Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conservatives, the True Champions of Freedom?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 5:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Once upon a time in New Deal America Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand and enhance our conception of what's covered by that easy to invoke but not always so simple to interpret word "freedom". To a nation suffering the catastrophic consequences of the type of laissez-faire freedom enjoyed and abused by capitalists and financiers he promulgated the socially and morally liberating gospel of the Four Freedoms, enlarging the meaning of the word to include freedom from want and fear. Quite simply, FDR helped head us on the path to a society in which man's freedom would no longer be conceived of as merely the cavemanly freedom to beat his wife and children without interference, or to economically beat down his workers. But apparently conservatives and "libertarians" didn't get history's memo to the effect that the ideal they idolize was taking on some new and ethically enlightened existential dimensions. Mm-hmm, here we are, in the first decades of the allegedly advanced 21st century and the minds of rightists still remain entrenched in a downright paleo conception of laissez-faire liberty that wrongheadedly sets it against civil liberty and human liberation.

Well, the question is does the conservative concept of freedom even have sufficient depth that we can take the libertarian pretensions of its proponents at all seriously? In other words, should we really buy that the folks on the starboard side of the ole political spectrum are genuinely all about freedom, all about valuing and protecting and promoting it? Let's take a critical look.

1) Well, does the conservative voluntarily and forthrightly come to terms with the increasing recognition of the civil freedoms of homosexuals? That is, are rightists ready and willing and ideologically able to grant gays full freedom of self-expression; including, for instance, freedom against the discrimination that homophobic landlords claim a bogus prerogative to practice; or the civil right to have their love validated by being allowed to marry? Or is it in fact the case that a great many conservatives stand foursquare against extending certain basic civil liberties to LGBTers?

2) Do conservatives unequivocally recognize and acknowledge the right of women to enjoy freedom from harassment in the workplace? Or, rather, do conservatives pooh-pooh sexual harassment and take up for the alleged right of boorish bosses to inflict their "political incorrectness" and lecherousness on female workers with virtual impunity? That is, when it comes to issues such as sexual harassment is the conservative's sense of freedom such as to inspire a progressive stance, or such as to desensitize him to social injustices?

3) Well, the question we're getting at is does the conservative turn freedom into an inhuman and inhumane absolute, with a narrow scope of application, and inadequately tempered with a sense of other values such as justice, equality, and inclusiveness. For instance, do folks on the right embrace the compassionate consciousness codified in civil rights legislation; or, do they seek to justify their resistance to doing so by wrapping themselves in the Constitution, by taking refuge in the shtick of being a "strict constitutionalist " who can nobly oppose expanding civil liberties on the grounds that the 18th-century slave owners who drew up our supreme legal document didn't stipulate the rights of racial minorities?

4) Are conservatives on board with the movement to liberate working-class men and women of all colors and cultural backgrounds from a condition of social and economic unfreedom? From the dictatorship of the workplace, the tyranny of capital, and the power of the plutocracy? Or, do they in point of fact take the opposite position of defending the faux right of capitalists and corporations to shaft workers and shortchange consumers as they see fit? Hmm? Well, we all know the answer, so I'll simply ask my pointed question, what kind of champions of freedom are conservatives if by freedom they tacitly mean not the liberation of human beings but rather merely the liberation of firms from any form of regulation designed to rein in their propensity to pursue profits in a malfeasant fashion?

5) Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties? And doesn't this point up the disillusioning truth that a great many rightists are in fact only interested in social dominance and exploit and distort the concept of freedom to facilitate their pursuit or expression of it. Well, historically the conservative concept of freedom has quite consistently functioned to justify allowing the possessors of social dominance to retain their licence to discriminate and oppress. For instance, civil rights were opposed on the grounds that granting blacks the right to dine at a lunch counter operated by a bigoted proprietor infringed his freedom to pick and choose his customers! Mm-hmm, it may seem somewhat paradoxical, but conservatives have demonstrated quite the pronounced penchant for opposing freedom under the cover of touting it. And this is precisely what they once again seem to be doing in the case of abortion, i.e. seeking to take a freedom away from women in the name of protecting the freedom of fetuses from termination.

6) And what about freedom from want and fear, do conservatives advocate a social safety net to ensure our freedom from these particular evils? Is such freedom included in the conservative's definition of the word? Or is conservatism an increasingly unabashed force for the aggressive destruction of our society's social safety net?

7) And speaking of our right to live free from fear, are conservatives in favor of the kind of gun legislation needed to at long last bestow freedom from the fear of gun violence upon us? Or are they, rather, the ones adamantly blocking the realization of that particular social freedom? The ones condemning the residents of poor neighborhoods to being routinely terrorized by assault rifle-armed gangbangers? The ones forcing us all to live in fear of the possibility that the next Columbine or Sandy Hook will take place in our child's place of learning? The ones who prioritize the rights of gun manufacturers and nuts over our right to public safety and freedom from physical fear?

8) And, to opponents of the soda ban, perhaps you care a good deal about the alleged freedom of the soda industry and the commercial purveyors of other unhealthy beverages and foods to profiteer to the detriment of public health, but wouldn't being authentic champions of freedom enjoin you to side with those seeking to unplug us from the corporate junk and fast food matrix, as it were, that we've all had our dietary preferences and eating habits programmed by? Or in the name of being pro-"free market" and "individual rights" would you in fact leave us all dangerously plugged into a lifestyle that's a byproduct of our unhealthily-oriented consumerist-capitalist culture and conducive to ever higher levels of unfreedom from obesity, heart disease, and diabetes?

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 5:49:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conclusion

I could go on, but I'm quite sure that I've made my point fairly thoroughly. The conservative concept of freedom is simply too stunted, too superficial, and too profoundly skewed in the wrong direction of serving as a justification for our society's asymmetrical distribution of empowerment, justice, and well-being. In fact conservatives have not much of a feel for the human, moral, and spiritual meaning of freedom at all. To them it's not much more than a crude worship word (yes, that's a Star Trek reference), one that they claim to cherish but demonstrate minimal comprehension of. Oh sure, being lovers of freedom serves them quite well as an ideological pose and masque, but alas there's abysmally little real social intelligence and wisdom behind their libertarian posturing.

So, to sum up and answer my original question, should we give any credence to the conservative's claim that he's all about freedom?, no, to do so would be too generous and dangerously naive. Taking political adversaries at the face value of their self-validating PR might seem cordial, shall we say, but critical honesty is the better policy if we wish to understand and deal with rightists in a constructive fashion.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 11:55:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, I thought that this one belongs in the History section because it's a tiny effort to set the historical record straight about the dishonest libertarian persona of modern American rightists.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 12:21:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 5:48:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
1) Well, does the conservative voluntarily and forthrightly come to terms with the increasing recognition of the civil freedoms of homosexuals? That is, are rightists ready and willing and ideologically able to grant gays full freedom of self-expression; including, for instance, freedom against the discrimination that homophobic landlords claim a bogus prerogative to practice; or the civil right to have their love validated by being allowed to marry? Or is it in fact the case that a great many conservatives stand foursquare against extending certain basic civil liberties to LGBTers?

Reductio ad absurdum.

2) Do conservatives unequivocally recognize and acknowledge the right of women to enjoy freedom from harassment in the workplace? Or, rather, do conservatives pooh-pooh sexual harassment and take up for the alleged right of boorish bosses to inflict their "political incorrectness" and lecherousness on female workers with virtual impunity? That is, when it comes to issues such as sexual harassment is the conservative's sense of freedom such as to inspire a progressive stance, or such as to desensitize him to social injustices?

