Society/Culture Do conservatives reject reality?

[Cheech14]

God Bless America!

Forget America.

That should happen everywhere.

 

[Old Skool]

The Libertarians have it right.

I leave you alone, you leave me alone.

That way we can all be who we want to be.

Just don't be who you want to be on my property or I'll shoot you.

Seems reasonable to me.

After we partition property in to equal portions, and abolish the transferral of deceased property holdings.

 

[holy diver]

Forget America.

That should happen everywhere.

The system has as much problems as any other. It's no answer on it's own.

 

[Cheech14]

After we partition property in to equal portions, and abolish the transferral of deceased property holdings.

A perfect example of why they left don't live in the land of reality.

There is no equality.

 

[Old Skool]

A perfect example of why they left don't live in the land of reality.

There is no equality.

You're basically arguing to change nothing.

Do conservatives reject reality?

Yes.

 

[Cheech14]

The system has as much problems as any other. It's no answer on it's own.

Think of all the socialists that could be gotten rid of when they step onto other peoples property without permission.

Abortion clinics could "remove" NeoCon protestors who stepped on their property.

Oh Nirvana.

 

[Cheech14]

You're basically arguing to change nothing.

Hardly.

I'm arguing against people like you obviously who want to take away self determination and force "equality" onto everyone.

 

[Old Skool]

Think of all the socialists that could be gotten rid of when they step onto other peoples property without permission..

Tsar Nicholas II probably felt the same way until the Bolsheviks frog marched him for a date with a bullet.

People like you actually create socialists.

 

[Old Skool]

Hardly.

I'm arguing against people like you obviously who want to take away self determination and force "equality" onto everyone.

I'm a big L libertarian champ.

You're not a libertarians boot lace.

I just don't delude myself that true liberty can prosper on an incredibly lopsided playing field. You can't claim all the assets by force and call yourself a libertarian. That is Bill O'Reilly amateur hour drivel.

 

[holy diver]

Think of all the socialists that could be gotten rid of when they step onto other peoples property without permission.

Abortion clinics could "remove" NeoCon protestors who stepped on their property.

Oh Nirvana.

right, Nirvana.

 

[Cheech14]

Tsar Nicholas II probably felt the same way until the Bolsheviks frog marched him for a date with a bullet.

People like you actually create socialists.

Wrong way around. Socialists create people like me.

Strange you would think that someone who advocates letting people choose their own beliefs and views to live their life by could create a socialist.

Maybe that just proves how stupid socialists really are.

 

[Cheech14]

I'm a big L libertarian champ.

You're not a libertarians boot lace.

I just don't delude myself that true liberty can prosper on an incredibly lopsided playing field. You can't claim all the assets by force and call yourself a libertarian. That is Bill O'Reilly amateur hour drivel.

After we partition property in to equal portions, and abolish the transferral of deceased property holdings.

And who would you give the property holdings of a deceased person too?

The world isn't lopsided, it's the way it has always been.

 

[Old Skool]

And who would you give the property holdings of a deceased person too?

Not their spoilt overprivileged bludger kids.

It never ceases to amaze me when the social Darwinists baulk on this issue.

The world isn't lopsided, it's the way it has always been.

You're wasting your time engaging in a pointless discussion then.

 

[Cheech14]

Not their spoilt overprivileged bludger kids.

It never ceases to amaze me when the social Darwinists baulk on this issue.

So you wish to introduce a system that prohibits a working class father from passing on his property to his working class kids?

It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity of socialists who begrudge people the fruits of their labor

You're wasting your time engaging in a pointless discussion then.

With someone as delusional as yourself you're probably right.

 

[Old Skool]

So you wish to introduce a system that prohibits a working class father from passing on his property to his working class kids?

It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity of socialists who begrudge people the fruits of their labor.

1) I'm not a socialist.
2) I'm not begrudgiing anyone the "fruits of their labor"
3) I'm denying the massive and disproportianate accumulation of assets by a system purely designed to encapsulate that ideal. A system which encourages this "accumulation" without the fruits of labor.

Gotta love how the "might is right" types go running for the "law and ordwer" statute books the moment the ideological hypocrisy of inheritance becomes an issue.

Your children aren't special. Deal with it.

I have never met a "might is right" type who deep down wasn't a conservative coward.

With someone as delusional as yourself you're probably right.

Daytripper?

Bye bye. Another one bites the dust.

