All these propositions are very complex. Some propositions make no sense at all to non americans - it is a point that constantly needs making. There is one reference to Winston Churchill, for instance, supposedly using the words liberal, which Churchill would have found quite meaningless.
The only point that is interesting... really... is the often (implied) point about governments make prosperity and
businesses oppression.
This is dependant on the legislative environment and the precise point of consensus within an economy. Businesses only have operational status within a legislative frame work (that guarantees certain legal privileges, such as the right to take legal actions against defaulting customers, etc). It isn't meaningful in this case to set into opposition the legislative framework allowing operability with its subject clause (i.e. the business). It's an artificial abstraction.
The basis of the legislative framework is presumably the Judeo-Christian framework. This was not in operation during the days when the USA was being formed.
The current economy would not exist if certain foundations had not been made by previous enforcement of legislation.
Current concepts of ethics are now in considerable flux. There is an interesting correspondence between the departure of moral guidance from the older traditions, the pre-eminance of speculative finance, and the numbers of violent crimes. All these changes date from the Reagan - Thatcher era.
The ethical system described in the ancient documentation available contains many more references to other necessary actions by legislative bodies and individuals. As far as I can tell, the essential difference between the conservative and liberals in this sphere is as follows.
Liberals focus more deffusely on the entirely of the law as presented in the old testament. This include mores and principles about presenting certain opportunities to the poor.
The conservatives focus exclusively on the minimum legislative elements they perceive as allowing themselves to accumulate goods and services.
To this extent, the conservatives are essentially lawless in character and outlook. This often has the ability to be seen as overspilling into everyday political life (such as assasinations conducted by the USA, etc).
Another manifestation of right wing philosophy is the tremendous drop nearly always experienced in the quality of the arts of a nation. In the absence of patronage (or in an atmosphere where fiscal survival depends on short term performance) the result is nearly always poor art and literature, or very narrow samples of what might have been available.
There is nearly always an implication that Mr Clinton is somehow "liberal". I find this quite surprising, even though I encounter it frequently. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an elected official in America that has not been conservative, nor is there a party that isn't right wing. I realize that this is known to everyone except the Americans, but the continued projection of meaningless "opposites" that aren't opposite at all in America is absurd and always has been.
The most contemptible point made is the reference to "red china". I have no idea how this can refer to anything real at all, since China has a stock exchange and therefore is not (and has not been for some time) Communist.
Most of the other points don't really correspond with any points of view I have seen in any other people anywhere. The whole posting is rather odd. |
