Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[palerider]

Socialist tyrannies of the 20th century have more in common with rightwing dictatorships of the 20th century then they do with moderate liberal governments.

Sorry, we have been through that already and you lost the argument soundly. Review the arguments at the beginning of the thread.

It is difficult to debate this with you though, because you use such inaccurate definitions. Your definition of liberal is so wide and all-encompassing it includes any form of government that has any form of liberalism associated with it's policies at any time (even if it is primarily a rightwing government).

The definition of modern liberal is very specific and I have given it over and over. And are you going to try to argue that socialism is right wing again?

Likewise, your definition of conservative or rightwing has to be a very narrow one, restricted to a selectively chosen period of American history and politics and stripped of it's negative attributes in order to uphold your definition of liberalism. How can one rationally debate this? It's an exercise in frustration, no?

Likewise, the definition of conservative/classical liberal is also very specific.

Show me a real-life example of modern liberalism in the world where religion is not tolerated and banned in favor of the "religion of the state". I am not talking about authoritarian states that have never had a real democracy - modern liberalism working through democracy and modern conservatism working through democracy are the only valid forms of comparison here.

The authoritarian states are prime examples of modern liberalism run its natural course. And they are not the only valid comparisons. They are the only ones you can form any sort of argument against, but they are not the only valid comparisons.

Ask any modern liberal if the ends justify the means and which is more important, freedom or equality. Reference those values against any of the authoritarian states. The reason they were authoritarian was because they believed equality was more important than freedom and that the ends justified the means. The ends justifying the means was the given justification for doing away with the whole "democracy" thing in every case.

That is not entirely accurate. And, more to the point - why do you think it leads to an abolition of religion in entirety? I see it as leading to the seperation of church from state, sacred from divine.

You can not separate church from state so long as people are allowed to be openly religious. Religious people will make decisions based on their beliefs and standards of right and wrong. The only way to separate church from state is to eliminate one or the other. Take a look at the authoritarian states if you are unsure which was eliminated.

Democracy can not function within the tyranny of a church run government structure any more then it can function within a secular dictatorship but religion CAN function within a dictatorship.

It can't coexist with a state based on a relativist philosophy.

Look at fascist Italy - a right wing dictatorship ran the government while the Catholic church controlled education and public values. Mussolini couldn't hope to overcome the power of the Vatican so he partnered with Rome and they both got what they wanted.

Fascists were left wing. The fact that you believe that they were right wing is evidence that you really aren't "up to snuff" on your political philosophy. Mussolini described his fascist philosophy as follows:

"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato"

(Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)

Try as you might, you can't spin that into right wing. We have been through this before ad nauseum and the end result of the discussion was that modern liberalism on paper is a very differen thing from modern liberalism in practice.

And Musollini had little choice but to deal with the vatican early on to consolidate power in italy. Had we not won the war, the pope would have found himself in exile, or at the end of a rope.

Religion - as a political power - can not co-exist with democracy. It can co-exist with authoritarianism because it is, at it's heart authoritarian. Left-wing authoritarian governments replace religion with state, but right-wing authoritarian governments do not.

For example:
Pinochet regime in Chile
Montt in Guatemala
Hitler and the Nazis in Germany
Mussolini in Italy
The Apartheid regime in South Africa[/quote]

Hitler and Mussolini were leftists and the business in south africa hardly conforms to anything that could be construed as classical liberalism.

Pinochet and Montt don't fall into the classical liberal mold either.

Ans.
It won't happen because the vast majority of the vaguely defined "left" in the western world are committed to democracy and believe in working through democracy to establish their goals. Examples of stable left leaning democracies abound in Europe.

No they aren't. The bulk of modern liberalism isn't foisted on us by congress and the senate. Modern liberalism bypasses the democratic process all together and is pushed on us by the courts.

Take another good look at europe and tell me with a straight face that they are stable.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Another lie by the Pale one. When you said that my legal marriage should be taken away from me you made this personal.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is this really the best you can do? The fact is, mare, that it isn't just Christians who oppose redefining marriage to include homosexuals. And suggesting that I oppose homosexual marriage out of fear is a pointless and impotent ruse.If you can make a rational argument for granting special rights due to nothing more than sexual preference that will not result in all manner of crazies coming out of the woodwork demanding special rights based on their individual quirks, then feel free. Make your rational argument. Lets hear it.Think what you like, but when you demand that I think like you and you are willing to punish me if I don't, then you become a tyrant. I asked for historical examples of "marriage" between members of the same sex and you have not provided any. There is, of course, a reason for your inability to provide examples. Marriage is what it is and your demand that it be redefined is simply unreasonable.Actually, that is the ritual of a very specific religious group. It has nothing to do with political conservativism. Why is it that you are unable to make an argument in which you must deliberately mischaracterize people. Is this really how you view the world? Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a religious zealot?If change is necessary, then change is a good thing. Change for change's sake is idiocy. Can you make a rational argument for changing an institution that has been between men and women since its inception other than it is what you want? Can you demonstrate any genuine benefit to society to be gained by redefining marriage in order to meet the demands of 2 or 3 percent of the population for no better reason than their sexual preference which may very well turn out to be a genetic disorder? have no problem with change if there is a valid and acceptable reason for it. Provide one.
Again with the mischaracterization. This cost's you your credibility. You may find me cold, but I don't go about appealing to emotion or mischaracterizing people in order to make my point. I have not personally attacked you on this issue.I have stated my reasons for opposing homosexual marriage and rather than provied equally powerful reasons for redefining marriage to include homosexuals, you attack me personally. That doesn't help your case.Once more. Marriage is what it is. Yes, I am married. I have been married to the same woman for 40 years, and yes, we are happy. I have no desire to destroy anyone's marriage. What you have may be loving, and intimate, and perfect for you, but it is not a marriage. Marriage is what it is and what it alwyas has been, an arrangement between men and women. Whose marriage am I out to destroy? Yours? You have no marriage. If you married as a male and then changed to female, you anulled your marriage. If you married your partner and she knew of your plans to change sexes, then you cheated and decieved in order to get a marriage license. You believe that is a marriage?ou might get further with your agenda if you offered up a rational argument rather than continue to attack me. You say change an institution that has been what it has been forever because I want you to but offer no reasonable explanation for why. There are those who defend you and support you but they offer no rational explanation for why either. You say change but for what reason?Again, you know nothing about me so you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. It is nothing more than an impotent, mindless attack because you know that you simply can't offer up a rational argument for redefining marriage. You just want it and when someone says no, you behave like a child being denied a cookie.

Provide one.
It would make millions of people around the world happy, it would cost nothing, it would increase the security of millions of children, and so far, even with this long session of you bleating like a sheep, you haven't provided a single good reason why homosexual and transsexual people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Tradition isn't a good reason, tradition just means we've done it this way for a long time--so what? Tradition is the hobgoblin of the small mind that Einstein talked about.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Geeze mare, that sounds just like you. You are sure that fundies, Bible thumpers, and catholics are everywhere and they have you in their sights. They have conspired to deny you what you want for no other reason than their own fears. I have cruised your posts on other subjects and anyone who doesn't agree with you is expressing a "Christian" viewpoint and therefore is not actually qualified to voice an opinion. You believe that if you can successfully call someone a Christian then you are exempt from rationally defending your position. The definiton of paranoia suits you to a T.

