09-06-2005 21:21									#421
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Saras Rearming a lowtech rifle army is a lot easier than a modern mechanised one.

Thus you would agree with me then, that Versailles was much harsher than 1870's Treaty whereby the German Empire was proclaimed in that very same place, correct?

	09-06-2005 22:35									#422
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, Molly, you do have a point about Wilson being behind the proximate cause of WWII in the West: the Corridor.

	10-06-2005 07:11									#423
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: 5.) But, you seem to imply that since liberalism utilizes past experiences as a guide to future actions, the two definitions seem to be quite the same. In that respect, they do the same. However, I did not define liberalism that way. Liberalism may well break with the past based on recent discoveries.

True enough. It still doesn't mean that the two ideas are necessarily incompatible though.

quote: quote: 6.) Therefore, by the way that you have chosen to define the twain, they are, much as you stated- similar and therefore it is impossible to differentiate between the two. But I don't define liberalism that way. If you want a reasonable definition of liberalism it is a political system where freedom extends as far as actions that harm others. That's Mill's version, and is close to what most people mean by Liberalism. That is a goal directed definition: it says nothing about means or reliance on the past.

I would think that would be a more appropriate definition for Libertarianism than Liberalism.

quote: quote: A conservative can be a liberal by this definition, but a liberal isn’t always a conservative. Liberals may pursue policies that are compatible with tradition if the circumstances dictate. That doesn't mean that they adopt the conservatives political principle. This is just an accidental agreement.

But it doesn't prove that the two are incompatible. A liberal can still do things in a conservative way.

quote: quote: Some liberals seek faster change. A Conservative will always have gradual change that is well-thought out. Based on the principle you have articulated it won't be thought out at all. I don't think you understand my argument. Here it is in a clearer form: 1) Political theories (liberalism, conservatism, egalitarianism) have political principles as their guides to right action. For example, an egalitarian values equality as the political goal. Hence the egalitarian will take steps to achieve the goal of equality subject to practical constraints. If radical action is less likely to bring us closer to equality, the egalitarian won't do it. If it is more likely, he will. So sometimes even the egalitarian will do the same thing as the conservative, but for different reasons as the egalitarian has a different guiding principle. 2) According to you, the guiding principle of conservatism (in your revised version) is that changes to traditions should be gradual. My argument is that a principle that states "changes should be gradual" is worthless as a political principle. To see why consider the following exchange. Liberal: "We should make some changes to society" Conservative: "OK, but they must be gradual". Liberal: "Which changes should we make?" Conservative: "I don't care as long as they're gradual changes". Liberal: "What about changing to Nazism?" Conservative: "OK, as long as we change gradually." 3) It is obvious that the conservative position in (2) is absurd. But that's what you get if you make "gradual change" your political principle, since it doesn't matter what sort of change it is as long as it's gradual.

No it is not. Indeed, a change to nazism could be a change not necessarily based upon conservative motions- it could be based upon the liberal notion of progress through Socialist practices. Also, Nazism wouldn't necessarily be bad for a society if it led to greater happiness in that society. (Though it would definately be very bad for any jewish people in that society, and frankly I would never wish to live in a Nazi-state) and also a Conservative only believes in those changes that are necessary to preserve order in society. Conservatives seek order above all else- that's why they utilize tradition, in order to preserve order since order is stability and tradition is a stable thing.

Perhaps I should redefine conservativism again, to become more exact as: "Valuing Tradition, and willing to change gradually so that order is preserved and that society continues to funciton fruitfully."

Though I think what you want me to do is to define Conservativism as adherence to 'long defined absolutist values' and 'traditional biblical/koranic/religious/soviet morality and imposing those beliefs upon others in order to preserve the stability of society' whereas liberalism looks to 'institute only those rules that prevent person A from violating person B's natural and innate rights.' Right?

quote: 4) Since that's insane, let's go back to tradition. Let's say that conservatives seek in most cases to preserve tradition as much as they can. They don't have any other principle than that according to you. Take the following exchange. Liberal: "We should make some changes to society" *Snip*

I think that my revised definition addresses this. Admittedly my original definition had holes since I didn't define what tradition was to be upheld- but it quickly becomes apparent through your great socratic questioning of myself that the tradition was Order- I should have remembered that all along, in fact and I thank you for reminding me.

