(I use this as an thought experiment, not a catalogue of success or failure)
It seems to me that conservatives and liberals have different viewpoints of law and
character. The conservative wants to hold people to the laws and liberals want the
laws to match people. The conservative wants laws for example, on gay marriage and sex,
that forces people to fit the law. Homosexuality is wrong and so the laws should
force people to fit that idea. Liberals want laws that fit people. People are homosexuals
and want to have gay sex and marriage. So the laws should fit the reality of the situation.
Liberals see that laws can be “morally” wrong, for example laws allowing slavery.
Even though it is the LAW, that fact doesn’t make the law right.
Conservatives seem to be law and order regardless of the law whereas
the liberals seem to be about the person. conservatives want the people to fit the laws
and liberals want the laws to fit the people. Conservatives want better laws and liberals want
better people. As a liberal, I am less concerned with the law and more concern with people.
Those who focus on the law are more rigid and less flexible, whereas those who focus on people
and not the law are more flexible.
Maybe you could say that conservatives are more oriented towards societal order, whereas liberals pay more attention to what individuals want.
The position that is concerned more with people seems the more sympathetic one from the get-go. The glaring question to be asked here though, can one build a society just catering to individuals wants? I doubt it. There is not necessarily a match between what a society needs and what people want. If society needs waste disposal for example but nobody wants to do that job, then you’ve got a problem if what individual people want is the determining factor.
I might very well be that if we are going to ignore the bigger societal picture, and the role that law plays in ordering and making a society a more cohesive group, individuals are sure to end up not getting what they want anyway.
That’s a very thoughtful OP, and I think that you’ve succeeded in describing some of the underlying differences between right-wing and left-wing worldviews.
There’s actually quite a bit of empirical research in this area. An interesting article on the subject by Hibbing et al was published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences last year. The abstract:
A different approach to the same problem is taken by the linguist/ philosopher George Lakoff in his book Moral Politics. Lakoff sees conservatism and liberalism (in the American sense) as being based on two different understandings of the family- the ‘strict father’ and ‘nurturing family’ models respectively. These different models of the ideal family are used as the basis for moral thinking, and as metaphors for understanding social and economic phenomena generally. The book is well worth buying and reading, but there are also a fair few lectures by Lakoff on Youtube- for example this one.
PK has amazingly discovered that conservatives are stubborn and stupid, and liberals are wise and conscientious. Another masturbation thread.
Meanwhile, people continue to get sued, and go out of business, for refusing to take wedding photos at a gay wedding. You know, speaking of 'passing laws that fit the people' vs. forcing people to fit the law'. In Canada, liberals would drag you in front of a human rights tribunal and investigate you for hate crimes if you said Islam is an inherently violent religion, or read parts of the Bible in public that they found offensive. Liberals are just itching to pass laws telling you how much soda you can drink, what kind of light bulb you can use, how much you are allowed to earn, how much you have to pay your employees, and every other goddamned thing.
Liberals are less concerned with the law, Conservatives more concerned with it? Which of the two wants to regulate everything, and which of the two wants to deregulate? Which of the two wants more money in the control of the Government? Hell, even in terms of sexuality, which group is constantly coming up with new, preposterous definitions of rape such that in California, you basically need a signed and witnessed statement before you can get a handjob?
Who gets your ass fired if you say something about a minority or about women that they don’t like?
Try hammering a nail into an oak board with one hand.
We have left and right for good reasons. Too much of either is never good.you may be left or right handed but, you still need the other. Governing needs a balance of both.
Both liberals and conservatives serve the same Godwannabe master that only exists because the opportunity door was left open. Neither has anything at all, nothing whatsoever, to do with ethics, morality, or anything about health, justice, or happiness. It is entirely and ONLY about global power.
… it’s a bit like listening to the squirrels and birds arguing whether the forest excavator should be using unleaded fuel or hybrid power.
Uccisore: PK has amazingly discovered that conservatives are stubborn and stupid, and liberals are wise and conscientious. Another masturbation thread.
