Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Conservatives & Libertarians, What's the Diff

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 7:50:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conservatives & Libertarians, What's the Diff?

Well, I know that some here think that I don't adequately apprehend or appreciate the distinctions between conservatives and libertarians. Not correct, I of course realize that there are certain significant distinctions. For example, conservatives are notoriously quite keen on persecuting women who exercise their right of choice to have abortions, and gays. Libertarians, on the other hand, would be pretty hard-pressed to care much less than they do about persecuting women who opt for abortions and gays.

Now then, this isn't because libertarians are too socially enlightened and benevolent to be anti-abortion and anti-gay, it's merely that libertarians just plain don't care about such social issues. Libertarians are solipsistic individualists who just want to be left alone and uninterfered with by society to exist in their own little private bubbles.

That is, libertarians are essentially people who have the old "My home is my castle, and I want to live like the king of my own castle, and the rest of humanity can fend for itself" attitude. Libertarianism simply takes this attitude and parlays and escalates it into a full-blown ideology, complete and replete with high-flown principles and noble-sounding rhetoric about freedom and individuality. But at its cognitive core, libertarian ideology psychologically boils down to the desire for license to be asocially egocentric.

In other words, libertarianism is a philosophy that rationalizes not caring, not caring about any social questions or concerns beyond your own atomized field of life experience. Hence libertarians indeed truly couldn't care less about imposing their personal morality via transparently Trojan-horse issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Nope, all they're really interested in is creating a society that allows them to be off unto themselves with their personal morality.

The conservative, on the other hand, very much yearns to enforce his authoritarian conception of morality, and he'll use the coercive power of the state to thump you on the head with his Bible if you don't wish to willingly submit. The conservative's egoism expresses itself as the desire to dominate other people's lives with his theology and "morality", and the libertarian's egoism expresses itself as the desire to be an utterly self-contained ego unit, disconnected from all other ego units.

Oh, have no doubt about it, the libertarian's ego craves dominance too, i.e. the libertarian craves to dominate his own "castle", to the point that he idealizes the vision of a society free of larger commitments and communities with formal claims upon his cooperation. But deep down in his alpha male-female psyche the libertarian is every bit as much keen on enjoying a high degree of egoistic dominance.

But we live in somewhat sophisticated times, and it won't do to just go about grunting your desire for personal dominancy like a Paleolithic brute, so ideology is used to mask the real nature of the conservative-libertarian mentality. This is the primary nature and function of ideology, after all, to simultaneously conceal and convey an underlying interest, in this case the conservative-libertarian's interest in enjoying hegemony – societal hegemony for the conservative, and narcissistically individual hegemony for libertarians.

So then, while conservatives and libertarians have their real distinctions, they each subscribe to a rightist ideology that both disguises and voices the same basic and primitive value, social dominance. For the conservative this value takes the form of legislating everyone else's morals, and for the libertarian it takes the form of cutting loose from the body politic to exercise absolute eminent domain over his own insular corner of the universe. Distinctions there are, but as it turns out, they're distinctions with not so much psychological difference.

Which variation on the theme of this dominance-oriented mentality is more dangerous? Well, that's somewhat of a toss-up. The conservative would demand our compliance with his social agenda by force of law. He would deprive women of the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, he would forcibly drive homosexuals back into the closet, he would use the state to strongly encourage acceptance of his religious perspective and lifestyle choices, etc.

The conservative would also abolish any legal regulation of the economy, creating a state of affairs in which alpha capitalists are permissively free to pursue socioeconomic dominance, and to trample the human rights of workers and the poor. This plank of his platform he has in common with libertarians. Which brings us to the chilling danger of libertarianism, libertarianism would quite likely give us a Hobbesian, Darwinian jungle in which our modern alphas, i.e. capitalists, are set loose to practice their predatory tendencies upon the rest of us, with nary a constraint or restriction.

Meanwhile, while capitalists function and piratically plunder with lawless abandon in the economic sphere, in the social and moral sphere of society anomie will reign. For the asocially and perhaps even antinomianly egoistic outlook of the libertarian will not exactly promote pro-social behaviors, attitudes, and values! Quite the opposite of course, a libertarian culture of people socialized to think in radically individualistic terms of being stand-alone ego entities will not be geared to producing socially compassionate, cooperative, and responsible citizens. That is, the members of such a society will not be brought up to care, and sacrifice, and do the right thing for the common good, instead they'll be educated to believe that being an utterly self-serving capitalist is the best way to serve the good of society.

