|
|
Post by LibertyIsForTheWin on Dec 18, 2015 19:28:13 GMT -6
From a discussion Kevin and I were having on Twitter... As a conservative and "classically" liberal person, I hold that the term "liberal" has been misused for much of the last 50 years. Ideologically, the philosophy of liberalism has been (from wiki): freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation. These are classically liberal ideals, and find their roots in the works of Plato and Aristotle. The tension between "right to rule" and "right to freedom" are as old as western civilization itself. All of that said, the premise of my position is: (1) Conservatives are actually liberals, because we espouse the same values of the Founding Fathers who were liberals in the true sense of the word (Locke/Jefferson). (2) Leftists (those who argue that the needs of the collective usurp the rights of the individual) are definitionally opposed to liberalism (Locke/Jefferson). (3) Because leftists are ideologically opposed to liberalism (Locke/Jefferson), it is logically incoherent to refer to leftists as "liberals" when they are clearly ideologically opposed to the concepts of liberalism, and believe in the fundamental right of the States (re: collective) to usurp the Natural Rights of the individual. (4) Since the established cultural values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are founded upon those "classically liberal" ideas, the desire to erode or usurp those ideas are not conservative and not liberal. They are "radical" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical), in so much as they are opposed to the cultural ideology. Ergo: Leftists are NOT liberal, and are arguably, in fact, radical. EX: Violation of 2nd Amendment is leftist idea, NOT liberal, and is contrary to the Founding Documents, thus radical. EX: Political Correctness is leftist idea, NOT liberal, and is contrary to the Founding Documents, thus radical. EX: Imposition of taxation on personal incomes in name of equality is leftist idea, NOT liberal, and is contrary to the Founding Documents (original), thus radical. While it's reasonable to say "radical" can apply to both sides of the aisle, I won't disagree. My main point of contention is that "leftism" has no ideological resemblance to liberalism as it has been espoused for thousands of years, and thus should not be conflated with leftists/socialist/collectivist ideology. #LibertyIsFTW For more on this, you can refer to an essay on my blog at libertyisftw.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/cognitive-dissonance-an-observation/. |
|
|
|
Post by Athans on Dec 18, 2015 20:37:03 GMT -6
Your arguments are interesting because your view is very different from how we understand the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in this country. Being a history major, I understand where you are coming from. I do consider myself a classic liberal, but also a US Liberal. I do understand the points you bring up but some of it is simple disagreement. For the sake of the discussion I will use the term liberal and conservative as we typically accept in the US...I guess Democrat and Republican.
You argue that we (liberals) do not believe in the rights of the individual but that is completely unfounded. "Conservatives" are far more guilty of depriving people of their indivdual rights than liberals. We BOTH believe in the Bill of Rights, one of the greatest documents in human history. For all intents and purposes I will use the Bill of Rights as "individual rights" as it is the foundation of our nation.
I guess the most interesting point you bring up is... "the desire to erode or usurp those ideas are not conservative and not liberal."
By this logic, both liberals and conservatives are radicals. The issue is a matter of opinion.
The first issue I will address is political correctness. I agree with you. For the most part, it is stupid. What is more important is understanding one's intention or meaning.
On taxation...
This one is complicated, but the fact of the matter is taxation has existed since the beginning of civilization, and is the main reason we revolted against England and made this country. If you want to argue our system is unfair, fine, but the fact of the matter is the US Consitution gave Congress the right to tax people. The conservative argument is less about the tax system and more that it is unfair for them to be taxed. I suggest move to a country that doesn't have taxes...
My biggest issue is the Second Amendment. Being a history major that has studied the US government, my view is this argument has been perverted. First, I ask you, what is the classical "natural right" to own guns? Is the right to defend your family? If that is the case, can you not do it without a gun? Or do you need a gun? Either way, that is not what the Second Amendment is about.
Here is the thing...I am a historian. I am trained in history. I am trained to understand the context of situations and events in history. I share the view of the consensus of historians. The disagreement comes from the LAW side of things. Law scholars disagree with my view, but frankly, I could care less what they have to say. Law is apologetics, arguments made to make a point. I mean O.J. wasn't guilty, was he? You will find law scholars that disagree, but HISTORIANS agree that...