	10-06-2005 08:09									#424
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Perhaps I should redefine conservativism again, to become more exact as: "Valuing Tradition, and willing to change gradually so that order is preserved and that society continues to funciton fruitfully."

You still do not seem to me to grasp my argument.

This doesn't make the principle any more useful than before as a guide to action. Assigning any sort of value to gradual change in itself introduces the insane conclusion of the previous argument.

If you say that the whole point of this is "to ensure that society continues fruitfully" everyone will agree with that, even Liberals. But then tradition as a a guide becomes subordinated as a means to ensuring benefit and has no value in and of itself. It opens you up to having to prove that tradition has value, rather than asserting that it does as a matter of principle.

Read my arguments again and see if you get it. Your objections do not in any significant way engage with my actual argument. It's not the definition per se that I am objecting to. I am objecting to its usefulness as a principle that guides action.

Again.

Conservative: "We should value tradition, and be willing to change gradually so that order is preserved and that society continues to function fruitfully."

Liberal: "But that doesn't tell us which traditions we need to make changes to."

Conservative: "Presumably they would be the ones that enable society to continue more fruitfully."

Liberal: "But tradition can't tell us which ones to change, we need an independent standard."

Conservative: "OK - the standard is what makes society run for the best, and I say traditions do for the most part."

Liberal: "Yes, but now you've admitted that it's an open question as to whether any particular tradition makes society run for the best, and that means you have to defend them on utilitarian grounds – you can't defend them just as tradition."

Conservative: "So what?"

Liberal: "Then you can't assume as a matter of principle that tradition is of any use in guiding right action, you have to subject each tradition to a cost benefit analysis to see whether it is worth keeping. Hence, just appealing that something is traditional has absolutely no bearing on whether we should keep it. Therefore tradition is no guide to right action."

Conservative: "But I believe we will be better off sticking mostly to tradition and changing gradually."

Liberal: "So what, you have to defend this belief empirically on a case by case basis. It is no longer a matter of moral principle (if it ever was), rather it is an empirical claim that must be tested on a case by case basis. Articulating the conservative principle as a guide to what we should do is useless, since you have admitted that utility is what matters, and that has to be defended on a case by case basis. In other words appealing to tradition will be of no use against a Liberal reformer, you will need an entirely separate argument. Hence your conservative principle is useless as a guide to right action."

	10-06-2005 09:02									#425
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I'm certainly not having any problem with dates, but thanks for your inattention.

Really?

quote: In the spring of 1874, a Japanese military expedition departed the Japanese port of Nagasaki bound for southern Taiwan

http://www.historycooperative.org/j...0202000388.html

Christ molly, its bad enough that you continue to ignore the historical context of events you cite as evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China, but now you're refusing to even admit you made a mistake on a date? Honestly its not that big a deal that you're wrong; we all mess up a date now and then, especially when dealing with historical subjects we have little grounding in.

	10-06-2005 10:43									#426
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud Thus you would agree with me then, that Versailles was much harsher than 1870's Treaty whereby the German Empire was proclaimed in that very same place, correct?

No, the point was that requiring to disarm in a low tech world is meaningless, hence was not forced. Rifles are too easy to hide, unlike subs, tanks and bombers.

	10-06-2005 15:40									#427
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: I'm certainly not having any problem with dates, but thanks for your inattention. Really? Christ molly, its bad enough that you continue to ignore the historical context of events you cite as evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China, but now you're refusing to even admit you made a mistake on a date? Honestly its not that big a deal that you're wrong; we all mess up a date now and then, especially when dealing with historical subjects we have little grounding in.

Yes really. I said attack China- not invade or occupy. Are you having problems with reading English as well as paraphrasing it ?