For more than a hundred thousand years human beings, in the primitive hunter-gatherer stage of their social evolution, understood that a social morality emphasizing our obligations and accountability to one another is critical for the well-being of societies and the individuals who make them up. In hunter-gatherer communities individuals were strongly discouraged from being too egoistic, from asserting any kind of personal privilege or dominance. Yes, our aboriginal ancestors were wise in suppressing the selfish instincts of potential alphas, their groups survived and spread out over the earth. But, alas, modern conservatives and libertarians who wish to create a "free-market" kingdom come seem to be lacking in such wisdom, they seem to think that we can unleash people to be autistically self-concerned specimens of Homo economicus with nothing but good results.

This naïve and potentially disastrous belief in "free-market" capitalism is certainly one of those things that gives conservatives and libertarians something of a family resemblance. It's an ideological family resemblance that some conservatives and libertarians may choose to downplay or deny, but it's quite pronounced, which accounts for why non-initiates often mistakenly lump conservatives and libertarians together.

Mm-hmm, like it or not, conservatism and egoistic libertarianism are both on the same rightist continuum, and both seek to operationalize a philosophy that would have dire consequences for the happiness of most of humanity. Oh sure, there would be a percentage of humanity, the alpha capitalists who would emerge and establish a plutocratic status quo, who would benefit big-time from an anarchically free market, and these alphas are of course the people whom conservatives-libertarians rather like to identify with. But the bulk of the world's working-class citizens would not fare quite so favorably. No, if we truly have their best interest at heart, both conservatism and libertarianism are isms to cross off the list in our quest for a better form of society.
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.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 8:33:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:50:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conservatives & Libertarians, What's the Diff?

About 30 IQ points and the ability to engage in critical thinking, I generally find.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 8:41:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:50:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
I still don't understand that not all libertarians are egoists.

Cool story, bro.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 9:22:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 8:25:13 PM, Nags wrote:
Where's the conclusion?

He realized that the whole thing is a conclusion. Despite all that space, he can't take any steps of reasoning to get where he needs to go.
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.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 9:48:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 8:33:53 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 6/21/2011 7:50:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conservatives & Libertarians, What's the Diff?

About 30 IQ points and the ability to engage in critical thinking, I generally find.

RoyLatham and Cirrk are both conservatives.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 9:52:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How is libertarianism EGOTISTIC?

Dude, your rants are so fu cking annoying and with NO SOURCES in the least. Just stop posting, dude. Where's your evidence for ANYTHING?

Conservatives believe govt. has a role in social issues. Libertarians, generally, don't.

DISTINCTION SOLVED.

NOW SHUT THE FU*K UP!
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 10:03:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's obvious that Charlesb isn't serious about intellectual honesty. If he actually cared, he would create debate challenges. He puts enough effort into writing his topics, that he could actually have an open challenge. But no, he doesn't debate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 11:07:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
charles, I'm sorry, but I'm offended. You mistakenly conclude that because a libertarian believes that the government has no place in regulating the lives of individuals, individuals are to seclude themselves completely. This is a mistaken conclusion drawn out in a hasty generalization, a process that also leads to many social ills such as racism, no? As a libertarian, I believe that nobody has a right to force any man or woman to do anything; is there something inherently wrong with that? Meanwhile, we continue to interact with society, helping friends and even donating to charity, but we will not force you or anybody else to do something that you do not wish to do. If I am incorrect, charles, and you are so good at understanding the libertarian mentality (no, wait, mentalite'), tell me, what am I like?

I also take offense to your claim that conservatives are anti-abortion because of a desire to deprive women of a choice. Conservatives and many libertarians such as myself believe that the fetus is its own life, and terminating a fetus is just as bad as killing an innocent human. We would take the same position if men could become pregnant, so it definitely isn't out of sexism; it's because we value human life. I can see and understand the other side, though, and their basis in the right to choose; the question is, can you?
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 2:32:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's an interesting bit:

Anthropologist Alan Fiske suggested that there are three primary human relationship types that are universal among cultures: dominance, communality, and reciprocity. You can see how different political ideologies may emphasize certain types of relationships and deemphasize others as a foundation for society as a whole. Charles seems to assume that an ideology must either emphasize communality and deemphasize dominance or emphasize dominance and deemphasize communality. He ignores the importance of reciprocation entirely and assumes that because libertarians deemphasize (his limited view of) communality, they must emphasize dominance. This is simply not the case. In reality, what libertarianism places a high value on reciprocity and a neutral or negative value on dominance and communality . Charles also fails to consider the fact that what he labels as a communal relationship is often viewed by libertarians as a dominant relationship.

