Conservatism vs. Liberalism = Natural Law vs. Natural Rights?

[rrgg]

This is a quick theory I came up with while doing some research.

Conservative arguments tend to be based around some idea of natural laws or a natural order, that there's a way things simply ought to be. They believe that there are rules about how societies should work hardwired into the fabric of reality (according to many conservatives by god, but certainly not all) and that to act against them would be as foolish as trying to break the law of gravity.
Liberal arguments, on the other hand tend to focus on a belief in some concept of natural rights. They believe that simply being born and having humanity entitles every individual to certain universal rights such life, happiness, equality etc.

When it comes to the friction between modern (US. at least) liberals and conservatives, it basically comes down to two different conclusions from each world view. The left now believes that, if left alone, people will naturally attempt to one-up and exploit each other, bringing society farther and farther away from the universal levels of happiness, equality, etc. that people are entitled to. Thus heavy government intervention is required to ensure rights to all. The right, however, largely holds the belief that rights are determined by natural law, and that those who are most good or nice or deserving will tend to end out on top simply because that's the way the rules work. Thus they argue that things will actually run the smoothest with as little intervention as possible. If traditional systems don't always work perfectly fair then conservatives are more willing to accept "Well, it's out of our hands, that's just the way things are." While liberals see every injustice as a completely human error that could have been prevented and a total tragedy.

[Rights of the Individual]

I don't see it so much as "Liberals" and "Conservatives" as "Individualists" and "Statists". As far as "left" and "right" go, one side seeks to impose a dictatorship with a heavy emphasis on religion and very restricted personal liberties, the other seeks to impose a dictatorship with very little economic liberties.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I think the things both of you have said are false dichotomies brought into the spotlight by giving too much attention to tiny minorities with mindless adolescent political views.

[rrgg]

I don't see it so much as "Liberals" and "Conservatives" as "Individualists" and "Statists". As far as "left" and "right" go, one side seeks to impose a dictatorship with a heavy emphasis on religion and very restricted personal liberties, the other seeks to impose a dictatorship with very little economic liberties.

Except when the individualists tend to turn into statists as soon as they gain power.
I was thinking that it helps explain why libertarians often have trouble identifying with either of the two main parties today. Do you support individual freedoms because you believe that everyone has a right to them, even if they result in anarchy/chaos? Or do you support them because you believe that Laissez-Faire policies create the most economic growth or the strongest society? Perhaps you agree with both? Perhaps one argument caught your eye at first and the other you found later?

I think the things both of you have said are false dichotomies brought into the spotlight by giving too much attention to tiny minorities with mindless adolescent political views.

I meant to imply that they were more of a spectrum than a true dichotomy, I guess it wasn't entirely clear.

[Rights of the Individual]

Except when the individualists tend to turn into statists as soon as they gain power.
I was thinking that it helps explain why libertarians often have trouble identifying with either of the two main parties today. Do you support individual freedoms because you believe that everyone has a right to them, even if they result in anarchy/chaos? Or do you support them because you believe that Laissez-Faire policies create the most economic growth or the strongest society? Perhaps you agree with both? Perhaps one argument caught your eye at first and the other you found later?

We have yet to have any individualists get into power I personally support individual freedoms because I like my guns. Everyone seems so intent on taking them away or making the purchase of ammunition from the comfort of my desk illegal because there's a chance I'm a psycho, when in reality I'm an 18 year old highschool graduate who wants to waste his income on loud noises.


All that other stuff? Secondary. The world could turn to a single, Stalin-style communist regime and I wouldn't give a damn if they'd let me go shooting on the weekends.

[LWT]

I'm confused. Do you mean progressivism instead of liberalism?

[Andreius Pretorianus]

there are no real "natural rights".They re just an invention,something put on a paper with no real value.

Natural selection,well it s quite a big difference.If natural selection would be instead of "natural right" I believe the world would be a much better one !

[MariusHealth]

Just to mind you I'm a liberal-conservative.

[Vizsla]

In my country (England) the Conservative party are Classical Liberals; the Liberal party shade from populism into statist leftism; and the only fair descriptive name is the Labour party which supports the Union’s interests.
So maybe in my country there really aren’t any ‘conservatives’ in your understanding of the word.
But I strongly disagree with this bit:

The right, however, largely holds the belief that rights are determined by natural law, and that those who are most good or nice or deserving will tend to end out on top simply because that's the way the rules work. Thus they argue that things will actually run the smoothest with as little intervention as possible. If traditional systems don't always work perfectly fair then conservatives are more willing to accept "Well, it's out of our hands, that's just the way things are." While liberals see every injustice as a completely human error that could have been prevented and a total tragedy.

