Both terms mean "The GOOD Guys" to people who strongly identify with the term used. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives believe their world view is harmful. If you completely agree with them, you must be a good guy, too.

Each term means "The BAD Guys" to people who strongly identify with the "opposite" term. If you are a Conservative, Liberals stand for everything you are against. If you are a liberal, it's the Conservatives who want to subjugate mankind according to their warped, twisted views.

There are some ideas that are common to one view or the other, but I think they boil down to the following:

• Liberal: No-one is truly responsible for the things they do. Everyone shares responsibility anything that happens. We are all responsible for the (hypothetical) axe murderer who killed seven people and we can't sentence him to death because really, it's our fault just as much it is his. Besides, whio can say he's really guilty? After all, jurys are composed of fallible human beings, and might have made a mistake. Besides, who are we to judge? By extension, no-one can be trusted to do the right thing on their own. It just won't happen on a big enough scale to matter unless it is imposed upon them by an outside force.

• Conservative: Everyone is responsible for his own actions only. That axe-murderer in the previous example chose to do the deeds he did and deserves to die, die, die! While the jury is composed of fallible people, there are 12 of them, so the odds favor they have weighed the evidence correctly despite the possibility that a few of them are dim. No-one but the axe-murderer is responsible for his actions because he chose his actions by himself. Since no-one is responsible for any actions or decisions but his or her own, no-one should be forced to do anything unless there is a direct threat to all if it is not done. If you're in bad shape it must be your fault.

Although I have identified myself as a conservative, I must realistically recognize there are people who use that same label to fool others into believing they are one of the "good guys". Likewise, there are some who use the liberal flag so others will think they are one of the "good guys".

I don't think I can use the label of conservative to describe what my ideals are when talking to self-described liberals. When I use that term it means, to them, that I approve of everything they do not, that I support some sort of movement to suppress their ideals. Likewise, a liberal who describes himself as such immediately identifies himself to the strong conservative as a person who wants to promote every civil liberty except the ones the conservative holds dear. The conservative fears the same sort of dictatorship the liberal does, but identifies the threat as coming from the liberal camp.

What does this mean? I support the right to bear arms. I must be a conservative, since every liberal knows that no-one can be trusted with the power of deadly force. After all, power corrupts, doesn't it? And guns are power. Ban guns.

On the other hand, I support freedom of speech. The movement to add an amendment to our Constitution banning flag-burning alarms me, as it threatens to set a precedent I do not like at all. It would mean that if anyone didn't like something you said, if they had enough support, they could make what you said illegal. You could not express it.

I have a lot of views. Mainly, I believe we are each fully in control of only our actions and must be held responsible for what we do. We are, however, responsible to others. We can do what we can to convince or persuade others to believe as we do, but they are, in the end, responsible for their own actions. Part of being responsible to one another is serving one another. I donate to charity, but don't expect others to. I contribute to the welfare of the community in ways that suit me. Others may contribute in ways that suit them. Or not. It's their choice.

After all, community service of any sort isn't really "giving back", it's giving to the community. It isn't owed, but it makes the world a better place, not just for yourself but also for others. If it were compulsory, who would choose what needs to be done? Possibly someone who doesn't care about what you do.

So am I a liberal or am I something else? How about you?

</soapbox>

------------------
If this is the future, then where are all the flying cars?
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 01, 1999).]
 

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

I think it behooves elected officials to remember that the electorate are not idiots. I think it also behooves the electorate not to act like idiots. I'd rather vote for an honest person who opposed my views than a scoundrel who embraces them. At least I know what the honest man has in mind and can brace myself for the results.

--Baloo

------------------
If this is the future, then where are all the flying cars?
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

------------------
Avon: "You really do believe in taking risks, don't you?"
Tarrant: "Calculated risks."
Avon: "Calculated on what? Your fingers?"
-- Blake's Seven, Ultraworld
 

I still think an election here would be fun. I know some couldn't care less about US politics (like a certain fox I could name), but it could still work. How about it, Charles? Wanna run the show if 1 o' 2 (or anyone else) will running against me?

Ah, and thanks for the spelling correction, Baloo.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited November 01, 1999).]
 

