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

Classical liberal AMA

TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This could be fun
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,898
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 8:21:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

Is air property?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Iacov
Posts: 499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 8:21:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

Many on the left and right criticize classical liberals for focusing purely on economics and politics to the neglect of a vital issue: culture. The criticism could have implications for the future of classical liberalism. As F. A. Hayek pointed out in "The Intellectuals and Socialism," the perception of a philosophy affects its longevity

Thoughts?
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 9:26:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 8:21:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

Is air property?

That's an interesting question. What's the context? I think quite clearly the air in someone's land property is theirs - you cannot just have a drone fly outside their window all day. Can you require someone to pay for air while on your property? I don't see any scenario where someone does that.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,898
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 9:29:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 9:26:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/15/2017 8:21:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

Is air property?

That's an interesting question. What's the context? I think quite clearly the air in someone's land property is theirs - you cannot just have a drone fly outside their window all day. Can you require someone to pay for air while on your property? I don't see any scenario where someone does that.

Let's say you have a house next to a factory and the factory begins polluting the air within your property. Is that air your property and is that factory ruining your property?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 9:31:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 8:21:49 PM, Iacov wrote:
Many on the left and right criticize classical liberals for focusing purely on economics and politics to the neglect of a vital issue: culture. The criticism could have implications for the future of classical liberalism. As F. A. Hayek pointed out in "The Intellectuals and Socialism," the perception of a philosophy affects its longevity

Thoughts?

You are absolutely correct that classical liberalism places a premium on economics. I don't think classical liberalism rejects the influence of culture - however, can the government truly decide what culture is? I don't think so.

Unlike Plato, I see the state and the culture as different. The role of the government is to protect the natural rights of individuals - the responsibility to protect culture, including the culture of a republic, belongs to the people. Ultimately, the state simply cannot mandate behavior.

That being said, the government does have some role in culture. By protecting the right to free speech, for instance, we encourage a culture of discussion. By protecting the freedom of religion, we encourage a culture of religious pluralism. But these are natural rights that man has anyway, and any culture that lacks them is deficient. So I think it's proper to say a classical liberal doesn't see government as defining culture, but protecting a culture that respects the natural rights of man.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 9:39:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 9:29:04 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/15/2017 9:26:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/15/2017 8:21:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

Is air property?

That's an interesting question. What's the context? I think quite clearly the air in someone's land property is theirs - you cannot just have a drone fly outside their window all day. Can you require someone to pay for air while on your property? I don't see any scenario where someone does that.

Let's say you have a house next to a factory and the factory begins polluting the air within your property. Is that air your property and is that factory ruining your property?

I would cautiously say yes. I don't think it's property in the same sense as a car or a house, but it's certainly part of your possession and clearly something you need to live. In theory I'm open to an idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax (reducing corporate or business taxes equally to revenue raised) to rectify concerns like this; the problem I see is that this is disproportionately harmful to rural people, who rely on carbon more than urban people, and paying to help them would violate the revenue neutrality. That's a more practical than philosophical problem, though.

I think a more concrete example is water. If a company pollutes your water (like in a well, for instance) or public water, they should have to pay to fix it and give damages. Water is a quantifiable resource and damaging it is harmful.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 11:01:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 9:54:55 PM, Danielle wrote:
What do you feel are the most important distinctions between classical liberalism and libertarianism?

I don't think there are a ton of differences in terms of pure ideology between classical liberals and libertarians. Pure libertarians are basically extreme classical liberals. The problem is libertarians place priorities in different areas and draw drastically different conclusions on vital issues.

In my experience, most libertarians tend to fall into four camps: drug advocates, isolationists, conspiracy theorists, and minarchists/anarchists. The actual intellectual libertarians seem very limited in number.

Intellectually, I see classical liberalism as placing its biggest emphasis on free markets and limited government. Libertarianism is far less consistent, because it's a newer ideology with less intellectual history, far fewer elected officeholders of importance (in practice, many conservatives are in actuality classical liberals; Paul Ryan is a self-proclaimed classical liberal, for instance), and it also tends to vary heavily from person-to-person. A Reason libertarian is very different from a civil libertarian or paleolibertarian, for instance.

Practically, I think classical liberals are more pragmatic and willing to work slowly. Libertarians have big, bold policy positions and while that's well and good, it hasn't really affected policy much. Our end goal is similar: we just have different paths to get there. I also think libertarians are often too far isolationist - outside of trade, they take a stance on the military that is well outside what I think the historical classical liberal stance is. I'm not a neoconservative or an isolationist - I'm in the middle, and that's where I see classical liberalism as being.

