Liberal conservatism

It's amazing how socialists believe a system that has failed in every single country that has ever tried the system can still work.

Except in Europe, particularly Scandanavia, the UK, France etc..... Mixed economies have succeeded

We have ignored capitalisms failings since Dickensian times... Argentina, Russia, Indonesia, the great depression, IMF policy and the myriad of economic disasters extant today.

Capitalists adhere to the 'no true Scotsman' defence, 'Oh, it wasn't capitalism's fault, it was corruption / interference etc etc etc.


It is impossible for one to be a liberal and a socialist at the same time. It's like oil and water. If you don't believe in freedom, then how can you be a liberal?

It is extremely niaive to equate capitalism with freedom. As Bertrand Russell said:

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

It is also a misunderstanding of liberalism that you equate it with some absolute or natural freedom. That is anarchism, not liberalism. Liberalism is the application of reason in social and economic issues.
 
klaatu said:
Well ... Conservatives advocate changing the Education System, School Vouchers .... more privatization .., where liberals resist the change and favor an increase in funding to the existing institution.., in this instance who is progressive and who is traditional?
Health Care; many Conservatives favor Tax Deductable Health Care Savings Accounts ..which is a newer concept, while Liberals favor a Nationalized Health Care Plan controlled by the Fedeeral Government, a concept that has been pushed since the Harry Truman Days. On this issue who is the prgressive and who is the traditionalist?
Social Security; an Institution that has been around since FDR ... Liberals do not want to touch it...period. Conservatives favor a gradual privitizatio... where in the future people will have more control over their investment. Liberals see SS as a program... Government Give Away, Conservatives see it as an investment for the future. Who is the Progressive and who is the traditionalist?
Click to expand...


Sure some Conservatives advocate changing things, Back to the way they used to be!
 
Jarod said:
Sure some Conservatives advocate changing things, Back to the way they used to be!
Click to expand...

Nonsense .. and try to explain yourself .... or better yet.. explain of what that I outlined will bring things back to the way they used to be?

And furthermore ... bringing the educational system back to the way it used to be might not be a bad idea ... you know .. the days when we actually were the best. When we focused on the 3 R's rather than the "feel good" bullshit. The days when it was affordable to choose between the local private school and the local public school. Allowing Parents a real choice... is that a progressive idea?
 
klaatu said:
Nonsense .. and try to explain yourself .... or better yet.. explain of what that I outlined will bring things back to the way they used to be?

And furthermore ... bringing the educational system back to the way it used to be might not be a bad idea ... you know .. the days when we actually were the best. When we focused on the 3 R's rather than the "feel good" bullshit. The days when it was affordable to choose between the local private school and the local public school. Allowing Parents a real choice... is that a progressive idea?
Click to expand...


You just proved my point for me, thank you...


But you forget that the old days also included segergation and exclusion of huge percentages of people from education...! Only reciently have we come close to true universal education.
 
Jarod said:
You just proved my point for me, thank you...


But you forget that the old days also included segergation and exclusion of huge percentages of people from education...! Only reciently have we come close to true universal education.
Click to expand...
Nobody wants to go back to segregation, at least nobody credible. That is a strawman.
 
Marching forward to change without reviewing for benefit can bring an extremely negative result. Evaluating results and comparing may show that the change was not beneficial. Sticking with the same marching pattern regardless of failure is supposedly not "liberal" yet in education it is exactly what they work toward.

Pretending that one works toward change and the other does not is a false limitation, they both work towards different changes.
 
Damocles said:
Marching forward to change without reviewing for benefit can bring an extremely negative result. Evaluating results and comparing may show that the change was not beneficial. Sticking with the same marching pattern regardless of failure is supposedly not "liberal" yet in education it is exactly what they work toward.

Pretending that one works toward change and the other does not is a false limitation, they both work towards different changes.
Click to expand...



I agree we should never blindly march forward... "First, do no harm." But sticking with the past just because its the way we have always done it is never a good reason for sticking with the past! I know noone wants to go back to seggergation, but when people cite how much better the education system used to work, they dont realize that the "old" system did not face the same challanges the current system faces.
 
Jarod said:
I agree we should never blindly march forward... "First, do no harm." But sticking with the past just because its the way we have always done it is never a good reason for sticking with the past! I know noone wants to go back to seggergation, but when people cite how much better the education system used to work, they dont realize that the "old" system did not face the same challanges the current system faces.
Click to expand...
Those "challenges" are exactly what need to be reviewed. Does it benefit all students to "mainstream" students? How does it benefit them? etc.

What kind of choice should we provide to parents?

Which party works toward change in this environment, working towards ensuring the poor have the same ability to send their children to outside schools they otherwise could not afford?
 
Damocles said:
Those "challenges" are exactly what need to be reviewed. Does it benefit all students to "mainstream" students? How does it benefit them? etc.

