over time the parties slowly move leftwards because government is constantly growing. I would say a lot of Republicans are actually left leaning, they just don't want to admit it.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 



Props to the guy for keeping a cool attitude despite being slowy chopped bit by bit. I think he might have it in him to question what he has been fed after that interview.

Indeed, it is a good illustration of the gray areas and how having such a staunch stance in one side can be impractical and unrealistic, imho. That goes for all sides. Another reason to have multiple sources for cross referencing, and not just 'spoon fed' the loudmouths from one side or another.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

dukeofjive696969
I am againts abortion, but i am not a doctor or a women so my say is only an opinion.


I am a woman, but I view that as something of a cop out. My own husband was born around the time of the Roe v. Wade decision to an unwed 16-year-old who gave him up for adoption. Does he not have something to say about what might have happened to him?

As for me, I look at this differently than you. While I do not necessarily say that life begins at conception, I do say that it is self-evident (or should be) to all but the most willfully oblivious that at some point there is a human being inside the mother. Babies can expect a chance of survival outside the mother as early as 21 weeks with medical support, and medical science cannot definitively say when life and awareness begins.

At some point, they have a right to life. The same basic inalienable right their own mother has. So, why do we allow her to deny a child that right based on her own convenience which is really what the choice is in almost every circumstance?

So, to me, the debate isn't about dictating the choices of one human so much as it is about finding the balance between the rights of two individuals - mother and child.


I am not found of guns but again its not for me to decide what people need or want


You don't have to like or dislike guns or any other weapon to acknowledge the a person has the inalienable right to defend his or her person and other basic rights from any and all comers and institutions which is really at the root of the gun debate.


I am for a strong military but againts war if that makes any sense


If you want peace, prepare for war. It's a simple premise, and I think you will find that there really are very few people who actually do want war. It's just that we all have a different threshold of when and where war may or may not be necessary.


I am for social programs to a certain point


Again, you will find that most people are not against the idea of aid to those who truly cannot do for themselves, but again, that definition has been expanded out of all proportion to the reality of what it should mean. These days, I know of people who are simply missing a toe who claim they cannot do for themselves. Why are they entitled to be supported by other people I know of who are likewise missing a toe and don't need to be supported?


I am againts religion in government


This is a poor definition. Look at what I said about abortion above. Understand that I said nothing at all about religion in that statement. I made statement based on my understanding of basic inalienable rights as we all, human beings have them. I have made that same argument in a myriad of places. In many places, people who use this same line as you quoted above, immediately attack me on religious grounds. "Keep your religion out of government!"

Either they have a very much looser definition of what composes religion in government than I do (i.e. simply making an argument they don't like is religion, particularly if religious folks are likely to agree with me) or they know I am a person of faith or both, but however it happens, there are plenty of people who will use the religion card in any way they can to attempt to invalidate any argument from an opponent when they'd rather not tackle it intellectually.

Abortion is just one of the easier places to point it out.

For what it's worth, it is impossible to separate religion from government to the degree many claim they want. A person's faith informs their life in many ways including their day to day decisions. Asking them to not vote their religion is like asking someone to just walk away from basic morality and use another paradigm when they make decisions. Yes, religion shapes you that deeply. And no, I don't think it's a good idea to preclude the religious from holding office as there is no evidence that the irreligious are any more or less apt to make "right" decisions.

So long as they aren't attempting to vote in state religion, let them be.


I am for a smaller government


I am for the bare minimum government.


I am not againts paying taxes to help my fellow man


I am when the other man long ago realized he could vote for politicians who buy his vote using my tax dollar financed handouts ... at all levels.


I am for isolationist hate it when my goverment points fingers and tells people how to live there lives


Isolationism was fine in the days before China's pollution could float across the ocean to California along with Fukushima's radiation and even a limited nuclear exchange elsewhere in the world would poison the rest of us. These days, toys are big enough to mess up everyone else, so why shouldn't we (and everyone else) stick our noses in to some degree?


Can anyone tell me where i stand on the political spectrum


I don't know for sure, but there are quizzes online that could help you get a better idea.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Cheers to your husband!



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I don't like those words, people use them and don't know what they mean.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   

lotusfoot
I don't like those words, people use them and don't know what they mean.


Okay, so words bad, got it. Were there any words in particular that made you upset?



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   

lotusfoot
I don't like those words, people use them and don't know what they mean.


well ?

what do those words mean then ?




new topics

top topics


active topics

 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join