That being said, pure libertarianism is not inconsistent with classical liberalism and at and I think it is only natural to work with them towards our common goals.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2017 11:21:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 9:54:55 PM, Danielle wrote:
What do you feel are the most important distinctions between classical liberalism and libertarianism?

Classical liberalism contained libertarianism and weighted it. Libertarian is a necessary label now that liberalism definition has socialized. They are the same in most conceivable circumstances, but one is historically referenced and the other modern
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 5:38:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

How did you become a classical liberal?
Who are your favorite thinkers and writers?
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 3:17:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2017 5:38:56 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

How did you become a classical liberal?

Part of it was realizing how deficient modern conservatism is. By 2014 I was greatly disillusioned with the Tea Party wing - their government shutdown was a total failure and they kept nominating crazy people. Then they jumped off the shark and openly endorsed someone with net-confederate ties in Mississippi (Chris McDaniel), tried to replace Mitch McConnell with someone who supports cockfighting (Bevin), and in my state wanted to nominate someone (Greg Brannon) who has flirted with the 9/11 Truthers - and that's like the least dumb thing he's done (https://www.buzzfeed.com...).

The rise of Trump has made it apparent conservatism is a meaningless term. Classical liberalism most adequately defines my viewpoint.

Who are your favorite thinkers and writers?

Historically, I really like the ideas Locke and Smith laid out. Their work is the foundation of the republic. Milton Freidman was a great voice for economic freedom as well. I also highly respect the work of Plato - his work was also foundational, but fundamentally flawed in many areas.

Currently, I think there are a lot of good writers at National Review Online and The Federalist. I discount this by noting that both are far too liberal in who they accept, particularly at The Federalist, which is unfortunate - the best of their best present a solid case for what I would consider an acceptable classical liberalism.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 4:40:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.youtube.com...
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 4:56:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2017 4:40:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

"Just realize your worthless" then it has a full minute of reflection and laughing my A$$ off.
thett3
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 5:24:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the entire population of, say, England was replaced with, say, Pakistani Muslims but initially retained the same laws, governmental structure, economic system, ect. would it still be England in any meaningful sense?

If they were given the same constitution and similar resources would a population of Bantus create a similar society to Chinese expats? Just feeling out how far are you willing to go to defend the universality of your ideals and deny the reality of ethnicity in a political context.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 7:42:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2017 5:24:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
If the entire population of, say, England was replaced with, say, Pakistani Muslims but initially retained the same laws, governmental structure, economic system, ect. would it still be England in any meaningful sense?

Is it fundamentally wrong that English culture today is vastly different from English culture before the Norman conquest?

If they were given the same constitution and similar resources would a population of Bantus create a similar society to Chinese expats? Just feeling out how far are you willing to go to defend the universality of your ideals and deny the reality of ethnicity in a political context.

Natural rights are, by definition, universal. It's literally the foundation of our culture and system of government. You can't claim to support American culture and nationalism, but reject the idea of natural rights. The culture you want, in that case, is drastically different.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
thett3
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 8:32:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2017 7:42:34 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/16/2017 5:24:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
If the entire population of, say, England was replaced with, say, Pakistani Muslims but initially retained the same laws, governmental structure, economic system, ect. would it still be England in any meaningful sense?

Is it fundamentally wrong that English culture today is vastly different from English culture before the Norman conquest?

That is not the question. If all Englishman in England were replaced with Pakistanis, would it still be England to you? Why or why not?


If they were given the same constitution and similar resources would a population of Bantus create a similar society to Chinese expats? Just feeling out how far are you willing to go to defend the universality of your ideals and deny the reality of ethnicity in a political context.

Natural rights are, by definition, universal. It's literally the foundation of our culture and system of government. You can't claim to support American culture and nationalism, but reject the idea of natural rights. The culture you want, in that case, is drastically different.

I'm not going to argue with you because this is your Ama and I'm trying to understand your position fully. Do you honestly believe that there are universal human values that are specific enough to form governments around? That is, that there truly is an ideal form of government that would work equally well for EVERYONE?

If you're saying that some broad values, like say life itself, are so widespread among humans that we may as well view them as universal I am on board. But what I don't understand about classical liberalism, and maybe you can explain it to me, is why highly specific political values get lumped in with that. Do you really believe that the right to, say, a jury trial is ordained by God and that there is no other legal system that could possibly be just? Burkes insight was the opposite of this--the "universal declaration of the rights of man" was a fundamentally incoherent concept, whereas the "rights of Englishmen" were worth defending to the death. This is my view as well. Specifically, where do you think I'm off base?

