Why all dictatorships Left Wing

Post Reply New Topic

Pretty good read Gitchel.

America isn't the world, and I've already pointed out why the "pro-individual" rights bit is a crock in another thread.

Orwell is right, you have committed a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Conservatives are AGAINST individual rights or self determination, at least the social conservatives are. The social conservatives are what poison the message of the fiscal conservatives. As I understand it, many Republicans don't like it either.

Because Conservatives here can't make any money from "big government". They CAN make it from being on the boards and holding shares in the companies they appoint to do all the leg-work. Not to mention when it all goes wrong they can blame the contractor, and hire another one in. You are sorely deluded if you think that our Conservatives are not interested in controlling the people.

Hey now, I'll have you know that it's the closest many of us will ever get to poking a corpse with a stick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3n ... ra_Salazar

He's a textbook conservative (especially socially).

'Salazar's program was opposed to communism, socialism, and liberalism. It was clerical, conservative, and nationalistic.' There you go.

Finally, someone who wrote what I was kinda thinking but could never put into words. Refreshing post.

Actually, I realize now I was mistaken on that point. He's not committing a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy at all. He's just using wildly incorrect definitions.

Inuyasha, your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" properly apply to "libertarian" and "statist," respectively. They are not appropriate descriptions of left-wing vs right-wing or (in the American sense) liberal vs conservative.

Inuyasha puts the European Fascists in the liberal camp because they were not pure neo-liberal laissez-faire capitalists. However, Pinochet's Chile was neither Fascist nor leftist in any way shape or form. Pinochet was a true believer in the conservative principles of laissez-faire capitalism and international corporatism. He also believed in imposing "economic freedom" through the use of coercive vehicles of the state (i.e. military and police). He took power in a military coup and violently suppressed any democratic opposition to his "reforms".

This is exactly right. Inuysha and his ilk are also led to believe by propagandists like Limbaugh and Hannity that all statism = extreme repression. So you have a laughable situation where Beveridge liberals are compared to Hitler or Mussolini for wanting to extend health care coverage to uninsured people. They are spouting ignorance pure and simple.

Actually, it depends on your definitions.

libertarians kind of straddle the fence in some ways and could in extreme cases be considered anarchists. What definition are you using for statist, btw?



Yes they had to include something that would essentially give government total control of our lives... If the individual mandate is allowed to stand, our freedoms are gone. We can be told what to buy, what to eat, how many children to have, etc. Excuse me for using saying something to get everyone's attention. However, can you look beyond your conservatives bad, liberals good song and dance to actually consider the implications of Obamacare's individual mandate?

@ marshall

I'm not referring to this from a Capitalism/Marxism standpoint only. I am referring to the core principles of Individual Liberty vs. Government control.

From the standpoint of Conservatism being for individual liberty in that sense your example was a liberal.

The definition of Conservatism I am using: Pro-family, pro-individual liberty, pro-small government, pro-fiscal responsiblity.

I am using the following definition for liberalism: pro-big government, anti-free speech, anti-family, etc.

So based on the definition I am using, Conservatism and Dictatorships really don't mix very well.

Anyways part of the reason I posted this is cause I got sick of the conservatives are stupid or evil song and dance from multiple people here. Some of the people here have posted in this thread, and I am not naming names.

And your definitions are wrong.


Libertarian: Favor smaller/weaker government. On the extreme end they border on anarchism.
Statist: Favor larger/stronger government. On the extreme end they border on fascism.

The general notion has been that American liberals are relatively libertarian on social issues (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and relatively statist on economic issues (steeper progressive taxation, social welfare programs, regulation on business). Conservatives, in contrast, are relatively statist on social issues and relatively libertarian on economic issues.


That is not an appropriate definition of conservative in the US, and in fact is self-contradictory. In "pro-family" you are almost certainly implying anti-gay and anti-abortion positions, and those would seem to go agaisnt individual liberty. And of course, since when have conservatives actually acted in favor of those values? Torture is not pro-individual liberty. Strengthening the power of the police at the expense of individual's 4th Amendment rights isn't pro-individual liberty. Pro-small government? How many new federal departments did George W. Bush invent? Didn't Eisenhower undertake one of the most massive publics works projects ever in the Interstate Highway System? How is that "small government?" Fiscal responsibility? Who was the last Republican president who balanced the budget?


Liberals have always been more opposed to censorship than conservatives, so your anti-free speech claim is BS. Anti-family I am assuming is a euphemism for the typical liberal support for equal civil rights for all citizens.


That is true. It is also true that the definition you are using is BS. Unless you are going to posit that the Republican Party (and almost all self-proclaimed conservatives in this country) are not "true" conservatives. In which case you would be committing a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

"Yes they had to include something that would essentially give government total control of our lives... Rolling Eyes If the individual mandate is allowed to stand, our freedoms are gone. We can be told what to buy, what to eat, how many children to have, etc. Excuse me for using saying something to get everyone's attention. However, can you look beyond your conservatives bad, liberals good song and dance to actually consider the implications of Obamacare's individual mandate? "




Not being from the US i know that the" implications" i.e that all government healthcare leads to extreme repression is a LIE. Ask anyone in the EU 25 member states if they feel repressed by socialised medicine and they will laugh in your face. Ironically you are being lied to by the media and powerful people in the US so they dont have to pay for your healthcare. What they'd rather do instead is to give a massive taxcut to the richest 0.1% of americans.

please find other news source as you are being taken for a fool by yr government and yr media who have their own economic interests which are probably somewhat different from those of the average american.

Okay, first of all I really don't need to use any sources to prove you are wrong on this other than the United States Constitution and simple logic. If the commerce clause can be extended to penalize people for not participating in commerce (yeah Obamacare does state that people have to buy something just for breathing, btw that would be called coercion), then that means they can tell us to do anything they want. Auto insurance and homeowners insurance are not equivalent because you participate in commerce by voluntarily buying a home or voluntarily buying a home. Short of committing suicide, breathing is involuntary, so penalizing someone for choosing to not even participate in commerce extends the commerce clause to unprecidented overreach. In effect, if Obamacare's individual mandate is allowed to stay, Government can tell you what to buy, what to eat, etc. because it "affects interstate commerce."

You want to accuse me of being foolish, when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The United States Constitution was written to specifically limit the power of government.

Hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but the Government already makes people pay for breathing (or at least existing in US territory.) They also tell you what to do all the time, And frankly, the very nature of commercialisation means that you get told what to buy all the time, and what to eat.

And having an "NHS" does not turn your nation into the Reich. Wanting an NHS does not turn the man who wants it into Hitler.