This is obviously a simplistic and rough way of looking about how the importance of different relationship types plays a role in examining and interpreting ideology, but the idea just struck me and it's so late it's like morning.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 11:27:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 10:03:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's obvious that Charlesb isn't serious about intellectual honesty. If he actually cared, he would create debate challenges. He puts enough effort into writing his topics, that he could actually have an open challenge. But no, he doesn't debate.:

The ironic thing is that Charles is one of the most egotistical people on this site, hands down. He's not interested in engaging in any meaningful dialogue, rather he wants a monologue and a subservient audience who will jack off to his brilliance! How do I know? He abandons a post the second he has to actually defend his assertions. Charles is here because he just wants to vomit his diatribe. He's convinced his thoughts are so important that we'd all be remiss not hearing them expressed. He wants everyone to be dazzled by his writing abilities and the depth of his genius. I'm convinced at this point that it's masturbatory. He gets off on it, and perhaps his real goal is exposure. His sh*tty blog couldn't possibly generate much popularity, so he hopes if he sh*ts in enough places, someone important will smell it and shower him with praises.

In short, he's a douche.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 11:36:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarians and conservatives differentiated.

Libertarians on:

Social issues- Typically liberal though not always and do not wish for the State to be involved in those issues.

Economic issues- Fiscally conservative.

Foreign policy- Usually non-interventionist.

Conservatives on:

Social issues- Typically see a role for the State in solving social issues(abortion, gay marriage).

Economic issues- Fiscally conservative though there are some exceptions, the military for example.

Foreign policy- Usually interventionist. See a role for the government in spreading democracy, foiling terrorism, exc.

I hope I haven't offended Serk or Roy. Please tell me if this is an incorrect observation on typical conservative positions.
My manwich!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:00:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 11:07:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
charles, I'm sorry, but I'm offended. You mistakenly conclude that because a libertarian believes that the government has no place in regulating the lives of individuals, individuals are to seclude themselves completely. This is a mistaken conclusion drawn out in a hasty generalization, a process that also leads to many social ills such as racism, no? As a libertarian, I believe that nobody has a right to force any man or woman to do anything; is there something inherently wrong with that? Meanwhile, we continue to interact with society, helping friends and even donating to charity, but we will not force you or anybody else to do something that you do not wish to do. If I am incorrect, charles, and you are so good at understanding the libertarian mentality (no, wait, mentalite'), tell me, what am I like?

I also take offense to your claim that conservatives are anti-abortion because of a desire to deprive women of a choice. Conservatives and many libertarians such as myself believe that the fetus is its own life, and terminating a fetus is just as bad as killing an innocent human. We would take the same position if men could become pregnant, so it definitely isn't out of sexism; it's because we value human life. I can see and understand the other side, though, and their basis in the right to choose; the question is, can you?

I sincerely apologize if I've made you feel offended on a personal level. My aim is only to critically dissect the nature of conservative-libertarian ideology, which I find lies in the psychology of the adherents of these isms. Of course in the process of doing this it's quite impossible to avoid making some of you feel as though you've been insulted in an ad hominem fashion, all I can do is apologize and suggest that you bracket your ego when reading one of my analyses of conservatism-libertarianism.

Now then, as to the human decency of right-libertarians, well, it's morally swell of you-all to donate to private charities, but if you ever managed to implement your ideals and create a society with no government-sponsored social safety net, and you began to look about and observe the human misery that was no longer being alleviated by welfare programs, if you began to witness children going hungry, people dying from lack of health care services, and the homeless population burgeoning, if you could witness all of this and not feel moved to revise your philosophical position, if you did not feel moved to call for compassionate aid on a societal scale to the suffering and dying, then your human decency really will have been exchanged for ideological purity.

On to abortion. Perhaps you're an exception, but, the disillusioning truth be told, for a great many conservatives abortion is really a red-herring and Trojan-horse issue that they exploit as ammunition in the "culture war".

