Some days one wonders where the thoughts of others originate

[Dolorous Jason]

Anarchism - It is a radical liberal ideology.

Which is exactly what you accused me and other Libertarians,  of being . Anarchists.  Can you tell me why I "caucus " with the conservatives , even though I am clearly a radical liberal in your idiotic 2 dimensional spectrum ? 

Can you tell me why socialists , whose beliefs involve massive government intervention and are no where near anarchy , Caucus with liberal Democtrats ??

It's probably because your made up political spectrum is too simple , and complete bullsh!t.

The only real reason some libertarian politicians align with republicans is because there are enough republican voters who still believe in limited government principles that they might actually vote for you. Those voters don't exist in the democratic base , and if you don't align with one of the major parties in our screwed up rigged political system , you don't have the money or the backing to get elected in most cases.  It's really as simple as that .

 But hey , take heart,  Comrade. You were right about one thing you said during all your black hole ramblings on this board:

Extremists tend to view the world through a black and white lens.

You're a moron.

[CBWx2]

Anarchism - It is a radical liberal ideology.

Which is exactly what you accused me and other Libertarians,  of being . Anarchists.  Can you tell me why I "caucus " with the conservatives , even though I am clearly a radical liberal in your idiotic 2 dimensional spectrum ? 

Can you tell me why socialists , whose beliefs involve massive government intervention and are no where near anarchy , Caucus with liberal Democtrats ??

It's probably because your made up political spectrum is too simple , and complete bullsh!t.

It's actually just because you are too dense to understand it. American politics differs greatly from European or "old world" politics. Because American tradition is different from European tradition, ideas of conservatism differ here than they do there. Even still, American politics operates on a single axis of conservatism and liberalism. Any and every ideology can be defined along those terms. I challenge you, or anyone else to prove differently.

The only real reason some libertarian politicians align with republicans is because there are enough republican voters who still believe in limited government principles that they might actually vote for you. Those voters don't exist in the democratic base , and if you don't align with one of the major parties in our screwed up rigged political system , you don't have the money or the backing to get elected in most cases.  It's really as simple as that .

Ah, I see. So what you are saying is what defines someone as a liberal or a conservative is what they view the role of government to be? Where have I heard that before?

What do you see as the role of government? What type of society do you wish to create? One that values individualism over altruism? Anarchy over organization? Constitutionalism over democracy? Merit over equality? Competition over cooperation? These are the things that define a conservative and a liberal in American politics.

Thank you for proving my point for me, jackass.

[CBWx2]

I suggest reading some of the work of William F. Buckley Jr. for further clarification, Delirious. If you need further evidence as to why Libertarians are so closely aligned to the American conservative movement, that would be a good place to start.

[Chief Joseph]

" You don't wish to engage because you have no legitimate rebuttal. "

True, there can be no legitimate rebuttal to someone as intellectually dishonest as you, other than to laugh at them.

 " what makes one a conservative or a liberal has nothing to do with whether or not they are pro-life, or support gay marriage. These are positions in which there is a conservative AND liberal rational for supporting."

It would be interesting to hear you lie about that for a while.

[John Galt?]

Some political philosophies:

Anarchism-
         -Panarchism
         -Autonomism
         -Mutualism
         -Individualism
         -Anarcho-capitalism
         -Collectivist anarchism
Egalitarianism
Majoritarianism
Progressivism
 libertarianism
Localism
Pacifism
Economic Socialism
Nationalism
Facism
Theocracy
Federalism
Centralism

yada yada yada

But all of those are either conservative or liberal....or didn't you get the memo ?

Watch how easy this is...

Anarchism - It is a radical liberal ideology. Anarchism is the belief in little to no government. Conservatism believes in LESS government. Isn't "little to no" = LESS?? Seems that is a conservative ideology. But at the same time anarchists are against a strong military which is clearly NOT conservative. So it seems anarchism has elements of BOTH liberal and conservative thought.

Fascism - It is a radical conservative ideology.  Fascism believes in a strict control of the means of production, which is clearly NOT a conservative view. And the most famous Fascist group was the National Socialist German Workers' Party and those bold words don't seem very conservative, but actually liberal.

Progressivism - A centre-left, or liberal ideology.

Egalitarianism, Pacifism, Localism, and Nationalism are not lone standing political ideologies. They are political philosophies that serve as a part of an ideology. For example, Localism is an essential aspect of Anarchism, and Nationalism is an essential aspect of Fascism. Egalitarianism is an essential aspect of any socialist ideology, and Pacifism is an aspect of a wide ranging array of political ideologies.

Theocracy - Not a political ideology, but rather a system of government that can be defined as a form or authoritarianism, which is a conservative ideology. But those that believe a theocracy is the best form of government (Al Qeida for instance) have a theocratic philosophy

Federalism - Not a political ideology, but rather is a political construct in which the power of governance is divided between a central authority and it's constituency. So Jefferson's famous papers where not philosophical in nature???
.

[Dolorous Jason]

Anarchism - It is a radical liberal ideology.

