Conservatives are not really pro-freedom

Please read this and leave what you think you know at the door. This was all discussed by Dostoevsky(one of the smartest guys ever), and they are historical facts. I've just applied it to the present day situation.

you need to be very careful with this whole "freedom" talk being thrown around by conservatives. Conservatives are not really pro-freedom. This is a historical fact. They are very status quo oriented! They just don't like the current status quo. It really has nothing to do with freedom. It's just a good catchword. They are upset that society isn't exactly how they want it to be. you follow their standards or you're anti-freedom. Wait a sec, we have to follow your orders or we're anti-freedom? That's not how "freedom" works.

Liberals can be just as bad. they start out talking about freedom, but eventually reach a point where they become authoritarian. That's the point we're nearing right now. But don't be fooled....conservatives are not pro-freedom really. They just want society to follow what they say. You have to read between the lines for them. "We want freedom!.....you can't have abortions, you can't be gay, you must be religious...." you get the point.

I'm not trying to bash conservatives here. They serve as a very good anchor for liberals. It's just I see a lot of freedom oriented people on this site being led in a direction that isn't actually pro-freedom.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Liberals can be just as bad.

This should read:
"Liberals are just as bad".

Liberals/conservatives republicans/democrats, whatever you want to call them. They are both equally bad for this country.

Neither are pro freedom.

I thought it was common knowledge that no politician is pro freedom. If they did not impose their will on society then there would be no need for them. The title of the thread should read " Politicians are not really pro-freedom" There is one major difference in the two parties as far as basics though. One is for big government and the other is for small government. Supposedly.

I was about to post this in the other thread before you deleted it. Luckily I checked for the spelling of Dostoevsky before I posted or I would have replied to a blank post!

(Edit: Dostoevsky wasn't all that great.)

Anyway, I completely agree with you, 100% with what you've said, but it's the things you haven't said that bother me.

It's not just one side or the other who hates freedom, they both hate freedom, even over here in my beloved UK, they just hate freedom in different ways.

To continue with your American theme, the conservatives want to tell you how you can use your body, the liberals want to tell you how to use your money. Nobody in modern politics is truly "pro-freedom."

I can't think of one politician (Ron Paul comes to mind, but I'm not intimately familiar with his policies) who honestly says "I am here to provide political oversight of each state and ensure the cohesion of the union, to provide a military somewhere safely between adequate and robust and to handle the advancement of the human race as a whole by acting as a representative of the 50 states to the world and collaborating on space exploration programs and being the face of global trade."

That statement, to me, is the only statement a "true pro-freedom" politician can make.

I think a definition of terms is real important here. Conservative and Liberal have been, to my understanding, a state of mind and way of living for world view. Republican and Democrat are political parties and establishments of their own corruption to further their own future power.

Now, I AM Conservative. I'm NOT Republican...not anymore, I'm not. I may never be again. I'll be Conservative to the day fate decides I don't get another, though.

I strongly disagree with Liberals..but I respect their rights as fellow Americans to have whatever beliefs they hold as much as I have my right to mine.

I *HATE* Democrats with a passion ...and a real strong one. I generally detest republicans as being worse in some ways, because they've claimed to be what they aren't where Dems are largely honest and open about the desire to shove their ideas down our throat with a plunger.

So... are the terms Repub/Conservative & Liberal/Democrat interchangeable or would we agree they are distinctly separate things for a growing % of people? Just my random thoughts here.

Originally posted by watchitburn

Originally posted by Ghost375

Liberals can be just as bad.

Right now, I'd say you were completely right. They're probably worse right now. But historically, it's the liberals who are anti-authoritarianism. It's just they in turn, given enough time, replace it with their own form. historically, it was liberals who were anti-slavery, pro-civil rights, anti-monarchies, etc. They are a force for change, and sometimes accomplish great feats. The founding fathers were very liberal by nature; the ideas they talked about were extremely revolutionary for the time. The problem is once all the major changes have taken place, they start dictating every aspect of life. So that "change" talk by Obama obvious isn't the change I'm talking about, and is really the dangerous kind.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So... are the terms Repub/Conservative & Liberal/Democrat interchangeable or would we agree they are distinctly separate things for a growing % of people? Just my random thoughts here.

I'd argue that all labels are awful when discussing lolitics, except for party groupings at things like EU conventions etc.

My ideology varies wildly from any of my friends, and their ideology varies wildly from their friends and so on and so on, but we all vote for the same lolitical party because it appeals to us more than the others.

When talking to an individual about lolitics, you have to take in to account their specific views on each subject as it comes up.

For instance, a democrat might have more in common on a personal level with a republican than he does a fellow democrat, depending on the individuals involved. e.g. look at the log cabin republicans!

Why can't people be responsible for their own actions, their own life, their own wealth, their own happiness?

Why should any type of government get involved?

Originally posted by beezzer
Why can't people be responsible for their own actions, their own life, their own wealth, their own happiness?

Why should any type of government get involved?

