I am a conservative

[kyleb]

Except when I agree with using military force to get rid of Saddam.

killing tens of thousands of people so that you can impose your concept of freedom and democracy on the remaining populous doesn't fall under the concepts of liberalism.

or having prayer led by students in school

imposing theoligical beliefs on others don't fall under that heading either.

and not having gay marriage pushed into my religion,

freedom to worship as you choose is a liberal idea, but only if it goes for you as well as homosexuals.

or ending affirmative action,

affirmative action was put in place to counterbalance discrimnation, not to give special treatment but mearly equal treatment. granted, it has gone arye but that just means it needs to be set back on track, not eliminated.

and getting called fascist for believing in such things.

when you support fascist ideals and someone calls you a fascist, they are not calling you names mearly pointing out the ideology which you support.

Otherwise, you're right, I'd never get called a neocon for such things.

see above and replace "facist" with "neocon."

 

[Druga Runda]

what exactly is the opposite of a neocon?

 

[RussSchultz]

Kyleb, unwittingly you do a good job of proving my point.

You apparently can only see your own perceptions.

If I am for the freedom of all peoples, and am willing to fight to free others, you call me fascist.

If I believe, as MLK did, that we should be judged not by the color of our skin, but who we are, you call me a fascist.

If I believe that students should be able to lead themselves in prayer at school events, then you call me a fascist.

If I believe that there are some lifestyles that are not congruent with my religion, you call me a fascist.

No, you're calling me a fascist, not because my ideals represent fascism, but because you do not share them and therefor you must demonize both me and them.

Yes, I willingly agree that there are flip sides each of my stances: that war does kill innocents; that affirmative action exists to correct past injustice; that group expression of religion can make non-participants uncomfortable; that disagreeing with the gay lifestyle can be seen as hateful by some.

But they are not, in any fashion, representative of fascism. Nor are they wrongheaded, evil, stupid, or whatever else you like to label them as you try to convince me that you're the paragon of virtue and holder of the moral standard.

Quite frankly, these issues are thorny ones and as shown, you cannot sum them up with "I am for <X>, if you disagree with me on how to achieve it, you must be against <X>".

 

[kyleb]

i didn't prove your point, just pointed out that your ramblings are nonsencial. but you proved my point well; i never called you a fascist.

 

[DemoCoder]

My beliefs are simple: the only rights that truly exist and that are moral and ethical are negative rights: those rights that prevent other people from initiating force against you. That is, small-l libertarian. But what you believe is right, and how the world actually works are two different things.

I'm no longer 17 where the world was black and white and "purity" of political principles was important, I'm a realist. We live in a world where we do have to rob Peter to pay Paul, so that Paul and his gang don't beat up Peter and others. We also live in a world where people don't all raise their children to be moral, well behaved, and proper citizens, thus there is a rational self-interest in paying for the education of other people's children so they do not grow up to be a bigger burden, because a 35 year old illiterate, druggie, criminal, or non-skilled worker represents a much bigger drain on resources and lost GDP.


I'd like to live in an ideal libertarian world, but I don't think it's possible. I'd like to see my government be as libertarian as possible with respect to individual social rights and economic freedoms, even if it does have to provide a social safety net.

Thus, I'm not opposed to the principle of social security, I just think it should be designed to be an investment system, not a welfare system.

I'm not opposed to the idea of paying for public education. I just want to see the K-12 system work the same as colleges do: Choice and Competition in education. Thus, I support school vouchers, not because I want to fund Catholic schools, but because I want my, and other kids, to not be beholden to teachers unions under a monopolized education system with little choice.

Now, saying you are for privatizing SS and school vouchers will get you labeled a neocon by liberals, but I am way more liberal than liberals on social issues insofar as what I believe people should be allowed (take any drug they want, do anything they want to their bodies, period, no restrictions, legal prostitution, abortion in third trimester, legal polyamorous unions, etc) Basically, I don't think the government has any right to tell you what you can do to yourself, nor what two or more consenting adults want to do, as long as it does not involve initiation of force on a third party that damages their body or property.

 

[RussSchultz]

i didn't prove your point, just pointed out that your ramblings are nonsencial. but you proved my point well; i never called you a fascist.

Whatever.

 

[John Reynolds]

Now, saying you are for privatizing SS and school vouchers will get you labeled a neocon by liberals, but I am way more liberal than liberals on social issues insofar as what I believe people should be allowed (take any drug they want, do anything they want to their bodies, period, no restrictions, legal prostitution, abortion in third trimester, legal polyamorous unions, etc) Basically, I don't think the government has any right to tell you what you can do to yourself, nor what two or more consenting adults want to do, as long as it does not involve initiation of force on a third party that damages their body or property.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[RussSchultz]

Ideally, I'd agree. If people could self destruct without affecting society, I'd have no problems.

However drug abuse hurts more than just that person.

And I'd also disagree that late term abortions are a personal choice. There's a helpless 3rd party involved.

(Plus polygamy has quite a few thorny issues in the property side of law)

When the cost to society is more than the loss of that individual, I think that the government has a say in what goes on.