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual gun ownership. It has to do with militias. The reason a person has "the right to bare arms" and the reason that right "shall not be infringed" is based on historical context.
Militias were made up of common people. They were expected to show up with their weapons. They were not issued weapons like our military is today. The reason people had the right to bare arms was because they needed them to make the militia effective. If that right was infringed, they could not arm themselves with guns, which would make the militia ineffective against defending the state from the federal government. They knew this from previous history. When government banned guns, people were not able to rise up. But the key point here is not about individual gun ownership, it is about the ability to form a militia. The thing is, today, the states do have a militia...it is called the National Guard. That is the state's militia.
Also, no liberal is saying to take away all the guns. I live in Minnesota, I get it, people like to kill animals, whatever...the issue is conservatives think that any regulation is "taking away our guns." It is not. Even in the most cited gun case, Heller, they state that gun ownership is not absolute and there can be regulations placed on them. This has been challenged many times in court and upheld.
The Second Amendment debate is not about depriving people of their "natural rights," it is about a difference in opinion over what the Second Amendment means.
If you wanted to make an argument on the violation of rights I would suggest looking at the Patriot act, discrimination against gays, and basing laws on religion. Those are all legitimate, but also not views liberals are pushing.
Liberal is much closer to classical liberalism, or at least the Enlightenment Philosophy this country was founded on, than conservative is.
If your argument is both are radical...okay...but I don't really see the point in your argument then...unless you are saying neither side understands the foundation of our principles...
|
|
|
|
Post by LibertyIsForTheWin on Dec 18, 2015 21:35:42 GMT -6
Brevity due to distraction and a bath is being drawn. LOL On Taxation: "For 103 of the 108 years between 1786 and 1894, there were no income taxes of any kind inflicted on the people. In 1894, the Democrat in control of Congress and the office of President (Grover Cleveland) passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff, which imposed the first peace time income tax on private citizens of 2% on only the very rich. This was quickly challenged and overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895." libertyisftw.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/constitution-day-lost-and-found/On left and right: It's not a question of Democrats v. Republicans, because there are plenty of lefties among the GOP. About 2nd Amendment: No, the State Guards are not militias. The definition of militia is still the same as it's always been: irregular units who bring their own weapons, who often fight (not always) attached to regular military units. Irregular means unattached to the State or states. The State Guard are obviously "regular military units", so they cannot possibly be militia. The Minutemen are what the militia were about. They were not attached to any state military. Leftism is pretty far from classical liberalism, because while you are correct that the GOP has promoted illiberal ideas (Patriot Act, TARP, etc.), that GOP is not the definition of conservatism or liberalism. Leftism, by definition, puts the "needs" of the collective above the Natural Rights of the individuals (the People). And they do so in a well meaning way rationalization. Examples: - Taxation is not liberal, it is to pay for the "collective needs", even if it violates the property rights of the individual. - Prayer is not allowed at public events, in direct violation of the principle of religious freedom rights of the individual. - Redistribution is not liberal, as it requires the violation of the property rights of the individual in order to fund the "collective need" of the poor. Natural Rights are those rights that a human being possesses by fact of being human, and all of those benefits by which he or she can maintain their rights. The rights are fundamentally: Life, Liberty, and Property. And the individual possess all rights to all means necessary to preserve their Natural Rights, "State be damned.", so far as they do not infringe on another person's Natural Rights. EDIT - And... I apparently can't manage brevity... This is me being brief, apparently... PS - While the left has opposed certain things done by the GOP, that was only when it became political expedient. Patriot Act passed 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate. Seems that it was just fine for the Democrats in 2001. Only later (2004 Presidential Election Cycle) did it become a political issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Athans on Dec 19, 2015 5:40:31 GMT -6