Reductio ad absurdum.

3) Well, the question we're getting at is does the conservative turn freedom into an inhuman and inhumane absolute, with a narrow scope of application, and inadequately tempered with a sense of other values such as justice, equality, and inclusiveness. For instance, do folks on the right embrace the compassionate consciousness codified in civil rights legislation; or, do they seek to justify their resistance to doing so by wrapping themselves in the Constitution, by taking refuge in the shtick of being a "strict constitutionalist " who can nobly oppose expanding civil liberties on the grounds that the 18th-century slave owners who drew up our supreme legal document didn't stipulate the rights of racial minorities?

Reductio ad absurdum.

4) Are conservatives on board with the movement to liberate working-class men and women of all colors and cultural backgrounds from a condition of social and economic unfreedom? From the dictatorship of the workplace, the tyranny of capital, and the power of the plutocracy? Or, do they in point of fact take the opposite position of defending the faux right of capitalists and corporations to shaft workers and shortchange consumers as they see fit? Hmm?

Reductio ad absurdum.

5) Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties?

Reductio ad absurdum.

6) And what about freedom from want and fear, do conservatives advocate a social safety net to ensure our freedom from these particular evils? Is such freedom included in the conservative's definition of the word? Or is conservatism an increasingly unabashed force for the aggressive destruction of our society's social safety net?

7) And speaking of our right to live free from fear, are conservatives in favor of the kind of gun legislation needed to at long last bestow freedom from the fear of gun violence upon us? Or are they, rather, the ones adamantly blocking the realization of that particular social freedom? The ones condemning the residents of poor neighborhoods to being routinely terrorized by assault rifle-armed gangbangers? The ones forcing us all to live in fear of the possibility that the next Columbine or Sandy Hook will take place in our child's place of learning? The ones who prioritize the rights of gun manufacturers and nuts over our right to public safety and freedom from physical fear?

Reductio ad absurdum.

8) And, to opponents of the soda ban, perhaps you care a good deal about the alleged freedom of the soda industry and the commercial purveyors of other unhealthy beverages and foods to profiteer to the detriment of public health, but wouldn't being authentic champions of freedom enjoin you to side with those seeking to unplug us from the corporate junk and fast food matrix, as it were, that we've all had our dietary preferences and eating habits programmed by? Or in the name of being pro-"free market" and "individual rights" would you in fact leave us all dangerously plugged into a lifestyle that's a byproduct of our unhealthily-oriented consumerist-capitalist culture and conducive to ever higher levels of unfreedom from obesity, heart disease, and diabetes?

Reductio ad absurdum.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 12:21:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 5:48:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
1) Well, does the conservative voluntarily and forthrightly come to terms with the increasing recognition of the civil freedoms of homosexuals? That is, are rightists ready and willing and ideologically able to grant gays full freedom of self-expression; including, for instance, freedom against the discrimination that homophobic landlords claim a bogus prerogative to practice; or the civil right to have their love validated by being allowed to marry? Or is it in fact the case that a great many conservatives stand foursquare against extending certain basic civil liberties to LGBTers?

Reductio ad absurdum.

2) Do conservatives unequivocally recognize and acknowledge the right of women to enjoy freedom from harassment in the workplace? Or, rather, do conservatives pooh-pooh sexual harassment and take up for the alleged right of boorish bosses to inflict their "political incorrectness" and lecherousness on female workers with virtual impunity? That is, when it comes to issues such as sexual harassment is the conservative's sense of freedom such as to inspire a progressive stance, or such as to desensitize him to social injustices?

Reductio ad absurdum.

3) Well, the question we're getting at is does the conservative turn freedom into an inhuman and inhumane absolute, with a narrow scope of application, and inadequately tempered with a sense of other values such as justice, equality, and inclusiveness. For instance, do folks on the right embrace the compassionate consciousness codified in civil rights legislation; or, do they seek to justify their resistance to doing so by wrapping themselves in the Constitution, by taking refuge in the shtick of being a "strict constitutionalist " who can nobly oppose expanding civil liberties on the grounds that the 18th-century slave owners who drew up our supreme legal document didn't stipulate the rights of racial minorities?

Reductio ad absurdum.

4) Are conservatives on board with the movement to liberate working-class men and women of all colors and cultural backgrounds from a condition of social and economic unfreedom? From the dictatorship of the workplace, the tyranny of capital, and the power of the plutocracy? Or, do they in point of fact take the opposite position of defending the faux right of capitalists and corporations to shaft workers and shortchange consumers as they see fit? Hmm?

Reductio ad absurdum.

5) Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties?

Reductio ad absurdum.

6) And what about freedom from want and fear, do conservatives advocate a social safety net to ensure our freedom from these particular evils? Is such freedom included in the conservative's definition of the word? Or is conservatism an increasingly unabashed force for the aggressive destruction of our society's social safety net?

Reductio ad absurdum.

7) And speaking of our right to live free from fear, are conservatives in favor of the kind of gun legislation needed to at long last bestow freedom from the fear of gun violence upon us? Or are they, rather, the ones adamantly blocking the realization of that particular social freedom? The ones condemning the residents of poor neighborhoods to being routinely terrorized by assault rifle-armed gangbangers? The ones forcing us all to live in fear of the possibility that the next Columbine or Sandy Hook will take place in our child's place of learning? The ones who prioritize the rights of gun manufacturers and nuts over our right to public safety and freedom from physical fear?

Reductio ad absurdum.

8) And, to opponents of the soda ban, perhaps you care a good deal about the alleged freedom of the soda industry and the commercial purveyors of other unhealthy beverages and foods to profiteer to the detriment of public health, but wouldn't being authentic champions of freedom enjoin you to side with those seeking to unplug us from the corporate junk and fast food matrix, as it were, that we've all had our dietary preferences and eating habits programmed by? Or in the name of being pro-"free market" and "individual rights" would you in fact leave us all dangerously plugged into a lifestyle that's a byproduct of our unhealthily-oriented consumerist-capitalist culture and conducive to ever higher levels of unfreedom from obesity, heart disease, and diabetes?

Reductio ad absurdum.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 12:22:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems that I double posted by accident. Whoops!
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 1:29:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 12:22:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
It seems that I double posted by accident. Whoops!

Now would you perhaps care to genuinely engage the topic and post something substantive?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 3:15:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 1:29:06 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 12:22:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
It seems that I double posted by accident. Whoops!

Now would you perhaps care to genuinely engage the topic and post something substantive?

Perhaps your lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of your undeliberated and selective options, and my egoistic mentality (the view that private ownership is the natural political and economic result of scarcity that only seems evil because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into the idea that resources and work equality are somehow owed to them; i.e., that hip-hip-hippie egalitarianism for every human, whether psychologically, psychically, or mentally inferior is some sort of universal, transhistorical right and that draining undeserved power and money from the productive folks likewise hinges on the same homogenizing abstraction) is too radical for communists to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against? Well, perhaps time will tell.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 6:58:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) Well, does the conservative voluntarily and forthrightly come to terms with the increasing recognition of the civil freedoms of homosexuals? That is, are rightists ready and willing and ideologically able to grant gays full freedom of self-expression; including, for instance, freedom against the discrimination that homophobic landlords claim a bogus prerogative to practice; or the civil right to have their love validated by being allowed to marry?

A true rightist is not a neocon, it is a libertarian or anarchist, both of whom think the government should not define marriage to start, so reductio ad absurdum.

