Gidday mate, you write:
> There are some differences in the definition of conservatism in different parts of the world.
That is a very astute and intelligent observation, and I think this is the first time I have seen it articulated on the FRee Republic. There would be some differences between the US definition and the NZ definition of “Conservatism”.
The US Definition is an interesting one, because in my view it is unique in the world. It is different to ous in NZ, but I believe it is also different to what is used in the UK, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere.
As I hope to show here, in the US you have done some interesting coupling of some quite unrelated concepts, whereas that isn’t necessarily the case elsewhere.
> But, gun control and socialized medicine are NOT examples of conservatism. Those are examples of SOCIALISM.
Only in the United States. Your definition of Conservatism is driven by your Constitution and your National priorities. It is a national priority for the US to have an armed populace — it isn’t here. And it is not a national priority to have medical services administered by the Government — so it falls to your individuals to provide that.
It is different here. We do not have a “Constitution” per se, so that does not drive our definition of “Conservatism”. We have a collection of pieces of legislation which, when viewed in aggregate, form a constitutional base instead.
In New Zealand it IS a national priority to have a healthy populace. We provide for that as one of our core functions of government. We also have privatized medicine available — you can have as much medical care as you want to pay for — but as a matter of national priority there is a baseline level of medical care available to all, as a matter of right. No New Zealander in his right mind would want to do away with that right: we would defend it as vigorously as you would defend your Second Amendment. And it works well.
That is as much a national priority for us as having a strong military is for the US. Deviating from that would be a LIBERAL thing to do.
On gun control, we have one of the highest per-capita ownderships of firearms in the world — it is right up there, almost with the US. Lots and lots and lots of guns. We can own as many as we want.
We do not have a constitutional right to own firearms, unlike the US. It is just another posession, just like an automobile.
And just like an automobile, we have rules about owning them — which is only just and fair: guns can be dangerous so there must be rules for their safe use and ownership. If you own an automobile, you must have it registered and, if you want to drive it you must be a licensed driver.
Similarly in New Zealand for firearms. They have tried (and failed) to register firearms, so instead we license our owners. Just like automobile drivers. Nothing more onerous than that.
We do not want psychopaths owning guns. We do not want clowns shooting at people if they slip on ice. That’s just retarded. That’s not “Conservatism” to allow morons to own guns — that’s just dam’nfoolishness.
Conservatives oppose dam’nfoolishness. In NZ it would be a LIBERAL thing to do to provide imbeciles with firearms.
> Those are the very policies we conservatives in the U.S. oppose.
As so you should. Your constitutional context says so.
> Maybe you can explain how you define conservatism and in what way you consider New Zealand to be an example of a “free” country led by a conservative government.
Conservatism is all about preseving the status quo and traditional values and ideals. Liberalism is about implementing change, challenging traditional values and ideals, and progressing new ideas. Socialism is about acting for the collective good, and Individualism is about celebrating the rights of the individual.
In the US you have locked Conservatism with Individualism, and Liberalism with Socialisn.
We haven’t. These concepts remain quite loose and separate. We like it better that way. Here is an example:
In New Zealand we do not have the legal concept of “Personal Injury Liability”, so we cannot be sued for it. Property Damage, yes, definitely. Personal Injury, no.
Therefore we are free to do all kinds of dangerous activities that your insurance people would never allow you to do in the United States, for fear of Liability.
