Conflicting philosophies. Liberal VS Conservative IMHO.

[Darius11 12]

I often find my self fighting in my head.

Here is what I have determined and I would like your opinion on it.

A. It seems in a perfect world in my fantasy world where all people are equal and there are no evil men trying to hurt others. There are no insane people trying to force their views on the world. It is a happy place with logical, rational, intelligent people. In that world the liberal philosophies and ideas would be perfect.


B. In the other world. Mentally speaking we have not changed much from the tribe days. Not much different then any animal that lives in a group. The Alpha dominates. In this world there are people always ready to kick you of your thrown and take your things. They will try to take your place in anyway possible and defending your self out weighs all moral responsibility. Kill or be killed.
In that world it seems the conservative philosophy (minus all the religious influence) would be the right philosophy. You can not show tolerance or mercy to the ones trying to take your crown.


I believe we live in a world that is close to my description B but we all wish we lived in world A.

This is a conflict I have in my head.
I have prided my self on being a decent person IMHO. To not take or allow to be taken advantage of. To never be a victim and never victimize. I don’t fit in world A, or B but somewhere in between.

When I sit and analyze liberal and conservative philosophies I often find that distinction. I like the liberal ideas more often they seem fair and kinder, however do we live in a world where we can be kind and giving or do we live in a world where we must protect our own?

It is not black and white I go back and forth all the time.


Please note: My intention in this thread is not to insult liberals or conservative. It simply states the differences I have noticed. There are things that I can agree with and things I disagree with on both sides.




Where is the line that if we cross it we will be no different then the people we are trying to protect our selves from? Is there such a line or do all lines disappear when we are threatened?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[vortexring 0]

I think it all boils down to where you describe yourself as fitting into it all. Somewhere in between.

Humans, despite their best intentions will generally always fit somewhere in between. Unless of course they're Jesus or the Devil. Then they're not humans.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

My intention in this thread is not to insult liberals or conservative.

Unfortunately, a number of the regulars' SOP is making dishonest, insulting stereotypes of the other guys.

For some, it's rare that their don't include some such disparagement.

[lawrocket 3]

I don't believe that the philosopies conflict too much. Liberals believe that people are by their very nature good, unless they are people who do not believe what they believe, in which case they are stupid, evil, etc - unless their public statements indicate a good heart. Hence complete sell-outs to the ideals in their personal lives are considered to be lofty ideals if their public positions fit their mantra ("he has to pollute because he is doing so much good for the world").

Conservatives believe that people who do not believe what they believe are stupid, evil, etc., but those that agree with them are by their very nature good. However, conservatives will blacklist anyone - including their own - who sell out in their personal lives.

So I guess the difference is that liberals think all people are bad whose public positions differ from theirs, regardless of their personal life. Conservatives think all people are bad whose private lives are different from theirs.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,595]

But you're only touching on a tiny part of conservative vs liberal ideologies there. Looks like you're mostly considering foreign policy and domestic law and order.

I'd argue that for, say, financial policy the two would be reversed. In a perfect world where fiscal reward is perfectly proportional to effort and skill, where only those who don't want to work are unemployed, where everyone with a will can find a job that pays enough to support a family and where charitable foundations are able to support the destitute the a purely conservative, capitalist model would work very well. In the real world where rewards for the few at the top are obscenely out of proportion to the general work force, where not everyone willing to work can make a good enough living etc. etc. then some amount of liberal/ socialist policy is required.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

I think the difference is what people consider perfect in the concept of "perfect" world.

The very young and the very rich, in their perfect world, don't have to work and expect everything to be done for them - so the liberal vision makes sense to them.

The workers don't want to worry about more than themselves and their families, other people can care for their own families, they just want to make something and contribute in their own way - so in their perfect world, they don't want their resources stolen - so the conservative vision makes sense to them

there are those in the middle - they want to have a bunch of the workers and the successful around to pay for them and their friends to live the liberal vision (as long as the workers and the successful absolutely DON'T get to live that vision) - they are described as democrats and neo-cons

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Yea I know I did not cover much but I just wanted to throw out the idea.

Quote

In the real world where rewards for the few at the top are obscenely out of proportion to the general work force, where not everyone willing to work can make a good enough living etc. etc. then some amount of liberal/ socialist policy is required.

(arguing with you for the purpose of debate here)

Why do some people succeed and others do not?
Luck is something that’s out of our control, but once you factor luck out it has to do with making smart decisions and often working hard. Or at least having an ancestor who have worked hard so their children and future family don’t have to.

If you are born in to a poor family? Or made poor decisions that have lowered your standard of life for you or your children whose fault is that?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[AWL71 0]

Liberal and conservative views differ due to people's perception of right and wrong. The divide in IMHO is that everybody differs on what they consider right and wrong and hence opinions on the liberal/conservative divide are as numerous as the stars in the sky.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[JackC 0]

I reckon the liberal/conservative divide depends on where you live. For example, in the US the perfect example of a bleeding heart, commie pinko liberal would be Margaret Thatcher. Whereas in the UK, Bill Clinton would be considered to be somewhere to the right of Ghengis Kahn.

In my somewhat exagerated opinion of course

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

For example, in the US the perfect example of a bleeding heart, commie pinko liberal would be Margaret Thatcher.

Even accounting for exaggeration, that's still a horrible example.

Any way you cut it, Margaret Thatcher is a "real man".

Does anyone still eat quiche?