PDA

View Full Version : Made a discovery about myself




christagious
12-07-2007, 09:36 PM
I guess I'm not the "extreme liberal" that I always thought I was. I was doing some research on liberalism, neoliberalism, conservatism, and paleo- and neoconservatism. I've always been against Bush, the war, foreign intervention, etc. and I always thought that that was me being liberal, but it seems as if that is actually a part of paleoconservatism, and according to some sites, people such as Ron Paul are also paleoconservative. If it wasn't for Ron Paul I guess I'd still be wearing that "liberal" label on my sleeve, but I guess I'm really an old school conservative.

Am I right about Ron Paul and myself being paleoconservative, or do I need to do some more research?

christagious
12-07-2007, 09:37 PM
I need to add that besides those other issues I mentioned, I'm also pro-life ( I thought that this was the only issue I disagreed on with the liberals), pro gun right, pro less government, among many other things.

steph3n
12-07-2007, 09:38 PM
yep you are old school conservative :D

Luther
12-07-2007, 09:56 PM
In America today the word "liberal" is a synonym for socialist, and "conservative" is often used as a synonym for fascist.

Buzz
12-07-2007, 09:57 PM
Right. It's amazing how ignorant the general public is about the political spectrum, and that went for me until a couple of years ago too. Everyone thinks that it's only possible to be one of three things: A liberal, a neo-con, or some sort of moderate. We're so used to the two-party monopoly that we don't even realize that anything else exists anymore, and nobody under 40 seems to know what true conservatism is because of the neo-con takeover of the GOP.

travismofo
12-07-2007, 10:03 PM
I also used to associate myself with one of the "only 2 camps". It confused the hell out of me for quite a while.

I kept thinking to myself "Man, am I a bad Republican if I'm against the war in Iraq?! There's no way I'm a Democrat so I have to force myself to be pro-war."

Needless to say now I know better. There's more than 2 bs options out there.

ScotTX
12-07-2007, 10:12 PM
I never really knew where I fit in political spectrum, but it certainly wasn't the Republican or Democratic parties. I always just said "I am an American!" I was so glad to hear Dr. Paul saying the exact things that I'd been thinking!

Luther
12-07-2007, 10:16 PM
Right. It's amazing how ignorant the general public is about the political spectrum, and that went for me until a couple of years ago too. Everyone thinks that it's only possible to be one of three things: A liberal, a neo-con, or some sort of moderate. We're so used to the two-party monopoly that we don't even realize that anything else exists anymore, and nobody under 40 seems to know what true conservatism is because of the neo-con takeover of the GOP.


The "true conservatism" that Ron Paul represents would more accurately be called liberalism.



Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Buzz
12-07-2007, 10:32 PM
Yeah, "liberalism" is one of the most misused words in the political world--"classical liberalism" and all that--but for all our sakes I won't get into semantics. :p

Luther
12-07-2007, 10:38 PM
Yeah, "liberalism" is one of the most misused words in the political world--"classical liberalism" and all that--but for all our sakes' I won't get into semantics. :p

I happen to hold the minority opinion that words are very important.

Delaware
12-07-2007, 10:40 PM
The founding fathers were classical liberals, but today they would be considered paleoconservatives.

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
12-07-2007, 10:41 PM
It's not about "conservative" or "liberal".
Every soul desires to be free. Free from limiting beliefs, ties that bind us to negative habits and self-destructive behaviors.
As Ron said in the Stossel interview, you cannot legislate virtue.
Freedom is love, and giving each individual the space to grow at their own pace.

curtisag
12-07-2007, 10:41 PM
You are a Ron Paul Republican my friend. And that makes you VERY conservative! Congrats on your realization :).

spacebetween
12-07-2007, 10:42 PM
I'm almost completely convinced that if more people knew what libertarianism, paleoconservativism, real conservatism, and neo-conservatism were, they wouldn't stick with the "liberal" label.

