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.
Ah, yes. Most conservatives I know would never think of infringing on the lives, liberties and/or the pursuits of happiness of anyone, ever. Not even gay people.
Another example of how you miss the entire argument of the conservatives, or at least me.
Its convenient to skew the argument and twist your debators opinions to fall in line with what you percieve as a boost to your own argument.
I am not against gay marriage. I am however against the governments roll in marriage at all. The only reason why this ENTIRE discussion is up for debate is because the government, like always, saw an oppurtunity to make some money and to take actions to steer the populace they way they percieved as "right". Why not take a little money from prospective engaged couples by use of a "marriage license" and while doing that, provide a few tax breaks to those filing jointly to try and get people to conform to the moral standard the government sees as appropriate.
Both actions on the government are wrong. Taxing people for the sake of taxing people is wrong. Have you ever stopped to see how much of our daily lives have some sort of tax applied? Trying to steer the populace through tax breaks or tax hikes (like smoking tax) is grossly unamerican and against the very foundations of our constitution.
I don't care if gay people want to get married... I care about the fact that government feels a need to pry into our personal lives and regulate something so fundamental as marriage in the first place.
As far as your argument goes. Stop trying to align everybody who defines themselves as republican, conservative, tradionalist, or right leaning with the loony religious right. Most of us just cherish limited government as should all americans.
Socialism is an old and failed ideology, while individual liberty is still a new idea, and the only ideology consonant with innovation and progress—at least as long as it's unchained by the fundamentalist Christian morality.
You wanna know the truth? Wanna know how the world really works. Okay. I'll tell you. Shhh...
Human beings are social creatures, and society is comprised of individuals.
You see? Simple, no? Anyone who thinks it's socialism vs. the individual is missing the boat. It's socialism and the individual. This is, of course, why the world's most successful countries have mixed economies - because we humans realized the need for balance a long time ago, even before Marx. Yes, believe it or not, public property existed before Marx began publishing.
Quote:
In any case, most people can't simply be tossed into one of two groups, hence the growing number of independents.
Everyone, everywhere, is a member of BOTH groups, whether they like it or not. I challenge any "individual liberty" arch-conservative to go it alone in life. See how far you get. Even those champions of conservative values - businesses - preach teamwork to their employees. GASP! Teamwork? Damn commie capitalists!
(See the connection, uber-conservatives? Here, let me elaborate: "Why should I give my labor just so the lazy bum next to me can talk all day? Damn communist business!")
Another example of how you miss the entire argument of the conservatives, or at least me.
Its convenient to skew the argument and twist your debators opinions to fall in line with what you percieve as a boost to your own argument.
I am not against gay marriage. I am however against the governments roll in marriage at all. The only reason why this ENTIRE discussion is up for debate is because the government, like always, saw an oppurtunity to make some money and to take actions to steer the populace they way they percieved as "right". Why not take a little money from prospective engaged couples by use of a "marriage license" and while doing that, provide a few tax breaks to those filing jointly to try and get people to conform to the moral standard the government sees as appropriate.
Both actions on the government are wrong. Taxing people for the sake of taxing people is wrong. Have you ever stopped to see how much of our daily lives have some sort of tax applied? Trying to steer the populace through tax breaks or tax hikes (like smoking tax) is grossly unamerican and against the very foundations of our constitution.
I don't care if gay people want to get married... I care about the fact that government feels a need to pry into our personal lives and regulate something so fundamental as marriage in the first place.
As far as your argument goes. Stop trying to align everybody who defines themselves as republican, conservative, tradionalist, or right leaning with the loony religious right. Most of us just cherish limited government as should all americans.
A very thoughtful post, and I agree with you completely.
I'm sure you realize that your opinion as expressed here is not typical for today's conservative.
A very thoughtful post, and I agree with you completely.
I'm sure you realize that your opinion as expressed here is not typical for today's conservative.
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.
If you're a Norwegian, shouldn't you be spending your time carping about your own political system, rather than America's?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
You wanna know the truth? Wanna know how the world really works. Okay. I'll tell you. Shhh...
