From a reply in a thread @ HotAir on the just-released Finance Committee Healthcare Reform Bill:
Liberalism at its core is coercion and force. For all the moral preening the Left does about how much they care and how heartless we conservatives are the truth is quite the opposite. There is nothing kind about using the force of government to compel ostensibly free citizens to surrender significant portions of their labor and property (income) to the state to serve the purposes not of the nation but of the State, i.e. the government.
Liberalism makes half the population servants to the other half of the population through various social programs that cannot be opted out of even though our lives are diminished by the confiscation of our earnings.
Liberalism root and branch is anathema to the American tradition of individualism as well as poisonous to liberty for how can liberty exist when the state seeks to control the lives of individuals rather than the individual himself? Liberals are always trying to claim the moral high ground but how can this be a valid claim when their entire agenda can only be enacted by force?
Conservatism is the truly compassionate ideology because it seeks to free, and keep free, the individual from the state. I do not now and will never work for the state and will die fighting against it if I must.
DerKrieger on October 19, 2009
Talk about cutting to the chase. I don't know who DerKrieger is, but I'd vote for him.
Oh boy, here come those Santa Ana winds again
Used to live near Ventura - know exactly what you mean.
Is it heartless to expect people to learn to survive? If they are down, do we help them up or do we leave them down and do everything for them? What will happen the day the Gov't can not provide for those people who are so dependent on it? What will happen when there is no more money they can take from anyone?
Rich people are the ones that give the Gov't the check book it has, makes me wonder why they like biting the hand that feeds them.
5...4...3...2...1 One of my favorite liberals will show up any minute, and turn this into a moratorium about themselves, so I'll sit this one out. Astute observation by the OP, however.
Both extremes are bad. Liberalism AND Conservatism both lead to a form of livelyhood where only a few people are well off and the rest is supressed if allowed to go to extremes. I find it difficult to find only bad words or good words for both political ideologies.
If a liberal state is left to develop freely it might very well end up in a dictatorship like government where free will is supressed for the greater good and a selected elite is exempt from the rules they lay down for the rest.
If a conservative neolibertarian state is left to develop freely it might very well end up in a dictatorship in form of huge corporation and lobbyism that have the the government on its payroll. Cartells would form and a free market would just be as impossible as it is in a overregulated planned economy.
I guess what you have - because the US has only a two party system - will always be a slalom between those two positions. What you need is a more heterogenous political spectrum, and this whole debate would be a lot more interesting. If big parties are only able to for a ruling administration with smaller parties, there are no extreme positions possible because you always have to find a compromise that suits all.
Who's morals?
I agree.
I break this down to the family unit but it can be applied in other areas such as the political as well.
A Dad who, with his iron fist says on a daily basis, "this is my house, my rules, my roof. If you do anything to violate it, out you go." He gives them nothing but a hard time wanting them to fend for themselves. He's speaking truth but with no love.
On the other hand, just as bad is the Dad who sets no boundaries and loves his kids totally with no restrictions, no conditions. He gives them whatever they want whenever they want it.
IMO both are immoral. The first case is legalism and the second is liberalism. We need a balance of the two. Truth without love is abusive and love without truth is also abusive.
Spelling correction: Whose morals?
You could equally say conservatism is immoral, because it entrenches selfishness, encourages a denial of common purpose, and leads to the alienation of the poor for no net benefit.
It's no coincidence that a good social net of some sort (even if it's just bread and circuses) has been a hallmark of every stable government.
HEAR_HEAR! I couldn't agree more. Soon we may need an underground network to go after lobiest's & split-up spcial intrest raidicalizim
liberalism is evil. And the founding fathers would agree vehemently with the author of those remarks.
You could, but you would be wrong.
1. boohoo cry me a river. "lets not be extreme, we must all just take the average approach" How banal. Often there is a right and a wrong choice, middle ground is an insult when the choice is between good and evil, wrong and right.
2. No, both "extremes" do not lead to it. Freedom and equality do not lead to the suffering that oppression and government orchestrated theft.
hah Tal.. good and evil? Wrong and right? Just who decides what that is anyway in your little concept of how things should be? Sounds like you would love to call Batman and Robin to the rescue against the "Evil" in the white house.
I find it a bit absurd to use concepts like good vs evil while talking about political ideologies in the US or anywhere else in western countries. It would be refreshing to actually name what "evil" principles you detest and why and based on which philosophy
(because it all comes down to philosophy in the end, like your ideals of freedom and equality in the constitution stem from the enlightenment movement)
you make your arguments.
You would vote for a German and you don't even know anything about him. That's really fucking brilliant.
The only thing I could find on Der Krieger is that it's the partial title of a movie.
lol. Krieger = warrior. Der = masculine article and yes, german still has masculine, feminine and neutral n its grammar. So Der Krieger simply means the warrior. Sort of juvenile choice if you ask me, but so is infidel lol
I guess this proves that Conservatives are stupid.
utemia, I am sure people said the same about hitler and the slavery in the USA...
Anti-Slavery Advocate in USA a few hundred years ago: Slavery is evil, and anyone who supports it is evil
Slaver: I find it a bit absurd to use concepts like good vs evil while talking about political ideologies in the US or anywhere else in western countries.
Sane person in nazi germany: I find hitler and all he stands for to be evil
Nazi: I find it a bit absurd to use concepts like good vs evil while talking about political ideologies in the US or anywhere else in western countries.
