[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."
I agree --- laws are made for everyone (or, at least they should be). No exceptions.
[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,"
Not to NATIONS, it's not! :)
[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."
Time will tell, but I have no worries....
[... 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."
Actually... I was talking about SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES (vs. our current crop of BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES), I wasn't talking specifically about Social Conservatives vs. Social Liberals, or Authoritarians vs. Libertarians.
[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;
Yep... I believe 'roughly' is not too far off. I believe there are a lot more of the Reagan/Gingrich Revolution crowd around still then is generally realized --- they are just keeping their heads down and their mouths shut under the current fiscal liberal crowd... but likely not 'quiet' forever....
[Fine. Suggestions?]
"True libertarianism is a good start."
Er... and that is different exactly HOW from the generally accepted definitions of Libertarianism???????????????????
[(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."
LOL!!!!! Maybe you are a Whig, or a Monarchist or a Mullah-wannabe, or a WOBBLY after all. LOL! Maybe their *ain't* no name for you, Pilchie! ('Ted Kazinsky-ite'?????)
[(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....
NOPE... it's simply ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN in the Ann Rand Objectivist tradition... an opposition to government powers over the individual. That's about as TRADITIONAL a definition of the American brand of Libertarianism as there is! Clearly you are not very familiar with it's history... and you simply use the code word 'leftist' to describe ANYTHING with which you disagree. That's a very SLOPPY habit. (Like the saying goes: you must be a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to you....) Sloppy.
[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."
Actually what I said was: ... Aside from a certain bent towards a renewal of social conservatism that is, certainly no fiscal conservatism is in view, no factions clamoring to conserve our constitutional liberties are at the front of the stage. 'Certain bent' does not imply that social conservatism is in any way becoming dominant.
"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."
I would perhaps say that the LONG TERM TREND in America is toward greater moderation in social norms (witness most opinions polls --- I believe a post I made to you commenting on the CPAC conference made reference to this point --- that illustrate a pronounced greater moderation in the youngest adult age cohorts, vs. the oldest age cohorts on social views, tolerance, etc.) while there is perhaps a small SHORT TERM TREND toward less social moderation, but it's at the margins....
This in no way means that there is any trend in public opinion toward favoring FISCAL LIBERALISM, or even favoring a heightened impulse to AUTHORITARIANISM (I believe that the anti-Authoritarian ideas of greater individual freedom from government control, expoused by the Libertarian movement, have been steadily rising in the public's conscious for several decades now....)
[(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...."
(I believe it would have been extremely unlikely that he could even envision a direct-participatory Democracy, such as may now be possible for the first time in human history as a result of technological advances... but that is quite a bit off-topic.)
[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.... 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."
Nice... who's your ghost writer? :)
"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 with the view that men are NOT 'born equal' ...although a good society should treat them as if they were!, but Sam Colt made them fairly equal....)
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),"
Exactly. But the problem that I see is that YOU claim that 'your rights' are being, or going to be infringed... while OTHERS claim that it is YOU who want to infringe their inalienable rights to live free, and be treated as equal in worth, by their government. I'm afraid that you are going to have to define your terms (like: 'human rights') a little more closely!
Personally, I believe that people should be free to do pretty much whatever they want to, free to make their own mistakes even... so long as they don't harm others. They should be 'free to swing their fists as widely as they want'... but that freedom is constrained as they near mine or your noses. THAT's Libertarianism.
"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."
Exactly. Jefferson believed that --- without a 'revolution' every generation or so --- our 'Democratic experiment would fail. The genius of their construct was that the *institutionalized* to a great extent in our government: 1) an innate capacity to tremendously reform, within the system and without too much bloody revolution, and 2) CHECKS and BALANCES to make it more difficult for any portion of the government to gain total dominion over the other parts.
"...Based upon the philosophy, we see government ought not be in the business of supporting the right to murder any human organism,"
You'll have to define your term a bit more precisely: 'human organism' (I for one have no problems clipping off living skin cells for example....)
I also believe that the death penalty can be justified in some cases....
"Government ought not be in the business of imposing any association between its citizens."
Would establishing uniform financial laws so that life-long paired couples can inherit estates upon their partners demise be 'imposing' anything on you? (Or perhaps inheritance rights should be conditioned upon the time span of a couple's association... 10% inheritance rights for 5 years of domesticity, 100% for 50 years, etc.? :) )
"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."
Finally! A Libertarian goal (though likely an unachievable one....)
"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."
Agreed. (And, another Libertarian goal.)
"That is what SHOULD happen based upon the self-evident truth. It may necessarily mean a lack of technological progress."
Sorry... Theocrats and Luddites are the TWO things I'm *least* likely to ever support.
"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."
What are you saying????? Their's was an age of enlightenment and scientific advancement, just as ours. If you are proposing a return to the 'glorious Dark Ages' you can go peddle that tripe somewhere else... I'll quit wasting my time with you, and consign you to the figurative 'loony bin'.
"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."
What are you referring to? Slavery?
"We as a result are living with the harrowing consequences centuries later – and, contrary to how it appears to you, the situation is worsening."
<G> Oh, them old days were pretty damn bad in their own way, too.
"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'????? Who is that 'we', white man?????????
"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."
Yep... them Dark Ages were just *such* a font of Knowledge and Scientific Enlightenment!!!!!!!!! <chuckle>.
'Forward to the past', eh Pilchie? |
