The difference between liberals and conservatives

Respecthelect said:

The line between acceptable levels of addiction and illegal levels is for society to draw. Alcohol is apparently right on the line, because it was outlawed and then reinstated. So, the proper principle is to outlaw anything more addictive than alcohol and legalize things less addictive. That is the direction the country will move, regardless whether you think it's moving fast enough or not.

Click to expand...

OK, I disagree, but that's not the point. You're NOT making an 'individual freedom' argument but a greater good case.

My individual freedom is maximized if I'm allowed to take drugs I want to take, not drugs 'society' has determined are OK for me to take. Me getting high doesn't by itself harm your rights. Me getting high infringes on your rights if I harm YOU somehow while I'm high. But if I stay on my couch watching reruns of Star Trek, I should be 'free' to do as I please, so long as I don't infringe on your rights somehow. That's the 'rights' or individual freedom argument, which you dismiss or abandon because of the perceived societal harm of illicit drugs.

Gay behavior is (or should be) illegal as are all the sexual corruptions. Polygamy, prostitution, bigamy, beastiality, etc. They stand or fall together. Consensual adults in each case. Society has decided there is harm in those corruptions and outlawed them for eight-thousand years of recorded history. Maybe gay behavior, imposed by the courts, but opposed by voters, will stand? But, if it does, all the other sexual corruptions must be legalized. Principle will compel it.

Click to expand...

OK, so you're more than happy to stomp on 'individual freedom' if SOCIETY decides to ban 'sexual corruptions,' for the greater good. Again, that's directly conflicting with 'individual freedom.' Which was my point of course....

JoeTrumps said:

write me a one page history of this country and I'll tell you if you are a liberal or conservative. One looks back in love and honor and the other with shame and horror. that's the easiest way to tell what side of the political fence one is on. don't believe me? try it and see

Click to expand...

OK I'll play.
I pick FDR's New Deal and the corresponding meteoric rise of the middle class as our nations greatest moment in history. Now tell me how you look back on it.

iguanaman said:

OK I'll play.
I pick FDR's New Deal and the corresponding meteoric rise of the middle class as our nations greatest moment in history. Now tell me how you look back on it.

Click to expand...

i want your overall opinion on the history of the country from start to now, not a single policy from a single President. You see the difference?

JoeTrumps said:

write me a one page history of this country and I'll tell you if you are a liberal or conservative. One looks back in love and honor and the other with shame and horror. that's the easiest way to tell what side of the political fence one is on. don't believe me? try it and see

Click to expand...

What if a person sees parts to both "love and honor" and others parts of our history we view with "shame and horror? It is the honest view.

JasperL said:

What if a person sees parts to both "love and honor" and others parts of our history we view with "shame and horror? It is the honest view.

Click to expand...

It either tastes great or it's less filling. Pick a side and stop being so wishy washy.

Unrepresented said:

It either tastes great or it's less filling. Pick a side and stop being so wishy washy.

Click to expand...

Well, black and white thinking is a conservative trait, in my experience, which may be part of your point.

But our history just isn't an either/or thing. Start with the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal" except for the slaves, who had no rights at all. One can and should honor the principles declared. At the time it was written, the idea that common men had any 'inalienable' rights was revolutionary so for the time it was a giant leap forward for individual freedoms. But it's a bit blinkered to ignore that the Constitution wrote a disregard of those principles into the founding document, and it took a Civil war and hundreds of thousands dead to begin living them as a country, and another 100 years before state sanctioned discrimination was more or less eliminated from the LAW.

JasperL said:

OK, I disagree, but that's not the point. You're NOT making an 'individual freedom' argument but a greater good case.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The case is freedom. Intrinsic individual freedom. Each person has freedom and may not enslave himself. This is a corollary of freedom. If man's freedom is intrinsic - built into his very being, he may not yield it. This is the difference between America and every other country on the planet. Every other country loans freedom to the individual and the individual accepts that government may take back some or all of that freedom at any time. Intrinsic freedom may never rightly be separated from man, in America. Not by the government, not by a neighbor, not by a foreigner and not by the individual himself.

Freedom is a jail-sentence for liberals, because they are never free to not be free. They are forced to think and act for themselves. It is not optional. One might suppose freedom to be a big party, where the person can do anything they want, but come to find out, the person must do anything they want. That subtle difference, confuses most libertarians, so we don't expect liberals to grasp it.

In this case, intrinsic freedom has nothing to do with harms to others, it is purely a question of insisting you maintain your own liberty. And it's not my insistence, it derives from God>Natural-rights>Intrinsic-Freedom. You are simply not free to not be free. I'm sorry to tell you.

