 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
But the rightist postion is that the individual in more important |
No it isn't. Pinochet didn't believe that. Monarchists in Europe (ie, rightists) don't believe that.
Really, the division between left and right is simply the view each side places on tradition. The right embraces it and the left disdains it in favor of 'progress'. Moderates think tradition and progress can co-exist (to a certain point). There is a reason conservative is spelled with 'conserve'. They aren't conserving the environment now.
By your definitions, Ned, Ramo would be right wing, since he is an anarchist, who hate the state. |
In a sense this is true. In a sense it is not. If a government is radical and for change, in your opinion, it is leftist. But that would place Nazi Germany at the far left because of its radicalism.
If conservatism is being wedded to the past only, it is inherently neither left or right if one looks at the relationships of people vs. their government in economic, social and political matters. Just being conservative does not tell me anything about what the proper role of government is in the economy, etc. The past includes the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. It includes both King Charles and Cromwell.
Your view of left-right is that change should be prudent. I don't disagree at all. But this is not how I think of left and right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:21
|
|
quote:
The Chinese acquiesced in the Japanese assumption of authority over not only Formosa/Taiwan, but also the Ryukyu Islands, which had previously traditionally sent envoys to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor.
China also had to pay an indemnity of 500 000 taels.
In 1878 the Ryukyu Islands were officially surrendered to Japan. |
You would do well to find more detailed sources. The Ryukus had been a possession of the Satsuma han in Kyushu for centuries. The Satsuma leaders allowed the Ryukus to continue paying tribute to China in order to keep open lucrative trade that benifited Satsuma greatly, but there was no doubt about who the Ryukus really belonged to.
quote:
The most significant change in status for this time period came in 1609 with the invasion of the Ryukyus by the Satsuma-han of Japan. In this time period, Satsuma took control of the Ryukyus from the Ryukyuan monarchy, and placed the northern islands of Amami under direct Satsuma rule, while allowing the rest of the kingdom to remain under a sort of semi-colonial jurisdiction. |
quote:
The rest of the Ryukyu Kingdom, however, was able to maintain some appearances of sovereignty despite the nature of their domination by the Satsuma domain. For the most part, the Sho dynasty, which had previously ruled the Ryukyu Kingdom, was able to remain intact along with its administrative structures. This occurred largely because it was in Satsuma's political and economic trade interests to keep up the pretense that the Ryukyu Kingdom was still an independent nation. Since the Ryukyu Kingdom had been able to maintain economic trade relations with China, and Japan had broken off those same relations, Satsuma had a vested interest in keeping up Ryukyuan trade activities with China in order to economically prosper. To that end, the Ryukyus proved indispensable, since by practicing the deception that the Ryukyus were still an independent nation free from Japanese control, Satsuma was able to use the Ryukyus as a means in which to trade Japanese goods with China. |
http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/history_early.htm
As for WWI, you must be correct in saying that Japan acted completely on its own intiative, with no input from the British. Why else would the Japanese navy be protecting British interests in Singapore during the war?
quote:
Japanese warships rendered a new form of assistance to Great Britain in February 1915, when they helped to suppress a revolt by Indian soldiers stationed in Singapore. |
quote:
Japanese warships operating from Singapore guarded the South China Sea, Sulu Sea, and Dutch East Indies throughout the year. |
Or sending a fleet to the Med to help the British?
quote:
Japan rendered vital, worldwide naval support to Great Britain during the First World War, culminating in the service of Japan’s first and only Mediterranean squadron. This long-forgotten Japanese flotilla fought alongside allied warships throughout the most critical period of the struggle against German and Austro-Hungarian U-boats in 1917 and 1918. |
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Revie...er/art3-w00.htm
I'd go on, but it's time for bed here...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
An attempt to maintain the status quo, whether that means preserving inequality or equality. |
If that is the true definition, then conservatism is plainly idiotic. It's as dumb as desiring revolution for its own sake.
We don't desire these things for their intrinsic value, but for their leading to some other good. Communists believe, rightly or wrongly, that a socialist revolution will make the world better because it will remove exploitation, improve equality, etc. They don't just want a revolution for its own sake (well, some loons might).
Wanting things to stay the same because you want them to stay the same is completely batshit crazy, to borrow Plato's terminology. Likewise, valuing tradition purely because it is tradition is barmy.
A slightly less idiotic version would be to claim that conservatives support tradition as a means to an end -- such that reforms are opposed because on the balance of things they tend to produce worse results.
At least that isn't obviously silly.
Unfortunately it still doesn't work. It is simply false that reforms always on the balance of things make life worse, and even if it were true of the past that is no reason to expect it to continue in the future. Moreover, the obvious response is to look at the merits of each case, rather than adopting some blanket strategy. And even worse, this latter view does not really distinguish conservative values from liberal values, since the aims are the same utilitarian ones and the disagreement is only over means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
No. When Libertarians say they stand for Liberty they at least have a semi-coherent concept of it, even if it doesn't work in the end. When lefties say that they want equality of condition, it is reasonably clear what they mean. |
Libertarians and lefties both have absurdities they want us to believe in. Just because they are 'reasonably clear' what they want doesn't mean it ain't absurd. Libtertarian views of natural rights, you can definetly agree, is absurd. It also forms the basis of their beliefs.
quote:
The problem with that is that it is a vacuous principle: apart from "destroy the earth" types everyone wants to maintain what works. |
You keep saying everyone is for gradual change (a similar point to the one you just made), and so Burkian philosophy is meaningless, that but you are totally wrong.
Take gay marriage for instance. A gradual change means go step by step and go through the legislative bodies instead of the courts. The radical change view is go through the courts and strike down laws preventing gays from getting married.
I don't consider myself to be a conservative because I do believe that gays should have the right to marry as quickly as possible, HOWEVER, I do agree that the transition would be far easier (on a social level) if it was gradual change through the legislature.
The only person on this site I can really think of that actually embraces gradual change in most things is DanS.
Saying you believe in gradual change is totally false.
quote:
In a sense this is true. In a sense it is not. If a government is radical and for change, in your opinion, it is leftist. But that would place Nazi Germany at the far left because of its radicalism. |
Problem with that is that Nazi Germany evoked the myths and legends of the Germanic past. It's more reactionary than radical. Fascism is an anti-enlightenment philosophy and wants to go back before that.
quote:
If conservatism is being wedded to the past only, it is inherently neither left or right if one looks at the relationships of people vs. their government in economic, social and political matters. Just being conservative does not tell me anything about what the proper role of government is in the economy, etc. The past includes the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. It includes both King Charles and Cromwell. |
Indeed... though Cromwell doesn't fit the tradition that well since he was deposed and they went to a limited version of what happened before. Breaks in the tradition have some effect, but not full effect.
And your observation is why conservatism means different things in different societies. In the US, conservatives are promoting ideas of the enlightenment such as the free markets and individualism. In Europe, conservatives are the monarchists in some countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
Imran, your point is well taken. I prefer to define the axes and state where I see myself and where I see fascism, communism, socialism, etc. Conservatism is somewhat understood in the US, which is why we all have to say that we are, for example, economic conservatives but social liberals, to further define ourselves precisely.
Darkcloud raised another interesting point: how active a foreign policy one has or desires in another axes. Thus one can be an economic conservative, social liberal, favor democracy (a given for most Americans) over statism, and favor an activist (liberal) foreign policy. That fairly well describes me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
Because he crushed the trade unions and instituted hardcore free-market policies. Duh.
Last edited by Sandman on 04-06-2005 at 05:32
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-06-2005 16:29
.
|