That is, they have no genuine, deeply heartfelt sense of the sacredness of life, and no compassionate concern for fetuses. Just think about all the uncompassionate and anti-life stances of conservatism. Let's see, there's the conservative's support for the death penalty; his/her hawkish support of the death-dealing military; his/her opposition to benevolent social programs to help fetuses after they're born, i.e. welfare to stave off their death from all the distressed economic conditions that so very many children in poverty are subject to; and of course there's the conservative's vituperative aggressiveness on all of these and other issues, not exactly the sort of sweetness & light disposition you'd expect from humanitarian life-lovers!

Alas no, all too many conservatives are merely unkindly moralists, i.e. they have a superiority-oriented mentality that's wont to assert on their behalf various forms of superiority – and yes, among them, moral superiority. The way it works is quite simple, you don't need an advanced degree in psychology to grasp it. This underlying "conservative" superiority-oriented mentality identifies various plausible moral pretexts upon which to ballyhoo one's moral righteousness, issues that can serve as a moralist's bully pulpit, it then proceeds to take a sanctimonious stance and rectitudinously rail against the object or objects of moral its contempt.

All of this makes for a nice boosting of a moralist's ego, all in the name of the holy cause of battling the sin and sinners of a society in moral decline, say hallelujah! Also in the name of this pious effort to protect the moral fiber of society, conservative culture war jihadists can justify legislating their personal morality for society. Well, there's nothing to really make a Glenn Beck clone feel superior and dominant like imposing his moral will upon everyone else. Mm-hmm, the social-dominance-craving conservative attempts to politically parlay his ethical positions on public policy issues into realpolitik power. It's all about the superiority and power, stupid (I'm not actually calling you stupid, I'm paraphrasing a popular quote).

Of course the abortion issue is the conservative moral bully pulpit par excellence. It allows conservatives to pillory and demonize their opponents as dreadful enemies of life, as literal baby killers. Talk about an issue that let's folks on the religious right get their need to feel superior off! Just the way that a teenage boy uses a Playboy magazine to masturbate his member, a conservative uses abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in school, etc. to masturbate his overinflated sense of being holier-than-thou. You can almost see the erection in the pants of some conservative preachers and commentators. Maybe that's why some of them stay behind desks and podiums on Fox News.

Moreover, abortion being an issue that plays to voters so effectively for the right in red states, as ammunition goes it's a regular Howitzer shell for conservative candidates. They can and do use it to blow the opposition out of the political water, and to blast their way into the halls of governmental power. I don't wish to be an ogre of a cynic, but this is what it's really all about my friend, not safeguarding the lives of precious little fetuses whom conservatives will deny food stamps once they come to term.

Ah, but what of the ethical question, are fetuses a form of life, and human beings, with a right to life? Well, a case certainly can be made for that position. But, at the end of the day spent pondering the ethical and theological dimensions of the question, neither side can prove the correctness of its viewpoint beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, since we don't know for a verifiable fact that human fetuses are human beings, or that they aren't, government shouldn't codify either viewpoint, it should neither prohibit nor ever require abortion. Quite simply, society should err in favor of letting individuals search their own consciences and make their own decisions when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Yes, it's really that simple, unless you're a superiority-seeking moralist of a conservative who unconsciously wishes to impose his/her "pro-life" stance on society in order to enjoy the feeling of righteousness and power surging through your ego. I'm not saying that you're necessarily this kind of conservative, but I'm afraid that many of your fellow conservatives fit this bill to a T, as in Tartuffe.
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
6/23/2011 6:08:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:27:49 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 6/21/2011 10:03:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's obvious that Charlesb isn't serious about intellectual honesty. If he actually cared, he would create debate challenges. He puts enough effort into writing his topics, that he could actually have an open challenge. But no, he doesn't debate.:

The ironic thing is that Charles is one of the most egotistical people on this site, hands down. He's not interested in engaging in any meaningful dialogue, rather he wants a monologue and a subservient audience who will jack off to his brilliance! How do I know? He abandons a post the second he has to actually defend his assertions. Charles is here because he just wants to vomit his diatribe. He's convinced his thoughts are so important that we'd all be remiss not hearing them expressed. He wants everyone to be dazzled by his writing abilities and the depth of his genius. I'm convinced at this point that it's masturbatory. He gets off on it, and perhaps his real goal is exposure. His sh*tty blog couldn't possibly generate much popularity, so he hopes if he sh*ts in enough places, someone important will smell it and shower him with praises.

In short, he's a douche.