The fact that the conflict wasn't concluded with a peace treaty until 1874 and had also involved a Japanese invasion of Formosa/Taiwan wasn't my point.

The casus belli was the killing of 'Japanese' sailors by Chinese subjects- in 1871. The Japanese demand for action by the Chinese was the first step in their attack on China's position in East Asia, and a step in the reversal of the traditional relationship between the two powers.

As for me 'citing evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China'- are you sarcastically suggesting it didn't have them ? When after all, the Treaty of Shimonoseki was designed to put it on the same commercial footing as the Western powers, entailed that China give up suzerainty over Korea and also included China ceding Formosa/Taiwan- which hadn't even been involved in the war.

And do please keep attempting to patronize me- it affords me no end of amusement.

	10-06-2005 16:00									#428
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Agathon:

Conservatism in brief- if it aint broke, don't fix it.

	10-06-2005 16:07									#429
	Suffering from ads?

On the topic of this thread:

I have never read anything on poly by any poster that I found really offensive - I am sad to say!

I expect better.

	10-06-2005 19:56									#430
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Albert, Darkcloud, et al., the problem with your definitions is that today it is the Democrats who are resisting change as they are out of power. The people out of power always resist change but they are not all considered rightists.

"Tradition" is a very loose definition as well as I pointed out before. History has both the Caltholic Church and Martin Luther. Which is tradition?

People are much more confortable with libertarians as they know where they stand on issues. Ditto socialism to a degree. But the right? No one seems to agree on a good definition.

That is why the left can say that fascism is on the right when most rightists would consider fascism a form of socialism and definitely on the left.

	10-06-2005 21:07									#431
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Agathon: Conservatism in brief- if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Everyone believes that. It is not a distinguishing mark of conservatism.

	10-06-2005 21:17									#432
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The casus belli was the killing of 'Japanese' sailors by Chinese subjects- in 1871.

I suppose you think WWI really started when Franz Ferdinand got shot...

quote: The Japanese demand for action by the Chinese was the first step in their attack on China's position in East Asia, and a step in the reversal of the traditional relationship between the two powers.

If you're going to buck the conventional wisdom that considers the first Sino-Japanese War as the first military encounter to demonstrate the reversal in fortunes between China and Japan, you could at least be a little more ballsy. Japan took the Ryukyus in 1609. Hell, Hideyoshi tried to take over China via Korea in 1592. Why don't we call those incidents the start of Japan's long road to ascendance over China? If you're going to engage in historical revisionism, at least be a man about it...

quote: As for me 'citing evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China'- are you sarcastically suggesting it didn't have them ?

The only plans Japan had for China during the period from the start of the Meiji Restoration to the end of WWI was to become an equal participant in the imperialism going on there. Hardly that nefarious a scheme, seeing as Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the US has already beat them there. Things change greatly after WWI, but I doubt you want to delve into the reasons for that, as they give some credence to Ned's arguments.

	10-06-2005 21:19									#433
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I suppose you think WWI really started when Franz Ferdinand got shot...

*** NEWS FLASH ***
Arch Duke Ferdinand found alive! World War I a Mistake!

	10-06-2005 21:54									#434
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Everyone believes that. It is not a distinguishing mark of conservatism.

Yes it is, because it implies that change can disrupt the status quo, and that change can be worse than leaving things alone.

Liberals tend to believe that change is always superior to the status quo, or that the burden must be placed on those who support the status quo to defend themselves in the face of change.

	10-06-2005 21:58									#435
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Yes it is, because it implies that change can disrupt the status quo, and that change can be worse than leaving things alone. Liberals tend to believe that change is always superior to the status quo, or that the burden must be placed on those who support the status quo to defend themselves in the face of change.

No they don't. That's making Dark Cloud's mistake of misdescribing liberalism as the equally insane opposite of conservatism. Liberalism in its various guises sets down particular moral principles as political goals (things like equality, or Rawls' conception of justice, or EOO). Of course there are various ways that this might be brought about more effectively, but that is a practical question.

