RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Real0ne -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/22/2010 11:38:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
You guys all do a good job of articulating much of what troubles me about people who identify primarily as "libertarians." I've always maintained that die-hard libertarians are nothing more than anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions. They want everything about government destroyed except for the aspects of government that personally benefit them. And they don't even want to pay for that.

Libertarianism is best served as a condiment, not an entree. As a personal philosophy, it's a perfectly valid and even admirable guidepost; but its only real value is to inform one's socio-political orientation, not define it. You just can't jam every political issue into the same "get government out of my life" box.




you believe people need rulers rather than freedom to rule themselves.

one is short sited to the extreme when they classify self rule as anarchy and goverment rule as insert good plausible bullshit here _____________.

granted we do need community intervention to meet "fundamental" community needs and no one will deny that and of course we all know slaves need rulers.

the problem with both of the retarded fuckers with an "isle" is that you are both guilty of feeding from the same trough of fraud and hide your pretense by getting up on soap box rants and attacking those who point out your great hoax.



brainiacsub -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 12:28:08 AM)

FR~ I thought those of you participating in this thread would enjoy this. It's a critical critique of Libertarianism written for The American Conservative magazine back in 1995. I suspect that the Libertarians here won't read it at all or will skim it with the intent of crafting their rebuttal before they've even finished it, but it is a good read nonetheless. It addressess many of the arguments brought up in this thread and I find it particularly relevent considering so many Libertarians on these forums insist on referring to Obama as a Marxist. Knock yourselfs out....

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/



NorthernGent -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 1:27:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Libertarianism is far more practical than your progressivism / socialism / liberalism / communism in which every thought, action or deed must be submitted to an all-powerful governmental bureaucracy or dictator for approval.



Firstly.....it seems you hold a narrow and limited understanding of Liberalism.

Secondly.....a major factor in the evolution of ideas/technology/science/knowledge etc has been the civilising institutions such as government. Now of course this does not mean dictatorship but a government where the people have the option to vote for change where the government is not producing. It was Liberalism that broke the hold of the catholic church....which in turn created nation states....which in turn created independence in learning and commerce....which in turn afforded the very computer you're using.

Now....yeah...you could of course revert to cheap soundbites such as: "liberals want the government to save them"....or you could do some reading on the history of Liberalism and how liberal ideals were the catalyst for the renaissance.....for the enlightenment.....and all of the learning and independence among and within nations that that entails.

You will always be able to find fault with Liberalism because like any other idea it's based on a limited understanding of the world....and like all of the ideas we hold today it will be usurped and outdated in a couple of hundred years time. But should you do some reading you may be suprised just how much the modern world owes to Liberalism and liberal ideals.

Edited to add: and on Libertarianism.....it's a utopian ideal just like Communism.....neither ideals are based on the experience of human nature. And assuming we're all self-regulating beings incapable of destruction and violence where the civilised institutions are removed.....then consider why these institutions came about....primarily because civil and religious strife was hindering human progress....and consider why 50% of this board are running round looking for an owner....hardly the stuff of a desire of holding an equal share in authority....and consider that a fair proportion of the other half will be talking out of their arses and couldn't control the production of a fried egg sandwich let alone the affairs of another human being. Libertarianism is a pipe dream mate that would descend into chaos given a few weeks of such a system.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 1:39:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you believe people need rulers rather than freedom to rule themselves.

one is short sited to the extreme when they classify self rule as anarchy and goverment rule as insert good plausible bullshit here _____________.

granted we do need community intervention to meet "fundamental" community needs and no one will deny that and of course we all know slaves need rulers.

the problem with both of the retarded fuckers with an "isle" is that you are both guilty of feeding from the same trough of fraud and hide your pretense by getting up on soap box rants and attacking those who point out your great hoax.



You know nothing of what I think and believe, because you're incapable of comprehending anything anyone says unless it's a conspiracy theory. Your opinions and perspectives are totally irrelevant to me.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 6:19:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59




Do you or do you not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964?