I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you like I usually do. If there's any point beyond self aggrandizement to these threads it's to illustrate the differences between ideologies.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 11:47:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2017 8:32:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/16/2017 7:42:34 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/16/2017 5:24:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
If the entire population of, say, England was replaced with, say, Pakistani Muslims but initially retained the same laws, governmental structure, economic system, ect. would it still be England in any meaningful sense?

Is it fundamentally wrong that English culture today is vastly different from English culture before the Norman conquest?

That is not the question. If all Englishman in England were replaced with Pakistanis, would it still be England to you? Why or why not?

Why is it up to the American to define what Englishness is? Who defines Englishness - the Englishman, or the English government?

If they were given the same constitution and similar resources would a population of Bantus create a similar society to Chinese expats? Just feeling out how far are you willing to go to defend the universality of your ideals and deny the reality of ethnicity in a political context.

Natural rights are, by definition, universal. It's literally the foundation of our culture and system of government. You can't claim to support American culture and nationalism, but reject the idea of natural rights. The culture you want, in that case, is drastically different.

I'm not going to argue with you because this is your Ama and I'm trying to understand your position fully. Do you honestly believe that there are universal human values that are specific enough to form governments around? That is, that there truly is an ideal form of government that would work equally well for EVERYONE?

I believe there are universal human values. I believe God has granted man certain natural rights that are shared collectively by all of mankind.

I don't believe any particular form of government will work well. Men aren't angels. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except all the others.

At present, representative republicanism seems to be the form of government that is most consistent with individual rights. Is it the ideal? I don't know. But I know it's better than the alternative.

If you're saying that some broad values, like say life itself, are so widespread among humans that we may as well view them as universal I am on board. But what I don't understand about classical liberalism, and maybe you can explain it to me, is why highly specific political values get lumped in with that. Do you really believe that the right to, say, a jury trial is ordained by God and that there is no other legal system that could possibly be just?

The only form of system God ordained specifically is the Israelite government... which I don't think any of us would see as acceptable in modern times.

What I will say is that a jury trial is indeed most consistent with the natural rights God has granted. At least of the ones we have right now. Would others be acceptable? Perhaps. I have yet to see a superior one, though.

Burkes insight was the opposite of this--the "universal declaration of the rights of man" was a fundamentally incoherent concept, whereas the "rights of Englishmen" were worth defending to the death. This is my view as well. Specifically, where do you think I'm off base?

God created all men, not just the Englishmen. Does it not reason that since all men are equal - unless you reject that argument - God holds all men to the same standard?

Unless you want to argue that God created specific rights for the Englishmen, or that God didn't create any rights at all and that man is the one who creates rights - both of which are terrifying concepts our founders utterly rejected - I don't see a way around that.

There is a certain irony in a nationalist who rejects the entire national founding principles and wants to replace them with something else. How is that any different than the example you note of the Pakistani replacing the Englishman?

I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you like I usually do. If there's any point beyond self aggrandizement to these threads it's to illustrate the differences between ideologies.

I agree. It's not antagonism, it's discussing differences.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 2:00:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2017 11:47:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/16/2017 8:32:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/16/2017 7:42:34 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/16/2017 5:24:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you because this is your Ama and I'm trying to understand your position fully. Do you honestly believe that there are universal human values that are specific enough to form governments around? That is, that there truly is an ideal form of government that would work equally well for EVERYONE?

I believe there are universal human values. I believe God has granted man certain natural rights that are shared collectively by all of mankind.

What does this actually mean? Honest question, I'm not just being a b!tch. I've just never seen people lay out exactly what this entails. God did put down a whole bunch of rules and suggestions, and from the original disciples a whole body of belief emerged which persists to this day in various places and various forms. The idea of universal, unalienable rights, however are largely derived from more secularized works, and have a shaky record of implementation. Where was God intimately involved?

If you're saying that some broad values, like say life itself, are so widespread among humans that we may as well view them as universal I am on board. But what I don't understand about classical liberalism, and maybe you can explain it to me, is why highly specific political values get lumped in with that. Do you really believe that the right to, say, a jury trial is ordained by God and that there is no other legal system that could possibly be just?

The only form of system God ordained specifically is the Israelite government... which I don't think any of us would see as acceptable in modern times.