Do you take drugs to make this stuff up or is it just a gift of BS? IF ALL THE LAWS PERSECUTING US GET REPEALED AND WE HAVE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, then I will be paranoid if I post this way, until then you are hoist on your own petard by the unjust laws that you have passed.

[Coyote]

Sorry, we have been through that already and you lost the argument soundly. Review the arguments at the beginning of the thread.


I recall those arguments quite well. I see no indication that I "lost the argument" much less "soundly". Perhaps in your own mind?


The definition of modern liberal is very specific and I have given it over and over. And are you going to try to argue that socialism is right wing again?


You do not use a "specific" definition in construing your arguments. Your definition goes all over the board in an attempt to prove your point.

Is socialism leftwing? Yes.

Is/are ALL socialistic attributes leftwing? No.

You can have a goverment with certain attributes that are left wing and certain attributes that are rightwing - according to political historians.

You would say that if it has any leftwing or socialistic attributes - regardless of the rest of it - it is "leftwing". That is inaccurate and dishonest.


Likewise, the definition of conservative/classical liberal is also very specific.


See above response. Liberal is very general. "Modern liberal" - well, I'm really not sure what you mean by it as it seems to be pretty broad. "Classical liberal" is specific and narrow. Conservative is as general as liberal.


The authoritarian states are prime examples of modern liberalism run its natural course. And they are not the only valid comparisons. They are the only ones you can form any sort of argument against, but they are not the only valid comparisons.


Not really. Some, perhaps - if you insist on using a simple right/left axis. Some are a mix of left and rightwing (but you insist on defining them as left) Some are rightwing (and you define those as left simply because they are authoritarian). If you use commonly accepted definitions (which you like to use for "classical liberal" but not for anything else) - you can see some are clearly rightwing such as fascism.


Ask any modern liberal if the ends justify the means and which is more important, freedom or equality.

The ends justify the means. You think that that is something that liberals alone supposedly embrace? I don't think so. As a liberal I certainly don't feel that.


The ends: achieving a foothold in the Middle East (according to some) or imposing democracy upon another nation (according to some) justifies....

The means: invading and commiting war and it's associated atrocities and regional de-stabilizing.


or


The ends: punishment and retribution of evil justifies ...

The means: capital punishment with all it's inequalities even if that means the execution of an innocent person (and there are many who wish to see the appeals process abreviated).



Reference those values against any of the authoritarian states. The reason they were authoritarian was because they believed equality was more important than freedom and that the ends justified the means. The ends justifying the means was the given justification for doing away with the whole "democracy" thing in every case.


No. The reason they were authoritarian was because one person or a group of persons wanted power over everyone else - it is as simple as that. Equality - beyond verbage, had nothing to do with it. Equality did not exist in most of those regimes. Liberalism exists within a democracy and supports a democracy because a democracy is the only guarantor of both equality and freedom.


You can not separate church from state so long as people are allowed to be openly religious. Religious people will make decisions based on their beliefs and standards of right and wrong. The only way to separate church from state is to eliminate one or the other. Take a look at the authoritarian states if you are unsure which was eliminated.


Not at all - this assertion is contradicted by everyday reality. We've existed a long time with Church authority seperated from secular authority. We and much of the west have thrived under a very secular system of law and that includes freedom of religion and freedom of people to practice the religion of their choice. Seperation of church and state is nothing more sinister then render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers. When it does not work you get systems like Saudi Arabia or Iran in the modern world (both authoritarian and religious) and a host of other examples in history.


Fascists were left wing. The fact that you believe that they were right wing is evidence that you really aren't "up to snuff" on your political philosophy. Mussolini described his fascist philosophy as follows:

"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato"

(Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)

Try as you might, you can't spin that into right wing. We have been through this before ad nauseum and the end result of the discussion was that modern liberalism on paper is a very differen thing from modern liberalism in practice.


There is no spin. Just because an ideology frames the notion of State as it's central premise does not mean it is leftwing (or that it can't be rightwing).

Fascism started out as socialism with all the associated frills and promises - on paper. But as soon as he consolodated his power Mussolini rejected socialism, rejected the idea of equality in favor of inherent inequality and rejected the leftwing ideals of workers rights, workers ownership and unions and pretty much turned back on every promise he had made. He created a rightwing authoritarian ideology.


And Musollini had little choice but to deal with the vatican early on to consolidate power in italy. Had we not won the war, the pope would have found himself in exile, or at the end of a rope.


Again, inaccurate. Musollini knew early on he could not overcome the power of the Vatican in Italy - the power it had over the people. He needed the church to consolodate his power and in fact made a treaty with the Vatican to restore much of what it had lost.


Hitler and Mussolini were leftists and the business in south africa hardly conforms to anything that could be construed as classical liberalism.


Hitler and Mussolini were largely rightwing authoritarian ideologies - if you go by any commonly excepted definitions. The fact that they had certain attributes of leftwing ideologies does not make them "leftwing" (note: Stalin's USSR had certain charecteristics that were considered "rightwing" - does that make Stalin a rightwing dictator?).


Pinochet and Montt don't fall into the classical liberal mold either.


See - there again you are defining "conservative" very narrowly (as "classical liberal") but you are making a broad stroke with modern liberalism.


No they aren't. The bulk of modern liberalism isn't foisted on us by congress and the senate. Modern liberalism bypasses the democratic process all together and is pushed on us by the courts.


I would disagree. I think that is more rightwing talking points then reality.

If you are talking "activist judges" - then you'll find that historically, the conservatives have been just as guilty as the liberals of "by-passing" the democratic process.

Aside from that though - I do not think that by and large the democratic process has been by-passed. We are a long long ways from a dicatorship by any stretch of the imagination.


Take another good look at europe and tell me with a straight face that they are stable.

Much of western europe is quite stable, as is the U.S., Canada, Australia and a host of other countries with functioning democracies.

[Mare Tranquillity]

My Pale friend,
You're entirely correct in that I don't know you, but what I do know about you is what I get from your writing. If you weren't so busy refuting everything I write and verbally abusing me, you might answer my questions and we'd all learn more about each other.

I can't imagine any reason why you would hate me so much that you'd take away my marriage of many years--except out of fear. An appeal to tradition is hardly adequate to justify trashing several people's lives--people doing no harm to anyone, least of all you.

With all your high-falutin talk of how tolerant you are and interested in people's freedom "from", how is it that you need to attack me? All the stuff I wrote about fear is accurate for people who behave as you have been: attacking strangers for no discernable reason and, in fact, attacking in opposition to positions already taken by you previously.

Getting married makes people happy, that's reason enough to let people do it, in my opinion, and so far you haven't given any rational reason why all people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[palerider]

Another lie by the Pale one. When you said that my legal marriage should be taken away from me you made this personal.

I didn't attack you. I said that what you have is not a marriage. I didn't say that it was meaningless or without value, but it simply can not be a marriage. Marriage is what it is and if you have a marriage license, then you have it through decption.

Or does your marriage license actually say that it is an arrangement between two women?

[palerider]

It would make millions of people around the world happy,

Making most anything that is presently against the law legal would make the people who want to do it happy. Making people happy is no valid reason to grant special rights.

it would cost nothing,

Easy to say. Prove it.


it would increase the security of millions of children,

Prove it.

