The essence of Rightism?

Maybe I mixed it up with his opposition to the revolution in france. Or maybe he just saw what the british did as unfair, but favoured autonomy rather than independence for the colonies. Anyways, I don't really think left and right existed in the same way as today then.

Well, I guess leftism has always been there, it just hasn't been too popular in history. I mean, I'm sure there were people who wanted some kind of socialism and safety nets and stuff like that in the 18th century but those who dominated politics were all different kinds of what we'd today call rightists, aristocrats and liberals (in the original meaning).

The goal of conservatism isn't to make the government completely out of touch with the people by never changing anything, but to slowly follow what the people think and not follow every radical spasm the people occasionally want. But indeed.

iirc, the tories supported child labour laws or something like that in the 19th century. Conservatism can indeed be a double edged sword, as it can stand in the way of both sane things like that you mention, but also prevent creepy social engineering stuff or whatever. But conservatives do fill their role in slowling down whatever social change that's going on, wheter it's bad or not, but in the end they can never stop development as if the people want it badly enough they'll just vote and be done with it. I'd rather prefer that all things go slower and the bad is weeded out, than that everything goes in an instant and we end up with some attempt at utopia.

 

I am not aware that either libertarianism or capitalist anarchism have any basis in "masculinity". I've never heard it mentioned in any writing by any libertarian or capitalist anarchist.

 

self reliance, responsibility, individual strength?

 

In which libertarian's or capitalist anarchist's writings do you find these themes promoted? I'm just asking because I've read and listened to many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists and I've never heard self-reliance promoted. In fact, most libertarians are very much in favor of the economic benefits that come about through the division of labor.

Edit - By the way, you're signature made me chuckle.

 

We essentially agree. Thus, my comparing the role of conservatives to the tail on a kite - retarding its flight whilst contributing stability as it inexorably progresses.

 

None, but I haven't really read any. But it's self reliance what anarchism and libertarianism is all about? They might not use that phrasing but in my view, that's a key part of libertarianism. I don't mean self reliance as in making your computer and it's parts all by yourself instead of buying it, but rather than you shouldn't get it for free from some one else but pay for it with your own labour and effort.

I know, funny ain't it?

 

My english isn't so good that I understand every seldom used word, kite being among them. To be honest, the only place where I can recall seeing the word was in mount and blade: warband (a video game. VERY good concept I might add) and there it was 'kiteshield'. So I assumed you meant tail of a shield, and that left me confused so I didn't bother to understand that english figure of speech. I can now see that 'kite' refers to the form, and not the shield. Interesting to know I'm sure. And yes, we are in agreement.

 

Your command of the English language is quite impressive, actually!

 

I get it. An ignorant kool-aid drinker. Okay let's just burst your BS quickly.
Name a country with no strong centralized government, no strong regulation and social programs where you would like to live. Can't? Yeah we knew that. I mean unless Rwanda is like a great place to you.

 

More like I've studied history, which pokes holes in the narrative taught in schools.

For instance: The New Deal didn't alleviate the Great Depression. Nor did WWII.

The Depression also began several months before the 1929 crash.

Hong Kong. New Zealand's alright alright as Regulatory wise its fantastic, and its Government is constrained by a Fiscal Constitution. Wish we had that. .

 

I've always seen it as a belief in self-sufficiency and the rejection of collectivism. YMMV.

 

Right. You've studied history. There was no slavery, no child labor, no corrupt government practices, no slums... everything was peachy in 1800's America for everyone! Pure ignorance.
So let's see. Hmm. Two countries with populations smaller than a major American city. Both have strong central governments, strong regulation - although they vary in what is regulation more strongly (e.g. NZ has stronger environmental laws and agencies), both offer public education up to the college level, public heath care, publicly funded social programs of all sorts.Would you like me to provide proof to the above? If you're capable of using goggle, it would be easy enough to verify.
So basically you fail on all fronts. Dang facts! So liberal!

 

Didn't say that. But it amuses me that you think the lack of regulation caused all of that, rather than it being a given for every nation that hasn't quite industrialized.

"A" is right, only New York.

However, to put it another way, Hong Kong is the size of the British population via the 19th century.

It's bigger than Israel, Libya, Paraguay, Laos, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Albania, Mongolia, etc.

Population then, clearly doesn't exclude it as a nation.

Hong Kong? Regulations? Compared to us their Gov't is hardly there. They don't even have a central bank. Beyond physical property, they don't care much, hence why they're a haven of copyright piracy. The same to New Zealand.

Social programs in of themselves aren't an issue, so long as the Government isn't spending itself into insolvency supporting them. In both nations, Private means of supply for these things dwarf the public programs.

