Leftist and Conservative/Libertarian Ideologues

[The Real Hawkeye]

Many folks mistakenly place conservatism on the same level as leftism in the sense, they assert, that they are both mere ideologies. This is, however, a grave misunderstanding. Leftism is ideological in nature, because leftism is based on theories which started as dreams of a perfect world system, entirely originating in the mind of a particular theorist, or group of theorists. The ideologue then expends every effort in attempting to force real live people to live in this construct of the mind, entirely ignoring the realities of actual human nature, history, and tradition.

This is where the whole politically incorrect thing came from, i.e., something may or may not be actually correct, based on reality, but this fact is unimportant to the ideologue. All that matters to him is that a thing is politically correct, i.e., a fact either fits into his ideology or it does not. If it does not, it is to be stamped with the label politically incorrect and, to the extent possible, eliminated from public consciousness. You see, the ideologue liked the idea first, because it sounded good to him, and since the theorized results also seemed pleasant to him, he began in his life long quest to force reality, like a square peg into the proverbial round hole, to fit into it.

This is why we are all perplexed by the way leftists simply ignore observed facts related to firearms and their ownership in relation to crime statistics, for example. The reasonable person who has lived and breathed, as they say, knows that it's much better to have a gun than not to have one, if one's life is threatened. This seemingly obvious fact seems, however, elusive to the leftist.

This is where we get today's leftists and neocons, by the way; two sides, essentially, of the same coin, one finding a home in the Democrat Party, and the other in the Republican Party.

The OPPOSITE of this is realism. Conservatism and classical liberalism (also mainstream libertarianism) fall into this camp. The realist first makes careful observations about human nature, behavior, history, and tradition, and only then develops legal, economic and/or political theories based on said observations. The Founders, for example, were realists in this sense. Conservatism is, by long standing definition, in this, not the ideological, camp. Conservatives/libertarians/classical liberals, you might say, are all about human nature, traditions of human interaction, and history. So, to say the least, it would be factually incorrect to dismiss, as if all in the same boat, conservatives/libertarians/classical liberals on the one hand, and leftists/neocons on the other, as mere ideologues.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Well, my take on the thing is that folks start from whatever their philosophical axioms are, and that some axioms are more adaptive to reality than others.

To my mind, the fundamental red/blue split isn't about left or right, it's about Locke or Rousseau.

Locke came a generation before the American revolution, and is the philosophical father of our nation. The Declaration of Independence is almost pure Locke. Ditto the Constitution.

Coming from Locke, Sam Adams spake thus:

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

--

In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.

--

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

Rousseau, on the other hand, came a generation later, and is the philosophical father of both the French revolution, a major influence on modern educational theory, and the origin of thought upon which Marx built his mess.

Rousseau stated the social compact in terms that were similiar to Locke, but with some subtle, insidious differences, the main one being that one CAN and indeed HAS alienated his essentual natural rights unto society.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

To my mind, the fundamental red/blue split isn't about left or right, it's about Locke or Rousseau.

Yes, and another way to put it is that Locke, et al, were realists, as were the Founding Fathers and modern day conservatives/libertarians, while Rousseau, et al, were ideologues, as were Marx and Freud, and as are contemporary leftists and neocons.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Well, Hawkeye, your opinion is worth what it's worth, but is nothing but an opinion. From what I see, conservatives are very much prisoners of an ideology, that is that the Market is king. Only good can come from a "free" market, and therefore anything that the "free" market delivers is good. If that's not an ideology, I'd like to know what is. What it is certainly,demonstrably NOT is "realism." That is, if you define realism as having something to do with objective reality.

That is why conservative political correctness fails to recognize such instances (e.g. unsustainable use of resources) where it is actually incorrect to say that the market delivers the best solution.

Or, to point out the contradiction that geek pointed out, and to which you apparently concur, conservatism is based on an ideology that can be traced to Locke.

To believe either in the infallability of the Market or of its inherent evil is to be the prisoner of an ideology, and to therefore be subject to your own (usually unconscious) brand of political correctness.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Conservative/classical liberal/libertarian approaches to economics are based on observations of human nature, history, and traditions of human interaction, not the freewheeling mental imaginings of some iconic "genius." This is the point.

Furthermore, I stated quite clearly that I do not see Locke as an ideologue. His theories were grounded in his observations of human nature, etc. You may argue, if you like, that his observations were incorrect in one aspect of other, but you cannot reasonably argue that his theories were not based on said observations.

 

[Art Eatman]

"From what I see, conservatives are very much prisoners of an ideology, that is that the Market is king."

