Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

A Modern Ideology

kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 11:25:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I found a paper that I wrote for my first political ideologies course 3 years ago. I don't hold the same views I did than, though it was an interesting read. Let me know what you think.

In today"s world, there are many ideologies. These ideologies have produced different types of societies. Today, more than ever, people question whether or not society is as it should be. Issues regarding distribution of wealth and power, and whether or not individuals should be free are heavily debated. To create an ideal society, we must look at its base.

The first concept that must be understood before understanding society as a whole is human nature. The first thing to understand about human nature is that very little is set in stone. It is part of human nature to change and to adapt. Often time"s people try to debate the morality of different actions and site nature or what"s natural to support whether or not that action is moral. This should not be so. For example, it is neither moral nor immoral for someone to sleep in a bed, even though it could be argued that using a bed to sleep on is unnatural. The purpose of understanding human nature, therefore, is to attempt, to predict or account for how people act rather than suggest what is moral.

However, even in this use, understanding general human nature does not account for each individual human in their natural state. For example, science has shown that some humans are prone to do certain things outside the norm, like commit suicide or murder, etc. Throughout history, it would seem obvious that it is human nature to be self-interested, or in other words, to promote those things that will improve one"s circumstance. Personal interests could range from needs, also known as survival, and wants, also known as surplus, luxury, etc. Over time, human nature seems to have shifted from needs to wants. This could be a result of a more complex society. An individual can spend more time focusing on wants as society helps that individual meet their needs. Because this is true, personal interest is the main motive for an individual to remain in society.

The second concept that must be understood to understand society is a concept of "rights". Just like human nature is heavily debated, so are human rights. While there are more than one human right, the most fundamental is the individual"s right to act for himself or herself. In other words, if human nature is self-interest, the fundamental human right is the ability to choose what is in one"s interest and then act accordingly. This can be problematic, largely because people often see it in their interest to act upon other individuals. To function in a society, may then require for an individual to abstain from acting in a certain way. A clear example, most societies today, if not all, punish an individual who participates in the act of stealing. In other words, to be a contributing member to society, people surrender certain ways of acting, typically those actions which involve acting upon others. Rather than limiting an individual"s freedom to act, in many cases, this increases that freedom. When the whole of society, at least in general terms, does not have to worry about theft, they can focus on meeting more wants. When societies have police, garbage men, farmers, politicians, and all other kinds of professions, an individual doesn"t have to try to constantly protect themselves, dispose of waste, grow their own food and read every piece of legislation. It can be concluded that society"s main function is to meet the interests of the individuals that make up society.

The next question that arises is what are societys" interests. As has already been stated, individuals don"t always agree with others on what is in each of their interests. This is where a key flaw in modern society exists. When people are born into a society in which they were unable to participate in the building or organizing thereof, there are cases where people are members of a society that they did not choose. While typically people don"t see it that way, there have been individuals who do not want to live in the society in which they are born and do not have the means to leave that society. This is a case when society itself is acting upon an individual and not allowing them to act for themselves. There should be a way that individual adults could opt out the society in which they live. However, by doing so they would forfeit the benefits that society provided.

Another flaw of current societies, and perhaps all societies, is in power distribution. Meaning, it seems that society eventually gives power, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to a small group of individuals. These individuals often times use this power to then act upon the rest of society. To this issue there is no simple solution or quick fix. For example, it has been speculated that money corrupts politics. This may be true, but if you take money out of politics, something will take its place and be just as easily exploited. As mentioned earlier, society"s purpose is to meet the interests of the individuals that make up society. However, for society to meet each individual"s interests equally seems impossible. There does not yet seem to exist an ideology, nor does it seem likely in the near future, for one to exist that meets the criteria of an equal society. Many argue that such disparity of wealth or power is immoral. Whether or not it"s moral, it certainly seems to be human nature.

