AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Rather the emphasis seems to be on the duty of government to defend the unviolable rights of all.

Sure -- but they didn't see the right to property as unviolable. For qualifications and limits of that right, see the quotes Parados dug up.

Neither do MACs see the right to property as unviolable. But the right to hold and use one's property as one sees fit is inviolable so long as no necessary laws are broken and nobody else's Constitutional, civil, human, or legal rights are violated. So we have zoning laws governing use and necessary laws prohibiting certain activities. But you don't find anything that suggests that government should be able to take Citizen A's property in order to benefit Citizen B. Rather you do find the conviction that ALL rights and dignity--everybody's rights and dignity--must be inviolate.

There is a profound difference between a conviction that is our duty as human beings to not withhold benevolence, and violating one person's rights in order to extend benevolence to another. One is voluntary and should be encouraged as necessary in a civil and social world. The other diminishes and corrupts the world and should be encouraged by nobody.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Rather the emphasis seems to be on the duty of government to defend the unviolable rights of all.

Sure -- but they didn't see the right to property as unviolable. For qualifications and limits of that right, see the quotes Parados dug up.

I don't read Parados's posts.

A rather embarrassing admission on your part, as his writing frequently cuts right to the heart of your and other Conservative's arguments. It is hard not to believe you simply wish to avoid the incisive criticism, more than any other factor.

Cycloptichorn

Not embarrassing at all. I don't mind at all incisive criticism and encourage it and relish having the opportunity to defend my point of view or perspective against a worthy opponent. I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't know how to do that, however, who in fact refuse to do that, and who think unkind personal observations and criticisms are valid debate.

5 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Bravo Fox!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Rather the emphasis seems to be on the duty of government to defend the unviolable rights of all.

Sure -- but they didn't see the right to property as unviolable. For qualifications and limits of that right, see the quotes Parados dug up.

I don't read Parados's posts.

A rather embarrassing admission on your part, as his writing frequently cuts right to the heart of your and other Conservative's arguments. It is hard not to believe you simply wish to avoid the incisive criticism, more than any other factor.

Cycloptichorn

Not embarrassing at all. I don't mind at all incisive criticism and encourage it and relish having the opportunity to defend my point of view or perspective against a worthy opponent. I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't know how to do that, however, who in fact refuse to do that, and who think unkind personal observations and criticisms are valid debate.

Oh, I think you'll agree that we all resort to using the word 'numbnuts' or something similar, now and again, Fox. Hard to believe that you can't get past that and see a poster who presents very tight argumentation and does research on the subject.

Well, it's your call, I suppose - but you're missing out on quite a few great counter-arguments to the ones you put forward, and that can't be satisfying for you.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You sure can come up with some sugar coated bullshit.
Cyclotroll, are you a speech writer for Obama?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It's just another Foxie talking point about adhominems and her own use of them against those she disagrees with; can't see herself using it, and gets very sensitive about others using it against her - and her victim syndrome.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Zeev Sternhell at wikipedia (The report there gives some ideas about his thesis.

I've read Sternhell. That's probably where I learned that the French fascists used the "third way" slogan.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't know how to do that, however, who in fact refuse to do that, and who think unkind personal observations and criticisms are valid debate.

Hmm.. Personal observations and criticisms from Foxfyre.

We wouldn't want anyone to think that passes for valid debate, would we Fox?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

As far as I remember, this discussion started with Thomas's response to my post.

So, since I was referring to Germany, I just want to add here from our 'constitution' ("Basic Law"):

Quote:

Article 14 [Property, inheritance, expropriation]

(1) Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed. Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws.

(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

(3) Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good. It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. In case of dispute respecting the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.

Sentence (2) reflects the German history of a welfare state. This was attributed especially by the (conservative) Christian members of the "Parlamentarischer Rat" (parliamentary council).
The "Fathers of the Basic Law" included then as compromise article 15

Quote:

Article 15 [Socialization]

Land, natural resources, and means of production may for the purpose of socialization be transferred to public ownership or other forms of public enterprise by a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation. With respect to such compensation the third and fourth sentences of paragraph (3) of Article 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

The very first and only time this article was used (as a right) was recently
("Real Estate") .... by the conservatives in the government.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Rather the emphasis seems to be on the duty of government to defend the unviolable rights of all.

Sure -- but they didn't see the right to property as unviolable. For qualifications and limits of that right, see the quotes Parados dug up.

I don't read Parados's posts.

A rather embarrassing admission on your part, as his writing frequently cuts right to the heart of your and other Conservative's arguments. It is hard not to believe you simply wish to avoid the incisive criticism, more than any other factor.

Cycloptichorn

Not embarrassing at all. I don't mind at all incisive criticism and encourage it and relish having the opportunity to defend my point of view or perspective against a worthy opponent. I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't know how to do that, however, who in fact refuse to do that, and who think unkind personal observations and criticisms are valid debate.

Oh, I think you'll agree that we all resort to using the word 'numbnuts' or something similar, now and again, Fox. Hard to believe that you can't get past that and see a poster who presents very tight argumentation and does research on the subject.

