Except where you live in a country with laws, and if some of those laws disagree with your presumed 'right' to 'discriminate against'…
There should be no exceptions here. The very moment you try to insert exceptions, you infringe upon the innate human right to freedom and relegate yourself to leftism. This is what has happened to libertarianism.
Bull. Citizenship must have a legal starting point. What we are talking about here is the ability of a state to apply constitutional rights to citizens. *WHEN* are they 'citizens' then becomes an important legal consideration.
Citizenship is a non-issue, since the criteria we use to denote citizens in the case of neonates can also apply to the unborn. Such religious hocus-pocus talk of “personhood” is literal nonsense and has no bearing in this matter.
I'll certainly take that bet --- if a bet is what you are making ---
Uh, no. I am not offering a bet, especially since I know you won’t be able to pay (duh), and especially since I won’t even want the winnings anyway.
I have no doubts about the hereafter for myself... but LOTS of doubts about the temperature of YOUR destination! LOL!
I have no doubts about either.
... Maybe enough to fill a whole K-Mart.... :)
Far more than this. When a so-called “conservative” supports federalizing “civil unions” for sodomites and by implication all of the oppressiveness and big government these unions entail, that conservative supports leftism. There are far more of these so-called “conservatives” than you claim here.
Since I never claimed an 'even split' your reply is irrelevant.
Well you said “I'd be willing to venture that there are perhaps camps of roughly equal size calling themselves 'conservatives'... (A Big Government / Small Goivernment split.)” Subject 28880
It certainly seemed to me you were claiming the likely existence of an equal sized split amongst conservatives into two camps: “A Big Government / Small Government split”-- though since you actually claimed it was “A Big Government / Small ”Goivernment” split, maybe you had something else in mind. (grin)
Fine. Suggestions?
True libertarianism is a good start.
(I CAN'T FAIL BUT TO NOTICE THAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH *NOTHING* SUGGESTING ANY SUPERIOR GROUP OR PHILOSOPHY.... :)
That is because all of the major groups that claim to hold a freedom philosophy have actually compromised their principles and become rank leftists. Fancy that the Democrat Party, the Party of the state’s rightists, the party of the libertarian Thomas Jefferson, is now the leading body in America’s leftist political triumvirate, of which the GOP is next, followed by the Johnny-come-lately adult-wannabe Libertarian Party.
(OK... Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians are "all the same".... SURE THEY ARE :)
When libertarians effectively declare that our national association ought not have the right to determine who is welcomed here and who is not, then they simply show that they are every bit as leftist as all of the other parties. No truly libertarian doctrine would ever permit the current views of the Libertarian Party on this and many other issues.
Your words speak for themself here....
Indeed.
Feel free to illuminate the issues then, at your leasure.... :)
Very well then, I will. You were mentioning how we have incurred a bent in a renewal of social conservatism. That is not quite true. The forces that acquired attention in the recent election have been around for quite a long time. But they are not making actual gains in spreading social conservatism. The larger trend, even here, is toward leftism. After all, abortion is still a faux constitutional right and is so entrenched that leftist candidates for political office boisterously declare their support for it and as boisterously use it as a test of other candidate’s worthiness for public service. On the other hand, so-called “conservative” candidates avoid the issue and even declare they will have no “litmus test” regarding it. So there is no real social conservatism here. Sodomite marriage now exists in America and is now even closer to being federalized than at any time in the past, despite the minor setbacks sodomites have incurred due to their tactical errors and momentary lack of discipline. Sodomites have actually made large gains at a time when social conservatism is are alleged to be on the upswing. Divorce is still as high as ever. Pornography is increasingly ubiquitous, as well as drug abuse, crime and a host of other areas that are supposedly important to social conservatives. I think the social conservatives are in the fight, as we have seen recently. But the long term trend is against them.
(Except for that 'Constitutional Monarchy' part, I guess.... :)
Well, not to defend Hamilton’s theories on the usefulness of a constitutional monarchy, but you should note that America, while standing resolutely against absolute monarchy, could posit a constitutional monarchy, especially since it had seen and even supported France’s establishment of such a government during its revolution. Hamilton, by today’s standards was a philosophical libertarian simply because he by no means would disregard general human freedom as we do today as a matter of course. Nevertheless, like modern libertarians he obviously was willing to compromise the freedom principle to strike a pragmatic balance between freedom and stability. He seems at one point to think a constitutional monarchy could provide a more perfect balance than other systems since it allowed for both a parliamentary democracy and an elected head of the government. Regular elections would allow the public to influence society. We need to take care not to misrepresent Hamilton, though we may reject his views.
Er... exactly WHAT IS your governmental vision for our society????? Can you put a name to it? A set of principles? A creed?
It is difficult to say because the moment I use the words here, you and other leftists will impose your modern view upon them, as opposed to hearing them as they were originally intended. I hold it as a self-evident truth, that all men are created equal, that they are blessed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I also hold it as self-evident that governments are crafted by people for the purpose of keeping these rights from being infringed upon by other men, since all men are equal and therefore have no natural right to the infringement. I hold it as self-evident that all powers owned by government flow to government from the people themselves and that if government should ever fail to uphold its aforementioned duty (to protect human rights from being infringed upon by other men), then it is the right of the people to change the government or, if that doesn’t work, destroy it to start a new government that will do its job properly. That is the philosophy and, unlike the Founders, we ought to do everything in our power to uphold it, however painful and impractical it threatens to be. If the Declaration is actually true, then we ought not break it. If it is false then we have no justification forever having separated from England.
Based upon the philosophy, we see government ought not be in the business of supporting the right to murder any human organism, since all humans gain their right to live from their Creator and not from any other human, including expectant mothers. We may allow ourselves as individuals to compromise on this issue (as I do), so that we allow others to compromise themselves as long as we ourselves are by no means ever compromised. Government ought not be in the business of imposing any association between its citizens. Yet we may allow associations of all sorts to exist, as long as we ourselves are not forced to support or otherwise acknowledge them. The government should not be in the business of collecting public money by force of law, but we may voluntarily contribute to government for some central purpose. Free speech should not be legally infringed, not even during elections and not even in cases where the speaker is a preacher, rabbi, evolutionist or atheist. Associations of people, whether churches, mosques, synagogues, atheist groups, neo-nazis and witch covens, should be free to speak their minds about anything and to anyone who is willing to listen. Etc., etc., etc.
That is what SHOULD happen based upon the self-evident truth. It may necessarily mean a lack of technological progress. It may mean precisely the opposite and lead to a technological boom. This should not have been the consideration in Jefferson’s day and it should not be ours today. It is naturally wrong to infringe upon human freedom simply because we cannot personally fathom the implications of it. The Founders knew the right thing to do, the right way to live and yet they failed to carry it out to the fullest. Compromise is useful, but the Founders compromised principle – a thing that never ought be done. We as a result are living with the harrowing consequences centuries later – and, contrary to how it appears to you, the situation is worsening. We are now, for the same essential reason as in 1776, still infringing upon human rights, literally murdering millions of people even while knowing it is wrong. We are actually trying to justify ourselves by intentionally creating ignorance in the face of knowledge, resorting to such half-witted blind faith intentional speculation concerning “personhood” when objective knowledge of the point of human existence is available and well known.
Gotta run (ding...) |
