Picking Up in the Middle of the Argument...
 

This is off something I was arguing about in the Nationstates Forum a few minutes ago (the paleoconservatives thread), but its not letting me post, so I figured I'd post it here and see what you think....

Excellent.

It's not what I think, it's what I feel. Betrayal. You've been seeing another forum?:sniff:

edit: Oh, and to answer seriously, liberals think you should be able to do anything you want unless it has to do with gun ownership.

I have often seen the argument for enforced charity, or income redistribution, or socialism, that begins with the premise that "people suck".

Call it "anti-social socialism" -- it's common from what I have seen, and I don't understand it at all.

People suck, therefore it is right and proper for an elite government (that somehow does not suck, even though it is made of the same sucky people) to manage half their financial life. However, same government cannot legislate against saying "fuck" on the radio, because that's fascism.

Seems to me, people put to much stock in "conservative" and "liberal" as descriptions of where anyone stands on anything. Hell, you'd have trouble getting any three people to agree on what those terms imply. :lol:

Or the environment, or business, etc. etc. etc.

Libertarians are the only ones who try to fully embody the principle that everyone should be able to do anything they want. And they have their own unique set of flaws. You gotta get past the idea that any broadly-defined "side" can always be right, Ibram. Conservatives and Liberals don't truly exist, only a wide range of individuals who rail against them as the enemy.

Uh no I thought it was more like:
Liberals think you should be able to do whatever you want.
Conservatives think you should be able to do whatever you want - As long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights.

Is that what they say, or is that what they think?

Then what's the deal with the hatin' on the gays?

That quote has it backwards. The farther left a government moves, the more completely it controls the lives of its citizens (subjects? slaves?). Every government must legislate what people can and can't do, to some degree. (Whether an individual agrees with particular laws or the given reasons for them is another matter.) Even a libertarian government has to have some agreed rules on national and personal security. A conservative government adds additional rules regarding issues of mutual benefit, such as utility and transportation infrastructure, etc. It is the left-wing government that wants total control, wanting to tell people not only what they can and can't do, but what they can and can't think (thought crime exists in countries like Canada and Sweden).

Every socialist government despises people and thinks they have to be 'managed': 'you suck, so we, the Omniscient and All-Beneficent State, will manage your money/health/education/ideas/opinions/... for you'.

Isn't it strange that every truly socialist/communist government has disintegrated? Must be something to that free-market stuff after all. ;)

And also the farther right.

Communism only really 'works' effectively if it's worldwide. That is one of the things which make it highly unlikely to succeed, given the likelihood of getting all the world's countries to accomodate it. It's also one of the reasons that I don't think a truly 'communist' state has actually existed. There was a period of 'pre communism' in Russia during the early stages of the revolution, a rift already forming/formed between two entirely different approaches and visions. That was quickly followed by a distortion of the original goals and ideals. China, similarly operated along distorted lines as indeed have most(possibly all) systems claiming to be 'communist' or 'socialist'.

The fact is that communism and socialism exist in their pure form only in the realm of theory. Attempts to implement them have either been softened or distorted to the point that they no longer bear close relation to theory from which they were derived.

Oh, I don't know ... fascism can be seen as a variant of socialism. You have the same main criteria - centralized power, socioeconomic control, oppression through terror and censorship. I'm talking about moving to the right meaning progressively less and less government control of individuals. Fascism doesn't fall on the right in that scenario. Anarchy would. But then anarchy isn't a form of government at all, so it wouldn't be accurate to put it on the 'right' ...
:rolleyes:

And public expressions of Christianity (all other religious ok, Christianity bad), don't forget that one.

There really was more to socialism than those criteria and there were other distinctly unsocialist aspects of fascism.

That they shared some traits does not make them the same. Left and right often share characteristics; usually when the systems they inspire/institute are a response to similar economic or social problems and needs.