There is also the Church.

Burkes insight was the opposite of this--the "universal declaration of the rights of man" was a fundamentally incoherent concept, whereas the "rights of Englishmen" were worth defending to the death. This is my view as well. Specifically, where do you think I'm off base?
Unless you want to argue that God created specific rights for the Englishmen, or that God didn't create any rights at all and that man is the one who creates rights - both of which are terrifying concepts our founders utterly rejected - I don't see a way around that.

Why do you find that concept terrifying?
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 2:29:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2017 2:00:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/16/2017 11:47:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
I believe there are universal human values. I believe God has granted man certain natural rights that are shared collectively by all of mankind.

What does this actually mean? Honest question, I'm not just being a b!tch. I've just never seen people lay out exactly what this entails. God did put down a whole bunch of rules and suggestions, and from the original disciples a whole body of belief emerged which persists to this day in various places and various forms. The idea of universal, unalienable rights, however are largely derived from more secularized works, and have a shaky record of implementation. Where was God intimately involved?

Simple. God - or nature's law, if you are a deist - set out rules that govern the behavior of mankind. These rules are often stated (the Ten Commandments), but are also self-evident - plainly obvious. The people - who government derives all power from - have a right to reject forms of government that violate self-evident rights.

This is pretty simple. It's laid out in the American founding documents and has shaped all of American history. This is foundational American nationalism. You can't be an American nationalist and oppose what makes America what it is and not Europe.

The only form of system God ordained specifically is the Israelite government... which I don't think any of us would see as acceptable in modern times.

There is also the Church.

I was meaning governments. But sure.

Unless you want to argue that God created specific rights for the Englishmen, or that God didn't create any rights at all and that man is the one who creates rights - both of which are terrifying concepts our founders utterly rejected - I don't see a way around that.

Why do you find that concept terrifying?

It's means there is nothing inherently wrong with going to murder someone. Nothing inherently wrong with using government to do terrible things to people. There is a reason nationalism of this type morphs very easily into terrible ideologies.

How about a more practical example? If government creates rights, the colonists were not justified in rebelling against the British and deserved to be hanged for treason. There is a reason nationalists - those who felt a strong loyalty to the crown, not their countryman - were loyalists.

I find it very odd to see self-proclaimed Christians (not saying you are, this is more directed to thett) rejecting the idea of universal rights. Moral relativism goes against every tradition of the church - and for people who supposedly respect tradition, it's odd to reject such an important tenant.

The more I hear from people who call themselves nationalists, the more I see that they have an ideology that is completely European and that rejects every core tenet of American history and nationalism. This is no different than Obama's attempt to "fundamentally transform" America - in this case, from a constitutionalist republic founded on the principles of natural rights and individual liberty to an ethnonationalist state where the government is the center.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 2:52:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2017 2:29:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/17/2017 2:00:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/16/2017 11:47:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
I believe there are universal human values. I believe God has granted man certain natural rights that are shared collectively by all of mankind.

What does this actually mean? Honest question, I'm not just being a b!tch. I've just never seen people lay out exactly what this entails. God did put down a whole bunch of rules and suggestions, and from the original disciples a whole body of belief emerged which persists to this day in various places and various forms. The idea of universal, unalienable rights, however are largely derived from more secularized works, and have a shaky record of implementation. Where was God intimately involved?

Simple. God - or nature's law, if you are a deist - set out rules that govern the behavior of mankind. These rules are often stated (the Ten Commandments), but are also self-evident - plainly obvious. The people - who government derives all power from - have a right to reject forms of government that violate self-evident rights.

Yeah, but how does that right manifest? I mean, lots of people have tried to exercise that right and have just ended up dead/beaten into submission. I'm pretty much certain that if Americans hadn't tried it at a time when information moved at the speed of a sail and their governing power was divided from them by a very long sea journey they would have ended up dead/beaten into submission as well. So what good does having the right in the first place even do? It seems like a completely extraneous aspect of the whole ordeal, and at worst it seems likely to inspire suicidal revolt.

This is pretty simple. It's laid out in the American founding documents and has shaped all of American history. This is foundational American nationalism. You can't be an American nationalist and oppose what makes America what it is and not Europe.

I would say the same about people who drive to fundamentally transform American demographics, but any argument about who is and isn't a real 'Murican is just going to turn into a p!ssing match.

Unless you want to argue that God created specific rights for the Englishmen, or that God didn't create any rights at all and that man is the one who creates rights - both of which are terrifying concepts our founders utterly rejected - I don't see a way around that.