2) Do conservatives unequivocally recognize and acknowledge the right of women to enjoy freedom from harassment in the workplace? Or, rather, do conservatives pooh-pooh sexual harassment and take up for the alleged right of boorish bosses to inflict their "political incorrectness" and lecherousness on female workers with virtual impunity? That is, when it comes to issues such as sexual harassment is the conservative's sense of freedom such as to inspire a progressive stance, or such as to desensitize him to social injustices?

Well, if you subtract your Tu quoque arguments, then this loses the little substance it has. I agree with outlawing sexual harassment, but I think that a man asking another woman out in the workplace, or hitting on the woman is fine and will not degrade the woman. Now if the man is physically trying to come on to the woman or physically expressing his liking for her without her consent, that is sexual harassment.

3) Well, the question we're getting at is does the conservative turn freedom into an inhuman and inhumane absolute, with a narrow scope of application, and inadequately tempered with a sense of other values such as justice, equality, and inclusiveness. For instance, do folks on the right embrace the compassionate consciousness codified in civil rights legislation; or, do they seek to justify their resistance to doing so by wrapping themselves in the Constitution, by taking refuge in the shtick of being a "strict constitutionalist " who can nobly oppose expanding civil liberties on the grounds that the 18th-century slave owners who drew up our supreme legal document didn't stipulate the rights of racial minorities?

Tu quoque. but if you want to use Tu quoque then you're aiming at the wrong crowd, the democrats were the extreme racist who said we should not let go of the 3/5th's compromise under the guise of being 'strict constitutionalists', of course the 3/5th's compromise was taken out, it defied another more significant article in the constitution, one's right to 'liberty' and 'the pursuit of happiness'

4) Are conservatives on board with the movement to liberate working-class men and women of all colors and cultural backgrounds from a condition of social and economic unfreedom? From the dictatorship of the workplace, the tyranny of capital, and the power of the plutocracy? Or, do they in point of fact take the opposite position of defending the faux right of capitalists and corporations to shaft workers and shortchange consumers as they see fit? Hmm? Well, we all know the answer, so I'll simply ask my pointed question, what kind of champions of freedom are conservatives if by freedom they tacitly mean not the liberation of human beings but rather merely the liberation of firms from any form of regulation designed to rein in their propensity to pursue profits in a malfeasant fashion?

I would first like to point out that you earlier mentioned how a sophist who tries to argue a point, no matter how valid it is, his argument should be inferior because it is identified as sophism. This would definitely apply to your argument here. Can it not be argued that a free market with the government intervening as a third party on worker's rights would have the same effect as a communism, except in this case people get to keep their property and their freedom. :)

5) Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties? And doesn't this point up the disillusioning truth that a great many rightists are in fact only interested in social dominance and exploit and distort the concept of freedom to facilitate their pursuit or expression of it. Well, historically the conservative concept of freedom has quite consistently functioned to justify allowing the possessors of social dominance to retain their licence to discriminate and oppress. For instance, civil rights were opposed on the grounds that granting blacks the right to dine at a lunch counter operated by a bigoted proprietor infringed his freedom to pick and choose his customers! Mm-hmm, it may seem somewhat paradoxical, but conservatives have demonstrated quite the pronounced penchant for opposing freedom under the cover of touting it. And this is precisely what they once again seem to be doing in the case of abortion, i.e. seeking to take a freedom away from women in the name of protecting the freedom of fetuses from termination.

Well, once again, you ramble on about how a sophists argument should not be taken seriously, you are a sophist if I have ever seen one. If the fetus is considered a live human being, are we or are we not denying that fetus the right to life by letting a woman kill it?
6) And what about freedom from want and fear, do conservatives advocate a social safety net to ensure our freedom from these particular evils? Is such freedom included in the conservative's definition of the word? Or is conservatism an increasingly unabashed force for the aggressive destruction of our society's social safety net?

What if people could pay in to their own social safety net without the government unequally distributing the money, more freedom!

7) And speaking of our right to live free from fear, are conservatives in favor of the kind of gun legislation needed to at long last bestow freedom from the fear of gun violence upon us? Or are they, rather, the ones adamantly blocking the realization of that particular social freedom? The ones condemning the residents of poor neighborhoods to being routinely terrorized by assault rifle-armed gangbangers? The ones forcing us all to live in fear of the possibility that the next Columbine or Sandy Hook will take place in our child's place of learning? The ones who prioritize the rights of gun manufacturers and nuts over our right to public safety and freedom from physical fear?

I think by allowing people to defend themselves from criminals (who will have the guns anyways), they are giving more freedom from fear than confiscating the guns and leaving the law-abiding citizenry defenseless. :)
8) And, to opponents of the soda ban, perhaps you care a good deal about the alleged freedom of the soda industry and the commercial purveyors of other unhealthy beverages and foods to profiteer to the detriment of public health, but wouldn't bethe corporate junk and fast food matrix, as it were, that we've all had our dietary preferences and eating habits programmed by? Or in the name of being pro-"free market" and "individual rights" would you in fact leave us all dangerously plugged into a lifestyle that's a byproduct of our unhealthily-oriented consumerist-capitalist culture and conducive to ever higher levels of unfreedom from obesity, heart disease, and diabetes?

Why not give them the freedom to choose if they want to have the disease? It's not effecting you or me if they decide to consume these beverages, is it?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 3:14:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 3:15:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/15/2013 1:29:06 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 12:22:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
It seems that I double posted by accident. Whoops!

Now would you perhaps care to genuinely engage the topic and post something substantive?

Perhaps your lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of your undeliberated and selective options,

"Undeliberated", no. "Selective", you're darn tootn', I'm certainly no relativist who thinks that all options are created equal. (Yes, not being a relativist or perspectivist is one of the little ways that I don't fit your stereotyping profile of leftists.)

and my egoistic mentality

Good, the first step is indeed admitting that you have a problem

(the view that private ownership is the natural political and economic result of scarcity that only seems evil because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into the idea that resources and work equality are somehow owed to them; i.e., that hip-hip-hippie egalitarianism for every human, whether psychologically, psychically, or mentally inferior is some sort of universal, transhistorical right and that draining undeserved power and money from the productive folks likewise hinges on the same homogenizing abstraction) is too radical for communists to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against?...

Well, your ideological POV is hardly radical. Rather, it's classically rightist and reactionary.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 4:45:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 6:58:17 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

A true rightist is not a neocon,

The no true Scotsman fallacy, right off the bat! You're merely trying to invalidate my critique by denying that rightists with whom you have philosophical differences are true rightists.

... it is a libertarian or anarchist, both of whom think the government should not define marriage to start, so reductio ad absurdum.

Again, I point out that you're merely trying to restrict the definition of a conservative to libertarian-type conservatives, when in fact the conservative movement is more diverse than that. Yes, even I recognize that although there are certain fundamental common psychological denominators among rightists, they do indeed have their differences of opinion. At any rate, you're certainly entitled to personally disidentify with conservatives whose conservatism diverges from your own ideological variant; however, no, you don't get to speak for and disown them from the conservative camp.

Well, if you subtract your Tu quoque arguments, then this loses the little substance it has. I agree with outlawing sexual harassment, but I think that a man asking another woman out in the workplace, or hitting on the woman is fine and will not degrade the woman...

Equating merely asking a woman out with sexual harassment is something that conservatives are much more given to imagining leftists doing than it is an error that leftists are genuinely prone to. Well, it really, and quite clearly, amounts to a sort of strawmanning to make the debate about sexual harassment about a man's right to invite a female coworker out on a date.