Besides, I wouldn't vote for either of ya!

Anarchy Rules!

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

 

------------------
"Stirs a large iron pot. Casting a spell on Vermont."
--
John Linnell

 

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Okay, what's an MSD?" - Rick Sternbach

Regarding labels. We need a label if only so Liberals and Conservatives know we neither identify ourselves with them, nor their opposition. Moderate is useless, since each camp uses it to describe people who (in their opinion) have sold out their ideals. Moderates are neither fish nor fowl. I think we need to define ourselves well enough so that while we are neither fish nor fowl, we definitely are something, and not just viewed as a bunch of people who lack conviction.

Mainstream has been co-opted by both Liberals and Conservatives to mean what they are, without regard to whether this is really true. Shoot! I think Mainstream would have worked, if they already hadn't soiled it.

How about some suggestions (and more position statements)? I'd make some suggestions for terminology but I think I'd like to give everyone else a chance first (translation: "I can't think of a damn thing right now!").

--Baloo

------------------
If you believe in love at first sight, you need glasses.
If you already have glasses, get a guide dog.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 01, 1999).]
 

I think most of the people here are mature enough to vote on what the cantidates stand for and not the cantidates themselves.

Sol:

It's not so much labeling yourself. If I were in politics, I'd just do what I thought was right, and let others label me if and how they chose. It's more a choice between the two philosophies, with labels being assigned effectively by default.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

------------------
"Stirs a large iron pot. Casting a spell on Vermont."
--
John Linnell

 

Sol:

You can have a spectrum of beliefs, but when it comes to basic philosophy, you only have a certain number of choices. People either should or should not have control over their own lives. Everything logical can be reduced to a series of binary choices. God either does or does not exist, I either do or do not believe in him, I am either wearing or not wearing a digital watch, etc. The reason I seem so dualistic at times isn't really because I don't see that there are other choices. I just don't like indecisiveness or middle ground. Look up Revelation 3:15-16.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

------------------
"Stirs a large iron pot. Casting a spell on Vermont."
--
John Linnell

 

Rather, liberalism throughout history has always sought to embrace and nurture the progression of humanity and believes that society and education plays a role in such progression. Today's liberalism is no different.

Further it recognizes that there are mitigating factors in the actions of people and groups of people. Just as a botanist understands that an ecosystem is formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their physical environment and that each member of the ecosystem is reliant on the other members of the community for it's continued growth, so too is a human society.

Moreover as an ecosystem can take years to recover after a major conflagration, a society does as well. No person is wholly dependant upon himself or herself.

I think conservatism is all too ready to bury it's collective head in the sand and say it's not my problem; whereas liberalism understands that cultural ills are created by the group as a whole and is therefore all of our problems.

------------------
Welcome, come in. Ah, fresh victims for my ever-growing army of the undead....
~C. Mongomery Burns

 

I mean, this whole "if you're not one of us you're one of them" attitude isn't healthy. It gave you McCarthyism, and I'd like to see anyone defend that psycho's actions.

But can people really always vote along those lines? Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats? Aren't there any Liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats? Doesn't it totally preclude people changing their minds? What happens when there's an election? Each Party goes in and out of power?

I mean, what? Conservatives were pissed off with Bush, so didn't vote at all, so a Liberal President got elected? And then a couple years later, Conservatives were pissed off a liberal got elected, and Liberals were pissed off because he wasn't really that liberal once the realities of the job settled in, so the former voted and the latter didn't?

Given the choice, I'd sooner just be a person.
 

You're right about one thing. Liberal means desiring change from whatever system you're using to a different system. If you're working under a monarchy or dictatorship, more power to ya. But here it just doesn't work. The US constitution is the ultimate in implementable (admittedly, true Marxist communism would be better, but human nature prevents that from working on any large scale) forms of human government. It is very near the pinnicle of sociatal evolution. It could use some tweaks (define when life begins, kill that "promote the general welfare" clause, etc.), but that's what ammendments are for. The point: the basic system we have is very nearly as perfect as human beings can make it. I oppose basic changes to the system because I believe that basic changes to the system can only be bad. When you're at the top, there's nowhere to go but down.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

I also tried to ensure that each definition was not what "they" thought they were, but what the opposite side percieved them as.