That the addiction line is drawn by society, is more bad news I must convey. Lots of things are slightly addictive. Coffee, Tea, etc., but society must decide whether those addictions are sufficient to remove liberty? Some are easy calls. Drug addicts who can't help themselves and commit crimes. Easy. Some are closer-calls. Alcohol and cigarettes. Somebody must decide and it can't be left up to the addict. All that's left is society.

JasperL said:

OK, so you're more than happy to stomp on 'individual freedom' if SOCIETY decides to ban 'sexual corruptions,' for the greater good. Again, that's directly conflicting with 'individual freedom.' Which was my point of course....

Click to expand...

Not me, my friend - society going back millennia. While I am a proponent of limiting sexual corruptions, it's due to the harms they cause, not to "stomp" on anyone's freedoms. If those sexual corruptions didn't impact me and my family, I couldn't care less what you do. However, sexual corruption does impact individuals and the nation as a whole. Leaving the whole disease, effects on children, S&G rain of fire issues aside for the moment; there's a new harm from radical Islam due almost entirely to their (correct, in this case) perception of sexual corruptions. We will soon be attacked, probably by nukes, almost entirely due to your irrational insistence on promulgating this gay agenda. Right or wrong, gays are going to get us nuked. So, stop telling us gay behavior doesn't effect us - it does, and it will.

Paleocon said:

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives understand that there is a difference between a person and a person's opinion, whereas liberals see the two as one and the same, that is conservatives see reality as existing independent of what anyone thinks, whereas liberals think that thoughts are reality. This is why liberals can't understand the difference between disagreeing with someone about something, versus hating that person*.

*To be fair, most (but not all) liberals are capable of calmly discussing impersonal matters.

Click to expand...

Weird...so your irony meter didn't go off while typing that?

JasperL said:

Well, black and white thinking is a conservative trait, in my experience, which may be part of your point.

But our history just isn't an either/or thing. Start with the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal" except for the slaves, who had no rights at all. One can and should honor the principles declared. At the time it was written, the idea that common men had any 'inalienable' rights was revolutionary so for the time it was a giant leap forward for individual freedoms. But it's a bit blinkered to ignore that the Constitution wrote a disregard of those principles into the founding document, and it took a Civil war and hundreds of thousands dead to begin living them as a country, and another 100 years before state sanctioned discrimination was more or less eliminated from the LAW.

Click to expand...

Typical "less filling" viewpoint. Only us "tastes greats" are able to see through the media bias you've been spoon fed.

JasperL said:

it's a bit blinkered to ignore that the Constitution wrote a disregard of those principles into the founding document, and it took a Civil war and hundreds of thousands dead to begin living them as a country, and another 100 years before state sanctioned discrimination was more or less eliminated from the LAW.

Click to expand...

A) Show me where the Declaration or the Constitution "wrote a disregard" for slavery? It's a lie. The Declaration specifically forbade slavery, even though it took some time for that unstoppable force to move the immovable object. But, this is your biggest complaint? That perfection took too long for your liking? You, who I'll wager, never fought for his country? Never lifted a finger to make a better world? You who tear down your country and defile it with liberalism? You'll sit in judgement of great men?

Unrepresented said:

Typical "less filling" viewpoint. Only us "tastes greats" are able to see through the media bias you've been spoon fed.

Click to expand...

Well, where is the alleged 'media bias?' What part did I get wrong?

Respecthelect said:

A) Show me where the Declaration or the Constitution "wrote a disregard" for slavery? It's a lie. The Declaration specifically forbade slavery, even though it took some time for that unstoppable force to move the immovable object.

Click to expand...

The Constitution blessed slavery and the slave trade. It didn't forbid it:

“Art. 1st, Sect. 9th. — The migration or importation of any such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars each person.”

“Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Click to expand...

I understand why the Constitution included that language, because given the realities of the day, we wouldn't have been able to form the U.S.A. had the Founders banned slavery - it would have destroyed the economy of the South, and the Southern states simply wouldn't have signed an economic suicide pact and joined the unions. But you can't ignore that about half the men and women in the South with "inalienable rights" could be beaten, raped, killed, sold like cattle, worked non-stop, starved, their kids sold out from under them, etc. with impunity and protected in these insults to individual liberty by the force of the STATE, and for nearly a century.

But, this is your biggest complaint? That perfection took too long for your liking? You, who I'll wager, never fought for his country? Never lifted a finger to make a better world? You who tear down your country and defile it with liberalism? You'll sit in judgement of great men?

Click to expand...

That's a nice string of personal insults against me, but doesn't show much other than you're good at slinging insults. I'd respond, but I don't engage with people who can only insult.

JoeTrumps said:

i want your overall opinion on the history of the country from start to now, not a single policy from a single President. You see the difference?

Click to expand...

A one page paper on the entire history of the U.S.? LOL I'll pass. You failed your own test, by the way.

