How can we determine whether a conservative or a progressive society is better?

[shadow9d9]

just look at detroit

A middle/right paradise then(democrats)?

You'd have to look at Vermont for a liberal one, as it is the only liberal leaning state in the country.

 

[Agent11]

Conservative/progressive are relative terms that mean next to nothing.


There are political groups that self identify using these words, however even they would argue amongst themselves about what real world policies they would support, and none of these groups has been allowed full control of our government by the electorate.

For instance can you cite an example of a progressive government and a conservative government? You cannot while maintaining the modern 'definitions' used by today's political groups in America.

On the local level perhaps, but I am pretty sure you are talking about on a federal level... And although I can understand how Detroit is a tempting example one could argue that trade policies supported by both sides shares blame for that situation.

If one were to look for recent examples would you say Clinton, or Obama were progressives? I would not. Would you say that Bush was a conservative?

What matters is policy, and whether it is effective in it's stated purpose. Not misleading labels that even those who claim would fall quite short of realizing in practice.

Also noteworthy is that the peddlers of these labels often completely ignore the spectrum of authoritarianism, in practice would you rather an authoritarian progressive society or an authoritarian conservative society?

I would rather a free society, and a watchful eye on people attempting to divide us with labels and steal our freedoms with ideology.

 

[tweaker2]

1. The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

2. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

It seems to me the conservative sector of our society is pursuing their happiness via ideology #1 and the progressive sector of our society is utilizing #2.

Say it ain't so. /rhetorical

 

[woolfe9998]

It's not just about rights. By your logic you'd happily have our entire race live in the matrix, so long as they were subjectively "happy". Tell me how that's a good thing.

Granted there's some balance to be had, but some discomfort and misery of some variety is part of life. Can you be happy without having misery to compare it to? There's a good bit of philosophical debate here but IMO being happy is not always good; nor is it a representation of quality of life. There's a lot more to life than individual, superficial "happiness."

Just go watch "My Super Sweet 16". Lots of "happy" people there, you want to live like that? You want your kids to be like those kids? Those are some happy kids who get whatever they like, and have more extensive "safety nets" than the general society will ever have.



Perpetual, provided-for happiness is as fertile ground for weakness and greed as pure deprived misery. This is not my idea nor a new one. People progress by overcoming challenges, often with periods of misery, and only truly succeed when they can operate without a "safety net".

I'd much rather live among the strong who have earned their place than the happy who have had everything given to them.

The part of the equation you're missing is that freedom is part of "happiness." When it comes to government, it's sometimes a trade-off where an optimal balance is struck. Some portion of your pay check going out so that people aren't starving in the streets is part of that tradeoff. If I have free speech, free press, freedom of religion, the government out of my bedroom and an electoral process, I can live with these tradeoffs, I'm not interested in having total government control of everything for an artificial "paradise" like the Matrix. That is a false dichotomy.

I don't disagree that some people who receive government benefits didn't "earn" it. It's a question of to what degree and what is the tradeoff. I don't want a society where all the wealth is forcibly re-distributed to create artificial "equality." I just think that everyone benefits where the most basic, bare subsistence needs are met, and I can live with the fact that not everyone who receives a pay out is "deserving" in the abstract moral sense. I don't want to live in a third world, squalid society. I don't want to go back 100 or more years to where no one had to worry about paying taxes to support others but the overall standard of living was crap. I don't like all the things you're complaining about either, but I can live with them to a point.

So far as "greed" goes, in Europe they have more robust safety nets and they aren't as greedy as we are. You're missing where our "greed" comes from. It comes from the materialism of our Madison avenue driven culture, not from government welfare programs. It's exactly the opposite. It's unchecked capitalism which causes "greed."

So far as challenges go, there is plenty of incentive to achieve beyond what is required for subsistence, particularly where our culture teaches us that we need everything under the sun in order to be worth anything. No social safety net is ever going to take away that incentive, not for the vast majority of us.

 

[AViking]

There are lots of countries around the world that are on one end of the spectrum or the other. Conservative? Saudi Arabia and Iran. Liberal? Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

If you are specifically bringing this up because of the health care debate then you have a number of countries (and zones) to look at to see how they're doing.

Hong Kong
Australia
Denmark
New Zealand
Switzerland
Chile
Sweden
Canada

Etc.

 

[1prophet]

Maybe those other societies have learned how to be happy? Democrats in the US don't know how to be happier any more than the Republicans do. All Democrats can think about is money, money, money. People need more stuff. Take money from some people, give money to other people. Because what makes people happy is more stuff! As long as we can keep giving poor American people stuff, they'll be happy! Lord know you can't be happy without stuff.

If you believe American "liberals" have the answers, then you're as deluded as American "conservatives". Neither one have a clue, and the happiness of those other societies will continue to evade us.

Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with the type of government or how much stuff any group does or does not have.

