[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m not a liberal. That means there are two things you have wrong. One being that you think you know me, and the other being that you think you are much smarter than you appear to be.[/quote]
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
On the other hand, the greatest evil in America’s history, that of slavery.
So I think I would say states’ rights be damned, and I wouldn’t have given a flying fuck if the South left. I probably wouldn’t have fought for that.
But slavery? I would have given my life in a Union uniform to see that ended. [/quote]
Sadly, Irish, you’d have given your life in vain.
The Civil war did not end slavery in the United States. It only made ownership of slaves an exclusive right of the state. Read the thirteenth amendment again.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
In other words, get convicted of a crime, become a slave.
The United States incarcerates a greater percentage of its population than any other country on earth, including Communist China, a country that is perennially the target of accusations of slave labor by the U.S.
The U.S. prison population is overwhelmingly black.
So one could say that the Civil War essentially stopped African slaves from picking cotton and tobacco for private plantation owners, and got them making license plates for state and federal prisons instead.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
vroom wrote:
A liberal believes the government must respect the people, while a conservative believes the people must respect the institutions of government.
I know, I know, hack away…
No, I’d say that’s pretty spot on.
Meanwhile, an anarchist believes that both of these beliefs are unfounded in reality, for what government in history has ever respected the people, or has ever been really worthy of respect?
V
[/quote]
That would make JFK a conservative (and he was in many ways).
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
[quote]“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
Abraham Lincoln, inaugural address, 1861. The South was stupid enough to believe him. [/quote]
Varq,
Thanks for taking the time to help back up what I was saying.
What gets me, and continues to get me, is that I was born, raised and educated in Canada, for fuck sakes.
Why do I have to tell American citizens about the concepts involved in the founding of their own great country?
I mean, these issues, these concepts that were fought over, that established democracy on the planet, that established systems and ideals to be held up to the world, that made America perhaps the greatest place on the planet, are better known to people outside of the US than inside of it?
My guess, and it is truly only a guess, is that the constant barrage of messages that you live in the greatest country on earth, which is the best at everything, as repeatedly told to you by politicians because it feels damned good to hear, makes you complacent.
We’re the best. Fuck everyone else anyway, what could they possibly know.
Pride and complacency before the fall? I don’t really know, but something is wonky somewhere.
And to those that call me anti-American from time to time, there is a paragraph above you should refer to when you get that incorrect impression just because I am criticizing something:
…these issues, these concepts that were fought over, that established democracy on the planet, that established systems and ideals to be held up to the world, that made America perhaps the greatest place on the planet…
Anytime, Vroom.
It is certainly easier to understand the beast when you are not in its belly.
Question:
If I want to conserve my liberty, does that make me conservative or liberal?
V
[quote]vroom wrote:
Why do I have to tell American citizens about the concepts involved in the founding of their own great country?[/quote]
I see it was only a matter of time before you added a conceit that you were so much more informed that everyone else - but who have you lectured about the concepts?
Me?
How is that? An arrogant - and unfounded - conclusion on your part.
[quote]“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
Abraham Lincoln, inaugural address, 1861. The South was stupid enough to believe him.
[/quote]
But Varqanir did you a disservice - read the rest of the Address, which is a clear warning that secession is an act of rebellion and that Lincoln had a duty to put it down.
Lincoln wasn’t giving the South an option by referencing the American Revolution - he was clear that war followed secession.
And, I have to say - I am curiously baffled about how the liberals on this board are making the case for the Confederacy.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Question:
If I want to conserve my liberty, does that make me conservative or liberal?
[/quote]
Oh sure, ask tough questions…
[quote]thunderbolt23 whined:
I see it was only a matter of time before you added a conceit that you were so much more informed that everyone else - but who have you lectured about the concepts?
Me?[/quote]
This isn’t the only discussion on the boards over the last several years. I apologize if it seemed I was trying to single you out here.
[quote]But Varqanir did you a disservice - read the rest of the Address, which is a clear warning that secession is an act of rebellion and that Lincoln had a duty to put it down.
