NationStates Jolt Archive

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

I am not a conservative i am just evil.

Don't tell people what's wrong with them. Show them how to fix it. I think that actions speak much louder than words in any political endeavour.

That's why I don't call myself one at this point in time...the kind of conservatism Barry Goldwater embraced, and which I personally share, has been swept away by right-wing authoritarians parading under the banner of conservatism while totally rejecting its fundamental values. They combine the worst excesses of big government spending, corporate welfare and excessive intervention in personal liberty to completely tarnish conservatism in mainstream politics.

Ultimately, the fact is, freedom works and individuals can make better decisions than government. Personal and economic freedom are what made this country great, and the more we erode that the dimmer our future will become. We need to destroy the Bush legacy of incompetence and bloat and return the Republican party back to what it was before this decay set in...

I am not a conservative i am just evil.

Thinking about it, you seem to hit a good point, whether you wanted to or not. Part of the problem is that the extremes on both sides see the other as the embodiment of evil. Views like that tend to make descent into political idiocy all the faster.

I like the Coke commercial I saw in the theater tonight in which James Carville and Bill Frist spend a day having fun in DC. Politicians and political enthusiasts could learn from that, believe it or not.

sha.


LoL. it is perhaps worth pointing out i never portray my true view points here. mostly I am just trying to to present a satire of the extremes. Or trying to piss off my French Gf so we can have angry sex.

Ultimately, the fact is, freedom works and individuals can make better decisions than government.

I'd somewhat dispute this, I'd say that crowds make better decisions than individuals hence a population, given open information, can make a better decision that the few individuals who tend to run a country.

That has its caveats, one is that a crowd can be swept by populism and the second I've already noted, that it requires open, free information.

One can easily deal with open information, the Internet is a great disseminator of that but populism is slightly more tricky.

I'd somewhat dispute this, I'd say that crowds make better decisions than individuals hence a population, given open information, can make a better decision that the few individuals who tend to run a country.
That all depends on what the decisions are about. I don't expect even a well-informed crowd to make a better decision on what I should have for dinner than I can myself.

Real Conservatives don't vote Republican.

if you have a balanced and considered viewpoint, its gonna be boring compared with some nutjob who's either a) going to bring in an audience by being controversial, or b) going to be easier to argue with


i'd say you're screwed


Ultimately, the fact is, freedom works and individuals can make better decisions than government.

i disagree. in a lot of cases that's true, but to call it a fact is wrong. for an awful lot of things (lets just say demerit goods to be brief) individuals are either un- or mis-informed, and its the govt.'s duty to either properly inform, discourage or disallow consumption of those goods.

i still see that as freedom, but then americans and us europeans tend to have this weird subtle difference as to what "freedom" actually is

[/threadjack]

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

Emphasis mine.

Oh, so you were describing yourself? Or just wilfully being a hypocrit?

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meanin

Here's a crazy generalization: "all right-wing extremists are stupid".

I'm a right wing extremist, and I don't appreciate that, at all.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And I would remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

That's why I don't call myself one at this point in time...the kind of conservatism Barry Goldwater embraced,

What kind of conservatism was that? Why do people use statements from one person decades later to describe a movement? Do you think the Republicans who voted for Goldwater in '64 were particularly inclined to support, say, same-sex marriage and abortion rights?

Barry Goldwater's actual policy stances at the time--opposition to federal intervention for civil rights, support for militaristic Cold War politics, opposition to social programs--fit perfectly with the use of "conservative" even today.

Ronald Reagan, of course, was an ardent Goldwater supporter.

while totally rejecting its fundamental values.

Which "fundamental values"?

Ultimately, the fact is, freedom works

But conservatism, historically and continuing to this day, has always been skeptical on this point. "Extremism in the defense of liberty" is not a particularly conservative idea--quite the contrary. (In the context of the Cold War and the battle to protect property owners from the unwashed masses, of course, "liberty" takes on a particular, specific meaning that Goldwater found convenient.)

The true conservative would ask, "What happens if we do let individual freedom lose? The institutions that maintain order in our society--the state, the church--will be undermined. The moral hierarchy that keeps humans, who can be pretty unpleasant creatures at times, in line will collapse, threatening the stability of the social fabric."

I mean, what other term do you want to use to describe that position?

and individuals can make better decisions than government.

This statement, as Pure Metal has already noted, is abstract to the point of meaninglessness. Can individuals make better decisions than government? Sometimes. But not always. And generally only within a framework of rules that, ideally, are the product of collective democratic agreement. Most political debate is actually about the rules.

I think the problem is that more and more people who identify themselves as 'conservative' are actually only conservative when it comes to fiscal and Government size issues. Most of them don't give a wet fart who a gay person marries nor do they really feel passionate enough about abortion one way or the other to go out and make a fuss. That makes them socially moderate at th every least, maybe even a little liberal, and that, my friends, is drifting toward Libertarianism.

I think the majority of Republicans are closet Libertarians.

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?
Read this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221432&postcount=1) Then decide whether you actually are conservative in the first place or if you're not actually a mislabeled liberal.

<snip>

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?
Hi, liberal progressive, here. I'll leave it to the conservatives to parse out what conservatism is/should be, but in response to the above question:

When it comes to lowering the level of crazy-talk in the media, I personally would like to see less politeness. You want to get the microphones away from the nut-jobs, then take it from them.

Frankly, not every opinion is worthy of attention. Some people are talking crap and should be called on it, rejected, ignored, their mikes turned off so that we can hear from people who do know what they're talking about. I am sick and tired of this American habit of giving everyone their 15 minutes of fame, pretending as if every viewpoint is valid. No, they are not. They are especially invalid when they are mispresenting an entire party, group, movement or philosophy.