Sounds like you desperately need an optometrist.

The Market is nothing more than a giant collection of individual decisions. It is a reasonable generality that most of the time, interference with these decisions messes up the marketplace system. It's not that the Market is in any way a king; it is that it has been proven to be the best system for providing goods and services to the greatest number.

Where you're sadly mistaken, Malone, is in the idea that people of conservative bent somehow worship the Market. Nope. It's just sorta "there", functioning best with the least interference. Governmental utility can lie in working to create a level playing field, although history shows us that government is as corrupt in this effort as are those it would seek to restrain.

By and large, those who are small-c conservative are of the opinion that change should be for the better. "Better" is only proven by making haste rather slowly, with exploration for the unintended consequences which human nature brings about.

Art

 

[XD Fan]

Well-said, Art.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Conservative/classical liberal/libertarian approaches to economics are based on observations of human nature, history, and traditions of human interaction, not the freewheeling mental imaginings of some iconic "genius." This is the point.

Feh. You can say that all you want, but it's ideology plain and simple. Of course, everybody says that MY beliefs are based on objective reality, but it's just so much self-delusion. Try taking off the blinders.

The Market is nothing more than a giant collection of individual decisions. It is a reasonable generality that most of the time, interference with these decisions messes up the marketplace system. It's not that the Market is in any way a king; it is that it has been proven to be the best system for providing goods and services to the greatest number.

Of course. But the problem is that most conservatives see "providing goods and services to the greatest number" as the yardstick by which an economic system should be judged. (Actually most communists believed the same, they just stupidly believed that a controlled Market would do the job better.) The problems with Capitalism arise when you recognize that there other needs of society, like clean air and water, widespread health care, etc., that an unregulated Market will not deliver.

Where you're sadly mistaken, Malone, is in the idea that people of conservative bent somehow worship the Market. Nope. It's just sorta "there", functioning best with the least interference. Governmental utility can lie in working to create a level playing field, although history shows us that government is as corrupt in this effort as are those it would seek to restrain.

By and large, those who are small-c conservative are of the opinion that change should be for the better. "Better" is only proven by making haste rather slowly, with exploration for the unintended consequences which human nature brings about.

I don't mind erring on the side of caution when making changes, but that's not quite the same as most conservatives having a knee-jerk reaction to any form of government regulation. It also doesn't help when any ideology believes that their views come from some pure, unfettered look at human nature, and not what they really are.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Feh. You can say that all you want, but it's ideology plain and simple. Of course, everybody says that MY beliefs are based on objective reality, but it's just so much self-delusion. Try taking off the blinders.

Try making a real argument, rather than spouting platitudes.

 

[roo_ster]

The problems with Capitalism arise when you recognize that there other needs of society, like clean air and water, widespread health care, etc., that an unregulated Market will not deliver.

Pretty much all measures of environmental goodness are better in countries with free-er rather than less-free market economies. Same with health care. See the world's 80 year long dalliance with marxist economics for examples of the worst environmental catastophes imaginable.

Folks don't give a rat's azz about NOx levels in the air or if the variagated snail-humper is endagered when their material state does not allow them to purchase mobility, decent health care, etc. Only after all needs & lots of wants (of most folks) are satisfied can one get a consensus to spend money & thought on environmental goodies. The more the Visible Foot stomps on the neck of the market, the longer it takes to build such a consensus.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The problems with Capitalism arise when you recognize that there other needs of society, like clean air and water, widespread health care, etc., that an unregulated Market will not deliver.

Perfect example of a politically correct, though factually false, statement. Human nature being what it is, government regulation will invariably be corrupted by human greed. The more centralized said regulation, the more rapid will be its descent into said corruption.

Secondly, if information is unfettered, free markets ultimately lead to cleaner air and water, not to mention widespread and inexpensive healthcare. As to the former, private organizations of environmentally conscious (read self-interested) individuals will spell out the connections for the public between 1) those companies which pollute the environment and 2) the degradation of our quality of life. People will then make self-interested decisions with regard to which products they buy. No one wants to live in, or have their grandchildren live in, a polluted environment.

We, in fact, see this process taking place in the United States, while we do not see it in communist nations that share your world view. Such nations tend to be pig sties.

As for the latter point about wide spread health care, regulation of medicine tends to increase costs (both to society as a whole, and to the individual), making health care services more difficult for the individual to acquire. When there was essentially no government regulation of medical care and drugs, they were all very cheap and widely available. Doctors would even come to your house when you were sick. I don't think it is I, therefore, who needs to have his blinders removed.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Try making a real argument, rather than spouting platitudes.