These issues of current society pale in comparison of the issues of society in ancient times. Society, just like human nature, changes and adapts. Over time certain issues are dealt with, but as those issues become resolved, new issues arise. This seems to be a natural cycle. The same can be said in the medical field. Through the ages, society has been able to overcome certain medical ailments. There was a time when several people would die from smallpox or other diseases. Today, however, dying from smallpox is rare thanks to modern developments. However, because people no longer die from smallpox or other diseases that have been overcome, we now have cancer. Likewise, in society, when certain issues or problems are generally dealt with, eventually new problems arise. While this is true, it is still important for society to strive to fix these issues, including the ones mentioned above. It is, however, important to understand that the more issues solved, the more complex new issues become.

Many have asked "Can there be a perfect society?" If one can exist, society today is far from understanding what a perfect society consists of. But as stated, human nature is to change and adapt, and so long as society continues to do so, each individual"s interests can be met more fully. As individuals are free to act for themselves and choose to act as a society, progress towards a perfect society will be made.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 1:33:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 11:25:57 AM, kasmic wrote:

That was a good read. I think all of the points you made are interesting. A big problem in the mix is religion ... this out-date text needs to go. For example, it has demonized arguably the best pleasure we have ... sex. And, many other natural human desires. There are a lot of human desires that we are taking away.

You said suicide. Well i have nothing to say against it. We are all free humans and we can do whatever we want as long is it is not harming to others. What is harmful to others ... anything that is against their consent (directly invading on their world) ... that's it. Not that it offends, not that someone thinks it's wrong, not that someone feels bad ... No ... everything should be allowed that doesn't directly harm another. We are all born into this world, and it may be our only world ... So, let's make it a paradise for everyone. I think it is possible, and i think my generation will get the ball rolling. We need smarter people, we need more open minded people ... we are the age of A.I.
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 2:13:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The nineteenth century poet Holderlin once said, "What has always made the state a hell on earth, has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

My response to Holderlin is, what has always made the state a joy on earth, has been precisely that man has liberty in the moral pursuit of his own heaven (happiness).

During this weekend in celebrating the Fourth of July (US Independence) the world should come to understand life's Unalienable Rights:

https://www.youtube.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 10:27:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 1:33:17 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 11:25:57 AM, kasmic wrote:

That was a good read. I think all of the points you made are interesting.

Thank you, it is weird reading things I wrote years ago.

You said suicide. Well i have nothing to say against it. We are all free humans and we can do whatever we want as long is it is not harming to others. What is harmful to others ... anything that is against their consent (directly invading on their world) ... that's it. Not that it offends, not that someone thinks it's wrong, not that someone feels bad ... No ... everything should be allowed that doesn't directly harm another. We are all born into this world, and it may be our only world ... So, let's make it a paradise for everyone. I think it is possible, and i think my generation will get the ball rolling. We need smarter people, we need more open minded people ... we are the age of A.I.

Suicide can harm those around you physiologically and emotionally. Depending on the relationship the harm can be more direct as well. For example if the mother of a 6 month old baby commits suicide that directly impacts the babies life? Should someone be able to make that choice?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 3:32:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 10:27:00 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/2/2015 1:33:17 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 11:25:57 AM, kasmic wrote:

Suicide can harm those around you physiologically and emotionally. Depending on the relationship the harm can be more direct as well. For example if the mother of a 6 month old baby commits suicide that directly impacts the babies life? Should someone be able to make that choice?

No they shouldn't. That is what i mean when i say directly harm another. But even in that concept we need to look for percentages. This is where useful regulation would come into play. Now, suicide is obvious. If someone comes from a loving family, but still comments suicide, i am sure the percentages would show that this hurts almost everyone if not all in that situation. But, i also think with a better society, this type of suicide would go down, if not become non-existent. However, it shouldn't be illegal for other situations. What if no one will miss them? what if they have no one? what if they are in so much pain that death is the only way out? We aren't the ones that should decide that for them. Same argument can be made for sex and drugs ... i think with proper regulation, there shouldn't be anything illegal about these concepts.