But so long as the "real conservatives" will allow these lunatics to call themselves "conservative" while they spout their nonsense, then you have no one to blame but yourselves if you get tarred with the same brush as them. The same goes for my fellow American liberals, by the way. *glares at a few people*

I used to respect Republicans and conservatives. I didn't agree with most of their opinions or policies, but I could see why they thought the way they did and, for some public offices, I would even vote for them, if I felt their philosophy was best suited to the particular job. Those days are over, because it is my firm belief that the Republican party and the word "conservative" have been hijacked by people who are neither, but who actually espouse a radical authoritarian agenda. There are so-called experts who claim to be Republican or conservative who, every time they get a slot on tv or a speaking engagement, should be followed by letters from the RNC saying that they are charlatans who do not represent the party's views. There are elected officials in the Republican party who, in my opinion, should have their party membership revoked by the RNC, regardless of what their constituent voters think. The same goes for the Democratic party, by the way. *glares at certain people*.

"Silence is consent," as my ultra-liberal high school civics teacher used to say. You don't want the nut-jobs speaking for you, then you have to speak up for yourselves and figure out how to outshine them in the spotlight of the media.

Read this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221432&postcount=1) Then decide whether you actually are conservative in the first place or if you're not actually a mislabeled liberal.
I think your entry for conservatism should make it very clear that conservative parties aren't pro-market on principle. They're pro-market because it is tradition (such as in the US), or because it allows them to reach some other goal they want, such as the "wealth of the nation", a "prosperous society" or things like that (Sarkozy comes to mind). That's why conservatives can be perfectly happy handing out free money both to individuals and to businesses (= distort incentives and destroy the price mechanism as a means of transfering information), introduce tariffs and other trade barriers (= obviously anti-market) or keep out immigrants (= trade barriers targeting the free flow of human capital).

A liberal values a market not because of what it results in, but because of what it is. Markets can produce results I don't like at all, and that I very much disagree with. But that doesn't mean I don't accept the outcome as the result of the free decisions made by people who have the right to make them.

That very fundamental difference doesn't really shine through in your thingy.

I think the problem is that more and more people who identify themselves as 'conservative' are actually only conservative when it comes to fiscal and Government size issues. Most of them don't give a wet fart who a gay person marries nor do they really feel passionate enough about abortion one way or the other to go out and make a fuss. That makes them socially moderate at th every least, maybe even a little liberal, and that, my friends, is drifting toward Libertarianism.

I think the majority of Republicans are closet Libertarians.

Let's do the time-warp.

"I think the problem is that more and more people who identify themselves as 'conservative' are actually only conservative when it comes to fiscal and Government size issues. Most of them don't give a wet fart who a black person marries nor do they really feel passionate enough about prohibition one way or the other to go out and make a fuss. That makes them socially moderate at the very least, maybe even a little liberal, and that, my friends, is drifting toward Libertarianism."

One of the interesting things about conservatism is that it's about holding fast to what is truly of value. Americans have gradually been deciding over the history of the country that treating other people unequally when it's not necessary and answering tricky or trivial moral questions for them is not truly of value.

Let's do the time-warp.

"I think the problem is that more and more people who identify themselves as 'conservative' are actually only conservative when it comes to fiscal and Government size issues. Most of them don't give a wet fart who a black person marries nor do they really feel passionate enough about prohibition one way or the other to go out and make a fuss. That makes them socially moderate at the very least, maybe even a little liberal, and that, my friends, is drifting toward Libertarianism."

One of the interesting things about conservatism is that it's about holding fast to what is truly of value. Americans have gradually been deciding over the history of the country that treating other people unequally when it's not necessary and answering tricky or trivial moral questions for them is not truly of value.

A big stigma that's attached to Conservatism (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) is the notion that conservatives closely associate their political beliefs with their religious ones, which leads to the perception that the ultimate goal of a conservative is to set up a theocracy. This may be true of the zealots among conservatives but the idea is actually quite offensive to most conservatives. (This is probably perpetuated by the fact that The Religious Right is a handy red herring often used to beat conservatives over the head with.)

As a Mormon, I associate with some pretty conservative people, but most of them know better than to mix religion and politics. That's a lesson the Church learned the hard way over the years, but it's made us stronger for it. I think that's more common a mentality than most people realize.

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

The same can be said about conservative people in their relations with liberals. I like to try and throw off the concepts of labeling. If you were to try and peg my overall feelings down I'd be a Libertarian. I hold completely divergent views on some things and cannot be boxed in. I guess that in short I wanted to point out there are idiots on both sides.

To be a conservative is to believe in the power of the individual. A conservative believes in letting people make their own decisions, that people have a right to succeed and not be penalized for their success. A conservative believes that people have a right to fail and that no one should run to them if they don't want them to run to them. A conservative believes in the right to manage his family, in the right to discipline his family in the way he sees fit, as long as it is not criminal. A conservative believes in the right to worship God, in the right to worship the God of his understanding, and no one has the right to force their version of God on anyone else. A conservative believes in the smallest amount of government, the smallest government you can get without anarchy. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing adn that power is a corrupting thing.

That is my understanding of a conservative.

The problem with the world is...

that the wise and intelligent men are usually, by the same nature of being wise and intelligent, full of doubts....

while the fanatics adn the imbeciles are always so sure of themselves.

And I would remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue? Jesus that's a horrifying sentiment.

Conservative is such a broad term actually. Conservative is not the opposite to liberal strictly speaking, you can actually be liberal and conservative by definition. The opposite of conservative is progressive.

Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue? Jesus that's a horrifying sentiment.

QFT

Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue? Jesus that's a horrifying sentiment.

Yes, it is when you leave "justice" an undefined and vague term as Goldwater did. What kind of justice? For whom? Scarier still, to my mind, is "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice." Again, Goldwater did not define the term as he saw it. Furthermore, how is extremism of any sort in any way compatible with liberty, if one assumes that he was using "liberty" as synonymous with "freedom". What kind of freedom? "Freedom from" or "Freedom to"? And, again, for whom? The common man? The ruling class? Business?

I think your entry for conservatism should make it very clear that conservative parties aren't pro-market on principle. They're pro-market because it is tradition (such as in the US), or because it allows them to reach some other goal they want, such as the "wealth of the nation", a "prosperous society" or things like that (Sarkozy comes to mind). That's why conservatives can be perfectly happy handing out free money both to individuals and to businesses (= distort incentives and destroy the price mechanism as a means of transfering information), introduce tariffs and other trade barriers (= obviously anti-market) or keep out immigrants (= trade barriers targeting the free flow of human capital).

A liberal values a market not because of what it results in, but because of what it is. Markets can produce results I don't like at all, and that I very much disagree with. But that doesn't mean I don't accept the outcome as the result of the free decisions made by people who have the right to make them.

That very fundamental difference doesn't really shine through in your thingy.Damnit, where were you when I was setting up that list? :p

Apart from that, it's meant to be as comprehensive as possible, that means that many conservatives will value the market for what it is, and some liberals will oppose immigration.

Don't tell people what's wrong with them. Show them how to fix it. I think that actions speak much louder than words in any political endeavour.

Be careful. Leading by example can get you nailed to something. *nod*

Conservatism, as it stands today, is Classical Liberalism. What liberalism is today is Progressivism which is socialsim/fascism.

That is all I will say because this whole thread is idiotic.

I think the majority of Republicans are closet Libertarians.
They need to come out of the closet for the '08 elections :D.

Conservatism, as it stands today, is Classical Liberalism. What liberalism is today is Progressivism which is socialsim/fascism.

That is all I will say because this whole thread is idiotic.

The idea " Progressivism == socialsim/fascism IS idiotic :p

They need to come out of the closet for the '08 elections :D.

True, because Obama would, then, win due to the split. That way, Bush and McCain would stop being a threat to the world at long last.

I think the problem is that more and more people who identify themselves as 'conservative' are actually only conservative when it comes to fiscal and Government size issues.

Not even that. A fiscal conservative would likely advocate lowering taxes, but they'd also advocate lowering spending.

I find it ridiculous to see someone calling themselves fiscally conservative when they advocate the same or a higher level of spending while also advocating for tax cuts.

In the end, while the Democrats may mostly still be the party of "tax and spend", the Republicans have become the party of "don't tax very much, but spend, spend, spend!" The former actually seems more fiscally conservative to me.

Most of them don't give a wet fart who a gay person marries nor do they really feel passionate enough about abortion one way or the other to go out and make a fuss. That makes them socially moderate at th every least, maybe even a little liberal, and that, my friends, is drifting toward Libertarianism.

I'm not so sure on this one, either. I think there's a reason that the more "conservative" states have put up specific barriers to marriage equality and strict abortion restrictions. There's a reason that the Republicans rally their base by promising authoritarianism in personal matters.

I think the majority of Republicans are closet Libertarians.

Oh, if only. I'd probably still disagree with them on a lot of economic issues, but at least they'd stay the hell out of my personal life (which I believe is actually more of a "conservative" position, in the scheme of things).

To be a conservative is to believe in the power of the individual. A conservative believes in letting people make their own decisions, that people have a right to succeed and not be penalized for their success. A conservative believes that people have a right to fail and that no one should run to them if they don't want them to run to them. A conservative believes in the right to manage his family, in the right to discipline his family in the way he sees fit, as long as it is not criminal. A conservative believes in the right to worship God, in the right to worship the God of his understanding, and no one has the right to force their version of God on anyone else. A conservative believes in the smallest amount of government, the smallest government you can get without anarchy. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing adn that power is a corrupting thing.

That is my understanding of a conservative.

....so you would agree that the word "conservative" has been hijacked people to whom it would not apply under this definition?

True, because Obama would, then, win due to the split. That way, Bush and McCain would stop being a threat to the world at long last.
Hillary's not out yet. And support for Obama isn't as widespread as it seems. :eek:

Hillary's not out yet. And support for Obama isn't as widespread as it seems. :eek:

Oh yes..never count out a Clinton...

What I would like to see is Obama winning the nomination then McCain naming Hillary her runmate and all hell break losee

MUWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

Just let the tide past. I'm basically a Libertarian, being very fiscally conservative but rather socially liberal, but at the same time I'm registered Republican. The religious right tends to make me sick, but their time will pass. I have full faith in this.

To be a conservative is to believe in the power of the individual. A conservative believes in letting people make their own decisions, that people have a right to succeed and not be penalized for their success. A conservative believes that people have a right to fail and that no one should run to them if they don't want them to run to them. A conservative believes in the right to manage his family, in the right to discipline his family in the way he sees fit, as long as it is not criminal. A conservative believes in the right to worship God, in the right to worship the God of his understanding, and no one has the right to force their version of God on anyone else. A conservative believes in the smallest amount of government, the smallest government you can get without anarchy. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing adn that power is a corrupting thing.

QFT

Oh yes..never count out a Clinton...