Lincoln wasn’t giving the South an option by referencing the American Revolution - he was clear that war followed secession.
And, I have to say - I am curiously baffled about how the liberals on this board are making the case for the Confederacy.
[/quote]
You STILL don’t get the philosophical issues underneath this. There is nothing wrong with a little revolution and war every now than then, if that is truly what the people want.
Of course Lincoln had a duty to put them down. Who said otherwise? Can’t you fit both issues into your head at once? You are confusing the issues involved at that time with the concept of a populace having every right to fight for their freedom from any government that exerts control over them whenever they decide it is necessary to do so.
This right doesn’t disappear just because you live in a representative democracy – it should just never be a viable option because the government is run by and for the people.
I am not bound by the decisions of my ancestors, just as you are not bound by the decisions of yours. You choose, each and ever single day, to abide by the rules and laws of society around you. Tomorrow, if society goes off the rails, you may choose not to.
That is an inherent right that each and every one of us has. Get used to it. Are there consequences and risks? Of course there are.
That’s why it doesn’t happen every time some stupid new law is passed, it just isn’t worth it to have a revolution because they banned ephedra, for example.
[quote]vroom wrote:
That’s why it doesn’t happen every time some stupid new law is passed, it just isn’t worth it to have a revolution because they banned ephedra, for example.
[/quote]
Yeah, but if they ban eurycoma longifolia and tribulus terrestris, the M14 is coming out, damn it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s why it doesn’t happen every time some stupid new law is passed, it just isn’t worth it to have a revolution because they banned ephedra, for example.
Yeah, but if they ban eurycoma longifolia and tribulus terrestris, the M14 is coming out, damn it.[/quote]
Crazy liberals and their desire for freedom.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You STILL don’t get the philosophical issues underneath this. There is nothing wrong with a little revolution and war every now than then, if that is truly what the people want.[/quote]
No, I get the philosophical point - we have a right to throw off an oppressive government to replace it with a better one. I am not disputing that.
The question is - when is that ok? At what point in a representative democracy does losing to the majority constitute the threshold of oppression that can trigger a justified revolt?
See, that is the inherent problem - a represenative democracy makes such revolts moot. There is an avenue to the changes you seek. Throwing off a monarchy’s rule is different - there is no opportunity for self-government, so there is no ability to reform on behalf of the people. In a representative democracy, that idea is stillborn, as the people have avenue for reform.
You keep suggesting that there is a natural right to throw off oppressive government - ok, so what? That is well-settled and is not in question. The question, again, is in a representative democracy, when does that moment come? Does it ever?
No one is suggesting it disappears - but it is cannot be offered too casually in the name of what is nothing more than political frustration.
Actually, the chances of society going off the rails is reduced drastically by adhering to convention and the ‘decisions of your ancestors’.
Get used to what? Some vacuous right you say exists, but that can land you in jail? You are being too abstract for your own good.
You can defy society all you want - you are still bound by its rules and conventions…
[quote]That’s why it doesn’t happen every time some stupid new law is passed, it just isn’t worth it to have a revolution because they banned ephedra, for example.
[/quote]
…which brings me to this. This is where you keep getting flummoxed. There is no right to revolt for anything you want.
Back to the Civil War - Lincoln said there was no right to secede. If the Southern states had this ‘right’ to secede, why would you say it was ok to wage war against them? If the Southern states were within their rights to throw off a government that was usurping their lives, and Lincoln and the Unionists were within their rights to try and preserve the Union by treating the South as rebels…
…then everyone was within their rights and one isn’t superior to another. But how can there be a right to secede and a right to fight those that seceded? You have stated that both parties had ‘rights’ to do what they did - but they are completely opposite. Who has the superior claim?
You have taken some weird, relativistic middle that defies logic. Everything is a right, and nothing is a right.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The question is - when is that ok? At what point in a representative democracy does losing to the majority constitute the threshold of oppression that can trigger a justified revolt?[/quote]
Thunder, there is no rule book. It is appropriate whenever enough people decide it is appropriate. How could it be otherwise?
