• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A hypothetical social experiment: Liberals v Conservatives

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
actuarial said:
Wouldn't there be a problem determining who gets the land? Without some form of system to distribute it, you'd end up with small tribes constantly fighting/killing each other.

I imagine determining a 'fair' system that people buy into is EXTREMELY important if you want to build society quickly.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much land vs how many people.

Jamestown and the Pilgrims all figured out a way to divide the land without killing each other off.
 
Neither would do very well. Both are convinced they have all the right ideas for building a utopia, and both will end up with nothing but a dystopia.
 
after 50 years ...
Liberals would all be dirt poor
Conservatives would all be dirt poor

after 100 years
Liberals would all be pretty poor, but, all on semi equal footing
Conservatives would have 99% of the population poorer than dirt poor, with 1% living a life of luxury because "they earned it" and you shouldn't punish them for being successful. 🙂
 
Let me get this straight: Two islands, otherwise identical in all ways, each populated by different groups (differing only in ideology) of individuals carefully selected for the sole quality of being completely and totally incapable of thinking for themselves???


I forsee an awful lot of Starved~To~Death dumbasses.

Answer: Between 2 and 10 days without water, depending on how hot/cold it is. If there's plenty of water, then 4~6 weeks without food. Longer if they decide to amuse the rest of us by killing and eating each other.



{edit} If they *do* decide to kill and eat each other: Call the networks, put it on Pay Per View, and use the profits to feed 3rd world dictat*** (sorry - got sidetracked into the realities of Foreign Aid for a sec...) the starving masses.


You know - Because there's not enough irony in the world already.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody even know what the OP's definition of liberal and conservative is?

My guess is that the liberals would be quick to form a government and start coordinating their efforts to the chagrin of the individual.

The conservatives would want a loosely tied federation of sorts but the big decisions would still be made by the individual and cooperation and coordination would be minimal at best.
 
The conservatives would have to figure out very quickly whether libertarian capitalism or theocratic statism will prevail as they are not terribly compatible. I suspect in fighting would ensue and that the theocrats would prevail being the more fanatical, and probably more numerous, of the two.

Liberals would form a unified government more quickly, but ultimately it would be overthrown by people who decided they actually wanted to drive cars and eat cheeseburgers.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
The conservatives would have to figure out very quickly whether libertarian capitalism or theocratic statism will prevail as they are not terribly compatible. I suspect in fighting would ensue and that the theocrats would prevail being the more fanatical, and probably more numerous, of the two.

Liberals would form a unified government more quickly, but ultimately it would be overthrown by people who decided they actually wanted to drive cars and eat cheeseburgers.

- wolf
Click to expand...

😀
 
The liberal nation would engage in gaysex (hint hint - penis in anal cave) and thus not procreate and will die out in a generation.

Or

The liberals would find themselves without any modern amenities, and their new environment will resocialize them into a more conservative thinking
 
Last edited:
Bateluer said:
So, if we take two land masses, each with equal amounts of natural resources, minerals, etc. Each is capable of supporting large human populations, however there is no infrastructure. None. Any humans have to build from scratch. You want food? Learn to farm. Want tools? have to make them yourself. And so on.

If you were to take all liberals, those who would vote Democratic regardless of the candidate, and place them all on one land mass. All the conservatives, those who would vote Republican, regardless of the candidate, and place them on the other land mass. Each group gets nothing but the clothes on their backs and the knowledge in their heads. No supplies, no food, no weapons, vehicles, no books, nothing like that.

Assuming no interaction, trade, communication, etc, between the two landmasses, say they're separated between wide expanses of treacherous waters, what happen to each group in 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

The lefty's all die out because they would all be home sitting on their asses waiting for the 1st of the month to roll around and lining up for their "free" government services and nobody would be doing any work to pay for any of it, that is if they all don't get eaten by bears and other wild animals because of course, nobody would have a gun to protect themselves with.
 
Last edited:
Ldir said:
An IQ higher than your post count. WWYBYWB?
Click to expand...

