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.

 

Liberalism vs Conservatism. What it really means.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   


Liberalism = Personal freedom,Individualism,democracy,free markets,Rule of Law, Meritocracy(all success is based on merit/ability).

Conservatives = Want to conserve the status quo, move back to a previous state of affairs,upholding traditional principles.

Progressives = Wants to change the status quo, don't want to go back to a previous state, against or not advocating for traditional principles

Authoritarian = the state,person, or collective has a monopoly on power/force. Libido Dominandi. Might is right weak is wrong.

Libertarianism = A more pure form of liberalism. Against all centralized force/power.NAP. Against coercion. Against involuntary taxes.

Anarchism = an ideal version of libertarianism.
edit on 17-8-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: fixed text

edit on 17-8-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content




posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

We're making some progress in undoing the obfuscation and appropriation of the terminology.

Most people still don't know what liberal means.
edit on 17-8-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

1) Liberalism generally no longer exists. I WISH the Democratic Party was FULL of real Liberals!

2) Progressive and Authoritarian are one in the same. Simply add Wants to change the status quo, don't want to go back to a previous state, against or not advocating for traditional principles accomplishes these goals "by force of law, force of government, economic force, or social shaming" to FORCE COMPLIANCE! (or else)

3) Libertarianism - doesn't seem to exist anymore if you look at "what" they are running as their candidate.
edit on 17-8-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Liberal: Someone I disagree with. Label to be applied regardless of actual political ideology involved.

Conservative: Someone I disagree with. Label to be applied regardless of actual political ideology involved.

This is what I see when I read most debates in the American political threads.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I see your pushing the LP, an organization lousy with Birchers whose platform most election cycles adds up to "make America third world." Have fun with that.

As for the OP. This is a pretty useless endeavor to begin with as political labels are words that are among the most subject to semantic change and individual interpretation. That said, your "definitions" are frankly quite horrible imo.

Let's take a look at a few of the issues:

- Meritocracy has very little to do with liberalism.

- A better definition of a progressive would be one who seeks to guide progress through the application of science and technology to improve the human condition.

- How is "might is right" distinctly associated with authoritarianism? It's a general theme in numerous right-wing ideologies and philosophies.

- a "pure form of liberalism" lol. How about "the right-wing's answer to communism?" Similar to communists, libertarians try to model everything with heterodox economic axioms formulated through a disasterously flawed understanding of human behavior.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

bim.....bam......BOOM
Mightly said.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I think you should define the differences and similarities of Conservative vs. NeoConservative and Liberal vs. NeoLiberal. Maybe also Progressive and Regressive as well as Libertarian.

Definitely include NeoCon and NeoLiberal though because they are the latest versions to appear which are also causing most of the damage but are still being confused with the others.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

BTW, nice presentation. I would correct only one thing here that seems to be a vestige of our collectivist upbringing. That people left alone will form dominant organizations which will use force to establish and maintain monopolies. This is not so or, I vehemently believe that it is not so.

In a free market with some form of agreed upon optimal behavioral limitations (don't steal, murder, etc.) and the freedom to defend oneself, monopolies cannot effectively defend themselves against opposition from both their competitors and their customers. It takes the monopoly of violence of the state to establish such an impervious market position. This is what crony capitalism is, regulatory capture.

There are some exceptions to this general rule such as geographic monopolies (diamond, etc.). However, in order for monopolies to actually cause harm, they must be able to charge monopoly prices. Monopoly prices are the truer measure of the relatively uncompetitive state of affairs.

I am probably on the anarcho-capitalist scale for the purposes of this discussion though, in truth, I am a constitutional republican who usually finds it most convenient to introduce myself as a libertarian.




posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Liberalism vs Conservatism. What it really means one believes in playing somebody's game and choosing between ideologies that are just the two wings of the same brrd-of-prey.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
It's all about who writes and implements what kind of laws. Like, why would I want to be a conservative as a woman. Conservatives have written 1100 laws across the US since 2014 against women and their doctors. I don't know of any laws a liberal or democrat has written targeting just one gender. Now, if I were a gun, I would want to be a conservative. They gets lots of love.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Good point.

Nice reply.
A neo-liberal wants to use the state to coerce people into being moral or equal(both economically and socially).

A (classical)liberal wants the same equality and morality its just we don't use the initialization of force, and coercion to fulfill the same result.

Everyone should be progressing toward less and less government.


edit on 18-8-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: fixed text




top topics



 
3

log in

join