Tu quoque. but if you want to use Tu quoque then you're aiming at the wrong crowd, the democrats were the extreme racist who said we should not let go of the 3/5th's compromise under the guise of being 'strict constitutionalists', of course the 3/5th's compromise was taken out, it defied another more significant article in the constitution, one's right to 'liberty' and 'the pursuit of happiness'

Well, now you're no longer talking about modern Democrats. You're falling away from arguing in good faith here. Not only is it counterproductive, it's quite weak.

I would first like to point out that you earlier mentioned how a sophist who tries to argue a point, no matter how valid it is, his argument should be inferior because it is identified as sophism. This would definitely apply to your argument here. Can it not be argued that a free market with the government intervening as a third party on worker's rights would have the same effect as a communism, except in this case people get to keep their property and their freedom.

Well, if the government engages in a sufficient amount of economic and social interventionism we have socialism, which of course I'm all in favor of as a stage in our evolution toward a more equitable, and an ultimately stateless socioeconomic form of life, i.e. authentic "communism". But apparently you're somewhat attached to the concept of private ownership and would be unwilling to go the whole distance to anything that might fit the bill of "communism". Oh well ...

Well, once again, you ramble on about how a sophists argument should not be taken seriously, you are a sophist if I have ever seen one.

Not so, a sophist doesn't have a sincere viewpoint.

If the fetus is considered a live human being, are we or are we not denying that fetus the right to life by letting a woman kill it?

Pro-choice leftists don't view the fetus as a human being. And rightists, whose positions actually don't evidence much ethical and social caring about already-born "live human beings", i.e. who lack the compassion to be genuinely coming from a place of pro-life imperatives, are also not honestly concerned about the right to life of fetuses (again, I'll point out that conservatives merely exploit the abortion issue as a gambit to take the moral high ground in the "culture war", which is not a crusade for wholesomeness, family values, and the rights of the "unborn" but rather a struggle for social and political power). So, for both sides the question of the status and rights of fetuses doesn't even enter into the issue.

What if people could pay in to their own social safety net without the government unequally distributing the money, more freedom!

The premise of your question is wrongheaded. That is, it's capitalism that accounts for the real and grievous inequities of our society, not "government unequally distributing money" to capitalism's casualties. Mm-hmm, it's the inherent tendency of capitalism to generate income inequality that needs to be faced and addressed, not whatever difficulties you see with funding the social safety net through taxation. (Btw, the only legitimate issue that one might have with funding the social safety net through taxation is the fact that the large corporations and economic elite whose behavior forces so many folks into the ole social safety net certainly aren't shouldering their fair share of the tax burden.)

I think by allowing people to defend themselves from criminals (who will have the guns anyways), they are giving more freedom from fear than confiscating the guns and leaving the law-abiding citizenry defenseless.

KISS (keep it simple stupid), possessing the firepower to commit crimes emboldens and empowers the "bad guys" to terrorize the law-abiding masses. Any arguments to the contrary are merely the rationalization of the aberrant American mindset about guns. Conservatives, by being a force for perpetuating the easy availability of firearms and our society's resulting high homicide rates, are quite the perverse opposite of champions of our freedom from fear.

Why not give them the freedom to choose if they want to have the disease?

That's hardly a pro-life attitude. And, btw, people who wind up disabled from diabetes or heart disease hardly get to enjoy a great deal of freedom. Mm-hmm, just another way that the corporatocracy (whose fast and junk food-pushing members are largely responsible for the epidemic of obesity and clogged arteries) deprives us of our freedom.

It's not effecting you or me if they decide to consume these beverages, is it?

Well, I know that the following runs contrary to your "libertarian" way of thinking, but: "No man is an isand, entire of itself; ... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind". I would also point out that the correct answer to the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" is supposed to be yes.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 6:00:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties? And doesn't this point up the disillusioning truth that a great many rightists are in fact only interested in social dominance and exploit and distort the concept of freedom to facilitate their pursuit or expression of it. "

I would disagree with you that the abortion issue is somehow a symbol of some deeper issue. I think right-wingers are against abortion because they genuinely believe a fetus is a person, and the abortion of a fetus would be murder. Claiming that right-wingers are against abortion because they are against civil liberties doesn't really speak to why they are against abortion. The fountainhead for this conservative viewpoint is that they genuinely think abortion is murder, and it's silly to claim murder falls under "civil liberties."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 6:53:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 6:00:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties? And doesn't this point up the disillusioning truth that a great many rightists are in fact only interested in social dominance and exploit and distort the concept of freedom to facilitate their pursuit or expression of it. "

I would disagree with you that the abortion issue is somehow a symbol of some deeper issue. I think right-wingers are against abortion because they genuinely believe a fetus is a person, and the abortion of a fetus would be murder.

In many of the cases of individuals with a real passion for championing the "rights of the unborn" we're merely witnessing the oft-remarked tendency that human beings have to buy into their own propaganda and stances; to engage in activism with conscious sincerity while in actuality being driven by the will to express social dominance.

Claiming that right-wingers are against abortion because they are against civil liberties doesn't really speak to why they are against abortion.

Conservatives are against abortion because 1) It's a moralistic (that's moralistic, not moral) issue and there's a distinct and significantly defining moralistic bent to their psyches, i.e. they like to enjoy the illusion that they're morally superior and viewing themselves as the party of life allows them to do so. 2) It's a traditional stance, and conservatives are, as the name would suggest, into conserving traditional mores, even when "traditional" is merely a euphemism for backward & benighted. 3) Liberals and leftists are for a woman's right to choose. Many conservatives have a sufficiently partisan mentality that they're inclined to oppose something merely because those on the other side of the ideological divide favor it. 4) Those religious rightists who are staunchly anti-abortion have done a very effective job of promoting their take on the issue among their fellow conservatives. To the point that conservatives these days are anti-choice simply because it's the de rigueur position for them. Etc.

The fountainhead for this conservative viewpoint is that they genuinely think abortion is murder, and it's silly to claim murder falls under "civil liberties."

I refer you to my above comments about succumbing to belief in one's own ideological professions and pretensions.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 7:13:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is one giant, morally subjective, generalized ad hominem.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 7:25:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fallacy here is simple. Libertarians are not conservatives, and people don't always adhere to a strict ideology. Some libertarians are pro choice, some are pro life. Some who in many ways are libertarian may support the civil rights act (myself). There are conservatives who are okay with same sex marriage, etc.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 7:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 6:53:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 6:00:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties? And doesn't this point up the disillusioning truth that a great many rightists are in fact only interested in social dominance and exploit and distort the concept of freedom to facilitate their pursuit or expression of it. "

I would disagree with you that the abortion issue is somehow a symbol of some deeper issue. I think right-wingers are against abortion because they genuinely believe a fetus is a person, and the abortion of a fetus would be murder.

In many of the cases of individuals with a real passion for championing the "rights of the unborn" we're merely witnessing the oft-remarked tendency that human beings have to buy into their own propaganda and stances; to engage in activism with conscious sincerity while in actuality being driven by the will to express social dominance.

Claiming that right-wingers are against abortion because they are against civil liberties doesn't really speak to why they are against abortion.

Conservatives are against abortion because 1) It's a moralistic (that's moralistic, not moral) issue and there's a distinct and significantly defining moralistic bent to their psyches, i.e. they like to enjoy the illusion that they're morally superior and viewing themselves as the party of life allows them to do so. 2) It's a traditional stance, and conservatives are, as the name would suggest, into conserving traditional mores, even when "traditional" is merely a euphemism for backward & benighted. 3) Liberals and leftists are for a woman's right to choose. Many conservatives have a sufficiently partisan mentality that they're inclined to oppose something merely because those on the other side of the ideological divide favor it. 4) Those religious rightists who are staunchly anti-abortion have done a very effective job of promoting their take on the issue among their fellow conservatives. To the point that conservatives these days are anti-choice simply because it's the de rigueur position for them. Etc.

