Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Do Conservatives Think They Value Liberty

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:18:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because this is how people react to rhetorical stimuli like the word "liberty".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:30:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

I don't get why that's such a negative thing. For some people, myself included, death is preferable to a life of permanent confinement. It's a mercy punishment that I believe should be available to all who have been sentenced to life in prison.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:30:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

So is any form of gov't. Yet one rarely sees people that value "liberty" become complete an-caps.

But less government and liberty aren't the same thing. You were arguing that capital punishment leads to less liberty, now your arguing that capital punishment leads to smaller government which is kind of a shift in the goalpost.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:32:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
but, I did make the same mistake as you did, conflating liberty and small gov't. SSM does increase liberty at the expense of an expansion of gov't.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:33:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

I don't get why that's such a negative thing. For some people, myself included, death is preferable to a life of permanent confinement. It's a mercy punishment that I believe should be available to all who have been sentenced to life in prison.

Wasn't I the one who converted you to the pro-death penalty side when you joined the site?

Interesting, how we've now swapped places, even in terms of argument.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:34:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

I don't get why that's such a negative thing. For some people, myself included, death is preferable to a life of permanent confinement. It's a mercy punishment that I believe should be available to all who have been sentenced to life in prison.

What are your thoughts on the choice between corporal punishment or prison? I'm a big believer in corporal punishment, but I think that allowing the choice above would be a step in the right direction.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:35:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:32:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
but, I did make the same mistake as you did, conflating liberty and small gov't. SSM does increase liberty at the expense of an expansion of gov't.

I suppose I did make that mistake, which I'll keep in mind in the future.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:40:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:33:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

I don't get why that's such a negative thing. For some people, myself included, death is preferable to a life of permanent confinement. It's a mercy punishment that I believe should be available to all who have been sentenced to life in prison.

Wasn't I the one who converted you to the pro-death penalty side when you joined the site?

Interesting, how we've now swapped places, even in terms of argument.

lol oh yeah. Totally forgot about that. You made me switch positions in terms of retribution. Determinism made punishment for me a strictly non-retributive system. Therefore it's not possible to deserve death over life in prison or vice versa. At such a level of crime and punishment we can defer to the preference of the detainee.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:42:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:34:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

I don't get why that's such a negative thing. For some people, myself included, death is preferable to a life of permanent confinement. It's a mercy punishment that I believe should be available to all who have been sentenced to life in prison.

What are your thoughts on the choice between corporal punishment or prison? I'm a big believer in corporal punishment, but I think that allowing the choice above would be a step in the right direction.

Prison must serve the purpose of rehabilitation, deterrence, and ensuring public safety. A choice between corporal punishment is out of line with the 1st and last objective. I suppose the option can be available for non-violent crimes.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:44:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:40:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:33:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

I don't get why that's such a negative thing. For some people, myself included, death is preferable to a life of permanent confinement. It's a mercy punishment that I believe should be available to all who have been sentenced to life in prison.

Wasn't I the one who converted you to the pro-death penalty side when you joined the site?

Interesting, how we've now swapped places, even in terms of argument.

lol oh yeah. Totally forgot about that. You made me switch positions in terms of retribution. Determinism made punishment for me a strictly non-retributive system. Therefore it's not possible to deserve death over life in prison or vice versa. At such a level of crime and punishment we can defer to the preference of the detainee.

I believe in a non-retributive system too. Of course, not because I'm a determinist (I'm not, I'm also coincidentally a libertarian on the question of free will in addition to politically).

Funny how the conclusions end up the same, or at least similar.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

That also makes me very uneasy... it just sounds so wrong as well.

And DetectableNinja, I am a contra.
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 9:52:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

That also makes me very uneasy... it just sounds so wrong as well.

And DetectableNinja, I am a contra.

I see what you did there.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:33:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

Because economic liberty the only "liberty" they believe should be maximized; moral liberty is something to be regulated by law. The problem began when Goldwater's brand of conservatism became the Republican party platform... it's been downhill ever since on that end.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:03:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 10:33:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

Because economic liberty the only "liberty" they believe should be maximized; moral liberty is something to be regulated by law. The problem began when Goldwater's brand of conservatism became the Republican party platform... it's been downhill ever since on that end.