That's real funny, coming from someone who started a thread with a crock of platitudes.

Pretty much all measures of environmental goodness are better in countries with free-er rather than less-free market economies. Same with health care. See the world's 80 year long dalliance with marxist economics for examples of the worst environmental catastophes imaginable.

This is why it's so hard to have an intelligent conversation around here. Not that the posters are unintelligent, but that their "politically correct" blinders disable them from seeing any critique of unfettered markets as anything other than advocacy of communism.

The US became, arguably, a "less-free" market economy after the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act were signed in the '70s. Before that time, cities and industries routinely dumped untreated sewage and industrial wastes in water bodies and the air. It was not because of people's material state or mobility that things improved. It was because of gubbmint regalation and a healthy dose of gubbmint aid. This is factually correct, it just isn't PC for knee-jerk conservatives.

We, in fact, see this process taking place in the United States, while we do not see it in communist nations that share your world view.

It would better if you had a clue about my world view if you're going to comment on it.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's real funny, coming from someone who started a thread with a crock of platitudes.

Assertions supported by observed facts and reasoned arguments do not constitute platitudes.

 

[longrifleman]

Before that time, cities and industries routinely dumped untreated sewage and industrial wastes in water bodies and the air. It was not because of people's material state or mobility that things improved. It was because of gubbmint regalation and a healthy dose of gubbmint aid.

There has never been any contradiction between libertarian philosophy and a desire for a clean environment. We live on this planet too. The debate has always been about methods. Polluting your neighbor's stuff is a pretty clear assault on his property rights and a violation of the non-aggression principle.

It's always amused me to watch the implementation of all our wonderful enviro laws. I get to watch some of them up very close. The industries with the most political clout (see campaign contrubitions) always seem to get favorable rules passed. The aggreived parties to most pollution rarely get reimbursed for the damage directly from any fines. The govt keeps that money and you get to hire a lawyer. Amazing how the lawyers always come out with the most $$$.

I would have to respectfully strongly disagree about a people's interest in the future of the environment not being tied to their level of overall wealth. When you aren't sure where your next meal is coming from, your only interest in the snail darter is "where can I get a mess, and how do you clean 'em?".

As for your aid, can you say "vote buying"?

The more I watch our govt in action, the less respect I have for it. That is why I'm for as small a govt as possible. The smaller it is, the less opportunity for corruption. There is some of that recognition of human nature for ya.

As for a conservative philosophy, I'm not sure what that is anymore. As best I can tell, most modern conservatives just want socialism implemented slowly.

 

[junyo]

The OPPOSITE of this is realism. Conservatism and classical liberalism (also mainstream libertarianism) fall into this camp. The realist first makes careful observations about human nature, behavior, history, and tradition, and only then develops legal, economic and/or political theories based on said observations.

I think all political philosophies hold certain assumptions as constants and the danger of any "ism" is that there are relatively few universal constants, therefore an idealogy that may be right 95% of the time fails the 5% of the times when it's core assumptions are false or nonapplicable. Conservatism makes the assumption that because it worked in the past it will work now and in the future. Classical liberalism makes the assumption that greater freedom of action makes people more likely to be productive. Libertarianism makes the assumption that people will act in their own best interests. Socialism/Progressivism is based largely on the utilitarian viewpoint of classical liberalism, the assumption that freedom under law is worthless without the means to exercise it. It's no more or less idealistic than the others. These, of course, are boiled down to one liners and there are more or less sophisticated arguments and exceptions that allow the supporters of an idealogy to compensate for or gloss over the shortcomings of their philosophy. And there's the question of how a philosophy is implemented. I personally find that a lot of libertarians are just as disconnected from "observations about human nature, behavior, history, and tradition" as leftists, but rarely can see it. In the end it's about the validity of your core assumptions and your recognition of the flaws/exceptions.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

As for a conservative philosophy, I'm not sure what that is anymore. As best I can tell, most modern conservatives just want socialism implemented slowly.

You are making a common error. Neoconservatives (who insist on confusing us by publicly referring to themselves as conservatives) will, in order to obtain Republican nominations, pay lip service to authentic conservative economic concerns and preferences while, once having been elected, gradually implementing into domestic policy the solutions recommended by the left. Remember, neocons are ideologues, kissing cousins to the leftists. They themselves are only partially reformed Trotskyites, so their preference for socialist solutions is understandable.

