what is the psychology of conservatives and liberals?

[Speed Gavroche]

It is not in your President's gift to limit power, rather it is in the gift of your Constitution.

But the constitution fails, and the proof is the president.

 

[Elfboy]

But the constitution fails, and the proof is the president.

forgive me if I've taken this out of context, but the United States Constitution fails because we don't use it. among the most blatant offenses in plain sight are
- disregard for habeus corpus
- government controlled press (yes, it's true, I don't care who tells you otherwise)
- everything to do with the Victory Acts and Patriot Acts
- the fiat currency system we're on
- the federal government slowing taking control of state's right (the Constitution blatantly states that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are the authority of the state or local governments)
- declaring war at will
....I could go on for pages of violations of the top of my head, but I'll spare you

 

[Speed Gavroche]

forgive me if I've taken this out of context, but the United States Constitution fails because we don't use it. among the most blatant offenses in plain sight are
- disregard for habeus corpus
- government controlled press (yes, it's true, I don't care who tells you otherwise)
- everything to do with the Victory Acts and Patriot Acts
- the fiat currency system we're on
- the federal government slowing taking control of state's right (the Constitution blatantly states that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are the authority of the state or local governments)
- declaring war at will
....I could go on for pages of violations of the top of my head, but I'll spare you

It is true. But apparently, nothing really force goverment to respect the constitution. It's in part why I'am anarcho-capitalist and not minarchist you know.: you can create the most libertarian state possible, it seems unavoidable to have a socialist country two or three centuries later. And the proof in the USA.

 

[Elfboy]

It is true. But apparently, nothing really force goverment to respect the constitution. It's in part why I'am anarcho-capitalist and not minarchist you know.: you can create the most libertarian state possible, it seems unavoidable to have a socialist country two or three centuries later. And the proof in the USA.

you've done your homework
I'm not sure at this point if I'm a libertarian small government supporter or an anarcho-capitalist at the moment. all I know is, the Enlightenment happened 500 years ago, people need to grow the fuck up and realize that they don't have the right to be controlling the rights and priviledges of grown ass adults

 

[Speed Gavroche]

you've done your homework
I'm not sure at this point if I'm a libertarian small government supporter or an anarcho-capitalist at the moment. all I know is, the Enlightenment happened 500 years ago, people need to grow the fuck up and realize that they don't have the right to be controlling the rights and priviledges of grown ass adults

Clearly.

 

[Not_Me]

It's in part why I'am anarcho-capitalist and not minarchist you know.: you can create the most libertarian state possible, it seems unavoidable to have a socialist country two or three centuries later. And the proof in the USA.

Unregulated competition might work well from an economic perspective, but fails miserably socially. Over time, there will be too much disparity to sustain a cohesive, stable society.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Unregulated competition might work well from an economic perspective, but fails miserably socially. Over time, there will be too much disparity to sustain a cohesive, stable society.

Why would "the society" should be cohesive and stable? What is fine is freedom and porosperity and, eventually, stable and cohesive private social sphere, like family for example.

 

[entropie]

Why would "the society" should be cohesive and stable? What is fine is freedom and porosperity and, eventually, stable and cohesive private social sphere, like family for example.

Do you believe prosperity and stability is possible without order ?

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Do you believe prosperity and stability is possible without order ?

I believe in spontaneous order, not in coercive order.

 

[entropie]

I believe in spontaneous order, not in coercive order.

So if we take every personal opinion by every individual into account and then hope that tho they are all different, a spontaneous order would form, wouldnt then there still be some individuals who feel the new order would have been coercively implied on them ?

You remind me of all those anarchy - loving punkers in Germany, they share the same idealistic opinion. I love that opinion, its a desireable one, but its physically impossible because no matter what order you have, someone will always feel pissed at and even if its only those that feel pissed at, who desire a more coercive order in an Anarchy.

 

[Not_Me]

Why would "the society" should be cohesive and stable?

To prevent social problems such as crime and rebellion. If society is unstable, it might not be willing or able to defend itself from invaders.

What is fine is freedom and porosperity and, eventually, stable and cohesive private social sphere, like family for example.

That is promising something that might never materialize in several lifetimes. Has there been any historic examples of this taking place? I think it takes a great amount of faith to be willing to wait generations for the trickle down effect.

 

[Lark]

The thing about all the capitalist utopias which I think should be to the fore front of anyone bitching and whining like spoilt brats about government is that they havent ever existed in human history, there's nothing which could be humanly put into effect to realise them either, any attempt to move the world in the direction of these utopias has just resulted in as much misery as other grand experiments in social engineering or ideological strait jacketing of human nature.

All that these enlightenment ideologies have done for the world is provide eye wash for masses of people who'd surely not be so dead set against their own interests otherwise.

I actually have more respect for hardline capitalists who will openly acknowledge that their creedo owes more to Al Capone than Adam Smith because they arent believing their own propaganda like its scripture or science (take your pick of your own favourite "truth", I'm past caring at this point). Perhaps its an age thing because the rehetoric, tone and style of most of todays libertarians and capitalist fan boys reminds me so much of the commies and socialists of all hues and distinctions of my yesterdays.

The only difference is that while I always suspected the commies and their kith and kin secretly relished the prospect of being the new boss (same as the old boss), the libertarians go beyond that, its more than even the reds dreamt of in terms of starving or coercing the unemployed, unemployable or frankly hopeless and useless bastards, its about sanctioning a dollar amorality. Anything goes. Everyone's got a price and that's a real good thing.

It disgusts me.

 

[Lily flower]

When you look at abortion - conservatives are having compassion for the baby, and liberals are having compassion for the pregnant mom. So I don't think there is a difference in empathy, but there is a difference in perspective.

