[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.
Wait, since when have conservatives been “anti-handicapped parking”?
I am really looking for the reference that states conservatives are against handicapped parking and that “liberals” are just forcing handicapped parking on the rest of us.
I don’t know if they are or not but it certainly would not be a conservative idea to grant special privileges to certain groups of people over others.
No, it is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING idea to look out for those less fortunate, not a “liberal vs conservative” issue. Please refrain from attempting to act like any gesture of good faith must be attributed to specific party lines.
There is a difference between helping other people and make other people help people at gunpoint.
Again, what conservatives have ever gone on record publicly as stating that handicapped parking is an “anti-conservative” regulation? Do you want to know why no politician looking to get elected would state such a thing?
?[/quote]
A) Because for better or worse you live in a democracy and most people would not appreciate the philosophical subtleties.
B) Real conservatives probably have bigger fish to fry right now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, it is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING idea to look out for those less fortunate, not a “liberal vs conservative” issue. Please refrain from attempting to act like any gesture of good faith must be attributed to specific party lines.[/quote]
Absolutely, I just think it is WRONG to FORCE people to do it. If I were a business owner and was forced to provide handicapped parking in my lot and I only catered to .1% of customers that are handicapped I would not like it. Heck, if I weren’t forced to provide parking maybe I would personally valet park their vehicles for them free of charge and push their wheelchair.
For the record, I do not play partisan politics. As I have said, actions are all that matter. If someone calls himself a conservative and does something “liberal” I will point it out and vice versa. Words do have meanings and that is what 99% of the arguments in these forums usually end up devolving into.
As I already stated, I am not sure what the conservative idea is as far as forcing handicapped parking in privately owned lots. I only imagine that a real conservative would be against it because it violates property rights. I can tell you without a doubt that a libertarian would be against it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Another reason to keep the Dems from a 60 seat Senate: every time one party dominates, we get a war or some other insanity. And its usually Dems — WWI and II, Vietnam, World Trade Center.[/quote]
You realize WWII pulled the US out of a decade-long recession? Democrats to end recession with War! I guess that might be a step up on facilitating recession with a long, costly occupation that lines the pockets of the President and VP’s buddies.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Another reason to keep the Dems from a 60 seat Senate: every time one party dominates, we get a war or some other insanity. And its usually Dems — WWI and II, Vietnam, World Trade Center.
You realize WWII pulled the US out of a decade-long recession? Democrats to end recession with War! I guess that might be a step up on facilitating recession with a long, costly occupation that lines the pockets of the President and VP’s buddies.[/quote]
The USA boomed after the war because the capital stock around the world had mostly been destroyed.
War is losing its practicality as an instrument of social cohesion and economic stimulation. Environmentalism is a weak substitute for facilitating social cohesion. This implies a gradual drift to totalitarianism, in reaction to the breakdown of societies with no effective instrument to take the place of war.
Regional wars are a temporary option as voting populations tire of war. Only an absolute state that either terrifies the population or an absolute state that makes everyone happy is a possibility for our future.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.[/quote]
The idea that government should assist the less fortunate and provide a minimum standard of living is liberal. So by your logic taxation of any sort cuts against the grain of liberalism?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush is not a liberal.
You’ll have to explain this statement because I don’t believe you. He started a preemptive war – a typically, liberal trait. He expanded government – an other liberal trait. He spends money like a “tax and spend” liberal. Shall I keep going?
By the conservative definition of liberal, Bush is a liberal.[/quote]
I’m not talking about the “conservative” definition of liberal, whatever that is. I’m talking about “the” definition of liberal, as in concerned with individual rights, etc.
Hitler expanded the government too, but there was nothing liberal about him. I think you also forgot about all Bush’s very non-liberal actions like the Patriot act, illegal wiretapping, illegal incarcerations, torture at Gitmo, etc.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, it is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING idea to look out for those less fortunate, not a “liberal vs conservative” issue. Please refrain from attempting to act like any gesture of good faith must be attributed to specific party lines.
Absolutely, I just think it is WRONG to FORCE people to do it. If I were a business owner and was forced to provide handicapped parking in my lot and I only catered to .1% of customers that are handicapped I would not like it. Heck, if I weren’t forced to provide parking maybe I would personally valet park their vehicles for them free of charge and push their wheelchair.
For the record, I do not play partisan politics. As I have said, actions are all that matter. If someone calls himself a conservative and does something “liberal” I will point it out and vice versa. Words do have meanings and that is what 99% of the arguments in these forums usually end up devolving into.
As I already stated, I am not sure what the conservative idea is as far as forcing handicapped parking in privately owned lots. I only imagine that a real conservative would be against it because it violates property rights. I can tell you without a doubt that a libertarian would be against it.[/quote]
If you don’t want to supply handicapped parking, don’t open a business with a parking lot. I’m sorry, but you don’t get everything your way, all the time. Why is it wrong to require certain people to incur a mild inconvenience so that a disadvantaged person can benefit? Why wouldn’t you do it anyway? This is exactly the reason we have to do things like this, is because people won’t do it if you don’t force them. I hope you realize I’m not just talking about handicapped parking, either.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote: “Liberal” meant something entirely different then. If the American left pretends to hold on to the torch because she is for “gay, black and female” “rights” and does it in a way that guts the philosophical core of the American liberal natural rights idea she is only its gravedigger and not her heir.