We need to go into a society of consent, and one that caters to evolved human desires (up to date).
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 3:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 11:25:57 AM, kasmic wrote:
Much of this is reminiscent of Jean-Jacques Rousseau "The Social Contract" He goes on to explain the sovereign vs the sovereignty.
The burden in "modern" sociology, is the choices we have to reflect our priorities, with many different affiliations we can chose from, it would be easy to be thoughtless in our priorities. Our affinity to mutually shared interests can often trump our obligation to our family, community, local government ect.
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 3:41:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If someone comes from a loving family, but still comments suicide, i am sure the percentages would show that this hurts almost everyone if not all in that situation. But, i also think with a better society, this type of suicide would go down, if not become non-existent.

I wonder if this it true. Suicide is often related to psychotic issues. These issues are exasterbated by poor circumstances but I imagine we are a long ways off of suicide being non existent.

However, it shouldn't be illegal for other situations. What if no one will miss them? what if they have no one? what if they are in so much pain that death is the only way out?

The Euthanasia debate has been interesting to follow, I agree that in some cases is should be permitted.

We aren't the ones that should decide that for them. Same argument can be made for sex and drugs ... i think with proper regulation, there shouldn't be anything illegal about these concepts.

You must be a Libertarian haha. Great comments, thanks.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 3:43:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 3:36:41 PM, ironslippers wrote:
At 6/29/2015 11:25:57 AM, kasmic wrote:
Much of this is reminiscent of Jean-Jacques Rousseau "The Social Contract" He goes on to explain the sovereign vs the sovereignty.
The burden in "modern" sociology, is the choices we have to reflect our priorities, with many different affiliations we can chose from, it would be easy to be thoughtless in our priorities. Our affinity to mutually shared interests can often trump our obligation to our family, community, local government ect.

I was made to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The social Contract" in the same class I wrote this for.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 6:51:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 3:41:54 PM, kasmic wrote:

I wonder if this it true. Suicide is often related to psychotic issues. These issues are exasterbated by poor circumstances but I imagine we are a long ways off of suicide being non existent.

Yes, usually it is a mental illness ... but, it can also be situation. I had this type of depression in my teens. If my situation was any different, i would probably not be here. Those are the ones we can help.

The Euthanasia debate has been interesting to follow, I agree that in some cases is should be permitted.

It's a dumb debate in my opinion. Death is a creation to leave this world when one must.

You must be a Libertarian haha. Great comments, thanks.

interesting you say that. Someone else told me i sound Libertarian. I don't know what that really means. I'm not too familiar with what parties stand for, so i don't usually identify with one. Can you tell me in laymen terms what it means?
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 11:12:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
interesting you say that. Someone else told me i sound Libertarian. I don't know what that really means. I'm not too familiar with what parties stand for, so i don't usually identify with one. Can you tell me in laymen terms what it means?

Libertarians typically apply the "Harm Principle." Being that the only legitimate way individuals liberty or free will should be limited is to prevent harm to others. All other laws are inherently unjust as free will or personal liberty is valued above all else.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 2:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 11:12:16 AM, kasmic wrote:
interesting you say that. Someone else told me i sound Libertarian. I don't know what that really means. I'm not too familiar with what parties stand for, so i don't usually identify with one. Can you tell me in laymen terms what it means?

Libertarians typically apply the "Harm Principle." Being that the only legitimate way individuals liberty or free will should be limited is to prevent harm to others. All other laws are inherently unjust as free will or personal liberty is valued above all else.

And why doesn't everyone believe this? That seems like a good philosophy to me.
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 2:55:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 2:50:31 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 7/3/2015 11:12:16 AM, kasmic wrote:
interesting you say that. Someone else told me i sound Libertarian. I don't know what that really means. I'm not too familiar with what parties stand for, so i don't usually identify with one. Can you tell me in laymen terms what it means?

Libertarians typically apply the "Harm Principle." Being that the only legitimate way individuals liberty or free will should be limited is to prevent harm to others. All other laws are inherently unjust as free will or personal liberty is valued above all else.

And why doesn't everyone believe this? That seems like a good philosophy to me.