Someone else said it best though... "I'm an American!"

slantedview
12-07-2007, 10:44 PM
you came to the same realization i came to a while back, after discovering Dr. Paul. I always assumed that because i'm anti-neocon, anti-bush, etc., that i was a solid liberal. i do have some socially liberal views, but i fit in pretty well with the small government fiscal conservative free market freedom views of dr. paul.

life is good as a dr. paul supporter.

austin356
12-07-2007, 10:45 PM
You are not alone!!

Heather in WI
12-07-2007, 10:47 PM
You are right! The Republican party has lost its way, but Dr. Paul has inspired me to try to bring it back!

DRV45N05
12-07-2007, 11:05 PM
It depends.

Ron's positions are best described as paleolibertarian. He is a typical libertarian in that he believes the government should only be protecting liberty and not incurring on people's liberties, but his cultural values are conservative (but doesn't believe that government should be regulating culture). However, like most paleolibertarians, he disagrees with the Libertarian Party platform (which is the typical libertarian/classical liberal) positions on abortion and immigration, and like most paleolibertarians, he emphasizes federalism moreso than most libertarians.

Paleoconservatives share a lot with paleolibertarians. They both believe in limited government interference in the economy, protection of constitutional liberties, and federalism, and they agree on abortion and immigration. However, paleocons disagree with paleolibertarians on a number of levels. They believe that government should preserve cultural tradition (which they would do at the state level), whereas paleolibertarians would say the government shouldn't be involved. Paleocons are also protectionists and believe that the government should interfere in the economy to support industries that "promote national interest" (i.e., they are strong supporters of farm subsidies), whereas paleolibertarians adhere strongly to free market economics.

Mark
12-07-2007, 11:14 PM
I guess I'm not the "extreme liberal" that I always thought I was. I was doing some research on liberalism, neoliberalism, conservatism, and paleo- and neoconservatism. I've always been against Bush, the war, foreign intervention, etc. and I always thought that that was me being liberal, but it seems as if that is actually a part of paleoconservatism, and according to some sites, people such as Ron Paul are also paleoconservative. If it wasn't for Ron Paul I guess I'd still be wearing that "liberal" label on my sleeve, but I guess I'm really an old school conservative.

Am I right about Ron Paul and myself being paleoconservative, or do I need to do some more research?


Same here. Thought I was way liberal.

Turns out I'm whatever Dr Paul is describing as Conservative.

People should take care of each other, not have the government tax us to do it for us.

LBT
12-07-2007, 11:37 PM
Ron Paul is better decribed as a Classical Liberal than a paleoconservative IMHO.

For a deeper understanding of the development of liberalism over the years I highly recommend this free series of 10 lectures on "The Struggle for Liberty" by Ralph Raico.
http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=344

Series (15 hours on CD or Cassette)for sale here for $15
http://www.mises.org/store/Product1.aspx?Product_Id=184

AlexMerced
12-07-2007, 11:39 PM
I guess I'm not the "extreme liberal" that I always thought I was. I was doing some research on liberalism, neoliberalism, conservatism, and paleo- and neoconservatism. I've always been against Bush, the war, foreign intervention, etc. and I always thought that that was me being liberal, but it seems as if that is actually a part of paleoconservatism, and according to some sites, people such as Ron Paul are also paleoconservative. If it wasn't for Ron Paul I guess I'd still be wearing that "liberal" label on my sleeve, but I guess I'm really an old school conservative.

Am I right about Ron Paul and myself being paleoconservative, or do I need to do some more research?

Yeah, I came to the same realization, andmost liberals I do this

I ask them what's their viewon things, then 5/10 times they turnout to actually ahve conservative viewpoints and I correct them and try to dismiss the guilt by association with neo-cons and then make them aware of ron paul.

the other 5 are usually hardcore or fascit,and sometruly believe authortarianism isn't a bad thing... some people scareme

mathamagician
12-07-2007, 11:51 PM
Basically in America the traditional views on foreign policy has been:

Liberal: Try to give up as much power to the UN as possible and go to war when other people tell us to but not to start wars. [Woodrow Wilson]

Conservative has had two:
1. Non-Intervention Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone(Paul, Founding Fathers)