Exactly, skip to 1:09:32 in the video below that shows how one is rich without all the stuff and money commonly associated with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc

 

[hans030390]

Maybe those other societies have learned how to be happy? Democrats in the US don't know how to be happier any more than the Republicans do. All Democrats can think about is money, money, money. People need more stuff. Take money from some people, give money to other people. Because what makes people happy is more stuff! As long as we can keep giving poor American people stuff, they'll be happy! Lord know you can't be happy without stuff.

Life is, in the end, nothing but a collection or series of meaningless "stuff."

 

[AViking]

Life is, in the end, nothing but a collection or series of meaningless "stuff."

No.

If you create a society that is based in the acquisition of goods/money you get a different thing than if you create one where maybe the acquisition of knowledge, free time, religion, etc is given the highest value.

Our culture is capitalist. He who dies with the most toys wins.

 

[Matt1970]

A middle/right paradise then(democrats)?

You'd have to look at Vermont for a liberal one, as it is the only liberal leaning state in the country.

You really are out of your fucking mind.

*EDIT* Oh shit, I forgot, compared to your views there probably is only one liberal leaning state. If you are as far left as humanly possible, everything would be to the right of you wouldn't it?

 

[boomerang]

You really are out of your fucking mind.

He's a Marxist and should just be ignored. Let him continue to rim Bernie Sanders. It's the only thing that brings him some sense of happiness.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You really are out of your fucking mind.

Shadow9d9 is so far left that far left loons are considered far right loons.

 

[Wreckem]

Makes me wonder why those Eastern European nations and the republics in the Soviet Union shed their progressive govts and the safety nets they provided.

Not sure where you were going. The USSR was fascism at its finest. Progressive is not fascism.

 

[Agent11]

There you go conflating left/right with freedom/authoritarianism.

 

[nehalem256]

Not sure where you were going. The USSR was fascism at its finest. Progressive is not fascism.

Say what?

You do realize that one of the reason's Hitler hated the USSR is that as a fascist the USSR being communist made them blood enemies?

 

[shadow9d9]

You really are out of your fucking mind.

*EDIT* Oh shit, I forgot, compared to your views there probably is only one liberal leaning state. If you are as far left as humanly possible, everything would be to the right of you wouldn't it?

Have you ever written a post with substance instead of lunatic ramblings?

Obama has continued a MAJORITY of Bush's policies and then pushed the Republican's own healthcare legislation! I mean, COME ON!

And yes, Vermont has a socialist senator and is designing its own single payer healthcare system. It is the only liberal state in the union.

 

[shadow9d9]

Shadow9d9 is so far left that far left loons are considered far right loons.

Herpy derp derp!

 

[shadow9d9]

He's a Marxist and should just be ignored. Let him continue to rim Bernie Sanders. It's the only thing that brings him some sense of happiness.

You guys are so obsessed with sex, yet gays scare you... why?

You have no idea what a "marxist" is... and apparently think that a president that follows Bush's policies and implements republican healthcare is "liberal." Only in wacky world!

 

[Genx87]

Not sure where you were going. The USSR was fascism at its finest. Progressive is not fascism.

I was going where the nanny state was in its biggest form in the last 100 years. And then asking why those people dropped it for something more open?

I am also asking why are the models of govt and society most held up by progressives in this country always 90+% white?

 

[Matt1970]

Have you ever written a post with substance instead of lunatic ramblings?.

Herpy derp derp!

Have you?

 

[Matt1970]

You guys are so obsessed with sex, yet gays scare you... why?

You have no idea what a "marxist" is... and apparently think that a president that follows Bush's policies and implements republican healthcare is "liberal." Only in wacky world!

He followed the Policies that he liked. Bush is hardly the posterchild of conservatism.

 

[shadow9d9]

He followed the Policies that he liked. Bush is hardly the posterchild of conservatism.

He sure is. He did pretty much everything the republicans wanted.

 

[shadow9d9]

Have you?

Yes, I listed some reasons why Vermont was actually liberal. There is a reason people like you choose to cherry pick around them.

 

[shadow9d9]

I was going where the nanny state was in its biggest form in the last 100 years. And then asking why those people dropped it for something more open?

I am also asking why are the models of govt and society most held up by progressives in this country always 90+% white?

If you want nanny state, just look at Bush, who instituted more nanny programs than ever before... Patriot act, NSA spying, TSA, etc.

 

[nehalem256]

He sure is. He did pretty much everything the republicans wanted.

You mean like cutting the size of government?

Staying out of foreign military adventures?(which if you recall I believe he promised to do before being elected in 2000)

 

[shadow9d9]

You mean like cutting the size of government?

Staying out of foreign military adventures?(which if you recall I believe he promised to do before being elected in 2000)

That is a fantasy that conservatives always give lip service to and fools like you support them for it. Conservatives have no REAL interest in cutting government. Hell, not only do the politicians have no interest , but neither do the people... Just look at the surveys... they don't want to actually cut anything.

And yes, republicans/conservatives are war mongers... This is nothing new.

No politician in federal government cuts the size of government, yet you keep electing the "conservatives" based on their ridiculous promises anyhow.