I'm biased, but I honestly believe Conservatives would last longer. It's common sense to protect the environment. In order to profit the most Conservatives would likely find a way to utilize the environment without destroying it because destroying it would end up destroying possible customers, which would then destroy Capitalism. That may sound like a slippery slope argument but really, if you go by the general stereotypes, Conservatives would want to keep a large ba<x>se for profit. Add on to that the fact that Conservatives are more willing to go to war when challenged and we have a society that might last awhile. In contrast, Liberals generally try to negotiate peace and avoid war, I can just see their country being taken advantage of and pillaged.<br />
I won't make any other remarks about the Liberal society because I don't want to insult anyone :P<br />
I agree though, much to my chagrin..Liberals are a necessary evil.
The Roman and Greek empire were pretty liberal and they survived for a long time. It wasn't until they adopted Christianity that they started to collapse. Just saying...
And the migrant barbarians, over extending, debasing currency and what not had nothing to do with it, of course.
Conservatives would sort out the education system and invent technology to sort out the environment. Liberals "liberals" would have each other in reeducation camps in a few years.
By sort out i suppose you mean cut its budget even further. And further cripple science education in America than bush already has.
Curiously the best performing areas are the places with the lowest budgets. Same here in the UK, all told we spend more per child on sending children to **** inner city schools than it costs to go to some of the top public schools. The amount of waste in socialised education, and everything else, is astronomical.
I think that's more dis economies of scale than anything. The sheer number of students and schools make it more difficult and expensive to distribute the resources. And keep decent staff. Fun fact the prestige factor of public schools allows them to surprisingly underpay even the very best teachers. Besides the Labour "academies plan" already brings private funding into education.
Top down systems are inherently inefficient.
Liberals would all starve to death standing around with their hand out expecting someone else to take care of them.
The conservative society would. They would grow their society through the free market,not by the over reach of the government. They would have a fairer tax code, less taxes, but more people paying into the system. Not the liberals idea of fairness, which is tax the rich more. They would still have a safety net for those most in need,but not turn us into a welfare, food stamp state, like the liberals would do. What happens when the liberal society runs out of money funding all those social programs that they love? How high would taxes get under the liberal society?
I'm with you I don't think neither would last long without the other ... but in the long run liberals I believe would last longer for no other reason they're more likely to adapt to their surroundings which are forvever changing ... Wheras conservatives seem reluctant to change or slow to change and want to hold on to old antiquate ways even when it's shown they are no longer effective and would rather die off than accept change.
Liberals they'd embrace science and technology stem cell research, environmental taxes , end subsidies for oil companies and subsidise renewable energy. Society would be more inclusive without the religion factor. <br />
They'd both encounter crippling problems but by embracing change and science without reserve the liberals could combat their problems more effectively.<br />
But your right we need both the ideal situation is both existing but having a decent polite fact-ba<x>sed discourse between the two.
But you are assuming all Liberals are Atheists..and all Conservatives are Religious and anti-science..
No im not i do know better than that. But all anti-science would disappear overnight no liberals are anti-science. And with far fewer Christians (and those mostly moderate) religion would have no power over politics anymore so religious motivations to oppose genetics for example would exist but would be totally irrelevant and ignorable.
There are Liberals who are anti-science..and there are many Conservatives that are pro science. Contrary to popular jargon, Catholicism, and many sects of Christianity, teach that science can be used as a means of better understanding the world God created for us. To deny accruing knowledge achieves nothing and brings no understanding, which is a primary facet of Christianity.
I'm not in this!
What is considered liberal or conservative at one time won't always be, and "liberal" and "conservative" are respective concepts that can't exist without each other.
Liberal...more progressive...****-ups yes, but open-minded enough to be able to adjust and progress. More socially conscious...I disagree there would be social problems just because they are liberal. There are always problems.<br />
Conservative...seemingly rigid... less socially conscious and more money driven...old school mentality that clings to its boundaries. Slower social reforms.<br />
I think there is a middle way...which would be a conservative liberalist. Best of both. <br />
It is coming. Lots of ppl are getting fed up with the same thing with a different name.<br />
All we need is to know its coming.