You can spare yourself that tone if you want me to respond to you in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Human beings are social creatures, and society is comprised of individuals.
Society is comprised of individuals, who can be either social or asocial. The latter part is irrelevant to my point, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Anyone who thinks it's socialism vs. the individual is missing the boat. It's socialism and the individual.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
This is, of course, why the world's most successful countries have mixed economies - because we humans realized the need for balance a long time ago.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Everyone, everywhere, is a member of BOTH groups, whether they like it or not. I challenge any "individual liberty" arch-conservative to go it alone in life. See how far you get. Even those champions of conservative values - businesses - preach teamwork to their employees. GASP! Teamwork? Damn commie capitalists!
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.
You can spare yourself that tone if you want me to respond to you in the future.
My apologies.
Quote:
Society is comprised of individuals, who can be either social or asocial. The latter part is irrelevant to my point, however.
I don't know anyone who lives without any contact with others. I imagine some do exist, but their numbers are irrelevant.
Quote:
It's collectivism and individualism.
You can call it what you want. I trust you understand my meaning.
Quote:
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.
Huh? This is a self-contradiction.
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.
Quote:
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.
Huh?
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.
Quote:
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.
The US has a mixed economy. That was my point.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Singapore? Where "caning" is a form of punishment. Yeah, what a bastion of liberty!
Quote:
... so don't talk to me about the backwater socialist countries here in Scandinavia.
Okay. How 'bout the backwater countries of the G8?
Quote:
I assume you're relatively young and will live to see them in 30-40 years—you'll come to your senses by then.
You're funny. I'm a Vietnam era Navy vet.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
I can't speak for all of those, though as a Norwegian I can certainly confirm that, yes, our government is characterized by political madness; the majority of our politicians have severely adolescent mentalities—though of course the same goes for most of the population. Socialism and its "Law of Jante" is deeply rooted in this country.
I'm very naturally neither. It's interesting to note that the "liberals" are in many ways more conservative than the conservatives though—in the true sense of the word. Socialism is an old and failed ideology, while individual liberty is still a new idea, and the only ideology consonant with innovation and progress—at least as long as it's unchained by the fundamentalist Christian morality.
In any case, most people can't simply be tossed into one of two groups, hence the growing number of independents.
WRONG. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS NOT A NEW IDEA...........
Individual liberty is mentioned and studied extensively in a political text that was written in the 24th century BC. It was from Lagash in the state of Sumeria. The author was an extremely enlightened political thinker for his time, his name was Urukagina. This text also has the first known mention of due process. He advanced the concept of individual liberty and due process to attempt to protect the average citizen from being exploited by the rich and powerful.
Since then almost every advanced or civilized society has had some degree of individual liberty incorporated into their respective doctrines.
To suggest that individual liberty is a new idea is WRONG.
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.
Why would you move to Colorado from Norway, if you think the U.S. is governed by insane people?
On another note: You can't legally immigrate without a Visa.
I can't speak for all of those, though as a Norwegian I can certainly confirm that, yes, our government is characterized by political madness; the majority of our politicians have severely adolescent mentalities—though of course the same goes for most of the population. Socialism and its "Law of Jante" is deeply rooted in this country.
I'm very naturally neither. It's interesting to note that the "liberals" are in many ways more conservative than the conservatives though—in the true sense of the word. Socialism is an old and failed ideology, while individual liberty is still a new idea, and the only ideology consonant with innovation and progress—at least as long as it's unchained by the fundamentalist Christian morality.
In any case, most people can't simply be tossed into one of two groups, hence the growing number of independents.
The "Law of Jante" is rooted in this and about every other country in the world under another name, "tall poppy syndrome," a social and not an economic phenomenon.
Socialism is an old and failed ideology, while individual liberty is still a new idea,
??? Wouldnt "individual liberty" be about as old as consciousness?
You know, people have a right to believe what they want. There is no need for bashing an ideology. It just makes you conservatives fit the closed-minded bill even more.
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.
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.
