The important role of liberals.

Liberals whine all the time about everything and are either stupid and/or completely crazy, so you don't want them running the country.

However corrupt politicians often pay off people who criticise them to go somewhere else and liberals, being stupid and/or crazy, are very hard to pay off. Every man has his price, but if you get enough liberals whining away so the total expense of avoiding responsibility will be too high, there will be no way to escape justice for the corrupt politician or whoever is up to no good.

So you need liberals and you need enough of them to police a wide variety of issues in a heated paranoid manner. However the more liberals you have, the more influence they have over the government. So you need to find a balance between the corruption caused by liberals with their corrupt ideals and the corruption they alleviate through criticism.

I'm trying to make al ist of factors to understand how to control the proportion of liberals and how many and what type of liberals are needed. This is it briefly so far.
:the liberals' ability to criticise
;how crazy liberals are and how much money is needed to subvert them
;how much need there is for criticism ie. how much corruption there is
;how many people are in a position to commit the various crimes and how much money they have

The role of the media and action groups is a very important factor, since hierarchial groups are easier to bribe than an assorted movement. Michael Moore for instance makes a lot of money for not criticising certain companies and officials and the new york times is a liberal newpaper that occasionally expresses some avidly non-liberal points of view. It's obvious what is going on.

>>39        when you refer to russian conservatives(actually your post was news to me, what are the names of these groups) you are refering to a return to older ways.  kind of how so-called american conservatives preach a return to "traditional values",  It has nothing to do with true conservatism.  You are continuing to prove that the modern labeling system is wrong by pointing out how they label two completely different groups the same way however.  in order to label the communism conservatism when you at the same time label republicans conservative really shows this.

>>38  when you define American liberals as "pseudo" liberals i assume you mean the text book meaning of pseudo which is "fake".  a fake liberal by logic is a conservative, correct??  and by your definition "conservatists are traditionalists who are opposed to changes and want to stick their traditions."  So when have American liberals liberals preached tradition and opposed raddical change.  You are correct that neither conservatism nor liberalism have anything to say about economics specifically.  as they are simply ideals of overall function of government.  however just about every action taken by the government effects the economy in some way(the primary way being any action typically changes taxes and how the government will spend money).  That is why most political parties are based on an economic prinicipal the biggest ones in the US being republican, democrat, liberitarian, Socialist Party USA, Communist Party USA.  the big exceptions being the Green party and the Constitution party, but the Green still has a basic economic policy where as far as i know the constitution party has none, but i am not willing to read though all the bullshit on the constitution party website to find out.  I searched the Liberitarian party web site and they label themselves neither liberal nor conservative that i can find, I assume this is because they don't want to get into a label battle such as that which is on this forum. so when i said that they said so on there website i had bad memory and i appologize.  However if you want to search for other liberitarian websites most define it as conservative.  google "liberitarian+conservative" and "LIberitarian+liberal" and you will get the basic idea.