The fountainhead for this conservative viewpoint is that they genuinely think abortion is murder, and it's silly to claim murder falls under "civil liberties."

I refer you to my above comments about succumbing to belief in one's own ideological professions and pretensions.

It's not merely a matter of choice, to them. If there was an issue in which the stake was the murder of millions a year, I would be "anti-choice," as would you. It's futile to argue against the conservatives claiming that choice trumps their conviction, because their conviction is that innocent people are being murdered. The only way to effectively address this is to dispel the mystical drivel that a fetus is a human being -- otherwise your position to them is completely loony.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 8:06:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 7:25:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The fallacy here is simple. Libertarians are not conservatives, and people don't always adhere to a strict ideology. Some libertarians are pro choice, some are pro life. Some who in many ways are libertarian may support the civil rights act (myself). There are conservatives who are okay with same sex marriage, etc.

You support the whole thing? I believe most libertarians support the majority of it, just not the parts which don't allow business' to be racist.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 10:28:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To a nation suffering the catastrophic consequences of the type of laissez-faire freedom enjoyed and abused by capitalists and financiers
I'm sorry, that nation did not exist in the 1930s. Or anywhere else, but especially not in the 1930s, well after Hoover's interventionism, not to mention the Progressive era of "trustbusting" (calculatedly knocking out pillars from an economy and waiting for it to fall).

, enlarging the meaning of the word to include freedom from want and fear.
And thereby destroying the concept by rendering it something that could not possibly exist, especially in the fascist nation of Roosevelt, complete with concentration camps for people too yellow-looking, a full wartime regimentation of the economy, and seizure of gold from anyone not a member of a dental guild.

1) Well, does the conservative voluntarily and forthrightly come to terms with the increasing recognition of the civil freedoms of homosexuals?
No, but the libertarian is quite fine leaving homosexuals to the same devices they'd leave heterosexuals to, quit conflating the two. Conservatives support socialized marriage for some silly reason.

That is, are rightists ready and willing and ideologically able to grant gays full freedom of self-expression; including, for instance, freedom against the discrimination that homophobic landlords claim a bogus prerogative to practice
Freedom AGAINST freedom of association is doublespeak nonsense.

or the civil right to have their love validated by being allowed to marry?
You have no right to a dime of tax dollars subsidizing your marriage institution, no matter who you want to marry. Conservatives, alas, are guiltier than liberals in this regard.

2) Do conservatives unequivocally recognize and acknowledge the right of women to enjoy freedom from harassment in the workplace
Freedom FROM freedom of speech is doublespeak nonsense.

Or, rather, do conservatives pooh-pooh sexual harassment and take up for the alleged right of boorish bosses to inflict their "political incorrectness" and lecherousness on female workers with virtual impunity
On workers? No, just on workplaces. It's the workers rightful decision whether they want a part of that workplace. And the shareholder's rightful decision whether they want to hire such a manager.

3) Well, the question we're getting at is does the conservative turn freedom into an inhuman and inhumane absolute,
By which you mean a human absolute, an absolute suited for the sort of rational animals I call humans and you think mythological cyborgs.

justice, equality,
Contradiction.

For instance, do folks on the right embrace the compassionate consciousness codified in civil rights legislation; or, do they seek to justify their resistance to doing so by wrapping themselves in the Constitution, by taking refuge in the shtick of being a "strict constitutionalist
How about taking refuge in the equal rights of racists to association and property. You don't have to like racists to not be a goddamn fascist and expropriate them for your purposes.

4) Are conservatives on board with the movement to liberate working-class men and women of all colors and cultural backgrounds from a condition of social and economic unfreedom?
Some are. Unlike you. All libertarians are by definition. I speak of course of actual freedom, not the kind that involves your leftist state telling people what to do.

From the dictatorship of the workplace, the tyranny of capital, and the power of the plutocracy?
The flight of snails and the burrowing of eagles?

Or, do they in point of fact take the opposite position of defending the faux right of capitalists and corporations to shaft workers and shortchange consumers as they see fit?
No, just the right of capitalists and corporations to contract with employees and consumers as all parties agree to.

. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators?
Libertarians do, conservatives alas typically do not. I'm surprised though, you don't seem to think that being unwilling supporters of a dependent is bad in any other manner than this.

And what about freedom from want and fear, do conservatives advocate a social safety net to ensure our freedom from these particular evils
Fortunately not, because that is slavery, not freedom. I should not be forced to incubate those parasites any more than Sara should have to incubate the smaller parasites.

aggressive destruction of our society's social safety net?

The so-called "Safety net" is an aggressor, it cannot be aggressed against.

7) And speaking of our right to live free from fear, are conservatives in favor of the kind of gun legislation needed to at long last bestow freedom from the fear of gun violence upon us?
You mean the kind that would make us all live forever helpless before the exclusive gunpower of the State?

The ones condemning the residents of poor neighborhoods to being routinely terrorized by assault rifle-armed gangbangers?
You realize gun control laws are typically worse for poor people right? Rich people can afford licenses. Poor people in areas with gun control are helpless before those who illegally own guns. And helpless before armed members of the porcine species in blue uniforms.

8) And, to opponents of the soda ban, perhaps you care a good deal about the alleged freedom of the soda industry and the commercial purveyors of other unhealthy beverages and foods to profiteer to the detriment of public health, but wouldn't being authentic champions of freedom enjoin you to side with those seeking to unplug us from the corporate junk and fast food matrix, as it were,
No, authentic freedom means the freedom to trade with other free people who are willing to do so. The freedom to put what you want in your body-- or not-- you goddamned fascist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 1:02:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 7:13:07 PM, errya wrote:
This is one giant, morally subjective, generalized ad hominem.

I would beg to differ. I would also invite you to attempt to back up that judgment by taking your best shot at refuting the points of my critique and making your case for taking the libertarian ideological affectation of conservatives at face value.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 1:11:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 7:25:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The fallacy here is simple. Libertarians are not conservatives, and people don't always adhere to a strict ideology. Some libertarians are pro choice, some are pro life. Some who in many ways are libertarian may support the civil rights act (myself). There are conservatives who are okay with same sex marriage, etc.

So, essentially your tack here is to shield conservatives from criticism by making conservatism out to be such a variegated and nebulous quantity that one can't even talk about conservatives in a general way. The fallacy here is simple, you're assuming that something has to be altogether monolithic for one to legitimately generalize about it. This is simply not so, and the generalizations in my OP most certainly apply to a large enough number of rightists to be intellectually valid and permissible.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 1:25:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 7:31:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/15/2013 6:53:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 6:00:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Back to civil liberties. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators? Or, do they prefer to exploit the abortion issue as a pretext for waging a culture war, the ultimate aim of which is the oppressive legal implementation of their viewpoint and social dominance at the cost of most modern civil liberties? And doesn't this point up the disillusioning truth that a great many rightists are in fact only interested in social dominance and exploit and distort the concept of freedom to facilitate their pursuit or expression of it. "

I would disagree with you that the abortion issue is somehow a symbol of some deeper issue. I think right-wingers are against abortion because they genuinely believe a fetus is a person, and the abortion of a fetus would be murder.

In many of the cases of individuals with a real passion for championing the "rights of the unborn" we're merely witnessing the oft-remarked tendency that human beings have to buy into their own propaganda and stances; to engage in activism with conscious sincerity while in actuality being driven by the will to express social dominance.