I can’t get any more precise than saying when you are willing to die in the attempt to become free from your government.
We really don’t know this yet. Perhaps representative democracies slowly get bigger, more powerful and less responsive to the needs of the populace, to the point that they’d rather die than be governed by what it has turned into.
Maybe there are big issues that will become known to the population that will lead them to revolt. This happened once because people were being taxed without representation. Would you like a crystal ball, how the heck should I know if and when it might happen again.
However, you are right, the theory is that a representative government will not neglect it’s populace to the point that they get pissed off enough to decide to get rid of the government. However, issues such as government corruption or blatantly ignoring the constitution might start to set a lot of people off.
Again, though, a representative government should never run into those problems, as the people should be able to keep it in line, in theory.
[quote]The question, again, is in a representative democracy, when does that moment come? Does it ever?
[/quote]
When a large enough group is ready to die to get rid of their government. If that government doesn’t have enough people willing to die for it to keep it in power, then the revolt will succeed. Until then, you are just sacrificing yourself to an ideal, which some people are willing to do also.
Who has suggested it must happen casually? There is no rule book on this stuff… people simply feel strongly about what they feel strongly about. At some times, their conscience will brook no abrogation and they will fight for their beliefs.
Do you suggest I’m proposing anarchy or something like that? Are you reading what I’m typing or what?
You are bound to the rules of society because of force. I don’t want to sound like Headhunter, but society maintains police and military forces, which it can use to keep the population in line.
I’m not the one getting flummoxed here…
I know you feel that this is very loose and casual, but people revolt over whatever they revolt over. Perhaps in the future shoelaces will be outlawed and the population will rise up and overthrow the government. Who can say. It happens for what it happens for.
I know that lack of control may seem troubling, but it’s really the world we live in.
[quote]Back to the Civil War - Lincoln said there was no right to secede. If the Southern states had this ‘right’ to secede, why would you say it was ok to wage war against them? If the Southern states were within their rights to throw off a government that was usurping their lives, and Lincoln and the Unionists were within their rights to try and preserve the Union by treating the South as rebels…
…then everyone was within their rights and one isn’t superior to another. But how can there be a right to secede and a right to fight those that seceded? You have stated that both parties had ‘rights’ to do what they did - but they are completely opposite. Who has the superior claim? [/quote]
If you and I meet on the street and neither yields the sidewalk to the other, and we rumble, who is in the right and who is in the wrong?
Neither? Both? Who cares? However, there may be a winner and a loser. I’m sorry this issue doesn’t fit into a neat little rule book.
People are funny that way…
Thunder, I think you are ignoring the fact that there were absolute irreconciliable differences between the two cultures that could only be settled with war.
The Civil War was absolutely unavoidable- like Vroom said, when you’re playing chicken, someone has to blink. Neither side did, or would have.
The fact is that the representative government that we had (have) was not going to support a country that was split that deeply - I think the fact that violence was unavoidable somehow nullifies the idea that the South was wrong in seceding. If they didn’t secede, but had said that they would not abide by the laws that Washington made, there still would have been a war.
The South, by leaving, decided that the laws, and the Constitution, did not apply to them. Once again, the comparison between the US and Britain in the Revolution- when you take up armed rebellion trying to overturn the existing government, the laws of that government don’t mean a goddamn thing.
I’m not trying to justify the reasons the South left- they were horrible reasons. However, a rebellion is rebellion, and the laws of the land don’t have any effect on the rebels.
Back to the original question for a moment…
I would define the terms like this:
Liberal = Idealist
Conservative = Realist
In an ideal system, the liberals would see injustices and inefficiencies in society, point them out, and provide possible solutions to those problems. The conservatives, the realists, would take those ideas, reject the ones that aren’t viable, and implement the ones that are. Both sides have their responsibilities, and if they worked together they improve society as a whole.
Of course, nowadays, many liberals are in La-La land and aiming for a utopia that could never exist. Many conservatives try a little too hard to maintain the status quo and reject EVERY idea (even the good ones) that liberals suggest.