Which is exactly what you accused me and other Libertarians,  of being . Anarchists.  Can you tell me why I "caucus " with the conservatives , even though I am clearly a radical liberal in your idiotic 2 dimensional spectrum ? 

Can you tell me why socialists , whose beliefs involve massive government intervention and are no where near anarchy , Caucus with liberal Democtrats ??

It's probably because your made up political spectrum is too simple , and complete bullsh!t.

It's actually just because you are too dense to understand it. American politics differs greatly from European or "old world" politics. Because American tradition is different from European tradition, ideas of conservatism differ here than they do there. Even still, American politics operates on a single axis of conservatism and liberalism. Any and every ideology can be defined along those terms. I challenge you, or anyone else to prove differently.

This response says nothing. Nice deflection .  We aren't talking about other countries' spectrums, we are talking about YOURS.

You said everyone is either conservative or liberal. Everyone.
You said the far extreme of conservatism is totalitarianism.
You said the far extreme of liberalism is anarchy.
You said libertarian beliefs are basically anarchist.
You said libertarians are nothing but conservatives.

I'll ask you one more time , comrade : Care to explain how this makes any sense whatsoever ??

Maybe it's because you couldn't stand to see yourself on the same side as totalitarianisn , and in your haste to distance yourself , exposed the ridiculous flaw in your black and white spectrum. Maybe its because:

Extremists tend to view the world through a black and white lens.

[Dolorous Jason]

Anarchism - It is a radical liberal ideology. Anarchism is the belief in little to no government. Conservatism believes in LESS government. Isn't "little to no" = LESS?? Seems that is a conservative ideology. But at the same time anarchists are against a strong military which is clearly NOT conservative. So it seems anarchism has elements of BOTH liberal and conservative thought.

Of course. This just proves why it's impossible to place the entire political landscape into only two categories.

The only reason he placed anarchism on the left is because he wants desperaretly to believe that his is the side of increased freedom. He couldn't stand to think that leftist ideologies like socialism and communism are closer to totalitarianism than conservatism ever thought of being.   Don't make the mistake of thinking there's actually any logic behind the Black Hole's ramblings..

Fascism - It is a radical conservative ideology.  Fascism believes in a strict control of the means of production, which is clearly NOT a conservative view. And the most famous Fascist group was the National Socialist German Workers' Party and those bold words don't seem very conservative, but actually liberal.

True , and once again , it all just speaks to the idiocy of his simplistic point of view.

[CBWx2]

" what makes one a conservative or a liberal has nothing to do with whether or not they are pro-life, or support gay marriage. These are positions in which there is a conservative AND liberal rational for supporting."

It would be interesting to hear you lie about that for a while.

I'll leave the lying to you, although I'm beginning to suspect that you actually aren't lying, you're just utterly clueless.

The American conservative justification for being pro-life or pro-gay marriage can be boiled down the American conservative's belief in the principles of individualism and negative liberty. These concepts support the philosophy that external coercion from the government should not be tolerated in any sense, therefor, the government should not be able to dictate to a woman what she can or can't do with her body, or a homosexual who he/she can or can't marry.

The American liberal justification for being pro-life or pro-gay marriage can be boiled down to the American liberal's belief in the principles of altruism and positive liberty. These concepts support the philosophy that social structure should not be able to dictate how one chooses to live one's life, and that it is the job of the government to protect subgroups, such as women and homosexuals, from the social structure that limits the choices and opportunities available to them.

The primary example of how conservative and liberal thought differs on these issues, again, lies in the role of government.

The American conservative only attempts to stop the religious zealot or the bigot from being able to lobby government to enforce their ideals. It stops short of any attempt to limit them from enforcing their ideals themselves. For example, government shouldn't stop gay marriage, but government also shouldn't stop the bigot from refusing to hire or sell a home to the homosexual. The liberty of the homosexual to marry who he/she wants is protected, but so is the liberty of the bigot to practice his bigotry.

The American liberal, however, not only attempts to stop the religious zealot or the bigot from being able to lobby government to enforce their ideals, they also lobby government themselves to stop the zealot or the bigot from enforcing their ideals themselves. The liberty of the bigot to practice his bigotry is seen as a hindrance on the ability of the homosexual in carrying out their free will, therefor, that liberty must be externally restrained in the eyes of the liberal in order for the homosexual to truly experience liberty in equal measure to the heterosexual.

[olafberserker]

history majors gone wrong .... sounds like a good show for the History Channel or maybe TruTV right after Storage Wars Kabul or Hardcore Pawn Beijing

[CBWx2]

Watch how easy this is...

Anarchism - It is a radical liberal ideology. Anarchism is the belief in little to no government. Conservatism believes in LESS government. Isn't "little to no" = LESS?? Seems that is a conservative ideology. But at the same time anarchists are against a strong military which is clearly NOT conservative. So it seems anarchism has elements of BOTH liberal and conservative thought.

