U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2009, 02:29 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,302,759 times
Reputation: 2049

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nature's message View Post
You know, people have a right to believe what they want.
No they don't! What are you? Some kind of individualist? Wait a minute...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2009, 02:45 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,269,990 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by evil leftist dogma View Post
I agree completely.

[MOD CUT]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
-Thomas Jefferson


What kind of liberal-minded idiot thinks that a man should feel entitled by birth to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How did we become so skewed?
Funny you should say that. You're right, of course, that originally "liberal" meant someone who believed that the individual was supreme (under God) and that government derived its just powers from the collection of individuals. On the other hand conservatives (Tories) believed that the king was supreme and ruled by divine right. In that sense Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were liberals. But today's liberals are a breed apart from Jefferson. They believe in government. They are statists and when the rights of the individual conflict with the needs of government the State wins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 02:51 PM
 
39,995 posts, read 24,253,880 times
Reputation: 12580
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
Funny you should say that. You're right, of course, that originally "liberal" meant someone who believed that the individual was supreme (under God) and that government derived its just powers from the collection of individuals. On the other hand conservatives (Tories) believed that the king was supreme and ruled by divine right. In that sense Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were liberals. But today's liberals are a breed apart from Jefferson. They believe in government. They are statists and when the rights of the individual conflict with the needs of government the State wins.
Wild over-generalization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 02:56 PM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,368,912 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politico View Post
Exactly what I was thinking. While the sentiments expressed in jcarlilesiu's post are intelligent and thoughtful, it seems as though s/he's a bit (a lot) confused as to who shares that viewpoint.

Certainly not the majority of conservatives in the modern political arena.
I don't align myself with the republican party, I align myself with a conservative viewpoint (not religion based) with a sole purpose of limited government and limited powers.

Many many conservatives, including republicans, agree in this perspective. If you wanted to place me in a party, it would be libertarian... but I prefer just to be known as a "conservative".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 02:58 PM
 
327 posts, read 439,608 times
Reputation: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
I don't know anyone who lives without any contact with others. I imagine some do exist, but their numbers are irrelevant.
This is just a verbal dispute. By asocial I mean "avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable." I don't mean someone who exists without ever being in contact with others (if that's even possible).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
An individualist decides for himself what his values are. What you have listed is analagous to a party platform. By definition, anyone who follows a set platform is not an individualist.
By your definition, a man who decides for himself to uphold socialist values is an individualist. By your definition, any man who chooses his own ideology—even a communist one—is an individualist. This is, of course, a contradiction.

We're in another verbal dispute. When I talk about individualism, I talk about the consistent ideology of individualism—and the same goes for collectivism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
I'm discussing society, not communist doctrine. We are social creatures. We interact with each other. We are not islands unto ourselves. We depend on each other, and yes, we use each other.
Yes, and individualists wish to decide for themselves whom to interact with. Collectivists advocate welfare statism—the system where everybody are enslaved to everybody by threat of force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
The US has a mixed economy. That was my point.
True, it has a very mixed economy, and has had so for close to a century now. That was not always the case—between 1870-1913, the U.S. was very close to having true laissez-faire capitalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Spare me the Fed and New Deal nonsense. Don't confuse civil liberty with economic liberty.

Slavery of a race of people had been abolished for only half a century by 1913, and segregation was legal in the south for another half a century, so spare me the "land of freedom" religiousity.
Economic liberty is the very heart of liberty—without it, we're slaves. Here in Norway we practically work for the state from January to July every year, and for ourselves only the remaining few months, since we pay over 50 % in taxes.

Slavery is the absence of property rights, and left-wingers are only opposed to it if it does not include everyone—the whole collective. If everybody can be enslaved equally, they consider it noble.

I make no excuses for the agrarian, feudalistic south. If I was alive at the time, I would have supported General Sherman's "scorched earth" warfare against the South.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Singapore? Where "caning" is a form of punishment. Yeah, what a bastion of liberty!
It certainly is no bastion of true liberty—the government severely suppresses freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and political freedom. It is, however, a great example of economic liberty. It's the 2nd most capitalist society, and its economic progress shows it. The standard of living is far higher there than in any other Asian countries/city states with the exception of Hong Kong, which is the 1st most capitalist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
You're funny. I'm a Vietnam era Navy vet.
I may not respect your political views, but I do respect your military service, so on that account I apologize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Okie-dokie. You missed my point entirely. Go ahead with your good vs. evil mentality. Meanwhile, the rest of us will get on with the world - making individual choices with the realization that productive members of society can't always get their way.
Yes, it is in fact a matter of good versus evil. It is a matter of individual rights, and the violation of individual rights. One can't have group rights without individual rights, as groups are compromised of individuals. Further, one cannot call oneself a defender of minorities without defending the smallest minority there is—the individual.