Meanwhile, people continue to get sued, and go out of business, for refusing to take wedding photos at a gay wedding. You know, speaking of 'passing laws that fit the people' vs. forcing people to fit the law'. In Canada, liberals would drag you in front of a human rights tribunal and investigate you for hate crimes if you said Islam is an inherently violent religion, or read parts of the Bible in public that they found offensive. Liberals are just itching to pass laws telling you how much soda you can drink, what kind of light bulb you can use, how much you are allowed to earn, how much you have to pay your employees, and every other goddamned thing.
Liberals are less concerned with the law, Conservatives more concerned with it? Which of the two wants to regulate everything, and which of the two wants to deregulate? Which of the two wants more money in the control of the Government? Hell, even in terms of sexuality, which group is constantly coming up with new, preposterous definitions of rape such that in California, you basically need a signed and witnessed statement before you can get a handjob?
Who gets your ass fired if you say something about a minority or about women that they don’t like?
K: So you are in favor of a world where we can discriminate on any grounds against anyone.
MY religion says I don’t have to recognize gay weddings or weddings of people of different races or
any black weddings for that matter. My religion says women are inferior to men and so I can
treat women like shit and do whatever I want to them because hey, they are inferior aren’t they?
You want a world where a person of a different background, a different race, a different religion
is treated badly because of MY religion. MY religious choice dictates how people are being treated.
Is that the world you are advocating for? Where I can treat people like shit because of my religious
choices. You say this is not about religion. Then on what other grounds can you treat people like shit?
I choose to treat you like shit because hey, I feel like it. Is that the world you are hoping for?
A world where I can treat you like shit because you are different than me, is that what you want?
Is that the world you are hoping for? Look at what you are advocating. Because if you are not in
favor of tolerance, than what are you in favor of? discrimination and intolerance toward anyone who
is different than you? Is that the world you are in favor of? What happens if you are different and you
get discriminated against. Recall I am handicap and I have been discriminated against because of my
handicap, is that the world you are advocating for?
Peter Kropotkin: which in actuality James St. Saint
Governing needs a balance that is neither.
Both liberals and conservatives serve the same Godwannabe master that only exists because the opportunity door was left open. Neither has anything at all, nothing whatsoever, to do with ethics, morality, or anything about health, justice, or happiness. It is entirely and ONLY about global power.
… it’s a bit like listening to the squirrels and birds arguing whether the forest excavator should be using unleaded fuel or hybrid power.
[/quote]
But you’ve already said:
So…liberals and conservatives are both terrible and you self-identify as a liberal. Doesn’t make much sense to me, I’m afraid.
[/quote]
K: you have confused me with James. He said that bit about the squirrels and birds.
I wrote the bit about the law and concern with people, he wrote the rest. Reread and see.
K: I am old and very lame with technology. I still have a problem with cut and paste.
Someday I hope to figure out quotes. But that day is clearly not today.
This makes it sound as if the political left/Right is some eternal universal human attribute. While such a thing as weak/strong; masculine/feminine; yin/yang may be a eternal and universal (indeed George Lakoff presents the Left/Right in terms of matriarchy/patriarchy), yet politically Left and Right have a definite beginning point. Etymologically it is the French revolution. And this is the starting point myth that Rightists prefer because it allows them to claim the American revolution as their own and still distance themselves from those French humanitarians with guillotines. But I think we should perhaps go back another century to the English Levelers as the nascent beginning of Leftist utopian seeking political movements and the corresponding reactionary forces from the opposing side.
Perhaps if liberals were more inclined to ask and listen, such trivial issues wouldn’t become part of the conservative oppression they fear.
The conservative/liberal dichotomy is fundamental to the oldest religions on Earth, probably even before the recording of any of them. It is the same distinction as “life/death”.
So your first post is to loudly trumpet about how it's the conservatives, not the liberals,who want to pass a bunch of laws restricting people's behavior and molding them to fit their vision. Your second post is to loudly trumpet about how super important it is that liberals pass laws that restrict other people's behavior, and how terrible the world will be if we don't mold people to fit their vision. Got it.