2. War-Hawks Go to war kill people and blow things up only if it's in our national interest (ie makes us money) but never nation build or stay very long (Unless we need a strategic base on an island or something). There is no pretending that this is for a higher cause, get in kick ass get out. [Teddy Roosevelt, Most of old Europe]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now there's neo-conservatives who used to be democrats (they are still big spenders on social welfare) who are basically Woodrow Wilson crossed with Machiavelli. They believe we should spread freedom and democracy around the world through direct military intervention. This is the worst of both worlds becuase at least the war mongering conservatives would go in, get the job done, and get out. These guys don't need any 'national interest' excuse to declare war they'll just go around and pick fights in the name of freedom. Since there is no economic benefit to it we have to pay even more for it than the war-hawk war. Teddy Roosevelt was sad that there weren't any great wars for him to be involved in when he was president, if he was a neo-con he wouldn't need an excuse to go to war he just would. Because that allows him to force his views of how to makes a 'free' society down other people's throat.

Mark
12-08-2007, 12:19 AM
It's not about "conservative" or "liberal".
Every soul desires to be free. Free from limiting beliefs, ties that bind us to negative habits and self-destructive behaviors.
As Ron said in the Stossel interview, you cannot legislate virtue.
Freedom is love, and giving each individual the space to grow at their own pace.

That's deep dude. QFT Excellent post!

hawks4ronpaul
12-08-2007, 12:20 AM
18th Century England: Conservative = monarchist big gov./feudalism/temporal powers of church: Liberal = small gov./limited gov./free market/individual rights, source of phrase "liberal democracy" (small limited gov. democracy) and liberalized trade (free trade) and European "liberal" parties refer to small-gov. history (if not always to current policy).

American Founders = liberal (original meaning), so, unlike Europe, America started liberal (no feudalism). Historians who say Founders were conservative refer to conserving 18th-Century English liberalism after Britain ended Salutary Neglect (deregulation/small gov.) to increase centralization/regulation/taxation on the colonies.

20th-Century American leftists perverted popular term liberal into liberal = big gov./unfree markets/centralization so old liberals (small gov.) switched to term conservative as in conserving original liberalism.

Modern confusion leads small-gov. folks to terms such as "neoliberal" or "classically liberal" or "libertarian" or now "paleoconservative" to distinguish from neocons who are more like 18th-Century European conservatives.

Meanwhile, the 20th-Century American "liberals" (big gov.) such as Hillary now call themselves "progressive" so they can ruin that term too.

Confusing, isn't it?


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

Paulitician
12-08-2007, 12:23 AM
I like the term "classical liberal"

Sounds... um, classy of course.

DRV45N05
12-08-2007, 12:28 AM
I'll stick with libertarian. It describes exactly what I believe in:

Liberty.

MS0453
12-08-2007, 12:30 AM
It depends.

Ron's positions are best described as paleolibertarian. He is a typical libertarian in that he believes the government should only be protecting liberty and not incurring on people's liberties, but his cultural values are conservative (but doesn't believe that government should be regulating culture). However, like most paleolibertarians, he disagrees with the Libertarian Party platform (which is the typical libertarian/classical liberal) positions on abortion and immigration, and like most paleolibertarians, he emphasizes federalism moreso than most libertarians.

Paleoconservatives share a lot with paleolibertarians. They both believe in limited government interference in the economy, protection of constitutional liberties, and federalism, and they agree on abortion and immigration. However, paleocons disagree with paleolibertarians on a number of levels. They believe that government should preserve cultural tradition (which they would do at the state level), whereas paleolibertarians would say the government shouldn't be involved. Paleocons are also protectionists and believe that the government should interfere in the economy to support industries that "promote national interest" (i.e., they are strong supporters of farm subsidies), whereas paleolibertarians adhere strongly to free market economics.


So called "paleo-libertarianism" really has nothing to do with abortion or immigration. The word was invented (by lew rockwell i think, though i could be way off base) to show that there was no sense of (or emphasis on) anti-religion. (IE Objectivist) Basically, they have no problems with "bourgeois" value/culture.

So one can be a "paleo-libertarian" and be for the legalization of abortion and absolute open borders.

Though I gotta agree that there are a lot of differences between paleo-conism and libertarianism, but it's still easy to how they're similar.

