AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I support the system we currently have, which involves over-arcing Federal laws and more local State and City laws.

I suggest, then, that you are 1) nationalist, 2) authoritarian and 3) conservative.
Hmm, nationalism and authoritarianism, what does that remind me of?

I suggest that you are wrong on all three of those counts. But I'm only interested in moving forward with the discussion if you have something more interesting to talk about than your opinion of other people.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I suggest that you are wrong on all three of those counts.

No, I have nothing to add. I rest my case.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suggest that you are wrong on all three of those counts.

No, I have nothing to add. I rest my case.

Your what? I didn't see a case for anything presented...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suggest that you are wrong on all three of those counts.

No, I have nothing to add. I rest my case.

Your what? I didn't see a case for anything presented...

Cycloptichorn

Do you, or do you not, reject that human beings have the right to fully self-determine?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
EmperorNero wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suggest that you are wrong on all three of those counts.

No, I have nothing to add. I rest my case.

Your what? I didn't see a case for anything presented...

Cycloptichorn

Do you, or do you not, reject the that human beings have the right to fully self-determine?

How does that relate to what you are talking about earlier?

I think humans DO have a right to self-determine; but, that doesn't have anything to do with our earlier discussion at all. Each person can self-determine whether or not they wish to follow the laws of the place they live, they can leave if they like, or determine that they are willing to suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.

You seem to be positing that our nation's laws somehow contradict the right to self-determination. I think that is a rather ridiculous and poorly thought out position on your part.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

they can leave if they like, or determine that they are willing to suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.

My question was whether you want to impose statism nationally or locally. You said nationally. Thus you reject a system in which individuals can move away from laws they don't like, and you favor a system in which totalitarianism is universally imposed and there is no way to escape it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You seem to be positing that our nation's laws somehow contradict the right to self-determination.

You seem to be positing that forcing people to do stuff somehow doesn't contradict the right to self-determination.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
they can leave if they like, or determine that they are willing to suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.

My question was whether you want to impose statism nationally or locally. You said nationally. Thus you reject a system in which individuals can move away from laws, and you favor a system in which statism is universally imposed and there is no way to escape it.

This bears no relation to anything I wrote, at all. It is nothing more than a straw man argument that you have created. I suggest you instead link to what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You seem to be positing that our nation's laws somehow contradict the right to self-determination.

You seem to be positing that forcing people to do stuff somehow doesn't contradict the right to self-determination.

It doesn't. Whatever gave you the idea that it did? Nobody ever said that self-determination was an absolute and inviolate right.

Even more so - you aren't forced to do anything at all. If you don't like the laws of the US, leave. You likely will not be missed.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This bears no relation to anything I wrote, at all. It is nothing more than a straw man argument that you have created. I suggest you instead link to what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up.

You are free to change your mind if you want, what you said earlier in this thread is not binding.
My question was whether you agree that statism should not be imposed universally, but locally, so that people can move to where they like the laws. What is your answer?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
You seem to be positing that forcing people to do stuff somehow doesn't contradict the right to self-determination.

It doesn't.

Yes it does, if you force people to do stuff, they cannot self-determine. See, you are determining for them.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Whatever gave you the idea that it did? Nobody ever said that self-determination was an absolute and inviolate right.

Indeed, nobody said that. I asked you whether you agree that people should have the right to self-determine.
See, you are trying to have it both ways, you want to be a totalitarian while thinking of yourself as a liberal.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you don't like the laws of the US, leave.

Leave where? You are imposing the laws in the entire nation. That is the point. We are speaking of a national framework, so the question is whether people can escape laws within that nation.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Leave where? You are imposing the laws in the entire nation. That is the point. We are speaking of a national framework, so the question is whether people can escape laws within that nation.

Leave the entire nation. Go somewhere else. You are not without options - the world is a big place.

Quote:

See, you are trying to have it both ways, you want to be a totalitarian while thinking of yourself as a liberal.

I don't wish to be anything of the sort. This is a straw man argument that you have made, a logical fallacy. You seem to believe in a black-and-white existence, one in which there cannot be both laws and self-determination. This is fallacious and sophomoric on your part.

Law, the application of Law, and the right to self-determine one's life, are not contradictory. There exist no end of options for those who don't like their local or national laws. Exercise them, if you don't like the way things are done here.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Leave where? You are imposing the laws in the entire nation.

Leave the entire nation.

You keep justifying totalitarianism by saying that the victims can just escape it, but you are unwilling to accept that it is totalitarianism. The question is not whether totalitarianism is justified, that's a moral judgment, but why you would support it.
Why, if you consider yourself liberal, would you insist that decisions be imposed on everyone? When I asked you this question, I really expected you to say "yeah man, states should do what they want, I believe in socialism, but you can do your thing!". That used to be the politics of the left. "Live and let live, man." Why do you reject that? For example health care should be universal, a federal program, and everyone should be forced into it. If Nebraska wants to opt out, no you can't, because us here in California are telling you over there what to do. Why?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Law, the application of Law, and the right to self-determine one's life, are not contradictory.