Firstly, just look at the length of my reply above to mongeese and try to claim that I can't be bothered to respond to or defend my viewpoint against criticism.

Secondly, let me just translate your own criticism of moi here: "Wah, wah, wah, I don't like what charleslb has to say, he too often hits a sensitive nerve of mine, and I don't have any really good arguments to put up against his legitimately critical analyses, so I'm just going to attack him for being too ad hominem and for his pompous writing and personality. Wah, wah, wah, blah, blah blah."
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.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:24:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
On to abortion. Perhaps you're an exception, but, the disillusioning truth be told, for a great many conservatives abortion is really a red-herring and Trojan-horse issue that they exploit as ammunition in the "culture war".

That is, they have no genuine, deeply heartfelt sense of the sacredness of life, and no compassionate concern for fetuses. Just think about all the uncompassionate and anti-life stances of conservatism. Let's see, there's the conservative's support for the death penalty; his/her hawkish support of the death-dealing military; his/her opposition to benevolent social programs to help fetuses after they're born, i.e. welfare to stave off their death from all the distressed economic conditions that so very many children in poverty are subject to; and of course there's the conservative's vituperative aggressiveness on all of these and other issues, not exactly the sort of sweetness & light disposition you'd expect from humanitarian life-lovers!

Generally there's a difference between murderers and unborn fetuses in conservatives eyes as well as libertarians.

While murderers violate the nonaggression principal, fetuses do not.

With wars I generally agree up to a utilitarian standpoint

Also many conservatives support welfare for children, just not for their lazy parents. I also support removing children from welfare houses to remove the incentive to have more children for more aid money that is not spent on the children.

Refute that bitch.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:55:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:00:20 PM, charleslb wrote:

I sincerely apologize if I've made you feel offended on a personal level. My aim is only to critically dissect the nature of conservative-libertarian ideology, which I find lies in the psychology of the adherents of these isms. Of course in the process of doing this it's quite impossible to avoid making some of you feel as though you've been insulted in an ad hominem fashion, all I can do is apologize and suggest that you bracket your ego when reading one of my analyses of conservatism-libertarianism.

Now then, as to the human decency of right-libertarians, well, it's morally swell of you-all to donate to private charities, but if you ever managed to implement your ideals and create a society with no government-sponsored social safety net, and you began to look about and observe the human misery that was no longer being alleviated by welfare programs, if you began to witness children going hungry, people dying from lack of health care services, and the homeless population burgeoning, if you could witness all of this and not feel moved to revise your philosophical position, if you did not feel moved to call for compassionate aid on a societal scale to the suffering and dying, then your human decency really will have been exchanged for ideological purity.

I don't think we're going to see children going hungry and people dying in the streets due to a lack of government welfare. A recent Stossel special, "Freeloaders," established that one can simply panhandle in the streets and make more money than a minimum wage job, even preferring panhandling to working. The children are in an even better situation because people are always willing to donate more to children's charities, because they're children. I see no moral hazard with such a situation, and I don't quite understand why you do.

On to abortion. Perhaps you're an exception, but, the disillusioning truth be told, for a great many conservatives abortion is really a red-herring and Trojan-horse issue that they exploit as ammunition in the "culture war".

And you know this "fact" how? Did you go into a conservative's head?

That is, they have no genuine, deeply heartfelt sense of the sacredness of life, and no compassionate concern for fetuses. Just think about all the uncompassionate and anti-life stances of conservatism. Let's see, there's the conservative's support for the death penalty;

Conservatives want to kill the deadliest criminals in an attempt to save lives in deterrene, among other factors.

his/her hawkish support of the death-dealing military;

Fighting armed rebel groups constitutes desiring the youth of America to die?

his/her opposition to benevolent social programs to help fetuses after they're born, i.e. welfare to stave off their death from all the distressed economic conditions that so very many children in poverty are subject to;

With just private donations and charity soup kitchens, it would actually be a challenge to starve to death in America.

and of course there's the conservative's vituperative aggressiveness on all of these and other issues, not exactly the sort of sweetness & light disposition you'd expect from humanitarian life-lovers!

What?

Alas no, all too many conservatives are merely unkindly moralists, i.e. they have a superiority-oriented mentality that's wont to assert on their behalf various forms of superiority – and yes, among them, moral superiority. The way it works is quite simple, you don't need an advanced degree in psychology to grasp it. This underlying "conservative" superiority-oriented mentality identifies various plausible moral pretexts upon which to ballyhoo one's moral righteousness, issues that can serve as a moralist's bully pulpit, it then proceeds to take a sanctimonious stance and rectitudinously rail against the object or objects of moral its contempt.

