Poly is making me right wing

[Ben Kenobi]

You are smoking something then. Right to Life groups were telling Reagan that O'Connor was pro abortion (which was, granted a bit much... personally O'Connor disliked abortion, but legally thought Roe shouldn't be overturned).

Thank you. You answered your own question. She was a moderate republican.

Strict constructionists have no believes on federalism?

We are saying the same thing two different ways.

And besides, Scalia considers himself more of a textualist than a "strict constructionist" (after all, Scalia has said he is "not a strict constructionist and no-one ought to be").

Yes, I'm aware of the distinction that Scalia makes, but for our purposes here, that doesn't matter. That he is different from Clarence Thomas is like saying that burgundy and maroon are different colours. They are both quite different from green.

To some individuals perhaps who followed Jacksonian Democracy, but not to Jefferson... as he didn't consider some sort of God's plan to expand.

And many saw it as the beginning of their expansion, into other countries, and that the US had the natural right to expand out to the Pacific. Whatever Jefferson's stated motives for the expansion, the result from it was the policy of manifest destiny.

Since when is the rights of states a classical liberal belief? The states can be just as tyrannical as the federal government.

Umm, ok. Jefferson advocated for states rights as well. I'm dumbfounded you would ask that question. Classical liberals were opposed to the increased power of the state preferring more local governments throughout the history of the US. That includes slavery.

So Reagan supported the New Deal, but Kennedy's New Frontier, which was much, much smaller and included tax cuts and tariff reductions (along with great increases in military expenditures) was too much for him?

Yes sir, and judging by the landslides in 68 and 80, it seems most Americans agreed with him.

And pssst, Stevenson was pretty liberal himself.

I'm just saying, pick up his speech about Goldwater. It would be far better then anything I say here.

Only socially. Economically they are on the right. Classic liberals are only on the left to wacko rightists. No one really considers Milton Friedman to be a leftist.

He's not a statist. And I'm surprised you haven't recognised the terminology here. He is still on the left for some things and on the right for others.

Socialism has already been defined. You just have a problem admitting the definition because it challenges your world views.

The word itself I believe has changed dramatically in meaning, which has come out in the thread. Christians may have been socialists, but the socialism of the Quakers is not the same as the socialism of Marx. For me, I define Marx's socialism as true socialism, and what the Quakers believe as something else entirely.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think people should be compensated for working 12 hours a day. Instead I think they should be compensated fairly for working an 8 hour day.

I will tell you what you believe. You believe no one should be allowed to work more then 8 hours in a day, even if they want to.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to work as long as they want too?

But why do you seem to be implying that a nurse isn't productive and Paris Hilton is.

I doubt Paris Hilton's fortune is derived from her public appearances.

Is a CEO 10 times as productive as a ditch digger.

This is the crux of the argument. First off, you need to detach the connection you have from "this person's value is exactly what he is compensated". Secondly, yes, a CEO if he is worth his pay, is 10 times as productive. Look at it this way. Everyone down the chain has a job because of what the CEO does. IF the CEO does a good job, then everyone down the line will be better. A ditchdigger's job is important too, because if he does a poor job it will effect everyone as well, because that is the outcome of the process. But he cannot directly improve the other folks' working conditions. He does not control where or when he works, he does not control who and how the contracts work.

There are fewer people willing to take on the obligations and responsbility of being a ceo then there are peole willing to take on the labour of a ditchdigger. That is the main reason why one is paid more then the other.

This productivity argument is totally bogus, because you can't measure it fairly.

You can't take up a measuring rod and empirically measure productivity. However you do have a market. You can make relative comparisons, ie this person is more productive then another person if their jobs and responsibilities are identical. You have two choices here. You can rely on the market to set prices or on arbitrary prices set by you. Same as with wages.

All you are really doing is making a claim that rich people are more productive than poor people and that's complete bull****.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What is stopping you from becoming a CEO?

The claim itself shows how arrogant you are. It's impossible to get through to you. I just wish you would realise that you don't believe in equality at all. You will be a lot better off and your arguments will make some sense finally.

No, I believe that equality has nothing to do with compensation. I'm sorry I'm not a socialist. I don't see the fact that nurses make more then ditchdiggers or mickey d servers is a bad thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now explain to me why you're strenuously avoiding these two issues-

1- Why are you still ignoring Fox?

