"We don't really care whether you call yourself conservative or liberal. What we care about is whether you defend or undermine individual rights."
……………………………….- Father and son duo Linn & Ari Armstrong
………………………………….in their article ‘Are you a conservative or a liberal?’
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Quote of the day: Conservative or Liberal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
89 comments:
Excellent quote PC. If there is one thing that drives me to despair, it is those who want more freedom in the social sense (i.e decriminalising drugs, homosexuality etc) yet are happy to preserve the states power in an economis sense (i.i supporting a high tax country with monstrosity of a welfare state etc).
The reverse of this is hard conservatives who want a low tax, free economy, yet want to impose their social moral code on everyone else (by criminalising gays, drugs etc). It seems to me that you cant be all for liberty in one sense, but support the states power in another.
Except 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' are not the opposites the quote would represent them to be.
The true political opposite of 'Conservative' is 'Progressive'.
Just as the terms conservative and liberal are misused and misunderstood, so is the term "rights".
Some "rights" deserve to be undermined.
Some of these American labels can be confusing, so I shall clarify...
Conservative: No intervention in economic/business matters, but happy to intervene in personal freedoms.
Liberal: Intervention in economic/business matters but not in personal freedoms.
Libertarian: No intervention in economic/business matters or personal freedoms.
Populist: Intervention in economic/business matters and personal freedoms.
Oh, and 'Populist' is another word for 'progressive'
Except "not intervening" requires intervention when property rights are in dispute. Some personal freedoms can obviously intrude on some-one else's personal freedom.
And how ownership over property can be some area of dispute too.
And some make distinctions between government intervention versus market intervention.
I hate useless clichés and terms that change meaning depending on who you talk to. Words are more useful when they're used without the BS political dogma that's attached to them. Neither of these words really mean anything unless you quantify them.
you can be 'liberal' in your advocation of government, or taxs, or liberal' in what kind of freedoms you allow in society.
You can be 'conservative' if you wish to preserve freedoms, or a totalitarian regime, it depends on what the existing system is like.
DAVID S: Yes, you're right that these terms are as slippery as a politician standing on the soap. They're about as useless as the terms left and right -- they connote, they don't denote.
A Conservative in the UK will be different to a Conservative in the US who will be different to a Conservative in Russia. Very different to a Conservative in Russia.
And Liberal is even worse. A Liberal in the nineteenth century would NOT be a liberal in today's US, or today's UK -- but they might be one in Australia. At least they might be a Liberal, if not a liberal.
Still, these terms are almost all we have, because politicians don't like being tied down. Ans since most resile from principles like they would from a bad virus, there's nothing definite that they adhere to, except of course for their power lust.
So unless we repair to the more definite terms of socialism, capitalism and radicals for capitalism, perhaps these two terms (conservative and liberal, with the interpretations as outlined above by Night City Trader) is all we have.
And just out of interest, where do you think most conservatives would fit in on the socialism-capitalism-radicals for capitalism spectrum?
ZEN, I'm afraid you have a confused view of rights.
Disputes over property itself are no threat to the concept of property rights themselves.
And properly defined, rights don't conflict. If you find that they do, then you'll find that the rights have either been misdefined, or they've been manufactured beyond necessity.
In which case, as you say, the bogus rights do need to be undermined, since in most cases they've manufactured only to wipe out real rights.
For example, Amy Peikoff and Arline Mann suggest that the bogus "right" to privacy is inteneded to wipe out the concept of property rights:
“Privacy is a good [not a right] -- like food, music, or love. So while we have the right to take the actions required to secure our privacy via judicious use of our property and voluntary contracts with others, we have no direct right to privacy per se. . . Laws designed to protect privacy undermine genuine rights to property and contract.”
- Amy Peikoff
“The ‘right to privacy’ is a misguided attempt to save some shreds of certain [legitimate] rights while retaining a way to eviscerate others.”
- Arline Mann
REDBAITER, It's true that 'Progressive' was the turn-of-last-century term used by what we now call wet liberals -- used to suggest that bigger government was somehow progress -- but when supporters of laissez-faire dropped the term 'liberal' the so-called Progressives eagerly picked it up.
How better to sideline an ideology than to take over its name!
"You can be 'conservative' if you wish to preserve freedoms, or a totalitarian regime, it depends on what the existing system is like."
Of course, but who is talking about the word in this non-political sense?
Conservatives in the political sense are very broadly those who resist political change for the sake of change.
Given this broad definition, a true Conservative's political sympathies (in America) would lie with the establishment of the Republic and the Constitution, and those who have moved politically away from that time and place are the Progressives.
Given again, that the whole idea of the Republic and the Constitution was to define and preserve individual liberty, the Conservative is therefore the true protector of those concepts while the Progressive has ever since their establishment, worked assiduously and gradually to attack and destroy them.
PC, you misunderstand me.
I have a reasonably good understanding of rights (at least, closely similar to yours, so we'll call it reasonable :-) ).
My point was that the left have misappropriated the term to mean almost anything, thus creating the very illogical conflicts you point out.
Sounds very reasonable then, Zen. If not pellucid. :-)
And yes you're right, they have.
"Conservatives in the political sense are very broadly those who resist political change for the sake of change"
On the face of it, perhaps, but it's not as simple as that is it. The political landscape changes, so (assuming they hold slavishly to your definition, which is of course not necessarily the case), they resist change from the status quo, not the previous status quo. Welfare gets introduced, and conservatives keep it. Govt provided healthcare gets introduced, conservatives keep it. Etc etc. Your assertion that conservatives are the guardians of freedom can easily be refuted by opening your eyes and seeing a myriad of examples where they try to remove freedoms and move away from the constitutions: teaching creationism in schools, restricting abortion, restrictions on free speech, restrictions on sex in various forms, historically racial segregation, etc. You can argue the semantics till you're blue in the face, but you can easily come up with as many examples of oppression from the conservatives as you can from the left.
Yawn..