[palerider]

Do you take drugs to make this stuff up or is it just a gift of BS? IF ALL THE LAWS PERSECUTING US GET REPEALED AND WE HAVE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, then I will be paranoid if I post this way, until then you are hoist on your own petard by the unjust laws that you have passed.

You are equal before the law. Not being allowed to marry does not make you unequal, it only means that you do not meet the qualifications for marriage. You refuse to simply see that marriage is what it is and cry that you are being discriminated against. You and I are perfectly equal. You can not marry a woman, and I can not marry a man. Equality.

[palerider]

Not really. Some, perhaps - if you insist on using a simple right/left axis. Some are a mix of left and rightwing (but you insist on defining them as left) Some are rightwing (and you define those as left simply because they are authoritarian). If you use commonly accepted definitions (which you like to use for "classical liberal" but not for anything else) - you can see some are clearly rightwing such as fascism.

Which part of fascism do you believe was right wing?

The ends justify the means. You think that that is something that liberals alone supposedly embrace? I don't think so. As a liberal I certainly don't feel that.

You don't have the power to impose means in order to reach an end. You might feel differently if you suddenly had the power to impose your want's on society.

No. The reason they were authoritarian was because one person or a group of persons wanted power over everyone else - it is as simple as that. Equality - beyond verbage, had nothing to do with it. Equality did not exist in most of those regimes. Liberalism exists within a democracy and supports a democracy because a democracy is the only guarantor of both equality and freedom.

And modern liberlaism wants power over everyone else so that the agenda of modern liberlism may be carried out. The goal of modern liberalism, however, isn't freedom, it is equality. Freedom and imposed equality are mutually exclusive.

And of course equality existed in the authoritarian states. Everyone was equally miserable; except, of course, the elites.

The constitution describes the only form of equality that can exist with freedom. It is not imposed beyond protecting certain rights. Modern liberalism has an entirely different sort of equality in mind. Imposed equality, mandated equal respect and punishment for those who don't conform.

Not at all - this assertion is contradicted by everyday reality. We've existed a long time with Church authority seperated from secular authority. We and much of the west have thrived under a very secular system of law and that includes freedom of religion and freedom of people to practice the religion of their choice. Seperation of church and state is nothing more sinister then render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers. When it does not work you get systems like Saudi Arabia or Iran in the modern world (both authoritarian and religious) and a host of other examples in history.

You seem to be confusing theocracies with the influence of religion in public affairs.

Fascism started out as socialism with all the associated frills and promises - on paper. But as soon as he consolodated his power Mussolini rejected socialism, rejected the idea of equality in favor of inherent inequality and rejected the leftwing ideals of workers rights, workers ownership and unions and pretty much turned back on every promise he had made. He created a rightwing authoritarian ideology.

Name a leftist authoritarian state that didn't do the same thing. Are you trying to say that mao's china and the soviet union were right wing as well? Musollini did nothing that all the other leftist regimes haven't done. Modern liberalism is inherently authoritarian. For a smart person, you sure do resist seeing certain truths.

Hitler and Mussolini were largely rightwing authoritarian ideologies - if you go by any commonly excepted definitions. The fact that they had certain attributes of leftwing ideologies does not make them "leftwing" (note: Stalin's USSR had certain charecteristics that were considered "rightwing" - does that make Stalin a rightwing dictator?).

Again, which part of fascism, or socialism do you believe was right wing? Left wing doesn't become right wing just because you don't like the means they used to get to an end.

See - there again you are defining "conservative" very narrowly (as "classical liberal") but you are making a broad stroke with modern liberalism.

Modern liberalism is socialism or socialism lite if it is sufficeintly opposed at the level of power. How much more specific do I need to get. Pinochet was not a classical liberal. What ideology did he promote that suggested any form of classical liberalism.

I would disagree. I think that is more rightwing talking points then reality.

I am sure that you woud dissagree, but the facts are what they are.

Do you want to make lists? You list the socialist intrusions and demands on our lives that have come from congress and I will list the socialist intrusions and demands that have come from the courts.

If you are talking "activist judges" - then you'll find that historically, the conservatives have been just as guilty as the liberals of "by-passing" the democratic process.

"Just as" want to make some lists there as well?

Aside from that though - I do not think that by and large the democratic process has been by-passed. We are a long long ways from a dicatorship by any stretch of the imagination.

Aside from that!! Modern liberalism depends on the courts to push its agenda because most of it is blatantly unconstitutional and would not make it through the legislative process. Far more of the modern liberal agenda has been realized throught the courts than through the lawmakers.

Much of western europe is quite stable, as is the U.S., Canada, Australia and a host of other countries with functioning democracies.

Well, I will grant you that they say that they are stable and the press agrees with them.

[Coyote]

Which part of fascism do you believe was right wing?

First off, much of the idea that fascism is suddenly “leftwing” comes from a popular book by Goldberg “Liberal Fascism” – a book of questionable scholarship, that even respected conservative scholars are critical of: http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.html

…but a popular book none-the-less because it entertains and fuels blather of the same sort of people that think Coulter is a real scholar. It is nothing less then selective historic revisionism – which is hilarious because that is what the right likes to accuse the left of.

The following characteristics of Mussolini’s fascist state many of which are identified with rightwing ideologies (but not necessarily mean exclusive to):


corporatism of industry
repeal of suffrage
insertion of religion in education/state
xenophobia
anti-liberalism and individualism
anti-communism
rampant militarism
compulsory patriotism
imposition of traditional values over social liberalism
Imposition state control over all aspects of life (keeping in mind liberals prefer state control over the market and economy while conservatives prefer it over the social sphere ie - people’s personal lives)...


Much of what Mussolini outlined in his initial manifesto represented a common populist/socialist platform which he promptly reneged on once he came into power. In other words – fascism in action took on a distinctly rightwing bent. The issue concerning women's right to vote was brought up right after the constitution of the unified Italian State. Suffrage ceased with the uprising of fascism and Mussolini's rejection of socialism. Essentially, suffrage, and a number of other ideals written out in the manifesto, were little more then a propaganda pieces to win popular support and control of the government. Once control was achieved - most were rejected. The words of the manifesto bear little resemblance to what is meant by modern political theorists when they describe the doctrines of fascism. In other words - once Mussolini gained power, he governed in a very different manner than that espoused in his manifesto and it is that which defines fascism today.

One primary component in your definition of modern liberal is the idea of equality over freedom. Yet - the idea of equality did not exist under fascism - in fact fascism specifically endorsed inherent inequalities as natural and right.

Like Italy, fascist Germany, under Hitler had no functioning equivalent to the “Bill of Rights” – something that all liberals strongly support in one form or another (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). There was no free-press, no right to a local militia, no unhindered elections, no right to assemble and absolutely no right to strike (labor unions). In addition, like Mussolini’s corporatist Italy, fascist Germany also had an elite inner circle reaping the benefits of the many (the workers) – there was no worker ownership of industry but rather a combination of state rules and private aristocracy. The rights of workers and unions and collective common ownership of means of production has always been a trademark of extreme left ideologies. It is clearly missing here. Fascism may promise that “everybody has a job” but that promise comes without a minimum wage, without overtime, without environmental standards - all of which- liberals (populists) support and the far-right-conservatives reject. State control/ownership does not always mean “leftwing”.

