I have alot to learn

[CaptainBubba]

I don't claim to be politically savy, nor do I ever plan to, but it seems like there is a very large and obvious logical inconsistency in the world of politics.

Up until about 2 days ago I still hadn't come to a clear conclusion on just what the difference between Liberals and Conservatives was, because both support a strong government. Apparently people place such faith in an institution based on coercion that they honestly think there is a distinction between various forms and exmaples of coerced cooperation.

If I am seriously (that means if I am so off base that it is simply ridiculous) flawed in the following statements then feel free to correct me:

Liberals: Believe that the government should control your money, not your personal life.

Conservatives: Believe that the government shoudl control your life, not your personal income.

What I fail to understand is how one comes to such a conclusion. Where do you draw the line in deciding how much control an institution based on threatened force should be able to have over you. If the government should control your personal decisions then why not your spending? If they should control your income (keep in mind by forceable coercion) then why not your life?

From my very young and admittedly ignorant mind it seems that there are only two forms of political ideology.

Those who believe that the government should hold only enough power to allow citizens to live freely as they choose.

Those who believe that the government should be totalitarian. (Theocracy in the case on many conservatives I've heard voicing their views)

The flaw I think, is that too many trust that the government is willing to make distinctions like, "ok, well obviously we can't coerce them into obeying us this way, but so and so way is still ok." Since when was that realistic? This is not a rhetorical question. When did that become realistic? Keep in mind I am not very intelligent.

[El Blanco]

Actually, a true conservative believes in smaller government and strict interpretation of the constitution. Thats why Bush is called a moderate. True conservatives don't believe in corporate welfare and farm subsidies and all that other crap. They are almost Libretarians. The problem there is it leaves people hanging a lot.

Liberals believe in having a government that assists people in every problem. The problem with that is that it puts the government in more control of your life.

[VinceZeb]

If you want the best balance in life. Be a fiscal conservative and social libertarian.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Liberals believe in having a government that assists people in every problem. The problem with that is that it puts the government in more control of your life.

Well, this isn't classically what liberals believe, nor is it really what most Liberals believe, but I digress. Liberals of FDR's ilk do believe more so in welfarism, but if you ask someone like my grandmother who lived through the depression, although she's a conservative, she certainly didn't then mind the government "controlling her life," or whatever (btw, are people in Sweden, France, and Germany really controlled by the state???).

CB, your best best is to avoid titles, avoid labels, and avoid ideology. "Classical liberals," "Liberals," "Moral Conservatives," "Neo-Cons," "Rockefeller Republicans," etc. etc.

The meanings of these things have changed throughout history. What Adam Smith called liberal is now called conservative, and so on.

Your best bet is to judge every issue on its own, use your OWN brain to decide how you feel, and go from there.

[ItalianStereotype]

yes, try not to place yourself in one ideology or party. most of the people in America that actually consider all the complexities of an issue are moderates, the rest are either morons or politicians.


go for the obvious and get -1000000 points and an all expenses paid trip to Hell.