-------------------------------

As to those comparing paleo-conism to classical liberalism and the old right, I'd say that there is some influence, but not direct lineage.

I like to think of libertarianism (the idea and movement) as classical liberalism+old right+american individual anarchism.

On the topic of the founding father's, they were all diverse. Some would be considered libertarians, some would be considered paleo-cons, some were de-centralist, some were centralist, etc It's kinda impossible to think of them as one entity.

Luther
12-08-2007, 01:25 AM
"Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."

- Leonard Liggio

Churchill2004
12-08-2007, 01:42 AM
Paul is somewhere between a libertarian and a paleoconservative. I'm a libertarian myself (as in bordering on anarchism libertarianism), but Paul is certainly close enough for me.

It's fair to describe Paul as part of the "Old Right" (and that certainly plays better in the GOP primary than "libertarian"), but a lot of his ideas are more libertarian. Paleoconservatives were generally non-interventionist, but they were also fairly confrontational with the Soviet Union. Barry Goldwater, for example, opposed the Vietnam War but would often (and frighteningly) talk casually about the possibility of a war with the Soviets. There's also his positions on drugs, prostitution, and marriage- all of which are more libertarian than paleoconservative. His position on the size of government is also a bit more libertarian than paleoconservative, simply by virtue of its relative extremism. Paleoconservatives would also usually support a large military, while libertarians (and Paul) see the current military as too large.

user
12-08-2007, 01:58 AM
I like the term "liberal" and it's a shame the socialists took it over and ruined it.

TheConstitutionLives
12-08-2007, 02:33 AM
I prefer to call myself a "Constitutionalists". Neither liberal nor conservative.

Wingman
12-08-2007, 03:00 AM
well.. its just me but i dont think it is that important trying to find out if you are neo conservative or liberal or quasi liberal (or whatever subcategory that could be created).

what is important is what is in your heart. vote with your heart i think. for me that means thinking about my future and whatever family i may have and the future of the people around me, the world etc

its hard to think of weighing everything up but that is what the heart is for. it works faster than the brain.

btw im almost positive ron paul is a heart man.

ashlux
12-08-2007, 03:10 AM
I guess I'm not the "extreme liberal" that I always thought I was. I was doing some research on liberalism, neoliberalism, conservatism, and paleo- and neoconservatism.

It's amazing how many people I've ran into that claim to be liberal, even to the extreme, but talk just like a libertarian. They're not really liberal, they just see there being two options: liberal and conservative.

I just want to give you props for learning about this stuff. *cheers*

user
12-08-2007, 03:18 AM
well.. its just me but i dont think it is that important trying to find out if you are neo conservative or liberal or quasi liberal (or whatever subcategory that could be created).

what is important is what is in your heart. vote with your heart i think. for me that means thinking about my future and whatever family i may have and the future of the people around me, the world etc

its hard to think of weighing everything up but that is what the heart is for. it works faster than the brain.

btw im almost positive ron paul is a heart man.
I disagree but I'm glad your heart seems to have led you to Ron Paul.

Ben Elliott
12-08-2007, 03:27 AM
I find myself in the same position. Traditionally, I am a liberal with socialist leanings. Talk to me about government and I would spill out line after line of how mild socialism has worked in many european countries and other things. But at the same time, I am a major fan of classical philosophy. Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers are my heroes. That whole time period is my favorite time period in history. Poets like Walt Whitman shared ideas with geniuses such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. It is an amazing time period.

Lately, I'm finding myself moving more towards classical philosophy compared to my socialist leanings. Ron Paul had a good hand in that but it was more of a realization of myself.

It's weird finding out things about yourself.

xao
12-08-2007, 05:51 AM
The "true conservatism" that Ron Paul represents would more accurately be called liberalism.



Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism


Well this isn't really correct. I think you mean libertarianism because EVERYONE is liberal and conservative on different issues.
I merely consider myself a Patriot.

I think Ron is a Patriot and a Republican based on our REPUBLIC. I think it was Ben Franklin that said, "You have a Republic, if you can keep it".

I recommend people Read Pat Buchanan's book called "A Republic not an empire".