Well, going back to the op, since this thread is all over the place now.

I've read it now. The parts I don't agree with, are the exclusion for religions, the exclusion for native american tribes, and It seems that at least part of it does not apply to employers under 25 employees, which seems an odd qualifier.

I've read the actual text, and the wikipedia entry. Though reading once, does not make me an expert on it, there may be more I disagree with.


So, I guess if you want to be racist, open a Native American Religious Corporation with under 25 employees, and you can do whatever you want. LOL.




vincentML -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:11:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

Thats not quite how Rand Paul sees it.  While he is a libertarian, he feels a private business has the right to discriminate, which is in direct conflict with the Civil Rights Act.  And Rand Paul is the newly appointed fearless leader of the tea partiers.  A grand association to be part of. [:'(]



everyone and every business does.

its only a matter of where you want to draw that line.

all the civil rights act does is moves the line, takes that decision away from you and gives it to the government in direct violation of the first if what you are discriminating against is as a result of your religion.  doctors and abortions as an an example.

it makes your moral compass the government.



If you are not just blowing smoke out of your ass you should be able to point out to us what section of Title II of the Civil Rights Act: (a) conflicts with freedom of religion, or (b) says one damn thing at all about doctors and abortions.

If you ever bothered to read the Act you would find that "religion" is one of the protected classes.

I suspect as usual your ass is on fire.



Musicmystery -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:25:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

FR~ I thought those of you participating in this thread would enjoy this. It's a critical critique of Libertarianism written for The American Conservative magazine back in 1995. I suspect that the Libertarians here won't read it at all or will skim it with the intent of crafting their rebuttal before they've even finished it, but it is a good read nonetheless. It addressess many of the arguments brought up in this thread and I find it particularly relevent considering so many Libertarians on these forums insist on referring to Obama as a Marxist. Knock yourselfs out....

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

Agreed--the equating of conservative with libertarian is laughable at best.



Sanity -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:34:13 AM)


Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism. Socialists and Communists have hijacked what was once a perfectly good ideology, and now the term 'Liberal' is so ugly and universally hated they've had to begin calling themselves Progressives.

When will they finally admit that their fairy tale fantasies are completely unworkable?



Musicmystery -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:37:08 AM)

No one's doing that either. It's why we have separate words for them.

No one, that is, except you in your desperate search for spin.

Factual points are raised, you come back at people with twists, attacks, and the (richly ironic) troll game.

It won't change the factual points. Sorry.




vincentML -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:46:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou


Well, going back to the op, since this thread is all over the place now.

I've read it now. The parts I don't agree with, are the exclusion for religions, the exclusion for native american tribes, and It seems that at least part of it does not apply to employers under 25 employees, which seems an odd qualifier.

I've read the actual text, and the wikipedia entry. Though reading once, does not make me an expert on it, there may be more I disagree with.


So, I guess if you want to be racist, open a Native American Religious Corporation with under 25 employees, and you can do whatever you want. LOL.




The religious organization exclusion under the Fair Employment Title is pretty specific:

quote:

or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.


Seems to me this is an attempt to exempt Jewish Congregations for example from being in jeapordy if they refuse to hire a Christian to read from the Torah at each service, or Christian Churches to be free from concern if they refuse to hire Muslims to teach Sunday School.

So what's your problem with that?

The Native American exemption from the "employer" definition might have something to do with the recognition of Tribes as seperate Nations under various treaties, but I am not certain about that.

Then, enumerating the number of employees might have been an attempt to indemnify small "mom and pop" shops from devastating law suits. I notice that this was a four year lead in starting with excluding shops with 200 employees and working down to the final qualifyer. All seems pretty reasonable to give larger employers time to adjust to the new law and phase it in while in the end defining and excluding small businesses.

Why do you have a problem with that?





Musicmystery -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:49:14 AM)

quote:

Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism.

Just out of curiosity--describe what you see as "actual Liberalism."

Today's Liberals, you claim, are socialists/communists. What would actual Liberalism look like? What's its ideology? How does it differ from today?