Every argument with a Libertarian is always contaminated by the their obsession with misrepresenting Conservative principles. They have to of course, for without such a fiction, they would lose half of their raison d'etre.
...and its always such hollow self serving nonsense-
For example, Conservatives don't want Public Schools at all. So how could they be advocating for creationism to be taught in them?
And as a self professed "Libertarian", how could you object to them doing whatever they want in private schools??
If I may rephrase that: In fact, every argument with a Libertarian is always contaminated by the their obsession with freedom, which Conservatives generally misrepresent.
..and if I may rephrase again,
their obsession with freedom, which they commonly pursue in blind obeisance to ideas that (being Progressive by nature) actually take them further away from their professed objective. (rather than closer.)
Ok RedBaiter: Spell out in ten bullet points or fewer what a conservative is, what one believes in. Starting at 1. being the premise? and onwards from there. Casue I & others just can't figure you out
"And as a self professed "Libertarian", how could you object to them doing whatever they want in private schools??"
I can't see where anybody *has* made such a statement.
But speaking of yawning, back to you, Red. You're full of criticism of what *we* try to do in our precious spare time -- and publicly so; names & faces openly stated -- but what about you?
What exactly are you trying to achieve? Aside from ranting and raving behind a pseudonym about conservatism and its mis-definition/s.
I don't see many of your preferred conservatives around these days. So where does that leave you?
Redbaiter is like a lot of these chappies; once they have contact with 'the real thing' (ie - us) they get all embarrassed at how left wing/control freaky they really are.
It is like Peter's post the other day about how Conservatives believe in freedom only for them and people like them.
After 5 minutes with 'the real thing' all of these chaps realise they have no differences with:
Helen
Hillary
Hone
Barack
Gordon
Kevin
Adolf
Joe
Only we libertarians are pure, only we libertarians have a moral purpose...and everyone else is 100% wrong.
"...misrepresenting Conservative principles..."
Maybe it's because conservatives have no principles that it's so hard to define what they are and who is covered by the term. At least libertarians know what they want, and its consistent, rational, and defendable.
I suggest, Red, that you stop wittering on about the definitions of conservative and progressive (without capital letters, because in most cases they aren't a defined group/party) and focus more on ideas and outcomes.
"I don't see many of your preferred conservatives around these days."
Funny that. I see them making the news all over the USA at the moment as they bring the Socialist/ Progressive Obama to heel on his socialized medicine agenda.
Oh, I should have added-
Whereas the Libertarians, like the Republicans, are nowhere to be seen.
"At least libertarians know what they want, and its consistent, rational, and defendable"
Ostensibly, libertarianism is a political philosophy that is fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. However, it's palpably obvious what libertarians want, and it is mostly centered around decadence and selfishness. But most importantly, and as I've opined previously, there is no empirical evidence to support the notion that a libertarian society would function successfully outside of Chuck Noland's fictional life in the Pacific, and in that respect it can not be considered rational and defendable in the sense that it has never existed (and never will). Think about why you guys worship Ayn Rand so much?
In essence libertarianism is self-consistent only in a virtual universe abstracted away from the messiness and the reality asylum that is the real world. It is an ideology which most often appeals to 20--30--40 something year old, white individuals who are reasonably intelligent and earn well, but resent paying any taxes.
Obviously, the people who currently have the most wealth and class privilege want to support a system that minimizes or eliminates any abatement in their own personal wealth.
The socially liberal side of the libertarian ideology is centered around the desire to engineer societal acceptance of the individual personal indulgences of its practitioners.
I think the only "misconception" people have is to believe that these terms, when used with political connotations, have singular objective meanings, which in my view is a bit silly considering the range of views they represent.
I'm a libertarian socialist, and most of the people I've listened to over the years with similar views to mine are academics. Academics have an annoying habit of defining terms with a precision that meets historical contexts. It's useful when engaging with other academics, but I find it annoying because the general population use words far more liberally than that.
Because I'm generally dissatisfied with the status quo I end up redefining terms myself. I tend to think there are aspects of 'capitalism' and 'socialism' in most socioeconomic systems.
'capitalism' is a measure of how much of a system is based around the ownership and protection of capital.
'socialism' is a measure of how much of a system is based around a social consensus.
I think even the system you advocate has an element of 'socialism' in it PC. If person A invite's Person B to their house, Person A has the right to make any rules they like, and they must be obeyed, because they own the capital. However they can't prevent person B from leaving, Person A can't make a rule to prevent person B from leaving regardless of the fact that they're the property owner. There is a social consensus that the rights of the individual to accept or decline the rules created by person A must be upheld.
Using this definition I think today's 'conservatives' are very much at the 'capitalism' end of the scale, but obviously there are elements of 'socialism' as well. They want a social consensus that you can't take drugs, or generally do whatever you damn well please, even if it affects you and only you, among other things.
And once again I'm aware people don't share these definitions, but I'm more interested in advancing the discussion instead of going along with 'popular' notions about what constitutes what.
I have a summarised version of conservative principles that best describes what I think conservatism is.
Libertarians would most likely be totally opposed to point 1 (which all the other points depend on), and to some extent, points 6 & 9.
Unfortunately, as Redbaiter has said, without point 1 all efforts to get to a free society end in the opposite. That is because the only freedom worth chasing is the freedom to do good. Freedom to do evil leads to slavery, and without an understanding of the moral order, a person can be fooled into thinking that something evil is good. Man cannot define what is good - we need God to do that.
Latest Anonymous, this libertarian:
1. just wants to be free from force.
2. is tolerant.
3. self-reliant.
4. benevolent.
5. doesn't want to leave his children a gargantuan
state.
And, since these yarns seem to go on & on without any position being stated by the likes of you Anonymous...like I said to RedBaiter, please state your case for how you think things should be. 10 points or less.
Conservatives don't have "bullet points" Russell. They do think about things in deeper and broader terms than popping party pills and marrying fags. That is all so much window dressing.