Not that the right with their Hamiltonian BS is any better, but that is hardly an excuse.
The turning point from liberalism to leftism was John Stuart Mill, and for God´s sake, read that piece of crab and then any critique of utilitarianism.
I think the core liberal values are still in place. I’m thinking primarily of the inviolability of the individual.
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The very core of the natural rights idea, which is the soul of the American constitution is property rights including the right to own your own mind, body and soul and act accordingly without interference from government.
You can find that in Locke´s treatises on government.
Not quite so incidentally that is the core of our economic system as well.
Obama even acknowledges this and yet wants to “spread the wealth”.
That however turns private property from an inalienable right into something people can vote on.
British liberals however had worked very hard to make private property sacrosanct because they knew that all your other rights are irrelevant when the government can simply confiscate your income.
The turning point was JSM with his ideas of positive rights, the idea that a government should not only refrain from interfering but start to guarantee things to people.
This is when “liberals” began to confuse “rights”, meaning innate qualities every human is born with, with “entitlements”, which are things every human being can expect to be supplied with by government.
Since governments do not own or produce anything, anytime a government provides an entitlement it violates the rights of others.
Therefore, by confusing rights and entitlements and then claiming that those do contradict and cannot all be fulfilled at the same time, everything is up for a vote and the idea of the inalienability of human rights and that governments are only lawful as long as they protect these rights, is gone.[/quote]
I disagree with this. This “spreading the wealth” thing has gotten so incredibly retarded that it pains me to even talk about it, but EVERYONE spreads the wealth. This is not new, as you know. The difference is, Obama was truthful about it, and didn’t try to hide the fact that he wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Property is only an inalienable right so long as the government enforces that status. If you really want the government to leave you alone, fine, why don’t you tell them not to bother enforcing laws anymore? Why don’t you tell them you don’t need them to enforce contracts anymore? I hope you see that a certain amount of government activity is necessary to have a sustainable economy on anything like a modern level. So you “owe” something to the state, because without its convenience, you wouldn’t have your property. Debate only comes in when you get into “how much” and “from whom.”
I think Rawls’ A Theory of Justice provides a nice alternative to the Utilitarian model of things.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The neo-liberals do not bring the ethical framework of the classical liberal doctrines to their philosophy. For example, a classical liberal would not insist that all men are created equal and then force non-handicapped people to support handicapped people with special legislation for parking spaces, etc.
The core of the liberal philosophy is individual freedom. It is hard to protect individual freedom when you take away people’s money and rights to give them to someone else.
The idea that government should assist the less fortunate and provide a minimum standard of living is liberal. So by your logic taxation of any sort cuts against the grain of liberalism?
[/quote]
When it finances any form of redistribution of wealth, certainly.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote: “Liberal” meant something entirely different then. If the American left pretends to hold on to the torch because she is for “gay, black and female” “rights” and does it in a way that guts the philosophical core of the American liberal natural rights idea she is only its gravedigger and not her heir.
Not that the right with their Hamiltonian BS is any better, but that is hardly an excuse.
The turning point from liberalism to leftism was John Stuart Mill, and for God´s sake, read that piece of crab and then any critique of utilitarianism.
I think the core liberal values are still in place. I’m thinking primarily of the inviolability of the individual.
Earnestly though, how is the “left” gutting the philosophical core of liberalism? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
The very core of the natural rights idea, which is the soul of the American constitution is property rights including the right to own your own mind, body and soul and act accordingly without interference from government.
You can find that in Locke´s treatises on government.
Not quite so incidentally that is the core of our economic system as well.
Obama even acknowledges this and yet wants to “spread the wealth”.
That however turns private property from an inalienable right into something people can vote on.
British liberals however had worked very hard to make private property sacrosanct because they knew that all your other rights are irrelevant when the government can simply confiscate your income.
The turning point was JSM with his ideas of positive rights, the idea that a government should not only refrain from interfering but start to guarantee things to people.
This is when “liberals” began to confuse “rights”, meaning innate qualities every human is born with, with “entitlements”, which are things every human being can expect to be supplied with by government.
Since governments do not own or produce anything, anytime a government provides an entitlement it violates the rights of others.
Therefore, by confusing rights and entitlements and then claiming that those do contradict and cannot all be fulfilled at the same time, everything is up for a vote and the idea of the inalienability of human rights and that governments are only lawful as long as they protect these rights, is gone.