Claiming that right-wingers are against abortion because they are against civil liberties doesn't really speak to why they are against abortion.

Conservatives are against abortion because 1) It's a moralistic (that's moralistic, not moral) issue and there's a distinct and significantly defining moralistic bent to their psyches, i.e. they like to enjoy the illusion that they're morally superior and viewing themselves as the party of life allows them to do so. 2) It's a traditional stance, and conservatives are, as the name would suggest, into conserving traditional mores, even when "traditional" is merely a euphemism for backward & benighted. 3) Liberals and leftists are for a woman's right to choose. Many conservatives have a sufficiently partisan mentality that they're inclined to oppose something merely because those on the other side of the ideological divide favor it. 4) Those religious rightists who are staunchly anti-abortion have done a very effective job of promoting their take on the issue among their fellow conservatives. To the point that conservatives these days are anti-choice simply because it's the de rigueur position for them. Etc.

The fountainhead for this conservative viewpoint is that they genuinely think abortion is murder, and it's silly to claim murder falls under "civil liberties."

I refer you to my above comments about succumbing to belief in one's own ideological professions and pretensions.

It's not merely a matter of choice, to them. If there was an issue in which the stake was the murder of millions a year, I would be "anti-choice," as would you. It's futile to argue against the conservatives claiming that choice trumps their conviction, because their conviction is that innocent people are being murdered. The only way to effectively address this is to dispel the mystical drivel that a fetus is a human being -- otherwise your position to them is completely loony.

Well, since conservative anti-choicers are dogmatists, attempting to liberate their consciousness from, and to get them to cop to the invalidity of the "mystical drivel that a fetus is a human being" will, in the majority of cases, prove to be an exercise in utter futility. Pointing out that their stance of being pro-life is quite bogus, i.e. that they lack the compassionate social concern for the already-living needed to give it credibility, and that they're merely people with an authoritarian mentality who've ardently adopted the position of bigoted church authorities, is arguably a more effective way of neutralizing them.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 1:37:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 8:06:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/15/2013 7:25:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The fallacy here is simple. Libertarians are not conservatives, and people don't always adhere to a strict ideology. Some libertarians are pro choice, some are pro life. Some who in many ways are libertarian may support the civil rights act (myself). There are conservatives who are okay with same sex marriage, etc.

... I believe most libertarians support the majority of it, just not the parts which don't allow business' to be racist.

Hmm, come now, do you in all seriousness and sincerity think that supporting the alleged right of bigoted business owners to infringe the civil rights and freedoms of minority members of our society really makes you-all libertarians in the truest and most enlightened sense of that lofty signifier? To a great many of us not in your camp it merely makes you look like "libertarians" in the quotation mark-enclosed, ideological sense of the word. That is, it's one reason why many don't hold you in the esteem that you hold yourselves to be entitled to.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 2:26:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 10:28:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
To a nation suffering the catastrophic consequences of the type of laissez-faire freedom enjoyed and abused by capitalists and financiers
I'm sorry, that nation did not exist in the 1930s. Or anywhere else, but especially not in the 1930s, well after Hoover's interventionism, not to mention the Progressive era of "trustbusting" (calculatedly knocking out pillars from an economy and waiting for it to fall).

"Libertarian" revisionism.

, enlarging the meaning of the word to include freedom from want and fear.

And thereby destroying the concept

Correction, destroying and transcending the limited "libertarian" concept of freedom.

by rendering it something that could not possibly exist,

The pessimistic rightist aversion to the idea of gearing and structuring society for a more consistent and equitable distribution of values such as the freedoms in question.

especially in the fascist nation of Roosevelt,

"The fascist nation of Roosevelt", now you're just making yourself sound like a stereotypical free-market fundamentalist.

complete with concentration camps for people too yellow-looking,

That was a sin but had zero, zilch, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his economic policies or concept of the Four Freedoms. To lump this in with the rest of your argument is quite simply bad faith. Shame on you.

a full wartime regimentation of the economy,

Well, it demonstrated how efficient and viable socialism can be. Mm-hmm, perhaps this is really what irks you about it.

and seizure of gold from anyone not a member of a dental guild.

Mm-hmm, the heck with aspiring to create a society in which the we common people enjoy freedom from want and fear, our focus needs to be on safeguarding the right of the affluent to own Krugerrands. Lol!

1) Well, does the conservative voluntarily and forthrightly come to terms with the increasing recognition of the civil freedoms of homosexuals?
No, but the libertarian is quite fine leaving homosexuals to the same devices they'd leave heterosexuals to, quit conflating the two. Conservatives support socialized marriage for some silly reason.

Translation into Honestese : "We 'libertarian' rightists, being egoistic individualists, are too uninterested in, too hard pressed to give a damn about social issues to have any passion to deny gays the right to marry, we leave that to the more theologically-inclined faction of our camp". Well, how many kudos do you really think you deserve for merely not giving a damn?

That is, are rightists ready and willing and ideologically able to grant gays full freedom of self-expression; including, for instance, freedom against the discrimination that homophobic landlords claim a bogus prerogative to practice
Freedom AGAINST freedom of association is doublespeak nonsense.

Actually, framing freedom from discrimination as "freedom against freedom of association" qualifies better as doublespeak, and is certainly nonsense.

or the civil right to have their love validated by being allowed to marry?
You have no right to a dime of tax dollars subsidizing your marriage institution,

Sigh. With you "libertarians" it's always all about your freedom to exist as totally socioeconomically-atomized and noncontributing entities, i.e. exercising your alleged right to not give a damn or a dime in tribute to the needy.

no matter who you want to marry. Conservatives, alas, are guiltier than liberals in this regard.

Well, at least some, non-libertarian, conservatives have some sense that they're a part of a society and don't dream the egoistic dream of existing as islands unto themselves.

Freedom FROM freedom of speech is doublespeak nonsense.

As I've already pointed out, "libertarians" are indeed experts on doublespeak nonsense, they merely have a bias blind spot that prevents them from recognizing their own form of doublespeak.

On workers? No, just on workplaces. It's the workers rightful decision whether they want a part of that workplace. And the shareholder's rightful decision whether they want to hire such a manager.

Blah, blah, more free-market fundamentalism, blah, blah, blah ...

3) Well, the question we're getting at is does the conservative turn freedom into an inhuman and inhumane absolute,
By which you mean a human absolute, an absolute suited for the sort of rational animals I call humans and you think mythological cyborgs.

Here you go, falling back on your own form of doublespeak to distort my meaning.


justice, equality,
Contradiction.

Unh uh.

How about taking refuge in the equal rights of racists to association and property. You don't have to like racists to not be a goddamn fascist and expropriate them for your purposes.

Freedom doesn't include the freedom to victimize others with one's bigotry. How about trying to identify with the victim rather than the white racist alpha capitalist for a change.

Some are. Unlike you. All libertarians are by definition. I speak of course of actual freedom, not the kind that involves your leftist state telling people what to do.

In other words you're referring to one's alleged right to function like an utter Randian egoist.

The flight of snails and the burrowing of eagles?

Such wit.

Or, do they in point of fact take the opposite position of defending the faux right of capitalists and corporations to shaft workers and shortchange consumers as they see fit?
No, just the right of capitalists and corporations to contract with employees and consumers as all parties agree to.

This is just libertarianese for the laissez-faire right of capitalists and corporations to shaft workers and shortchange consumers as they see fit.

. Do right-wingers advocate that women should enjoy freedom from being reduced to unwilling human incubators?
Libertarians do, conservatives alas typically do not.