No one values change for its own sake, because that's insane. Similarly, no one should value the status quo for its own sake, because that is plainly insane too. Making conservatives value change for its own sake means that they don't have a compelling moral principle for aorganizing political action.

	10-06-2005 22:04									#436
	Increase Your PM Length

When Burke argued that tradition was a more sound footing than reason for political life, he pwned himself by using the despised reason to prove it.

That kind of Burkean conservatism is the expression of a prejudice, or of the fear of change, not a means for effectively organizing a polity.

	10-06-2005 22:07									#437
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Whoha *** NEWS FLASH *** Arch Duke Ferdinand found alive! World War I a Mistake!

	10-06-2005 23:05									#438
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Agathon, on your analysis of Burkean conservativism, two thumbs up!

	10-06-2005 23:14									#439
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No they don't. That's making Dark Cloud's mistake of misdescribing liberalism as the equally insane opposite of conservatism. Liberalism in its various guises sets down particular moral principles as political goals (things like equality, or Rawls' conception of justice, or EOO). Of course there are various ways that this might be brought about more effectively, but that is a practical question. No one values change for its own sake, because that's insane. Similarly, no one should value the status quo for its own sake, because that is plainly insane too. Making conservatives value change for its own sake means that they don't have a compelling moral principle for organizing political action.

Granted, and I realised that as I was typing out the statement, that a better description of liberalism in general is that the burden rests upon the defenders of the status quo to show why change ought to be rejected.

That being said, a better definition of conservativism would be that the burden rests upon those suggesting change, to come up for a reason why the change ought to be done.

I don't think this is an insane position to defend, for either the liberal side or the conservative side, and it helps to flesh out the interplay between the two. A liberal asks, show me how this hurts society, while the conservative asks, show me how this helps.

	10-06-2005 23:17									#440
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: When Burke argued that tradition was a more sound footing than reason for political life, he pwned himself by using the despised reason to prove it. That kind of Burkean conservatism is the expression of a prejudice, or of the fear of change, not a means for effectively organizing a polity

Is tradition always a sounder footing, or is tradition almost always a sounder footing? I'm not sure Burke defends the former position rather than the latter. There are instances, such as this, where one requires the use of the other side in order to properly come to grips with the situation.

A liberal with no understanding of tradition, cannot change anything for the positive, just as a conservative cannot preserve tradition, without understanding change.

	10-06-2005 23:47									#441
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Is tradition always a sounder footing, or is tradition almost always a sounder footing?

As I've been arguing that is an open question. It's something that needs to be defended case by case rather than as a rule for organizing all our actions (which it fails at).

It's not a practically useful principle any more than "we should change as much as we can" is a practically useful principle. There's nothing to stop it being a true generalization extracted from a survey of various cost benefit analyses, but it is those analyses that are useful as guides to action, not the generalization.

	11-06-2005 00:11									#442
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think it is a pratical position, insofar as it gives you a basis to begin the analysis. The most important part is to figure out what questions need to be asked, and I think that 'how is this change going to help' always needs to be asked and satisfactorily answered before any change can be adopted.

	11-06-2005 00:14									#443
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

How does it.

"How is this change going to help" is not peculiar to conservatives, it's just common sense and is used by people of all political persuasions.

"Gradual change is the best" is not a practical guide to action, since even the most conservative person has to admit that in certain circumstances radical change is best or even necessary.

	11-06-2005 15:39									#444
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: As for me 'citing evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China'- are you sarcastically suggesting it didn't have them ? The only plans Japan had for China during the period from the start of the Meiji Restoration to the end of WWI was to become an equal participant in the imperialism going on there. Hardly that nefarious a scheme, seeing as Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the US has already beat them there. Things change greatly after WWI, but I doubt you want to delve into the reasons for that, as they give some credence to Ned's arguments.

Which rather ignores the basic geography of East Asia and Japan's proximity to Korea- China's client state. Annexing Korea and supplanting Russia in Manchuria were rather more 'nefarious' schemes than the French annexing Annam or the British leasing parts of treaty ports- something which the Chinese recognised, even if you don't seem to.