Rather, Conservatives advocate a return to constitutionally limited government, emphasizing sovereign state governments, local government, self-government and self-rule, while restricting government powers to only those enumerated in the constitution, and maximizing individual rights and liberty as originally envisioned and established by the Founding Fathers and secured and defended by the blood of patriots and statesmen for over two hundred years.
Go for that, and everything else is naturally sorted.
..and sure, thats a US angled definition, but its good enough idea-wise to apply anywhere, and good enough to refute all of the claims made by Libertarians here in NZ (where we desperately need a freedom orientated Constitution) who for their own political purposes and to the disadvantage of liberty, seek to sink the Conservative ship in a sea of false allegations.
(most notably the absurd claim that somehow the National party is a Conservative force)
Oh shit, look out Lucia, you gonna get it now. :)
Ostensibly, Anonymous, libertarianism is a political philosophy that *respects* the rights of the indivdiual to live his life without interference from the next person.
Thus, it is unique. Argue with that and you argue with freedom; which, of course, speaks volumes.
Your comment is a cowardly exercise in sopping wet Wankspeak.
Red: The implication was where *in this country* is your party?
And you ignored my question as to what you yourself are doing to foster in this era of golden conservatism?
"Red: The implication was where *in this country* is your party?"
The same place they were in the US before they awakened. Working. Making a living. Bringing up families. Struggling with mortgages. Paying exorbitant taxes. Suffering onerous legislation. Being ignored by their politicians.
The real question is- where is the tipping point in NZ as compared to the US?
There I will concede you some ground, for without a Constitution, and with very little apparent alternative ideas or options to socialism, and the inroads it has made into our culture, it may be a lot further away.
Nevertheless, it will come one day, for all that socialism can bring in the end is destruction.
I seek that tipping point, and do what I can to bring it nearer.
Oh shit, look out Lucia, you gonna get it now. :)
Yep, most likely we'll now be peppered with responses centered on the average liberal's juvenile perceptions of "God". (The sky pixie etc.) More yawns.
Good point. Your grown-up imaginary friend is way more serious than that.
Russell,
:)
Morality cannot be defined without God, for humans beings will seek gratification rather than altruism everytime. It's easy to do what feels good, it's much harder to do what is good, even if you know what that is.
Anyway, I disagree with Red on a constitution. It's not going to help. As soon as human beings define rights, they are immediately limited and open to interpretation. Look what is happening in their US - their constitution is being torn to shreds.
No, what is required to turn everything around is a realisation by everyone that we can't do this alone, we need God's help.
Redbaiter: I'm lost, this thing you have with Libz has gone on for so long now I can't recall what it is that Libz are wrong about in your head. You spend an inordinate amount of time telling us we’re fucked (my words) but stick around anyway.
Why?
What are you trying to achieve; persuade us to your way?
Which is what?
Are you politically homeless?
What do you want?
Sus,
...what you yourself are doing to foster in this era of golden conservatism?
The first stage is the sharing of ideas. All great movements started as an idea that grew.
Lucia; your thus far have been decent enough, but I'd suggest you've got a lot of work to do persuading the people on this blog that God (which ever one) is the answer. In fact I guarantee that you will either get a discussion the likes of which will shake you down, and if you are honest with yourself question everything you know; or you’ll not get any at all - except the odd masochist. This has been gone over again & again, to the point of people’s teeth cracking. This is not meant as a “shut up Lucia” but as a tip. If you are pro-liberty then all good, but you are in for a mauling if you stay on the god track – trust me.
Welcome & please stay (he says on behalf of PC :)
Oops that last one was me Russell W
Morality cannot be defined without God,
Wrong
for humans beings will seek gratification rather than altruism everytime.
Wrong
what is required to turn everything around is a realisation by everyone that we can't do this alone, we need God's help.
Wrong
What are you doing here???
What are you doing here???
Your post is not that of the true liberal you posture as, but rather that of an intolerant bigot.
Do you deny Christians any participation in the Libertarians, or any other perceived quest for Liberty?
Disgracefully bigoted and immature.
"What do you want?"
To defend Conservatism against unreasonable slander for one thing.
Twr,
While not a regular commenter, I keep an eye on Not PC and have been doing so since this blog's inception.
I've been around for a while.
Nice of you to define your own arrogance twr
Thanks for the response (4.50pm), Red.
While I can't disagree with the expressed sentiments, it all sounds a bit reactive to me. You're expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo - which is fine - and then sitting back waiting for something to happen. Which is essentially a cop-out.
The alternative is to try to make it happen. Why not join in?
"The first stage is the sharing of ideas. All great movements started as an idea that grew."
Spot on, LM. Haven't seen you around these parts for a while. Welcome back! :)
"Your post is not that of the true liberal you posture as, but rather that of an intolerant bigot."
"Nice of you to define your own arrogance twr"
Red & KG have a point, TW. I'm no atheist myself .. and what that means remains my business .. but I remain a diehard libertarian.
"Disgracefully bigoted and immature."
"...popping party pills and marrying fags"
Pot, kettle, black.
"Nice of you to define your own arrogance twr"
So, let me get this straight, it's not arrogant to insist that everyone pledges allegience to your favourite deity, but it is arrogant to point out when people make unsubstantiated and just plain incorrect claims?
You can believe whatever ancient myths you like, but when you post on a libertarian blog that "people have to realise" that they all need to agree with you or else, then you can expect to be enthusiastically disgreed with.
"Morality cannot be defined without God"
God most likely does not exist, nor does any absolute objective knowledge beyond the knowledge of your own existence (cogito ergo sum). Thus, morality is defined without god, and without any objective basis. A point of view which has far more emperical evidence supporting it, given how fickle and transient human morality can be. The only real objective measure of morality is seen through natural selection.
Redbaiter -
I think you overestimate just how many people are with you on your quest to get rid of 'leftism', the progressives, commie scum etc. I think it's possible right wing libertarian views are just as common as yours. Have you done any research on this or is it possible it's just a view you hold because you tend to take more notice of the people you agree with?
