okie wrote:So if a conservative advocates certain standards to have a drivers license for the common good of drivers on the road, he could become a nazi?
okie, I was not calling Bush a Nazi or a Fascist. I gave an example that can actually be seen here on A2K, where people are as quick in calling Bush a Fascist are you are in labelling Hillary a communist.
But your example of a driver's license: I don't think that wouldn't meet the criteria, unless drivers had to give up some individual rights or freedoms.
Once again, but individual rights or freedoms I'm referring to things like your right to a due process, freedom from other people listening in on your phone conversations, freedom from discrimination based on your age, race or sex when being screened at the airport, etc. etc. etc.
I'm not sure whether or not you'd agree with me, but I would say those
are rights or freedoms of the individual (as opposed to society as a whole).
And I think that I'm correct in saying that conservatives are more willing to give them up than liberals.
Of course there are other rights that liberals are quicker to give up than conservatives are: the unabridged right to own and carry guns, the freedom from the burden of higher taxes, etc.
okie wrote:One of the primary purposes of the federal government, as specified by the constitution, is for the defense of the people, old europe. So monitoring possible terrorist communications are totally reasonable and warranted, old europe.
One of the purposes. The focus
merely on the issue of the
defense of the people is a conservative focus, though. The Constitution also states that a primary purposes is to
Quote:promote the general welfare
Yet, whenever somebody proposes measures that would possible beneficial for the society and that
would, in fact, promote the general welfare, he often times gets called a socialist or even a communist.
okie wrote:Things like shutting down tv stations, such as Hugo Chavez, is unwarranted, which he did not for defense but to squash the opposition within his own country. You use the same tactics the leftists use here, by citing the spying of communications that represent a national security threat, and frankly this has been going on a long, long time, under both Democratic and Republican administrations to protect the country. You are so totally out of balance in terms of comparison and purpose, it is utter nonsense.
I had difficulties following what you were trying to say here. But you may notice that the majority of liberals doesn't defend Chavez for restricting press freedom. Likewise, I haven't noticed the majority of conservatives defending e.g. Pinochet for having restricted press freedom in his time.
okie wrote:Hitler rose to prominence through his workers party, then the Nationalist German Socialist Party with more of a socialist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.
No, that is really utter nonsense. Hitler's party in 1920 was the
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP (German Workers' Party). The reason why it was called the "workers" party was to distinguish it from the parties that pandered to the middle class rather than for following some socialist doctrines. In fact, the original founders of the party wanted it to be in touch with the common people (hence "workers") and nationalist.
It later changed its name to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party) in order to emphasize the nationalist part of it even more. Several "Worker's Parties" existed at that time though, and they covered all of the political spectrum (all of them trying to reach, yes, the downtrodden, the masses).
In order to deal with the contradiction between nationalism and socialism, Hitler redefined those terms: Nationalism was to be the unconditional commitment of the individual for his country; Socialism was the responsibility of the country for the safety and well-being of the individual.
okie wrote:Calling him a right wing conservative in the same vein as that of American conservatism is utter nonsense in my opinion.
It doesn't make too much sense. Likewise, calling Stalin a liberal in the sense of American liberalism (or vice versa, calling liberals Stalinists) is really just utter nonsense.
okie wrote:I think he was merely a different brand of left wing extremist than those he was opposing.
There is no need to guess, okie. Here is the 25 point manifesto from the NSDAP from 1920 (simplified version):
Quote:The 25 points of the Program of the NSDAP (German Nazi Party) adopted February 1920:
1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Greater Germany.
2. We demand the end of the Treaty of Versailles.
3. We demand colonies for settling our surplus population.
4. Only those of German blood can be citizens. No Jew, therefore, can be a member of the nation.
5. Any non-citizen may live in Germany only as a guest, following special legislation for foreigners.
6. Only citizens can vote.
7. The first duty of the State is to promote the well-being of its citizens. If it is not possible to nourish all the people, then non-citizens are to be deported.
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be restricted. All non-Germans who came into Germany after August 2, 1914, shall be deported at once.
9. All citizens of the State shall enjoy equal rights and duties.
10. The first duty of each Citizen must be to work, either manually, or mentally. The work of the individual must not be against the interests of the nation. Rather, the work of the individual must be to the benefit of the community.
11. Payments to the unemployed are to be abolished.
12. We demand that all war profits be taken over by the State.
13. We demand that the State take over all large businesses, such as trusts.
14. We demand profit sharing in large concerns.
15. The pension system (pensions due to old age) should be extended.
16. We want a healthy middle class of society. We also want the state to specially foster small businesses.
17. We demand land reform.
18. We demand a ruthless struggle against profiteers, who must be punished with death.
19. We demand that the Roman law be replaced by German law.
20. We demand that our whole system of education be revised.
21. The State must provide for improvement of public health by protecting mothers and children, ending child labor, and supporting health education for the young.
22. We demand the formation of a national army.
23. We demand laws against purposeful political lies and the spreading of those lies in the press.
24. We demand religious freedom, in so far as any religion does not work against the state.
25. To carry out these demands we call for the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. The leaders of the party promise that they will fight, if necessary to their death, for the implementation of this program.
okie wrote:I realize this does not fit with intelligentsia's take on it, but thats the way I see it.
This statement of yours bothers me the most. You are essentially saying that you are not going to consider the interpretation of original sources offered by others, but you are to lazy to read up on the original sources yourself. There are tons of sources out there, but you choose to not use the information available.
Instead you are second-guessing what
might have been the ideology of Hitler or the Nazi party, or what the name of the NSDAP could possibly have meant. You are making wild guesses, while you already know what your conclusion is going to be: that whatever evil regime or ideology that ever existed is closer to liberalism than to conservatism.