What kind of choice should we provide to parents?

Which party works toward change in this environment, working towards ensuring the poor have the same ability to send their children to outside schools they otherwise could not afford?
Click to expand...



I am all for the school voucher system, as long as it does not take funding away from public schools. The way it has been proposed by the Bush klan would bankrupt the public school system, whitch I truely belive is there goal. If there were a way, and I belive there is, to have high quality public schools and a voucher system, I would be all for it.

I belive however the effect of the Bush/Republican voucher plan would be to have 100 students to one teacher using a computer based basic level educational system that would result in the poor only haveing the chance to get a very simple education while the rich would suplament the voucher and send there kids to schools that would be top notch.
 
Jarod said:
I am all for the school voucher system, as long as it does not take funding away from public schools. The way it has been proposed by the Bush klan would bankrupt the public school system, whitch I truely belive is there goal. If there were a way, and I belive there is, to have high quality public schools and a voucher system, I would be all for it.

I belive however the effect of the Bush/Republican voucher plan would be to have 100 students to one teacher using a computer based basic level educational system that would result in the poor only haveing the chance to get a very simple education while the rich would suplament the voucher and send there kids to schools that would be top notch.
Click to expand...
Bullpucky it would "bankrupt" the school system. First of all, if every single student left to go to private school the public school system would have exactly 50% of its funding under the programs put forward by the Republicans....

In fact if people left for Private schools rather than used them to transfer to better performing schools in their district there is actually more money per student in the Public Schools under the Republican plan...

(BTW - It actually refutes the whole "Conservatives Fight Every Change" argument, and you must notice you have begun arguing whether or not the change would be good rather than the "Rs hate change" POV?)
 
Sure they hate change.. they want America to go to a place where there was no public school!
 
Do you have a cite to that 50% number.

As you are likely aware it costs more per student to educate less students.

If you are educating 10 students it costs more than if you are educating 100...
 
Jarod said:
Do you have a cite to that 50% number.

As you are likely aware it costs more per student to educate less students.

If you are educating 10 students it costs more than if you are educating 100...
Click to expand...
It comes from the law as proposed in Colorado. Each student would get 1/2 of what the school would normally receive, the other half remained in the original district.

And yes, less students per teacher means higher cost. However are you aware that most of the higher cost per student today is spent on administration rather than on the students?
 
Damocles said:
It comes from the law as proposed in Colorado. Each student would get 1/2 of what the school would normally receive, the other half remained in the original district.

And yes, less students per teacher means higher cost. However are you aware that most of the higher cost per student today is spent on administration rather than on the students?
Click to expand...



I think I could be for that... Its NOT what was proposed her by Governor Bush.
 
The conservative movement in this country is not defined by solely trying to turn back the clock. It would be a socially conservative move to outlaw something like Salvia.

This is a drug that has been legal for years and has never been illegal. Making it so would be a forward looking move not a harkening back to yesteryear. Yet such a move would be characterized as conservative.
 
And that is why we must avoid making blanket statements. That is why I objected so much to Midcan's assertion that the only stance conservatives have is to be against something.

Partisan blinders.
 
AnyOldIron said:
It's amazing how socialists believe a system that has failed in every single country that has ever tried the system can still work.

Except in Europe, particularly Scandanavia, the UK, France etc..... Mixed economies have succeeded

We have ignored capitalisms failings since Dickensian times... Argentina, Russia, Indonesia, the great depression, IMF policy and the myriad of economic disasters extant today.

Capitalists adhere to the 'no true Scotsman' defence, 'Oh, it wasn't capitalism's fault, it was corruption / interference etc etc etc.


It is impossible for one to be a liberal and a socialist at the same time. It's like oil and water. If you don't believe in freedom, then how can you be a liberal?

It is extremely niaive to equate capitalism with freedom. As Bertrand Russell said:

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

It is also a misunderstanding of liberalism that you equate it with some absolute or natural freedom. That is anarchism, not liberalism. Liberalism is the application of reason in social and economic issues.
Click to expand...


The root word of "liberalism" is "liberty", Ayn.

And I'd hardly call a free economy "tyranny". That's ludicrous. Any tyrrany that's ever resulted was the result of local or extreme circumstances, or the government.

EVERY economy in the world is a mixed economy, except for Somalia's. To equate a mixed economy with a socialist one is ridiculous, and I'd hardly call the economies of Germany and Italy socialist. Maybe highly regulated capitalism (where the economy doesn't function well, and the quality of life is lower by nearly every managable standard), not socialism. The UK currently has a GDP per capita 10,000 dollar less than it's less regulated neighbor Ireland, in case you were wondering.
 
Even the soviet union had a mixed economy... no matter how badly you oppress the people and forbid them from trade, trade will result. This wasn't the major part of their economy, but I'd be willing to be that in most communist countries at least 10-20% of their economy is trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top