I do not think the right attaches any particular moral superiority to those who ‘end out on top’. It’s just that free markets and individual freedom are seen as the best way to help the greatest number of people. The winners and the losers are just an unavoidable side effect that has to be mitigated. Accumulations of capital are seen as a necessity for capitalism to function so entrepreneurs can borrow the money. Allowing people to become rich is also a fair reward for hard work and risk taking.
Historically free market capitalism has worked to improve everyone’s standard of living. So the Right has been proven correct.
Whereas state controlled centrally planned economies have been an unmitigated disaster. They have often been accompanied by dictatorship, oppression and mass murder. This is because they are attempting to work against human nature. The only systems that will work work with the grain of human nature. This is why everything has to start from individualism and why statism is always so disastrous.

[Col. Tartleton]

I believe the dichotomy is something like Liberalism and Totalitarianism. Conservatism isn't an ideology, it's an attitude. Progressivism isn't an ideology, it's an attitude.

You can divide "Liberals" into Classical Liberals and Progressive Liberals as they emphasis contradictory understandings of what freedoms are.

Classical Liberalism basically revolves around the idea that provided with a practical rule of law, practical education, and opportunity, people will as a whole cooperate out of self interest and philanthropy and improve the lot of everyone who wants to participate, and that there will be enough good will to go around for the needs and wants of those who cannot participate, while those who will not participate can go **** themselves.

Progressive Liberalism basically revolves around the idea that provided with ever increasing laws, less education, and less opportunity, people will as a whole seek their own welfare at the cost of everyone around them, and that there will still be enough money to take care of everyone if it could only be distributed more fairly than by personal responsibility.

[LWT]

Oh, in my country, we have a progressive liberal party and a conservative liberal party (not in a religious way, gays are safe). The difference between the two is, that progressive liberals want more public education and are pro-europe, while conservative liberals want a huge police force and army, less immigration, and fully support the super-rich, even if it contradicts their liberal philosophy.

Edit: I forgot to mention that conservative liberals only care about our environment if they can squeeze money out of it by destroying it.

They are actually in power now, together with the social democrats. I can say it's not the best combo. Social democrats protect the poor, liberals the rich, so who will be paying for all of it? The middle-class of course.

[Michele Bachmann]

I believe the dichotomy is something like Liberalism and Totalitarianism. Conservatism isn't an ideology, it's an attitude. Progressivism isn't an ideology, it's an attitude.

You can divide "Liberals" into Classical Liberals and Progressive Liberals as they emphasis contradictory understandings of what freedoms are.

Classical Liberalism basically revolves around the idea that provided with a practical rule of law, practical education, and opportunity, people will as a whole cooperate out of self interest and philanthropy and improve the lot of everyone who wants to participate, and that there will be enough good will to go around for the needs and wants of those who cannot participate, while those who will not participate can go **** themselves.

Progressive Liberalism basically revolves around the idea that provided with ever increasing laws, less education, and less opportunity, people will as a whole seek their own welfare at the cost of everyone around them, and that there will still be enough money to take care of everyone if it could only be distributed more fairly than by personal responsibility.

You sure do have a funny definition of progressive liberalism I don't see how progressive liberals are any more in favor of more laws than classical liberals. In fact it sounds like your first definition can be attributed to either one. At least I think that's what you mean when you said progressive liberal.

[Col. Tartleton]

Oh, in my country, we have a progressive liberal party and a conservative liberal party (not in a religious way, gays are safe). The difference between the two is, that progressive liberals want more public education and are pro-europe, while conservative liberals want a huge police force and army, less immigration, and fully support the super-rich, even if it contradicts their liberal philosophy.

Our progressives want to spend more money on the Public Education Unions. The students can go to hell, what about the teachers? That's their view.

What's the liberal philosophy that rejects the super rich? I thought we should treat everything equally under the law?

Edit: I forgot to mention that conservative liberals only care about our environment if they can squeeze money out of it by destroying it.

So they value human welfare slightly more than that of rocks, plants, and animals? The audacity of it!

They are actually in power now, together with the social democrats. I can say it's not the best combo. Social democrats protect the poor, liberals the rich, so who will be paying for all of it? The middle-class of course.

Almost everything in government spending is for the benefit of the middle class, so why shouldn't we pay for it? The rich pay a larger amount obviously and a higher percentage, but they don't even see a lot of the results.

You sure do have a funny definition of progressive liberalism I don't see how progressive liberals are any more in favor of more laws than classical liberals. In fact it sounds like your first definition can be attributed to either one. At least I think that's what you mean when you said progressive liberal.

Yeah, I was making fun of how Liberal Democrats run things in the US. More stupid laws, worse education that costs more, less opportunities, decaying communities, and more wealth redistribution designed to punish the rich and encourage some people to be a victim in need of help. Not a lot of progress being made, and not a lot of actual liberalism, but hey, in America you get to choose what to call yourself.

[LWT]

Our progressives want to spend more money on the Public Education Unions. The students can go to hell, what about the teachers? That's their view.

Why does spending more money on Public Education Unions equal less education?

What's the liberal philosophy that rejects the super rich? I thought we should treat everything equally under the law?

I don't understand why you are asking these questions. In the liberal philosophy, it's a pretty normal thing for an employer to make millions of dollars, even if his employees in China are making so little they can hardly live. And no, we shouldn't treat everything equally under law.