It may be a bit of a kneejerk reaction, but I tend to think you coming here to tell the libz that they're all off on their own with their worldview and are just wasting time might be a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
Redbaiter
Regarding the heathcare debate in the USA
Principally it isn't conservativism (large or small "c") doing the work opposing Obamacare socialisation of medicine. Some conservatives are along for the ride, sure, but the opposition is fundamentally libertarian.
As for the Constitution, read it. You'd discover that it isn't the product of a political philosophy base on conservatism (large or small "c").
LGM
David S
Regarding morality
It is not correct that morality must be defined without objective basis. An objective derivation of morality is demonstrated by Prof Peikoff in OPAR.
LGM
..and by Peikoff you mean Rand, let's not get into THAT one again :P
.. Although, and this question is for PC, if introspection provides you with proof of the existence of free will, surely that proof is subjective by nature? Introspection is a non verifiable, subjective experience afterall.. or do you disagree with that assessment?
David S
You are wrong. It is Prof Peikoff.
Let's not get into what again? The fact that you are wrong AGAIN? You made a statement which was rebutted. Game over.
LGM
"Some conservatives are along for the ride, sure, but the opposition is fundamentally libertarian."
Oh sure. Suddenly a party that garnered 0.4% of the vote has morphed into a movement organizing Tea Parties, marches, and Town Hall Protests across America.
That is just the kind of worthless bullshit assertion I would expect from you. In fact the protests are organised by Grass Roots Conservatives (Free Republic for example) and the only thing that makes Libertarians notable is their absence.
As I have always tried to tell you on here, the Libertarians are missing the boat on freedom through failing to appeal to the mainstream Conservatives and worse, lumping them in the same boat as the left, or worse again, continuously maligning them with false allegations.
The NZ Libertarian's problem (as opposed to the US where they are far less insular) is that they have become a cult that is dominated by those who promote Progressive political ideas.
They fail to understand that in the long term, these ideas are not helpful to Liberty, but in the end most helpful to those who work day after day after day to enslave us.
The Libertarians could never organise the subject protests because, focused as they are on rigid semi-religious doctrine (see the posts immediately above) and Progressive political ideas that run counter to Conservatism, it is impossible for them to achieve the necessary degree of broad ideological or political unity.
For once Redbaiter I agree with some of your comments! ha ha!
Many NZ Libz are a bit insular and theoretical with little experience of life and large dollops of political correctness.
This tends to lead to unfocused and unsophistocated political activity and a lack of unity.
It is a bit frustrating when not everybody is reading from the same page (particularly those who should know better).
The problem I have with American Conservatives, for instance, is their belief in God and their view (see Peter's post from the other day) that Freedom only applies to them ...
eg let's own guns but ban:
Gay marriage
pornography
junk food
tarts and brothels
heroin
(anything else I disagree with which leads to someone else enjoying themselves)
let's have free trade but tarrifs for those competing against those nice special interests who donate to my election funds.
Let's be fiscal conservatives but bail out various industries and pay for the military in Iraq
Conservatives are hypocritical almost without exception in America.
"Gay marriage
pornography
junk food
tarts and brothels
heroin
(anything else I disagree with which leads to someone else enjoying themselves)"
Yep, you guys sure know what's important. While you squeal like spoilt kids over desert items like this, Liberty disappears off the table in large dollops where it really matters, and you're too damn stupid to realise it.
You're just the kind of blind bigoted narrow little fuckwit Elijah that will ensure the Libertarians are never any kind of real force for Liberty, and you demonstrate so well why the party will never get more than 34 votes anywhere, or anybody with any real intelligence to join it.
"where it really matters" ...
What do you mean by that? ..do you, perhaps mean, freedom for things you agree with? (but ban the things you dislike?) ...is that what you mean by freedom?
In terms of being bigoted I think you will find it is the average American Conservative who is a bigot...afterall they want to 'ban' ..(by way of being pro-freedom! HAHAHAHA!).. immigrants, Latinos, gays, Muslims, Playboy readers, hamburger eaters, cocaine snorters, prostitutes (etc...etc)
Rodbeater, when we Libz went to Kaimai recently to plan the revolution you were invited, on the basis of your apparent vigorous interest in what Libz are doing, to make a presentation on what you say we should be doing -- since the location was close to you and the subject appears to be of interest to you, we figured it only polite to ask you along.
Since you disdained even to reply to the invitation, however, you'll have to forgive me now if I can't take a word you say on the subject seriously.
Or, perhaps, on anything else, since on every topic you've been well answered, yet on each you return and vent again as if your tired hobbyhorses hadn't already been thoroughly dismissed.
You are, it turns out, just a blowhard and a buffoon -- a small pathetic nay-sayer who even needs someone else to give him a platform from which (and against which) to rant.
Time to fold up the tent and bugger off to other climes, old chap.
"Time to fold up the tent and bugger off to other climes, old chap."
Yep, maybe there's some solid truth in that. Nevertheless I apologise for not replying to your kind invitation. It was at least impolite.
I did actually consider taking you up on it, but there were a number of reasons I decided against. The primary factors were-
1) My job only infrequently allows me to be where I want to be when I want to be. Its very difficult to reschedule, and
2) From the naked hostility I am often faced with on Not PC, it would have been most probably completely unproductive.
I enjoy reading your posts, I like Not PC as a blog, and that I'm sometimes against my own judgement tempted into posting here is a weakness that I should obviously try to overcome.
My job only infrequently allows me to be where I want to be when I want to be
Are you trying to say you are some sort of travelling door to door salesman?
Instead of slinging your hook I think it would be better if you joined the Libz and made a contribution that way.
"You're just the kind of blind bigoted narrow little fuckwit Elijah..."
"From the naked hostility I am often faced with on Not PC,"
Elijah, this prick is the last person Libz want to have associated with them. Hopefully one day he'll realise this and bugger off back to Christian Heritage or whatever other rock he crawled out from under. I would imagine that he didn't show up at Kaimai because he knew full well that if he exhibited the kind of behaviour in person that he does online, someone would administer an extremely well deserved punch in the face.