Thoughts?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Back to the original question for a moment…
I would define the terms like this:
Liberal = Idealist
Conservative = Realist
In an ideal system, the liberals would see injustices and inefficiencies in society, point them out, and provide possible solutions to those problems. The conservatives, the realists, would take those ideas, reject the ones that aren’t viable, and implement the ones that are. Both sides have their responsibilities, and if they worked together they improve society as a whole.
Of course, nowadays, many liberals are in La-La land and aiming for a utopia that could never exist. Many conservatives try a little too hard to maintain the status quo and reject EVERY idea (even the good ones) that liberals suggest.
Thoughts?[/quote]
Your whole post is bullshit. Liberals as idealists? Conservatives were the ones, I thought, who think they can stop stem cell research, stop gays from marrying (sometimes, from existing), stop abortion, and make the Ten Commandments the law of the land.
It does not just come down to “idealist vs. realist”, and that’s a backwards and simplistic way of looking at it.
Its more like two different versions of capitalism, or two versions of how the government should function, and exactly what role it should have not only in larger economic and political ways, but also in affecting the life of everyday people and the businesses that they own.
Both sides have valid points, and it comes down to different ideals about how this country should work. But it sure as shit wasn’t about hippie liberals in la-la land and the tough guy conservatives that humor them.
You don’t really pay much attention to politics, huh? That, or you think you do because you listen to Rush Limbaugh. Either way, you’re wrong.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Thunder, I think you are ignoring the fact that there were absolute irreconciliable differences between the two cultures that could only be settled with war. [/quote]
Vroom and Irish,
You are giving me historical accounts and bland descriptions of what happened. That is not what I am after. Yes, I know the division happened. Yes, I know irreconcilible differences emerged. Yes, I know the South seceded.
What I am asking is the philosophical question: was the secession from the Union based on the fact that the South were becoming democratic losers on the slavery question justified?
I am not asking if the Southern states thought it was justified - I am asking you.
If it was - why? If not - why not?
Because the answer matters.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Back to the original question for a moment…
I would define the terms like this:
Liberal = Idealist
Conservative = Realist
In an ideal system, the liberals would see injustices and inefficiencies in society, point them out, and provide possible solutions to those problems. The conservatives, the realists, would take those ideas, reject the ones that aren’t viable, and implement the ones that are. Both sides have their responsibilities, and if they worked together they improve society as a whole.
Of course, nowadays, many liberals are in La-La land and aiming for a utopia that could never exist. Many conservatives try a little too hard to maintain the status quo and reject EVERY idea (even the good ones) that liberals suggest.
Thoughts?[/quote]
Don’t forget that we waste a lot of time actually calling each other “liberals” and “conservatives” and then yelling “Am not!” and “Am so!” back.
I have created a monster. I think I need to go read that godjira thread again.
Mike
Revolutions or rebellions rarely just happen. They are driven by activists and true believers in the cause at hand.
It is the will of the true believers, even those who consider themselves righteous rebels, that the populace follows.
It is the intentions of those leaders that must be questioned. I would also argue that since the American Civil War most rebellions are sustained though terrorizing the population. Mao’s folks may have “swam through the population like fish in the ocean” but if you didn’t support them when they asked I’m sure your life was at risk.
The driving force doesn’t just well up from the population.
[quote]What I am asking is the philosophical question: was the secession from the Union based on the fact that the South were becoming democratic losers on the slavery question justified?
I am not asking if the Southern states thought it was justified - I am asking you.
If it was - why? If not - why not?
[/quote]
The answer matters?
Look, it was a different world then, in terms of social realities and the importance of these issues. Somehow, people believed the government was not protecting their rights or representing them, as promised, so they got very pissed off.
I reject the simple way you want to frame this and couldn’t give you an answer even without such a nonsensical framing.
I wasn’t there.
I can only guess by the fact they revolted, that the issue was believed to be more than simply not being in the majority. Generally, people don’t sacrifice their lives in great numbers because they find themselves on the minority end of a vote.
It just seems to me like you want to hang onto some utopic view of democracy, as if within it there are truths greater than decisions made by people.