Why do you find that concept terrifying?

It's means there is nothing inherently wrong with going to murder someone. Nothing inherently wrong with using government to do terrible things to people. There is a reason nationalism of this type morphs very easily into terrible ideologies.

How about a more practical example? If government creates rights, the colonists were not justified in rebelling against the British and deserved to be hanged for treason. There is a reason nationalists - those who felt a strong loyalty to the crown, not their countryman - were loyalists.

Yeah, but I think that's a pretty sane position. The conclusion that you end up with is: if you're going to revolt, be sure that you can win. Otherwise you're going to have people revolting left and right because no government will ever be perfect.

I find it very odd to see self-proclaimed Christians (not saying you are, this is more directed to thett) rejecting the idea of universal rights. Moral relativism goes against every tradition of the church - and for people who supposedly respect tradition, it's odd to reject such an important tenant.

I think that the idea of universal rights largely goes against the Church, especially unrestrained rights. The Christian message, in my opinion, seems replete with commandments to disobey earthly power in spiritual affairs but work with it in temporal ones. The history does as well. I just don't see a lot of Christians talking about universal natural rights for the vast majority of Christian history, and even those few that did bring it up met with debate from within the Church. I mean, can a Christian argument be made in favor of it? Yep. But it's isn't an absolute tenet of the religion.

The more I hear from people who call themselves nationalists, the more I see that they have an ideology that is completely European and that rejects every core tenet of American history and nationalism. This is no different than Obama's attempt to "fundamentally transform" America - in this case, from a constitutionalist republic founded on the principles of natural rights and individual liberty to an ethnonationalist state where the government is the center.

Um, I would argue that America has been ethnonationalist from its founding. In fact, I don't see how you could argue against that, seeing how immigration restrictions worked during our early history, the first sentence of the Constitution, and early state voting restrictions.

And America is a European country, founded on European philosophical principles by primarily four ethnic groups from Europe. I don't think that you can draw a hard divide there, though America does have a distinct tradition. For example, traditionally America was staunchly anti-Catholic. But then you imported a bunch of them, and you've had to contend with their hyper-'European' ideas for generations now.

See what I did there? ;)
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 3:21:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2017 2:52:32 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/17/2017 2:29:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Simple. God - or nature's law, if you are a deist - set out rules that govern the behavior of mankind. These rules are often stated (the Ten Commandments), but are also self-evident - plainly obvious. The people - who government derives all power from - have a right to reject forms of government that violate self-evident rights.

Yeah, but how does that right manifest? I mean, lots of people have tried to exercise that right and have just ended up dead/beaten into submission. I'm pretty much certain that if Americans hadn't tried it at a time when information moved at the speed of a sail and their governing power was divided from them by a very long sea journey they would have ended up dead/beaten into submission as well.

It means that you are justified in protecting that right, and government is justified in punishing those who violate it, and that the people are justified in stopping a government that violate that right.

So what good does having the right in the first place even do? It seems like a completely extraneous aspect of the whole ordeal, and at worst it seems likely to inspire suicidal revolt.

If you think I'm bad, check out some of the state constitutions that explicitly protect the right of the people to overthrow the government. My state constitution:

"That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind"

The number of successful revolutions in that time? Maybe one.

This is pretty simple. It's laid out in the American founding documents and has shaped all of American history. This is foundational American nationalism. You can't be an American nationalist and oppose what makes America what it is and not Europe.

I would say the same about people who drive to fundamentally transform American demographics, but any argument about who is and isn't a real 'Murican is just going to turn into a p!ssing match.

Is America an ethnostate? If so, which ethnicities are acceptable? Why are people who historically are not considered purely white in an English sense, like Germans and Irish, allowed, while Mexicans - who are derived from Europeans and speak a European language - not? These are the issues with ethnostates.

It's means there is nothing inherently wrong with going to murder someone. Nothing inherently wrong with using government to do terrible things to people. There is a reason nationalism of this type morphs very easily into terrible ideologies.

How about a more practical example? If government creates rights, the colonists were not justified in rebelling against the British and deserved to be hanged for treason. There is a reason nationalists - those who felt a strong loyalty to the crown, not their countryman - were loyalists.

Yeah, but I think that's a pretty sane position. The conclusion that you end up with is: if you're going to revolt, be sure that you can win. Otherwise you're going to have people revolting left and right because no government will ever be perfect.