You're hardly a reliable source for the mind of a conservative.

All of this makes for a nice boosting of a moralist's ego, all in the name of the holy cause of battling the sin and sinners of a society in moral decline, say hallelujah! Also in the name of this pious effort to protect the moral fiber of society, conservative culture war jihadists can justify legislating their personal morality for society. Well, there's nothing to really make a Glenn Beck clone feel superior and dominant like imposing his moral will upon everyone else. Mm-hmm, the social-dominance-craving conservative attempts to politically parlay his ethical positions on public policy issues into realpolitik power. It's all about the superiority and power, stupid (I'm not actually calling you stupid, I'm paraphrasing a popular quote).

Fighting abortion is worse than wanting to shut down nuclear reactors because it means less business for the wind turbines you invested in?

Of course the abortion issue is the conservative moral bully pulpit par excellence. It allows conservatives to pillory and demonize their opponents as dreadful enemies of life, as literal baby killers. Talk about an issue that let's folks on the religious right get their need to feel superior off! Just the way that a teenage boy uses a Playboy magazine to masturbate his member, a conservative uses abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in school, etc. to masturbate his overinflated sense of being holier-than-thou. You can almost see the erection in the pants of some conservative preachers and commentators. Maybe that's why some of them stay behind desks and podiums on Fox News.

The fact that you actually wrote that is deeply disturbing.

Moreover, abortion being an issue that plays to voters so effectively for the right in red states, as ammunition goes it's a regular Howitzer shell for conservative candidates. They can and do use it to blow the opposition out of the political water, and to blast their way into the halls of governmental power. I don't wish to be an ogre of a cynic, but this is what it's really all about my friend, not safeguarding the lives of precious little fetuses whom conservatives will deny food stamps once they come to term.

Deny foodstamps? Many conservatives actually support some degree of social welfare, especially for children, and if that didn't exist, they'd be happy to found and fund soup kitchens and other forms of private charity.

Ah, but what of the ethical question, are fetuses a form of life, and human beings, with a right to life? Well, a case certainly can be made for that position. But, at the end of the day spent pondering the ethical and theological dimensions of the question, neither side can prove the correctness of its viewpoint beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, since we don't know for a verifiable fact that human fetuses are human beings, or that they aren't, government shouldn't codify either viewpoint, it should neither prohibit nor ever require abortion. Quite simply, society should err in favor of letting individuals search their own consciences and make their own decisions when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Yes, it's really that simple, unless you're a superiority-seeking moralist of a conservative who unconsciously wishes to impose his/her "pro-life" stance on society in order to enjoy the feeling of righteousness and power surging through your ego. I'm not saying that you're necessarily this kind of conservative, but I'm afraid that many of your fellow conservatives fit this bill to a T, as in Tartuffe.

There was a time when society wasn't sure whether or not non-white people qualify as humans. In such a society, would it be just to allow murderers to kill them off out of agnosticism?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:26:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm translating this time.

At 6/23/2011 6:00:20 PM, charleslb wrote:
I sincerely apologize if I've made you feel offended on a personal level. My aim is only to critically dissect the nature of conservative-libertarian ideology, which I find lies in the psychology of the adherents of these isms. Of course in the process of doing this it's quite impossible to avoid making some of you feel as though you've been insulted in an ad hominem fashion, all I can do is apologize and suggest that you bracket your ego when reading one of my analyses of conservatism-libertarianism.

I'm sorry if I insulted you. It's just that there's no other way in which I can make my points against your alpha male-female mentalité.

Now then, as to the human decency of right-libertarians, well, it's morally swell of you-all to donate to private charities, but if you ever managed to implement your ideals and create a society with no government-sponsored social safety net, and you began to look about and observe the human misery that was no longer being alleviated by welfare programs, if you began to witness children going hungry, people dying from lack of health care services, and the homeless population burgeoning, if you could witness all of this and not feel moved to revise your philosophical position, if you did not feel moved to call for compassionate aid on a societal scale to the suffering and dying, then your human decency really will have been exchanged for ideological purity.

How dare you be capable of looking at a place without government ensuring everything and not think to yourself, "This needs more coercion! Bring in the government!"