Well, it's your call, I suppose - but you're missing out on quite a few great counter-arguments to the ones you put forward, and that can't be satisfying for you.

Cycloptichorn

Oh I am sure I miss a coherent point now and then, and I do regret that. But I don't regret missing posts deliberately intended to make my (or other's) experience on A2K less pleasant. My definition of 'numbnut':

1) Thinks personal insults intended to be unkind, ad hominem, or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes him/her look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny. (This does not apply to those who exchange such insults with each other. That is sometimes annoying but not offensive.)

2) Stalks members to insert insulting comments immediately after many or mosts of their posts.

3) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and/or irrelevant information, intentionally misstates the other person’s point or intent, or nitpicks one phrase, term, or word to ensure that no discussion of an interesting topic can take place.

4) Refuses to articulate a valid rebuttal or his/her rationale for a point of view but take every opportunity to discredit or dispute the person or source and/or the way that a point of view is expressed.

And yes, we have numbnuts from both the left and right. And yes, occasional incidents can be overlooked. One has to be extreme in one or more of these categories to earn the title of 'numbnut'.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't read Parados's posts.

If you won't read a quote from the site because it was Parados who quoted it, that's up to you. But it's not a good reason for me to do extra work for you.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It only has to control those who operate the business and voila!. We have a nice, comfortable, soft facist-socialist system.

When Hitler advocated that, it was called a "Third Way," neither communist or capitalist. It is instead something that takes the best of both, creating something superior. Thats their belief, not mine of course. Its called "change" by Obama. Its not change I can believe in, thats for sure.

And oe has tried his best to convince everyone this type of policy is right wing! He has since more or less given up on that apparently, on the Ruthless Dictator thread that I started. I think what we are observing right before our eyes proves this stuff is clearly leftist, although probably not outright Marxist in extreme, at least not at this point, yet.

I don't recall Hitler using that term though I do think it promoted that philosophy. Mikhail Gorbachev definitely used the term. You are correct that it is defined as something between capitalism and communism but different from either.

To be accurate, I don't think my statement says that Hitler used the term, I don't know if he did or not, I can't find a quote, but Facsism was a different path than capitalism or pure communism. Fascism has been referred to as a "third way." I extracted the following in regard to this from the following site:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

"Even before the collapse of Communism, however, Fascism still existed in Germany -- in the form of the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD). In Germany, the NPD (National Democratic Party) is widely regarded as the barely-legal successor-party to Hitler's National Socialist party. A recent interview with the chairman of that party is therefore instructive. A few excerpts follow:

"This [young Leftist] subculture possesses an anti-capitalist view of the world, and views the NPD as an instrument of Capitalism. Such a view of the NPD is fundamentally wrong, and disregards the fact that the Movement will eliminate Capitalism which is so contemptuous of humanity....

The NPD is a Movement of the People which will implement its programme of building a Third Power beyond Capitalism and Communism, thereby giving self-determination to the people.

At the centre of our struggle is mankind and Nature. Thanks to our life-giving view of the world, we stand against foreign rule and domination, against foreign penetration, exploitation and oppression. We stand for German freedom, for the freedom of peoples, for a New Social Order in both Germany and Europe.

During this phase, we must use capable intellectuals from all levels in society so as to build our ideology of a New Order beyond Capitalism and Communism.... The global threat to our nations by multi-national banks and companies working in harness with the ruling class is having a destructive effect on our peoples.

The outstanding achievements of the German social system are being more and more replaced by minimal standards."

Note the five leftist elements of NPD thinking mentioned above. He rejects the Leftist claim that the NPD is capitalist and says it is anti-capitalist [1]. He says the NPD will build a "Third Power" (Third Way [2]) between capitalism and Communism. He puts "nature" (environmentalism [3]) at the centre of his thinking. He is against "multinational banks and companies" (globalization [4]). And he regards the German social system (welfare state [5]) as an outstanding achievement. Clearly, this party does indeed reflect all of Hitler's themes and clearly it is of the Left in modern terms. And its championship of a "Third Way" makes it in fact a completely modern Leftist party, akin in that respect to the present-day British Labour party. Hitler was a modern Leftist by the standards of his day too, as his championship of eugenics showed. Awkward stuff, that history. So the NPD shows that the nationalist version of Leftism still lives. "
Also, here is an interesting Hitler quote from the site given. I have posted this link several times, but like it, it points out many many common denominators of what happened in history and what liberals want to do now.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

And this quote from the website, not a Hitler quote, but an analysis supporting my conclusion:

"And what about the conservatives of Hitler's day? Both in Germany and Britain he despised them and they despised him. Far from being an ally of Hitler or in any way sympathetic to him, Hitler's most unrelenting foe was the arch-Conservative British politician, Winston Churchill and it was a British Conservative Prime Minister (Neville Chamberlain) who eventually declared war on Hitler's Germany. Hitler found a willing ally in the Communist Stalin as long as he wanted it but at no point could he wring even neutrality out of Churchill. Not that Churchill was a saint. In 1939 Churchill exulted over the Finns "tearing the guts out of the Red Army" but, despite that, he later allied himself with Stalin. Like Mussolini, he was something of a pragmatist and saw Hitler as the biggest threat. Churchill therefore, despite his opposition to all socialist dictators, retreated eventually to the old wisdom that, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". His basic loathing for both Hitler's and Stalin's forms of socialism is, however very much a matter of record."