I've already covered how your position merely comes from a place of not giving a damn about social issue and entitles you to no kudos.

I'm surprised though, you don't seem to think that being unwilling supporters of a dependent is bad in any other manner than this.

Yes folks, behold how to the morally unbeautiful "libertarian" mindset a society that cares for the needy is merely guilty of turning us into "unwilling supporters of dependents".

And what about freedom from want and fear, do conservatives advocate a social safety net to ensure our freedom from these particular evils
Fortunately not, because that is slavery, not freedom.

That is rightist rubbish. Pure and simple.

I should not be forced to incubate those parasites any more than Sara should have to incubate the smaller parasites.

Now you're really letting your objectivist freak flag flap stridently.

aggressive destruction of our society's social safety net?

The so-called "Safety net" is an aggressor, it cannot be aggressed against.

More "libertarian" twaddle.

You mean the kind that would make us all live forever helpless before the exclusive gunpower of the State?

"Libertarian" twaddle.

You realize gun control laws are typically worse for poor people right? Rich people can afford licenses. Poor people in areas with gun control are helpless before those who illegally own guns. And helpless before armed members of the porcine species in blue uniforms.

Try to tell this twaddle to the residents of poor neighborhoods who have to sleep in their bathtubs because of the frequent drive-by shootings made possible by the easy availability of guns in our society.

No, authentic freedom means the freedom to trade with other free people who are willing to do so. The freedom to put what you want in your body-- or not-- you goddamned fascist.

More market fundamentalism and a bit of name-calling.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 2:58:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 3:14:08 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 3:15:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/15/2013 1:29:06 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 12:22:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
It seems that I double posted by accident. Whoops!

Now would you perhaps care to genuinely engage the topic and post something substantive?

Perhaps your lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of your undeliberated and selective options,

"Undeliberated", no. "Selective", you're darn tootn', I'm certainly no relativist who thinks that all options are created equal. (Yes, not being a relativist or perspectivist is one of the little ways that I don't fit your stereotyping profile of leftists.)


and my egoistic mentality

Good, the first step is indeed admitting that you have a problem

(the view that private ownership is the natural political and economic result of scarcity that only seems evil because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into the idea that resources and work equality are somehow owed to them; i.e., that hip-hip-hippie egalitarianism for every human, whether psychologically, psychically, or mentally inferior is some sort of universal, transhistorical right and that draining undeserved power and money from the productive folks likewise hinges on the same homogenizing abstraction) is too radical for communists to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against?...

Well, your ideological POV is hardly radical. Rather, it's classically rightist and reactionary.

"Perhaps your lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of the concept of earning a living, and my aspheterism (the view that private ownership is a phantasm that only seems real because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into it; i.e., that the right to private property is a veritable canard, an egoistic convention masquerading as a right) is too radical for right-wing folks to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against? Well, perhaps time will tell."
-charleslb

I wondered how charlie would respond to his own method of argumentation.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 11:07:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 8:06:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/15/2013 7:25:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The fallacy here is simple. Libertarians are not conservatives, and people don't always adhere to a strict ideology. Some libertarians are pro choice, some are pro life. Some who in many ways are libertarian may support the civil rights act (myself). There are conservatives who are okay with same sex marriage, etc.

You support the whole thing? I believe most libertarians support the majority of it, just not the parts which don't allow business' to be racist.

I do support the whole thing. Businesses should not have a racist hiring policy, and through law I think we should prohibit this. It is unneeded and contributes to social and racial conflicts. So yeah I do support the Civil Rights Act in its entirety.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 11:25:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 1:11:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 7:25:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The fallacy here is simple. Libertarians are not conservatives, and people don't always adhere to a strict ideology. Some libertarians are pro choice, some are pro life. Some who in many ways are libertarian may support the civil rights act (myself). There are conservatives who are okay with same sex marriage, etc.

So, essentially your tack here is to shield conservatives from criticism by making conservatism out to be such a variegated and nebulous quantity that one can't even talk about conservatives in a general way. The fallacy here is simple, you're assuming that something has to be altogether monolithic for one to legitimately generalize about it. This is simply not so, and the generalizations in my OP most certainly apply to a large enough number of rightists to be intellectually valid and permissible.

Conservatives are not libertarians.

Libertarians are usually fine with same sex marriage, and support equal rights. Right wingers usually believe that businesses will choose not to be racist by themselves (I still support prohibiting racist hiring policies through law though). Libertarians and conservatives oppose slavery in its entirety, and especially libertarians believe that people are their own valid property, and they should be free to do what they want --- that is freedom. I mostly agree with you on the abortion issue -- but many conservatives believe that the fetus is the same as a human being. The late term fetus does resemble a human baby, so it is worthy of protection.

Economic freedom and private markets are essential for job creation. Through on the job training, new job openings, high quality education through competition, and rising wages, the ladder of upward mobility is readily available, and opportunity allows people to rise out of poverty and into the middle class.

Back during the first days of industrialization, productivity was low. Now productivity is at vastly higher levels, so people are wealthier (more goods for the population). You cannot compare the two ages without this context.

A social safety net is really a misconstrued frame. A basic safety net -- composed of unemployment insurance and strictly limited welfare programs -- can help people who have fallen on hard times, and help them bounce off the net back into the functional economy. A safety net should be temporary. Instead, the $1 trillion "safety net" is collapsing under its own weight, and people are becoming dependent, and the high marginal tax rates kill the people in poverty, and especially their hopes of achieving the American Dream.

Conservatives believe that (and so do libertarians) that with more guns, especially with concealed carry guns, people can defend themselves and make society safer. While some limits on weapons are good ideas (tanks, nuclear weapons, even assault weapons are unnecessary), allowing people to have their own methods of protection makes society safer. And ending the drug war would reduce murder and crime rates by a minimum of 25% (from the results of several studies).

Free markets deliver what people demand. If people want healthy food, the businesses will provide it, and new firms will arise. People could get bananas, fruits, and vegetables, whole wheat bread, yogurts, and exercise more. Many people have proven that they want to be fat, and while I disagree, it is their choice. If we stop socializing our medicine, and make people aware of their personal health care costs (HSAs) people would have a strong incentive to get healthier.

I don't fully agree with conservatives, and not even libertarians all the way, but on many issues they are for promoting freedom (economically, with equal rights, same sex marriage, etc.)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 2:38:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 2:58:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/15/2013 3:14:08 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 3:15:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/15/2013 1:29:06 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/15/2013 12:22:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
It seems that I double posted by accident. Whoops!

Now would you perhaps care to genuinely engage the topic and post something substantive?

Perhaps your lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of your undeliberated and selective options,

"Undeliberated", no. "Selective", you're darn tootn', I'm certainly no relativist who thinks that all options are created equal. (Yes, not being a relativist or perspectivist is one of the little ways that I don't fit your stereotyping profile of leftists.)


and my egoistic mentality

Good, the first step is indeed admitting that you have a problem

(the view that private ownership is the natural political and economic result of scarcity that only seems evil because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into the idea that resources and work equality are somehow owed to them; i.e., that hip-hip-hippie egalitarianism for every human, whether psychologically, psychically, or mentally inferior is some sort of universal, transhistorical right and that draining undeserved power and money from the productive folks likewise hinges on the same homogenizing abstraction) is too radical for communists to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against?...

Well, your ideological POV is hardly radical. Rather, it's classically rightist and reactionary.