The notion that when something becomes "politics" it is suddenly immune to being good and evil is absurd. Granted sometimes people demonize the opposition unjustly. Calling them evil when they are not. But the whole point of having a thinking sentient brain is to be able to make judgement calls. You should strive towards unbiased intelligent logical and fact based positions.
It wasn't the evilness of slavery that really started the civil war to end slavery, (and certainly not that little lady Harriet and her melodrama) it was economical issues. Agriculture in the South depended on slaves working the plantations, it was the economic backbone. So it had nothing to do with right vs wrong but rather was just a means to cripple the opposition. In this case it was also "good" in the end, but it took until the civil rights movement in the 50ies and 60ies to nominally end the segregation. At least now it is illegal, but I suppose it is still very much ingrained in some people.
Hitler .. he was not evil for you if you were a party follower and never stepped out of line, quoted the apropriate ideology, blond and blue eyed and loved banging your wife to have dozens of children. If it comes down to it, the majority of the German population under Hitler falls into that category. The years between 1933-1938 were what people thought the most secure and stable and when they were most happy. That is from a series of polls done in the late 40ies and 50ies about public opinion on a lot of different issues, making this a historic source that has to be interpreted.
Hannah Arendt wrote an interesting essay/book about the Nazi evil issue called "The banality of Evil". It has been criticized and interpreted alot.. she was a jounralist who sat in into the trial of Joseph Eichmann in Jerusalem. She basically came to the conclusion that Joseph Eichmann wasn't a monster, he only wanted to be good as his job which was making trainschedules and organizing the transports of millions of people to concentration camps. He was following orders and obeying the law and was unable to think for himself. this is just a really short abstract and doesn't do the essay any justice nor the whole issue about what evil really is - but I'd thought I'd mention it here shortly.
Maybe I should have specified the timeframe to post 1945 when talking about political ideology in western countries.
So exploiting people is evil because it's like slavery, so would you ban 1 dollar shops and discounters? Because the producers, farmers, factories can only produce cheap products if they hardly pay their workers anything, especially if they import cheap plastic stuff and toys from Asia. So no more Walmart? Just how far are you willing to go to stop evil.. it is amazing how fast you end up on the flipside with ideals and good judgement calls become difficult. That's my two cents.. I just don't think there are good answers without pitfalls in any political ideology.
Good job.
Which stemmed from liberalism.
Many of the founding fathers were, in beliefs, liberal. Hell, one of the most vaunted people there is in terms of the modern conservative movement - Thomas Paine - supported very liberal ideas.
Try telling that to Glenn Beck, who got Paine drastically wrong.
History has shown that extremism in ANY form only serves to destroy, period. It is that balance that helps society maintain stability, and ultimately prosper. Actually the middle ground is often the only fucking reasonable and rational approach, instead of going with the moronic "there is ONLY right and wrong," (and the right is mine!!!")
Actually, he's got it pretty right. You either have extreme conservatism (in modern form) and the big corporations and their ilk get the fun shit. Or, you have the extreme liberalism, which im sure you leads to things, since you're so fond of bashing it.
You're a day late and a dollar short, as usual. What's the matter nowhere else to troll?
Wtf is up with the personal attacks Nitro?
Oh it's nothing personal, just a response and a question. If you think that's harsh, I guess a traffic cop blowing a whistle is police brutality! BTW I predicted you'd show, but at least it's not about you (this time)... you're just protecting a friend from hurtful words like late and short.
Nothing personal, but yet you implied he was trolling, which, so far as I remember from the like 4-5 years ive been around here, has a negative connotation around here. So, as such, you're attacking him by associating him with something that is negative.
Yeah, I noticed, but your prediction falls flat because of the main point behind it. Sorry, you lose.
Though I've gained some respect for him from interacting, I don't know much, if anything, about him. So why would I defend him? I'm merely curious why you waste your time attacking, suggesting, or implying negative things toward damn near anything liberal. As you said, your own words...
[sic]
Obviously, there's a difference between deserved criticism, and outright verbal lashings. That said, yeah you can criticize or even disagree with someone without crossing the line into your words being a dagger in them.
Whatever happened to CIVIL debate?
Did I? First, I asked him a question, which he could have answered (but I think he knows what trolling consists of). Second, what would you call two word sentences (minus corrections for spelling) that add little or nothing to the topic? Must I post a link for you?
That's reaching pretty far, wouldn't you say? By your definition Bush was viciously attacked every day in office and still is by people such as yourself. I posted (which had nothing to do with Infidel BTW) and he just couldn't let it go, yet I'm attacking him??? AJ remember back a few months I suggested you try the military? Well, I was wrong, you don't appear to know what an attack really is. There was no malice in my remark, for all I know there was none in Infidel's toward me. He took the opportunity to zing me and got zinged back. Nobody called for the Liberal Avenger to keep the peace, thank you very much.
Now two things could have happened, before you intervened: It could have ended and the folks debating the topic get back to it, or Infidel could have responded and I could have responded back or as bored as I am with this, let it go. So now ask yourself if you really helped matters? All this really does is give other readers a bad impression of us all and since you're super sensitive of what other think about you (remember a negative association is an attack in the AJ dictionary), as opposed to me, who gets hurt the most? If the truth is too painful, submit a complaint about me to Stardock.
Did I imply you know each other? Someone sympathetic to your ideas can be considered friendly. I.E. there are many friends of Obama that have never personally met him.
It's alive and well here on JU. Go over to DU and check it out if you really want to see uncivilized debate.
But at any rate is this an example of what you were talking about when you mention CIVIL?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