Thanks.




vincentML -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:49:23 AM)

In fact the Progressive Era dates back to cerca 1910. There is nothing new about the term or its definition.

Still waiting for the examples you implied of totalitarian rule here in the US.



Sanity -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 11:59:50 AM)


As I originally asked in response to your post, "Why limit it to the United States vincent?"


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

In fact the Progressive Era dates back to cerca 1910. There is nothing new about the term or its definition.

Still waiting for the examples you implied of totalitarian rule here in the US.



Sanity -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 12:45:15 PM)


Modern Liberalism

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism.

Just out of curiosity--describe what you see as "actual Liberalism."

Today's Liberals, you claim, are socialists/communists. What would actual Liberalism look like? What's its ideology? How does it differ from today?

Thanks.





NeedToUseYou -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 12:50:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou


Well, going back to the op, since this thread is all over the place now.

I've read it now. The parts I don't agree with, are the exclusion for religions, the exclusion for native american tribes, and It seems that at least part of it does not apply to employers under 25 employees, which seems an odd qualifier.

I've read the actual text, and the wikipedia entry. Though reading once, does not make me an expert on it, there may be more I disagree with.


So, I guess if you want to be racist, open a Native American Religious Corporation with under 25 employees, and you can do whatever you want. LOL.




The religious organization exclusion under the Fair Employment Title is pretty specific:

quote:

or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.


Religion is just a belief like any other. I certainly would extend no special protection to religions at all, any more than I would allow, belief in the tooth fairy as being a special case circumstance.


Seems to me this is an attempt to exempt Jewish Congregations for example from being in jeapordy if they refuse to hire a Christian to read from the Torah at each service, or Christian Churches to be free from concern if they refuse to hire Muslims to teach Sunday School.

So what's your problem with that?
 

The Native American exemption from the "employer" definition might have something to do with the recognition of Tribes as seperate Nations under various treaties, but I am not certain about that.

I suppose if they are separate nations, then it would make some sense, except why are we legislating for a separate nation. It is like saying you can't tell your neighbor when to go to bed. Unnecessary. As obviously you aren't going to tell someone else what to do in their house.

Then, enumerating the number of employees might have been an attempt to indemnify small "mom and pop" shops from devastating law suits. I notice that this was a four year lead in starting with excluding shops with 200 employees and working down to the final qualifyer. All seems pretty reasonable to give larger employers time to adjust to the new law and phase it in while in the end defining and excluding small businesses.

Why do you have a problem with that?


The question is why is it okay for employers under 25 employees to discriminate, if indeed discrimination is wrong, it is wrong regardless of size.



Musicmystery -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 1:38:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Modern Liberalism

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism.

Just out of curiosity--describe what you see as "actual Liberalism."

Today's Liberals, you claim, are socialists/communists. What would actual Liberalism look like? What's its ideology? How does it differ from today?

Thanks.


All that time, and you come up with a link to a talk by a comedian who explains that liberals think America deserved 9/11 so we shouldn't do anything about it, and thus they hate America--hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization.

Seriously.

As I suspected, you have no idea what the word really means. Rush uses it to mean "anything not conservative," a way inaccurate use, as true liberalism would be attacked from the left as well as the right, and not for the reasons today's "conservatives" use. In fact, actual liberalism is very much like what many conservatives posting here claim:

"Liberalism--Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government...In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled...The U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S." --Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

"Liberalism--In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice...Apart from the concern with equality of rights and amelioration, liberalism has focused on the space available in which individuals may pursue their own lives, or their own conception of the good. The immediate threat to this ‘space’ was considered to be the arbitrary will of a monarch, leading liberals to consider the proper limits of political power. They explored the relationship between legitimate power and consent, and the characteristics of the rule of law." --Political Dictionary

Here's where they split.