Btw if anyone still doubts Classical Republicans then they really need to learn about the party more because it was the Republicans who harshly opposed the Federalists. The Federalists were for a big powerful central govt. Like we have today.

It was the traditional Republicans who outright opposed that and the federalist weasels won out. It's really too bad because we wouldn't have had a powerful central govt.(aka FED GOVT.) if the Republicans won out.


Yes certainly the left vs. right paradigm is simply a way to enslave us and keep us arguing. We all have some conservative and liberal viewpoints for different issues. No one is one way or the other full bore.

Hannity will scream and call you a liberal but he is too stupid to understand that even he is liberal on certain issues. He just reads his cue cards to create the MSM false paradigm and divide us.

xao
12-08-2007, 06:00 AM
I'm almost completely convinced that if more people knew what libertarianism, paleoconservativism, real conservatism, and neo-conservatism were, they wouldn't stick with the "liberal" label.

Someone else said it best though... "I'm an American!"

You nailed it. People don't realize that the left and right are both socialist and marxist now.

Fdr, wilson, etc. Socialists, marxists Democrats.

And Neocons-ex trotskyites as the marxists on the right.


Things that have remained quality are,
paleos, libertarians, limited govt. etc.

Patriots if you will.

FreeTraveler
12-08-2007, 06:15 AM
The media trys to sell us left and right to divide us; the up and down dimensions are the most important ones.

You can take this quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html), which does a pretty good job of helping you clarify where you stand with 10 fast and easy questions. Here's my chart:


http://inlinethumb21.webshots.com/34452/2372537930100527759S425x425Q85.jpg

My red dot's right at the center, top.

xao
12-08-2007, 06:15 AM
[QUOTE=DRV45N05;554157]It depends.

Ron's positions are best described as paleolibertarian. He is a typical libertarian in that he believes the government should only be protecting liberty and not incurring on people's liberties, but his cultural values are conservative (but doesn't believe that government should be regulating culture). However, like most paleolibertarians, he disagrees with the Libertarian Party platform (which is the typical libertarian/classical liberal) positions on abortion and immigration,

Well it's important to distinguish between libertarian and the libertarian party itself because those are different things. For instance the libertarian party had sort of a laxed view of people moving freely and no closed walls, fences. But I've been told that the libertarian party has since changed their view on borders and now thing illegal immigration is bad for a soverign country. As of 2004 apparently. So I think they're improving as a party.

>and like most paleolibertarians, he emphasizes federalism moreso than most libertarians.

Wait a minute, that's wrong. Federalism is typically big central govt. That's what the federalists pushed for. A central FED govt. Ron would be against that.

>Paleocons are also protectionists and believe that the government should interfere in the economy to support industries that "promote national interest" (i.e., they are strong supporters of farm subsidies),

Well this is just flat out incorrect and you're falling into the conservative vs liberal paradigm trap again. Paleos are states rights not central Fed govts. rights.
A protectionist stance isn't intrinsically conservative at all.


I think You're just falling into the trap again of conservative vs. liberal which are both relatively new buzz words. And they only divide us.

Patriots. end of story

xao
12-08-2007, 06:32 AM
[QUOTE=mathamagician;554384]Basically in America the traditional views on foreign policy has been:

>Liberal: Try to give up as much power to the UN as possible and go to war when other people tell us to but not to start wars. [Woodrow Wilson]

Again it's not liberal vs. conservative. It's traditonally been Democrats(big govt. federalist types) vs. Republicans(small limited govt or virtually none at all).


Some people are totally missing the boat and need to wake up. The more we argue about liberal vs. conservative, the more we buy what the media and hannity n combes wants us to waste our time with.

I'd rather we just start over and form a Patriot party as both dem. and pub. parties are infected with marxists, socialists and war mongering wilsonians.

Sure maybe Ron can root out these war mongering, old-school democrat-neocons from the republican party but it won't be easy.

xao
12-08-2007, 06:44 AM
[QUOTE=hawks4ronpaul;554525]18th Century England: Conservative = monarchist big gov.

This is wrong. Conservative means small, limited. Even in Briton.
The church may have been conservative in some aspects. The system was liberal/large and intrusive. Liberal means large amounts to be givin out. Call it by it's definition.