Because someone should do something about the state of the country, but not me, I'm far too busy.

reply to post by Ghost375


I consider myself to be liberally conservative. I don’t follow either party and try to always look out for my fellow human, as long they are at least trying to help themselves. Some would say I am a Libertarian.

Both parties are soon to be toast if they don’t re-invent themselves (and trust me, they will) but it will only further the divide.

I’m actually looking forward to what each metamorph into…provided we survive it.

Originally posted by jimmiec
I thought it was common knowledge that no politician is pro freedom. If they did not impose their will on society then there would be no need for them. The title of the thread should read " Politicians are not really pro-freedom" There is one major difference in the two parties as far as basics though. One is for big government and the other is for small government. Supposedly.

It applies to more than just politicians, but they are definitely not pro-freedom. Those in power only have one thing in mind, keeping that power.
I would beg to differ about the whole big government small government thing. They're both big government, and your supposedly comment indicates you realize this already.

Thinking about it, I would have to say that many people who call themselves "conservative" on this site are actually liberal minded. So don't take offense if you consider yourself conservative, and pro-freedom. I'm really using conservative in the traditional sense.
You know, if you have a laissez faire attitude for the economy, that's actually a very liberal viewpoint traditionally!

The labels are so screwed today.

reply to post by Ghost375
You are confusing terms here. Conservative doesn't mean Republican and Liberal does not mean Democrat. I am a Conservative and I don't want to tell anyone else how to live or take away anyone's freedom- I just want a smaller government that stays out of EVERYONE's business as much as possible and doesn't waste our hard earned American tax dollars on stupid bull malarkey (hundreds of dollars for a hammer or a toilet seat, c'mon!) and gives the public a full accounting of what they do with OUR money!

Historically this, historically that. Let's talk about TODAY, shall we?

Whatever labels you want to use, the fact remains is that we have a government that wants to control all of us by any and all means necessary. Many of you are marching lockstep with them because you are believing the cover story they are feeding you via the MSM. You know the one - save the children, save the earth, guns kill people and turn people into killers by some magical power, there is no immigration problem, there is no spending problem, no we did not send an assload of guns into Mexico, Benghazi was a "protest" and golly we never saw it coming.

You hearing me, people?

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by Ghost375

 

You are confusing terms here.

yeah, I'm trying to clarify my position a little better. I think my last post clears it up a little. It's definitely a complex subject lol.

reply to post by Dispo


sorry about that lol. I did it so quickly because I realized the post was pretty off topic, and it would make a good thread.

I think you're right, other than saying Dostoevsky was not that great.

That's why I feel this topic is so important. You have a lot of people shouting "freedom," when they don't really mean it.

I feel like the vast majority of people on this site, are indeed very pro-freedom. But I have noticed some will follow people who are using the freedom line, when the people they are following don't really mean it.
Pretty much anyone of influence in this country isn't leading us toward anything remotely free.

reply to post by Dispo

It is a tough spot, isn't it? I mean in my own views I'm Law and Order enough with a hard core edge to make 'Dirty Harry' shift uncomfortably at times. On the other hand, I am NOT against all abortion. Most..yes. Not all. Between the two, I pretty well piss of everyone on both ends. I do choose my battles carefully at times given all that.

The problem is..without SOME common terminology to describe the general world view and mindset, how does one go about explaining the starting point of opinions or positions held? I can say Conservative and make it one word...or I can make a paragraph of general positions complete with qualifications and exceptions for troll repellent. I don't like labels in their own right either...but what can ya do in some things? It's necessary to have some way of conveying it?

Now, membership or loyalty to an ideology over personal judgement and/or common sense? There is where a liberal becomes a Democrat and a Conservative becomes a nasty Republican, IMO.

reply to post by Ghost375


Well atleast this message is better than they one they had 100 years ago.

You have the freedom to worship our god or be murdered in the street. You have the freedom to be a black slave or we will hang you from a tree. You have the freedom to keep your homosexuality a secret or we will drag you behind a wagon untill your dead.

Id say they are making leaps an bounds just by not killing people who have differing opinions.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I mean in my own views I'm Law and Order enough with a hard core edge to make 'Dirty Harry' shift uncomfortably at times. On the other hand, I am NOT against all abortion. Most..yes. Not all.

I think THAT is a lot easier to understand and a better starting point that "I'm a conservative."

I just knocked this up in paint to explain my own political leanings. A tick or cross in one column indicates strong advocacy, a tick and a cross in both columns indicates that there are good and bad points, and no markings indicates a subject I don't know/care enough about.



And here's the template:

Freedom is not synonymous with lawlessness, anarchy, and anything goes depravity.

For example, most obvious, no matter what kind of government (or lack therof) you do not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

www.conservativecrusader.com...

Far from intending an “anything goes” system whereby man is free to do whatever he wants to or with others, even to himself, the Founders envisioned a system in which man voluntarily chose to restrain his own behavior to within certain well-understood and commonly accepted norms, norms which existed because of a basis in the greater “natural law” that the Founders saw to be the guiding structure of man’s relations in society.