@mewmew try looking for 'regressive' while you're at it 
But yeah... I had the exactly same problem while lookimg up Libertarians. Sometimes, you just don't know the correct word to use when looking these things up.
@mewmew I might debate you on these topics later, but I serioussly don't feel like it right now...
Especially at work.
The question we should ask: is "progress" good?
It's an argument from novelty, really.
"If it's newer, it's better."
The conservative argument: trust that which is tested by time.
Except that we have known for thousands of years that Earth is not flat.
We like that which works in reality.
You like that which works in a social setting.
But, that fails over time, because that social setting is WITHIN reality.
Most are, because religion keeps re-inventing itself, which means that it serves some role. Therefore, we want the sanest religion we can get. I think that's changing however as conservatives flee churches.
I don't think it's possible to have cultural conservatism without religion, honestly. And as for economic conservatism - sure - but economic conservatism is just bad economic policy.
What is authoritarianism?
Conservatives like strong leadership that enables people to live normal lives and be left alone.
The Left wants to intervene in their private lives to force them to conform.
This might be interesting:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/11/anarcho-monarchism
I don't like the political compass view. They are method-based, not goal-based.
Libertarianism is basically Leftism that likes Right-wing economic methods. Like a mirror image of national socialism, in inverse.
Leftism is egalitarianism. It has no other philosophy.
Anarchy is one expression of egalitarianism. Not quite the most extreme, since it really is an absence of order, unlike Communism which uses extreme order -- but unrealistic order! -- to make people equal.
Libertarianism has the same basic idea. I incorporate it partially into my thinking, but by itself, it is not a civilization but the absence thereof.
@amerika @allison @mewmew
Leftism is egalitarianism. It has no other philosophy.
Now that is bullshit. There is nothing egalitarian about open discrimination the left is advocating for. There is nothing egalitarian about stealing money and giving it to the lazy.
Leftists might be commies, but not libertarian.
Let us look at it this way:
Egalitarianism means making everyone equal.
When some are by nature more equal than others, you have to discriminate against them.
@amerika @allison @mewmew
Equality and equity are two different concepts. I am for parity of rights based on unified rules. I am definitelly against stealing from the hard working people only so single moms can continue to push out babies and abusing them while still having enough money to travel without spending a single day at work in their lives.
I disagree. Equity is just one stage in the egalitarian arc.
As long as you accept some idea of equality, you are going to find yourself subsidizing those who are less than equal by taking for those who are more than equal.
It might take a generation, as it did in the USA from 1945-1960.
I disagree. History's most advanced progressives have always ended up as dictators, and democracy tends toward dictatorship after a couple centuries.
If something keeps blowing up on the launchpad, at some point you blame the design.
There's nothing more progressive than Socialism, and all of those end up as Communism.
Democracy is a progressive idea, and yet it always ends in tyranny.
Remember when I said:
"The question we should ask: is "progress" good?
It's an argument from novelty, really.
'If it's newer, it's better.'
The conservative argument: trust that which is tested by time.
We like that which works in reality.
You like that which works in a social setting.
But, that fails over time, because that social setting is WITHIN reality."
We realize that the "new" is usually self-serving for the one who presents it, and is almost never actually new.
and socialism doesn't always end up as communism. we have a very limited data set here.
In my view, we have to standardize or at least express definitions here.
I use the Platonic definition of tyranny, which means rule for its own sake, which naturally exploits the population.
We might have a limited data set for the modern era, but the ancients knew of "sharing" societies, all of which imploded the same way.
Then there's the long history of communes.
@amerika @mewmew @LukeAlmighty @allison
Democracy is a progressive idea, and yet it always ends in tyranny.
Unlimited democracy ends up in tyranny about five minutes after the people realize they can vote themselves whatever they want and to hell with a minority that may disagree. In other words, unlimited democracy being mob rule is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. Which is also why “democracy is automatically an unlimited good” is a deeply flawed concept
Properly limited and crafted democracies need not end up as a tyranny, but admittedly the danger still exists as the people will still frequently vote themselves in a king. Look at how the president of the US is treated/considered today vice 150 years ago. The Founders would likely be appalled at what the US has allowed that office to become. Who is to blame? The voters. V was right, after all
@wolfie @allison @mewmew @amerika
I think this describes modern politics as best as possible.
You have 3 primary ideological drivers.
1) Equity.
Equity is the primary driving force of the left. They see any inequity, and see fit to destroy it even if that inequity is caused by differenci in hard work/lazyness.
That is why they have no problems with open discrimination.
2) Stability.
Stability is the main driving force of the right. As long as a rule, no matter how authoretarian, can insure further stability, it is good. Because in a stable society, people can live their lives at piece.
As a result, they might discriminate against you, but only, when you are activelly destabilizing the society.
3) freedom (libertarian)
Enough said. If you fuck with me, I will fight. Libertarians believe, that the least government intervention in their lifes is the best option, as long as the basics of law and order can be sustained.
Neither right nor the left is for freedom, but left does attack it non-stop, while the right only sometimes...
That's my view of it: it took longer to dismantle American democracy, but it still happened.
The voters are being asked to do more than they are capable of doing.
@amerika @LukeAlmighty @allison @mewmew
For better or worse, it’s no coincidence that as US government was made more “democratic”, in that form of direct Senate elections and so on, it also became increasingly intrusive, powerful, and controlling.
There are solid reasons why things were setup as a representative republic and has as many checks in place. It should be no surprise that as the carefully crafted balance was destroyed, things went off the rails
@mewmew @amerika @LukeAlmighty @allison
Perhaps we’re again using different definitions, but my observations indicate that “progressives” (referring to those most often using the term to apply to themselves) are absolutely hard core authoritarians (at the least in certain areas) or at the least Statists. Of course, the same could be said about some so-called “conservatives” as well. I’m mainly pointing out that your statement isn’t accurate across the board 
are people supposed to be edified much less entertained
by such sloppy, self-indulgent crap?
Why the political compass is nonsense in a nutshell:
"Conservatism mandates strong authority, but strong authority (a method) by itself does not imply conservatism."
@mewmew @LukeAlmighty @allison @amerika Hmmm… Mew, I think we may be using entirely different definitions of “conservatism” here. Though, given that I tend to think of the term as being nearly worthless and oxymoronic as “progressive”, that wouldn’t be surprising.
If we’re using it to mean, “Being conservative as to the scale, reach, size, and power of Government”, then the statement makes no sense. On the other hand, if we’re using it to mean “The opposite of what the “left” says they are” then.. well then I’m not actually sure. And yes, that was quotes inside of quotes. I can do that 
This is the most consistent definition I have yet seen:
http://www.amerika.org/politics/ask-a-conservative/#conservative
Conservatism has always included a high acceptance for eccentricity, meaning that we like having churches but do not insist that everyone go (only that they suppress chuckles in public).
Most people see it backward: we are religious to have culture.
More likely: we have culture, and that includes but is not limited to religion.
In my view, the Greatest Generation were the most liberal, since they introduced the postwar reforms up through 1965 at least.
It's very hard to test for political affiliations because most people don't understand their own politics. They know some things they like.
I grew up among them, and most expressed that kind of whitebread 1950s liberalism, tolerance and love for everyone but we should all go to church and work hard at school kind of stuff.
My own family has very liberal branches, and the ones born in the nineteen-teens were very liberal, big supporters of the UN, civil rights, socialism, etc.
Gen Z has experienced a different kind of hardship: a future of few options, except for a few mega-winners who get super-rich.
Bleak.