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't read Parados's posts.

If you won't read a quote from the site because it was Parados who quoted it, that's up to you. But it's not a good reason for me to do extra work for you.

I didn't ask you to do the work. But you are the one who brought up the site. I thought you might be able to support your assertion that it promotes the idea of confiscating property from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B. You didn't mind asking me to do the work to come up with the specific quotes I posted.

Shall we assume that you agree that the site does not support a concept of confiscating property from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B?

I provided you my opinion that the site rather quite definitely does support the values and principles of Modern American Conservatism.

1 Reply

@parados,

Foxie's problems are many including, but not limited to, ad hominems, contradictions, errors, and our not understanding what she writes. We misinterpret so much of what she writes that we wonder who's problem it is. ROFL

0 Replies

okie wrote:

To be accurate, I don't think my statement says that Hitler used the term, I don't know if he did or not, I can't find a quote, but Facsism was a different path than capitalism or pure communism. Fascism has been referred to as a "third way." I extracted the following in regard to this from the following site:

But

you wrote:

When Hitler advocated that, it was called a "Third Way," neither communist or capitalist.

That's not true. Period.

And this Dr. John Joseph Ray is your expert in German history?
Congratulations!

Your quotes are (at least it is said on that website) from 1996.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But
you wrote:

When Hitler advocated that, it was called a "Third Way," neither communist or capitalist.

That's not true. Period.

You stand by that, Walter?

Quote:

And this Dr. John Joseph Ray is your expert in German history?
Congratulations!

Your quotes are (at least it is said on that website) from 1996.

A pretty good one in my opinion, Walter. I have also just finished reading all the volumes of Time Life series of books on World War II, among other things.

Did you read the Hitler quote?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Does that sound like a Leftist or somebody on the right, Walter? Does that sound like a capitalist, or somebody that advocated another way, a third way?

0 Replies

I thought Hitler called his kind of government nazism, not fascism. I know Mussolinii called his kind of government fascism.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=nazism&x=19&y=8
Main Entry: na·zism
...
1 : the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer : German fascism

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=fascism&x=30&y=8
Main Entry: fas·cism
...
2 a : any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition b : any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control (as over others within an organization)
...

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Shall we assume that you agree that the site does not support a concept of confiscating property from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B?

I don't know why you keep repeating the word "confiscate". They certainly support the concept of the government taxing the rich to subsidize the poor. If that falls under your definition of"confiscation", Catholic Social Teaching supports confiscation for purposes of social policy.

Quote:

The quality of the national discussion about our economic future will affect the poor most of all, in this country and throughout the world. The life and dignity of millions of men, women and children hang in the balance. Decisions must be judged in light of what they do for the poor, what they do to the poor, and what they enable the poor to do for themselves. The fundamental moral criterion for all economic decisions, policies, and institutions is this: They must be at the service of all people, especially the poor.

Economic Justice for All, #24

Quote:

As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make a fundamental "option for the poor". The obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless arises from the radical command to love one's neighbor as one's self. Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all. This obligation is deeply rooted in Christian belief.

Economic Justice for All, #87

Quote:

someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (1 Jn 3:17). It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose: "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich."

On the Development of Peoples, #23

Quote:

Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertaking organized in favor of the most destitute? Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?

On the Development of Peoples, #48

Generally speaking, Catholic Social Teaching endorses income redistribution through the tax system up to an equilibrium point: Redistribute more than that, and productive people will generate too little income to redistribute. Redistribute less than that, and the poor don't get as much of an income boost as they could. Or, in the language of American conservatism, Catholic social teaching is asking government to tax at the maximum of the Laffer curve and redistribute the revenue to the poor.

2 Replies

IS HE WRONG OR IS HE RIGHT?

Wisdom circa 1778: Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee (1747 " 1813)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, "from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

OF COURSE, A DEMOCRACY THAT IS LIMITED SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT PERMIT THE VOTERS OR THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VOTERS TO VOTE THE VOTERS MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC TREASURY HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF SURVIVAL.

The USA democracy was originally a limited democracy--limited by the Constitution of the USA as constitutionally amended. Over the last 114 years, governments of the USA have been eroding those limits to the point we now have a president who, if he can, will ignore all remaining limits. If his ignoring is allowed to succeed, the USA will progress "from liberty to abundance, abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I don't know why you keep repeating the word "confiscate".

I think that might fall under definition 3 of "numbnuts".

Quote:

3) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and/or irrelevant information, intentionally misstates the other person’s point or intent, or nitpicks one phrase, term, or word to ensure that no discussion of an interesting topic can take place.

Since Fox has me on ignore, let's see if she runs with the use of "confiscate" as central to her argument.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know