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.
American Conservatives recognize the GOD GIVEN rights of the INDIVIDUAL.
That's like saying ISIS is a Church Choir. Conservatives believe that they are the "Chosen" who should dictate what these rights are, since they where Chosen by God, and are the only ones in contact with God. And they believe one of those rights are, that the old, the sick, and the feeble should go someplace and die, so no money will be spent on some one who can not pay their own way anymore.
I remember too well, seeing members of the Tea Party cheer, when their Candidate for President was asked if people that could not afford a life saving operation, should be left to die. They cheered. Using the word "God" in a sentence with "Conservatives" has to constitute a "Sin."
@nvxplorer: I'm referring to individual rights as rights that you have simply by existing as a human being, or inalienable rights as some of the founders called them. It's all the rights that logically follow from the idea of self-ownership. You have the exclusive right to your body and what you produce. Also, I'm not against all force...just initiating it. If someone attacks you, they have initiated force against you and you have the right to use force to protect yourself.
This doesn't answer my question. Who defines these rights? Saying they flow logically from an idea doesn't tell me whose idea you're referring to. Your idea of self-ownership and mine may be very different. Indeed, the term "self-ownership" seems superfluous. What exactly do you mean?
How is "attack" defined, and who defines it? Is stealing a lawn ornament from my yard considered an attack? If so, who gets to decide what force is appropriate for me to use?
Even our smallest social groups - families - are 'governed.' I don't see how society at large could exist without government.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,386,383 times
Reputation: 1446
Put me down with the Turner Diaries crowd. (I'm not that far right, but I absolutely don't agree with literally anything in which way this country is going)
I do think that when it comes to Germany's history, in particular the interbellum years, that I have had it for quite a while.
Quote:
And that's why they called his supporters useful idiots.
I hate to be pedantic (actually, that's a lie), but that term postdates Hitler. It first appears in print in the US in the 1950s as a pejorative term for American socialists (of the International variety, just to clarify). There's no evidence of anyone ever having used it to describe their own followers. Not that Hitler's description of the masses is particularly flattering, but who ever thinks of themselves as part of the masses?
Quote:
Hitler is what happens when the people believe that one man can be the answer to all ills.
A bit more complex than that, perhaps? Circumstances matter. For a people like the Germans - of all people - to fall for a demagogue, a lot of things had to line up in a bad manner, which of course they did.
This doesn't answer my question. Who defines these rights? Saying they flow logically from an idea doesn't tell me whose idea you're referring to. Your idea of self-ownership and mine may be very different. Indeed, the term "self-ownership" seems superfluous. What exactly do you mean?
How is "attack" defined, and who defines it? Is stealing a lawn ornament from my yard considered an attack? If so, who gets to decide what force is appropriate for me to use?
You could use the same argument for any definition. Who decides what any word means? It isn't the government...people have to agree on what a word means for it to be useful, and that doesn't require force. We don't have language because we would be punished if we didn't. We have it because people just agree on what certain words mean. If I decide the word "pizza" means a giant purple cat, that's fine, but I won't be able to communicate with anyone effectively by making up my own definitions.
Quote:
Even our smallest social groups - families - are 'governed.' I don't see how society at large could exist without government.
You can call that "government" if you want, but I think of it as "the RIGHT to rule/initiate force". For example, any gang can control a territory and extort money from people there, but nobody calls them government. The key element that makes it government is that people believe they have a RIGHT to do that.
As far as families go, there's a debate in libertarian circles about whether children should be included in the non-aggression principle. I say yes, it's wrong to initiate force against children. I didn't always feel that way, but I've heard some compelling examples of "peaceful parenting" that have convinced me that it is indeed possible and beneficial to the child. This is a very controversial issue though, and I don't want to go too far off track. Maybe watch one of Stefan Molyneux's parenting videos on YouTube if you're interested. Bomb in the brain is a good one.
I see that the only really free people in the US are those that can afford to buy that freedom.