Basically, you moved your goal posts. That, or you left "strong" intentionally vague so you could pull this.

Strong is only strong if there's a weak to compare by, typically, that's Hong Kong.

 

Well thank you. Spending too much time on fora like these does that to you I'd suppose.

 

what about fascism then? On the left side I'd suppose you'll answer, so what about the difference between commies and fascists? Maybe left and right just isn't a good way to look at it. Maybe it's as simply as right meaning and acceptance or promotion of inequality in different ways, and leftism always preferring equality.

 

I'd be extremely careful with those generalizations.

 

Communism calls for solidarity along the lines of class, e.g., the workers v. everyone else.

Fascism calls for solidarity along the lines of nationality, e.g. Germans v. everyone else.

As Mussolini, who was originally a Marxist discovered, people may like to identify as workers, but they liked far better to identify as Italian.

 

How come?

 

indeed, but what about the goals and ends? Meh, left right isn't adequate for this. Why isn't there an all encompassing spectrum already?

 

You mean like this?

 

I'm still not seeing the idea of self-reliance as a major tenet of the libertarian philosophy. I do really think you may be a little off the mark here. I would argue that the fundamental tenets of libertarianism are self-ownership, Lockean homesteading, and the non-aggression principle. Self-reliance is important only in the sense that it is wrong to initiate aggression in order to take what belongs to others.

 

Way to create a strawman argument in order to defeat it, Don Quixote. Alaska Slim said absolutely nothing to address your fabricated complaints.

- - - Updated - - -

I really enjoy seeing posters eat NPA's lunch.

 

The essence of right-wing thought is emotional - grovelling to the powerful and spite against the poor. The ideas are just cover.

 

No buddy, you moved the goal post. I asked if you could provide a single example of where this lack of government, regulation and embracing of the "Rightism" philosophy exist. You came up with two countries. HK & NZ. So granted, HK is definitely laissez faire when it comes to taxation etc... of business. But NOW you're changing your definition of a "Rightism" Country to countries where:
Health care is provided by the government
College education is provided by the government.
Gun laws are so severe, virtually the only people having guns are law enforcement (HK) or you have to get a license, pass a class and be interviewed by the local cops to see if you're "fit" to own a gun at all (NZ)
The Environmental Protection Agencies (EPD in HK and MfE in NZ) are even more severe and in the case of NZ, definitely more powerful than in the USA.
Nuclear power is not allowed at all.

I could go on but hmmm. Let's see. What would the chances of a candidate who campaigned with the slogan "Vote for me! I'll take away your guns, nuke power and implement Single Payer Health Care!" Being viewed as "Right Wing" or Conservative? About zero.
So if you want to change the goal post to "Countries where they embrace Rightism in one single aspect but not 90% of all others", then you're just fine. Otherwise, the original question still stands:
Name a country with no strong centralized government, no strong regulation and social programs where you would like to live.

Your original claim was that America in the 1800's was just peachy for everyone! I pointed out that "everyone" wouldn't include blacks, Latinos, Asians, gays, women, children in sweatshops, average guys working in coal mines, factories etc... and really, any non-white non-landowner.
So then the conversation took its natural course to the question that always baffles Libertarians and Extreme (nont moderate or reasonable) Conservatives. Where does it work now?
Thus far, you've named two countries with no cultural diversity, that have populations smaller than many big cities and would be called Socialist by most Conservatives (except in one single aspect). Fail.

I'm quite sure you WOULD love to if you could comprehend anything beyond a single sentence or soundbite. Here, lets give you a chance to look a little less stupid (wouldn't be saying much at this point, now would it?).

Name a country with no strong centralized government, no strong regulation and social programs where you would like to live.

If the principles that (Only American) Conservatives and Libertarians spew and prattle on a regular basis are true, then surely SOMEONE must be applying them! I mean, c'mon! They're so great, how could the whole world miss out on them! I know they apply in say, Rwanda, DRC and to some degree, Sudan where there are just no pesky regulations or governments to interfere with all that great freedom! So is that where you'd like to live? If not, still waiting to here about ONE Conservative country in the world!

So those using the Whackjob Handbook will dodge, change the subject, discuss things that haven't been relevant for 100 years, post about the poster instead of the topic, rationalize the ridiculous or make an excuse to Cut & Run. Let's see if you guys adhere.

Oh and having lived all over the world, if you guys give me the same challenge to name a country that is Liberal or Socialist by your definition, I won't dodge, make excuses or name a country whose laws and structure would be considered "Conservative" by most American Liberals. We Independents are able to address issues and questions directly that way

Okay boys, get out the handbook!

 

except that political compass is really worthless, yeah, like that.