What I would like to see is Obama winning the nomination then McCain naming Hillary her runmate and all hell break losee

MUWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What I would like to see is Obama lose the primaries, run for third party, create a massive split in the democratic party, for Libertarianism to get a rapid increase in popularity (Mostly from old-style conservatives from the republican party,and Classic liberals from the democratic party), and get a plurality, before Obama being elected by the house. Then next election we win and shrink the government. Hooray for the US Libertarian party! *Iz happy in fantasy world*

What I would like to see is Obama lose the primaries, run for third party, create a massive split in the democratic party, for Libertarianism to get a rapid increase in popularity (Mostly from old-style conservatives from the republican party,and Classic liberals from the democratic party), and get a plurality, before Obama being elected by the house. Then next election we win and shrink the government. Hooray for the US Libertarian party! *Iz happy in fantasy world*

You do realize that would result in McCain winning, which he can't, unless you want the world to end, right?

The idea " Progressivism == socialsim/fascism IS idiotic :p

Only if you don't know the history of Progressivism.

Oh yes..never count out a Clinton...

What I would like to see is Obama winning the nomination then McCain naming Hillary her runmate and all hell break losee

MUWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

So would I, because that'd be just about the easiest victory for Obama.

Originally Posted by Laerod
Read this. Then decide whether you actually are conservative in the first place or if you're not actually a mislabeled liberal.

According to that, I'd definitely be a liberal.

Originally Posted by Soldernism
To be a conservative is to believe in the power of the individual. A conservative believes in letting people make their own decisions, that people have a right to succeed and not be penalized for their success. A conservative believes that people have a right to fail and that no one should run to them if they don't want them to run to them. A conservative believes in the right to manage his family, in the right to discipline his family in the way he sees fit, as long as it is not criminal. A conservative believes in the right to worship God, in the right to worship the God of his understanding, and no one has the right to force their version of God on anyone else. A conservative believes in the smallest amount of government, the smallest government you can get without anarchy. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing and that power is a corrupting thing.

I completely agree. The majority of the Republican Party has drifted away from real conservatism.

Originally Posted by Conserative Morality
What I would like to see is Obama lose the primaries, run for third party, create a massive split in the democratic party, for Libertarianism to get a rapid increase in popularity (Mostly from old-style conservatives from the republican party,and Classic liberals from the democratic party), and get a plurality, before Obama being elected by the house. Then next election we win and shrink the government. Hooray for the US Libertarian party! *Iz happy in fantasy world*

Man, I still can't believe McCain is the Republican nominee. Six months ago I never would've expected this.

Sigh. It should've been Ron Paul.

Only if you don't know the history of Progressivism.

I know it barely enough.... enough to realize you arent making any sense.


So would I, because that'd be just about the easiest victory for Obama.

You sure that the democratic party wouldnt crumble?

Sigh. It should've been Ron Paul.

State authoritarianism at its best (or worst, as it were), eh?

Sigh. It should've been Ron Paul.

Keep your hopes up, he'll run Libertarian and split the Republican vote. :D

I know it barely enough.... enough to realize you arent making any sense.

Barely enough? Who can argue with such logic? As the SubGenii say "Pull the wool over your own eyes and relax in the safety of your own delusions!"

Barely enough? Who can argue with such logic? As the SubGenii say "Pull the wool over your own eyes and relax in the safety of your own delusions!"

ohhhh... :rolleyes:

I know it well enough to know what its not.

Didnt you said you werent posting in this thread any more?

Keep your hopes up, he'll run Libertarian and split the Republican vote. :D

Some other guy already is. Jack Barr, I think?

Why Ross Perot doesnt runs for president any more?

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
State authoritarianism at its best (or worst, as it were), eh?

What makes you say that?

Didnt you said you werent posting in this thread any more?

You got me!

Some other guy already is. Jack Barr, I think?

I think the Libertartian Party holds its convention this weekend.

Why Ross Perot doesnt runs for president any more?

Frightened by grammar, apparently.

That all depends on what the decisions are about. I don't expect even a well-informed crowd to make a better decision on what I should have for dinner than I can myself.

I don't expect any valid form of group decision making to include giving said group control to such an extreme extent. The sort of rhetorical hyperbole that reduces group decision making to "must ask hive mind for permission to breathe" is about as annoying as the other sort of rhetorical hyperbole that reduces all, say, voluntary market trade to "fascist class domination by amoral rich."

What makes you say that?

We The People Act, for one.

Ultimately, the fact is, freedom works and individuals can make better decisions than government



i disagree. in a lot of cases that's true, but to call it a fact is wrong. for an awful lot of things (lets just say demerit goods to be brief) individuals are either un- or mis-informed, and its the govt.'s duty to either properly inform, discourage or disallow consumption of those goods.


Why are we assuming that "individuals" and "government" are separate entities? Yep, there's yer problem.

What makes you say that?

His authoritarian views. He talks a lot of talk about personal liberty, but always advocates giving the states the power he denies to the federal government. It's still authoritarianism, just at the state level instead of the federal one.

He has tried to give the state governments basically absolute power to infringe on the rights to privacy, freedom of religion, and equal protection. He has flat-out stated that he thinks it is withing the power of the state to regulate who you have consensual sex with and how you do it.

And even when he ostensibly advocates giving the states certain powers over the individual and denying those powers to the federal government, he'll still occasionally vote for the use of that power at the federal level, so long as it matches his personal ideology.

Why are we assuming that "individuals" and "government" are separate entities? Yep, there's yer problem.

Because they are. Governments may be made up of individuals, but the individuals are still separate entities whether they are part of the government or not.

They need to come out of the closet for the '08 elections :D.

Were this even a remote possibility, Ron Paul would be a viable candidate.

