I have always wondered why liberals and conservatives talk past each other when talking
about government. I finally figured it out. Liberals talk about government in terms of
how big is government needed to do the job. In practical terms, what does it take
to do the goals of government whereas conservatives view government in ideological
terms, big government is evil without any thought to what does government need to do the job.
So once again, liberals are being practical about government and conservatives are
ideological and usually wrong, see house of representatives for example.
Except for one serious problem;
According to liberals, what is the purpose of government?
Liberal: Force humanity toward an ideal utopia wherein all things are equal and no person can be harmed by another.
Obviously that requires a HUGE government with absolute control over all things, a “God-wannabe”. And is in fact an impossible task. And leads to a Communist world government.
Conservative: Force humanity toward an ideal utopia wherein all things are ordered and no person can get out of line.
That purpose requires far less size and thus a much smaller government, but still a “God-wannabe”. And leads to an Imperial world government. And although possible, leads to “heat-death”.
Libertarian: Preserve and Serve the decisions made by the people, utopian or not.
That purpose requires far less control over every aspect of every person and a much smaller government… unless they are all liberals. And doesn’t presume to ascend to God-hood. And leads to independent regional governments, “free nations”.
Of course reality requires something that none of those are.
In a way. I am expressing their future extreme. I said “toward”. But of course, none of them would admit to their end goal and most of the participants have no idea of it (much like most people throughout society have no idea as to why they support the opinions they have nor to where they would lead).
= watch, listen, and track every single detail of everything concerning every person and what they even “might” do or be able to do so as to ensure supreme security against all “evil” (whoever/whatever we currently don’t like). Plus ensure that all people are less informed, worse situated, more confused, and weaker than yourself = “God-wannabe” = “ultimate control of all life”.
= structure, a hierarchy of obedience and servitude. Orderly things require less control than random things, hence “smaller government”.
All of those labels are meaningless because there is only international oligarchy governments now.
There is no difference between the fascist United State oligarch republic versus the fascist liberal socialist oligarchy of the United Kingdom for instance.
Different methods of control, but the main goal and initiative all the same.
How does the modern tyrant or aspiring one view all governments in the present? That they’re all a hindrance to my self interests where I’ll do everything to seek their destruction in replacing them with my own vision of order for the world.
Regardless of the incarcerating price of gas issues, there is still a difference between Ford and Chevy for those who have nothing better to occupy their focus (since they can’t see anything to change anyway).
The biggest difference I’ve noticed between conservatives and liberals when it comes to the broad view of the Government is that the liberals take it for granted that there is an all-powerful force that gets to decide everything about how a society operates, and they work from there- Plato, Hobbes, Marx, Rousseau, they all took it for granted that there was a ‘they’ who decides. Even a freedom is a thing granted by the they, who has made a decision not to take that freedom away.
Conservatives think there are questions that the State doesn’t even properly get to decide on- freedoms that are not the State’s to grant. Whether or not you think that idea is coherent will go a long way in deciding if you’re a conservative or a liberal.
I don’t think Kropotkin figured out why liberals and conservatives talk past each other. If you say something like ‘liberals are being practical about government and conservatives are
ideological and usually wrong,’ then you’re talking past conservatives. I would think that if you had figured it out, you wouldn’t say shit like that. Unless, of course, you WANTED to talk past conservatives, and undermine what you say in their eyes. In which case…you know…good job.
I mean, just reverse the tables. Imagine a conservative saying ‘I’VE FIGURED OUT WHY WE TALK PAST EACH OTHER!’ and then he ends his post with ‘…and that’s why liberals are wrong’. Such a conservative probably hasn’t figured anything out.
I think liberals and conservatives talk past each other because most of them are basically incapable of presenting their ideas without being insulting or dismissive to the other side.
I assure you that there is. The Federal Government of the US was the world’s first superstate union (followed by, for example, the Soviet Union and the European Union). That a place went from having basically no government (pre-colonisation) to having a Federal superstate government in such a short space of time, as opposed to the British history of constant, steady centralisation over a much longer period, shows in the relative political struggles in the two countries.
Plus you’re tossing around terms like a gypsy on crystal meth - ‘fascist liberal socialist oligarchy’ is a meaningless description.