The Biggest Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals I Relatable

What are some of the biggest differences between conservatives and today's liberals? Allie Beth Stuckey breaks down some of the fundamental issues conservatives and liberals disagree on in the latest episode of "Relatable".

Connect with us on Social Media:

[BlazeTV]

What do you think are the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals?

[hypemugen]

conservatives have to answer the hard questions and liberals (at least modern liberals) sit back and label us for doing so, rarely offering any appropriate solution.

[Crimea_River]

This is a loaded question because the left aren't "liberals" anymore, they're leftists. Actually, conservatives are more like liberals than the leftists are in terms of constitutional rights.

[tardersauce]

The divide is not at all a religious one, that is absolutely a ridiculous one.

[Capcom]

I’m a conservative and a Christian my rights are god given

[Armando]

If Rights come from God, then wouldn't it make more sense to call them Privileges of God?
Because if Rights are synonymous with Property, then we could fall into trap of saying that God's Providence (speech, guns, etc) are not His Person but our PROPERTY. This would be offensive to God.

[andyvankerkhove]

I am a conservative but atheist .. can i vote for Trump ?

[Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

Why does an authority have to give you your rights? You should be able to do what you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else. I don't someone else to confirm that for me to believe it.

[Dejavu]

So if I was an atheist I could not be a conservative?

[jackmorgan]

Liberals govern themselves and attempt to govern others by appeal to feelings, emotions, and passion. Conservatives are still appealing to Western thought--intellect, reason, thought, and logic.
That's simply stating the obvious.

[Cetok]

Here's the "rub" as I see it: If rights come from government, and it reserves the "power" to bestow or revoke them at its arbitrary convenience, they aren't actually rights; they are merely privileges.

Those rights GIVEN by God are only revocable if and when one imposes their own rights over and in disregard of the rights of others. Examples: you have a right to say what you want UNLESS you misrepresent (i.e., lie) about someone, such as a false accusation ("bearing false witness"), and you have the right to defend yourself against an attack from someone else UNLESS your defense is grossly and unnecessarily disproportionate (e.g., you can't kill someone for slapping you in the face).

[tomhill]

my rights come from God, along with the constitution.

[truepremise]

The biggest difference is values both objective & subjective.

[martinbakerii]

A Rational Principle of Ethics and Liberty
The Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP, is a rational principle of ethics. Many self-identified libertarians, anarchists, and individualists base their views of ethics and liberty on the Non-Aggression Principle. A common formulation of that principle is:
Aggression is inherently illegitimate.
Perhaps another definition is in order to help set things straight:
aggression (n.): initiation of a coercive relationship
Initiation should be understood in much the same terms as used in defensive complaints by children in schoolyards -- evidence that there is a strong instinctual understanding of the basic ethical position of the Non-Aggression Principle: "He started it." While the Non-Aggression Principle does not have anything direct to say about the legitimacy of retaliation, it very clearly prohibits initiating a coercive relationship.
To coerce is the intentional or negligent use of some action -- generally violent, threatening, or deceptive -- to manipulate a person's condition or decisions contrary to that person's intent. Some draw the line at violence itself, while the vast majority of adherents to the Non-Aggression Principle at least include explicit (and often implicit) threats of violence in their definition. Malicious dishonesty is a logically consistent, and often included, form of manipulation, and the combination of violent, threatening, and deceptive forms of coercion is sometimes referred to as "force or fraud". Many consider lethal violence to be the most extreme example of a coercive act, but still only the pinnacle of a tall mountain of possibilities.
Once a person makes a coercive overture toward another person, a relationship of a coercive character has been established. That relationship may be quickly annulled, or it may be perpetuated, depending on the nature and unavoidable consequences of the initiating act as well as the subsequent actions of the individuals involved.
What that means, in short, is that any initiation of coercive action (that is, any aggressive act) is ethically wrong. In common parlance, people often use the term "aggressive" to mean "assertive", though in the context of ethical theory they should be understood as distinct terms that mean very different (though occasionally overlapping) things.
Several practical characteristics of the Non-Aggression Principle differentiate it from most other moral and ethical concepts:
It is possible to construct a rational argument, from broadly agreeable premises, that leads directly to the NAP.
It is possible to use the NAP as the guiding principle of personal ethics within the world as it exists right now and thereby live an ethical, practical, consistent, and successful life.
It is possible to build a complete, workable system of jurisprudence from the NAP, that many consider superior to any presently in practice.
It is quite simple, such that any person capable of useful abstract reasoning should be able to fully grasp the NAP.
It is practical, focused on the real world, and says nothing in and of itself one way or another about metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, Taoism, Islam, Neopaganism, Materialist Atheism, and so on, nor about any moralities rational believers may infer as necessary consequences of these belief systems.

[CudaGuy]

Simply right verses wrong.. Belief in a higher power and its not the government.

[VergilSDT]

The religious Right believes in "God given rights". Non religious conservatives believe inherent rights. Religion is not required to agree that a person has a specific set of rights simply by virtue of being a living, sentient, human being. "Conservative" and "religious", specifically Christian, are not interchangeable.

[bobbydeery]

RIGHT AGAINST WRONG ...EVIL AGAINST GOOD ... TRUTH AGAINST FALACY...GOD AGAINST THE GODLESS !!!

[SCharlesDennicon]

That woman's definition of conservatism is 100% american (which makes sense, since she's an American making a video for Americans, mostly). No, "conservatism", as in not only american liberal conservatism, doesn't automatically believe in natural rights. Natural rights are more liberal than conservative, like the Human Rights declaration. I'm a French conservative, traditionalist, who only believes in positive law because to me, the sanctification of the individual over everything else is bad. And no, thinking that doesn't make me a commie. I'm more inspired by ancient Rome. Between reading Cicero, or Charles Maurras, and reading Mill or Disraeli, my choice is made. Maybe the considerable cultural differences between America and an old country like France makes it nearly impossible for a French conservative and an American conservative to agree. I'm not sure yet.

[utube]

As an American citizen, my rights come from the Constitution.

[SCharlesDennicon]

Thinking that what differentiates conservatism and liberalism can be reduced to what they think of Trump is... not thinking a lot.