>American Founders = liberal (original meaning),

WRONG! "SOME" of them were "libertarians", NOT "liberals"(this term did not even exist in news back then). The term liberal and conservative is neuvo.

>20th-Century American leftists perverted popular term liberal into liberal = big gov./unfree markets/centralization

The federalists are the ones who were for big fed/centralised govt. The federalist party crashed and the federalist big govt. policies went over to the "Democrats".

The democrat party sold out to the marxists and socialists LONG before the recently hijacked Republican party. In fact many founding fathers were Republicans and even independents.

xao
12-08-2007, 06:52 AM
[QUOTE=Churchill2004;554957] Paleoconservatives would also usually support a large military

Large? Traditionally it's never been "large" until ww1 and ww2 and those were mainly democrats. But sound military to defend our country if ever attacked is fine. I see nothing wrong with that.

>while libertarians (and Paul) see the current military as too large.


lol That's not true about paul. He sees the military stretched "too thin" being around the world and wants to bring our forces home to defend the homeland instead of policing the world. That doesn't mean he wants to reduce the military in america like president carter did. It means he wants to reduce it around the world and get out of other peoples country instead of pissing them off and making enemies.

Buzz
12-08-2007, 10:31 AM
Meanwhile, the 20th-Century American "liberals" (big gov.) such as Hillary now call themselves "progressive" so they can ruin that term too.

Hahahaha, that's my favorite misnomer of all! Progressive... progressing toward communist tyranny (of course, "progressives" fail to realize what their leaders are really up to and would tell you otherwise). Yup, that's progress all right.

LFOD
12-08-2007, 10:49 AM
I'm a whattheheckletstryfollowingtheconsitutionsmaybetha tllworkian.

At least that's what I say when a friend of mine tries to call me a libertarian. I'm not a- anything! I just think we should follow the consitution, it's a good document! Kachow! :D She is stunned into silence.

Corydoras
12-08-2007, 10:52 AM
18th Century England: Conservative = monarchist big gov./feudalism/temporal powers of church: Liberal = small gov./limited gov./free market/individual rights

Yes, classical conservatism, in the manner of Sir Robert Filmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Filmer

I might note that I know of at least one American monarchist supporting Ron Paul (not me!) and I don't doubt that there are others. I think monarchists know that their best bet in a country that will never accept a king is to back freedom of thought and limited government rather than statism.

greves
12-08-2007, 11:22 AM
I think a lot of people here are probably anarchists. We don't really want the government, at all, but because of all the propaganda that's been pushed through public schools and everywhere else our entire lives, we think that some government should exist. Well, once you wake up and smell the liberty, there's not much going back... government, in your mind, will get smaller and smaller until one day *poof* it just disappears.

The truth is that society doesn't need a government - it needs rules. Government and rules are not the same thing! There's absolutely no reason to think that government - a coercive, violent entity, that takes what it wants from who it wants - is the only way to go about making a peaceful and prosperous society.

Apply Dr. Paul's philosophy of personal liberty, for instance, on public schools:

Right now we have government run education, and education quality is awful. What does Dr. Paul advocate? Personal liberty says: education needs competition! We need to choose what sort of school we go to, and what we learn (or, our parents need to choose when we are young).

Obviously, competition will ensure better quality products, and cheaper prices, like Dell vs. Apple wars lowering cost and increasing quality of both machines.

Now, apply this EXACT SAME argument to the government (laws + enforcement) itself:

Right now, society's laws and the enforcement of those laws are government run, and the quality is awful. (Even with Dr. Paul's Presidency, there's no guarantee that things can remain that way once society gets happy and sloppy again, as happened in the last century.) Personal liberty says: laws and enforcement of those laws need competition! We need to choose what sort of laws we follow, and we need to choose for ourselves what way they should be enforced. Obviously, competition will make the laws higher quality (relevant to our situations, virtuous, etc), and enforcement much better (more "just" punishments, non-violent, etc).