Now, lets look at Mussolini and the Catholic Church. When it comes to church relations – yes, Mussolini had to foster good relations with the Roman Catholic Church despite his personal antagonism to religion because the Roman Catholic Church was the most powerful social institution in Italy. The idea that the Pope would have swung on a rope had we not had a war is laughable. Mussolini could only have stayed in power with the support of the church and he knew that and he hated it. In return the church was able to regain a great deal of the power, territories and political influence it had lost in prior years. While Mussolini governed the political side of Italy, the Roman Catholic Church governed the spiritual and social side.

The rightwing loves to bring up “universal suffrage” as proof that fascism is “leftwing”. Despite the initial proclamation of universal suffrage for women (rapidly repealed when Mussolini's fascist state was realized) both the political elite and the national culture of both fascist Italy and fascist Germany were male-dominated inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, which lent the regimes cover for their abuses.

Mussolini pushed the idea that women should stay at home and look after the family while their husbands worked - because that was pushed by the Roman Catholic Church. Mussolini also echoed the Church in his disapproval at the use of contraception and in wanting divorce banned in fascist Italy.

Of course there were clashes between Mussolini and the Church but they were relatively minor and quickly patched up. One was over whom should control education: the state (so they could grow up to be good little fascists) or church so (they could grow up and become good little Catholics). They worked out a compromise that churned out good little Catholic Fascists. This compromised is reflected in the Lateran Treaties. In addition, the Lateran Treaties made the Roman Catholic faith the state religion and religion had to be taught in both primary and secondary schools. The Church was also given full control of marriage. And you still think the Pope would have swung on a rope?

So, as you can see - what Mussolini personally believed concerning religion (he did not like it) had little bearing on what fascism became in practice and in Mussolini’s social policies once he came into power.

[Coyote]

You don't have the power to impose means in order to reach an end. You might feel differently if you suddenly had the power to impose your want's on society.


Pale, I think you are to keen to view people in light of stereotypes over realities- you know, like the stereotype that all conservatives are heartless religious fundies who want criminalize sodomy, put women back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant and subsitute religion for science.

I do not believe that the means justify the end. Believing in that means sharing a mindset with such people as Eric Rudolph who believes that murdering innocent people is justified in order to stop abortion or terrorists who believe that murdering innocent people in order to achieve their political ends is justified. I believe in the rule of law and having power would not change my view that democracy is the way of making change. I am not unique among liberals in that.


And modern liberlaism wants power over everyone else so that the agenda of modern liberlism may be carried out. The goal of modern liberalism, however, isn't freedom, it is equality. Freedom and imposed equality are mutually exclusive.


You really sound like you are echoing political talking points here. You are right - freedom and imposed equality can be mutually exclusive. Is that a bad thing?

Person A wants the freedom to ban black people from using public facilities except specially designated places and doors.

You think that is a good thing? Or do you view this as the first step of a slippery slope towards authoritarianism? (Slippery Slope Fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html))


The constitution describes the only form of equality that can exist with freedom. It is not imposed beyond protecting certain rights. Modern liberalism has an entirely different sort of equality in mind. Imposed equality, mandated equal respect and punishment for those who don't conform.


The constitution wasn't enough to prevent all kinds of "seperate but equal" policies and the criminalization and marginalization of certain groups of people under the guise of "state's rights". Imposed equality - in view of most liberals (not in view of rightwing anti-liberal talking points) is this: everyone deserves an equal chance to succeed on a level playing field. You like to take the most extreme views of liberals and try to portray that as the common one. Not all liberals are extreme. Just like not all conservatives are extremists.


You seem to be confusing theocracies with the influence of religion in public affairs.

Not at all. I'm simply viewing the logical extreme religion in public affairs as witnessed many times over, in history. You say that the natural extension of liberalism is authoritarianism. I say the natural extension of religion in our system of law (public affairs) is authoritarianism. There is nothing in the Abrahamic faiths that allows for democracy - every one of them, at their logical extreme (fundamentalism) is authoritarian and rigid.


Do you want to make lists?


You want a list? You don't believe that conservatives can be just as rigorous and unethical in desire to use the courts to impose an agenda as you view liberals?

I will give you a list on a separate post.


Well, I will grant you that they say that they are stable and the press agrees with them.

This is incredibly weak - where is the logic here? It's not just the press. It's not that they "say" they are. It's reflected in the standards of living and satisfaction of the people living there - a standard of living higher then ours I might add, in some of those countries. Peace and prosperity promote stability.

[Coyote]

Some examples of conservative judicial activism:

In 1886, a conservative dominated Court decided that a corporation was the same as a person; (http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html) therefore the Fourteenth Amendment protected business conglomerates from regulation by the states. The constitution made no mention of corporate personhood...the court took it upon itself to "rewrite" the constitution. Thus corporations have legal standing as "persons" thanks to conservative judicial activism.

In addition, 1920, conservative (pro-business) federal courts had struck down roughly three hundred labor laws passed by state legislatures to ease inhumane working conditions and between 1880 and 1931 those same courts issued more than 1,800 injunctions to suppress labor strikes. Where was "conservative restraint" and a respect for state's rights?

Even better, during that same period, when Congress outlawed child labor and passed other social reform legislation, conservative judges declared such laws to be violations of the Tenth Amendment: the one that states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. YET, when states passed social-welfare legislation, the Court's right-wing judicial activists claimed such laws violated substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Leaving the state legislatures unable to act.

For more than 50 years, the courts used the Tenth Amendment to stop federal reforms initiated under the Fourteenth Amendment, and simultaneously used the Fourteenth to stymie state reforms initiated under the Tenth. Sounds activist to me.

Now we here all about liberal judicial activism in relation to integration but what about the act of conservative judicial activism that legalized segregation in the first place? A conservative Supreme Court produced Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson), yet another creative reading of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Plessy created the "separate but equal" doctrine, and claimed that the forced separation of races did not impute inferiority as long as facilities were equal (which, in reality, they rarely were). For some seventy years afterwards this judicial invention buttressed racial segregation.

The concept of "executive privilege". Executive privilege has been used by the White House to withhold information on undeclared wars, illegal campaign funds, Supreme Court nominations, burglaries (Watergate), insider trading (by Clinton, Bush and Cheney), and White House collusion with corporate lobbyists. But where in the Constitution is the concept of executive privilege (aka unaccountable executive secrecy)? Ans: nowhere. Yet right-wing activists on the Supreme Court declare executive privilege a "presumptive privilege" for withholding information that belongs to the president. How does this jive with strict constitutional constructionalism?

Or how about attempts at campaign finance reform? In Buckley v. Valeo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo), the Court's rightwing judicial activists decided that states cannot prohibit corporations from spending unlimited amounts on public referenda or other elections because such campaign expenditures constitute a form of "speech" and the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to such "persons" as "corporations". In a dissenting opinion, the liberal Justice Stevens noted, "Money is property; it is not speech." But his conservative colleagues chose the more creative activist interpretation. Thus poor and rich can both freely compete, one in a whisper, the other with a bullhorn and money is now "speech".

And lets not forget the most astounding example of Right-wing judicial activism: George W. Bush v. Al Gore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore) In a 5-to-4 decision, the conservative justices overruled the Florida Supreme Court's order for a recount in the 2000 presidential election. The justices argued that since different Florida counties might use different modes of tabulating ballots, a hand recount would violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Talk about a creative interpretation.