 

[kyleb]

bah, drug use is a victimless crime. some things a drug addict might do can victimize others but we can prosecute them for that, by prosecuting people for drug use we are in fact the ones doing the victimizing.

as for abortion, i am personally against it but i don't see that i have any right to force my views on others. if you can extract the fetus from the mother and bring it to term by other means, and choose to accept burden of raising that child then by all means the mother should have to submit to that instead on an abortion. however, if that is not the case then she should be free to do as she sees best.


DemoCoder, we have had our disagreements on various issues, but i'm with you on everything you said in that post..

 

[RussSchultz]

Hrm. Why can't I kill my child at 6 months? I mean, if I don't want the burden...

6 months too old?

How about 2 months?

1?

Just born?

moments before birth?

An hour before birth?

a week?

a month?

And, about drug use: I'd have no problem if somebody became a heroin addict and dropped out of society. However, if the loss to society by rampant heroin addiction outstripped the cost to regulate it, I'd rather it be regulated.

And I certainly don't like the idea of having my tax dollars go to rehabilitate these "sick" people if we decriminalize useage.

With personal freedoms comes responsibility. Society cannot be a 'i'll have my freedom come hell or high water, but I expect the state to be there to bail me out when I screw myself up'

 

[zidane1strife]

My beliefs are simple: the only rights that truly exist and that are moral and ethical are negative rights: those rights that prevent other people from initiating force against you.

Indeed, the current forces from societal systems on individuals must be superseded by new ones. From education, to parenting, to work, to social groups the individual must be detached, and free to delve into new environments should the present one be not suitable or pleasant for said individual.

That is to say to be able to easily integrate into new social webs, jobs, schools, families, with much greater ease, knowing that there won't be any major hiccups financially or otherwise in this transition. To be freed from all pressures, and relax....

as for abortion, i am personally against it but i don't see that i have any right to force my views on others. if you can extract the fetus from the mother and bring it to term by other means, and choose to accept burden of raising that child then by all means the mother should have to submit to that instead on an abortion. however, if that is not the case then she should be free to do as she sees best.

I too think it should not be practiced until more knowledge is gained on the nature of the human mind. In fact it might be best that the rights of reproduction be taken from the individual and given to society, once it's technologically feasible.

It is something that affects society, and that affects another individual. Therefore it should not be the right of the individual, but of society. The welcoming of a new member of our kin, should be something of utmost important, and not subject to the possible atrocities that might occur from abuse of this right.

We all know how low some parents can go, and how some are simply not fit to raise a child. To offer utmost protection to these new minds, and to offer the best possible care, this is what I believe must be done. Once viable, the government should offer full protection, rights, and financial sustenance to all who are to be new members of our world.

 

[kyleb]

My beliefs are simple: the only rights that truly exist and that are moral and ethical are negative rights

doh, i got so into agreeing with everything else that i forgot this part which i dissagree with. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that is the basis of our laws (or at least it is supposed to be) and those are very much postive rights which i agree with.

Hrm. Why can't I kill my child at 6 months? I mean, if I don't want the burden...

6 months too old?

How about 2 months?

1?

Just born?

the child is protect under the rights of citizenship there, so there is no go on any of that.

moments before birth?

An hour before birth?

a week?

a month?

i don't like the idea of that at all, but i am not one to go around telling others what to do. however, it seems to me if you can remove the child and it lives on its own, then it is also a citizen.

And, about drug use: I'd have no problem if somebody became a heroin addict and dropped out of society. However, if the loss to society by rampant heroin addiction outstripped the cost to regulate it, I'd rather it be regulated.

if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts...

seriously though, it no person or group can determian how society should be; society as a whole makes that call, each person contributeing their own part.

And I certainly don't like the idea of having my tax dollars go to rehabilitate these "sick" people if we decriminalize useage.

niether do i, and i am suggesting nothing of the sort.

 

[Silent_One]

Indeed, the current forces from societal systems on individuals must be superseded by new ones. From education, to parenting, to work, to social groups the individual must be detached, and free to delve into new environments should the present one be not suitable or pleasant for said individual.

That is to say to be able to easily integrate into new social webs, jobs, schools, families, with much greater ease, knowing that there won't be any major hiccups financially or otherwise in this transition. To be freed from all pressures, and relax....

"...perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub!"

(No offence but some of you seem to be in dream land.)

 

[Silent_One]

With personal freedoms comes responsibility. Society cannot be a 'i'll have my freedom come hell or high water, but I expect the state to be there to bail me out when I screw myself up'

Agreed.

 

[pax]

I liked a lot of what Demo posted there. Now if he can just see that force is indeed applied by both peter and paul in the real world then we'd be just about on the same footing ...

So I invest in Nike and Nike though a subcontractor puts a 'gun' to peoples foreheads and says 25 cents an hour or starve in a country where land was stolen from millions of subsistence farmers by western supported dictators who catered to large landholders... Then we wonder why Nike stores are overflowing with goods fewer and fewer can buy anymore... Or why mexicans almost never buy what they make. Or why the japanese after all their modernization dont import as they cant afford what we often tried to sell there even after the borders were opened. Why that 2nd largest economy on earth pays its people about half the north american wage.