But, in reality, the majority of "Libertarians" are, in fact, closet Republicans. This is why the "Libertarian" candidate consistently receives single digit support in elections. The "Libertarian" electorate consistently votes Republican.

Were this even a remote possibility, Ron Paul would be a viable candidate.

He'd also have to be a libertarian.

Because they are.


Of course. And that's the problem.


Governments may be made up of individuals, but the individuals are still separate entities whether they are part of the government or not.


The more important point is that the present politics of "left" and "right," or "conservative" and "liberal," make the critical mistake of assuming that the individual and group are necessarily antagonistic entities. This assumption leads to absurd conclusions on all sides; the two I find most in error are "the market is not a form of collective decision making" and "a vanguard political elite is necessary to protect the group."

This issue goes deeper than mere physical composition. The group does consist of individuals. As such, the actions of the group should merely be the actions of each individual (as in the democratic ideal). Or, the actions of each individual aggregated constitute the action of the group (as in the market ideal). Thus, there should be no reason to fear collective or individual action, as each are perfectly capable of complementing and supporting each other. They are each other.

But we don't seem to actually work that way. Why is that?

I think the Libertartian Party holds its convention this weekend.

...or whenever they feel like it. The party doesn't want to hold people back with authoritative "schedules" or "times."

EDIT: And I just checked, it's Bob Barr whose running for president, not Jack. And Mike Gravel has become a Libertarian (http://www.lp.org/media/article_573.shtml)!

He'd also have to be a libertarian.

He doesn't have to be a libertarian. He merely has to be a "Libertarian."

EDIT:


And Mike Gravel has become a Libertarian! (http://www.lp.org/media/article_573.shtml)


See? Anyone can be a "Libertarian."

You do realize that would result in McCain winning, which he can't, unless you want the world to end, right?

Yes, but I'm going to say something I never thought I'd say....


I rather have McCain then Clinton or Obama! *Cries*

the way I see it, Clinton is a big-government, Socialist have-big-brother-watch-you-at-all-times candiadate.

Obama is Diet Clinton. His campaign is based almost completly on Charisma and not on actual issues. heck, Clinton and Obama's issue stances are almost the same, except Obama is (Slightly) more moderate.

McCain is Bush with a brain, and not quite as big-government as the other candidates.

That being said, I still don't like any of them.

But we don't seem to actually work that way. Why is that?

Largely because there are always people who want power over others - people who won't keep the decisions that should be made by the group separate from the decisions that should be left up to the individual.


McCain is Bush with a brain, and not quite as big-government as the other candidates.

I disagre. I think McCain is just as (and maybe more) big government than either of the Democrat candidates. He just puts the big government in different areas.

I disagre. I think McCain is just as (and maybe more) big government than either of the Democrat candidates. He just puts the big government in different areas.
I don't think you can get much more big-government then forcing Health care as provided by the government on people.

That being said, McCain IS big-government. He does put it in different areas, but i still think that he is ever-so-slightly less big-government then the other two.


By the way, when's the Libertarian convention? I thought it was today?

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

I would say the solution is simple, though many conservatives would not dare go for it: vote Democrat in '08. A crushing defeat for McCain and the loss of numerous House and Senate seats would be a stunning rebuke to the extremists who have dominated the Republican party for too long. It would signal to the Republican party that it is time for a reformation, and that they can no longer cater to the extreme right. Once the extreme conservatives are not taken seriously by either major party, their voices will be softer, if not entirely wiped out.

I don't think you can get much more big-government then forcing Health care as provided by the government on people.

Sure you can. Surveillance, for one.

I don't think you can get much more big-government then forcing Health care as provided by the government on people.
McCain has advocated granting federal money for states to set up government-funded high risk pools.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-cohn_19edi.ART.State.Edition1.4606b60.html

Sure you can. Surveillance, for one.
Given.

But who says Hillary dosen't want that too? :eek:

Largely because there are always people who want power over others - people who won't keep the decisions that should be made by the group separate from the decisions that should be left up to the individual.


On the contrary, those who seek power emphasize and exaggerate the separation between group and individual, do they not?

The principle you're describing is problematic. We commonly say that, for instance, sexual orientation is a personal or individual matter. But, of course, this idea is effective only to the extent that it is shared and actively protected by a large enough proportion of the group (preferably the entire group). The rights of the individual are largely meaningless if only one individual recognizes them. Were this not the case, we could easily vote for Ron Paul, as eliminating protections for minorities at the highest level of group protection (the Federal Bill of Rights) would be of no consequence; the matter would be a purely individual one.

But we are very much uncomfortable with voting for Ron Paul. This is because Ron Paul is one of those who seek power, who emphasizes the difference between group and individual accordingly.

I don't think you can get much more big-government then forcing Health care as provided by the government on people.

(a) Neither candidate is going for government-provided healthcare.

(b) Only Clinton would force healthcare - on adults anyways.

By the way, when's the Libertarian convention? I thought it was today?

This weekend, I think. From what I understand, Barr is heavily favored. Unfortunately, he's just as socially authoritarian (maybe even more so) as Paul.

Bleh. Why aren't there more social libertarians running?

I don't expect any valid form of group decision making to include giving said group control to such an extreme extent. The sort of rhetorical hyperbole that reduces group decision making to "must ask hive mind for permission to breathe" is about as annoying as the other sort of rhetorical hyperbole that reduces all, say, voluntary market trade to "fascist class domination by amoral rich."
I'm just saying that the ability of a group, even a very informed one, to make good and valid decisions reaches a limit somewhere. We can debate where that limit is, but Barringtonia was pretty clear cut that he didn't seem to allow for such a limit at all.