A couple more...

Recently conservative justices have held that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause could not be used to stop violence against women or provide for a more equitable distribution of money between poor and rich school districts. Yet, in Bush v. Gore they ruled that that same equal protection clause could be used to stop a perfectly legal ballot recount. Then they explicitly declared that Bush could not be considered a precedent for any other equal protection issues. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment applied only when the conservative judicial activists wanted it to.

It is also interesting to note that the dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh criticism of the majority.

Justice Stevens' dissent concluded (from Wikipedia):

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

[Coyote]

You are equal before the law. Not being allowed to marry does not make you unequal, it only means that you do not meet the qualifications for marriage. You refuse to simply see that marriage is what it is and cry that you are being discriminated against. You and I are perfectly equal. You can not marry a woman, and I can not marry a man. Equality.

You can marry the consenting adult partner of your choice.

Mare can not.

You don't have to call it marriage - call it something else. Other societies thoughout history have identified, respected and legitamized same sex unions under different names. The contractual union of two or more human beings has gone under many different names.

Currently - our society grants a special set of rights to heterosexual couples that it refuses to grant to homosexual couples in any form.

Why?

It can't be solely familial relations as family is not restricted to heterosexuals any more.

Nor can it be about children as many couples choose not to have children or can not have children yet still gain the same rights.

So it is about equality, despite the semantical games being played.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I didn't attack you. I said that what you have is not a marriage. I didn't say that it was meaningless or without value, but it simply can not be a marriage. Marriage is what it is and if you have a marriage license, then you have it through decption.

Or does your marriage license actually say that it is an arrangement between two women?

I've never seen a marriage license that said what genders the people were. In fact when you go to get a marriage license they don't do a strip search to make sure that your marriage only has one vagina and one penis. Our marriage license has our names not our genders. There was no deception involved, I was legally male when we got married, the fact that as time went by I discovered that I needed to change my gender presentation to save my life was a discovery by me due to the fact that the insane culture in which I live tries to deny that transsexuals even exist, therefore I had no access to the proper medical care I desperately needed while growing up. The deception is on the part of the culture not me.

You did attack me when you said that if you had the power you would take our marriage away from us. But what I don't understand is WHY. What possible difference does it make? Just the definition of the word is adequate justification to make several million people 2nd class citizens? To tear apart families who have or are raising children? Destroy loving relationships of many years or decades standing?

Why I wonder so much about you is that you are f88king HYSTERICAL about the use of one word when words in our language change meaning all the time. Why? You have yet to give a single reason for your stance. Why is your definition more important than the happiness of millions of other people? This is one of the things that makes you look like just another insane Bible-beater--there's no reason except god wants it like this, which is really no reason at all. Why, Pale, why?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Making most anything that is presently against the law legal would make the people who want to do it happy. Making people happy is no valid reason to grant special rights.
Easy to say. Prove it.
Prove it.

This post is another example of the hysteria you evince. Comparing any other law that bars illegal behavior to broadening the marriage laws is irrational. Just like asking me to prove a negative. As far as the children are concerned, well, there are a lot of them being raised in gay families without the same legal protections you enjoy, figure it out, Pale, would your family be less safe if all your legal marriage rights and privileges were taken away.

Just like your attitude towards the definition of marriage, this post shows a lack of rational thought. Why? What is your real problem with this issue? My guess is that at some level it's fear, but I don't know why.

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are equal before the law. Not being allowed to marry does not make you unequal, it only means that you do not meet the qualifications for marriage. You refuse to simply see that marriage is what it is and cry that you are being discriminated against. You and I are perfectly equal. You can not marry a woman, and I can not marry a man. Equality.

Again, the irrational argument that because a person's skin is black they don't meet the qualifications for marriage to a white person. These "qualifications" are man-made, they vary from culture to culture, down through the ages they have been very different. Why is what we currently have sacred and unchangeable for the harmless happiness of millions of people?

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are equal before the law. Not being allowed to marry does not make you unequal, it only means that you do not meet the qualifications for marriage. You refuse to simply see that marriage is what it is and cry that you are being discriminated against. You and I are perfectly equal. You can not marry a woman, and I can not marry a man. Equality.One of the things that continues to surprise me is that you still use this discredited arguement--it was laid to rest and we now have legal interracial marriages. Why continue to argue it? This is another irrational attitude that you exhibit, but WHY? What's the problem for you?

[Coyote]

Here's what's bizarre about this attitude towards marriage.

The chief complaint is that it seeks to substantially redefine marriage.

Now, historically marriage has been redefined: one-to-many, one-to-one, age, race and religion.

So here is yet another redefining of it. Since marriage is said to promote social stability, economic stability and often a more stable family environment regardless of sexual orientation I don't see what the big deal is.

Ok, so they don't want make that substantial a change in the term "marriage". Well...call it something else that reflects the level of commitment and confers the same special rights (pension, shared access to health care, inheritance and rights to hospital visitation etc. with out being forced to jump through extra hoops and expenses that heterosexual couples don't have to).

Palerider plays semantical games here by claiming that "no special rights" are conferred on heterosexual marriages - ie - a gay man can marry a woman and a straight man can marry a woman. But that isn't the point.

One can marry the adult consenting human partner of choice - the other can't...and for reasons that have yet to make logical sense.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Here's what's bizarre about this attitude towards marriage.

The chief complaint is that it seeks to substantially redefine marriage.

Now, historically marriage has been redefined: one-to-many, one-to-one, age, race and religion.

So here is yet another redefining of it. Since marriage is said to promote social stability, economic stability and often a more stable family environment regardless of sexual orientation I don't see what the big deal is.

Ok, so they don't want make that substantial a change in the term "marriage". Well...call it something else that reflects the level of commitment and confers the same special rights (pension, shared access to health care, inheritance and rights to hospital visitation etc. with out being forced to jump through extra hoops and expenses that heterosexual couples don't have to).

Palerider plays semantical games here by claiming that "no special rights" are conferred on heterosexual marriages - ie - a gay man can marry a woman and a straight man can marry a woman. But that isn't the point.

One can marry the adult consenting human partner of choice - the other can't...and for reasons that have yet to make logical sense.

Good post, Coyote, and my bet is that Pale will not have the courage to truly address the REAL issues that he has with gay and transgendered people. My brothers are so similar to Pale that I've even thought that Pale might be one of them.

[Coyote]

Good post, Coyote, and my bet is that Pale will not have the courage to truly address the REAL issues that he has with gay and transgendered people. My brothers are so similar to Pale that I've even thought that Pale might be one of them.

I think the issues surrounding transgender people has turned the whole notion of gender identity upside down. Is it what you are born with - your chromasomes? (then what are xxy people?)...is it your morphology....? What of hermaphrodites and a host of genetic disorders that produce gender blurring? Is it related to environment (for instance - the character who had a genetic disorder in Middlesex or certain pollutants that can redraw sexual lines)? Environment can hardwire certain things in the brain as well in regards to gender.

What is gender?

Until you can define a "man" and a "woman" - limiting marriage to one of each is senseless isn't it?