This position holds true regardless of if the rebellion is justified. The problem is, your position holds that no overthrow of any government is ever acceptable because rights don't exist, so government can't violate them. Mine does.

I find it very odd to see self-proclaimed Christians (not saying you are, this is more directed to thett) rejecting the idea of universal rights. Moral relativism goes against every tradition of the church - and for people who supposedly respect tradition, it's odd to reject such an important tenant.

I think that the idea of universal rights largely goes against the Church, especially unrestrained rights. The Christian message, in my opinion, seems replete with commandments to disobey earthly power in spiritual affairs but work with it in temporal ones. The history does as well. I just don't see a lot of Christians talking about universal natural rights for the vast majority of Christian history, and even those few that did bring it up met with debate from within the Church. I mean, can a Christian argument be made in favor of it? Yep. But it's isn't an absolute tenet of the religion.

Ever heard of the Ten Commandments or the Noahide laws?

The more I hear from people who call themselves nationalists, the more I see that they have an ideology that is completely European and that rejects every core tenet of American history and nationalism. This is no different than Obama's attempt to "fundamentally transform" America - in this case, from a constitutionalist republic founded on the principles of natural rights and individual liberty to an ethnonationalist state where the government is the center.

Um, I would argue that America has been ethnonationalist from its founding. In fact, I don't see how you could argue against that, seeing how immigration restrictions worked during our early history, the first sentence of the Constitution, and early state voting restrictions.

Which ethnicity - English? That's silly considering a major debate was over whether to side with England or France. White? That concept didn't exist the same way it did today (Germans and Irish were met poorly by the Know-Nothings, for instance). European? Lol. We fought to get away from them and held for decades that any European involvement in Pan-American affairs was unacceptable, and taking a stance of America as some pan-European ethnostate while arbitrarily rejecting Mexicans (who are also European, by that logic) is, well, arbitrary.

Or, we can accept the idea that America is a nation founded on ideas, not skin color. You can live your entire life in France and never be French. But you can be French half your life, move here and become an American.

And America is a European country, founded on European philosophical principles by primarily four ethnic groups from Europe. I don't think that you can draw a hard divide there, though America does have a distinct tradition. For example, traditionally America was staunchly anti-Catholic. But then you imported a bunch of them, and you've had to contend with their hyper-'European' ideas for generations now.

See what I did there? ;)

Funny, considering the in states with the highest proportion of self-identified English (Utah, Maine, Vermont, Idaho, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, Delaware, Rhode Island, Colorado, and Washington), Trump only won 3 of 12 (25%). So is nationalism anti-American, then, since the English soundly rejected him?
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 4:01:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2017 3:21:30 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/17/2017 2:52:32 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, but how does that right manifest? I mean, lots of people have tried to exercise that right and have just ended up dead/beaten into submission. I'm pretty much certain that if Americans hadn't tried it at a time when information moved at the speed of a sail and their governing power was divided from them by a very long sea journey they would have ended up dead/beaten into submission as well.

It means that you are justified in protecting that right, and government is justified in punishing those who violate it, and that the people are justified in stopping a government that violate that right.

So what good does having the right in the first place even do? It seems like a completely extraneous aspect of the whole ordeal, and at worst it seems likely to inspire suicidal revolt.

If you think I'm bad, check out some of the state constitutions that explicitly protect the right of the people to overthrow the government. My state constitution:

"That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind"

The number of successful revolutions in that time? Maybe one.

Doesn't seem that effective then. Do you really think that your government hasn't been arbitrarily oppressive at all during that time? I'm arguing that the idea is absurd, that if people actually followed it nothing would work.

This is pretty simple. It's laid out in the American founding documents and has shaped all of American history. This is foundational American nationalism. You can't be an American nationalist and oppose what makes America what it is and not Europe.

I would say the same about people who drive to fundamentally transform American demographics, but any argument about who is and isn't a real 'Murican is just going to turn into a p!ssing match.

Is America an ethnostate?

Not any more.

If so, which ethnicities are acceptable? Why are people who historically are not considered purely white in an English sense, like Germans and Irish, allowed, while Mexicans - who are derived from Europeans and speak a European language - not? These are the issues with ethnostates.

The whole idea is that a government exists for the good of the people who formed it and their posterity. It's not about weird ethnic purity/hygiene.

It's means there is nothing inherently wrong with going to murder someone. Nothing inherently wrong with using government to do terrible things to people. There is a reason nationalism of this type morphs very easily into terrible ideologies.