I always thought that Goldwater was the last of the Paleoconservatives? Didn't he fight nonsense like this?

"n religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""
- Barry Goldwater -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:11:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:03:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:33:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

Because economic liberty the only "liberty" they believe should be maximized; moral liberty is something to be regulated by law. The problem began when Goldwater's brand of conservatism became the Republican party platform... it's been downhill ever since on that end.

I always thought that Goldwater was the last of the Paleoconservatives? Didn't he fight nonsense like this?

The last of the paleoconservatives? That would be Pat Buchanan.... worthless fuckwit that he is.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:26:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:11:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:03:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:33:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

Because economic liberty the only "liberty" they believe should be maximized; moral liberty is something to be regulated by law. The problem began when Goldwater's brand of conservatism became the Republican party platform... it's been downhill ever since on that end.

I always thought that Goldwater was the last of the Paleoconservatives? Didn't he fight nonsense like this?

The last of the paleoconservatives? That would be Pat Buchanan.... worthless fuckwit that he is.

Yeah, that was imprecise language. I meant that his loss in the election spelled the end of paleoconservative control of the Republican party, and the rise to power of the religious right. And I don't like Buchanan either. My admiration for Goldwater comes from the fact that had good principles which he stuck to; you had to if you argued that gays should be allowed to join the military in that day and age.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:26:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:11:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:03:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:33:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

Because economic liberty the only "liberty" they believe should be maximized; moral liberty is something to be regulated by law. The problem began when Goldwater's brand of conservatism became the Republican party platform... it's been downhill ever since on that end.

I always thought that Goldwater was the last of the Paleoconservatives? Didn't he fight nonsense like this?

The last of the paleoconservatives? That would be Pat Buchanan.... worthless fuckwit that he is.

Yeah, that was imprecise language. I meant that his loss in the election spelled the end of paleoconservative control of the Republican party, and the rise to power of the religious right.

Monied (white) business interests in the North East were the dominant force in the GOP pre-Goldwater.

And I don't like Buchanan either.

I hate the guy...

My admiration for Goldwater comes from the fact that had good principles which he stuck to; you had to if you argued that gays should be allowed to join the military in that day and age.

Do elaborate.
Tsar of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:34:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:42:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:34:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:27:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:24:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
technically the recognition of SSM is an expansion of government. I don't see how being tough on laws (ex: capital punishment) would be considered anti-liberty, since its recognized that people who harm the liberty of others should be punished, in order to increase the liberty for others.

In terms of abortion laws, If one recognizes that a fetus is a person w/ rights, then it would be depriving the fetus of its liberty.

I suppose those were just examples.

However, the whole small government thing does still apply to the capital punishment example--it is still a definite expansion of government to give the government authority to kill citizens.

I don't get why that's such a negative thing. For some people, myself included, death is preferable to a life of permanent confinement. It's a mercy punishment that I believe should be available to all who have been sentenced to life in prison.

What are your thoughts on the choice between corporal punishment or prison? I'm a big believer in corporal punishment, but I think that allowing the choice above would be a step in the right direction.

Prison must serve the purpose of rehabilitation, deterrence, and ensuring public safety. A choice between corporal punishment is out of line with the 1st and last objective. I suppose the option can be available for non-violent crimes.

Are you kidding me with the idea that prisons act as a form of rehabilitation. Lol. Setting up a system where a bunch of criminals all live among one another isn't the best form of rehabilitation. In fact, its pretty much the worst idea one can possibly think of, considering that living in that social environment only reinforces criminal behavior and acting tough will be rewarded through higher social status. It's a well known fact that the people and friends around you influence how you act. Now, imagine if your friends and people around you are criminals, do you think you'll end up rehabilitated?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:37:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And yes, I do understand that a prison system is necessary to lock up the most dangerous and violent criminals who would pose a threat to society if released. However, I'm not talking about that situation. Instead, I'm discussing those who are arrested for less serious crimes like petty theft. Not rapists and murderers.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 12:22:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:29:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:26:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:11:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:03:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:33:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

Because economic liberty the only "liberty" they believe should be maximized; moral liberty is something to be regulated by law. The problem began when Goldwater's brand of conservatism became the Republican party platform... it's been downhill ever since on that end.