Even unprincipled utilitarian pragmatists who are concerned with the "greater collective good" will work against their alleged goal if they reject individual rights, as the greatest collective good has always been achieved in countries where individual rights have been defended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Laissez-faire capitalism is anything but free. Ever see the movie "Mad Max?" That's the end result of any anarchical system. Laissez-faire capitalism is anarchy. Anarchy denies the existence of society. We're back where we started. I recognize that human beings are both individuals and members of a larger group called society. That's our nature. You seem to be denying our nature. Good luck with that.
Laissez-faire capitalists advocate a society of law and order—they are in favor of objective courts of law, of police departments, and of a strong military to defend our individual liberties against foreign threats. They are against a society where subjective laws are used as instruments of plunder.

The reason why I, and other rational laissez-faire capitalist, never associate with the Libertarian party, is primarily because it is a party filled with morally bankrupt anarchists. I wholeheartedly reject anarchism, and the hippies of the right. Though far from perfect, Rudy Giuliani was my presidential candidate of choice. I currently consider Congressman Paul Ryan of Minnesota the most promising politician.

Human nature is not collective—it resides within each individual, and is thus best preserved by the defense of individual rights. Coercion suppresses human nature.

Last edited by ErikMartinsen; 07-08-2009 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 03:00 PM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,368,912 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikMartinsen View Post
I see little hope for liberty in Norway—as I said, the slave mentality is strong here. Investing time in Norwegian politics would be a poor investment of time, especially as I'll be moving to Colorado in a few years.



You can spare yourself that tone if you want me to respond to you in the future.



Society is comprised of individuals, who can be either social or asocial. The latter part is irrelevant to my point, however.



It's collectivism and individualism.

Individualists recognize that individuals have free will, that they have a right to their own lives, that they are responsible for their own lives, and that they are ends in themselves—not means to the ends of others. They recognize that they have the right to pursue their own personal happiness without making excuses for themselves. Among other things, they advocate honest elections, a competitive media, an educational system responsive to parents, encouragement of free speech, a well-armed citizenry, sound money, and freedom-of-choice in health care.

Collectivists believe that all rights come from the state, or from society, and that individuals are but units of the collective. They reject free will, and believe in determinism—that individuals are not responsible for their own action, but act blindly and automatically based on their gene pool. They believe that individuals have no rights to their own lives, but can be sacrificed for the collective good. Among other things, they advocate controlled elections, controlled media, controlled education, the elimination of free speech, disarmament of the population, fiat money, a cartelized health-care system, and global government.



The United States has been the world's most successful country, unless you have a very perverted definition of success. It went from being a wilderness populated by savages, to becoming the most prosperous superpower in world history, in less than 200 years. Skyrocketing past all other civilizations. During this period it became known as the land of opportunity, because poor and oppressed people from all across the globe came there to pursue their own happiness. Never before in world history have so many people been free to work themselves out of poverty. No civilization has ever recognized individual rights to the extent that the U.S. has. Of course it all started going downhill after 1913 when the Federal Reserve was established, and especially after the New Deal.

Hong Kong and Singapore, the city states with the freest economies of the world, have gone from being third world to being first world in less than 60 years—bringing great wealth and prosperity to the citizens and remaining the fastest growing economies of the world.

... so don't talk to me about the backwater socialist countries here in Scandinavia. I assume you're relatively young and will live to see them in 30-40 years—you'll come to your senses by then.



Individualists are in favor of free, voluntary cooperation—they're grown-ups, who take self-responsibility for whom they want to associate with, and whom to enter into business with. Collectivists are in favor of forced "cooperation" at the point of a gun.

Arch-conservatives are not true individualists—they tend to be fascist when it comes to personal liberties, and they've never been true advocates of laissez-faire capitalism. They're agrarian medievalists.