JasperL said:

The Constitution blessed slavery and the slave trade. It didn't forbid it:

Click to expand...

But, that's not what you said. You said,

JasperL said:

But it's a bit blinkered to ignore that the Constitution wrote a disregard of those principles into the founding document

Click to expand...

(bold added for clarity)

What you wrote is a lie. Slandering our founding father's. Nice to see you slink away from it, but let's not kid ourselves here; you'll slander America at every opportunity, if somebody doesn't call you on it. We can tell, because you try to change your story, instead of admitting your mistake.

Respecthelect said:

But, that's not what you said. You said,
(bold added for clarity)

What you wrote is a lie. Slandering our founding father's. Nice to see you slink away from it, but let's not kid ourselves here; you'll slander America at every opportunity, if somebody doesn't call you on it. We can tell, because you try to change your story, instead of admitting your mistake.

Click to expand...

I won't slink away or back away or distance myself from that comment. Here it is: "the Constitution wrote a disregard of those principles into the founding document."

The principle was "all men are created equal" and at the founding and through the Civil War, black men and women and children had NO rights at all in most of this country, and the Constitution explicitly blessed the slave trade, and forbade any state law that would free slaves who made it to their territory. I'm not sure how to describe that other than as "a disregard of those principles" as they applied to blacks/slaves, treated no better than livestock under the law.

JasperL said:

I won't slink away or back away or distance myself from that comment. Here it is: "the Constitution wrote a disregard of those principles into the founding document."

The principle was "all men are created equal" and at the founding and through the Civil War, black men and women and children had NO rights at all in most of this country, and the Constitution explicitly blessed the slave trade, and forbade any state law that would free slaves who made it to their territory. I'm not sure how to describe that other than as "a disregard of those principles" as they applied to blacks/slaves, treated no better than livestock under the law.

Click to expand...

Show where slavery is "written into the Constitution?" You can't, because the one mention of the topic says, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The Constitution might only mention liberty once and applied to all, but the Declaration is very clear on the subject.

You said slavery was "written in," but you can't point to a single written word to back you up. I therefore call you a liar, sir. And ask you to stop slandering our founders.

Respecthelect said:

Show where slavery is "written into the Constitution?" You can't, because the one mention of the topic says, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The Constitution might only mention liberty once and applied to all, but the Declaration is very clear on the subject.

You said slavery was "written in," but you can't point to a single written word to back you up. I therefore call you a liar, sir. And ask you to stop slandering our founders.

Click to expand...

I've already pointed to the written words - quoted them:

“Art. 1st, Sect. 9th. — The migration or importation of any such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars each person.”

“Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Click to expand...

And maybe you need to have a drink, relax a bit. We can disagree without you calling me a "liar" or accusing me of "slandering" our founders. I'm not slandering them - I'll quote myself: "At the time it was written, the idea that common men had any 'inalienable' rights was revolutionary so for the time it was a giant leap forward for individual freedoms." And I acknowledged they were also flawed human beings, same as the rest of us. That's not even approaching "slander" in my view - just an honest look at our history, the great and the not so great. From the point of view of the then slaves, the Founders simply weren't saints. They left the slaves in bondage and the slaves remained in bondage for nearly a century. It's part of our history and pointing that out just isn't slander of any form.

Unrepresented said:

The Constitution has less relevance now than it previously had in that it was written for a different set of people, at a different time, with different needs, living in a different society.

Click to expand...

Wow, Wrong ! It's just as relevant as it was the day it was penned. Your lack of understanding of the Human condition or your lack of Historical context doesn't change the definition of anything written in our founding documents.

Again, it's never changed, only people inferences and motivations change. The fact that time has passed and generations have passed doesn't mean the Constitution needs to be changed or amended.

The day our Constitution is changed to address the " needs " of the citizens is the day it ceases to be a Constitution. From that point on it would be good enough to line a bird cage with but not much else.

Unrepresented said:

I'm not saying it's worthless or should be removed from our system of government, just that it has different priorities that reflect a different context.

Click to expand...

American principles and " priorities " have never changed. The Constitutions enumerates rights that were inalienable. Not granted by Man. You have to realize the genius of the document.

Rights given to you by Man can be taken away by Man. Rights that are inalienable cannot be compromised.

What's changed is we now have a generation of people who think they're owed something, they think the Government should provide for their " needs " ( Highly arbitrary, needs could be anything ) and since the Constitution only guarantees you your rights it's somehow " irrelevant " because it's old.

These people are naive enough to put their trust in a massive highly corrupt and highly inefficient Bureaucracy. They're naive enough to think that "needs " could be supplied by people or institutions other than themselves.

They're even naive enough to think that the Federal Government should be the arbiter of " equity" and " fairness " AND have the power to mandate that " equity and fairness "

The Constitution enumerates what only it can and to deface it, to corrupt it because the concept of rugged individualism intimidates some people would be a travesty of justice.