Most of the “Xtreme Sports” that you see on TV and that eventually make it over to the US were invented and perfected here in New Zealand. The tamest of them is Bungee Jumping: it is so tame we encourage tourists to do it. We get up to much more crazy stuff than that, though. (CONCEPT=INDIVIDUALISM)
If we hurt ourselves we will be looked after by our medical system. We cannot be sued for hurting someone else: that person will be looked after by the medical system — whatever it takes to make them fit and well. (CONCEPT=SOCIALISM)
This means that our courts are free from frivolous law suits: nobody gets sued for millions of dollars for personal injury. Cannot happen. Even if an American gets hurt in New Zealand, he cannot sue for millions — good luck trying! Many have and all have failed: our judges just put a stupid look on their faces and say “Personal Injury? What’s That??” Frivolous lawsuits therefore just don’t happen: they tend to be expensive and almost no lawyer will take a case on “contingency” with a hope of getting rich quick. (CONCEPT=CONSERVATISM)
Our Prime Minister is relatively alot more powerful than your President, but he only gets three years to do what he wants before we get to throw him out. And, because of the way our system is structured, his government itself is always at peril of collapsing. This is because we have structured Parliament in such a way that we usually get coalition governments: two or more parties are needed to form government. (CONCEPT=DEMOCRACY)
Like our current Conservative Government, for instance: it is a coalition between National and ACT. If we really want to get rid of this Government, it is merely a question of hammering away at ACT and getting them to leave the Coalition. Then the government is a single Confidence vote away from toppling. Just like that. (CONCEPT=DEMOCRACY)
In theory, this means that our Government is much more afraid of the general populace than your Government is. We do not have an “Upper House” and a “Lower House” — it’s just Parliament and that’s it. (CONCEPT=CONSERVATISM, DEMOCRACY)
So in New Zealand, I pay Income Tax, and if I own property, I pay Rates. I pay a levy for my medical, and I pay a consuption tax called “GST”. That’s it: we do not have states so we do not have State Taxes. Our taxes, in aggregate, are fairly low and quite stable. This means we get to keep a fair chunk of our wealth. (CONCEPT=CAPITALISM)
See how that works? Because we haven’t tightly coupled our concepts, we have have a mix of concepts that work well for us. That is why no NZ Conservative in his right mind would want to do away with “Socialized” Medicine: the concept of “Socialized” isn’t politically loaded the same way as it is in the US with “Socialism”.
And with Gun Control, we are perfectly free to prevent morons and lunatics from owning guns, without challenging our Conservative foundations — whereas if you try to do so in the US you are challenging the Second Amendment. It’s not “loaded” in the same way as it is in the US.
I'm going to rudely and in an uninvited fashion, ping this thread because I lived in NZ for 15 years as a gun owner, and now live in the US, as a gun owner. If you'd like my unbiased opinion on something comparative (because I love both countries, and know their cultures intimately from a first-person perspective), let me know.
Cheers,
Starfleet
The US Definition is an interesting one, because in my view it is unique in the world. It is different to ous in NZ, but I believe it is also different to what is used in the UK, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere.
I've read the same. And here's an interesting quote from President Reagan:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Conservatism is all about preseving the status quo and traditional values and ideals. Liberalism is about implementing change, challenging traditional values and ideals, and progressing new ideas.
Here's a quick story: Up to ten years ago, that's exactly how I thought conservatism was defined here in the U.S., too. But, I live in the northeastern part of the country, and that's how most of the people around me defined it. Then, ten years ago, I started talking via the internet with conservatives and self-described libertarians living in the midwest and out west. When they heard some of my views - and back then I favored gun control, for example - they told me that was "liberal", not conservative. I remember insisting that they were liberal, not I, and defining the two terms almost exactly as you did (above).
So, Americans identify themselves as conservatives differently, depending on the region where they live - the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, the West - and from person to person. I noticed there are some FReepers who define conservatism the way I used to define it. But, they're mistaken, just as I was. As you said, here in the U.S., our Constitutional rights are at the heart of conservatism. Anyway, it's been quite an education for me over the years on conservatism and politics, and it's interesting to read about how it's defined in other countries, too.
In the US you have locked Conservatism with Individualism, and Liberalism with Socialisn.
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
In New Zealand we do not have the legal concept of “Personal Injury Liability”,
I've never sued anyone, but I myself was sued once. (The plaintiff lied, and I told the truth, but there was little I could do.) My insurance took care of it. At the time, the insurance agent told me that Americans living in the midwest, for example, tended to settle auto accidents between each other without going to court, whereas here in the northeast people will milk an auto accident for everything they can get. So, I guess there are differences according to region when it comes to a person's tendency to file lawsuits, too.
We do not want psychopaths owning guns. We do not want clowns shooting at people if they slip on ice.
I'm not sure I believe the victims' story, yet. A stabbed teenager appeared on the doorstep of my parents' home once, and he and his friends claimed he was stabbed by another boy in a fight over a girl. My folks didn't believe them. They said it was obviously a drug deal gone bad. ;-)
But, anyway, assuming their story is true, and assuming the Evanston is Evanston, IL, the state of Illinois does require licensing of owners. IL does have laws restricting gun ownership. The problem is, no law here will keep guns out of the hands of criminals because they're willing to break the law, anyway, to obtain them. The laws mostly seem to hurt honest, law-abiding people.
I appreciated the explanation on your system of government. I have read about your new Prime Minister. I hope all goes well for you and your country under conservative leadership there.