Anarchy only has elements of liberal thought. The varying degrees of conservatism and liberalism in the various forms of anarchy are only conservative or liberal within the framework of anarchy itself, not within the broader political spectrum. There is no form of anarchism that is less liberal than any form of non-anarchism, because anarchism is the most extreme form of liberalism.

Fascism - It is a radical conservative ideology.  Fascism believes in a strict control of the means of production, which is clearly NOT a conservative view. And the most famous Fascist group was the National Socialist German Workers' Party and those bold words don't seem very conservative, but actually liberal.

You are confusing American conservatism with actual conservatism. In the global political spectrum, conservatism = more government control. Fascism is an authoritarian philosophy, which is extreme conservatism.

Most political theorists classify American politics as not a true struggle between conservatism and liberalism, but rather a struggle between varying concepts of liberalism. In American politics, anarcho-communism and individualist anarchy are extreme opposites of the political spectrum. In global politics, they are both forms of anarchy, thus are both at the same end of the political spectrum.

In American politics, Libertarians are considered to be extreme right wingers, and democratic socialists are considered to be extreme left wingers. In the global spectrum, libertarianism is a far left ideology and democratic socialism is actually a centrist, or centre-left ideology.

You are also confusing terms. The word socialism alone is actually not indicative of liberalism or conservatism. Socialism is merely an economic construct that signifies social ownership as opposed to capitalism, which signifies private ownership. National socialism is a completely opposite concept from Democratic socialism. Whereas national socialism advocates centralized authoritarian control of production, democratic socialism rejects authoritarian control in favor of decentralized control of production. The former is a conservative form of socialism, the latter is a liberal form.

Theocracy - Not a political ideology, but rather a system of government that can be defined as a form or authoritarianism, which is a conservative ideology. But those that believe a theocracy is the best form of government (Al Qeida for instance) have a theocratic philosophy

They have an authoritarian philosophy, which means that they support submission to a central authority. In their case, the central authority just happens to be a religious hierarchy. A theocracy is merely a religion based form of authoritarianism.

Federalism - Not a political ideology, but rather is a political construct in which the power of governance is divided between a central authority and it's constituency. So Jefferson's famous papers where not philosophical in nature???

Absolutely, they were. But there is a difference between a philosophy and a political ideology. Federalism is a political concept that advocates the division of authority among a central authority and several semi-self-governing states, regions, or provinces. Federalists are proponents of this concept. A federation, or federal state, is the governmental system representative of this concept.

[Dolorous Jason]

LOL....wow. That last response to John Galt was a complete clusterf*ck. No where in it does he do anything besides weaken his case that you can divide the entire political spectrum into two categories. I won't even bother responding to it further , because it's idiocy speaks for itself.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a spectrum that places everyone into two categories is ridiculous . Once again , the real spectrum looks something like this:


As for the" Everyone is Conservative or Liberal spectrum" . It doesn't exist in any credible study of political science .  It exists only in comrade CBW's mind. Most contain the 4 quadrant type spectrum I favor , fewer use a straight line going from extreme left to extreme right.  None use Conservative and Liberal as the end all be all of either side and place all other radical belief systems under those two specific philosophies alone. Don't believe me ? Try and google it just for laughs .

Now the question remains. Can CBW really be this stupid to attempt such a doomed argument , or is he just a wonderful troll ??

[Chief Joseph]

It's about ego preservation now. CBW absolutely cannot admit he is wrong, and will follow it through at all costs. Besides all the twists and turns he must put logic through trying to convince others he's right, he's also trying to maintain the psychological defense mechanism of denial, so he can believe that he's right.

To see this display was precisely why I pushed him so hard to begin with. I find this sort of thing far more interesting than football or any of the other crap we discuss on here.

[Durango 95]

Spot on observation.

Which is why he's adopted this scorched earth policy. It started in one of the gun threads and he's dug his heels in at whatever cost from that point forward. It's the all consuming ego disguising as an intellectual repartee on the complexities of whatever subject he's fixated on. He's now fully engulfed himself in the self deception of rationalization that his ego forbids him to recognize.

[spartan]

CBW, I don't who are what is feeding you all this crap, but it doesn't seem to resemble any of the countries I have lived in. My feeling is that you have read or been taught some intellectual elite bull**CENSORED** that has more to do with proving some persons theoretical musings than any reality on the ground. In fact, I would say it is the opposite of what you say.  For example let's take a look at "Conservatives" in the UK and Germany. It is only of late that they have gotten back towards the limited Govt mindset, but even then the whole political dynamic is "poisoned" by the entrenched entitlement structure that is embedded in their society. Therefore they (Conservatives) can only nibble around the edges of the National Health Service, Govt hand outs etc. Look at the problem they have had recently trying to means test the equivalent of the child care credit. It is political suicide to attempt to roll back much,if any of the established entitlements and as such Socialist policy has been ingrained into conservatives policies.

[Biggs3535]

Look at the all of the "conservative circle jerk" that is going on here.  When are you people going to realize that it's not CBW, it you.