I think most do, its just defining "harm." For example:

A libertarian (typically) is in favor of legalizing all drugs and prostitution as they are "victimless crimes." Non libertarians might argue that drugs and prostitution have a harm on society and it is demonstrable.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:07:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 2:55:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/3/2015 2:50:31 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 7/3/2015 11:12:16 AM, kasmic wrote:
interesting you say that. Someone else told me i sound Libertarian. I don't know what that really means. I'm not too familiar with what parties stand for, so i don't usually identify with one. Can you tell me in laymen terms what it means?

Libertarians typically apply the "Harm Principle." Being that the only legitimate way individuals liberty or free will should be limited is to prevent harm to others. All other laws are inherently unjust as free will or personal liberty is valued above all else.

And why doesn't everyone believe this? That seems like a good philosophy to me.

I think most do, its just defining "harm." For example:

A libertarian (typically) is in favor of legalizing all drugs and prostitution as they are "victimless crimes." Non libertarians might argue that drugs and prostitution have a harm on society and it is demonstrable.

That is funny. I think these two should be legalized as well. There is more harm in keeping them illegal than there would be in the reverse. With proper regulations, it can be done. But, not only regulation ... education too. Like i think 25 years old would be good age limit for the harder drugs. And, prostitution can be regulated as well ... plus, a lot of crime is probably bc of sexual frustration or the same as suicide. Who is weighing the disadvantages bc i don't see many... I'm even for bring the age of consent down ... Sexuality, to me, has been demonized by religion ... and it seems that most laws are now strictly off of religious morals which i think are wrong. This goes back to what you were saying about human behavior changing ... we understand more now ... and out-date morality is holding us back, and harming our society. I like being a libertarian Lol. .
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That is funny. I think these two should be legalized as well. There is more harm in keeping them illegal than there would be in the reverse. With proper regulations, it can be done. But, not only regulation ... education too. Like i think 25 years old would be good age limit for the harder drugs. And, prostitution can be regulated as well ... plus, a lot of crime is probably bc of sexual frustration or the same as suicide. Who is weighing the disadvantages bc i don't see many... I'm even for bring the age of consent down ... Sexuality, to me, has been demonized by religion ... and it seems that most laws are now strictly off of religious morals which i think are wrong. This goes back to what you were saying about human behavior changing ... we understand more now ... and out-date morality is holding us back, and harming our society. I like being a libertarian Lol. .

So the "extreme" (not meant to be offensive) Libertarian espouses the "Taxes are theft, drafts are slavery, etc...)
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:23:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:08:48 PM, kasmic wrote:
That is funny. I think these two should be legalized as well. There is more harm in keeping them illegal than there would be in the reverse. With proper regulations, it can be done. But, not only regulation ... education too. Like i think 25 years old would be good age limit for the harder drugs. And, prostitution can be regulated as well ... plus, a lot of crime is probably bc of sexual frustration or the same as suicide. Who is weighing the disadvantages bc i don't see many... I'm even for bring the age of consent down ... Sexuality, to me, has been demonized by religion ... and it seems that most laws are now strictly off of religious morals which i think are wrong. This goes back to what you were saying about human behavior changing ... we understand more now ... and out-date morality is holding us back, and harming our society. I like being a libertarian Lol. .

So the "extreme" (not meant to be offensive) Libertarian espouses the "Taxes are theft, drafts are slavery, etc...)

I would agree with Taxes being theft in some cases ... my question is why would someone think that it is theft? It must have this negative effect somewhere down the line to make people feel this way. For example, i can use one of my neighbors. She is barely able to pay her own mortgage and is close to bankruptcy. Why do we give more hardship by making her have to pay every cent she has? In her case it is theft. Overall though, i think taxes are necessary to make our society strong.

I don't agree the drafts are slavery unless they were always mandatory. I mean, that at the age of 18 every one gets drafted. But, in a time of crisis ... we need this. But, this should also be regulated. Why would i throw someone in an army that is scared of their own shadow ... that is slavery. To make someone do something that they just cannot.

I mean, all of these regulations i speak of would take a lot of work. The government would have a lot more work on their hands ... but, shouldn't be like that ... since the government is suppose to be for the people in the first place..