Nice try twisting "self-determination" into "self-determining one's life". The question is about self-determining, not about "self-determining one's life". The latter would imply that a totalitarian state has to make every decision for you in order for it to be a bad thing. The Jews in early Nazi Germany could largely self-determine their lives, so that was all cool back then.

The issue is self-determination. Everything I determine for you, you can't determine for yourself.
Universal statism necessarily contradicts self-determination.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Extreme laissaz-faire is an erroneous notion. When Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations he had two main ideas: free market and 'separation of labor' or specialization of labor. The specialization of labor means regulation. I could call myself a doctor and give you the wrong medicine and you could die and no one could sue as I am a doctor and it is a 'free market'. So there is this conflict that Adam Smith failed to recognize. I need to show that I have the qualifications of a doctor and that is regulation. There can be no 'free market' without regulation. Let us remove the traffic lights and see what happens. There would be chaos as did in Wall Street under GWB who championed de-regulation and never enforced existing regulations.
Call me me up as your doctor if you still insist on laissez-faire and I will administer my 'medicine' for any illness, doesn't matter if you die!

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Extreme laissaz-faire is an erroneous notion.

I believe the opposite: Centralization is an erroneous notion.

talk72000 wrote:

When Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations he had two main ideas: free market and 'separation of labor' or specialization of labor.

Adam Smith was a moral professor from the 1700s who hated capitalists and was in favor of government schooling. He did groundbreaking work, but it's not like everything he said is the word of Jesus.
They friggin thought the body was filled with aether back then (or something).

talk72000 wrote:

The specialization of labor means regulation. I could call myself a doctor and give you the wrong medicine and you could die and no one could sue as I am a doctor and it is a 'free market'. So there is this conflict that Adam Smith failed to recognize. I need to show that I have the qualifications of a doctor and that is regulation. There can be no 'free market' without regulation.

There can be a free market with regulation, and there should be. If you give me the wrong medicine I'll sue you (or my family if I'm dead). If the independent ratings agency rates you badly I won't come to your doctors office. It would take care of itself, and the detriments are negligible compared to the detriments of government. You know what the leading cause of unnatural death was in the last century? It wasn't bad doctors, it was government!

talk72000 wrote:

Let us remove the traffic lights and see what happens.

Yeah, let's try that! You know what happens? The traffic flows better!
Read this: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/08/spontaneous-order-on-the-road.html
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

talk72000 wrote:

There would be chaos as did in Wall Street under GWB who championed de-regulation and never enforced existing regulations.
Call me me up as your doctor if you still insist on laissez-faire and I will administer my 'medicine' for any illness, doesn't matter if you die!

Economic policy is complicated, few understand that the current recession was caused by government intervention in the economy, so it's an easy explanation to say "it was because of deregulation". It was because of government intervention. Selectively enforcing regulations is a form of intervention as well, and who did do that... the government.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Not enforcing regulations was part of that, but who did do that... the government.

Precisely, GWB and he shouldn't have been the president.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Quote:
Not enforcing regulations was part of that, but who did do that... the government.

Precisely, GWB and he shouldn't have been the president.

That's a normative statement. Broccoli shouldn't taste so bad.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

GWB was Karl Rove 'Turd Blossom's handiwork.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

GWB was Karl Rove 'Turd Blossom's handiwork.

I get it, you don't like the Ghetto White Boys.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

If you like to call them that. It is perfect! Laughing

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
That statement only serves to illustrate your own ignorance about what Jesus taught.

Oh, really? So he taught that you should:

- Hoard as much money as possible
- That greed is good
- that you should shun gays and the poor
- that you should go to war all the time
- that you should hate those who practice other religions
- that you shouldn't help people who need help
- that you should leave everyone to fend for themselves.

I think you are dead, 100% wrong, buddy, and if you stop and think about it for a minute, you will see that you are. The modern GOP doesn't follow Christian teachings in the slightest.Cycloptichorn

Please cite examples of Republicans advocating hoarding money, promoting greed, shunning gays and the poor, going to war all the time, hate others of other religions, helping those in need, or leaving everyone to fend for themselves. Please cite examples of that, cyclops. I don't think you can because I don't think there are any.

I think part of your confusion stems from the fact that you are mixing the role of personal actions vs the actions of government. To help clear up your confusion, you need to first understand that Jesus was not an activist for government action, and he was not particularly motivated by natural works or charities. He was totally and 100% involved in a spiritual work on an individual basis, to help people become better able to live responsibly for themselves rather than being helpless victims and minions of the State.

2 Replies

@okie,

Your Republicans have been taken over by Wall Street and their slush funds which they hid from government taxes. The huge payoff from leveraged loans helped them take over the American economy.

1 Reply

@okie,

Hey okie, I want to ask you something. The same as this.
Would you be in favor of every state doing their own thing instead of all doing the same nationally? So for example if they want to practice gay marriage and let in illegal aliens in other states, they can?

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know