"In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance." --Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

"Conservatives...overlook the dependence of market economies on the (government-enforced) rule of law and the (government-funded) provision of social services...Conservatives...following in the path of Thomas Hobbes, have tried to reduce politics to the protection of individual rights, particularly the right to property [concentrated in the hands of wealthy]." --U.S. History Encyclopedia

In short,

"American political scientist Louis Hartz [in agreement with the Oxford English Dictionary] emphasized the European origin of the word, conceptualizing a liberal as someone who believes in liberty, equality, and capitalism—in opposition to the association that American conservatives have tried to establish between liberalism and centralized government." --from Hartz's book "The liberal tradition in America." (1955)

In fact, the tradition positions are the opposite of what today's conservatives claim:

"Liberalism is attacked from the left as the ideology of free markets, with no defense against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few, and as lacking any analysis of the social and political nature of persons. It is attacked from the right as insufficiently sensitive to the value of settled institutions and customs, or to the need for social structure and constraint in providing the matrix for individual freedoms."

Ironically--it's the conservatives who support strong government and the right of individuals to use it to protect economic exploitation. The points today's conservatives raise are much more liberal.

That is, except for the neo-con leaders. Read "The Family," a book about conservative group behind the prayer breakfasts and the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion policy. It's an eye opener. They are for wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a wealthy class, and military domination of the world. Yes, world--and that the world be made to convert to Christianity. A chilling read. [The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlot (2008)]

The point here, though, is that regarding the origins and meaning of liberalism and it's ideology--you're way off base (and so's your link).




brainiacsub -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 1:56:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Modern Liberalism

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism.

Just out of curiosity--describe what you see as "actual Liberalism."

Today's Liberals, you claim, are socialists/communists. What would actual Liberalism look like? What's its ideology? How does it differ from today?

Thanks.




Thomas, you have to be kidding. This is the best you could come up with? Do you ever read or watch anything even remotely intellectual?

What I find laughable is some of the comments to this video, namely this one:

"If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good. "

Let me try:

If a liberal doesn't like homosexual sex, then they don't have it. IF a conservative doesn't like homosexual sex, then nobody should have it.
If a liberal doesn't like abortions, then they don't have one. If a conservative doesn't like abortions, then no one should have one.
If a liberal believes in racial equality, they become advocates for the underrepresented. If a conservative believes in racial equality, the only racism they will acknowledge is reverse racism.

<edited to add that Tim beat me to my own sentiment>



Lucylastic -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 2:11:26 PM)

I <3  Braniac and Music,



brainiacsub -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 2:34:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That is, except for the neo-con leaders. Read "The Family," a book about conservative group behind the prayer breakfasts and the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion policy. It's an eye opener. They are for wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a wealthy class, and military domination of the world. Yes, world--and that the world be made to convert to Christianity. A chilling read. [The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlot (2008)]



I have read this book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same group of people who believe that we should not focus on the misdeeds and transgretions of elected members of "the family" as they are appointed by God, flaws and all, and they are doing God's work as flawed individuals? They claim we shouldn't decide to vote or not vote for them based on affairs, criminal activity, intelligence, accomplishment or any other criteria. The only thing that matters is whether or not the candidate is on board with God's agenda. I think it's the same book, but it might be some other Christian nutter political book that came out recently. I've read so many they all seem to blend together now.



Musicmystery -> RE: A Question To All Conservatives and "Libertarians" (5/23/2010 5:10:19 PM)

The part that sticks out for me is the disappointment in George Bush because he stopped at merely Afghanistan and Iraq when he, they think, should have continued to invade and conquer.

The thing that people "on the ground" miss is that these people ARE old school conservative--the "failed" policies since 1980 have exactly accomplished tradition conservative goals of consolidating wealth and power in the hands of an aristocracy, from the widened social inequity to financial payouts to large financial institutions, from the S&L crisis in the later Reagan/Bush I years (which benefited the younger Bush boys) to the Bush bailout and military commitments started with Bush II.

All you need is a side issue to get the lower classes fired up--be it gay marriage, immigration, whathaveyou. People repeating the talking points need to learn what they're supporting.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625