Apart from that, it's meant to be as comprehensive as possible, that means that many conservatives will value the market for what it is, and some liberals will oppose immigration.
I suppose some individuals (and parties) do those things, but really they're going against the core principles of the ideology they're supposed to represent. Generally if you get people saying "oh, I'm against trade barriers and for the free flow of money", but then call for immigration restrictions, you know the first sentence is purely coincidental.

Conservatism, as it stands today, is Classical Liberalism.
I really, really, really disagree. J.S. Mill for example would not stand for what any of the conservative parties want. John Locke might, but that's hard to tell.

Point is, Classical Liberalism has been picked up and used by so many groups over the years that there isn't really a political movement around today that hasn't absorbed parts of it.

Actually, that gives me a good idea for a thread...

And Mike Gravel has become a Libertarian (http://www.lp.org/media/article_573.shtml)!
Haha, he was my favourite of all the Dems running at the start. Funny how I must have subconsciously anticipated this. :p

(a) Neither candidate is going for government-provided healthcare.

(b) Only Clinton would force healthcare - on adults anyways.


(a) They both support it actually.
(b) yes. She is the only one who would FORCE it.
Originally posted by Hillary Clinthulu
Without a universal mandate, it's not universal health care. (Feb 2008)
Healthcare without mandate is like voluntary Social Security. (Feb 2008)
Many uninsured are young & don't think they need coverage. (Feb 2008)
Make it illegal to discriminate against sick people. (Feb 2008)
Tired of health insurance companies deciding who live or die. (Feb 2008)
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary. (Feb 2008)


This weekend, I think. From what I understand, Barr is heavily favored. Unfortunately, he's just as socially authoritarian (maybe even more so) as Paul.

Bleh. Why aren't there more social libertarians running?
At this point in the US's lifeline, it's just picking the lesser of three evils. A disagreeable third party candiadte, an Authoritan Democrat, or an Authoritan Republican. Take your pick.

Bleh. Why aren't there more social libertarians running?

Because we don't really have any.

Bleh. Why aren't there more social libertarians running?


Because American political culture, emphasizing largely illusory distinctions between "collective" and "individual," considers social libertarianism an oxymoron.

I'm just saying that the ability of a group, even a very informed one, to make good and valid decisions reaches a limit somewhere.


Does this include market decision making as made by aggregate measures of demand and supply?

Does this include market decision making as made by aggregate measures of demand and supply?
That's not one decision though, it's many partial ones. If there was one decision on resource allocation, there'd be a central planner and you'd find precisely those limits when trying to implement it.

The thing with group vs individual only comes up when the group somehow gets the right to overrule the individual. It can only do that with violence, ie some form of government. The split between the two has come about because today an individual constantly has to fear armed interference into his or her affairs because of what they call "public good", "the nation" or "society". It may well be that those words are being misused, but you still can't be surprised if people get a wee bit sceptical about group decisionmaking as a result.

The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad,

Conservatism makes conservatives look bad.

and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives

No such thing as.

Keep your hopes up, he'll run Libertarian and split the Republican vote. :D

It would be hilarious if he became their Nader. Democrats should be sending him money.

That's not one decision though, it's many partial ones.


As is electing a president or approving a law or proposition. Each individual expresses a preference, these preferences are aggregated, and the majority rules.

Same with the market. Each individual consumer expresses their preferences, these preferences are aggregated in measures of supply and demand, and the majority (those whose preferences make possible the greatest profit) rule.

But what if consumer preferences lead to inefficient outcomes, such as in the production of social or environmental externalities? (Put aside for the moment the fact that when most people say "efficient" they really mean "most profitable for me.")


The thing with group vs individual only comes up when the group somehow gets the right to overrule the individual.


As occurs every time the market fails to provide what I, as an individual, prefer or need by focusing instead on the more profitable majority?

At any rate, surely the most injustice occurs where a single individual, or a small group of individuals, has the power to override the majority of individuals?


It can only do that with violence, ie some form of government.


Nonsense. The market overrides the will of individuals on a daily basis.

And God knows all the bullets and bombs I have to dodge on the way to the voting booth, too. One can see how the equation of violence with government is disingenuous. I suppose that if my boss (or my fellow owner-employees) fire me, I'm a victim of assault?


The split between the two has come about because today an individual constantly has to fear armed interference into his or her affairs because of what they call "public good", "the nation" or "society".


or "security," "efficiency," "profitability," "stability," "oil," "freedom," "peace," or "prosperity."


It may well be that those words are being misused, but you still can't be surprised if people get a wee bit sceptical about group decisionmaking as a result.

People should be skeptical about claims that group decision making can or should somehow occur without the explicit consent or participation of individuals.

The thing with group vs individual only comes up when the group somehow gets the right to overrule the individual.

Yeah... otherwise it's just individual vs. individual. Both more arbitrary and less free.

As is electing a president or approving a law or proposition. Each individual expresses a preference, these preferences are aggregated, and the majority rules.
But in a market I don't choose a total resource allocation for the economy, while in an election I do choose a total, hoping that my choice will be imposed on everyone else.

That's a pretty important difference, not least because it changes how you make the decision and because there is no budget constraint or anything.

But what if consumer preferences lead to inefficient outcomes, such as in the production of social or environmental externalities? (Put aside for the moment the fact that when most people say "efficient" they really mean "most profitable for me.")
Then that is precisely what illustrates the difference between making an economic decision and a political one. In the former, I don't concern myself with the general welfare, I don't assume that my preferences are the best for everyone. That can at times produce suboptimal outcomes, for which can be corrected.

