Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Rate this Entry

Back by popular demand!!!

Posted September 1st, 2020 at 11:40 AM by Ralph.S.G.R

Ah yes, the title may be a little bit misleading if you want to get picky about things- sure only 1 person actually expressed any positive feedback in regards to my blog... but i felt like adding something to it so here it is:

I thought rather than doing a daily update (although i may well do a little of that), i thought i might maybe use this space to educate and inform, as well as to express my opinions on subjects of a political nature- something i would like to do more on this site.

So i thought i would start by giving a rough outline of my political views and ideologies as they currently are- these are very much subject to change and, if you're reading this in the future, feel free to ask me if i still hold these views before attacking me for them (or, indeed, praising me).

One of the largest political ideologies that i subscribe to is the notion of one-nation conservatism. Before immediately disliking me because the word 'conservatism' has come up, i will tell you straight off the bat that this ideology is very far removed from Both the British conservative party and the American Republican party. Now that thats out in the open, i will define one-nation conservatism for you: 'One nation conservatism advocates the preservation of established institutions and traditional principles within a political democracy, in combination with social and economic programmes designed to benefit the ordinary person'.

Therefore, this ideology has similarities with socialism in the sense that it encourages the richer members of society to be accountable for the poorer members, but it differs hugely from socialism in not advocating for a strictly controlled society in which individuals are banned from their own individualism.

So... One nation conservatism is against free-market capitalism that is essentially only beneficial for those in power, and, despite being a conservative philosophy, is for national institutions like free healthcare and a welfare state.

I hope you enjoyed reading this
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 386 Comments 4
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 4

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    cocorayo's Forum Picture
    So I think your conservatism is closer to social-democracy that is what it's set in most European countries, and other countries in the world.
    My personal opinion is that this type of system(social-democracy) doesn't really go somewhere and it really complicates the economic growth of a country.
    Apart from that many of the fascist movements were social-democratic, and they did some things right( like free healthcare that were made facism not communism in most countries) and they did things wrong... a lot of things.
    I don't really know in the UK but many western countries including African countries have this system, and they lead to corruption and conflict.

    I don't think free-market capitalism is beneficial for those in power, is the other way around. It is benefitial for us because we receive the best product and as long as there is true free market there will always be a competition meaning there won't be negative monopolies and the only beneficieries are the consumers.

    As you're saying there are people in power, but depends what type of people are in that power position. The more power you give to the government, more people of power will be governers which mean higher chance of corruption and God know what else more. Maybe it just me but I prefer some body to be in power because that person deserves it(CEO of company or whatever) or he got it from a family(with all the pressure) than a person that got "elected"(and the democracy thing is really tricky in 98% of the countries in the world). The difference is that bussinesman is rich because of his products and the consumers like those products, and the politic is rich because of you and me, by mandatory taxes that wheather he does right or wrong, you still gotta pay taxes.Things wrong without including corruption, waste of public money, military and others.

    Sorry for the big text but really supporting the government and going against free-market is supporting those in power. But of course I'm open to new ideas, maybe I'm wrong.
    Posted September 2nd, 2020 at 12:02 PM by cocorayo cocorayo is offline
  2. Old Comment
    Ralph.S.G.R's Forum Picture
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cocorayo View Comment
    So I think your conservatism is closer to social-democracy that is what it's set in most European countries, and other countries in the world.
    My personal opinion is that this type of system(social-democracy) doesn't really go somewhere and it really complicates the economic growth of a country.
    Apart from that many of the fascist movements were social-democratic, and they did some things right( like free healthcare that were made facism not communism in most countries) and they did things wrong... a lot of things.
    I don't really know in the UK but many western countries including African countries have this system, and they lead to corruption and conflict.

    I don't think free-market capitalism is beneficial for those in power, is the other way around. It is benefitial for us because we receive the best product and as long as there is true free market there will always be a competition meaning there won't be negative monopolies and the only beneficieries are the consumers.

    As you're saying there are people in power, but depends what type of people are in that power position. The more power you give to the government, more people of power will be governers which mean higher chance of corruption and God know what else more. Maybe it just me but I prefer some body to be in power because that person deserves it(CEO of company or whatever) or he got it from a family(with all the pressure) than a person that got "elected"(and the democracy thing is really tricky in 98% of the countries in the world). The difference is that bussinesman is rich because of his products and the consumers like those products, and the politic is rich because of you and me, by mandatory taxes that wheather he does right or wrong, you still gotta pay taxes.Things wrong without including corruption, waste of public money, military and others.

    Sorry for the big text but really supporting the government and going against free-market is supporting those in power. But of course I'm open to new ideas, maybe I'm wrong.

    So if i understand you correctly, you are saying a truly free market system would be superior for the average person in comparison to the situation i described?

    In theory yes. Free marketerism as a concept is very similar to communism in that sense (although completely different in every other sense!!). Free marketerism works perfectly as a concept but regrettably, as i see it, it can never work. There are always people with more skill and more tact wh will end up with a controlling monopoly that means that they are the only people who benefit. Unless you had strict laws on monopolies (which would mean it wasnt a free market) then all the money would eventually get into the hands of a small number of people, prices would drive up and quality would drive down.

    Paternalistic conservatism on the other hand, allows the market to act (with regulation) but also gives everyone a stake through a shared history and culture. But it also allows for individual brilliance, unlike communism.
    Posted September 7th, 2020 at 12:00 PM by Ralph.S.G.R Ralph.S.G.R is offline
  3. Old Comment
    cocorayo's Forum Picture
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ralph.S.G.R View Comment
    So if i understand you correctly, you are saying a truly free market system would be superior for the average person in comparison to the situation i described?

    In theory yes. Free marketerism as a concept is very similar to communism in that sense (although completely different in every other sense!!). Free marketerism works perfectly as a concept but regrettably, as i see it, it can never work. There are always people with more skill and more tact wh will end up with a controlling monopoly that means that they are the only people who benefit. Unless you had strict laws on monopolies (which would mean it wasnt a free market) then all the money would eventually get into the hands of a small number of people, prices would drive up and quality would drive down.

    Paternalistic conservatism on the other hand, allows the market to act (with regulation) but also gives everyone a stake through a shared history and culture. But it also allows for individual brilliance, unlike communism.
    I think you're wrong on that, monopolies are caused the support of the government. All the cases you see a monopoly are either because a government is supporting it directly(intervation) or not allowing companies to compete( anti free-market).

    By the way you say free-marketing works perfectly as a concept but in practice? There are A LOT of examples when a market is more free generates more wealth, and when I say more wealth is to EVERYONE(I hope you don't fall in the falacies of the wealth distribution).
    Posted September 7th, 2020 at 02:07 PM by cocorayo cocorayo is offline
  4. Old Comment
    Ralph.S.G.R's Forum Picture
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cocorayo View Comment
    I think you're wrong on that, monopolies are caused the support of the government. All the cases you see a monopoly are either because a government is supporting it directly(intervation) or not allowing companies to compete( anti free-market).

    By the way you say free-marketing works perfectly as a concept but in practice? There are A LOT of examples when a market is more free generates more wealth, and when I say more wealth is to EVERYONE(I hope you don't fall in the falacies of the wealth distribution).
    Sure, a totally resricted market is a bad thing and, often, freeing up the market more does help. However, the countries we can see with the freeist markets are not the ones with the least inequality- you can see any graph and see im right.
    Posted September 27th, 2020 at 02:22 PM by Ralph.S.G.R Ralph.S.G.R is offline
 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2021
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2020, VirtualTeen.org