I'd recommend you do a little research before you patronize me. Being liberal or conservative has no bearing on the size of a government. Anarchy is described as an extreme liberal idealogy, and they have no government. Liberal is very much a beleif in equality of the people. Legalizing drugs is not conservative veiw (really, it is just so wrong to say it is), it is a liberal veiw because it is increasing peoples freedoms (which, as in this example, is not necissarily a good thing all the time).Wardog13 said:It seems you arnt familiar with the real meanings of the terms "conservative" and "liberal"Dys said:Conservative is the one where everything is in gods name, where religious laws are often the basis for real laws. Liberal is the one where everyone is free, everything is about the individual and it is seen as wrong to project your beleifs onto others...IE everyone is equal and free (Tony abbott and his stance of abortions is a typical conservative policy in Australian politics). An extreme conservative government is strictly regulated and everyone beleives the same thing, an extreme liberal government is one where Anarchy rules.Wardog13 said:Sounds more conservative to me.Dys said:Religon has no place in government, I beleive in individual freedoms so, as should be obvious, I am liberal.
Conservative=Little Government
Liberal=More Government
The way people use the terms are way off for example, "liberals" want to legalize drugs, but removing a law removes some government, in other words, its a conservative idea.
liberalism has a wikipedia page as does conservative. Have fun.
The idea is that it gives more people more freedom, and while I do agree that the benifets is done abysmally, I also beleive that people earning millions of dollars a year should contribute more money to societys infrastructure(not for stupid g'ment add campagns or bullshit "we're helping" money funneling). I don't beleive that anyone should go hungry, but I do beleive that people who don't work shouldn't get so much that they aren't motivated to improve themselves.sneakypenguin said:But they will hammer your freedoms if you are rich though.Dys said:No sensible politician, regardless of their beleifs, would publicly contest peoples freedoms.sneakypenguin said:Yeah I was gonna say... Most "conservative" voices out there hound on individual freedom and responsibility.Wardog13 said:Sounds more conservative to me.Dys said:Religon has no place in government, I beleive in individual freedoms so, as should be obvious, I am liberal.
However it is the liberals who are the stronger beleivers in peoples freedoms, it's the conservatives that contest homosexuals, who beleive and in some cases enforce religious beleifs on others and who don't beleive in helping those less fortunate (state schools pretty much get ignored, public hospitals are left to dry up and die) etc etc
Taking money from someone to pay for someones housing food or cell phone bill isn't adding freedom. It's adding benefits, but it's taking away the freedom to keep the profit of ones labor.