are today's teenagers worse than previous generations

[trish]

Doubt it not.

[russtafa]

yes i do if they had known what they were fighting for i think it would have been down tools and walk off the job and hang the government

[Ben]

i all ways like to tell the old diggers see what you fought for .rag heads in Australia,junkies,thugs,refo's,greedy politicians that would sell the country out in a heart beat .poor old buggers all ways get a sour look on their faces.and young wankers that want to rob them=god bless the socialists lol

You may agree with the English writer Alan Moore. The more apt description is: libertarianism. Which is: "... a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."
I think everyone needs to control their own labor, their own community.... People should be in control of their own lives. Without, as Moore says, being bossed about.
They've done extensive studies. Which find that people who don't control their own labor are increasing stressed. Which leads to melancholy or sadness.
Quoting from a libertarian site: "Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of a social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting."
Adam Smith articulated that the goal of free markets, that is free market capitalism, is to create equality -- or liberty. He said that under conditions of perfect liberty (meaning, again, free markets) you get perfect equality. Meaning, in essence, people control their own lives. That's the core.

[russtafa]

You may agree with the English writer Alan Moore. The more apt description is: libertarianism. Which is: "... a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."
I think everyone needs to control their own labor, their own community.... People should be in control of their own lives. Without, as Moore says, being bossed about.
They've done extensive studies. Which find that people who don't control their own labor are increasing stressed. Which leads to melancholy or sadness.
Quoting from a libertarian site: "Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of a social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting."
Adam Smith articulated that the goal of free markets, that is free market capitalism, is to create equality -- or liberty. He said that under conditions of perfect liberty (meaning, again, free markets) you get perfect equality. Meaning, in essence, people control their own lives. That's the core.

i can see that ever working=NOT

[Ben]

i can see that ever working=NOT

I think it depends on whether or not people want it. (I mean, it took awhile for women in America to gain the right to vote. But women wanted it, fought for it and gained the right to vote.)
I mean, people are fed up in America with the inordinate power of large corporations. Sick of the Middle class -- and working class -- getting screwed. It's a fairness and, too, a deep morality issue. And that's the essence of conservatism: morality.
Morality also encompasses a slew of issues like, well, I think, dumping toxic waste into the air, water and soil. Which is a deep moral issue. I think caring about future generations is a moral issue. Not just, well, abortion or gay marriage. Denying two women or two men the right to marry seems absurd to me.... Anyway, enough ranting -- ha ha ha!

[Stavros]

Ben I think you need to qualify your 'essence of conservatism' as 'morality'. American conservatism tends to believe that the decisions individuals make are the essence of freedom. The Constitutional experiment, taking a cue from John Locke argues that yes, the citizen surrenders some of his or her liberty to the state in return for which the state protects life and property; ever since 1776 there has been -and will always be- a debate on the issues that push and pull citizens and the state; libertarians demand the maximum amount of individual liberty and the minimum amount of state intervention in their lives, so that strictly speaking, shouldn't the moral judgement of marriage by a libertarian allow any two -or indeed, any number of- people to marry as long as it is consensual?

Are moral values absolute, or relative?

[Ben]

Ben I think you need to qualify your 'essence of conservatism' as 'morality'. American conservatism tends to believe that the decisions individuals make are the essence of freedom. The Constitutional experiment, taking a cue from John Locke argues that yes, the citizen surrenders some of his or her liberty to the state in return for which the state protects life and property; ever since 1776 there has been -and will always be- a debate on the issues that push and pull citizens and the state; libertarians demand the maximum amount of individual liberty and the minimum amount of state intervention in their lives, so that strictly speaking, shouldn't the moral judgement of marriage by a libertarian allow any two -or indeed, any number of- people to marry as long as it is consensual?

Are moral values absolute, or relative?

