This was posted on another board, a conservative one, and I'd like to hear the takes on this board: The fundamental difference between a liberal and conservative is whether an individual is allowed freedom, with responsibility, to function in society or whether an individual’s interests are subservient to the collective interest of the members of society. One must either be one or the other because once the collective interest takes precedence an individual’s freedom is compromised, then it just becomes a matter of degree as to the extent. A liberal who compromises his principles may consider himself a moderate liberal but is still a liberal. It is impossible for a conservative to be a moderate conservative because any compromise involves usurping individual freedom and attendant personal responsibility and this would automatically make him/her a liberal.
for conservatives, equality means that everyone can and should do at least as well as they do. for liberals, equality means treating those less fortunate with dignity.
there's a natural tension between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community, so as a society we enter into a social compact to protect the one, and contribute the security of the other. our social compact is the constitution, which shows us where the lines should be drawn.
...The definition's a bit stupid, because the "conservative" you're referring to seems to be the definition of a libertarian; these are not the same concepts. Likewise, liberals are the ones who foster individual liberty; a "stereotypical" conservative would be an economical liberal but a social conservative while a "stereotypical" liberal would be a social liberal but economically conservative. An ideal libertarian would be both economically and socially liberal and represent the ultimate axiom of individual freedom through abolition or near-abolition of the state. The stereotypical liberal would oppose this because of the overriding power of corporations. The stereotypical conservative would oppose this because then there would be no way to enforce traditional lifestyles.
Did I miss the boat, or is the OP's definition of conservatives come from an alternate reality? Primarily concerned with individual freedom?
Terrible definitions.... At it's core conservatives place personal, individual rights above all else. Morality is based on hard-work and NOT taking hand-outs. Gov't is a threat to personal freedoms and should stay out of what someone does. If a teacher wants to include religious symbols in school, than gov't shouldn't interfere (unless those symbols are of a non-Christian faith). Regulation is bad because it prevents people and businesses from operating freely. Individual Freedom is the utmost important thing, and no right or guarantee of equality usurps that. Liberals place equality above all else. Gov't role is to ensure everyone has their rights protected and are given equal treatment and a fair chance. Thus regulation is a good thing to make sure businesses don't abuse citizens. Freedom is important, but it is a privledge and does not empower people to cross the lines of rights. To me, that is the main difference. Personally, I don't like either view. I think what makes us a great country is both our personal freedom and the rights that guarantee us equality is part of ensuring everyone has personal freedom. You can't put the individual ahead of the state no more than you can put the state ahead of the individual.
The fact of the matter is that the concept of a liberal or conservative is just the lowest common denominator of any range of personal beliefs regarding any range of issues. It's a simplistic, dumbed down convenience. It too easily polarizes well meaning people into opposing sides where compromise is seen as a weakness instead of a strength. And it requires adherence to a centralized orthodoxy like "litmus tests' rather than allowing for the free flow of ideas. But for brevity in this thread: Liberals are generally more altruistic and conservatives are generally more egocentric. Both views have validity and and failings. The more altruistic view fails to recognize that the human animal is ruled by the basic instinct to use whatever it can preserve it's life and procreate. The more egocentric views fail to recognize that all progress, no matter how individualized it seems depends the cooperative effort of the group.
This is a very interesting characterization, but very wrong IMHO. B/c There are issues a hardcore conservativist will not relent his view even if majority's interests lie in a different direction. To me this is a misplaced distinction between utilitarian and a person who believes in unbridled person hood. I think this distinction oversimplifies the matter at issue.
I'll echo others and say that the description seems to be more about libertarians versus socialists in regards to economic and social program policies. Given that, I'd also say that I don't buy the idea that there can't be moderate libertarians. Nearly all conservatives and libertarians willingly give up their right to kill anybody they want to on a whim in order to have a safer society where threat of punishment presumably reduces the chance that they will be affected by somebody else exercising that right. If that definition were true, then anybody who agrees with the idea of making murder illegal would be a liberal.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding or at least mis-characterization of the liberal mindset. I'm thinking maybe you're aware of this and were just trying to make a snarky comment?
I agree with the other posters that these are very poor definition. The biggest problem is the idea of that conservatives have an uncompromising view of individual liberty when a strong view of law and order and national defense necessitates a compromise of individual liberties for collective safety.
Damn. I think thats a good point. Replace conservative with libertarian and liberal with socialist in that definition and it makes more sense.