Excellent retorts on every level. Kudos coming at ya
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 04:08 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,660,839 times
Reputation: 6163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikMartinsen View Post
You can spare yourself that tone if you want me to respond to you in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Travelling
122 posts, read 134,721 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
You are referring to Classical Liberalism, not neo-liberalism as practiced today. neo-liberalism advocates government control of our lives and heavy taxation. Neo-liberals often cherry pick quotes from Jefferson while simultaneously demonizing him as being a slaveowning aristocrat.

I don't care about what "neo-liberals" do. There is a quote, which has an unquestionable ideal, posited by a man who helped create America proper and is quoted by any side of any political argument. There isn't really room for interpretation here, unless that interpretation is forced. Which it often is, in political debate, because it benefits one side or the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 12:16 AM
 
7,352 posts, read 9,179,430 times
Reputation: 1881
"Though far from perfect, Rudy Giuliani was my presidential candidate of choice. I currently consider Congressman Paul Ryan of Minnesota the most promising politician."

But you're not American. You don't have a U.S. "presidential candidate of choice." You don't vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 12:26 AM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,302,759 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikMartinsen View Post
This is just a verbal dispute. By asocial I mean "avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable." I don't mean someone who exists without ever being in contact with others (if that's even possible).



By your definition, a man who decides for himself to uphold socialist values is an individualist. By your definition, any man who chooses his own ideology—even a communist one—is an individualist. This is, of course, a contradiction.

We're in another verbal dispute. When I talk about individualism, I talk about the consistent ideology of individualism—and the same goes for collectivism.



Yes, and individualists wish to decide for themselves whom to interact with. Collectivists advocate welfare statism—the system where everybody are enslaved to everybody by threat of force.



True, it has a very mixed economy, and has had so for close to a century now. That was not always the case—between 1870-1913, the U.S. was very close to having true laissez-faire capitalism.



Economic liberty is the very heart of liberty—without it, we're slaves. Here in Norway we practically work for the state from January to July every year, and for ourselves only the remaining few months, since we pay over 50 % in taxes.

Slavery is the absence of property rights, and left-wingers are only opposed to it if it does not include everyone—the whole collective. If everybody can be enslaved equally, they consider it noble.

I make no excuses for the agrarian, feudalistic south. If I was alive at the time, I would have supported General Sherman's "scorched earth" warfare against the South.



It certainly is no bastion of true liberty—the government severely suppresses freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and political freedom. It is, however, a great example of economic liberty. It's the 2nd most capitalist society, and its economic progress shows it. The standard of living is far higher there than in any other Asian countries/city states with the exception of Hong Kong, which is the 1st most capitalist.



I may not respect your political views, but I do respect your military service, so on that account I apologize.



Yes, it is in fact a matter of good versus evil. It is a matter of individual rights, and the violation of individual rights. One can't have group rights without individual rights, as groups are compromised of individuals. Further, one cannot call oneself a defender of minorities without defending the smallest minority there is—the individual.

Even unprincipled utilitarian pragmatists who are concerned with the "greater collective good" will work against their alleged goal if they reject individual rights, as the greatest collective good has always been achieved in countries where individual rights have been defended.



Laissez-faire capitalists advocate a society of law and order—they are in favor of objective courts of law, of police departments, and of a strong military to defend our individual liberties against foreign threats. They are against a society where subjective laws are used as instruments of plunder.

The reason why I, and other rational laissez-faire capitalist, never associate with the Libertarian party, is primarily because it is a party filled with morally bankrupt anarchists. I wholeheartedly reject anarchism, and the hippies of the right. Though far from perfect, Rudy Giuliani was my presidential candidate of choice. I currently consider Congressman Paul Ryan of Minnesota the most promising politician.

Human nature is not collective—it resides within each individual, and is thus best preserved by the defense of individual rights. Coercion suppresses human nature.
We'll have to agree to disagree here, Erik. Human nature is indeed, social. It can be seen in the family unit itself. It can be seen in tribalism throughout history. Indeed, it can be seen in the capitalistic institutions you tout. Every company is comprised of people who work together for a common goal. You seem to be denying this.

That's what I'm arguing. I am not a communist. I fully support regulated capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism eventually leads to monopoly/oligarchy, which itself leads to tyranny. Humans are not solitary creatures. Visit Afghanistan or Somalia if you think anarchy can truly exist. It cannot. Some form of "government" will always take hold.

Individual rights and the common good must be protected. It's not one or the other. It's not good vs. evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:20 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top