2- If abolition was an inherent Tory principle, why didn't Pitt make any real effort to stop it? He might have made sympathetic noises about it, but he could have ended it at least a decade earlier had he actually acted.

I'm not ignoring him. I already stated there were Whigs involved. You seem to believe that it had nothing to do with the conservatives.

Secondly, Pitt had other concerns, like keeping his coalition together and trying to defeat Napoleon.

Ben- why do you keep equating Christianity with the Tories? The 18th/19th century Whigs/Liberals were Christians too.

This gets back to Thomism again. Wilberforce was arguing that black men were equally persons, and thus were entitled to the same legal provisions as everyone else. This was a conservative argument, and the crux of his.

It took a Whig government to pass the bill, however. It couldn't get through under the Tories. Thanks to the Grenville/Fox administration, it passed.

Yes, it took his entire career to get it passed. I've read the books. Wilberforce stated that he had to wait for all his opposition to die out.

Why, if the bill was a Whiggish invention, did it not get passed prior to Wilberforce's campaign? That's my question for you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
There is a decent account of what a "conservative" is. It was coined by Steven Wells, and it's "Dog-bumming vampire".

I have a reflection in the mirror.

[Ben Kenobi]

Reactionaries simply oppose the current drift of society and want to return it to some favoured state. That's not a political ideology any more than being a revolutionary is a political ideology.

The primary difference between reactionaries and Conservatives is in the degree of the changes. Reactionaries see nothing wrong with revolutionary changes, "in order to bring society back". This makes them the counterpart of the statists and radicals who believe pretty much the same thing.

The classical liberals and conservatives both favour the use of the political process to enact changes, and reject revolution.

Calling the conservative movement an association of reactionaries was a reference to an earlier post where Ben gave Thomists among others who wish to return to previous ideas as examples of conservatism.

Yes, and Thomists who are gradualists are pretty much all Conservatives.

In any case, the fact that these people are reactionaries doesn't prevent them from having a coherent ideology. Thomism is a pretty coherent ideology, as is Classical Liberalism. I'm not attacking those ideas on grounds of coherence, but only the idea that there is some overarching coherent ideology called "conservatism".

I'm still not sure what you are looking for here.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I doubt Paris Hilton's fortune is derived from her public appearances.

The ubiquitous heiress may not be as wealthy as she'd like you to think. But she is piling up her own personal fortune as brand spokesman, reality TV fixture, B-list movie starlet and bestselling author. Paris also puts out her own perfume and jewelry. Call them her day jobs; at night Paris gets paid big bucks to show her face at of-the-minute clubs, commanding up to $300,000 per appearance abroad.

Oh no? She makes far more money to show up someplace than I do.

ACK!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by falcon41
This social dwarvinism could be acknowledged for possesing and promoting *some* positive aspects if it was not proven to be overwhelmingly numbing to the spirit and to thought in general.

It's funny how Social Darwinism tends to be the preferred position of evolutionary throwbacks.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's funny how Social Darwinism tends to be the preferred position of evolutionary throwbacks.

So you prefer it?

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you. You answered your own question. She was a moderate republican.

You are not making any sense here. Reagan spat in the face of the social conservatives by going with a moderate for SCOTUS, which of course ended any chance of Roe being overturned.

And many saw it as the beginning of their expansion, into other countries, and that the US had the natural right to expand out to the Pacific. Whatever Jefferson's stated motives for the expansion, the result from it was the policy of manifest destiny.

So HIS motives don't matter, it's the motives of people afterwards?! What an asinine comment. How can Jefferson be for Manifest Destiny if it was only the people who came afterwards who assigned a destiny to his acquisition of territory?

Umm, ok. Jefferson advocated for states rights as well. I'm dumbfounded you would ask that question. Classical liberals were opposed to the increased power of the state preferring more local governments throughout the history of the US. That includes slavery.

Classic liberals believe that any government can be tyrannical, including localities. States rights isn't a liberal issue... as seen by the fact that it seems the biggest advocates for it are conservatives.

As for slavery, thankfully the liberals were around (remember the "Radical" Republicans) to end that practice.

Yes sir, and judging by the landslides in 68 and 80, it seems most Americans agreed with him.

How in the world does "Great Society" = "New Frontier"? This is where your ignorance of American history shines through again.

The "New Frontier" is far different than Johnson's domestic policy.

