[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Before arguing a position BOTH PARTIES must agree to the SAME defintions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If both parties agreed on the definitions, there likely wouldn't be an argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatism: the belief that countries benefit more from smaller less active govt.
Liberalism: the belief that countries benefit more from larger more active govt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct to note that Buckley is one of the godfather's of contemporary 'conservatism', which is to say he's partly responsible for the right's move away from true conservatism to a hybrid neoliberalism/libertarianism. True conservatives aren't concerned with benefits and harms.

[ QUOTE ]
To call someone 'conservative' or 'liberal' is an ECONOMIC way of communicating what their BASIC set of political belief. Obviously some people's politcal beliefs can be quite complicated but it can take HOURS of careful questioning to discover all their politcal beliefs. Fuh-get-about-it. Give me the big picture. Call yourself 'conservative', 'liberal', or perhaps an hybrid of both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're implicitly agreeing with me that political labels, at least the way they're used in typical American political lexicon, are merely used to facilitate simplicity; I’m arguing that simplicity comes to the detriment of accuracy and nuance, and at the expense of a debate that possesses real depth.

If you'd like to refer to yourself as a conservative out of simplicity, fine. Far be it from me to get in the way of efficiency. But realize that efficiency often comes in the way of accuracy, and if you believe 'economic freedoms lead to social freedoms, and this is a benefit to society', then you're not a conservative.

[ QUOTE ]
Some people try to argue the defintion of political conservatism is advocating the status quo.
I think this is silly because a person can become conservative one day and liberal the next depending on what laws are passed. If the govt passes a law for higher taxes and I want lower taxes, I now become a 'liberal' because I want to change the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily true. Conservatives are in favor of the status quo, and believe progress should incrementally, or not at all. For example, using the hypothetical law you used - if the current income tax rate was 5%, and the new law adjusted tax rates to 30%, conservatives would vehemently object and continue to be conservative, as they're opposed to radical changes in laws; merely because laws change doesn't mean conservatives do. Conservatives just claim that the new law continues to violate the ‘true’ status quo, even if that law continues for hundreds of year.



[ QUOTE ]
Good defintions never change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why it’s a detriment to us all when words like ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are frequently so misused that a goodly number of Americans think liberal means something along the lines of “someone who likes trees, cappuccinos, killing the unborn, open-toed shoes and taxes” while conservative means something like “old white guys who hates gays.” I’m not accusing you (Felix) of such ignorance; you understand the debate here. But that having been said that, I believe advocating efficiency over accuracy comes with a price – that price being coarser, shallower political discourse.