Conservative and liberal philosophy

If you’re interested, I edited my previous post, I tend to do that.

There’s some differences, but I’ll go back and read CRH more carefully. For example, my government is essentially a constitutional, democratic republic, with various forms of voluntary subgovernments within that broader republican framework where as yours is essentially anarchist.

Also, there’d be no limit to subgovernment membership, it wouldn’t stop at 100, if anything 100 would be the minimum, it could theoretically encompass anywhere from 100 to the whole nation, it’s up to individuals.

Also, there’d have to be subgovernment police forces to enforce subgovernment laws, which partly regulate themselves and which are partly regulated by the broader government. The broader government would partly regulate itself and would partly be regulated by the people, which would be armed, if they choose to be. But if people wanted socialism, or fascism, or something not outlined in the monarchist constitution, they’d have to form a subgovernment and voluntarily enforce it, they would vote for a socialist, or fascist who would then force everyone to be part of that system. Minarchism is mandatory and universal, anything added to that is added by individuals voluntarily.

Also, as discussed, affiliation to subgovernments would be for 25 years minimum.

Problem 1: Group A makes laws. Group B makes laws.
Person B is actually living in group A’s territory.
Problem 2. Extreme segregation begins, trust and knowledge fail within 3 generations.

I am sure there are more but work calls.

Yup, that’s a probability, I don’t know if it’s problem though. Such a system would probably encourage more segregation of political cultures, but then there are advantages to living in a neighborhood governed according to your ideals.

Why are you ideals tied to race?

I hate how liberals preach “tolerance”, its a very self-defeating premise. They bend over backwards to accommodate differing ideas and practices (like Islamic extremists and pedos), but then the get all hypocritical when facing nationalist and anti-hedonistic ideas.

Liberal “tolerance” basically equates to protect the enemy, persecute ourselves.

The only distinction that I see is that “republican framework” dictating to the subgovernments. But even that isn’t disallowed in CRH. CRH allows for any arrangement that you can make any sense for having. The only thing that it disallows is forming governance void of any explicit and testable reasoning. If there is a rationale to having that over seeing republican arch, then all they have to do is document what that reasoning is and open it for rational challenge. If no one can defeat the reasoning for it, over night, you have your “republican framework” and you got it because no one could figure a good reason not to rather than someone forcing it upon people who actually knew nothing of why it was being done.

The essential concern of the CRH is that people see and can challenge the reasoning (the “philosophy”) concerning why their rules are as they are. And they don’t have to build up a revolutionary force and go to war to change it.

The CRH doesn’t dictate how many, other than to restrict it to how many any one assembly can actually represent with any respectable accuracy. In the US Senate, you have 2 Senators representing the concerns of millions of people. In the House, it is a little better (acknowledging the issue) where the number of representatives more reflects the number of people being represented. The CRH stipulates that, not a particular number, but rather a degree of accuracy be the limiting factor.

Everything else that you are talking about are open options to be chosen merely by supporting the reasoning for having them. It doesn’t matter what you image the greatest governance would be. The CRH merely allows you to get there through reasoning rather than rebellion or trickery. The only confinement is what is required to ensure that the ability to reason remain intact. Everything else is totally optional, from top to bottom.

If they see good reason for a total dictatorship, as long as they keep the reasoning for it open and challengable, they can have their total dictatorship… or anything else they see solid reasoning for having.

In such a government, racial laws could exist, but they’d be voluntary. For example, say a Black Supremacist Party was in existence. I’m assuming only Blacks could be a part of the Black Supremacist Party. They couldn’t pass racial laws and make whites follow them, like white people have to pay 10% of their income to blacks, but they could pass racial laws and make their own people follow them, like blacks can associate with whites but they cannot marry them, not without paying a penalty. Whether that penalty be death, or a small fine, would be up to the black supremacist party. Adherents to parties would be voluntary, you get to choose your own government, if you choose none, then your governed by libertarianism. At it’s core, this system is fundamentally libertarian, but if individuals want Shariah law or what have you, they can have it, they just can’t enforce it on individuals who don’t want it.

Perhaps if an overwhelming majority, say 95% of a neighborhood (a neighborhood could be defined as having a population of 10000 people living in close proximity) wanted Old Testament Law for their entire neighborhood, they could have it, and enforce it on anyone in their neighborhood, regardless of party affiliation. Of course there’d have to be fare warnings and such, and if people already living in that neighborhood didn’t want to be governed by OT Law, they’d be compensated in some way, like if they wanted to move, they’d be financially compensated and of course they’d be given fair warning.

One simple sentence : Israel and her neighbors.
Just one quick example of political/religious segregation. Would you live in some of those hotbeds right now?

What if government switched as needed? Swing left for certain problems, swing right for certain problems. A non political set of civil laws as the central bulk. Left and right are each suited to different problems. So clinging to them creates more problems.

With human beings there is always a gap between the ideal and the real deal. There are conflicting values embedded in the liberal myth as well as conservative one. Conservativism is about obedience to a strict father. They are against social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds. They believe it is moral. People who have strict father morality and who apply it to politics are going to believe that this is the right way to govern.