I always thought that Goldwater was the last of the Paleoconservatives? Didn't he fight nonsense like this?

The last of the paleoconservatives? That would be Pat Buchanan.... worthless fuckwit that he is.

Yeah, that was imprecise language. I meant that his loss in the election spelled the end of paleoconservative control of the Republican party, and the rise to power of the religious right.

Monied (white) business interests in the North East were the dominant force in the GOP pre-Goldwater.

And I don't like Buchanan either.

I hate the guy...

My admiration for Goldwater comes from the fact that had good principles which he stuck to; you had to if you argued that gays should be allowed to join the military in that day and age.

Do elaborate.

It cost him heavily in the political arena, but he basically skewered anyone who suggested that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve during the late eighties/early nineties. His big quip was "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." He hated Falwell with a burning passion, and basically held the belief that religious fanatics were destroying the Republican party.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 12:30:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 10:33:33 PM, YYW wrote:
Because economic liberty the only "liberty" they believe should be maximized

If only that were true... :( *cries self to sleep*
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 8:28:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies, the nonrecognition of SSM, the death penalty, etc. say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb, disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.) or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.), and kill its own citizens?

Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

We need to start the list that exposes the this massive fraud perpetrated by many conservatives who favor less freedom rather than more.

1. Does not want to allow gays to openly serve in the military.

2. Periodically tries to pass legislation making it criminal to burn an american flag.

3. Supports allowing one branch of the government to label people as terrorists and then gives full rights to that same government to detain indefinitely without any representation or classification of pow.

4. Supports enacting punishments which can not be redacted while knowing that a small percentage of those who receive these irreversible punishments are innocent. (death penalty)

5. Supports police stopping and searching individuals who have done nothing wrong solely because they are the same race as people who have committed crimes.

6. Support Christian references, quotes, customs, and holidays in government but oppose any other religion's references, quotes, customs, and holidays in government.

7. Oppose legalization of marijuana.
8. Introduced legislation in many a state to place restrictions on divorce such as eliminating requiring counseling in no fault divorces.

9. Restricting safe proven emergency contraception because it hinders the implantation of an egg on the uterus wall.

10. They support an anti-market health care system that promotes (from practical sense requires) individuals to use the health care plans that were chosen by their employers. As a result the end consumer is driven out of the market as a decision maker as. The employer, insurance company, and doctor have all colluded on offerings and price. Individual consumer has no say in the matter.

Everyone thinks they value liberty until they meet an issue which they oppose, then it is all about how they can get the government or system to make it illegal or fill it with regulation to hinder it.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 10:18:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:12:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is just a question I always find myself asking when I see conservatives (specifically social conservatives) rant and rave about how they want liberty and freedom and small government.

How can a social conservative, who would usually support anti-abortion policies,
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." ~ 5th Amendment
the nonrecognition of SSM,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ~ 1st amendment
the death penalty, etc.
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." ~ 5th Amendment
say that they freedom and small government when they clearly want a government big enough to regulate what a woman can do with a fetus in her womb,
Just as a woman has no right to kill a child in her house, she has no right to kill a child in her womb.
disallow people from entering into a legal contract with each other either to preserve tradition (religious arg.)
It is not a legal contract, it is a religious contract. That is why they are fine with civil unions, but not fine with gay marriage.
or to treat its citizenry like Pavlov's dogs to reward behavior it finds acceptable (procreation arg.),

and kill its own citizens?

You mean "kill convicted criminals." Democrats are in favor of assassinating US citizens without due process.
Just something that irks me greatly. What definition of liberty and freedom and small government are they using, anyway?

"I can't murder my children, so I live in a totalitarian state"
I suppose they just have a certain perspective on what free means. To quote Herbert Moon from Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare:

"America is the land of the free, and that means free to people like me."

That is BS.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 3:03:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess one can go down "Freedom is Slavery" route, but its been so tainted with the horrors of practical totalitarianism that people don't like bringing it up.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 3:05:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 10:18:18 AM, DanT wrote:
Quotes the Constitution to justify political philosophy, akin to quoting the Bible to prove God.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 3:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 3:05:46 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/28/2013 10:18:18 AM, DanT wrote:
Quotes the Constitution to justify political philosophy, akin to quoting the Bible to prove God.

Technically I quoted the Bill of Rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle