'All are equal, but some are more equal than others"Follow

You're both still assuming that "religious" == "conservative" == "right wing".

A liberal movement can be based on religious ideals as much as they can be based on secular ones, or social ones, or environmental ones. What makes it "liberal" is that you are calling for radical change primarily based on a "the current system is bad" rather then a "the new thing is better" argument. The specifics aren't that relevant. They really aren't. It's the method that makes it a liberal movement, not the cause itself.

Yeah, you don't want to look at the details so much as make broad assumptions when defending your 'side'.

But don't ever made any broad assumption like "conservative" = "right wing" because then the specifics are the most important thing in the world

I've never equated right wing politics/governments with dictatorships. I've equated Totalitarian governments with dictatorships.

I've heard of left-wing totalitarian governments, and right-wing totalitarian governments.

Common features include banning any form of strikes or demonstrations, banning free press and media, banning opposition parties, banning criticism of the government, banning books on political grounds, and making people dissappear into prisons, labour camps or killing them, without any trial.

Totalitarian governments tend to force people into colluding with the government, or heavily risk becoming a victem of the government.

A government can be both totalitarian, and also provide a lot of social services, or redistribution of wealth. Governments can also be totalitarian, and at the same time have very little social services, and rely on "trickle-down" economics to take care of everyone.

Edited, Jun 4th 2007 3:45am by Aripyanfar

I do not know if I agree with everything stated in the link the above was cited from, but its was interesteing reading.

The arictle also links to Third Position ideas, which are supposed to be neither Left or Right but a third way, opposed to both communism and capitlism. Many Facists are stated therein as considering themselves Third Positionists, including Mussolini who originated the term Facism. Perhaps the answer to the issue raised by Jophiel is that ***** were neither Left nor Right, but Third Positionists.

Edited, Jun 5th 2007 2:35pm by fhrugby

"Most scholars" are also usually involved in revising history.

Well, not quite. First off, the four coners method doesn't really eliminate the "left/right" aspects. It just splits them into two components (social and economic) and relables left to "free" and right to "authoritarian".

IIRC, my main objection to the four corners system was that the method of measuring itself seemed miraculously designed to make the libertarian position look "the best" (highest freedom on the economic and social scales). I'm sure that was just a coincidence though... ;)



I really do honestly feel that most of the reason we have a hard time labeling folks like Hitler as Liberal (or even just leftist) is that most of those in the field of determining such things also define themselves as liberal and they don't want to be in the same company. Even that earlier quote shows this squemishness. "Most scholars" acknowledge that the process that gave him power was a left leaning one (socialist even), but they feel some need to add something about how once he took power somehow it became a "right wing" government.

Which is more important in terms of history? What pattern of actions result in something? Or a labeling of the result itself?


Let me call this the "crashed car fallacy". Where one attempts to look at the state of a car that has crashed and label that state as the dangerous state (crunched up on the side of the road with injured people inside), rather then what caused the crash (driving too fast while intoxicated). This fallacy leads people to believe that the actions leading up to something bad are separated from the bad thing itself. Thus, we can feel safe in our progressive liberal movements because somehow they aren't responsible for what results purely because, just as the guy speeding while drunk didn't intend to crash his car, they don't intend to end up in an autoritarian regime.

Hitler was a Liberal!?

I had to go and make some coffee and think about that for a bit.......

Just because his party was named the National Socialist Party, doesn't make him a Liberal.

Tho he may have risen to power on a wave of support from the workers who were protesting in response to the great depression, promising them all sorts of stuff, such as stronger unions, and increased wages/standard of living. all that was just a load o' empty promises, The minute he came to power the ***** ***** abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike.

Just because Adolf was a vegetarian, that doesnt make him a liberal.

He was a racist. he advocated eugenics, equality was a no-no, competition not co-operation, militarism, he was a dictator, a nationalist and on and on....

Just because GWB is a Republican, doesnt make him a 'conservative'. Wich is what confuses me most about the Bush supporters that are still openly supporting him. As far as 'conservatives' go, Bush is a pretty crap one. yet you are still supporting him.

Why?

Well, Von Ribbentrop and Molotov were the best of mates.....So there goes that theory....

Ah! wait a minute.....never trust a flippin' liberal.

Only someone as stupid as you could consider those exclusive options

I'll go with 'both' for $500

Not to be obvious, but you can't know what a leader will do with the power you've given him until *after* you've given it to him. At that point, it's too late.

You can however pay attention to the methods a leader or movement are using and act to prevent it from giving them that power in the first place. In fact that's the *only* way to prevent future Hitlers.


History is about looking at patterns and observing results. Saying "hey! A leader who uses his power to do bad things is bad" doesn't really tell us anything. Identifying what path that leader took to get himself into the position to have that much power *is* useful.


This particular topic is always amusing to me because it highlights the difference in thought between liberals and conservatives. A conservative assumes that if you put too much power in the hands of the government, eventually someone will come along and take that power and use it in ways that the people don't want. A liberal is fine with giving the government that power since it allows him to pursue the social-economic goals he believes are important. He's then shocked when a leader comes along and uses that power to pursue other social-economic goals that he doesn't like. And when that leader is particularly "bad", he simply avoids recognizing that it was his methods that granted power to that individual in the first place and labels him "right wing".


Strangly, the liberal never seems to notice or acknowledge that had *he* been more "right wing" that bad result might never have happened in the first place...

I don't understand your planet.

Was Ghandi a Conservative or a Liberal? Surely by your reckoning he had to be one or the other

Define "reduction of government" Joph? See. This is the problem that conservatives face. It's virtually impossible to remove a government program once created, so arguing that since Republicans didn't "reduce the government" they somehow aren't upholding their own beliefs is a false dilema fallacy.

The question you need to ask is: "How much bigger would our government be if we'd had a Democrat president and a Democrat congress during that same period of time?". I never said that Conservatives *never* increase the "size" of the government. You can bet that in any situation in which a Conservative leader would increase the government a Liberal leader would have increased it more (and have increased it in situations where a Conservative would not have).

That's a clever sounding counter Joph, but it's pure rhetoric.



No of course not. I'm not saying that either.

What I am saying is that if you've already given the government huge and direct power over health care, and employment, and industry, and housing, then it's 100 times easier for that guy using racial scapegoats and threats of enemies to "seize power" in the first place.

The masses respond in a very knee-jerk way to threats Joph. They can be swept up in a hysteria and do things that they'd never do if they were able to take their time and think things through. A society that has broken down the walls designed to prevent swift and broad domestic government action from occuring will find that same power being used against them someday. We should keep the government out of the business of direct domestic action at an individual basis exactly because that same power allows them to take other direct domestic actions *against* individuals if those in power desire it (and the population is sufficiently motivated to allow it).


It's about habits as well Joph. If your society gets into the habit of immediately turning to the government and empowering it (demanding it) to "fix" whatever the problem of the moment is, that society becomes very susceptible to the very tactic that Hitler used to take power. If the society instead works to fix its own problems only allowing the federal government to get involved grudgingly and with restrictions, it's vastly less likely to fall under an authoritarian regime.

Edited, Jun 6th 2007 6:20pm by gbaji

"Ah. But it's absolutely absurd to argue that dictatorships often arise as a result of popular liberal movements. Absurd I say!!!" --gbaji

RACK gbaji!

Sincerely,
Fidel Castro































Totem