In politics they can't. I assume that if I choose Jack Johnson for President that's best for all. And if he happens to win the election, then there is absolutely nothing you can do to be ruled by John Jackson. In a market you might see a smaller variety of the things you want, or a higher price. But it is never completely excluded that you can get what you want. The market allows for a continuous range of outcomes that actually can approach something of a good compromise. Politics is a binary process: I win and you lose, and there is no in-between.

As occurs every time the market fails to provide what I, as an individual, prefer or need by focusing instead on the more profitable majority?
It doesn't. It might not do so at a price you would have preferred to pay, but everything that can be made can be bought if you have the cash. If you don't, you can't blame the market's for it, or the people who don't want that particular item.

At any rate, surely the most injustice occurs where a single individual, or a small group of individuals, has the power to override the majority of individuals?
That depends on the whole positive vs negative freedom thing.

And God knows all the bullets and bombs I have to dodge on the way to the voting booth, too. One can see how the equation of violence with government is disingenuous.
Look, have you ever seen a policeman? You'll notice they carry guns, and they're not just there to look pretty.

Government is based on violence. Any violence that is not considered unacceptable is basically the imposition of legitimate rules of social conduct by some sort of guardian of such conduct, ie a governing body.

I suppose that if my boss (or my fellow owner-employees) fire me, I'm a victim of assault?
None of that has anything to do with violence.

People should be skeptical about claims that group decision making can or should somehow occur without the explicit consent or participation of individuals.
Even if I sit in the group and vote alongside anyone else, that doesn't make it an iota better if I end up being chosen as a fitting sacrifice to the gods. In that case I'm given the choice between staying in the group and giving the result the impression of legitimacy, or I run and make it more obvious for what it is when they have to catch me.

Yeah... otherwise it's just individual vs. individual. Both more arbitrary and less free.
I disagree on both counts.

If a herd of lemmings takes a vote and everyone wants to jump of a cliff, then me, the one individual lemming who disagreed, stopping everyone is not bad. Voting can only ever be a means to an end, it's not of any value by itself.

I'm also tired of various flavors of conservatives whining about who is and isn't a true conservative. On one hand, you have the conservatives talking about Barry Goldwater like he's some type of hero (looking at some of his policies from back in the day scares me). And then you've got the conservatives who don't think the current admin isn't right wing enough.

Oh yeah, one more thing...I'm sick and tired of anti neocon right-wingers classifying Republicans as liberals/socialists/communists. Now, this may be surprising to you, but not everyone who disagrees with your ideology is a left-winger...I mean, seriously...do you really think Republicans favor the means of production being transferred to the workers or whatever? Honestly?

If a herd of lemmings takes a vote and everyone wants to jump of a cliff, then me, the one individual lemming who disagreed, stopping everyone is not bad.

Yes, it is. You are not dictator. You do not have the authority to decide how other people live, or dispose of, their lives.

It might be different if none of the others are in their right minds, but I think it is foolish in such a case to speak of "democracy."

Voting can only ever be a means to an end, it's not of any value by itself.

"Freedom can only ever be a means to an end, it's not of any value by itself."

I'm also tired of various flavors of conservatives whining about who is and isn't a true conservative. On one hand, you have the conservatives talking about Barry Goldwater like he's some type of hero (looking at some of his policies from back in the day scares me). And then you've got the conservatives who don't think the current admin isn't right wing enough.

Which policies of Barry's scared you and why?

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

My brother considers himself a bit of a merry prankster and considers himself to be well in touch with his inner child. So when looking for fellow lovers of childish puckism he joined a club called Child Molesters of America. Then he realized that they meant that in a different sense. So he left the group.

Republicans need to stop adhering to the morals of the loathsome party with which they have aligned. Well-meaning conservatives have given up the lost cause just like intelligent Communists. There comes a point when you have to admit that the ideology is intellectually flawed and the only defense left of it is evil for its own sake.

A big stigma that's attached to Conservatism (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) is the notion that conservatives closely associate their political beliefs with their religious ones, which leads to the perception that the ultimate goal of a conservative is to set up a theocracy. This may be true of the zealots among conservatives but the idea is actually quite offensive to most conservatives. (This is probably perpetuated by the fact that The Religious Right is a handy red herring often used to beat conservatives over the head with.)

As a Mormon, I associate with some pretty conservative people, but most of them know better than to mix religion and politics. That's a lesson the Church learned the hard way over the years, but it's made us stronger for it. I think that's more common a mentality than most people realize.

Oh, it's considerably more common than some people realize, certainly. There's a lot more of those folks who are quiet and unassuming than there are folks who like to mix religion and government who are quiet and unassuming.

But let's face it. Prohibition, illegal abortion, and the illegality of gay marriage are areas where religious beliefs have been the driving force behind conservative policy. Yeah, you can point to practical reasons for those policies as well. But you may notice that people without the religious beliefs tend to not find those practical reasons sufficient to justify the loss of liberty. Relevant to the issues, certainly, but not justificatory.

I'm a conservative. I'm also deeply religious. But I'll not pretend that religion and politics haven't been pretty buddy-buddy at significant points in American political history.

Sorry I haven't been on all day and haven't responded much to my own thread. I haven't had internet access since I last left last night until now. Allow me to further explain what I mean:

I am actually a very pro-McCain Republican, in case anyone could not tell. I know many others, some who would prefer to discuss their political beliefs in a thought-out discussion, and others who simply will vote for him to "KILL TEH EBIL MOZL3MS!!!" I am a religious person as well, and feel that in some, but not all, of the religious issues, the Religious Right makes a point, but I am certainly not a Creationist or am definitely not one to justify anything but matters of theological faith on "God said so." The "stupid" people I refer to fall into the "KILL TEH EBIL MOZL3MS!!!" category and some of the Religious Right who will not think past their noses and believe anything they hear from extreme rightists. If an extreme right-wing person can actually go beyond "kill the terrorists" and "God told us to" in order to explain their views, more power to them. Otherwise, their voices are killing the party and they need to back off for a while and let more level heads talk.

