Why is protecting gun rights a right wing philosophy?

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=Lumpy]

@InvisibleWombat

@Lumpy

Guns are essential in an unfair world, and harmful in a fair world.

Complete and utter B.S.–a perfect example of what I said above.

Exactly what part of what I said do you consider B.S.? I was pointing out what seems to me to be the fundamental mindset of two irreconcilable philosophies. For the record, I’m pro-libertarian and pro-gun ownership.
[/QUOTE]
The part I quoted. I don’t believe that “Guns are essential in an unfair world,” nor that guns are “harmful in a fair world,” and haven’t seen evidence to support either assertion.

[ITR_champion]

@Lakai

Well I don’t think liberalism is a practical results-oriented philosophy and neither is conservatism. I think both of them are naive and idealistic. Just because you are a liberal doesn’t mean you can proclaim liberalism to be the practical one.

There’s one rather obvious claim that liberalism can make which other countries can’t. All first-world countries (i.e. those which are prosperous, safe, and technologically advanced) could reasonably be described as being based on a liberal philosophy, as can almost all successful second-world and third-world countries. That’s what I call results. Competing philosophies can claim to be results-oriented, but they can’t offer results like that.

I’m sure everyone thinks they are being practical, but ideologies aren’t defined by practicality, they are defined by what people think is practical and produces results

I might well agree with this assertion but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this thread, since liberalism isn’t an ideology. Liberalism is a philosophy, meaning “a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs”. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
All first-world countries (i.e. those which are prosperous, safe, and technologically advanced) could reasonably be described as being based on a liberal philosophy, as can almost all successful second-world and third-world countries.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, really? How, exactly, does one define “liberal philosophy” to make this statement true?

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Oh, really? How, exactly, does one define “liberal philosophy” to make this statement true?
[/QUOTE]

Easy. Link Link Link

Basic tenets of a liberal government (from the Wikipedia link above):

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

[brazil84]

In my opinion, one of the fundamental assumptions of modern day liberal thought is that people are equal.

Modern day liberals like to believe that a criminal is an otherwise honest person who fell into bad circumstances. They want to believe in Jean Valjean – take a poor person, give him some silver candlesticks, and he can be a big success.

I think that the liberal view of gun control; taxation; civil rights; crime and punishment (including capital punishment); and so forth are informed in large part by this philosophy.

[Lakai]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
There’s one rather obvious claim that liberalism can make which other countries can’t. All first-world countries (i.e. those which are prosperous, safe, and technologically advanced) could reasonably be described as being based on a liberal philosophy, as can almost all successful second-world and third-world countries. That’s what I call results. Competing philosophies can claim to be results-oriented, but they can’t offer results like that.
[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind that capitalism is a conservative philosophy (if you want to call it that). The liberal side has the naive notion of communism and full economic equality. Which one of your prosperous, safe and technologically advance nations are communist?

Now I grant that we don’t have pure capitalism like conservatism would want, but our economic system is more conservative than it is liberal.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]

I might well agree with this assertion but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this thread, since liberalism isn’t an ideology. Liberalism is a philosophy, meaning “a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs”. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
[/QUOTE]

If a country believes in a philosophy it becomes an ideology.

Here is what I get for ideology:

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

[elucidator]

I’m a communist? Wow, I had no idea, being naive, and all. Thanks for the info!

[villa]

[QUOTE=Lakai]
Keep in mind that capitalism is a conservative philosophy (if you want to call it that). The liberal side has the naive notion of communism and full economic equality. Which one of your prosperous, safe and technologically advance nations are communist?

Now I grant that we don’t have pure capitalism like conservatism would want, but our economic system is more conservative than it is liberal.

[/QUOTE]

I think if you look at historical liberalism and historical conservatism and their opinions on capitalism you might not be so sure about that.

[Lakai]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
I’m a communist? Wow, I had no idea, being naive, and all. Thanks for the info!
[/QUOTE]

If you hold extremely liberal views on economics then yes. Just because you hold one conservative view doesn’t make you a conservative, but a free market without government interference is a conservative view.

[elucidator]

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a “free market”. Where the money flows, the hounds catch the scent. Even where government consisted of nothing more than one retarded proto-Habsburb and six poxed henchmen…the market is under their control. Tighty righties consistently tout the magic of an institution that is pure vaporware, with no more practical reality than a Marxist’s “workers paradise”. Take most intransigent social problems, sprinkle some free market pixie dust on it and poof! A miracle. All that need be done is to unleash the exuberant beast, the free market, and cornucopias will spring from the earth.

And these men think themselves sober, hard-headed and realistic, especially towards naive wooly thinkers such as my ilk, with our insistence that, no, gobbling up the planet to produce loud, shiny crap is not A Good Plan. These are men who would rather make money than breathe. Often, they ponder deeper questions, like how it is the Free Market allows bad things to happen to rich people.

Ain’t no such thing. Never was, and ain’t likely.

[Lakai]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Ain’t no such thing. Never was, and ain’t likely.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, but the system we have now is closer to the conservative side, no?

[villa]

No - its probably much closer to classical liberalism than other schools of economic thought.