"Perhaps your lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of the concept of earning a living, and my aspheterism (the view that private ownership is a phantasm that only seems real because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into it; i.e., that the right to private property is a veritable canard, an egoistic convention masquerading as a right) is too radical for right-wing folks to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against? Well, perhaps time will tell."
-charleslb

I wondered how charlie would respond to his own method of argumentation.

Do you have anything on-topic and substantive to contribute?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 2:39:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 11:07:00 AM, Contra wrote:
At 3/15/2013 8:06:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/15/2013 7:25:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The fallacy here is simple. Libertarians are not conservatives, and people don't always adhere to a strict ideology. Some libertarians are pro choice, some are pro life. Some who in many ways are libertarian may support the civil rights act (myself). There are conservatives who are okay with same sex marriage, etc.

You support the whole thing? I believe most libertarians support the majority of it, just not the parts which don't allow business' to be racist.

I do support the whole thing. Businesses should not have a racist hiring policy, and through law I think we should prohibit this. It is unneeded and contributes to social and racial conflicts. So yeah I do support the Civil Rights Act in its entirety.

Good for you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 4:00:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 11:25:34 AM, Contra wrote:

Conservatives are not libertarians.

Well, they're certainly a subspecies, so to speak, of Homo righticus. And in the case of free-marketarian conservatives there's quite a family resemblance. Mm-hmm, to a point it's in fact arguably legitimate to lump them together.

Libertarians are usually fine with same sex marriage,

As I've already pointed out, only because their egoism prevents them from sufficiently giving a damn about social issues to fall in with those advocating the oppression of homosexuals.

and support equal rights.

There's a significant difference between being an enlightened supporter of equal rights and an advocate of a laissez-faire state of affairs in which everyone of the working and lower socioeconomic classes is equally vulnerable to exploitation and the power of the capitalist elite.

Right wingers usually believe that businesses will choose not to be racist by
themselves

That's rubbish.

(I still support prohibiting racist hiring policies through law though).

At least your rubbish detector isn't malfunctioning on this particular question.

Libertarians and conservatives oppose slavery in its entirety,

Not true, they certainly don't oppose wage slavery; which is a genuine form of servility and unfreedom and not merely a cliche.

and especially libertarians believe that people are their own valid property,

Human beings are human beings, and shouldn't be reified into "property", either practically or conceptually.

and they should be free to do what they want --- that is freedom.

Sorry, but there's more to freedom than being atomized and left to your own druthers, devices, and fate. Human freedom is a social proposition, and our social freedom indeed entails and requires social trade-offs, concessions, and sacrifices to one another (such as racist business owners and landlords being required to make a sacrifice of their right to discriminate - which I'm glad to see you acknowledge).

I mostly agree with you on the abortion issue -- but many conservatives believe that the fetus is the same as a human being.

As I've already elaborated, I don't take the conservative's claim to be a champion of the right to life ar face value.

Economic freedom and private markets are essential for job creation. Through on the job training, new job openings, high quality education through competition, and rising wages, the ladder of upward mobility is readily available, and opportunity allows people to rise out of poverty and into the middle class.

This is a bit of free-market theory 101 that in the contemporary empirical real world doesn't pan out. Well, you might have noticed that the trend is away from people rising to the ranks of the middle class; and in many cases only being able to attain and hold on to middle-class status by working multiple jobs.

Back during the first days of industrialization, productivity was low. Now productivity is at vastly higher levels, so people are wealthier (more goods for the population). You cannot compare the two ages without this context.

A great many folks are experiencing economic hardship today, let's not gloss over this by playing about with historical comparisons.

A social safety net is really a misconstrued frame. A basic safety net -- composed of unemployment insurance and strictly limited welfare programs -- can help people who have fallen on hard times, and help them bounce off the net back into the functional economy. A safety net should be temporary. Instead, the $1 trillion "safety net" is collapsing under its own weight, and people are becoming dependent, and the high marginal tax rates kill the people in poverty, and especially their hopes of achieving the American Dream.

A social safety net that's unable to adequately take care of the massive casualties of our economic system is merely a symptom of the inherent and grievous shortcomings of capitalism. Which is to say that it's our entire economic system and not merely the welfare system that needs to be revised and reinvented.

Conservatives believe that (and so do libertarians) that with more guns, especially with concealed carry guns, people can defend themselves and make society safer.

Oh, what a very male American way of thinking. Mm-hmm, the ticket to a safer society is to turn all of our communities into modern day Dodge Cities. Lol!

While some limits on weapons are good ideas (tanks, nuclear weapons, even assault weapons are unnecessary), allowing people to have their own methods of protection makes society safer.

Allowing millions of guns to exist in our society means maintaining the availability of a source of firepower for criminals and gangs (who indeed obtain most of their weapons from legal sources - strawman purchases and burglarizing the homes of legal gun owners, etc.), this certainly isn't a prescription for a safer society.

And ending the drug war would reduce murder and crime rates by a minimum of 25% (from the results of several studies).

Reducing crime and drugs addiction will require more from us as a society than merely enacting libertarian principles and ending the drug war.

Free markets deliver what people demand. If people want healthy food, the businesses will provide it,

It's quite naive to think that big business doesn't condition, inculcate, and then pander to our tastes, that we merely and freely develop our tastes, diets, and lifestyles on our own. No, contrary to libertarian thinking, human beings aren't such atomized creatures, we're all a part of a culture, one dominated by corporations and a capitalist ethos that largely determines our likes and lives.

and new firms will arise. People could get bananas, fruits, and vegetables, whole wheat bread, yogurts, and exercise more. Many people have proven that they want to be fat, and while I disagree, it is their choice. If we stop socializing our medicine, and make people aware of their personal health care costs (HSAs) people would have a strong incentive to get healthier.

Lol! More market fundamentalism, and a criticism of our health care system for being too socialized!

I don't fully agree with conservatives, and not even libertarians all the way, but on many issues they are for promoting freedom (economically, with equal rights, same sex marriage, etc.)

Correction, they're for promoting laissez-faireism, not freedom. Laissez-faireism, if taken to the extreme advocated by egoistic "libertarians", is a negative state of affairs in which society, its institutions and authorities, are indifferent to our lot and well-being, i.e. we're free only in the sense that the social-relational nature of our lives and well-being is no longer recognized and we're all left on our own to flourish or perish. Authentic freedom, on the other hand, is indeed a quite positive social state of affairs in which freedom from want and fear, freedom in the form of well-being, is actively and systematically promoted by the design and institutions of society. Well, conservatives/libertarians are for the former, and leftists are for the latter; which is why I would humbly assert that we on the left of the spectrum have the better, the more honest and credible claim to the title of champions of human freedom.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 4:14:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A question, libertarians/conservatives, are you merely online champions of your theoretical perspective; or do live, breathe, and f*rt your market fundamentalism in the faces of your fellow less-fortunate humans? For instance, when a, by your ideological lights, loathsome homeless person (our economically-unstable, socially-dysfunctional society certainly does mass produce them so I know you've encountered them) approaches you to obtain spare change do you inform and lecture him that his state of being without means and shelter is his own fault, that he's blessed to be living in a rich capitalist country and therefore must have chosen to be a miserable bum? Or does a bit of humanity kick in and restrain your urge to treat him to a dose of your blame-the-victim-and-praise-the-All-Good-Free Market rhetoric? Mm-hmm, do you perhaps for just a fleeting moment suspend ideologizing and relate to one of the human casualties of capitalism on a nonlibertarian level of caring and understanding, i.e. do you momentarily realize that the substantial riches and resources of our vauntedly wealthy land aren't distributed according to a terribly compassionate scheme? Just wondering.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.