Have you ever heard of parasitic birds? There are many such species. They rarely if ever raise their own young. What they do is fly from nest to nest of other species, pushing out the eggs that are in them and laying their own in their stead. The bird whose eggs were destroyed will then raise the parasitic bird's offspring, keeping them warm and gathering food for them to grow fat and healthy. If their foster mother managed to keep any of her own eggs, the hatchlings are pushed out to their deaths by the parasitic changlings as soon as they are strong enough. This is analogous to what the neocons have pulled off in the last 30 or 40 years visa vis the once vibrant conservative movement. They publicly take the name conservative, and thus reap the benefits and support people mean to extend to authentic conservatives, thereby putting themselves into office. In the minds of the less astute, the word conservative has gradually, in fact, come to mean someone who runs as a conservative but governs as a gradualist socialist. This is not a conservative. This is a parasite.

 

[thirty-thirty]

Although I'll be the first to point out that free-market economies/political systems are better than socialist/Marxist/communist ones, we need to be warned not to pledge our loyalty to political ideologies.
"Capitalism" and "free markets" are not the clear-cut concepts they appear. If we define exactly what is free about them we can see that the idea is not so simple. Corporations, antitrust and monopolies cloud these issues considerably.
Though I consider myself to be a conservative/libertarian/nationalist, I longer consider myself to be a republican. I have no representation in any of the political parties. I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

The two things I hated most about the left is their eagerness to spend money that wasn't theirs and take away our Constitutional rights and privacy while using the Constitution for toilet paper.
By those standards, G.W.Bush is the worst liberal we've had since LBJ.

Left and right don't mean anything anymore.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Right and left don't mean anything anymore.

Right and left mean what they've always meant, i.e., a rightist is one who opposes using the power of centralized government to experimentally foist onto the people societal alterations, while a leftist is someone who favors this. Unfortunately there are plenty of politicians who publicly identify themselves with the right, who are actually of the left. The fact that there are lots of lying politicians out there, however, doesn't make the meaning of words change. Right hasn't become left. The fact that leftist Republicans have to pretend to be of the right to get elected to office is actually a good sign that there are still lots of Americans on the right. Americans have just got to get better at sniffing out the parasitic leftist Republicans.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Human nature being what it is, government regulation will invariably be corrupted by human greed. The more centralized said regulation, the more rapid will be its descent into said corruption.

How is this any different from the centralized control and corrupting human greed that drive the oligarchies/corporations?

 

[telomerase]

Remember that for most people "conservative" means Bushism (aka record budget deficits, cronyism, record expansion of government programs, destruction of personal freedoms... in other words, what we would call "Socialism"). Most people don't have a word for "libertarian" or "classical liberal" or whatever you want to call the majority view on THR.

I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

The Democratic Party left its supporters too, it used to be the pro-free trade, anti-big government party.

Of course that was under Andrew Jackson

 

[.38 Special]

A few needlepoints:

I know at least one libertarian who objects being lumped in with conservatives.

Everyone who has a political POV believes his is the obvious logical conclusion and that anyone who disagrees needs to "remove the blinders".

And "a rightist is one who opposes using the power of centralized government to experimentally foist onto the people societal alterations, while a leftist is someone who favors this" is comically misguided.

Thanks for letting me share.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

How is this any different from the centralized control and corrupting human greed that drive the oligarchies/corporations?

Corporations don't have the power to impose tyranny that a large and central government does. Corporate greed will usually give expression in the form of producing a better product or hiring the best advertisement agency for their product. When it becomes criminal, we have laws for dealing with that, assuming they haven't bought off too many police chiefs and Senators.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And "a rightist is one who opposes using the power of centralized government to experimentally foist onto the people societal alterations, while a leftist is someone who favors this" is comically misguided.

Please explain. Are you saying that leftist do not wish to use the power of central government to make experimental alterations to our society?

 

[thirty-thirty]

Corporate greed will usually give expression in the form of producing a better product or hiring the best advertisement agency for your product.

Unfortunately many if not most of the leaders of international corporations are the very ones who are members of the CFR and organizations like that. There are other motives at work than just greed. Mass media is NOT just about profits. Power, wealth and influence are interchangeable. Liberals squeak "follow the money" while conservatives moan about government, but in reality it's behind the scenes big money, big media and big government working together as a single unit. Say hello to the New World Order.

 

[.38 Special]

Please explain.

The right wing has been perfectly willing to legislate our personal lives for as long as any of us have been alive. Drug laws, abortion laws, sex laws, censorship, etc. Frankly, attempting to legislate personal "morality" -- i.e. "societal alterations" -- is a hallmark of the right.