I am not sure why people feel so threatened by something that is little more then biology...but they do. Perhaps because, like your brothers - they don't know how to deal with something as fundamental as gender change? I try to put myself in that position...if my brother was transgender. I would still love him - but how to relate to him would something else when our entire history together was of him as a boy. It would be difficult, but if you love someone it shouldn't be impossible.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think the issues surrounding transgender people has turned the whole notion of gender identity upside down. Is it what you are born with - your chromasomes? (then what are xxy people?)...is it your morphology....? What of hermaphrodites and a host of genetic disorders that produce gender blurring? Is it related to environment (for instance - the character who had a genetic disorder in Middlesex or certain pollutants that can redraw sexual lines)? Environment can hardwire certain things in the brain as well in regards to gender.

What is gender?

Until you can define a "man" and a "woman" - limiting marriage to one of each is senseless isn't it?

I am not sure why people feel so threatened by something that is little more then biology...but they do. Perhaps because, like your brothers - they don't know how to deal with something as fundamental as gender change? I try to put myself in that position...if my brother was transgender. I would still love him - but how to relate to him would something else when our entire history together was of him as a boy. It would be difficult, but if you love someone it shouldn't be impossible.

All of those are good points. People change, the sister you used to fight with is now married and has kids, you have to find a new way to relate to her. Transgender people are much the same except it's the gender presentation that is different and this is shocking in a culture so deeply mired in the gender binary--it DOES make people feel uncomfortable, but so did mixed race children, people with deformities, mentally ill people who live on their own even if they are not a threat to anyone, even people of other religions wearing strange (to us) costumes can be threatening.

It's too bad that the brothers and Pales of the world can't just pony up their fear and work through it with the rest of us. We all struggle with this stuff, shoot! when my brother became a Bible-beater it was a shock to me, the man has a Master's in Psychology and had always been an egalitarian and gentle soul, but he got religion and took his kids out of school, banned me (even the mention of me) from his life, and declared that if you didn't agree with every word in the Bible, then you were arguing with God. It was as if he'd had lobotomy. I don't know how to relate to him, in fact he sent me so much hateful religious crap that I had to block his email. I don't understand, I'm still me.

[arbitor]

this thread has really drifted from the original topic don't you think? i can honestly say i dont care about your issues with your brother. work it out somehow. but can we please get back to the topic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

This thread has really drifted from the original topic don't you think? i can honestly say i dont care about your issues with your brother. work it out somehow. but can we please get back to the topic?

The subject changed by default when the ONLY person supporting the ideas in the OP was the OP'er. He bailed when he got backed into a corner and now there is no discussion for lack of support for the other side. If you'd like to take his position, then please feel free to do so. Until such time I think it is suitable for us to discuss what we wish to discuss--you are not required to read it. Would you like to adopt one of my brothers? They're cheap!:)

[arbitor]

backed into a corner? please. he made much stronger points than any of you. he wasnt backed into anything. and i support his ideas, so he is not the only one who aspires to these beliefs. and yes, i would love to adopt one of your brothers. they seem like very good ones. they are just trying to save you from an eternity of torment. they care. thats why they do what they do.

(f.y.i. talking about whatever the hell you fell like in a forum on a specific topic is called spamming)

[Coyote]

backed into a corner? please. he made much stronger points than any of you. he wasnt backed into anything. and i support his ideas, so he is not the only one who aspires to these beliefs. and yes, i would love to adopt one of your brothers. they seem like very good ones. they are just trying to save you from an eternity of torment. they care. thats why they do what they do.

(f.y.i. talking about whatever the hell you fell like in a forum on a specific topic is called spamming)

You support his ideas thus you feel he made much stronger points.

Exactly what makes his points stronger?

Instead of attacking Mare why don't you actually refute the points made vis a vis liberalism, conservatism and authoritarianism? I fail to see the strength of the points made.

(Suggestion - read through the entire thread from the beginning)

[Mare Tranquillity]

backed into a corner? please. he made much stronger points than any of you. he wasnt backed into anything. and i support his ideas, so he is not the only one who aspires to these beliefs. and yes, i would love to adopt one of your brothers. they seem like very good ones. they are just trying to save you from an eternity of torment. they care. thats why they do what they do.

(f.y.i. talking about whatever the hell you fell like in a forum on a specific topic is called spamming)

Discussions evolve, when the only people discussing move on, then it's not spamming. It's when some people are trying to discuss the real topic and others bring in stuff that doesn't apply that it is "spam".

As far as you "eternity of torment", well that kind of blasphemy doesn't carry any weight with me, I've had a relationship with my Creator all my life and I don't believe any of the evil lies that Christians and others tell about God. God is not only better than we imagine, He is better than we CAN imagine. You and my brothers are selling fear, and I'm not buying. Anyone one who would use his children to blackmail his parents into pretending that one of their children doesn't exist is not high on my list of good people.

You like Pale's arguments because they're your kind of religious twaddle despite Pale's disingenuous denials. If you want to take up the torch and run with his silly, fear-based arugments, then have at it.

[Coyote]

You like Pale's arguments because they're your kind of religious twaddle despite Pale's disingenuous denials. If you want to take up the torch and run with his silly, fear-based arugments, then have at it.


I'll supply the popcorn if you bring the beer.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'll supply the popcorn if you bring the beer.

As long as the popcorn isn't made with sheep grease like last time. That was nasty! I know coyotes like sheep grease, but not me--I'm a vegetarian. It will also be organic beer if that's okay with you.

[Coyote]

As long as the popcorn isn't made with sheep grease like last time. That was nasty! I know coyotes like sheep grease, but not me--I'm a vegetarian. It will also be organic beer if that's okay with you.

Picky picky picky. You are what you eat you know....sheep eat veggies. Therefor sheep is a vegetable.

I'll remember to pick the wool out though....

[arbitor]

so you beleive in god but youre not a christian. what is you religion exactly?

[Coyote]

It's undefined.

Exactly why is "athiesm" your enemy?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Picky picky picky. You are what you eat you know....sheep eat veggies. Therefor sheep is a vegetable.

I'll remember to pick the wool out though....

Follow that thought: if sheep is vegetable, then coyote is vegetable!

[Mare Tranquillity]

so you beleive in god but youre not a christian. what is you religion exactly?

One can have a relationship with one's Creator without codifying said relationship in terms that can be written on a discussion site. If you cannot imagine having an intimate, long-term relationship with the Being who created you without couching that relationship in organized religious terms, then you are lacking in imagination.

Muslims believe in God, they just call Him Allah and they have a name for their religion, Hindus believe in a Creator and have a name for their religion, but the American Indians believed in the Great Spirit, what religion are they? They didn't codify their beliefs into dogma that could be called by a single name.

[Mare Tranquillity]

so you beleive in god but youre not a christian. what is you religion exactly?

Why is gay marriage your enemy?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Golly, Coyote, your damn sheep grease popcorn musta done in Arbiter--just the smell probably got him. You suppose that's what happened to Pale too?

[arbitor]

sorry i cant come on here very often. i have been doing alot of work so ive been busy. as for pale i have no idea what he's doing. it seems he has something better to do with his.

about your religion. what contact have you had with your creator? are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion? im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect. what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

[9sublime]

sorry i cant come on here very often. i have been doing alot of work so ive been busy. as for pale i have no idea what he's doing. it seems he has something better to do with his.

about your religion. what contact have you had with your creator? are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion? im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect. what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

Some people don't feel the need to fill voids in their knowledge with an immortal, all powerful fatherlike figure.