 

[Mole]

But the constitution fails, and the proof is the president.

The very purpose of your Constitution is to limit power. And just look, your President is hamstrung, your Congress is unable to solve the fiscal problems of the largest economy in the world, you have been defeated in Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq, and you are thrown back on your friend and ally in Oz to project power into the South China Sea.

 

[Elfboy]

The very purpose of your Constitution is to limit power. And just look, your President is hamstrung, your Congress is unable to solve the fiscal problems of the largest economy in the world, you have been defeated in Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq, and you are thrown back on your friend and ally in Oz to project power into the South China Sea.

Speed Gavroche is French

 

[entropie]

The thing about all the capitalist utopias which I think should be to the fore front of anyone bitching and whining like spoilt brats about government is that they havent ever existed in human history, there's nothing which could be humanly put into effect to realise them either, any attempt to move the world in the direction of these utopias has just resulted in as much misery as other grand experiments in social engineering or ideological strait jacketing of human nature.

All that these enlightenment ideologies have done for the world is provide eye wash for masses of people who'd surely not be so dead set against their own interests otherwise.

I actually have more respect for hardline capitalists who will openly acknowledge that their creedo owes more to Al Capone than Adam Smith because they arent believing their own propaganda like its scripture or science (take your pick of your own favourite "truth", I'm past caring at this point). Perhaps its an age thing because the rehetoric, tone and style of most of todays libertarians and capitalist fan boys reminds me so much of the commies and socialists of all hues and distinctions of my yesterdays.

The only difference is that while I always suspected the commies and their kith and kin secretly relished the prospect of being the new boss (same as the old boss), the libertarians go beyond that, its more than even the reds dreamt of in terms of starving or coercing the unemployed, unemployable or frankly hopeless and useless bastards, its about sanctioning a dollar amorality. Anything goes. Everyone's got a price and that's a real good thing.

It disgusts me.

Why do you believe it then ? The key to changing reality is believing in a better one

 

[nharkey]

I know that this is a long and serious thread and I have only skimmed it briefly, but unless I missed this somewhere, it might be useful for me to pass on a couple of things.

First, the Empathy Quotient is available and automatically scored on line. It is found on http://glenrowe.net and is part of what Baron-Cohen uses to measure Asperger's/Autism.

Second, at the INTJForum a number of people have taken it and recorded their scores. The empathy range is as follows:

0-32 Low (With the average Asperger score at 20)
33-52 Average (with the mean female score 47 and the mean male score 42)
53-60 Above average
61-80 Very High (80 is maximal)

Twenty-nine people recorded their scores and the average of these was just over 30. Might be worth trying here at typology central.

 

[nharkey]

How surprising, yet another thread where posters are supposed to discuss both conservative liberal values has devolved into unrepentant conservative bashing.

This site has become an ever more insulated echo chamber for liberal group think.

It's no wonder I've continued to find less and less reason to post here as time goes by.

Looking at the types for the people who are posting, though, begins to look like a nice argument for Feeling (liberal) vs. Thinking (conservative). i haven't actually done a count but it looks a bit correlational!

 

[Thalassa]

I know that this is a long and serious thread and I have only skimmed it briefly, but unless I missed this somewhere, it might be useful for me to pass on a couple of things.

First, the Empathy Quotient is available and automatically scored on line. It is found on http://glenrowe.net and is part of what Baron-Cohen uses to measure Asperger's/Autism.

Second, at the INTJForum a number of people have taken it and recorded their scores. The empathy range is as follows:

0-32 Low (With the average Asperger score at 20)
33-52 Average (with the mean female score 47 and the mean male score 42)
53-60 Above average
61-80 Very High (80 is maximal)

Twenty-nine people recorded their scores and the average of these was just over 30. Might be worth trying here at typology central.

I don't think there's a link between aspergers or empathy to being a conservative or a liberal. In fact the meaning of those two words differ the world over, in some cultures being liberal is a very conservative in its own way.

In European cultures, a person can be very highly educated, intelligent, and fiscally liberal, and still be socially conservative on race or nationalist issues.

This combo is less likely in the U.S. where you are more likely to have fiscally conservative and socially liberal (libertarians) and then people at the two extremes (fiscally conservative/socially conservtive vs. fiscally liberal/socially liberal).

In fact, being socially liberal may not necessarily have to do with empathy, especially when cultures are erased or downplayed in the home country in the name of being egalitarian. Is it really empathetic to not allow children to celebrate birthdays at school, or not allow Christmas pageants, just so no one is offended? Is that really empathy? Or is it some weird, mutated form of fascism that insists on sameness...while the sameness is not racial, it is government enforced all the same.

In fact countries which are more ethnically and/or religiously homogenous (which would be considered conservative in the U.S.) tend to have more "empathetic" social programs and safety nets (liberal).

Is there a correlation between between being a KKK member or a Randian Objectivist and having a low empathy quotient? Probably. However, that is not the sum total of being conservative.

 

[Thalassa]

Looking at the types for the people who are posting, though, begins to look like a nice argument for Feeling (liberal) vs. Thinking (conservative). i haven't actually done a count but it looks a bit correlational!

If this were true there wouldn't be so many American conservatives led by religion or morals (no gays, no abortion, enforcing Christianity) and there wouldn't be so many academic liberals.

There is no correlation. I've checked an MBTI thread on a racial preservation site, and saw that many members were INTx, not ISTJ, not ESFP, though all types may gather there, it correlated pretty much to the same kinds of people who tend to frequent the Internet and engage in political or social debates.

People will go with whatever they believe to be factually true or socially valuable.