 

[Cheech14]

1) I'm not a socialist.
2) I'm not begrudgiing anyone the "fruits of their labor"
3) I'm denying the massive and disproportionate accumulation of assets by a system purely designed to encapsulate that ideal.

It's not the system accumulating assets, it's the people.

To deny them is to impinge on their right to determine how they benefit from their labour.

 

[BORK]

Just to put some context into where some of the bigger issues over there lie and to show Al Sharpton and co may have their priorities wrong.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Page 13 of this report states "From 1980 through 2008—93% of black victims were killed by blacks."

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an..._United_States

"About 12.4% of the American people (37.6 million, including about 885,000 Hispanic or Latino) are Black or African American."

Adding a little maths into this..

93/12.4=7.5
7/87.6=0.0799 or 0.08

7.5/0.08=93.75

So an individual "Black or African American" is 93.75 times more likely to kill another "Black" than an individual White or other race American is.

I do not wish for this post to inflame others or result in slurs directed at me I just wish to paint a picture of what may be a bigger yet less covered issue to deal with in the African American community.

Originally Posted by Old Skool
Please don't address me with your stupidity and ignorance again.

Thanks.

Does the OP reject reality?

 

[Malifice]

You're not a libertarians boot lace.

I just don't delude myself that true liberty can prosper on an incredibly lopsided playing field.

Google 'Positive liberty'.

 

[Malifice]

Does the OP reject reality?

So you agree that there are problems with violence and high murder rates in poor and mostly black communities in the USA?

Reckon the US conservative way - more guns, no retreat laws, less welfare, reduced affirmitive action, restricting access to higher education for the poor etc - is the way to go about adressing it?

 

[Old Skool]

If only poverty had a color.

 

[Malifice]

If only poverty had a color.

There is a corellation in many societies with ethnic minorities and poverty.

 

[Old Skool]

Google 'Positive liberty'.

What's your point malifice?

 

[Malifice]

What's your point malifice?

Your post inferred that liberalism doesnt work due to entrenched social barriers within society.

If you were arguing that strict classical liberalism/ negative liberty ('freedom from') doesnt work (in that there are those with greater agency in society, and that this greater agency limits, impairs and denies the liberty of others) I may agree with you.

However positive liberty adresses this phenomena:

Positive liberty is defined as having the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential (this may include freedom from internal constraints);[1] as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint.[2] Specifically, the concepts of structure and agency are central to the concept of positive liberty because in order to be free, a person should be free from inhibitions of the social structure in carrying out their free will. Structurally speaking classism, sexism or racism can inhibit a person's freedom and positive liberty is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency. Positive liberty is enhanced by the ability of citizens to participate in their government and have their voice, interests and concerns recognized as valid and acted upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

Most modern liberals recognise the above in one way or another.

 

[Old Skool]

Not strictly.

Berlins essay also addresses the potential despotic tendencies of man inside his concept of positive liberty.

I sense that you are studying political philosophy. Have you read "The Ego and its Own" by Max Stirner?

 

[Malifice]

Not strictly.

I never said strictly.

Meds identifies as a 'libertarian' and he certainly sees no place for notions of positive liberty.

There are others in the classic libertarian school that continue to reject the notion that a failure to act by the State to ensure liberty is no different to the State failing to ensure liberty (which is what we as liberals put them there to do).

I come from the position that sometimes, non discrimination is itself a form of discrimination.

The trick is to know when.

Berlins essay also addresses the potential despotic tendencies of man inside his concept of positive liberty.

Indeed. Heck the very notion of liberalism relies on the tendency of man to be selfish, and look after his own intrests above those of others. 'Maximise personal pleasure while minimising personal pain' and all that.

The theory rests on the premise that humans are inherently selfish mofos and will sometimes screw each other over if given the chance.

It recognises that an external authority (i.e. the State) is thus needed to protect the individual from harm from others.

Classical liberals theorise that the State should only do as little as possible to ensure freedom, and let the dice fall where they may.

Clearly this position is rubbish. Even the classical economic libertarian posterboy Adam Smith supported State interference and regulation of the economy to prevent monopolies and cartels from market dominance (invisible hand notwithstanding) and the effective restriction of liberty and market exclusion that would result.

I sense that you are studying political philosophy.

Studied. Although ancilliary to my actual degree (Law + Philosophy)

Although thinking about heading back to Uni to specialise in the topic.