Response to “The Fundamental Gap between Conservatism and Liberalism”


In response to a friends post The Fundamental Gap between Conservatism and Liberalism

I get what you are trying to say. I agree that the establishment the outsider each have their own set of bias and interest. Where i disagree is your “Table 1: The hidden logic behind the conservatism and the liberalism”.
What mainly differnciate a Conservatives to that of a Liberal is not having different logic or different level of rick tolerance. what differentiate them is they belong to different interest group, and benefit/loss from each change differently.

Conservatives:
-Beneficiary of current social system (which is being challenged by changing demographic, new ideas or advancement in technology/science).
-They are fearful of any change from their “reference point” (by reference point I mean a position in a society -conservative believe that they deserves).
-Fearful of change by slippery slop (this is why they are more likely to be absolutist).
-where rational analysis supports change, conservatives uses emotions or vague moral value to depend their reference point.
-Conservatives are ok with change if it brings back closer to their reference point.
(eg. usually while older man, with asset or good income)

Liberal
-are non-establishment, they are poorer, less represented then the conservatives.
-They seem to uses rational analysis more, because changing demographic, new ideas, advancement in tech/science seem to support their view.
-where rational analysis does not supports change, liberals uses emotions or vague moral value to push for change.
-More of a relativist, question established norm, prefer relativism, fluid of value and morality.
-More comfortable with the risk of slippery slop
(eg. usually women, immigrant, minority)

This is probably a more cynical view of the liberal-conservative divide. I think they both use rational analysis and emotional/moral based plead interchangeably when it suited their argument. Conservatives cites individual freedom and responsibility as reason against taxing for government health care. Conversely Liberal cites humane dignity for government health care. Of course there are rare individuals that would appear to argue against the interest of their interest group. Those individuals are probably manipulated by persuade opinion leader or certain meme (eg. unemployed man voting Republican due to abortion, gun, security issue against their own economic interest). There is also possibility that the individual has found a way to benefit from speaking against what appears to be his or her interest group (eg. extremely rich supporter of the democratic party, because paying more taxes in exchange for moral high ground is worth it).

obviously there are people who does not exclusively belong to an archetype interest group. A rich black man will have a hard time relating to any of the major interest group, but will in the end vote for a politician that align with his view the closest.

What is the implication of this view is something I need to ponder on

Ansels’ Blog


Those of you who reads Chinese, check out Ansels’ blog its full of interest short stories to read.

http://ansel2025.spaces.live.com/

I find this one though provoking:

和生戰

西元三千年美國司爾曼將軍下令向南美洲發射飛彈,工程師們迅速調整計算向南發射的軌道,飛彈穿過墨西哥直達哥倫比亞、祕魯、巴西,加拿大與美國的關係也是箭在絃上,中國將核子武器氫彈射向了自己的鄰國──印度、蘇聯、哈薩克,而俄羅斯也回敬生化武器──伊波拉、炭疽熱。日本的軍國主義再度掌權,自衛隊開始向朝鮮半島開火,歐洲大陸陷入一片混亂,奧地利、法國等城市皆陷入火海,人民害怕的閃避著飛機空投的炸彈,半年內,全世界的人口剩下五分之一,但是這一切沒來由的迅速在最近幾天內止息;一個星期後,各國首領紛紛於國內發表談話,兩百多個國家,兩百多個理由,居然沒有戰勝與戰敗國,這到底是怎麼一回事?

continue to read the rest