Conservatives love this system because it facilitates their secret worship of the God of greed.
I support the capitalism of the entrepreneur but not the capitalism of the politically connected and corrupted big anything.
Great Post. And if the Republicans get a Conservative into the White House, it will do nothing but get worse. The upper 1% and their Drones will own 90% of the Nations wealth, until its taken away from them by revolt. Its only a matter of time before some one, or some thing pushes the "reset" button and brings the top toppling down. Too many folks are under the misconception that the working folks are going to stand in soup lines, and do without, as they did in the twenties, when there is another economic failure, while they go on with business as usual. Surprise. Not going to happen. I think this time people will take what they need, and not be particular about where they get it.
You could use the same argument for any definition. Who decides what any word means? It isn't the government...people have to agree on what a word means for it to be useful, and that doesn't require force. We don't have language because we would be punished if we didn't. We have it because people just agree on what certain words mean. If I decide the word "pizza" means a giant purple cat, that's fine, but I won't be able to communicate with anyone effectively by making up my own definitions.
You can call that "government" if you want, but I think of it as "the RIGHT to rule/initiate force". For example, any gang can control a territory and extort money from people there, but nobody calls them government. The key element that makes it government is that people believe they have a RIGHT to do that.
As far as families go, there's a debate in libertarian circles about whether children should be included in the non-aggression principle. I say yes, it's wrong to initiate force against children. I didn't always feel that way, but I've heard some compelling examples of "peaceful parenting" that have convinced me that it is indeed possible and beneficial to the child. This is a very controversial issue though, and I don't want to go too far off track. Maybe watch one of Stefan Molyneux's parenting videos on YouTube if you're interested. Bomb in the brain is a good one.
Thanks, but I think we're missing each other's points. I'm not so concerned with theory as I am with practicality. Somebody's going to make the rules and enforce them, be that a gang leader, head of household or the democratic process. I just don't see how a society can be based on a principle of non-aggression when humans are a naturally aggressive species.
I see the constant debate about the left and the right, and I can tell most of you never made it out POLS 101. To argue about the left in the right in a modern left right spectrum is false on its face. Tyranny of the left and the right is not possible.
This is the modern day chart. It is woefully inaccurate. Tyranny or the left and right can't end the same way.
I feel like this is about accurate.
The right constantly contradicts itself more though.
Welfare is bad, unless it build a you a new stadium, everyone should have rights, as long as it goes along with my idea of right and wrong.
The govt should let the free market run its course, except we should tax things like alternative energy, and give subsidies to multi million dollar corporations, oh and allow monopolies for big businesses who will pay my campaign fees. Also we don't need a minimum wage and its okay because companies and employees can discuss wages and companies and employees mutually agree to what their labor is worth, but we should outlaw unions who collectively agree labor is worth more because then I can't roll in dough produced by my slave wages.
Also every poor person is lazy and doesn't know the value of work. Even if you work 60hrs a week you're still lazy, you should get an education, but we should completely remove govt intervention/assistance that makes school available to low income families.
You wouldn't be poor if you would save money. Your utilities and rent may cost you 1200 dollars and you might make 1250 but if you didn't spend that 50 on toilet paper you could open a business in 100,000 years and be rich.
You shouldn't have childrenif you're poor, but also shouldn't use birth control or abortion if you get pregnant.
Who likes guns and the military?
Who (hates) Obama, black people on welfare, and South American emigrants?
Answers: Conservatives.
The NAZIS were conservatives.
Quote:
If you agree with that chart, you don't understand AMERICAN Conservatism.
American Conservatives recognize the GOD GIVEN rights of the INDIVIDUAL.
Who opposes a woman's right to have an abortion, opposes gay people's right to marry, who opposes equal pay for men and women, who opposes workers unions, who opposes a woman's right to serve on the front lines of combat?
Answer: Republicans.
A current thread even says republicans are trying to ban people from wearing yoga pants and Speedos in public, just like they try to ban black people from wearing their pants low.
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.