Unrepresented said:

How often have you been threatened with having to quarter soldiers? Tell me about the militia you encounter.

Click to expand...

I KNOW your'e not referring to a " quarter of soldiers " when you talk about the Constitution not addressing the NEEDS of the Citizens.

JasperL said:

“Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Click to expand...

OK, I withdraw my complaint. Well played, sir.

Paleocon said:

People who assume that if you disapprove of gay marriage, then you hate gays, for one.

Click to expand...

Well why do conservatives disapprove of gay marriage?

(I think most liberals use the term "animus" or "bigotry" rather than "hate," which is a more extreme form of both, but whatever, we can go with that)

Is there another, or is this thread basically all about that?

What about conservatives who claim that liberals hate the wealthy? That they hate guns? That they love abortion?

Fenton said:

Wow, Wrong ! It's just as relevant as it was the day it was penned. Your lack of understanding of the Human condition or your lack of Historical context doesn't change the definition of anything written in our founding documents.

Again, it's never changed, only people inferences and motivations change. The fact that time has passed and generations have passed doesn't mean the Constitution needs to be changed or amended.

The day our Constitution is changed to address the " needs " of the citizens is the day it ceases to be a Constitution. From that point on it would be good enough to line a bird cage with but not much else.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Constitution has been amended many times. That's why we're up to 27 ratified Amendments.

Fenton said:

American principles and " priorities " have never changed. The Constitutions enumerates rights that were inalienable. Not granted by Man. You have to realize the genius of the document.

Rights given to you by Man can be taken away by Man. Rights that are inalienable cannot be compromised.

What's changed is we now have a generation of people who think they're owed something, they think the Government should provide for their " needs " ( Highly arbitrary, needs could be anything ) and since the Constitution only guarantees you your rights it's somehow " irrelevant " because it's old.

These people are naive enough to put their trust in a massive highly corrupt and highly inefficient Bureaucracy. They're naive enough to think that "needs " could be supplied by people or institutions other than themselves.

They're even naive enough to think that the Federal Government should be the arbiter of " equity" and " fairness " AND have the power to mandate that " equity and fairness "

The Constitution enumerates what only it can and to deface it, to corrupt it because the concept of rugged individualism intimidates some people would be a travesty of justice.

Click to expand...

"Inalienable rights" is philosophically and politically silly. I like the concept, and like the sentiment, but it's based on a moral position, not a reality based one. If we had inalienable rights, we wouldn't need a constitution to defend them.

Fenton said:

I KNOW your'e not referring to a " quarter of soldiers " when you talk about the Constitution not addressing the NEEDS of the Citizens.

Click to expand...

It's a vestige of British colonialism. It's nice to know I won't have to include any of enlisted men from the local bases in my cramped apartment any time soon, but it really hasn't been applicable for several hundred years.

Unrepresented said:

"Inalienable rights" is philosophically and politically silly. I like the concept, and like the sentiment, but it's based on a moral position, not a reality based one. If we had inalienable rights, we wouldn't need a constitution to defend them.

Click to expand...

Your head is inalienable. You don't need a law or a constitution to prevent someone from chopping it off? ISIS would be happy to oblige?

Heads need protecting and inalienable rights need protecting. Both are inalienable.

Respecthelect said:

Your head is inalienable. You don't need a law or a constitution to prevent someone from chopping it off? ISIS would be happy to oblige?

Heads need protecting and inalienable rights need protecting. Both are inalienable.

Click to expand...

If you had an inalienable right to not have your head cut off, your head wouldn't be capable of being cut off.

Then go let ISIS cut your head off, if you don't feel it necessary? If you feel your head can rightly be separated from yourself? You should get along fine without it, since it is "alienable."

Unrepresented said:

Actually, the Constitution has been amended many times. That's why we're up to 27 ratified Amendments.

"Inalienable rights" is philosophically and politically silly. I like the concept, and like the sentiment, but it's based on a moral position, not a reality based one. If we had inalienable rights, we wouldn't need a constitution to defend them.

It's a vestige of British colonialism. It's nice to know I won't have to include any of enlisted men from the local bases in my cramped apartment any time soon, but it really hasn't been applicable for several hundred years.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the ammendment process contained IN the Constitution is extremely tedious for a good reason.

And most people who claim that our Constitution is outdated and needs to be changed to address the " NEEDS " of the people aren't referring to the ammendment process as the mechanism of change.

I sincerely doubt people who share your ideology have the patience for the ammendment process.

And " inalienable rights " as granted by our Creator is what seperates the US Constitution from every other bit of scrap paper that defines " rights " as a accommodation granted by Man.

Just curious, what should be added specifically to our Constitution ?