He's not a statist. And I'm surprised you haven't recognised the terminology here. He is still on the left for some things and on the right for others.

Which, to you, puts him then on the left? How bizarre.

The word itself I believe has changed dramatically in meaning, which has come out in the thread. Christians may have been socialists, but the socialism of the Quakers is not the same as the socialism of Marx. For me, I define Marx's socialism as true socialism, and what the Quakers believe as something else entirely.

Because you have no clue what socialism is. Socialism had added more subgenres along the ages, but it has not changed its central beliefs. Marxist Communism begat a Democratic Socialism which joined the existing Christian Socialism under the umbrella of the political ideology "Socialism". They are very similar in many respects.

It's like saying Northeastern Republicans and Southern Republicans are two different strands of Republicanism and Southern Republicanism is the true Republicanism and Northeast Republicanism is something else entirely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wilberforce was arguing that black men were equally persons, and thus were entitled to the same legal provisions as everyone else. This was a conservative argument, and the crux of his.

No, that was a liberal argument at the time. As was the anti-slavery movement in the US. Yes, Ben, Fredrick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln and the rest were liberals on slavery... and were Christian.

[Deity Dude]

Back to the Original question.

I was a 97% Libertarian when I joined 8 years ago, now I am only 90%.

I usedto lean Republican because I thought they were closer to the Libertarian point of view. I think the opposite now.

I don't think Apoly made me change my mind, but since I have come to Apoly I would consider myself more willing to accept the idea that government can do some things better than "total freedom."

Anyways, sorry to get back on topic

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh no? She makes far more money to show up someplace than I do.

Wow. She'd only need to do 6,000 appearance to match her granddad. Say one a day would take her 20 years.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are not making any sense here. Reagan spat in the face of the social conservatives by going with a moderate for SCOTUS, which of course ended any chance of Roe being overturned.

Which is obviously why social conservatives love him for appointing Scalia. You need to try a different tack.

So HIS motives don't matter, it's the motives of people afterwards?! What an asinine comment. How can Jefferson be for Manifest Destiny if it was only the people who came afterwards who assigned a destiny to his acquisition of territory?

How can Jefferson be for a policy which wasn't even called Manifest Destiny in his time? All I was arguing is that large land acquisitions and the expansion of the US tend to be associated with classical liberal presidents, such as Polk and Jefferson.

Classic liberals believe that any government can be tyrannical, including localities. States rights isn't a liberal issue... as seen by the fact that it seems the biggest advocates for it are conservatives.

Once again, STATISTS do not support states rights, they support expansion of the Federal government. Classical liberals support state rights. You need to get your terminology right.

As for slavery, thankfully the liberals were around (remember the "Radical" Republicans) to end that practice.

I see I am wasting my time.

If anything good is done, it's always the left that is responsible.

Whatever Imran. Why are you here? You obviously aren't interested in constructive discussion.

How in the world does "Great Society" = "New Frontier"? This is where your ignorance of American history shines through again.

Which is why Johnson called his policy an extension of Kennedy's ideals? Names and labels are irrelevant, they were massive expansions of the federal government.

You know it gets very tiresome listening to your bull****. "Ignorance of American history", bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

I know lots of Americans that disagree. Why don't you show some respect and admit that your disagreement is solely on partisan grounds?

Which, to you, puts him then on the left? How bizarre.

Centre left.

Because you have no clue what socialism is. Socialism had added more subgenres along the ages, but it has not changed its central beliefs.

Materialism is a huge difference between Marxist communism and Christianity, and is gee I dunno, the POINT that I've been trying to say over and over and over again.

Using the same term for both is misleading, and false, and is a clear sign that your agenda is to deny that there are any changes, which is exactly what you said. There are significant differences, some of which I've highlighted 4 or 5 times already.

I don't get you Imran. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Quakers and Communists have some serious differences and their respective ideologies are so different that you should not use the same catchall bin for both of them.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Agathon

It's funny how Social Darwinism tends to be the preferred position of evolutionary throwbacks.

Maybe you were trying to be humorous and ignored the science behind it, but the assumptions behind this attempted joke contain a scientific flaw which I cannot let pass.

Evolution is not a directed or ordered process. It has no "direction", so it's not really possible to call one organism "more evolved" and another "less evolved". So the word "evolutionary throwback" is meaningless in any real sense.

[DaShi]