On to abortion. Perhaps you're an exception, but, the disillusioning truth be told, for a great many conservatives abortion is really a red-herring and Trojan-horse issue that they exploit as ammunition in the "culture war".

I know how conservatives think. They are evil. Seriously.

(Wait! This is clearly just charles projecting his own exploitation on conservatives! GASP!)

That is, they have no genuine, deeply heartfelt sense of the sacredness of life, and no compassionate concern for fetuses. Just think about all the uncompassionate and anti-life stances of conservatism. Let's see, there's the conservative's support for the death penalty; his/her hawkish support of the death-dealing military; his/her opposition to benevolent social programs to help fetuses after they're born, i.e. welfare to stave off their death from all the distressed economic conditions that so very many children in poverty are subject to; and of course there's the conservative's vituperative aggressiveness on all of these and other issues, not exactly the sort of sweetness & light disposition you'd expect from humanitarian life-lovers!

Clearly, because they want to kill criminals and not subsidize everything in existence, they would rather see all fetuses (and poor people) dead if it wasn't such a political issue. It's not like they have hearts or anything.

Alas no, all too many conservatives are merely unkindly moralists, i.e. they have a superiority-oriented mentality that's wont to assert on their behalf various forms of superiority – and yes, among them, moral superiority. The way it works is quite simple, you don't need an advanced degree in psychology to grasp it. This underlying "conservative" superiority-oriented mentality identifies various plausible moral pretexts upon which to ballyhoo one's moral righteousness, issues that can serve as a moralist's bully pulpit, it then proceeds to take a sanctimonious stance and rectitudinously rail against the object or objects of moral its contempt.

Conservatives feel morally superior when they bash the other side for killing babies, but in truth they are inferior to the MUCH more superior liberals, like me, who clearly don't feel unjustly superior. At all.

All of this makes for a nice boosting of a moralist's ego, all in the name of the holy cause of battling the sin and sinners of a society in moral decline, say hallelujah! Also in the name of this pious effort to protect the moral fiber of society, conservative culture war jihadists can justify legislating their personal morality for society. Well, there's nothing to really make a Glenn Beck clone feel superior and dominant like imposing his moral will upon everyone else. Mm-hmm, the social-dominance-craving conservative attempts to politically parlay his ethical positions on public policy issues into realpolitik power. It's all about the superiority and power, stupid (I'm not actually calling you stupid, I'm paraphrasing a popular quote).

How dare they try to force their moral standards on society! That clearly isn't what I do when I want them to pay for a welfare state. Not even close. Mm-hmm. Mentalité. (That's not what paraphrasing means, stupid.)

Of course the abortion issue is the conservative moral bully pulpit par excellence. It allows conservatives to pillory and demonize their opponents as dreadful enemies of life, as literal baby killers. Talk about an issue that let's folks on the religious right get their need to feel superior off! Just the way that a teenage boy uses a Playboy magazine to masturbate his member, a conservative uses abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in school, etc. to masturbate his overinflated sense of being holier-than-thou. You can almost see the erection in the pants of some conservative preachers and commentators. Maybe that's why some of them stay behind desks and podiums on Fox News.

Not translated out of decency.

Moreover, abortion being an issue that plays to voters so effectively for the right in red states, as ammunition goes it's a regular Howitzer shell for conservative candidates. They can and do use it to blow the opposition out of the political water, and to blast their way into the halls of governmental power. I don't wish to be an ogre of a cynic, but this is what it's really all about my friend, not safeguarding the lives of precious little fetuses whom conservatives will deny food stamps once they come to term.

I don't want to be a cynical idiot, but it's who I am. It's clearly best to kill fetuses before you have to give them food.

Ah, but what of the ethical question, are fetuses a form of life, and human beings, with a right to life? Well, a case certainly can be made for that position. But, at the end of the day spent pondering the ethical and theological dimensions of the question, neither side can prove the correctness of its viewpoint beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, since we don't know for a verifiable fact that human fetuses are human beings, or that they aren't, government shouldn't codify either viewpoint, it should neither prohibit nor ever require abortion. Quite simply, society should err in favor of letting individuals search their own consciences and make their own decisions when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Yes, it's really that simple, unless you're a superiority-seeking moralist of a conservative who unconsciously wishes to impose his/her "pro-life" stance on society in order to enjoy the feeling of righteousness and power surging through your ego. I'm not saying that you're necessarily this kind of conservative, but I'm afraid that many of your fellow conservatives fit this bill to a T, as in Tartuffe.