Liberals are about nurturance. That means they value empathy and responsibility highly. They value egalitarian justice. They look for rational solutions to large scale systemic problems for the people at large not just their own people [conservatism’s “good moral” people], but for all. But, in practice, these values often conflict and it becomes a matter of what value will prevail in a particular situation. So, sure, there are contradictions on both sides. How could there not be?

Kris

Fair enough.

Right, conflict is unavoidable at some point, agreed.

My goal was to minimize conflict and maximize freedom of choice.

As you’ve said, nothing works absolutely, kratocracy, plutocracy and various forms of oligarchy have worked, not ubiquitously, but in a particular place/time.

It’s not necessarily for some dumb reason, it depends on context.

It’s most definitely in its infancy.

I have yet to consider the full implications of such a system.

Agreed, I’m not offering utopia, just an alternative, an alternative with hopefully more advantages than disadvantages, which probably won’t work for all, but which might work for some, if I put sufficient time/effort into it.

I’m intrigued, but perhaps you could give us some concrete examples.

How would a government go about switching from left to right, on what grounds?

Then our ideas may be very similar. A key difference is mine has more to do with preference than reason. Another is The Government is fundamentally a republic, allegiance to the republic is not voluntary, it’s mandatory. Adherence to the various subgovernments that form within the republic is voluntary. Subgovernments would have their own leaders and law enforcement. If the overwhelming majority (say 95%) of people in a state, municipality or even a region, wish to enforce anything, from Sharia Law to Stalinism, on everyone in their neighborhood, including residents unaffiliated with their ideology, they could potentially form their own government and do so, legally. But many neighborhoods, particularly diverse ones, may not be ruled by a subgovernment. Here, subgovernments would only rule over individual affiliates, they couldn’t enforce their laws on individuals unaffiliated with them. The Government would be in charge of administering libertarian justice between individuals. It’s complicated, I have to work on the details and intricacies.

You’re defining conservatism as patriarchy and liberalism as matriarchy. That analogy only works if by conservatism you mean a fascism and by liberalism you mean a communism. If by conservatism you mean classical liberalism, then classical liberalism is neither patriarchy, nor matriarchy, but individuals being treated as responsible adults, as opposed to children with a big brother or a big sis looking out for them. Also, the analogy only works if the government is relatively benign, otherwise serfdom or slavery is more befitting.

OK. But how does the differences explain a lack of willingness to compromise? What drives that sticky wicket?

Well, liberalism as egalitarian parenting anyway. It’s viewing politics along the line of values derived from family systems models. Fascism and communism are in this continuum on the extremes. But, traditionally, in the US most have bought into the democratic/republic model to a greater extent. By liberals I’m talking about those currently referred to as such in the popular media. They’re also called progressives sometimes mainly by themselves.

Well of course it’s a strategic thing, you know the Norquist pact and such. But, you know, they have read Obama et al as a socialist threat to their deepest held values. Even if he hasn’t really changed much his blackness symbolized to them exactly the change they don’t want. It’s the end of the world as they knew it and they don’t feel fine about it. It was a major hit on white dominated strong patriarchal society. To allow him to succeed would be a betrayal.

Then would it be fair to say that the current republican (conservative) members of congress are not interested in governance but restoring the patriarchal white man to the presidency? From a conservative or liberal POV the actions (or inaction) of congress seems to bear this out. When the polls show that even the majority of self-identified republicans think the party is going the wrong direction, is it just a case of the GOP leadership wanting to protect daddy’s chair no matter what the majority of the people want?

They are voting their values and their identity. But the symbolism in Washington is corresponding to the values of the two models tightly so the daddy’s chair image works. They must show Obama to be failure to win it back. And that’s reflected in the gridlock. It is by most measures among the least productive congresses in US history. Both sides genuinely don’t like each other. And yet, they all successfully manage to represent their own interests and moneyed special interests.

I dunno. I’m perplexed at how any conservative male can vote for a law mandating a vaginal ultrasound for his sister, wife, or daughter, and yet this is voting their values? I mean I guess I can understand belief in an ideology, but is this really their reality? Without trying to sound like a “liberal”, I don’t get it. It just seems like some sort of insanity or at the very least, a serious disconnect from the people who you’re supposed to love and protect - even as a daddy.

And that has been the problem for mankind since the beginning, too much passion and not enough reasoning. Proper reasoning doesn’t support a passionless society, but a passion society disables reasoning and resolves progress to be no more than accidental and very, very slow in coming, easily forsaken by a simple deranged thought such as “change for sake of change” or “unnatural evolution” or simply clever manipulation by the greedy.

The point in the CRH is to give more authority to sanity. Once sanity is established, whatever that sanity wishes to accomplish can be easily obtained. But if you start with merely preferences, you usually end the same way… merely to be replaced… no real progress and endless unneeded suffering because the government sees no sanity or reasoning with which to change toward less suffering.

And with that, you get a deranged government and endless suffering.

The CRH is designed to cause agreement through open debate, not force compliance to “we smaht people gots mo brains than them idjuts” (aka “Socialism”).