Same exact argument, different topic. I only hope that more people can learn to apply arguments more broadly... that is how science and human knowledge in general works!

nullvalu
12-08-2007, 11:24 AM
Am I right about Ron Paul and myself being paleoconservative, or do I need to do some more research?

The truth is, you'll almost likely never find a group/label that you fit into 100%, unless the name of that group is "Christagiousist" or "Christagiousism"..

I think you're on the right track though.

Uggamugg
12-08-2007, 01:27 PM
In America today the word "liberal" is a synonym for socialist, and "conservative" is often used as a synonym for fascist.

too bad America doesn't see that socialism is fascist in nature. It uses state authority to force everyone to contribute to the common well-fare

Ball
12-08-2007, 01:36 PM
Classical liberals in the house!

JordanL
12-08-2007, 01:39 PM
too bad America doesn't see that socialism is fascist in nature. It uses state authority to force everyone to contribute to the common well-fare

America DOES see that... why do you think American voters HATE the idea of being "like" Europe?

TheHand
12-08-2007, 01:41 PM
Hope this doesn't sound too corny but I've discovered that I'm an American first! Screw the labels and be damned what party your from we need to be true to ourselves and this great country!

Uggamugg
12-08-2007, 02:21 PM
America DOES see that... why do you think American voters HATE the idea of being "like" Europe?

I was at the philly democratic debate where more than a hundred people were protesting for universal health care. They want socialism and I'm inclined to think they have no position on being like Europe except what Sicko "documented."

While there I told them that we could all afford health care with no income tax and less (or none) regulation on the health care industry. A few listened but most of them are blind to anything less than a hand me out.

SeanEdwards
12-08-2007, 02:28 PM
Modern liberalism would be more correctly described as socialism. Or maybe benevolent socialism if you wanted to be kind, and draw a distinction with soviet style socialism. But it is socialism.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. The term liberal arose with the enlightentment and such figure as voltaire. It was all about individual freedom, and had nothing to do with these modern notions of an all-powerful nanny state intruding into everyone's lives.

user
12-08-2007, 03:44 PM
Xao, I don't think you are correct. As many people have pointed out, liberal is an old term used to refer to those who promote liberty.

xao
12-08-2007, 09:48 PM
Xao, I don't think you are correct. As many people have pointed out, liberal is an old term used to refer to those who promote liberty.

Many people have already pointed out that liberal isn't the correct word. It is a false construct and guess what, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE WORD NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY, because it's already been stigmatized in american media.
Btw big govt. IS LIBERAL. It gives out a lot in the form socialism. The definition of Liberal means large or big amounts.

We're NOT living in 18th century england, which was a nightmare society with the very large and liberal church(C of E) down everyone's throats. Ask former brits whos gradnparents moved to america, if they liked religion being slammed down their throats in Briton.

People who write papers, on the subject, even back in the 18th century had socialist-like agendas. Just like some religious nuts in america have an agenda. Briton always had a lot of socialist slavery by usary tendencies because they had a lot of khazars who flocked to briton in the 16th centuries. Which was the opposite of what Germans and many Europeans had early on. But socialism took over europe and won out. This is why europe SUCKS politically today. There are real hardcore on the ground movements of millions of people in europe today(belgium, nethrlands, austria, east germany, eastern europe, italy, etc.) that are becoming angry and nationalistic because of oppressive socilaist-marxist LIBERAL govts. that give handouts to the third world, thus wiping out the native european cultures and people. You may not want to face this fact but countries change ethnically when others swarm into them. When I visit germany I want to see some blonde and red haired, not a bunch of turks leeching off the system.
You proably don't care at all. You'd probably like to see europeans extreminated, right? You make me sick. Dream about your marxist liberal society all you want. It's going to come crashing down.

Libertarian is the correct term. Liberty.

Ron is a Republican. In the vein of many of the founding fathers that were Republicans themselves. Real Republicans, not neo-cons. Even Ron has said about a thousand times that he's a Republican in the vein of the founders.
People need to deal with this, even if they hate the term.

philipsantamaria
12-08-2007, 09:56 PM
We need to bring the OLD RIGHT, the ONLY Right back into prominence in the Republican Party.

We need to take it back so that when people say Conservative, they don't think of RECORD SPENDING and DEBT. They'll think of BALANCED BUDGETS!!