Red
On previous occasions you have been caught out making stuff up when you were unfamiliar with the facts of a situation (for example, fibbing, bullshitting, exaggerating, employing breathless hyperbole, making false allegation, presenting baseless arbitrary assertion and so on). It was specifically pointed out to you that you have a very bad habit doing this and you were advised to amend your approach (after a particularly obvious occurrence where you passed comment on an essay you not even read- yes, despite a subsequent lie on your part, you were clearly caught). Unfortunately, here you go again. You've learned nothing and remain a contemptible ignorant. You fool nobody but yourself.
Look, you need to understand that the real world does not correspond to your fantasies and day dreaming. Time for you to grow up.
---
I am in the USA and have been here for some time. My work takes me through several states, their cities and towns (this time Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, California). Previously I was here in April and in June (add Colorado to the list).
As it happens, I have been able to discuss the present state of politics throughout the USA with colleagues, friends , acquaintances, people I've met and business associates- right here, on the ground, so to speak. I've attended some of the debates and attended several of the town halls. I was invited to two by my hosts and attended various other meetings/functions (to see what was going on) when colleagues and associates kindly asked me to come along after work or on the weekends. It has not been boring, that's for sure. I even went to one here on my own and I nearly got to the Obama one, but was delayed by weather and flew in too late.
Now, you little red creep, I'll tell you this and just for once in your miserable bullshit little life, try to learn something about reality.
The ideas that are being expressed in opposition to the Obama/Pelosi/Waxman et al socialism are libertarian. The argument opposing the local socialists is fundamental libertarian principle. Sure, there are conservatives involved within the opposition but any relevant ideas they present and support are libertarian. They just have NOTHING in their ideology that they can rely on in the debate without employing libertarianism. I know this to be correct as I have been able to confirm it in discussions with them directly. The intellectually honest admit it.
Next point. The Constitution of the USA is, in essence, a libertarian document. Its substance is libertarian. It is NOT a conservative document. You really do need to think on that. Why don't you go do some reading? Read the damn thing and go do the research to find what it was based on- whose ideas, which ideas etc.
LGM
Some observations from the USA.
Productive working people throughout the USA generally do not usually get directly involved with the political system here. They just try to live free and work hard, occasionally complaining about some particularly egregious political situation privately amongst themselves. On the other hand, absent politics, the culture among US citizens has been, and has largely remained, essentially libertarian. They are familiar with the basic tenants and live them in practice in daily life- every day. They are aware of the importance of freedom (a libertarian ideal). They are certainly aware of the importance of keeping the USA based on individual freedom (liberty). They are aware of the tremendous effect the existence of the USA, and the ideas upon which it was founded, have had in promoting freedom (to a greater or lesser extent) across the globe. Many of them are familiar with the Constitution, how it came about, who framed it, the debates and competing ideas of the time, the Federalist and even the Anti-Federalist Papers, the notion of citizen legislators, Jefferson vs. Hamilton, the separation of powers (how and why), State's "Rights" etc. They are aware of how radical is the ideology their nation was founded upon (and that it wasn't conservative by any means). They are aware of how endangered those ideals remain today. They are aware of the fact that they will be worse off if the nature of this place is changed. The grass roots productive individual here is independent minded and lives life according to ideas he holds- generally libertarian in nature.
The general media and politics.
It appears Red formed his impressions about what's going on over here by casual brousing of some media stories, watching some TV, sniffing around a blog etc. Whatever the case, his information is indirect and likely inaccurate.
The general media here makes the common error of presenting EVERY political argument as a battle between two alternatives and only two alternatives- a good one and a bad one, left and right, progressive/liberal and reactionary/conservative. Then they gang up and try to destroy one...
The trouble with this simplistic approach is that it isn't accurate. It isn't based on fact of reality (nor is it supposed to be). The intention is to affix easy labels to participants in political issues or debates and then deal with them according to those assigned labels. The essential ideas remain unexamined. Consequences are never analysed. Cause and affect is ignored. Still, it's an easy trick to play as most Americans tend not to spend much time analysing political ideology deeply, if at all.
One result of what could be called a non-intellectual or empirical approach to politics is that people employing libertarian political ideology tend to be labeled as being of the conservative political persuasion. Sometimes they are said to be "right wing conservatives". Some tend to make that mistake themselves- a common occurrence in present context. It's inaccurate but it is something the media readily promote, as it makes it easier to report coverage of political events and it also makes it easier to denigrate libertarian ideas by pointing out well known issues/problems/shortfalls of various conservatives and then damming libertarian ideas by association.
Still, it remains correct that the mass of people opposing the actions of the present government in the USA are promoting their opposition by presenting libertarian principles (to preserve their own liberty and libertarian lifestyle). That is the simple fact of the matter. Discussion with attendees at a town hall reveals that fact without fail.
In the main productive people over here just do not want to have to deal with politics and government on a daily basis (in the sense that NZers do). They'd rather be free of interference and get on with their daily lives. That they do not delve into political ideology in a detailed manner, or that they may misidentify their preferred political system and the ideals they hold as conservative, really does not undermine the fact that they live (or try to live) as libertarians. They prefer to experience liberty over the promises of coercive collectivism.
Grass roots America is libertarian in nature.
Excellent series of posts, LGM; going from Meadowbank to Mississippi...gosh! ha ha!
"Excellent series of posts, LGM;"
A comment so subjective in nature, one would have to worry about the intelligence of the writer who thought it worth posting here. It suggests of a panicked need for reinforcement rather than a genuine judgment.
My own opinion of LGM's posts are that they are (as always) a series of worthless assertions, and again as always, extremely demonstrative of his apparent unshakeable leftist mindset, in that they're weakly underpinned by false allegations of lying (the commies always do that).
LGM is another reason why any reasonable person would not want to join the Libertarians. His long winded and obsessive posts tell you he's just a ranting boring self obsessed loon, and there seems to be so many of them. The strength of the Libs is weakened by this kind of insanity.