Do you know how to grow your own food. Doubtful.
Can you build your own house? No way.
Can you protect yourself if you're attacked. Again, doubtful.
Can you actually make anything of any value that improves the lives of anyone? Not likely.

Your people would die out without capitalists and working class families with values for you to exploit and leech off of.
 
Martin said:
Given their contempt of science and education, I fail to see how conservatives would progress.
Click to expand...
the scenario the OP presents would highly favor rural people who farm and hunt (as opposed to urbanites who may go to their local farmers market every week but wouldn't be able to grow their own asparagus or butcher their own cows if their lives depended on it)

just because someone is a creationist doesn't mean they can't skin a deer and work the land.
 
animekenji said:
Do you know how to grow your own food. Doubtful.
Can you build your own house? No way.
Can you protect yourself if you're attacked. Again, doubtful.
Can you actually make anything of any value that improves the lives of anyone? Not likely.

Your people would die out without capitalists and working class families with values for you to exploit and leech off of.
Click to expand...

Do you know anything except stupid sterotypes? Wingnut koolaid at its dumbest. Get back to us when you finish high school and learn something about the real world.
 
ProfJohn said:
Depends on how much land vs how many people.

Jamestown and the Pilgrims all figured out a way to divide the land without killing each other off.
Click to expand...

You bring up an interesting point. The early white settlements were collectivist; they all failed. I see no reason modern collectivists would do any better if denied the tools of modern society. If liberals could leave, they would. If they could import capital, they might be better off, as probably more of the very high-earning intellectual property types are liberal. The liberal camp would also be well equipped with ceramic ashtrays, as probably more potters and such are liberals, and would have vastly more counselors, psychologists, and telephone sterilizers.

Since those who know how to set snares, farm, and hunt are overwhelmingly conservative, they would have a huge advantage. I doubt though that enough of these people exist to support the rest of the conservatives, so I suspect both camps would experience massive die-offs and fighting before a subsistence economy really gelled. Clearly though absent outside forces the conservative island would be better suited to be suddenly dumped into a subsistence economy, as we have a better work ethic and a much broader base of farmers, fishermen and hunters.
 
Some interesting comments and ideas in this thread. I didn't give any 'definitions' of liberals or conservatives in the attempt to keep the stereotypes out of the thread, which didn't work quite as well as I wanted.

Here's my take on the situation.

Social ideologies are irrelevant. Both groups just had the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy knocked out from under them. Neither modern liberals nor modern conservatives would be effective in such a situation. It would be total societal collapse, with only the strong surviving. The early years in each 'colony' would be tough, brutal, and likely have high fatalities. If each were to stick to their philosophies, the liberals would experience massive famine and production problems, similar to Mao's Great Leap Forward. The Conservatives would be growing their own food and likely be fed, however, disease would be rampant as vaccinations and medications would be 'tools of the devil'.

Ultimately, the early time for both would be chaotic and difficult. Eventually, you'd have each group dividing into their own groups of conservatives and liberals and each society would likely mirror what we have today.
 
werepossum said:
Since those who know how to set snares, farm, and hunt are overwhelmingly conservative, they would have a huge advantage.
Click to expand...

You are just repeating stereotypes too. I doubt it is nearly as lopsided as you think. Lots of us hunt and fish. Gardening is popular. Sometimes we even grow food.
 
animekenji said:
Yes. You should remember that. One day you may just be the targets for the guns when you're put up against the wall for treason and shot.
Click to expand...

.... right. 🙄

You're being partisan for the sake of being partisan, which automatically makes your posts FAIL.
 
Ldir said:
Do you know anything except stupid sterotypes? Wingnut koolaid at its dumbest. Get back to us when you finish high school and learn something about the real world.
Click to expand...

...hate to break the news to you, but just in case you haven't noticed: The base premise for this whole thread is dumb and based in stupid plebian stereotypes.

...and therefore fully deserviing of whatever ridicule we can heap. 😉
 
Politically? They'd be exactly the same within a generation. All views would be represented.

Socially / Outside the Political Realm? It'd mostly be luck. They would have enough of all types of workers and enough resources to each be successful. Factors such as weather, natural disasters, and disease would play a far, far larger role than people's political beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top