Bugs the crap out of me too.

That might be true if I was a progressive but American conservatives that actually have intellectual reasons behind their values have a deep regard for the constitution. Conservatives don't look at the constitution as an obstacle to be overcome. Now, you can say that of progressives, statists, some Republicans, and most democrats (speaking of politicians, I wouldn't expect the average democrat voter to have an understanding of the constitution).

http://www.thoughtcancer.com/2007/12/constitutional-violations-under-bush.html

I think a more accurate classification would be almost all national-level democrats and most national-level republicans.

Thanks for the support but it really isn't necessary to provide evidence to support my claim. Good example of what I referred to, though.

Yeah, I basically always refer to politics at the national level. It doesn't make sense to discuss local politics as nobody here would be able to relate with each other on local issues with a few exceptions. I might not even argue many liberal programs at the local level because if they were implemented smartly there is a good chance they could work with a population that wanted them and was willing to share the cost. They are always abismal failures at the national level. I even hate using the word national with regards to our government as that seems antithetical to what is supposed to be federalized.

I agree with most of what Wookie and Bob have said in this thread.



Conservative is a party in the United Kingdom, and Liberal is a party in Australia. I think there's a party named for almost every ideology.

What liberalism originally meant when the United States was founded was closer to conservatism or libertarianism today.

There were liberals in the UK too, but over time they became the Liberal Democrats.

Exactly. I still use liberal to describe the American left from time to time but the more correct terminology is progressive and statist. As with other things, these terms essentially become colloquialisms and mean different things to different people.

The modern American definitions of liberalism vs. conservatism are isolated exclusively to the United States.

In the rest of the world, liberalism is characterized by a laissez-faire economic policy and small government (classical liberalism, as defined by John Locke and typified by the foundation of the United States.) This definition makes sense, because it is opposed to conservation of feudal values, where the government was massive (huge hierarchy of lords and nobles,) and the government controlled the means of production (land, serfs.)

The American idea of libertarianism is just strongly, classically-liberal. In extreme cases, they're liberal to the point where the state is abolished entirely. In most of the world, though, 'libertarianism' even goes as far as to dismiss the notion of property ownership (making an economy impossible.) Even though European libertarianism is really retarded, American libertarianism is just a scaled-down version of retarded.

What I mean is this:

You have a game with two players, A and B. Each player runs a shipping company, and they need a road re-paved. Let's say it costs $100 to pave the road. If the road is paved, each player wins $80.

You end up with this payoff matrix from A's point of view:



Let's assume B chooses to pay to repair the road. If A chooses to help, he'll win $30. On the other hand, if B pays for the whole thing, A wins $80. A will get 'more' if he decides not to pay.

Or, if B chooses not to pay, it's in A's best interest to avoid paying too.

The matrix is identical when viewed from B's perspective.

So the Nash Equilibrium is 'don't pay.'

Libertarianism means there will not be enough of any public good to satisfy the demand. The road is actually 'worth' $160 to the economy, but everybody's just waiting for someone else to pay for it.

So, does this mean we can conclude that JM is actually libertarian?

Joncy's example is the libertarian ideal of small government taken to a ridiculous extreme. You aren't going to find very many Libertarians who think the government shouldn't pave roads. Nothing works without compromise, and that includes the free market.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about you.



Yeah, because most of them are under the impression that the Constitution enshrines their personal policy preferences as matters of fundamental law. Show me a conservative who doesn't feel constrained by the Constitution, and I'll show you this conservative.

They don't see the constitution as an obstacle because they have spend their whole lives twisting the words of it to suit their needs.

Being constrained is not the same thing as having an obstacle to overcome.

But I do give you an A+ for that burn, that was solid. Sorry Wookie, you have to admit, it was well executed.

Meh, I meant "constrained" to express the same idea. I wouldn't look too much into my word choice.

And thanks!

Well, then, I'll have to argue that point, as well, haha. I consider myself conservative (although usually, as now, I don't jump to associate myself with what people call conservative these days), and I do not feel like the constitution is an obstacle to be overcome. Nor do I hold any illusions (as in the awesome Onion article) about what it says or doesn't say. To say that we (or they, however you look at it) are under the impression that the constitution enshrines their personal policy preferences as matters of fundamental law implies a backwards cause-effect relationship, potentially. You imply that they believe the constitution says something because it is their personal policy preference...but that completely ignores the possibility that many people have personal policy preferences that are BASED on the constitution (our fundamental law).

When I am out with friends, I consistently claim to be a classical liberal, and insist that because the constitution does not guarantee the right to internets, or broadcast media, that they are the root of our country's current problems.

My expert use of sarcasm and inflammatory semantics has gotten me laid by ironic liberal girls who think I am on their side.

Only problem is now I have the clap.