What makes a consevative a conservative?

[katmai]

Some wise man stated on the first or second page of this thread that like the word Liberal, the word Conservative has become so misused as to become meaningless.

God that guy was smart.

When did you piss off the brain is what i want to know?

[crazy canuck]

Some wise man stated on the first or second page of this thread that like the word Liberal, the word Conservative has become so misused as to become meaningless.

God that guy was smart.

When did you piss off the brain is what i want to know?

When I warned all the sheep farmers in the area.

[DGuller]

 

[Razgovory]

Well that was productive.  Christ, DG,  You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.

Yeah, but your arguments never end.  In this case, though, it looks like I drove my point home to Yi with my last reply.

Unless he tries "Times infinity cubed".

[DGuller]

Well that was productive.  Christ, DG,  You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.

Yeah, but your arguments never end.  In this case, though, it looks like I drove my point home to Yi with my last reply.

Unless he tries "Times infinity cubed".

Hey, don't give him any ideas.  Whose side are you on?

[Sheilbh]

I think conservative's got two big meanings.  One is a political ideology in the Anglophone world with heroes like Thatcher, Reagan and Howard.  The basic principles are roughly the same with some local differences: low taxes, small state and deregulation; law and order, family values and social conservatism; a 'strong', forward and pro-American foreign and defence policy. I think that that brand of conservatism may need to change, because it's not the 80s anymore.

The second meaning is more a sensibility. Which is about caution, tacking with the wind, trying to manage change to preserve institutions but being willing to change things radically to preserve what's valued from revolutionaries. I think you can have left or right-wing conservatives.  This is the sense that's meant in 'fiscal conservatism' or 'social conservatism'.  I think this is the Burkean strand, in much the same way that I don't think Mill is much use defining modern day liberalism like the Lib Dems, they both describe a conservative or a liberal approach to politics and to thinking.

Open question: what's the difference between classical liberal and libertarian?

Connection with reality.  Liberals support low taxes and minimal government in social and economic policy. They tend to oppose foreign adventures in favour of multilateralism which, anyway, they believe opens the world to more trade. 

Libertarians don't believe in a welfare state at all, would more or less decriminalise everything, are normally isolationist on foreign policy and get turned on by the gold standard.

[dps]

Well that was productive.  Christ, DG,  You get annoyed when I get in arguments with Yi.

Yeah, but your arguments never end.  In this case, though, it looks like I drove my point home to Yi with my last reply.

Unless he tries "Times infinity cubed".

Hey, don't give him any ideas.  Whose side are you on?

Raz is on Raz's side. 

[Admiral Yi]

Connection with reality.  Liberals support low taxes and minimal government in social and economic policy. They tend to oppose foreign adventures in favour of multilateralism which, anyway, they believe opens the world to more trade. 

Libertarians don't believe in a welfare state at all, would more or less decriminalise everything, are normally isolationist on foreign policy and get turned on by the gold standard.

How do you get that classical liberals support multilateralism?

And personally I think the connection between the gold standard and Libertarianism is an overemphasis on Ron Paul's ideological importance.

[DGuller]

And personally I think the connection between the gold standard and Libertarianism is an overemphasis on Ron Paul's ideological importance.

It seems pretty fundamental to me if you think through the ideology.  If you want to minimize the government's power over you, removing the government's power over the currency should probably be very high on your list of priorities.

[Sheilbh]

Most classical liberal parties in Europe do. I think modern liberalism is probably associated with elite multilateral groups like the 'neo-liberal' WTO, IMF and World Bank. Historically liberals were associated with conferences and congresses to avert costly war and manage a trading world.

In terms of numbers right now is there a more important libertarian than Ron Paul? I mean he's got millions interested in it.

[Admiral Yi]

Most classical liberal parties in Europe do. I think modern liberalism is probably associated with elite multilateral groups like the 'neo-liberal' WTO, IMF and World Bank. Historically liberals were associated with conferences and congresses to avert costly war and manage a trading world.

In terms of numbers right now is there a more important libertarian than Ron Paul? I mean he's got millions interested in it.

There are classical liberal parties in Europe? 

Ron Paul is obviously the best known self-pronounced libertarian in the world right now.  I'm just not ready to cede him Papal infallibility on doctrine.

[Sheilbh]

There are classical liberal parties in Europe? 

Of course.  The Orange Book part of the Lib Dems, the FDP, Venstre, VVD, Democrats 66 and the PD.  This is why many Europeans go on about how the Democrats aren't 'liberals'.  In Europe liberalism still means classical liberalism.

Ron Paul is obviously the best known self-pronounced libertarian in the world right now.  I'm just not ready to cede him Papal infallibility on doctrine.

I'm not saying he defines doctrine, but he seems to have been a relatively big figure in terms of inspiring people to vote or read up on it.  Looking up libertarianism and monetary policy it's apparently a very divisive issue for them (and has been for years) with battles between 'reformers' who don't object to fiat currency on principle and 'radicals' who do.

They are to liberals what the hard-left are to social democrats.  They've no interest in actually governing and are liable to interminable, self-indulgent civil wars over various implausible ideological points.  Liberalism's a strain of thought worth taking seriously, libertarianism's as teenage as the Socialist Worker's Party.

[Razgovory]

I thought Ron Paul was a Republican.  While he may lead, (that's not exactly the right word.  Represents is perhaps better) the libertarian wing of the GOP I think he is still a Republican.  There really aren't many well known libertarians leaders partly because they are fringe and partly because they subdivide into so many small factions.  I can only name one real libertarian politician and that's Bob Bar, who was once a Republican.  There is that guy in New Mexico but I can't remember his name.  Scip was keen on him and I think he ran for President as a Libertarian.

[MadImmortalMan]

I thought Ron Paul was a Republican.  While he may lead, (that's not exactly the right word.  Represents is perhaps better) the libertarian wing of the GOP I think he is still a Republican.  There really aren't many well known libertarians leaders partly because they are fringe and partly because they subdivide into so many small factions.  I can only name one real libertarian politician and that's Bob Bar, who was once a Republican.  There is that guy in New Mexico but I can't remember his name.  Scip was keen on him and I think he ran for President as a Libertarian.

Johnson? Even he is not a libertarian by the definition Shelf gave.

[Valmy]

In terms of numbers right now is there a more important libertarian than Ron Paul? I mean he's got millions interested in it.

Well Ron Paul is retired.  Whomever becomes the new leader (Justin Amash maybe?) may not necessarily also be a Gold Standard guy but opposition to Fed style central banking is unlikely to ever not be a central tenant.