What's the point of being conservative?

Post Reply New Topic

If liberals and progressives always win in the long run (which I noticed very quickly when studying history), what's the point of being conservative on any issue, if you're going to lose anyways?

Just to tell you where I'm coming from, I'm an American, and I'm considered liberal in the US but very conservative by Europeans, and I've always felt this sense of guilt that whenever I take a stance that the leftists disagree with, I feel like I'm standing on the wrong side of history and that I'm holding back human progress.

More questions to consider for the progressives on this site: What, in your mind, will or should society eventually evolve to? What is the progressive ideal? Is it possible to attain something close to it, given reality and human nature? Can human nature as a whole be changed and if so, what should it be? I want well informed answers.

Wrong question. The question should be: what is the point of favoring limited government. The point is to protect your liberty from government tyranny.

ruveyn

Are you a libertarian?

No. I am against oversized overpowering government. It is the way toward tyranny. Government should exist only to guard the rights and property of the citizens of the country. Governments should not be in the business of redistributing incomes.

ruveyn

Conservative then? Anyways...it's a very different reaction from people of other forum (a game called NationStates) that I posted this OP on.

Conservative, liberal, progressive, etc are all twisted and confused terms that mean different things to different people at different times. Defining yourself as one serves no purpose other than to box yourself into a corner ideologically. Do not be so sure of the moral high ground progressives claim to stand on, look at their actions instead of their stated motives and judge their morality. Do you believe the initiation of force against another is morally wrong?

Classical liberalism is different from what is called progressivism or liberalism today. What was traditionally called "liberal" meant smaller government and more autonomy. What America calls liberal today is called social-democrat or socialist in most other places - my cousins often tell me that the U.S. is more Communist than China, where they live.

Liberals and progressives do not always win in the long run. Remember the Dark Ages. Also, Iran was highly socially liberal before the 1979 revolution, with Western clothing and gender concepts encouraged by the government, now it's a watchword for religious social conservatism. Sometimes liberals win out against socialists. Sometimes socialists win out against liberals, and the pendulum usually swings back and forth.

I don't think we have an 'ideal', people like Karl Marx as well as neoconservative democracy-fetishists like to have a positivist view of things, an idea of political 'salvation' inspired by their Protestant roots. Nor do I think everything comes around again like the Indian idea of yugas, or aeons. People move in whichever way they choose, and I think ultimately it's going to tend toward the Star Trek saying of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations".

Political conservatives have a lot of concern for what other people do in private. I don't.

The only things I expect of others is that they are quiet at night when people are trying to sleep, that they don't fart in crowded elevators and that they do not do anything to scare the horses.

ruveyn

I grew up in mainland China, and this is true- China is hyper-capitalist nowadays.



I guess...it's hard being around lefties all the time- they sometimes make you feel guilty for not being all idealistic and stuff.



Star Trek is a left-wing utopia of sorts- all needs taken care of, no inequality, etc.

It is fiction. There never was a society like that and there is not likely to be one, ever.

ruveyn

There is a debate going on about whether we'll ever be in a post-scarcity economy. A good number of people say yes.

It is conceivable. But then how do we allocate goods and services to people if it is on any other basis than ability to pay for the goods and services. I think it would be a great idea, but the people in charge of the allocation may become corrupt and run the system for their own benefit.

ruveyn

Any system can become corrupt. Classical liberalism has a much greater chance of leading to authoritarian marxism/communism than social anarchism, as it has historically pissed off workers. Satisfied people are much less likely to become power hungry.

Last edited by RushKing on 14 Dec 2012, 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This is the conclusion I came to- even democracy can be easily corrupted.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation- no government is bad, but so is a bad government. The only thing is that we have to hope for a benevolent government, but there's no way we can guarantee that, not even with the power of the ballot- the elected leaders could flat out ignore us like they usually do.

As for ideology though...I can't have one. I don't follow any ideology completely.

That question doesn't even make sense.
You determine your right/left political standing by examining you values and views are and how many of each fall in what category.

The thing is, I can never let personal feelings intrude on my politics. I am not entitled to have an opinion just to have one- it has to be backed up in facts. And the facts usually favor the left wing. And being conservative is arguably useless because society always progresses so you'll always lose.