It should be supported in both principle and practice.
Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.
It should be opposed both in principle and practice.
"Point Counter Point"
The democratic party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) on social-civil issues where individual morality is involved.
The democratic party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dictates through the public-state contract (government) on social welfare issues with an egalitarian, wealth redistribution focus.
The republican party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dicates through the public-state contract (government) on civil issues where individual morality is involved.
The republican party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) in economic issues, for laze faire economics.
The promotions of each party are mixed from issue to issue, which means that they are inconsistent with a fundamental philosophy of libertarianism (individualism), or authoritarianism (collectivism), yet both promote major liberal elements as part of their platforms.
Thus, the use of the term liberal by republicans about democrats is a reference to democrat's libertarian moral choices - individualism; however, that misappropriate in describing democrat economic principles - collectivism.
On the contrary, democrats would be justified to use the term liberal about republicans in reference to republican libertarian economic choices - individualism; however, that is misappropriate in describing republican civil positions - collectivism.
Now, the republican party seems to believe that it has the moral high ground on economic as well as civil issues, and consequently it sees fit to abuse the term liberal with that generalization, under some guise of term it calls conservativism; democrats seem to accept it; to put it bluntly, "I call bullsht!"
Precisely. This is what I feel the real concept of "equality" entails.I'd add that as much as is possible no individual should have more power than any other, power needs to be dispersed as widely as possible(while still being realistic.).
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Is capital punishment a means thru which the government protects the rights of people, either directly by killing someone that has shown that he is a threat to society, or as a deterrent to those that might otherwise be a threat to society, or both?
If so - and I'd argue that it is indeed the case - the government is merely exercising the right of the people to act in their own self-defense.
Given that, we are not then granting the government a power that we, the people, do not individually posess as a right.
Last edited by Goobieman; 12-02-08 at 10:05 AM.
Should we stop putting people in prison too?
By allowing the government to exterminate the offender in a premeditated fashion, the issue changes from defense to murder.
For example, if I were to kill someone who murdered my son 15 years prior, I would be guilty of premeditated murder. I would not be able to use the defense of saying I was "defending" future victims of that murderer. It is a separate action.
This is analogous to the death penalty.
Thus we are granting the Government a right not retained by the people.
The nature of the death penalty as post facto is inherently why it is purely retaliatory.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
It does, however, unquestionably protect the rights of the people from any further menace from that particular person.The nature of the death penalty as post facto is inherently why it is purely retaliatory.
Last edited by Goobieman; 12-02-08 at 10:36 AM.
OK, one for you - imagine you have been wrongly accused, despite damning DNA evidence, you KNOW you are innocent (not quite a 4 year old baby when the crime was committed but you get the picture) - how many times would YOU try and appeal before resigning yourself to being executed for someone else's crime? (Remember you are against lengthy appeals by the innocent or guilty)
Take it further - your kid was the 4 year old wrongfully accused but the DNA evidence is overwhelming. You KNOW your kid wasn't anywhere near the scene but has been implicated by DNA.
Hand your kid over gladly or protest and appeal? And how many times before you accept that your now 10 year old has to die because of your principle?