I know you would never type it, but dd you even for an instant pause in your mind to realize "Oh wait, Uccisore just totally destroyed my point about liberals with regards to the law" before you switched gears completely?
PK: "So you are in favor of a world where we can discriminate on any grounds against anyone.
MY religion says I don’t have to recognize gay weddings or weddings of people of different races or
any black weddings for that matter. "
UCC: So your first post is to loudly trumpet about how it’s the conservatives, not the liberals,who want to pass a bunch of laws restricting people’s behavior and molding them to fit their vision. Your second post is to loudly trumpet about how super important it is that liberals pass laws that restrict other people’s behavior, and how terrible the world will be if we don’t mold people to fit their vision. Got it.
I know you would never type it, but dd you even for an instant pause in your mind to realize “Oh wait, Uccisore just totally destroyed my point about liberals with regards to the law” before you switched gears completely?"
K: My first post is quite clear and said, thought experiment. Conservatives seem to want people
to conform to the law whereas it seems liberals want the laws to conform to people.
Conservatives want laws banning homosexual activity including marriage
despite the fact there are homosexuals who want to marry, for one example,
whereas liberals want the laws to conform to people. Homosexuals are people who want to marry thus
the law need to accommodate that fact and allow homosexual marriage. Do we want the people to
to conform to the law or do we want the law to conform to people? That is the question in the first post.
The second post is about discrimination and under what grounds do we allow discrimination.
The only grounds of discrimination seems to be religious, MY religion says homosexuals are evil
so I don’t have to cater to homosexuals. You are forcing other people to adapt to my religion,
now on what other grounds can you possible discriminate against people? Because you feel like it?
The point here is not to force people to have behavior that must conform to other people religion.
The law must be free of attempts to force people to behave in accordance to people’s religion.
When I cannot marry my male partner because it violates other people religion, that is the problem.
Where does my religion or beliefs come into play? Do I not have a say if I can marry even if
it is to a man? Your religious beliefs dictate if I can marry? How is that right or fair or honest?
It isn’t. Can your religious beliefs dictate how society creates laws in regard to me? So to allow
people religious beliefs to dictate law is unfair, unjust and just plain wrong and that is my point.
K: So you are in favor of a world where we can discriminate on any grounds against anyone.
MY religion says I don’t have to recognize gay weddings or weddings of people of different races or
any black weddings for that matter.
[/quote]
UCC: So your first post is to loudly trumpet about how it’s the conservatives, not the liberals,who want to pass a bunch of laws restricting people’s behavior and molding them to fit their vision.
K: and it is conservatives want to ban gay marriage, gay sex. conservatives want to create “moral”
laws based on their religious beliefs.
UCC: Your second post is to loudly trumpet about how super important it is that liberals pass laws that restrict other people’s behavior, and how terrible the world will be if we don’t mold people to fit their vision. Got it.
I know you would never type it, but dd you even for an instant pause in your mind to realize “Oh wait, Uccisore just totally destroyed my point about liberals with regards to the law” before you switched gears completely?
K: My second post was quite clear. Conservatives want laws that are based on religious values, their own,
Law that allows discrimination against people.
liberals want laws that don’t allow people to discriminate. passing laws allowing gay marriage doesn’t
restrict other people behavior (those who oppose gay marriage) whereas those who oppose gay marriage
are in favor of laws restricting people’s behavior. A difference I’m fairly sure you don’t understand.
Right. Problem is getting them to think they have need of the other, or that there is use in working together. It is actually imbalance that gets things rolling. It is a majority vote, thus an imbalance, that tilts the scales. I think that the American VOTER is wholly to blame. Economy is getting better, we are out of unnecessary wars…they “punish” Obama at the mid-term elections. We can cite gerrymandered states, and districts under-represented, as part of the cause, but it is also visible in approval ratings as well.