That's the problem with the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative". Neither side is willing to examine the other in objective terms. A Liberal automatically assumes his methods will make society a better place, and that a Conservative's aim is to preserve the status quo (oe restore a former status quo). A Conservative believes that he is trying to preserve the freedoms and responsibilities he percieves the Liberals as trying to tear down. Both positions are reactionary. Neither is quite correct.

--Baloo

------------------
If you believe in love at first sight, you need glasses.
If you already have glasses, get a guide dog.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Funny, I was thinking that this was the problem with the CONSERVATIVE POV.

I suppose it just depends on WHOSE version of morality you're trying to legislate, eh?

And both sides DO try to legislate their version of morality, something I don't rightly agree with. I would rather believe in a policy of "you let me alone, I'll let you alone, and everything will be fine." You read your books watch what you want to watch on TV, teach your kids what you want at home and in the Church of Your Choice, and I'll do the same. Leave MY kid out of YOUR life, though. IF I don't want him reading Harry Potter or watching "The Last Temptation of Christ," that's MY business, and MY decision, not yours. If you don't like what's on TV, TURN IT OFF. If you don't like what those consenting adults are doing in their bedroom, QUIT PEEKING THROUGH THE DRAPES. If there ARE no drapes, THEN maybe you could complain. But you'd be better off giving them some drapes, so they get the hint.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 02, 1999).]
 

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

I've never yet heard of a "liberal" group trying to get a book removed from a school or public library. It's usually conservative "church" or "family values" groups.

I've never heard of a "liberal" organization shutting down a prom because the kids wanted to use Queen's "We are the Champions" as the theme (oh, heavens! A song by a gay person/band! It might turn our kids gay! o_0)
or invite the Indigo Girls or Melissa Etheridge to play.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson
 

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

Point to be made: Say you have a single mother with two kids. Due to a medical condition, she is unable to obtain employment. Conservatives would ignore her and the plight she is in. Liberals would try to make life easier for her and her two children. Conservatives are more likely to remove any or all the stepping stones and leave them out to rot and die.

No, I'm not a socialist, as many people may think. But I do not believe in doing things that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation

 

------------------
"Stirs a large iron pot. Casting a spell on Vermont."
--
John Linnell

[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited November 02, 1999).]
 

What's in a name? People can call themselves conservative and still do many liberal things (Pat Buchanan, for example, has a number of liberal ideas). I would call trying to keep certain books or musics out of schools liberal, no matter who's trying to do it. Now if a parent wouldn't let their own kid go to a prom because of the music, that's their own business, and they shouldn't try to force that on everyone else.

Tahna:

"No wonder why Conservatives just do things that only benefit the wealthy and punish the less fortunate."

Uh, excuse me? No. Name one thing that true conservatives have done to help the "rich get richer while the poor get poorer".

OK, here's the deal in the hypothetical situation you stated. No matter how much compassion you have for the woman, there is absolutely no constitutional basis for the government giving her money. I, as a private citizin, would do everything I could to help her, but there is no legal basis for the US government doing so. That should be the individual states' business (unless you would care to try and pass an ammendment). And instead of just giving her money for the rest of her life, they should try to find a job that she CAN do. The conservative view in such a situation would be to help her help herself, whereas the liberal view would be to just give her a handout and walk away. "Give a man a fish" as opposed to "teach a man to fish", as it were. Funny, how the liberal position doesn't require any thought on the part of the person helping the woman. Just give her money and walk away.

"No, I'm not a socialist, as many people may think. But I do not believe in doing things that make the rich richer and the poor poorer."

So what do you propose? Making the rich poorer and the poor richer by force of law? I hate to tell you this (well, actually, no, I don't : ), but that's socialism. I suggest that the government tax everyone equally and let everyone do as they please with their property.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

 

In which case, your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" differ from everyone else in the known universe's. Which is what I've come to expect... o_0

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

True, but since that isn't going to happen, I suggest that the government stay out of it. Why should a person who makes ten million a year have to pay more taxes relative to his total income than someone who makes ten thousand a year? They both get an equal say in government, so why should one pay more than the other? A question comes to mind. Can you have your voting rights temporarily revoked for not paying your taxes? I should hope so. No representation without taxation.