That's what I'm trying to say.

A former friend of mine, now an drug-using, narcissistic, atheist, bisexual Communist, once tried to convince me it was a good idea to commit suicide.

Not evil?

A former friend of mine, now an drug-using, narcissistic, atheist, bisexual Communist, once tried to convince me it was a good idea to commit suicide.

Not evil?

Given that the vast majority of people on here are social libertarians drug use(as long as it doesn't affect others), bisexuality, and atheism would not be considered evil. Narcissism is a character flaw but it hardly makes one evil. Similar with communists, if one is not one, unless they are one of the totalitarian varieties.

On the contrary, those who seek power emphasize and exaggerate the separation between group and individual, do they not?

Only for the individuals that "don't count." If you "fit in" with the group they are going for, you're an important part of the group and everything is hunky-dory. If you're not, you just plain don't count.


(a) Neither candidate is going for government-provided healthcare.

(b) Only Clinton would force healthcare - on adults anyways.
(a) They both support it actually.
(b) yes. She is the only one who would FORCE it.

Unless your definition of government-provided healthcare isn't really "government provided", you're wrong on the first count. Both are planning on ensuring that everyone can get healthcare, but it will still be provided by private companies.

<snip>

Unless your definition of government-provided healthcare isn't really "government provided", you're wrong on the first count. Both are planning on ensuring that everyone can get healthcare, but it will still be provided by private companies.
Off topic, but just to clarify:

Actually, as I understand their "plans," they are not ensuring that everyone can get health care, only mandating that everyone must have health insurance -- not the same things. Also, only some segments of the population will qualify for government assistance in getting said insurance from private companies, so large numbers of the already strapped middle class will be left to their own devices, likely under pressure of penalties if they don't comply. I base this anticipation on the fact that both of McCain's and Clinton's plans are nearly identical to the system now in effect in Massachusetts, where you must file proof of your coverage with your state tax return. If your plan is found not to be in compliance with regulations, you risk losing your personal tax exemption as the penalty -- a penalty of thousands of dollars, which for some people would even push them to a higher tax level overall. However, huge numbers of people in Massachusetts who do not get health insurance from their jobs cannot qualify for assistance in buying insurance, and even more huge numbers have applied for such assistance -- so much so that the state is already backlogged by up to a year in processing applications (and thus no help to the citizens for their 2008 tax returns) and already hundreds of millions of dollars in the red. Many people here are either living out of compliance with the rules (and possibly cheating on their taxes to avoid the penalty), or they are leaving the state. This includes many small business owners and other self-employed people (like me; I'm seriously thinking about leaving because of this plus the overall cost of living here; I have to pay hundreds of dollars a month for coverage with no hope of assistance or even a guarantee of coverage, since the mandate is only for me to buy insurance, not for the insurer to provide coverage of any given charge).

These so-called health care policies are so far from "universal health care" that it's really starting to sicken me to listen to the debate about them.

EDIT: This is just one of the many reasons why, to me, Clinton is just McCain in a pink pants suit -- and just as bad a choice.

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?
It's nothing new, and it's nothing unique to extremely conservative people. Welcome to the land of the out of context sound byte, brought to you by conservative and liberal media alike.

Shall we go on about how everybody from Marie Antoinette to Gloria Steinem have been sound-byted to death?

Watch what you say.Word. *bows*
Better yet, best have the vocal conservatives just shut the fuck up for a while and stop declaring "Sedition! Slander! Libel!" whilest simultaneously saying "Political correctness? Bah!"
So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

I suspect it's been done, but it bears repeating: Kill your fucking television and radio pundit shows.

Watch what you say.

I'm tired of so many extremely conservative people getting a microphone pushed in front of them and making some crazy generalization which they probably wouldn't even believe if they even heard themselves talk at that moment. The stupidity of the extreme right makes all conservatives look very bad, and well-meaning, intelligent conservatives are then lumped in with the nut-jobs as stupid as well.

I think part of it is also that liberals tend to manipulate points in order to lump many criticisms of their views into hateful "-isms", and the comments of the extreme right, even if the speaker does not have such real hatred, make it very easy for liberals to do so.

So, fellow conservatives and liberals alike, how do real well-meaning conservatives get the microphones away from the idiots and get them pointed at those who can really make a point?

Only if the idiot liberals on the far left stop giving ammunition to conservatives in exactly the same manner. The "moron at a microphone" syndrome does not apply solely to the conservative extreme.

Off topic, but just to clarify:

Actually, as I understand their "plans," they are not ensuring that everyone can get health care, only mandating that everyone must have health insurance -- not the same things.

Both plans are meant to make sure that everyone can afford adequate healthcare (and be subsidized if they can't personally do it). Now, whether or not they'd actually work as advertised is a different story. I'm pretty sure some people are always going to get left out.

Only Clinton's plan mandates that everyone must have health insurance (and would thus incorporate penalties for anyone who chooses not to comply - or, for the sake of argument, who can't afford it and isn't covered by the subsidies). Obama's mandates health insurance only for children.

McCain's "plan", as I understand it, is to make it more difficult for employers to provide healthcare. Somehow or other, that is supposed to make healthcare more affordable.