AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Debra Law wrote:

Conservatives are selective, in a hypocritical manner, in the way they apply this theory of self-ownership. After all, if an individual is indeed his/her own property, and if he/she is a homosexual and wants to share his/her life in partnership with another homosexual, then it is IMMORAL for conservatives to abuse the power of the state for the purpose of depriving these individuals of dominion over their own lives.

Conservative hypocrisy is never ending.

Nonsense. These sweeping generalizations are inherently ridiculous, and I think that even you know that.

Self-important (and hypocritical) pipsqueakery appears to be contagious.

But given no circumstances of criminality or those contracts we voluntarily enter into, at face value, is it moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purpose of another?"

I'm also noting that 5 out of my 6 predictions have now been fulfilled. Boy that didn't take long did it.

I should have added a 7th: At least one person will come up with some wild accusation or ridiculous statement that he cannot support with any documentation of any kind and at least one other person will jump on board pretending that he knew all about it.

All that is left is for a MACean thinker to indicate that they did read and understand the thesis.

But given no circumstances of criminality or those contracts we voluntarily enter into, at face value, is it moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purpose of another?"

Foxfyre wrote:

But given no circumstances of criminality or those contracts we voluntarily enter into, at face value, is it moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purpose of another?"

How does adding those qualifiers not count as being evasive and probably saying that it all depends?

If you answered 'no' to Williams' original question, you would also come out against (arguably forced) rehabilitation programmes for prison inmates. But if you're now adding qualifiers, how are you not doing exactly the same that Williams accuses "your average college professor, politician or minister" of doing?

So so far not a single leftist has been willing to answer the question at face value.

Foxfyre wrote:

But given no circumstances of criminality or those contracts we voluntarily enter into, at face value, is it moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purpose of another?"

OK, now you are making an exception for the action of government and the law with respect to criminality. Are their any other such exceptions you may propose? Now that you have opened that door, there is a good distance you must travel.

Can I assume that it is the action of duly constituted criminal law that creates the distinction here? Note that it is a criminal act to evade payment of taxes, even if one believes those taxes are being wrongfully used to compel your service (and property) to be used for the purposes of others. Thus by the "criminality" standard you, yourself proposed Professor Williams' argument is moot.

Perhaps you instead mean this to apply only to "really bad" crimes and make an exception of tax laws. However, in that eventuality you have a rather formidable job to do in recasting your proposition. What does "really bad" mean? Where is the moral line there?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time for its own sake, but rather to illustrate the logical hazards of such sophistry.

I do agree that we may be approaching a degree of government-mandated wealth & property transfer that could, in some instances, yield more bad effects than good. To a large degree my view here is influenced by my own poor opinion of the practical efficacy of government in such areas. However, these are practical considerations that permit selectivity and degrees of difference -- not absolute principles.

Here's another example of conservative MORALS:

Quote:

Wal-Mart's Free Market Fallacy
Jonathan Tasini
April 21, 2005
Blah, blah, blah...

Correction: Cyclop did answer it. Yes to both questions. And then declared the subject unworthy of discussion.

So add you to the group who didn't understand the thesis either. That's cool.

So add you to the group who didn't understand the thesis either. That's cool.

Debra and Jonathan remind us that the eminent Professor Williams does not have the market for self-important pipsqueakery cornered.

I'm beginning to like that phrase....

Will we now be presented with an extended duel with quotes from opposing zealots and misguided absolutists ?

Williams teaches and lectures in the same manner that he writes. Blunt. To the point. Without equivocation. And without ambiguity. You wouldn't hire somebody who is like that you say. I cherish and value such people who are able to cut right through all the **** and get to the heart of the matter. Of course it does require considering a statement within its context instead of plucking it out and isolating it where it can be more easily attacked.

Williams knew full well and pointed out that those who do not want to answer the question at face value would want to add all kinds of ambiguity, qualifications, and dance around it and do everything in their arsenal to avoid answering it. Once you acknowledge that it is immoral to force one person to involuntarily serve another--i.e. it is immoral to make one person a slave to another--then the whole dialogue of what government's role should be changes.

And that was the thesis. And so far not one single person commenting on it has understood that.

You and Foxfyre engage in the same undeserved exercises of self-worship. While you pretend to be intellectually superior, you fail to see the obvious.