Because we don't know that fetuses should have a right to life, they have similar rights to a rock.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 8:00:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hey, charleslb, if you're going to criticize on so broad a scale:

source or your words are nothing.

Have professionals back you up; your claims are nothing unto themselves.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 12:00:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is a good reason why charleslb rambles on and on but won't accept debate challenges. Rambling allows endless evasion.

It is not true that libertarians care nothing about social welfare. Chairman Mao cared deeply about equality and made everyone dirt poor. Hong Kong cared very little about equality and brought prosperity. The most effective way to care is to bring prosperity. That's repeated many times, North v. South Korea, East v. West Germany. There is no doubt how that works.

Second, libertarians do not oppose private charity. They just oppose government being a mechanism for forcing "charity."

Per William Buckley, "Conservatism is the doctrine of evolutionary change." The basic idea is that society is improved in small steps, evaluating whether each step is an improvement. Libertarians may or may not be conservatives by this standard. Some Libertarians believe that only a dramatic overnight revolution will work, because any small changes are indefensible.

I don't see a great divide between Libertarians and Conservatives on many social issues, although the Libertarians are less inclined to use government. Note that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are both religious, for example. The big divide is on foreign policy. Libertarians generally are opposed to preemption. That seems to me illogical, but there it is.

The current economy is so bad, and the prospects for prosperity are so bad, that social issues are now being pushed aside in favor of fighting death from Socialism.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 2:13:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your thesis is that libertarians rationalize "not caring." So, how do you propose that the state rationalize and then enforce the completely subjective idea of "caring?" At the point where "caring" is an abstract idea that varies according to every individual, how do you suggest that "caring" be harnessed and used for the good of society?

You can't. When altruism is enfrced, it seeks to be altruism, and any policy on "caring" goes straight out the window. Libertarians (or maybe its just me) believe that moral outreach must be left to individuals, because only individuals can effectively express and carry out "caring" deeds.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 4:37:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:55:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
I don't think we're going to see children going hungry and people dying in the streets due to a lack of government welfare. A recent Stossel special, "Freeloaders," established that one can simply panhandle in the streets and make more money than a minimum wage job, even preferring panhandling to working. The children are in an even better situation because people are always willing to donate more to children's charities, because they're children. I see no moral hazard with such a situation, and I don't quite understand why you do.

My gosh, you have that much confidence in anything emerging from the mendacious mouth of Mr. John Stossel?!!! The man is downright notorious for being a fudger and falsifier of facts to suit his ideological point of view. Aren't you aware of this little discreditable fact about the man, or do you just choose to look the other way?

And for those who criticize me for failing to provide sources, click on these links, http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://www.organicconsumers.org...
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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 5:37:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
charles, since your only response seems to be sources to slander Stossel, I guess my only job here is to refute them.

First source:

Instead of using large-scale statistics, which are subject to confounding and lurking variables, Stossel interviewed two employers who actually had to cut jobs because the minimum wage made employment unprofitable. One man actually had to replace his workers with machines to stay in business.

Stossel's claim might appear to contradict that of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but this isn't true. Even if a man and woman are in the same profession, the man usually puts in more hours at more inconvenient times, as Thomas Sowell noted in "Economic Facts and Fallacies."

I can't actually find the article that the source cites, because instead of a proper direct link, it provides a link to all of Stossel's articles, of which there are many through which I do not wish to search.

Finally, while Stossel may have sued a wrestler for attacking him, that was back in 1984, when he was a pro-lawsuit liberal. Since then, he has become a libertarian, and has regretted many of his past actions, including freeloading in California, and publically criticized himself for them. To say that the lawsuit was "hypocritical" is just flat-out ignoring time.

Second source:

http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 5:58:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even one of the links on huffington post's post to show supposed with the heritage foundation were problematic. For example:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...

It claims "You can't use the maximums" when the Heritage foundation's claim, that it quoted was that it would ALLOW that number of immigrants, not cause. "Allow" means using the maximums.

When the Huffington writer's post is not only itself filled with fallacies (like correlation=causation on minimum wage), but also links to another person's fallacious argument, you're just building a great big link circle of crap.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 6:01:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Unlike Stossel regarding one particular test of organic food (for data that isn't even known to be important), none of these writers apologize for this idiocy.
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.