I don't want to post here anymore on the issue of the Libertarians being an ineffective political force, (because it upsets the host, and actually I agree with some of the points PC made), and I won't have to if you LGM cease your cowardly and false and Stalinist allegations of lying.
False allegations are always a good strategy to divert from the real points under discussion. Most of all when those points have some validity. It shifts the discussion into a debate on who is lying and who isn't, and the main issue is lost in a flurry of allegations and counter allegations. Communists and socialists do it all the time.
There is no Libertarian presence among the protesters. For one thing, the Libertarians sneer at Christians who are there in the thousands, and Libertarians also demean the phrase "under God".
If the Libs have any relevance at all, it is that the Progressive ideas they promote are a large part of the monolithic secularist socialist presence the attendees are protesting against.
Red
Let's see.
1/. Are you in the USA?
No. You are not present here.
2/. Have you attended any of the town halls?
No. You have not been to even one of them. You have no direct experience of what is occurring.
3/. Have you actually spoken to any of the people present?
No! You haven't been to a single function over here, let alone a town hall. You have no direct experience of what is going on.
4/. Have you been traveling throughout the USA, visiting multiple locations over the last three weeks, meeting people and finding out by direct enquiry what is going on here and what their opinions are?
No. You lack direct knowledge of that.
5/. Have you even listened to the talkback radio over here to hear what ordinary people are saying on air?
No. You lack direct knowledge of that.
6/. Have you been to a meeting or function here which was attended by media representatives and marveled at how different was the story they subsequently presented on air and in print?
No. Of course not.
7/. Have you read the Constitution, it's history, how it was derived, debated, drafted and enabled? Have you read the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers, the correspondence between the likes of Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison et al? Have you read the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation? What about the Amendments (including the Bill of Rights)? Have you bothered to spend the effort to research the issues, the ideology, the political philosophy and the intent of the framers of the Constitution?
No. You witter on about it, rather then actually reading it and trying to understand it.
8/. Have you been immersed in the local culture for long enough to understand what it is and what it is not?
No. You prefer to make shit up about other people- for you that's much easier than trying to understand them AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE.
This was typical of the nonsense you make up: "There is no Libertarian presence among the protesters."
And you know this because you have actually been here all along, obtaining direct experience?
No. You have not. You just made that up- another of your red lies. For the record, your latest assertion is false. I know that for a fact as I am right here.
Really, there is not much to you. See, you little red creep, here is your problem. You make shit up. You do it a lot. You are what is commonly referred to as a "bullshit artist"- a liar. Your brains are completely full to the top with self-generated bullshit. You are not very good at telling lies though. You get caught out every time. You are too weak intellectually to be able to get away with it.
Anyway, returning to the points previously raised. You need to understand that the opposition to Obama et al relies on ideas that are fundamentally libertarian and also that the Constitution is essentially libertarian. It most certainly is not conservative. Your evasion of these facts is noted.
LGM
The thing is LGM, I know you are a person of weak intellect because the very nature of your false allegations and assertions proves it. Nobody with any kind of grasp of reality or rationality would go out on a limb like you do. You don't know the answer to any of those questions, yet you speak as if they are all a given.
As it happens I spend a lot of time in the states. In my most recent excursion there I spent about 6 months in Rexburg Idaho. I frequently visit Texas and Oklahoma. I have lived in Montreal for two years during which time I spent months on end in various locations all over the US.
No matter where I am, I try to listen daily to Mark Levin (the author of Liberty and Tyranny) on talk radio, or download his show so I can listen when I've got the time. He's my most inspiring political figure.
I've been to many a political meeting and have actually accosted media figures for printing distorted reports.
I have been a member and commenter on Free Republic since 1999. This is one of the most important conservative forums in the US and was responsible for unmasking Dan Rather's forged documents relating to Bush's National guard service.
You know nothing about me LGM and your allegations are the kind that only an ignorant low IQ coward would make. Someone totally lacking in self respect or else totally detached from that concept.
Go away, and stop polluting Not PC with your deranged ranting. This will achieve three things in that no longer will you embarrass yourself with displays of such striking idiocy, I will be spared the boredom of responding to the numerous falsities your rants are built upon, and most importantly, Mr. Cresswell will be spared the irritation of seeing my posts here once again.
Not to mention the shame you bring upon the Libertarians with your insane jabbering.
(BTW, for the benefit of the odd sane person who may still be reading, at the time of the Kaimai meet, I was most probably in Indonesia.)
I've just realised that I've fallen into the trap that I predicted in my post of 09:27, in putting all my time into responding to points that do not really address the issue of whether Conservatives or Libertarians are behind the protest in America.
So much of the organisation and grass roots communications have been carried out on Free Republic. There is a strong pro- Christian anti-secularist tone to the meetings. This I suggest precludes Libertarians from any serious input.
Having been away for a bit and having made it to the end of this thread, it might be a good time to re-read the simple quote that kick-started it all.
I'm with the Armstrongs. Always was of that opinion.
Well said, LGM.
Impressed you have first hand experience of the Town Hall meetings and can accurately gauge the sorts of chaps attending.
Red
Come on! You can't slime your way out of this. Try answering each of those questions honestly. It isn't a matter of where you spent school vacations or whatever in the dim, dark past (by the way, Montreal is in Canada, not the USA). It isn't a matter of which webcasts you down-loaded. The questions relate to where you are presently and what your direct experience is with what is going on in the USA right now, right here, right at the moment.
Fact is, you have no direct experience, no certain knowledge, absolutely nothing of substance at all- just..... nothing. If you were being honest (yes, OK, that is difficult for you) you'd have to admit that the direct and honest answer to each of those questions was, "No."
No, you were not present at ANY of the meetings, town halls, functions, protests or even at the tea parties.
No, you don't have direct knowledge of any of it. None. Nothing. Nada.
Worse is that you have no serious understanding of the Constitution. Clearly you have yet to read it, let alone study its history, background and basis.
Come on, be honest and admit it. Try facing fact for a change.