[vyo476]

what contact have you had with your creator?

Western assumption number one: The "Creator" is contactable. This implies a large number of things, but most importantly that said "Creator" is a conscious being. This is not necessarily true.

are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion?

Generalized assumption number one: That all matters of spirituality stem from an organized religion. Coyote has stated that his "religion" is undefined, and yet you seek definition.

Western assumption number two: All religions must have prophets. If you wish to contend that in matters of personal spirituality having what one deems a personal connection to a Creation figure (ie, a "god") makes on a prophet, then so be it; otherwise, do not assume that all religions have prophets, especially not in the traditional Christian sense.

im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect.

Western assumption number three: There is an afterlife. Not all belief systems necessarily contain afterlives.

Western assumption number four: There are two places, the good and the bad. A multi-tiered afterlife has been proposed by a number of religions. Do not assume that, in other belief systems, there is simply "the good place" and "the bad place."

what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

Generalized assumption number two: One must be qualified in order to recieve a positive afterlife. The Declaration of Independence posits that all men are born with certain inalienable rights; given the near-religious fervor in which some people view the Founding Fathers, it would not be surprising for a religion to spring from their writings. In that sense, if man is born with certain inalienable rights, why wouldn't he die with them as well? Entering the afterlife is another kind of birth, is it not?

You have a long way to go before you get far enough outside the assumptions you make based on your own beliefs to truly understand beliefs that are different from your own. Keep trying.

[Dr House]

Sadly, both modern liberalism and modern conservatism have authoritarian elements. As the OP correctly pointed out, liberalism seeks to control the economy and forcibly impose a regime of political correctness. However, conservatism also has authoritarian tendencies.

Conservatives seek to erode the separation of Church and State, giving religious more political power than they ought to have. They also seek to deny free passage to immigrants, give free rein to the corrupt military-industrial complex, and meddle in the affairs of other nations. And they have severely eroded our civil liberties in the name of this so-called "war on terror".

That's why the only ideology worth its weight in salt is traditional liberalism/libertarianism.

-Dr House :cool:

[Mare Tranquillity]

sorry i cant come on here very often. i have been doing alot of work so ive been busy. as for pale i have no idea what he's doing. it seems he has something better to do with his.

about your religion. what contact have you had with your creator? are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion? im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect. what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

Have you ever had an epiphany? An epiphany is something that you experience, it can't really be shared because it takes place inside you. Epiphanies can be very strong, they can make people change their whole lives.

Vyo's comments are spot-on, you are seeing this from a certain perspective and want us to put our experiences into that perspective AND JUSTIFY them. Can't be done. I believe that life continues after physical-body death because I've been out of my body before and I can do it at will. Once you realize that your consciousness isn't tied absolutely to the physical body your perspective changes. I don't believe in a good/bad afterlife with punishments or rewards, I don't have to earn my place in the Universe--I'm here, that means that I'm supposed to be here. The concept of an ultimate evil being is nonsense and there isn't any proof of such a being. The evil we see around us is very human and not supernatural "Stephen King" evil.

Yes, I am a prophet, my own prophet, my beliefs don't require any obedience by other people to the things I believe, I live my life by my own lights and don't ask others to live as I do. I campaign against violence, but I don't commit violence to stop it. Thich Nhat Hanh said (paraphrasing) There is no way to peace, peace IS the way. You can't fight for peace except in the short run. Jesus showed us that very clearly, but few people have the courage and fortitude to follow His example.

[palerider]

First off, much of the idea that fascism is suddenly “leftwing” comes from a popular book by Goldberg “Liberal Fascism” – a book of questionable scholarship, that even respected conservative scholars are critical of: http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.html


Knowing that fascism and nazism are left wing ideologies comes from knowing what they are wolf, nto from a book by Goldberg. The left has been trying for decades upon decades to distance itself from fascism and the fact remains that when you look at it closely, it is still no more and no less than modern liberalism and the "right wing" attributes that you like to give it is not right wing, it is just what modern liberalism does when it is in power.

The following characteristics of Mussolini’s fascist state many of which are identified with rightwing ideologies (but not necessarily mean exclusive to):

corporatism of industry

And that was different from what lenin, stalin, mao, pol pot, and castro did how? All modern liberalism seeks to gain control of the means of production. That is classic leftist politics and anti capitalist in the extreme.

repeal of suffrage

I forget, in which of the great leftist tyranies were women's rights upheld and respected? Not the soviet union, not china, not cambodia, not cuba, etc., not korea, not north vietnam. Geez wolf, women were treated badly in all of the great leftist dictatorships.

insertion of religion in education/state

Irreligion. Remember that conversation? In all of the leftist regimes, the religion of the state became the only acceptable religion and the educational system became the primary means of indoctrination. We see that happening here today.

xenophobia

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

anti-liberalism and individualism

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

anti-communism

Funny. They were doing exactly what the communists did and yet, they were anti communist. They were all socialists quibbling over which would become dominant. It was VHS vs Beta. Magnetic tape in different packages.

rampant militarism

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

compulsory patriotism

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

imposition of traditional values over social liberalism

See soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

Imposition state control over all aspects of life (keeping in mind liberals prefer state control over the market and economy while conservatives prefer it over the social sphere ie - people’s personal lives)...

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc. In this case you are only pointing out trifling differences between socialism and socialism lite. Both are modern liberalism only with differing degrees of political power.

I have asked you before to name 3 things that you can do without any interference at all from government at either the local, state, or national level without going into the most mundane aspects of your life. You couldn't do it before and you can't do it now. Modern liberalism has intruded into every aspect of our lives. Conservativism exercises control in our lives as well but the control belongs to the people and the control is not encoded into the legal system and enforced by the power of government.

Coyote, for an otherwise very bright individual, you have a very large blind spot with regard to this subject. Think about it just for a second. The things that you identifed as "right wing" in the list above are nothing more and nothing less than standard operating proceedure for modern liberalism when it gains sufficient control over government to actually implement its agenda. The things you claim to hate about conservativism are the very things that are univerally imposed by modern liberalism and enforced via the power of the government and when in your life have you seen our governemnt exercise rational restraint? I haven't seen it. Governments, by nature, go to far and the soviet union, china, cambodia, north korea, cuba, north vietnam, etc. are nothing more and nothing less than the logical end result of modern leftist thinking.

Personally, I far prefer dealing with societal pressures that might be imposed by conservativism to imposition demanded by the power of government and backed with the threat of punishment that are imposed by modern liberalism.

I don't have a lot of time to devote to the conversation now that spring is here because of things I have to do around home and FISHING!!!!!! and to tell the truth, I have lost some interest in the conversation because frankly, I have already won it once already and at this point, we are just rehashing points that I have won already in this thread and others.

To date, no one has successfully defeated a single point that I made in the orignal post on this thread. I will continue but you are going to have to do better than simply call the things that are universally imposed by leftist states "right wing" tactics. Face it, they are left wing tactics and they are worse by far than conservativism because they are demands made by the state rather than by society.

[arbitor]

oh dude....... you guys just got burnned. pale, you rock. maybe these guys should check their history instead of spouting nonsense about how all the libertarian societies were acually conservetive and vise versa. its freakin hillarious. i think this debate is over.