So they value human welfare slightly more than that of rocks, plants, and animals? The audacity of it!

I'm sorry, but that's not what I was trying to say. I meant that they don't care whether or not our environment is damaged.

Almost everything in government spending is for the benefit of the middle class, so why shouldn't we pay for it? The rich pay a larger amount obviously and a higher percentage, but they don't even see a lot of the results.

The conservative liberal party in the Netherlands increased the net income of the rich, the middle class's net income was decreased by a lot, and the net income of the poor was decreased a little. There simply is no reason to protect the rich like that when everyone else is making less. It were just politicians protecting their friends.

And of course almost everything in government spending is for the benefit of our country, so I suppose we, including the middle class, should pay for it. I never said we shouldn't.

[Col. Tartleton]

Why does spending more money on Public Education Unions equal less education?

Because we are spending more and more money and seeing worse and worse education.

I've heard anecdotal evidence that a required for passing 6th grade (ie for 12 year olds) exam from the 1800s would probably flunk many modern college students in the US, and our college system is considered pretty good.

I don't understand why you are asking these questions. In the liberal philosophy, it's a pretty normal thing for an employer to make millions of dollars, even if his employees in China are making so little they can hardly live. And no, we shouldn't treat everything equally under law.

Right. What's wrong with that? The employer owns the means to production so he keeps as much as he's able and the employees volunteer to work in exchange for the amount they get.

Why shouldn't we try to treat people the same?

I'm sorry, but that's not what I was trying to say. I meant that they don't care whether or not our environment is damaged.

I doubt it. As George Carlin points out in his stand up, people are really only concerned about their own little corner of the human environment. What the environment means for me is a profitable and satisfying blend of conservation and development. What the environment means to you is your own prerogative. What it means for some people is really the end of the human environment.

The conservative liberal party in the Netherlands increased the net income of the rich, the middle class's net income was decreased by a lot, and the net income of the poor was decreased a little. There simply is no reason to protect the rich like that when everyone else is making less. It were just politicians protecting their friends.

Politicians don't have friends.

And of course almost everything in government spending is for the benefit of our country, so I suppose we, including the middle class, should pay for it. I never said we shouldn't.

I'd argue everything sensible that we fit in a balanced budget given reasonable tax burden is for the benefit of the country.

If we're spending money on useless projects or we're running a deficit or taxes are hindering people, then people have reason to be frustrated.

[The spartan]

Sorry to jump in, but this is kind of absurd.

Because we are spending more and more money and seeing worse and worse education.

I've heard anecdotal evidence that a required for passing 6th grade (ie for 12 year olds) exam from the 1800s would probably flunk many modern college students in the US, and our college system is considered pretty good.

Yes, so therefor more money=worse education. Brilliant deductive skills.

Right. What's wrong with that?

It supports a natural aristocracy.

[Col. Tartleton]

Sorry to jump in, but this is kind of absurd.


Yes, so therefor more money=worse education. Brilliant deductive skills.

So we continue to lower and lower our educational standards while seeing students fail to meet them, and lower our standards, and throw more money at the problem and it all gets sucked up by the bureaucracy and impedes the education.

It supports a natural aristocracy.

Some people are better than other people. I don't sit at home and cry because brilliant doctors or businessmen or athletes make more money than me.

I'd be happy at above subsistence farming.

[alex man142]

So we continue to lower and lower our educational standards while seeing students fail to meet them, and lower our standards, and throw more money at the problem and it all gets sucked up by the bureaucracy and impedes the education.

The school I went to was horrible in terms of facilities, no computers, no whiteboards(!) and generally little technology. That school prepared me so much more for life than I see the American public schools going are doing. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[LWT]

Because we are spending more and more money and seeing worse and worse education.

I've heard anecdotal evidence that a required for passing 6th grade (ie for 12 year olds) exam from the 1800s would probably flunk many modern college students in the US, and our college system is considered pretty good.

I've heard anecdotal evidence that american education is pretty bad compared to german education. Though I don't think it is worse than in the past. I hear that a lot in my country too, even though it is pretty certain that education has actually improved a lot.

Right. What's wrong with that? The employer owns the means to production so he keeps as much as he's able and the employees volunteer to work in exchange for the amount they get.

Employees volunteer? I believe an employee should get paid a wage according to the job, which -sadly- is incompatible with an employer who keeps as much as he is able to.

Why shouldn't we try to treat people the same?

Because different people need a different treatment. And I think you know that. Would you really want government to treat murderers the same as smokers?

I doubt it. As George Carlin points out in his stand up, people are really only concerned about their own little corner of the human environment. What the environment means for me is a profitable and satisfying blend of conservation and development. What the environment means to you is your own prerogative. What it means for some people is really the end of the human environment.

Yes, that's what I meant. Conservative liberal people care only about their own little corner, and recklessly damage the rest, and progressive liberals are somewhat more thoughtful.

[Winston Smith]

Just to mind you I'm a liberal-conservative.

Cool! I'm not politically isolated then .