Look, the reason I called you out as dishonest is because that is the absolute fact. You are deceptive. Time you 'fessed up to yourself. You fool nobody but yourself if you don't.
LGM
PS "I was most probably in Indonesia." Either you were there at the time or you were not. If it was a fact that you were there, then there would be no need for you to equivocate. Shit-oh-dear you are such a piss poor bullshitter. Pathetic. Seriously, give it up.
Sus
Trouble is that critters like red are not of that persuasion. They'll bullshit you, but when it really matters and the chips are down...
You can't ever trust such a one.
LGM
Elijah
Yes, it was most interesting (dramatic when things really got fired up). It was also most informative hanging around afterwards to meet all the different people and hear them out.
LGM
"Either you were there at the time or you were not. If it was a fact that you were there, then there would be no need for you to equivocate."
Except I only have a rough idea when the Kaimai event took place you dull boring blustering fuckwit. I'm amazed the Libertarians, as desperate as they are for numbers, can justify having an ignorant dumbarse like you amongst their ranks.
If you with your deeply ingrained leftist mindset and apparent inability to understand such simple matters are any real indication of what the party is today then its well on its way to joining the dodo, and Liberty wil be all the better for it.
Readers should take a look at the website of the 'Conservative Party of New York'.
This party exists as a conservative/libertarian counterweight to liberal Republicans in New York state.
However the website indicates their fundamental beliefs in God, an anti-immigration policy which seems to apply to Mexicans rather than Canadians, (if you know what I mean?), opposition to abortion, opposition to abolishing indirect taxation, opposition to gambling, support for Crony Capitalism and one bizarre policy of forbidding [Red] Indians from selling cigarettes! HAHAHAHA!!
...and all this from an organisation which considers itself to be libertarian in outlook!
'Freedom for me but not for thee'
www.cpnys.org is the address
Red
"Except I only have a rough idea when the Kaimai event took place"
That's not right. The situation is not as you've pretended at all.
You received an invitation from PC. One would imagine he'd have included the venue address and the dates/times. Let's assume he failed to do that (unlikely, but we'll be charitable on you). It is noted that you did not bother responding to his invitation, whether to accept it, to decline it, to ask questions if you were unsure about anything or to ask questions if there was any missing information.
What does that say about you? It suggests that you were never serious about attending, despite prior assertion and pretence. It also means your excuse (above) doesn't fit with the reality of your behaviour. Think on it.
Quit with the bullshiting. It's obvious when you do it and you always end up getting caught. Surely you've realised that by now.
LGM
PS BTW PC's conclusion about you is spot on.
"Quit with the bullshiting."
I never received an invitation, and anybody with a brain would have been easily able to deduce that.
You're just a coward who constantly diverts from the argument with never ending false allegations because you can't argue on the substance.
Almost every post you have made on this thread has been a litany of entirely false allegations and unsubstantiated assertions. To the extent the only rational explanation is that you suffer from some kind of derangement.
And it is just so Stalinist.
I could just imagine you proudly wearing your blue cap and dragging dissenters off to your kangaroo courts in the middle of the night.
And then sentencing them to ten years in the gulag on false charges sustained by lying witnesses.
It just boggles my mind that the Libz leadership apparently endorses someone with such depraved and twisted behaviour patterns as you as a representative. You've got Stalinist totalitarian written all over you, and you're insane as well.
PC, Could you please organise a beer summit with Redbaiter and LGM?
Julian
Actually, here's a pretty interesting news item. Michelle Bachman, one of my favourite US politicians and commonly derided by the left for her religious beliefs, is pairing up with Ron Paul for a Town Hall meeting.
So the Libs in the US apparently have nothing against Conservative Christians.
Who is really out of touch here?
http://minnesotaindependent.com/42610/bachmann-to-host-town-hall-with-rep-ron-paul
Here's Pajama's Media, one of ther US's most well known blogs, and he agrees with Redbaiter that the protests ar ebeing engineered by Conservative "Freedom Fighters".
Even some of the commenters agree.
Obviously LGM should catch up with them, inform them of his vastly superior knowledge of what is happening in the US, and just put those dumbarsed know nothing locals right.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/finally-conservatives-have-their-freedom-fighters/
Red
I've spent some effort trying to make the substantive point clear. Perhaps you just do not understand or perhaps you can't allow yourself to consider it. Whatever the reasons, you evaded it. You tried all your usual tricks- subject substitution, bluster, emotional outbursts, fibbing etc. Realise this, in the end, none of that works and the substantive still remains for you to consider. For the record, I'll state it again. It is this.
The ideas that are being expressed in opposition to the Obama/Pelosi/Waxman et al socialism are libertarian. The argument opposing the local socialists is fundamental libertarian principle. Sure, there are conservatives involved within the opposition but any relevant ideas they present and support are libertarian. They just have NOTHING in their ideology that they can rely on in the debate without employing libertarianism. I know this to be correct as I have been able to confirm it in discussions with them directly. The intellectually honest admit it.
And, I'd add, they openly admit it.
There was a second point I made which was especially important for you to face up to. It regarded the Constitution of the US. That document is not and never was the product of conservative ideology. It remains substantially libertarian in nature. You need to find out about it, especially as you seem to hold it in some regard.
Finally. I'm serious. Quit with the bullshitting. It is obvious when you've backed yourself into a corner. Accept that there are going to be times when you are wrong or that you don't know the subject at hand well enough to comment as you'd like to. That's always a good time to find out about stuff. Do the research. Learn. It's when you fail to do that you get caught out.
Look, I just re-read PC's post from above. He says:
"Rodbeater, when we Libz went to Kaimai recently to plan the revolution you were invited, on the basis of your apparent vigorous interest in what Libz are doing, to make a presentation on what you say we should be doing -- since the location was close to you and the subject appears to be of interest to you, we figured it only polite to ask you along.
Since you disdained even to reply to the invitation, however, you'll have to forgive me now if I can't take a word you say on the subject seriously. "
One red excuse was you weren't sure where you were at the time (Indonesia or somewhere).
Another red excuse was that you didn't receive an invitation.