[peoplespartyguy65]

Liberals believe in tolerance just as long as you believe the way they do.No party yells louder than when at a liberal protest or function a person with a different view tries to speak but is yelled over and never heard. Oh and to add a bit as to how the modern liberals are spiraling towards socialism look no further than the liberal courts in this country and how they make law rather than interpret it.

[peoplespartyguy65]

[QUOTE=vyo476;37461]Western assumption number one: The "Creator" is contactable. This implies a large number of things, but most importantly that said "Creator" is a conscious being. This is not necessarily true.

So no intelligence is behind the organized universe in which we live? If there were no intelligence behind the universe I would have to believe that chaos would rule. Look at it this way. The two of us are sitting at a table having a discussion. We both hear something and turn to look for a moment. After realizing it was nothing we both notice that a box of matches that was on the table fell and the matches formed the Star of David(just an example) would you be one to believe that this happened by itself or that someone while we were not watching did this?

[Coyote]

oh dude....... you guys just got burnned. pale, you rock. maybe these guys should check their history instead of spouting nonsense about how all the libertarian societies were acually conservetive and vise versa. its freakin hillarious.

Uh dude...maybe you should check out some history instead of yuck-yucking like an idiot child. You have yet to contribute a single fact to this debate. Keep trying though, I'm rooting for ya :D

i think this debate is over.


You mean like "mission accomplished?"

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-mission.jpg

[palerider]

You mean like "mission accomplished?"

Intellectual dishonesty doesn't suit you coyote. You know as well as I that the "mission" that the soldiers were being congratulated for had been accomplished. Saddam had been ousted and in his speech, bush stated clearly that a great deal of work was left to be done.

Being deliberately obtuse isn't attractive.

[peoplespartyguy65]

History can only teach us so much,and what about the party of responsibility. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. The party has changed since then. So the history of either party really wont be telling you much as to where they are going. Truth be told I'm really not to keen on our two party system,but as we are stuck with it for the time being ,the lesser of two evils is conservatism.
I also wont pretend to be something I'm not while posting here. I served my country and have been on both ends of the political spectrum. I'm no brainiac. I'm just an observer of the history in which I have seen in my life.

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Liberals believe in tolerance just as long as you believe the way they do.No party yells louder than when at a liberal protest or function a person with a different view tries to speak but is yelled over and never heard. Oh and to add a bit as to how the modern liberals are spiraling towards socialism look no further than the liberal courts in this country and how they make law rather than interpret it.

I wanted to jump in on the initiating post of this thread, but there were far too many things to tackle. Reading through it I felt I knew what Dorothy felt in the wizard of oz, what with all the straw men, and flying harpies. Your post though no less hysterical is at least brief if not based on fact or reality.

One of the most public liberals of our times was Phil Donahue. Phil always allowed those he disagreed with to have their say, along with the respect owed to fellow human beings of all ideological thought. Disagree... Prove me wrong. it should be simple if so.

loud protesters are usually obnoxious and hold no liberal views if they act as described.


Liberal courts have no interest in socialism as socialism is not law.

who has appointed most all the judges for going on 30 years

[RenegadeFuture]

Modern Liberalism, Authoritarianism?

Very provoking.

You suggest that the ultimate development of left-wing policies is authoritarian communism? Where inequality is supposed to be inexistent, and anyone who has any conflicting ideas risks being shot by the thought police? Every equality but equality of ideas. Not a very nice place.
Both the USSR and Nazi Germany had radical socialist economic policies and command economies, true.
Nazism believed in racial superiority and Eugenics, persecuting "inferiors" and "undesirables", and anyone who disagreed or didn't discriminate risked being shot.
In both economies, it is also true that the economy was controlled and welfare was provided, but for different goals. The Nazi German economy was strictly controlled by the state, in a form of state capitalism, to prepare for war, to reach the election pledge of increased employment, and also to keep the populace under strict control. The USSR had a command economy to achieve the goal of "equality", and by its nature, the state had absolute control over the economy.
So, you have a point there. Forcing complete social equality also hands massive power to the state, and does not equal "liberty". Ironic.
Nazism forced the opposite, of course. In that sense, both ends of the scale are authoritarian and oppressive, and control every aspect of life, including the economy. And, you will find that both ends of the scale have the same ends. The US is nowhere near economic authoritarianism, but you could see it going that way if you went further to the economic right.

The question is, where do we find a "fair" middle ground? Forced inequality and discrimination=fascism? Forced equality= communism?

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

are you a Trotskyist?
Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

JSTOR: Was Marx Wrong? A Criticism of Marxism vs. Socialism
Was Marx Wrong? A Criticism of Marxism vs. Socialism, by Valdimir G. Simkhovitch. By I. M. Rubinow. Issued by the Members of the Marx Institute of America. ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(191503)5%3A1%3C141%3AWMWACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A -

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Modern Liberalism, Authoritarianism?

Very provoking.

You suggest that the ultimate development of left-wing policies is authoritarian communism?

The question is, where do we find a "fair" middle ground? Forced inequality and discrimination=fascism? Forced equality= communism?modern conservatism = gop policies = the march of freedom = forced democracy = iraq idiocies

[palerider]

Modern Liberalism, Authoritarianism?

Very provoking.

You suggest that the ultimate development of left-wing policies is authoritarian communism? Where inequality is supposed to be inexistent, and anyone who has any conflicting ideas risks being shot by the thought police? Every equality but equality of ideas. Not a very nice place.
Both the USSR and Nazi Germany had radical socialist economic policies and command economies, true.
Nazism believed in racial superiority and Eugenics, persecuting "inferiors" and "undesirables", and anyone who disagreed or didn't discriminate risked being shot.
In both economies, it is also true that the economy was controlled and welfare was provided, but for different goals. The Nazi German economy was strictly controlled by the state, in a form of state capitalism, to prepare for war, to reach the election pledge of increased employment, and also to keep the populace under strict control. The USSR had a command economy to achieve the goal of "equality", and by its nature, the state had absolute control over the economy.
So, you have a point there. Forcing complete social equality also hands massive power to the state, and does not equal "liberty". Ironic.
Nazism forced the opposite, of course. In that sense, both ends of the scale are authoritarian and oppressive, and control every aspect of life, including the economy. And, you will find that both ends of the scale have the same ends. The US is nowhere near economic authoritarianism, but you could see it going that way if you went further to the economic right.

The question is, where do we find a "fair" middle ground? Forced inequality and discrimination=fascism? Forced equality= communism?

The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume further to the right (conservativism) equals more government intereference when by definition, further towards conservativism equals less government interference. Any sort of authoritarinism requires ever larger and more involved government and conservativism, by definition doesn't favor larger government. Any political movenment that requires more government, and more involvement in people's lives by government, is by definition some form of socialism and therefore not conservative in nature.

[palerider]

JSTOR: Was Marx Wrong? A Criticism of Marxism vs. Socialism



Of course marx was wrong. He completely failed to take human nature into account when he visualized his "utopia". When he imagined "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. " he assumed that those who had abilities would see things his way and willingly give up the fruit of their labor to those who couldn't provide for themselves. Further, he failed to see that his vision of utopia was doomed to fail because there will always be those who would rather recieve, than work for it themselves which is what we see happening here. As soon as it became possible for those without to vote for those who would take from those who have and give it to them, the foundation for the eventuall collapse of our economic system was laid.