I disagree with this. This “spreading the wealth” thing has gotten so incredibly retarded that it pains me to even talk about it, but EVERYONE spreads the wealth. This is not new, as you know. The difference is, Obama was truthful about it, and didn’t try to hide the fact that he wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Property is only an inalienable right so long as the government enforces that status. If you really want the government to leave you alone, fine, why don’t you tell them not to bother enforcing laws anymore? Why don’t you tell them you don’t need them to enforce contracts anymore? I hope you see that a certain amount of government activity is necessary to have a sustainable economy on anything like a modern level. So you “owe” something to the state, because without its convenience, you wouldn’t have your property. Debate only comes in when you get into “how much” and “from whom.”
I think Rawls’ A Theory of Justice provides a nice alternative to the Utilitarian model of things.[/quote]
First of all Rawl`s theory provides a model how beings, that are not even human, might arrive at an ethical system. For us, as human beings, it is of no practical concern.
Then, that everybody spreads wealth is true but only shows that conservative politicians were more than ready to jump on that bus.
While it is true that a government needs money, it only had the power to raise tariffs in order to guarantee INALIENABLE rights.
Any form of redistribution necessarily is a form of infringement on those rights and alienates them very much.
You have a positivist, government granted view of rights, were indeed rights are not distinguishable from entitlements.
If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will immediately see that their point of view is completely incompatible with yours in this point, and I quote:
See, people are born with rights, governments are instituted to secure those rights and when they become destructive to those ends they can be altered or abolished
I think it is easy to see that at least you, personally, do not agree with this text, so you and anyone else that thinks like you cannot simply claim to be those mens successor when you bury the core of their ideology.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, it is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING idea to look out for those less fortunate, not a “liberal vs conservative” issue. Please refrain from attempting to act like any gesture of good faith must be attributed to specific party lines.
Absolutely, I just think it is WRONG to FORCE people to do it. If I were a business owner and was forced to provide handicapped parking in my lot and I only catered to .1% of customers that are handicapped I would not like it. Heck, if I weren’t forced to provide parking maybe I would personally valet park their vehicles for them free of charge and push their wheelchair.
For the record, I do not play partisan politics. As I have said, actions are all that matter. If someone calls himself a conservative and does something “liberal” I will point it out and vice versa. Words do have meanings and that is what 99% of the arguments in these forums usually end up devolving into.
As I already stated, I am not sure what the conservative idea is as far as forcing handicapped parking in privately owned lots. I only imagine that a real conservative would be against it because it violates property rights. I can tell you without a doubt that a libertarian would be against it.
If you don’t want to supply handicapped parking, don’t open a business with a parking lot. I’m sorry, but you don’t get everything your way, all the time. Why is it wrong to require certain people to incur a mild inconvenience so that a disadvantaged person can benefit? Why wouldn’t you do it anyway? This is exactly the reason we have to do things like this, is because people won’t do it if you don’t force them. I hope you realize I’m not just talking about handicapped parking, either.
[/quote]
It is wrong for the government to mandate this, not for the company to do it.
That is the big difference. A true conservative view would have the handicap spot their because the business feels it should not because it is forced to by the government.
This country was founded on the idea of lean government and letting society handle itself. The way it should be.
I think that is where the problem comes in to play. I tithe and our church runs a missions center for homeless people and less fortunate. If I had more of my money more would actually go to these people then does now. he government creates great waste.
People in general are more charitable then given credit for, but we are also better at determining where these funds and support are more needed.
The government method leads to more lazy people waiting for handouts. More waste in paperwork and greed.
That is where the real argument comes into play. which is truly a better more efficient model.
If people feel strongly about something they will support it, and if they have more money and can pay their bills will be more likely to support it. But don’t take my money and just give to lazy people sitting at home having more unwanted children to get more money and passing this work ethic back on to these children, this feeling of the world owes me something for nothing.
If there is someone that feels this is a good charity let them contribute.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The idea that government should assist the less fortunate and provide a minimum standard of living is liberal. So by your logic taxation of any sort cuts against the grain of liberalism?
[/quote]
In the classical liberal sense taxation is not essential; in the neoliberal sense it is a core feature. As Orion already pointed out there was a divergence in classical liberal thought when Mill wrote about positive rights.
Most libertarians which is the closest philosophy to the classical liberal do not believe in the idea of positive rights. These are rights that can only be granted by government or some other Robbinhood-like agency. Positive rights are inherently flawed because it require taking from one group to give to another – for example, disadvantaging the non-handicapped in favor of the handicapped or disadvantaging whites in favor of other skin colors.
As a corollary there are negative rights which basically means rights that cannot be infringed upon. These rights fall under the natural rights category. Most libertarians would say these are the only rights that exist. My life, for example, belongs to me as well as all that I am capable of producing with it – my property, in other words. The income I produce with my life is mine and does not belong to anyone else. Taxation is essentially theft. If you do not believe this then just try withholding payment of taxes and see how the authorities respond.
One of the core ethical tenants of libertarianism is the idea of nonaggression and what is immoral behavior for the individual is also immoral for the government. This feature is obviously not a part of the neoliberal doctrine. Unfortunately the neoliberal doctrine is untenable with regard to liberty.