I'll tell you this. PC and I have had some serious disagreements. We've had debates and arguments even. In all the time I've known him he has never, ever lied to me (or anyone else I know).
Red, surely it's time to quit the nonsense. If you are honestly interested in libertarianism (and not merely here to promote your own version of superstitious conservatism), then start doing some serious research. Find out about it. If that is not your purpose, then you're only fooling yourself. Quit the nonsense.
LGM
You're just a coward who constantly diverts from the argument with never ending false allegations because you can't argue on the substance.
Almost every post you have made on this thread has been a litany of entirely false allegations and unsubstantiated assertions. To the extent the only rational explanation is that you suffer from some kind of derangement.
And it is just so Stalinist.
I could just imagine you proudly wearing your blue cap and dragging dissenters off to your kangaroo courts in the middle of the night.
And then sentencing them to ten years in the gulag on false charges sustained by lying witnesses
Actually, Redbaiter, that describes yourself to a 't'.
"I've spent some effort trying to make the substantive point clear."
You've done nothing but waffle self importantly and make false allegations of lying. Your posts are repetitive and could be condensed to one quarter their content if not for this bluster.
"The ideas that are being expressed in opposition to the Obama/Pelosi/Waxman et al socialism are libertarian."
They are traditional Conservative ideas written down on said document in a time when Libertarians were not even a sparkle in Ayn Rand's father's eye.
"That document is not and never was the product of conservative ideology."
It was not Libertarian, once again, a few centuries too early, and there's obviously nothing in it relating to homosexuality, prostitution and drug taking, ideas which are (as Russell W feverishly points out in another post here), paramount in Libertarian ideology.
And anyway its not the point you insufferable dumbarse. Whatever its ideological basis, it has always been the intent of authentic Conservatives, by their nature, that government should abide by the Constitution, and it has always been the intent of the Progressives (like you) to move away from it. To destroy it by various means, including shifting the political focus to realtively unimportant issues as a distraction (the false issue of homosexual rights for example) while they beaver away at undermining constitutional principles with phrases like "living document" and other such strategies.
"Finally. I'm serious."
Sorry. I'm never going to be able to accept you as serious. Your pathetic and never ending series of posts on here has indelibly stamped in my mind the impression of a rabid obsessive, and a blustering and weak fool with out a milligram of self respect or integrity.
"One red excuse was you weren't sure where you were at the time (Indonesia or somewhere)."
Probably correct. I travel a lot, and as anyone else who does so will tell you, its not always so easy to remember in the short time I have to write here where I was, and to me, its not important enough to check. Once again your torrent of false allegations of lying is just a Stalinist tactic designed to get a kangaroo court verdict on credibility whilst ignoring the real argument.
"Another red excuse was that you didn't receive an invitation."
From memory, PC left a comment on this site asking me to email him. You claimed (falsely) I had received an invitation detailing time and place and venue. It never got to this stage.
"I'll tell you this. PC and I have had some serious disagreements. We've had debates and arguments even. In all the time I've known him he has never, ever lied to me (or anyone else I know)."
Nobody has accused Mr. Cresswell of lying, and there's really no need for you to demonstrate further your abject sycophancy. Its a quality that's already plain enough.
"Red, surely it's time to quit the nonsense."
Pffft... what staggering hypocrisy. Retreat to your windowless room in the asylum, and thereby relieve me of the need to respond to your endless overblown insane and off the point ranting.
Red
Why do you keep making shit up? You get caught out every time. All you achieve is to demonstrate that you don't know what you are commenting about. You make a fool of yourself.
1/. Ayn Rand was the founder of the philosophy of Objectivism. Libertarianism is not Objectivism, they are different. Libertarianism, in various forms, predates it. Your comment demonstrates that you lack basic knowledge on this subject. Commenting prior to reading and understanding the basic facts of a topic demonstrates a profound intellectual dishonesty and a willful stupidity. Surley, by now, you'd have experienced enough embarrassment to realise you need to do some basic research prior to posting.
Take home leson for you is, once again, do not post comment in ignorance of the facts.
2/. The Constitution. Ah, now you've moved into your complete fibbing phase. As previously pointed out to you the US Constitution was not a conservative document. For you to write as you have demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the content of that document, the origin of the ideas and ideals it contains, how it was created and the context it was created within. I put it to you that you have not actually read the US Constitution at all. I put it to you that you have not read any of the commentary of the time or the material associated with it- letters, drafts, debates, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, etc. etc. You need to. You have such a terrible habit of commenting on matters that you know little or nothing about. This is another example.
Examine your conscience. Be honest. Admit what you have done- at least to yourself. Amend your approach.
3/. The invitation. You are making up red lies again. Go back and read what I actually wrote. I was charitable and assumed that you did not know the venue details. Read my post again, moron. Anyway, PC says he invited you. You wrote that you never received an invitation. You lied, then you erected towers of rationalisations to excuse yourself. For future reference you need to understand how a civilised, honest person deals with an invitation. There are options. You can accept the invitation and, if in doubt, seek further information about venue location, time and nature of the function and so on. You can decline the invitation (politely) making sure to thank the host for inviting you. It is good form to explain your reasons for declining the invitation, but that is optional. Another possibile response is to say that you will try to attend, but there are circumstances that may prevent your arrival at the venue (examples would be a clash of functions, or you may have some idfficulty making the journey to the venue and so on). If you end up being unable to make it then it is good form to call the host and apologise. Contrast these with what you actually did Red. No wonder people are writing you off as a liar.
Recapping. You've been warned about the demonstrated problem you have in posting commentary about things you have not read or lack knowledge about. Compounding the error by making up lies when you are caught out does not help you out of the trouble you land yourself in. It is obvious when you are making stuff up. What has been demonstrated to you by several people on this site (and on others) is that you lack knowledge, even the most basic knowledge, of topics and issues that you post about. You need to do some honest research. Read. Think. Learn. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourself.
LGM
Go and get fucked you deranged robotic ranter.
Post a Comment