How about a more practical example? If government creates rights, the colonists were not justified in rebelling against the British and deserved to be hanged for treason. There is a reason nationalists - those who felt a strong loyalty to the crown, not their countryman - were loyalists.

Yeah, but I think that's a pretty sane position. The conclusion that you end up with is: if you're going to revolt, be sure that you can win. Otherwise you're going to have people revolting left and right because no government will ever be perfect.

This position holds true regardless of if the rebellion is justified. The problem is, your position holds that no overthrow of any government is ever acceptable because rights don't exist, so government can't violate them. Mine does.

No, overthrows are justified by people not getting what they need to survive happily until it gets to the point where they start killing people in uniforms.

I think that the idea of universal rights largely goes against the Church, especially unrestrained rights. The Christian message, in my opinion, seems replete with commandments to disobey earthly power in spiritual affairs but work with it in temporal ones. The history does as well. I just don't see a lot of Christians talking about universal natural rights for the vast majority of Christian history, and even those few that did bring it up met with debate from within the Church. I mean, can a Christian argument be made in favor of it? Yep. But it's isn't an absolute tenet of the religion.

Ever heard of the Ten Commandments or the Noahide laws?

Those weren't really universal, were they? And they were prohibitions on behavior, not a charter of rights. Also Jewish. I was thinking more of certain thinkers in Catholic Spain.


Um, I would argue that America has been ethnonationalist from its founding. In fact, I don't see how you could argue against that, seeing how immigration restrictions worked during our early history, the first sentence of the Constitution, and early state voting restrictions.

Which ethnicity - English? That's silly considering a major debate was over whether to side with England or France. White? That concept didn't exist the same way it did today (Germans and Irish were met poorly by the Know-Nothings, for instance).

They were still considered white, lol. How did the concept not exist when voting rights were based on it?

European? Lol. We fought to get away from them and held for decades that any European involvement in Pan-American affairs was unacceptable, and taking a stance of America as some pan-European ethnostate while arbitrarily rejecting Mexicans (who are also European, by that logic) is, well, arbitrary.

I never said it was a pan-European ethnostate. I said the opposite: that it was founded primarily by four European ethnic/cultural groups (East Anglians, Cavaliers, North Midland Quakers, Scotch-Irish). Those are the building blocks of American society, and their cultural customs and convictions made up what we think of as 'American'. The set of beliefs and practices which the earlier waves of immigrants (and a relatively small number of blacks) violently and somewhat successfully assimilated to were their beliefs and practices. If you took all of those people and switched them with the population of China, America would cease to exist. Likewise, if that stock is outbred by people with different cultural and political traditions, then 'America' will no longer resemble that original ideal. The Constitution will be written on paper, not hearts, and will become an increasingly irrelevant shibboleth of a shrinking minority.

Or, we can accept the idea that America is a nation founded on ideas, not skin color. You can live your entire life in France and never be French. But you can be French half your life, move here and become an American.

It was founded on ideas which were held by people. Ideas don't exist in any other form.

And America is a European country, founded on European philosophical principles by primarily four ethnic groups from Europe. I don't think that you can draw a hard divide there, though America does have a distinct tradition. For example, traditionally America was staunchly anti-Catholic. But then you imported a bunch of them, and you've had to contend with their hyper-'European' ideas for generations now.

See what I did there? ;)

Funny, considering the in states with the highest proportion of self-identified English (Utah, Maine, Vermont, Idaho, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, Delaware, Rhode Island, Colorado, and Washington), Trump only won 3 of 12 (25%). So is nationalism anti-American, then, since the English soundly rejected him?

You do realize that there are a lot of problems with self-reporting English ancestry, right? Also, it's more than just 'English', as I outlined above.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 3:09:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2017 4:01:55 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/17/2017 3:21:30 AM, TN05 wrote:
It means that you are justified in protecting that right, and government is justified in punishing those who violate it, and that the people are justified in stopping a government that violate that right.

So what good does having the right in the first place even do? It seems like a completely extraneous aspect of the whole ordeal, and at worst it seems likely to inspire suicidal revolt.

If you think I'm bad, check out some of the state constitutions that explicitly protect the right of the people to overthrow the government. My state constitution:

"That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind"

The number of successful revolutions in that time? Maybe one.

Doesn't seem that effective then. Do you really think that your government hasn't been arbitrarily oppressive at all during that time? I'm arguing that the idea is absurd, that if people actually followed it nothing would work.

Yep. Well, except the North Carolina government under the Civil War.

Is America an ethnostate?