1/2:

I'll take that as a complement.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

Do you have the chicken, OR the beef OR the pasta OR the salad OR some combination OR do you just skip lunch altogether and go for a walk cause you're too fat anyway?

There's no way you can reduce that to binary. Same with anything in which there may be more than one solution, or more than two sides to pick from. Anyone using "binary thinking" would be stupified by "lateral thinking" problems, since it would be impossible for them to think along those lines.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

Jeff Raven: "The only way to stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is for mankind as a whole to turn its pursuits not to the accumulation of money and objects, but to the pursuits of Knowledge... Only then can we all be economically equal."

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. When was the last time you tried to eat an idea? Of course, once we're all starving I suppose we'll all be equal -- at least until the strong start devouring the weak.

The sad fact is that too many equate knowledge and wisdom. Having been in the military and seen scads of second lieutenants (each and every one of them with at least a four-year degree) I do not share that view. Mind you, I do believe that people with knowledge are less likely to be stupid, but for some, that ability comes only with practice.

Just how do the rich get richer? Well I suppose some just rob from the poor, but there's more profit in robbing from the rich. Unless you're an enterpreneur, your best bet for survival (apart from going off into the wilderness to live off the land) is to get a job.

Questions:

Who is most likely to require employees?
Who is most likely to pay them?
Who is going to require places of business?
Who is going to pay for someone to build these places?
Who is going to pay the people who maintain these places?
Who is going to buy office supplies and electricity and water and send mail and packages?

Business creates jobs and "rich" people run businesses. The federal government passed a luxury tax a few years ago, taxing any non-essential item (boats and cars, for instance) that cost over $30,000. Did it hurt the rich? Did it generate revenue? No.

What that tax did was to reduce the quantity of taxable items over $30,000 that were purchased. Rather than pay an outrageously huge tax on something they didn't need, but only wanted, many rich folks just waited for prices to come down. Or they postponed the purchase until they felt they could afford the additional tax. Companies that manufactured such luxury items downsized or folded. The amount of additional revenues brought in by the new tax were dwarfed by the cost of administering it. The rich got richer (because they were saving their oney and not spending it) and the poor got poorer, precisely because someone wanted to stick it to the rich.

If you feel that people with too much money should have it taken away, what you are contemplating is theft. It's more honest to make the rich poorer by selling them something than it is to just take their money through taxation. Trust me. I am not rich, but I will shortly be looking for a job. I'm not going to apply to work for some poor guy, either.
</tangent>

--Baloo

------------------
Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things.
Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Two words, Robber Barons.

------------------
Welcome, come in. Ah, fresh victims for my ever-growing army of the undead....
~C. Mongomery Burns

 

Nope, nobody wants to work for low wages, unless that's all they can get. Perhaps this is why so many small business fail?

Or perhaps its because the lowest wage potentials are far below what it actually costs to live on one's own in anything approaching comfort?

When you're pulling in only a few hundred a month after taxes (which are supposed to be helping to pay the way of people even poorer than you), and your rent is $300 plus utilities, and you've got to eat and keep your car running and gassed and so forth and so on, you start to realize just what the poverty level IS.

Of course, with the pitiful rate of military pay, I'm sure Baloo knows this already. And he was working for the richest boss in the country, the Federal Government!

(btw, I work for the city/state, and am STILL hoping for an actual living wage in a few years or so. PA pays its librarians pitifully -- but I can't afford to move!)

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

You'll have to forgive me, as I'm rather new to the political scene, but I'm not familiar with that term. Elaborate, please?

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

Regarding liberal and conservative as labels, you really have to distinguish between classic liberalism and what gets called "liberal" today. Same with conservatism, but in different ways. Both terms come out of past centuries where the conservatives wanted to maintain monarchy, traditional society, or traditional religion and the liberals wanted to expand democracy and personal freedom.