Well, relative. As it depends what one means by freedom?
I mean, over a century ago conservatives believed that people should be free from concentrated corporate power. (And, too, conservatism should reflect 18th. century values. I mean, Adam Smith was a conservative. I'm talking about the real Adam Smith. And not the one you hear about. To understand Adam Smith you've got to read him. David Hume was also a real conservative. At its core was democracy. And, of course, conservatism sprang from classical liberalism. So, it's deeply rooted in liberal traditions.)
So, the term "conservative" has been rendered meaningless. What we call conservatives today are merely corporatists. Believing in a corporate-state power structure.
They believe a small section of the populace should control a country, as it were. Because people are inherently evil. And if they -- the power elite -- handed/gave power over to the people, well, they'd screw the whole thing up. It's rational, rational self interest.
Also a small section of the population running things brings about stability. So-called conservatives [today!] oppose democratic values.
And libertarians -- and I'm not sure they realize this -- are actually pushing for corporate tyranny. In the absence of a State, well, corporate power would become completely dominant. The population would have no control over them. People have some say and control over governments.
The whole marriage thing is a bit tricky. I guess if three people -- like, say, Hugh Hefner and his gal pals -- wanted to get married, well, it's their choice.

[russtafa]

this just like communism or most forms of government control .these forms of government try to deny basic human driven needs that some people will always try to work hard and succeed ,while others will want the state to look after all their needs and just lie back and do nothing .you will always have an upper class and a lower class ,that's just human nature and that's where the church comes in as a tool of the rich

[trish]

No. It's just like capitalism or most forms of corporate control that try to manipulate human foibles with lies and promises (think of all the incessant marketing we're exposed to each and every day). There will always be scam artists and bullies who steal for themselves the fruits of other people's hard labor. But if ordinary people ban together, form governments that protect the commons and the common interest the gap between those who produce goods with their bare hands and those who live off the labor of others needn't be so large.

[Stavros]

And, of course, conservatism sprang from classical liberalism.

Hmmm...sorry Ben, I think you are wrong. Conservatism pre-dates classical liberalism and in some of its manfestations is oposed to it. Hobbes was a Conservative, Locke a liberal, to take two obvious examples.

Part of this problem may be due to the different use of language -in the UK a liberal is considered centre-left, a conservative centre-right and beyond. Historically, the Whigs viewed history as progress and for that reason became associated with the economic changes that were propelled by the ideas of the enlightenment and the industrial revolution which they saw as a delightful marriage between rationality and capitalism -they became the Liberal Party in the years that followed the Reform Act of 1832. Conservatives tended to fear change in principle, and in particular changes that would change the structure of society -hence the conservatives being more closely associated with the pillars of the state: the Monarchy, the Church, Government, and the Military. It was therefore easier for a conservative to take a moderately anti-capitalist position than the Liberals because the patrician conservative looks after his servants and labourers: these historical nuances meant that by the end of the 19thc, Liberals tended to be forward looking and willing to represent common labourers where the conservatives tried to appeal to all as a nationalist party. It was socialism and the growth of the Labour party that undermined the Whig-Tory duality: Liberals won the elections in the early years of the 20thc under Lloyd-George, but by the early 20s were decimated and have been a minority party since then. Liberals nowadays support the welfare state, but in some respects so too does the conservative party, because even Margaret Thatcher knew that privatising the national health service would be political suicide. Some argue that Thatcher took the Conservatives so far to the right that they lost their 'traditional' Conservive identity, this is where the concept of 'caring conservatism' or 'compassionate capitalism' came from, most of which is akin to giving your slaves an extra cup of sugar on Sunday.

So, it is not the case that conservatives are solely corporatists: in the UK some are libertarians and some are 'one nation tories' who are statists rather than corporatists: they believe in a strong state, and argue that business can be left to do business but that the state needs to be there as guarantor and protector. This is why I keep saying that on both sides of the Atlantic, labels aside, it is the issue of the State that is dividing political opinion; most capitalist businesses in the States are not corporatist anyway. One final point -Kant believed morals are absolute, but thats another thread...