Not any more.

Never was.

If so, which ethnicities are acceptable? Why are people who historically are not considered purely white in an English sense, like Germans and Irish, allowed, while Mexicans - who are derived from Europeans and speak a European language - not? These are the issues with ethnostates.

The whole idea is that a government exists for the good of the people who formed it and their posterity. It's not about weird ethnic purity/hygiene.

OK Richard Spencer

This position holds true regardless of if the rebellion is justified. The problem is, your position holds that no overthrow of any government is ever acceptable because rights don't exist, so government can't violate them. Mine does.

No, overthrows are justified by people not getting what they need to survive happily until it gets to the point where they start killing people in uniforms.

But wait, I thought there were no such things as rights and power derives from government? No rebellion can ever be justified.

Ever heard of the Ten Commandments or the Noahide laws?

Those weren't really universal, were they? And they were prohibitions on behavior, not a charter of rights. Also Jewish. I was thinking more of certain thinkers in Catholic Spain.

Some are specific to Jews, but things like don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal. The seven Noahide laws are, in Judaism, binding upon all mankind (and the only religious laws the gentiles have to follow to be assured a place in the world to come). One of them is actually "create a court system". Pretty universal to me.

Which ethnicity - English? That's silly considering a major debate was over whether to side with England or France. White? That concept didn't exist the same way it did today (Germans and Irish were met poorly by the Know-Nothings, for instance).

They were still considered white, lol. How did the concept not exist when voting rights were based on it?

You are delusional if you think Irish and Germans were treated as equally white to English in early America.

European? Lol. We fought to get away from them and held for decades that any European involvement in Pan-American affairs was unacceptable, and taking a stance of America as some pan-European ethnostate while arbitrarily rejecting Mexicans (who are also European, by that logic) is, well, arbitrary.

I never said it was a pan-European ethnostate. I said the opposite: that it was founded primarily by four European ethnic/cultural groups (East Anglians, Cavaliers, North Midland Quakers, Scotch-Irish). Those are the building blocks of American society, and their cultural customs and convictions made up what we think of as 'American'. The set of beliefs and practices which the earlier waves of immigrants (and a relatively small number of blacks) violently and somewhat successfully assimilated to were their beliefs and practices. If you took all of those people and switched them with the population of China, America would cease to exist. Likewise, if that stock is outbred by people with different cultural and political traditions, then 'America' will no longer resemble that original ideal. The Constitution will be written on paper, not hearts, and will become an increasingly irrelevant shibboleth of a shrinking minority.

For a pan-European ethnic state, we sure did love brining in black people.

Or, we can accept the idea that America is a nation founded on ideas, not skin color. You can live your entire life in France and never be French. But you can be French half your life, move here and become an American.

It was founded on ideas which were held by people. Ideas don't exist in any other form.

Ideas are eternal. People and cultures are not.

Funny, considering the in states with the highest proportion of self-identified English (Utah, Maine, Vermont, Idaho, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, Delaware, Rhode Island, Colorado, and Washington), Trump only won 3 of 12 (25%). So is nationalism anti-American, then, since the English soundly rejected him?

You do realize that there are a lot of problems with self-reporting English ancestry, right? Also, it's more than just 'English', as I outlined above.

Self-reported ancestry is the only thing that matters in this case. If you don't consider yourself English, you aren't really English in any meaningful sense.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 3:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2017 5:39:51 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 3/15/2017 8:15:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
This could be fun

Opinion on Donald Trump?

Donald Trump's lack of qualifications for the office are showing. He's expecting the federal government to move because he tells them to, and it isn't. Objectively, he was the worst Republican candidate since maybe Alan Keyes in 2000 and Republicans missed a chance to make real conservative change.

Ideologically, I think he is very bad. He's essentially a New Deal Southern Democrat and has far more in common with Roosevelt than Reagan or Coolidge. His $1 trillion stimulus package is moronic beyond comprehension, his health care plan isn't good, his obsession with a travel ban is quixotic, and he's done little positive of note beyond his appointment of Gorsuch (a fine originalist/textualist choice) and his recent plan to end funding for the NEA/NEH/NPR/PBS. I'd give him a D+ right now.

I think Republicans are falling into the same trap with Trump as Democrats did with Obama: assuming a permanent majority. It's even weirder here because Republicans lost the popular vote and only won the presidency by about 70,000 votes in multiple states. Trump has to gain ground to win in 2020 and he's mostly just catering to his base, which is literally dying out.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.