There are very, very few old-style conservatives in the US today. That's because, IMHO, most "conservates" support capitalism, and capitalism is the *least* conservative force ever to be unleashed in the world. That's why Karl Marx had great admiration for capitalism, and considered it the most productive, dynamic system ever invented by man (he also saw that it had flaws, it is not morally defensible, and thought that something even better would come through capitalism's self-destruction). Marx knew that capitalism, over time, sweeps away religion, family structure, and traditional village communities, and he approved of that.

Liberal has a different meaning today. I think old-style liberalism is a bit more intact than classic conservatism, but it exists more among non-Stalinist socialists and anarchists than with people who are called liberals now. Yes, there are people to the left of the democratic party who aren't communists, although they are more noticable in other countries. Classic liberals believed in minimal government interference in how people live their lives. But it's important to remember that classic liberals such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were pre-capitalist, and when they saw something that resembled the capitalism we have now, they hated it and called it tyranny!

So in a nutshell, here's what I think of most "Liberals" and "Conservatives" in the US today:

Conservative: Capitalism must be preserved by government using coercive power, and "social Darwinist" individualism should be our aim. Freedom without equality of condition, or equality of outcome. Conservative rhetoric about religion will be used to gain the support of electoral majories.

Liberal: Capitalism must be preserved by using government power, but in a more touchy-feely way, with social programs designed to give capitalism a human face. There should be a teensy bit more equality, and women and minorities should have a slightly bigger slice of the pie. Promises of greater government benefits will be used to gain the support of electoral majorities.

That's it.

------------------
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters."

--Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations (1776)
 

Welcome, AlphaSquirrel.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

Oh, and one of Jefferson's big shouting points is that, although the majority will generally rule, careful steps MUST be taken to protect the rights of the minority from oppression by the majority.

And so far, I haven't seen any of these "special" rights conservatives keep talking about... what's so "special" about not being wantonly fired?

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 08, 1999).]
 

Now let's see if I can jog my memory about what I wanted to say.......

First up, Baloo

The Axe Murderer should Die. Normally I don't support the Death penalty, but for savages, it should be in place. Paul Bernardo is one of them.

For some reason, I end up agreeing with most of your views, but doesn't mean I support them. No wonder it's hard for me to create a counterargument.

Omega

Uh, excuse me? No. Name one thing that true conservatives have done to help the "rich get richer while the poor get poorer".

Our conservatives are creating tax cuts which ultimately benefit the rich. In order to fund those tax cuts, programs designed to help the less fortunate get back on their feet are either being scaled back, or eliminated all together. There is evidence in Ontario that the gap between Rich and Poor is growing rapidly. More on my opinions on this later (don't jump to conclusions on me now......)

I, as a private citizin, would do everything I could to help her, but there is no legal basis for the US government doing so.

First you spelled citizen wrong.....

Second, I'll give you that remark. At least you have a point.

The conservative view in such a situation would be to help her help herself, whereas the liberal view would be to just give her a handout and walk away. "Give a man a fish" as opposed to "teach a man to fish"

Er no, the way I see things, it is the Socialist who would give handouts and walk away, the Liberal would try to help her help herself, but the Conservative would rather say that it's her problem, let her deal with it. (Taken from Baloo's earlier statements)

Now, as your comment about teaching a man how to fish, I agree wholeheartedly on this statement 100%. The only problem is when people take away their fishing rod (or net), that is taking away their ability to fish in the first place. I won't go into detail about this, but the Government has instituted a program called Workfare, that is working for your social assistance, which I'm totally in favour of. Unfortunately, there are some problems with this program, so hopefully it would be worked out.

So what do you propose? Making the rich poorer and the poor richer by force of law? I hate to tell you this (well, actually, no, I don't : ), but that's socialism. I suggest that the government tax everyone equally and let everyone do as they please with their property.

No, that's not my point. I don't support that, I never did. The intention is to help more who are less fortunate so THEY can help close the gap. Let the rich stay where they are, and help the less fortunate.

Jeff Raven

The only way to stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is for mankind as a whole to turn its pursuits not to the accumulation of money and objects, but to the pursuits of knowledge... Only then can we all be economically equal.

