From a PM with Sci-Fi-Man

LOl...ignorant is not the worst insult I've been called here.



Willing to learn?  Solar, I think you've got it wrong; this is not a one way street, in which your stance is irrefutably correct, and you are attempting to "educate" my blatantly false stances.  We are both attempting to sway the other and portray our positions.  To say that me refusing to comply with your own ideological stances makes me a "lost cause" is misunderstanding what the definition of a debate is.

Of course, if you find me to be a "lost cause", this isn't a reason to fling ridicules at me in third person.  It makes no sense to refuse to debate someone, and in substitute simply quote everything they say and make non-substantive rebuttals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, being relatively young, my ability to change my belief system is surprisingly high.  Just a few years back, I opposed social welfare and gun control.  I've done a 180 degree flip on the former, and the latter...I'm still divided over.
[/quote]
Son, again, calling you ignorant was not an insult, unless you intend to take it that way, your prerogative, but rather it was merely an observation on my part based on your posts.

You see, what you fail to understand, is Conservatives have a set of core values in which we anchor from, these are unwavering points based on the Founding Principles of this country.
So making the assumption you are going to change anyone's mind, is a battle of monumental futility.
I'll start a thread on it and let the members explain this concept that is foreign to you.

I'll use this PM as a base from which to start, this will give you a chance to explain why you feel your views are the correct ones.

Great, I'll work on a mini-essay.

This should be fun.

Not the muddy up the water...but the definitions of liberal have changed.  The liberal of the mid19th century would have more in common with modern Libertarians, than modern Democrats.

Quote from: GameCzar on June 15, 2012, 02:27:51 PM
Not the muddy up the water...but the definitions of liberal have changed.  The liberal of the mid19th century would have more in common with modern Libertarians, than modern Democrats.

Very true.

And those are the only liberals worthy of the name.

What passes for a liberal today is really just a reformed socialist who recoils form the all out centralization of production but otherwise apologizes for all types of income redistribution.

So before I post, I would like to ask:

1. Do you respect the tenants of Classical Liberalism?

2. Define the modern conservatism that you identify with, so that I don't misrepresent your positions.

Id first like to see a good description of the tenets of classical liberalism.

Got to see if they jive with what I think I know about this great philosophy....

Forget the past, that merely blurs the definition.

Take Govt assistance of all kinds, start with social security, it in a sense destroys the family unit.
If Govt removes responsibility from friends, family and oneself, social ties are weakened and breakdown.
Why should children feel responsible for their parents, when they know their parents have a pittance of income from the Govt?.

Then there is the effect of the Nanny State regarding public schools, it removes much of the responsibility of the parent to teach values, because the schools are instilling their own warped set of values by passing PC laws protecting people of special status.
It's hard to instill family values when group think overrules you.
What kind of message do you suppose this sends children?

Then there is the issue of too much Govt charity, people become slaves and dependent upon Govt, reason why, is because to get these handouts, requires one to meet certain guidelines.
Such as, no income or very little, that right there is incentive not to find work, or work outside the law, like selling drugs.
Why in the world would anyone want to give people the incentive to sell drugs? That's what Govt does, just look at the slums in the country, most that live in them are receiving some sort of Govt handout, but since it's never enough, they supplement it illegally.

This is why Conservatives are against social programs, we believe in personal charity, when someone helps an individual, that individual knows this came from this persons pocket and feels a need to reciprocate in kind at a later date.
If this individual continues to leach and not make something of themselves, the charity ends, forcing the individual to seek work, hopefully.
We also believe no job is worthless, as long as it's legal and not funded by our tax dollars.
Community has always looked out for each other, but Govt removed community when it took the responsibility away.
This is not a good thing, if you didn't already figure that out.

This is just one aspect of Conservatism, but personal responsible is at the core of Conservative ideals, an understanding of right and wrong, with an understanding that life just isn't fair, but using Govt in an attempt to balance this unfairness, means that someone else has to suffer as in work harder to pay for this balancing act.
Problem is, for every action, there is a reaction..
I'll pick this up later so as not to bore you.

Ohhhhh I see now. We use the PM feature to debate and the forum to send messages....

Oh I dont know I think the past is entirely relevant.

For one we can see what a consistent philosophy of individual liberty looks like. We have nothing resembling that from either the contemporary right or left.

The conservatives today pay lip service to free markets but support bail outs, tariffs, intellectual property, war and monetary debasement.

These are the mortal enemies of individual liberty, free markets and peaceful commerce.

I would wager that it is only by looking at the past that we can properly orient the present state of political tyranny.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on June 15, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Oh I dont know I think the past is entirely relevant.

For one we can see what a consistent philosophy of individual liberty looks like. We have nothing resembling that from either the contemporary right or left.

The conservatives today pay lip service to free markets but support bail outs, tariffs, intellectual property, war and monetary debasement.

These are the mortal enemies of individual liberty, free markets and peaceful commerce.

I would wager that it is only by looking at the past that we can properly orient the present state of political tyranny.

No the topic I started is about Conservatives of today vs liberals, I didn't want to confuse him with too much information.
And no, what you described are merely Neoconservatives, I want to teach him what real Conservative values mean.

I agree it is relevant, but not in the context of this thread.
If you want to talk about ideals of the past, feel free to start another thread.

Quote from: Solar on June 15, 2012, 05:19:16 PM
No the topic I started is about Conservatives of today vs liberals, I didn't want to confuse him with too much information.
And no, what you described are merely Neoconservatives, I want to teach him what real Conservative values mean.

I agree it is relevant, but not in the context of this thread.
If you want to talk about ideals of the past, feel free to start another thread.

Right on.

Carry on.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on June 15, 2012, 05:22:12 PM
Right on.

Carry on.

But don't stop, your input is important, in that his only knowledge of conservatism is what he hears in school from his teachers.
And we know what a socialist teaches.

Quote from: Solar on June 15, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
But don't stop, your input is important, in that his only knowledge of conservatism is what he hears in school from his teachers.
And we know what a socialist teaches.

Thanks Solar.

I guess the first issue is to lay out the fundamentals of a conservative ideology.

I submit this ideally should mirror the ideology of classical liberalism.Namely the philosophy of individual rights, free markets, sound money, free trade and limited government at home and abroad.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on June 15, 2012, 09:17:36 PM
Thanks Solar.

I guess the first issue is to lay out the fundamentals of a conservative ideology.

I submit this ideally should mirror the ideology of classical liberalism.Namely the philosophy of individual rights, free markets, sound money, free trade and limited government at home and abroad.

Well, yeah, you're fairly close when it comes to federalism. Also conservatism. Individual rights, free markets, sound (based on something) money, free trade and limited government most especially at home. Place these principles up against those proposed and/or enacted by Dear Leader, and you'll understand why November 2012 is the most important election of our lives.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on June 15, 2012, 09:17:36 PM
Thanks Solar.

I guess the first issue is to lay out the fundamentals of a conservative ideology.

I submit this ideally should mirror the ideology of classical liberalism.Namely the philosophy of individual rights, free markets, sound money, free trade and limited government at home and abroad.

You left out responsibility and accountability. Solar is right in the repect that too many people of the last 40 years (this really started in 70's) have forgotten their family responsibilities. caring for family embers or parents because they know their are government stipends.

Furthermore, caring for fellow man in a manner call charity.

Much of responsibility and accountability have been forgotten because of the government and socialist ideas.