Arek
12-08-2007, 10:29 PM
Well the way America's political parties work are as follows

Federalists and Anti-Federalists

Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans (new name of anti-federalists)

Jeffersonian Republican (the one party system for a few elections)

The split comes here
National Republican- John Q. Adams, Jacksonian Democrat- Andrew Jackson

so from 1800-1832 there was one party for small government that primarily controlled the Untied States, albeit the War of 1812 the policy followed that of Jefferson's

Andrew Jackson adopted Jefferson's policy with the formation of his Democratic party. The name Democrat would stick, even though it's completely perversed today from it's original meaning.

The Whig party would form (ex Federalists)

The Know-Nothings would rise up during the demise of the national Whig party. In fact the know-nothings can be seen as an anti-immigration party primarily against Irish immigrants. They were also called the progressive party and "American Party"

The "Republican Party" rose from the grave of the Whig party and abolitionist parties.

This is our two current parties. Guess what the current Republican party was originally for big government interference and the Democrats were for limited government.

The turning point started coming with Woodrow Wilson and then FDR's new deal showed the change of face. Then Kennedy (whom I'll class as a moderate) by pushing for civil rights had the parties change face.

The south became the heartland for the Republicans and the North became big for the Democratic party.

Today both parties are very similar in their stances you can almost confuse the parties.

Ron Paul's movement can be defined as trying to return to the Jeffersonian Republican and Jacksonian Democrat model. I will say he's a Constitutionalist and Liberty and Freedom and limited government. He would be an anti-federalist.

Marceline88
12-08-2007, 10:45 PM
Hope this doesn't sound too corny but I've discovered that I'm an American first! Screw the labels and be damned what party your from we need to be true to ourselves and this great country!


Not corny at all I totally concur. ;)

shortna
12-08-2007, 11:03 PM
Before I learned of Paul, I thought I was liberal. I'm a liberal no more. You are in the right place, friend.

xao
12-09-2007, 12:09 AM
[QUOTE=Arek;559739]
>Andrew Jackson adopted Jefferson's policy with the formation of his Democratic party. The name Democrat would stick, even though it's completely perversed today from it's original meaning.

WRONG again. The democrat party never molded itself after jefferson. That's an outright mistruth. As a democrat, Jackson went to south florida and slaughtered indians. He also meddled in a foreign entanglement. He was no Jeffersonian Republican. Though he did do some good things.

The federalists became the democrats as most of the former federalists defected over there. Jackson was a rarity.

>Guess what the current Republican party was originally for big government interference

Totally and completely incorrect. The Republicans were ANTI-big centralised fed govt.
The Republicans fiercly fought against the federalist party. The fedralists were for a big central govt just as the democrats were.

This is why the Republicans created the REPUBLIC.(if you can keep it). We used to have one.

"A Republic NOT a democracy"-Pat Buchanan.

All paul supporters in "nearly" every state will have to register Republican if they want to vote for him. Paul himself says he is a Republican just like many of the founding fathers. :D

user
12-09-2007, 01:07 PM
When I visit germany I want to see some blonde and red haired, not a bunch of turks leeching off the system.
You proably don't care at all. You'd probably like to see europeans extreminated, right? You make me sick. Dream about your marxist liberal society all you want. It's going to come crashing down.

I think you've shown your true colors here. How sad.

Corydoras
12-09-2007, 02:21 PM
Am I right about Ron Paul and myself being paleoconservative, or do I need to do some more research?

Some might say that although he is more paleo- than neo- conservative, he believes in free trade due to his libertarianism more than a paleoconservative might. So you might want to keep reading a bit.

Compare Ron Paul's free trade stance with Pat Buchanan's pro-tariff position.

user
12-09-2007, 02:33 PM
RP is somewhere in-between, but closer to libertarianism.

Soccrmastr
12-09-2007, 02:54 PM
I read up on everything about American politics for hours on Wikipedia. Good stuff, good stuff.

d991
12-09-2007, 03:02 PM
I still don't understand how they can be called "neo-conservatives" A more proper name would be neo-imperialists.