Bleh...

 

[DemoCoder]

pax, there is no contradiction with libertarian philosophy. If someone had their land taken by force, they must be compensated.

Where libertarians don't agree is that if I offer you a job, you are "forced" to take it. No "force" involved. Doesn't matter if someone else robbed you, and my job offer is all you have. It's not my fault, and if you force me to pay more than I offer, it's initiation of force against me. Go initiate force against the guy who stole your farmland in the first place.

Let's say you are walking down the street in a foreign land and a mugger steals your wallet. You have no money to stay in a hotel that night. I put out an ad saying "I pay $50 to anyone who blows me". You show up and take the $50 for a few minutes of work. Now you turn around and say I *forced* you?

 

[DemoCoder]

My beliefs are simple: the only rights that truly exist and that are moral and ethical are negative rights

doh, i got so into agreeing with everything else that i forgot this part which i dissagree with. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not positive rights (to be provided by society), they are negative rights, by and large, to be provided by restricting government from abridging them. Your right to life means no one has a right to deprive you of that life through force. Your right to liberty means no one has a right to abridge your freedoms.

The declaration of independence was written before the welfare state. The authors certainly meant these rights with respect to the monarchy, the state.

 

[DemoCoder]

When the cost to society is more than the loss of that individual, I think that the government has a say in what goes on.

Slippery slope Russ. We tried it with Prohibition, the cure was far worse than the disease. Now we're being told Pot "self destructs" individuals. But Alcohol and Cigarettes, "legal" drugs, are far more destructive on society, to say nothing of Sugar, Carbohydrates, Junk Food, etc.

If I were to apply your "preemptively protect society by prohibiting classes of behavior", I'd have to convert us into an Orwellian state.

Let's be frank: This is a cultural issue, like gay marriage. It's what they're used to. People think Alcohol is ok, because everyone does it, including the Catholic Church in religious ceremonies. Indians in South America think sucking on Coca Leaves is a-OK, and have been doing it for centuries without self destructing. North American indians have been smoking pot for who knows how long in their own religious cermonies.

All the posturing about illegal drugs by conservatives is precisely for socially/culturally conservative reasons and have little to do with a rational calculation of costs to society, because if we did engage in rational calculation of costs and benefits, we'd have to ban a whole lot of behavior that social conservatives think is great.

Americans think underage drinking is disasterous. But guess what? In other countries, people introduce their kids to drinking as early as age 8. There's no problem with your kid having wine or beer. And as such, these things become less "cool" things to do, taboo, and daring, and just more breed and butter, apple pie, culturally.

 

[pax]

LOL great example... The diff is the relationship between the corporate world and western gov who create, intimidate and otherwise force govs of other countries and on down the relational chain to their own elites to comply with desired economic goals. We have our hands on the trigger to a relative degree. How much each of us has is arguable. But I cant deny I benefit from excessive third world exploitation. Much of which wouldnt exist had we not forced our need for cheap oil, coffee, copper and various other commodities onto their populations.

To say we have no responsibility is not right. If we were on the receiving end of the increasingly subtle for issue of public relations but otherwise still easily identifyable behavior, we'd all long have joined the chorus clamoring for fair play.

That the seed of poverty may in some cases be removed in time doesnt take away our culpability unless you think there should be a statute of limitations on large national economic crimes tho they brought and bring death and misery to billions... Not all poverty is the result of western abuse but whole hell of a lot is.

 

[DemoCoder]

Some is, some isn't. I do believe there is a statue of a limitations due to technical infeasibility of tracking down the stolen property and proving responsibility. The Etruscians are dead. The Ainu are close. And the American Indians are never getting back the US, because 280 million people can't be deported, and weren't here when it was stolen.

These issues must be addressed quickly, otherwise, the cure is often worse than the disease. Just look at the palestian right of return, and that's a very recent theft.

Remember, for most of the earth's history, we didn't have courts, democracy, and property rights. Everything was managed by force, and we have fought over and traded land so many times that fully accounting and settling all land disputes would be like defying the laws of thermodynamics and running time backwards.

That said, the explanation that Western nations are wealthy because they stole everything and that the only reason sub-saharan Africa is poor is because they were robbed and screwed is misdirected. It's nice to believe it, especially if your a wealthy guilt-ridden liberal, but if we believe that the only difference is simply one of money and resources that need to be refuned, we'll never be able to help them.

I simply don't believe paying someone 25 cents an hour is exploitation. There is no absolute or objective measure of labor. There is only supply and demand. If you demand 50 cents, and there's a guy who willing to undercut you and work for 25 cents, you don't deserve "50 cents" and you have no right to take a job from the guy who was willing to work harder for less.

Westerners seem in shock. They think a six figure white-collar salary is some kind of objective measure of their labor, and when an Indian is willing to do it for 1/5th less, they think it's exploitation, since the higher salary must be the "true value"