In fact, Li Hung-chang relied on the Western powers to temper Japan's aggressiveness and possible future depredations- as witnessed by an unlikely coalition of Germany, France and Russia 'requesting' Japan's withdrawal from the strategically important Liaotung peninsula.

And why was the Liaotung peninsula so important ? Because it was vital to land and sea routes between Korea and Beijing.

In 1896 this well founded fear of Japan's schemes prompted a secret treaty between Russia and China (despite Russia's colonization of the Amur and Ili lands and acquisition of Vladivostok and its Pacific maritime province) in which each bound the other to defend themselves against Japan.

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/clark18.html

The Chinese regarded Korea as their most strategically placed vassal state, with access to the Pechili Bay, and thence on to Beijing.

I've even quoted Li Hung-chang on this before, but I'll do so again:

" Although the various powers are strong, they are still seventy thousand li away from us, whereas Japan is as near as in the courtyard, as on the threshold, and is prying into our emptiness and solitude (i.e. weakness of our defensive measures). Undoubtedly she will become China's permanent and great anxiety."

Li Hung-chang to Tzu'-hsi, quoted in Teng and Fairbank, 'China's Response' .

How surprising a Chinese general should grasp something you don't seem to.

And of course he was proved right- because the indemnity the Chinese paid (increased when Japan relinquished Liaotung) was spent on an armaments programme, and Formosa/Taiwan was developed as a defensive outpost in the south.

quote: I suppose you think WWI really started when Franz Ferdinand got shot...

Don't be stupid- everyone knows it began when Prussia and its allies defeated the Austro-Hungarian Empire at Sadowa-Koniggratz and excluded them from north German affairs.

	11-06-2005 16:05									#445
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten The only plans Japan had for China during the period from the start of the Meiji Restoration to the end of WWI was to become an equal participant in the imperialism going on there.

If that was the case, could you explain to me why all those "robber pirates" were killing, burning, and pillaging along SE Chinese coastal areas for hundreds of yeas?

	11-06-2005 20:45									#446
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: "Gradual change is the best" is not a practical guide to action, since even the most conservative person has to admit that in certain circumstances radical change is best or even necessary.

Interesting. What sort of situation would force the hand of a conservative in saying radical change would be necessary?

In my mind 'radical change' is synonymous with revolution.

quote: "How is this change going to help" is not peculiar to conservatives, it's just common sense and is used by people of all political persuasions.

Seems that question never gets asked, so common sense isn't so common.

	11-06-2005 21:40									#447
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I would not characterize the difference between conservatives and liberals as one favoring gradual change and the other favoring radical change or revolution. They have different agendas. Do you honestly think that if I walked into some meeting of the Republican party with a foolproof plan to immediately abolish abortion and the estate tax they'd all jump up and shout "Hey, not so fast"?

Likewise if I walked into a meeting of the Democratic party with a sure thing plan to elevate the economic status of America's poor to that of the middle class over a period of 2 decades would they all stand up and scream "NO! It's NOW or never"?

	11-06-2005 22:12									#448
	Support Apolyton

quote: Do you honestly think that if I walked into some meeting of the Republican party with a foolproof plan to immediately abolish abortion and the estate tax they'd all jump up and shout "Hey, not so fast"?

I've been in discussions with prolifers, and I would have to say yes to that. They'd look the gift horse in the mouth, because they know nothing comes without a price.

As for the liberals, well, I'll let them defend themselves. Would they accept a plan, knowing that they might not see any results for two decades?

	11-06-2005 22:18									#449
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Likewise if I walked into a meeting of the Democratic party with a sure thing plan to elevate the economic status of America's poor to that of the middle class over a period of 2 decades would they all stand up and scream "NO! It's NOW or never"?

It is now or never, because the conservatives don't really believe in gradual change. They believe in no change at all.

	11-06-2005 22:23									#450
	Inflate your Upload Space

See, there you go Doc Strangelove.

Conservatives believe in gradual change, while liberals believe in radical change.