I may say something from ignorance bc i am not well versed in politics so feel free to correct me ... recently i have had an interest to learn more ... so thanks for all your responses so far.
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:33:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No problem, I love political science.

With all political ideologies, they can be carried to extremes. It is rare to find someone that is fully in line with a typical ideology, they are more like reference points then set in stone.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:46:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:33:40 PM, kasmic wrote:
No problem, I love political science.

With all political ideologies, they can be carried to extremes. It is rare to find someone that is fully in line with a typical ideology, they are more like reference points then set in stone.

I see. I've always been wonder something. Do you think the Millennial generation is going more towards a Libertarian type of thinking? I've been assuming this bc of the tech age. We are now more connected than ever, so it seems like to me people are understanding human behavior more clearly.
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:57:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:46:14 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:33:40 PM, kasmic wrote:
No problem, I love political science.

With all political ideologies, they can be carried to extremes. It is rare to find someone that is fully in line with a typical ideology, they are more like reference points then set in stone.

I see. I've always been wonder something. Do you think the Millennial generation is going more towards a Libertarian type of thinking? I've been assuming this bc of the tech age. We are now more connected than ever, so it seems like to me people are understanding human behavior more clearly.

From what I have seen I feel that Millennial are rejecting American Established parties in general. Especially conservatism. So yes I do think there is growth in the number of Libertarians, but there is also growth amongst socialists and welfare state liberals.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:57:40 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:46:14 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:33:40 PM, kasmic wrote:
No problem, I love political science.

With all political ideologies, they can be carried to extremes. It is rare to find someone that is fully in line with a typical ideology, they are more like reference points then set in stone.

I see. I've always been wonder something. Do you think the Millennial generation is going more towards a Libertarian type of thinking? I've been assuming this bc of the tech age. We are now more connected than ever, so it seems like to me people are understanding human behavior more clearly.

From what I have seen I feel that Millennial are rejecting American Established parties in general. Especially conservatism. So yes I do think there is growth in the number of Libertarians, but there is also growth amongst socialists and welfare state liberals.

Yes, it is true there is a "growth amongst socialists and welfare state liberals."

It seems socialism has displaced classical liberalism as the doctrine held by the great majority of progressives (aka a manifestation of Social Darwinism). Today"s progressives simply forgotten or not been educated by the warnings of the great liberal thinkers of the past about the consequences of collectivism morphing into tyranny.

In the US, "conservatism" is not an ideology, only a desire to conserve the US Constitution, a form of governance design to preserve liberty and to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights.
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:36:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In the US, "conservatism" is not an ideology, only a desire to conserve the US Constitution, a form of governance design to preserve liberty and to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights.

Having studied political ideology formally I can confidently tell you that "American Conservatism" is a political ideology. Also people from many different political ideologies claim to preserve liberty and to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 5:08:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:36:49 PM, kasmic wrote:
In the US, "conservatism" is not an ideology, only a desire to conserve the US Constitution, a form of governance design to preserve liberty and to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights.

Having studied political ideology formally I can confidently tell you that "American Conservatism" is a political ideology. Also people from many different political ideologies claim to preserve liberty and to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights.

I'm a Constitutional Conservative, no "ideology" just want to conserve our founding.

With all due respect, one who "studied political ideology formally" implies indoctrination from a government controlled educational institution.
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 5:10:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm a Constitutional Conservative, no "ideology" just want to conserve our founding.

With all due respect, one who "studied political ideology formally" implies indoctrination from a government controlled educational institution.

To conserve our founding is to conserve the ideology of our founders no?

With all due respect, it implies expertise.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 5:33:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 5:10:14 PM, kasmic wrote:
I'm a Constitutional Conservative, no "ideology" just want to conserve our founding.

With all due respect, one who "studied political ideology formally" implies indoctrination from a government controlled educational institution.

To conserve our founding is to conserve the ideology of our founders no?

With all due respect, it implies expertise.

Conservatism is to conserve the dynamics of cultural change and to progress in a scientific way the evolution of a civil society.

Conservatism exists in all cultures.