That's Star Trek for you.

AlphaSquirrel

I too, extend my welcome.

My view is that Conservative and Capitalism is one and the same. When Capitalists begin manipulating the puppet strings of politicians, it becomes an alarming situation. I'm not anti-Capitalist, we need Capitalism in society today, but when they have so great influence on our Conservative government, it's hard to see that government as impartial. Take note:

• Ontario sold a toll highway to a private firm. Instead of having tolls for the next 20 years, we now have a company that will continue tolling the highway, and which can jack up toll prices at any time without warning.
  
• Ontario is on side with Developers who want to build on precious environmental land.
  
• Ontario is allowing industrial companies to violate pollution laws. Coincidently, these same companies attend party fundraisers.
  
• It was the big businesses who wanted a tax break. Fine. At least offer a GOOD solution how, not off the backs of the poor.
  

Simply put, I'll have a hard time breaking my view unless the government convinces me. So far they haven't.

That's all for now. Hope this damn thing POSTS!!!!!!

------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation

 

It's good that someone brought up the US Constitution as a guide for what we can and cannot do in society. There's an interesting history behind this, and it goes back to the very foundations of American capitalism in the 19th century.

The two main political groups in the US in the first half of the 19th century were the Democrats, and the Whigs. Let's look at who were the touchy-feely liberals and who weren't:

The Democrats were the "Strict Constructionists." They believed that we should only go by what the constitution literally says, and not dream up new roles for the federal government based on vague interpretations of "general welfare," "interstate commerce" etc. The Democrats believed in rigid limits on government spending. They opposed protective tariffs, which acted as a massive subsidy for US manufacturing(in effect, like paying a 20 percent tax every time you bought a manufactured product). They opposed government aid to internal improvements like canals and railroads. They opposed government-chartered moneymaking entities such as corporations. They also opposed banks, monopolies, and paper currency.

Then there were the Whigs. Most people in the Whig party believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution. The government could take on new roles! They believed in an active role for the federal government to aid national development. They favored protective tariffs, aid to internal improvements, and federal regulation of the currency. They were pro-corporation and pro-banking industry. They supported programs where free homesteads would be given to farmers in the west. They tended to oppose slavery.

The Whig party disintegrated, mostly over the issues of slavery and sectionalism. But the economic program of the Whigs was adopted by the newly-formed Republican Pary in the 1850s, and defeated the old Democratic economic view.

If the Strict Constructionist Democrats had triumphed in the 19th Century, we would now be following the constitution much more closely. And the United States would now be like a third-world country.

Instead, the touchy-feely loose constructionist Whig-Republican policies won, and now we have an advanced capitalist economy that is very impressive. And this economy that we have exists as a result of massive government engineering!

But today, when someone suggests that maybe part of this government-engineered affluence should be engineered toward the workers who produce the wealth...well then, government suddenly becomes Big, Bad and Evil!

------------------
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters."

--Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations (1776)
 

It is interesting to note that the rail system that crossed the country is a product of government intervention doing the bidding of business. A loose interpretation of the Constitution to be sure.

Moreover, the building of the railroads signals a period where the government acted a lacky for business and started the large, monopolistic, coporate robber barons (Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and C. Montgomery Burns*). A system that remained in effect until it became clear that unregulated capitalism left much to be desired.

*that one would be humor.

------------------
Thank God that we live in a country so hysterical over crime that a 10 yr old child can tried as an adult.
~C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 19, 1999).]
 

There's a lot of lattitude in between the extremes. I despise the prospect of government-as-surrogate-parent as much as I do that of government-as-lackey-to-business. Thus far, throughout history we have veered from one extreme to the other (or very nearly so).

The answer is simple, at least in America. Vote. Less than half the electorate even bothers during most elections, so they can afford to appeal to greed and cultivate fear. I'd like to see the glint of fear in the eyes of the politicians that would result from having to answer to all the voters, not just the ones who bothered to be counted.

--Baloo

------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.

http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

------------------
"And if we weren't good to you, Dave, you shouldn't take it all the way to your grave."
--
Will Rigby