Brevity due to distraction and a bath is being drawn. LOL On Taxation: "For 103 of the 108 years between 1786 and 1894, there were no income taxes of any kind inflicted on the people. In 1894, the Democrat in control of Congress and the office of President (Grover Cleveland) passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff, which imposed the first peace time income tax on private citizens of 2% on only the very rich. This was quickly challenged and overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895." libertyisftw.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/constitution-day-lost-and-found/On left and right: It's not a question of Democrats v. Republicans, because there are plenty of lefties among the GOP. About 2nd Amendment: No, the State Guards are not militias. The definition of militia is still the same as it's always been: irregular units who bring their own weapons, who often fight (not always) attached to regular military units. Irregular means unattached to the State or states. The State Guard are obviously "regular military units", so they cannot possibly be militia. The Minutemen are what the militia were about. They were not attached to any state military. Leftism is pretty far from classical liberalism, because while you are correct that the GOP has promoted illiberal ideas (Patriot Act, TARP, etc.), that GOP is not the definition of conservatism or liberalism. Leftism, by definition, puts the "needs" of the collective above the Natural Rights of the individuals (the People). And they do so in a well meaning way rationalization. Examples: - Taxation is not liberal, it is to pay for the "collective needs", even if it violates the property rights of the individual. - Prayer is not allowed at public events, in direct violation of the principle of religious freedom rights of the individual. - Redistribution is not liberal, as it requires the violation of the property rights of the individual in order to fund the "collective need" of the poor. Natural Rights are those rights that a human being possesses by fact of being human, and all of those benefits by which he or she can maintain their rights. The rights are fundamentally: Life, Liberty, and Property. And the individual possess all rights to all means necessary to preserve their Natural Rights, "State be damned.", so far as they do not infringe on another person's Natural Rights. EDIT - And... I apparently can't manage brevity... This is me being brief, apparently... PS - While the left has opposed certain things done by the GOP, that was only when it became political expedient. Patriot Act passed 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate. Seems that it was just fine for the Democrats in 2001. Only later (2004 Presidential Election Cycle) did it become a political issue. I will admit your argument is unique, rather it is the first time I have heard it, not that that suggests it is incorrect. It was actually the first time in a long I had to stop, scratch my head, and think about what was really being said. I agree with you for the most part, but then again I am more classically liberal, or at least understand what it means. That time and area was not the focus of my education, but I certainly had classes (history and political philosophy) in the area. We can agree to disagree on some stuff. I just do not believe we will find common ground on the Second Amendment. I base my views on what historians have said, as well as my study of history. I also do not fear the government like a lot of people do. I am not sure where the quote came from, but this is what I believe... "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." Basically, American citizens having guns in this day and age is pointless. As if they could stop the US government...if people really cared about defending themselves from the government the LAST thing they would do is create a large military, oddly enough, those that are most for guns are also for creating a powerful military. I mean Saddam had a standing army and air force with jets, tanks, military weapons, command and control, ect and the US walked in there and wiped him out in a couple of days. If people think having a few guns will protect them from the US military, they are delusional. I certainly agree that both parties have their own issues. I have never denied that. I openly speak out against Democrats all the time. I mean I have already talked about the PC issue that liberals have. My biggest issue is that people act as if their party is perfect. Let's look at the Patriot Act again... That was the single biggest loss of freedoms and rights in our life time. The fact of the matter is that it was passed when Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government. You can point out the support of the Ds for that, which is fair. We can also point out that Obama renewed it, that is fair. The difference is Ds are not OPPOSED to government power, where as Republicans are (an issue I will debate.) The reality is those policies made America safer and stopped many would be terrorist attacks. Politicians on both sides know this, but only one party will complain about too much government and then complain about terrorist attacks in the next sentence. The question is how much freedom does one want to give up to be safe? Because let's be honest, a dude with a gun isn't going to stop a terrorist attack. All that being said I think it is important to recognize the SHORTFALLS of liberalism. It is not all perfect. There are many good bits of socialism. I think we should look at the good and bad of all ideas and take the good while leaving out the bad. There is not one perfect system, or if there is, I have not found it. People in general are good at pointing out bad ideas. The problem is coming up with realistic solutions. I am pretty good at picking out bad ideas whether that is in capitalism, socialism, atheism, or religion. I think I am better than most which is why I constantly call out those on my own "side." But not even I have the perfect solution. What we need to do is have a civil discussion and try to understand the views of others and make the best compromise possible. It will never please everyone, but results do a better job of explaining reality than philosophy does. |
|
|
|
Post by LibertyIsForTheWin on Dec 19, 2015 11:45:40 GMT -6
I totally agree with the need for civil discourse, and I know that we're highly unlikely to budge each other on different issues. Going to focus on 2nd Amendment argument this time: (1) The fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to fundamentally protect the right of an individual to protect themselves against all powers foreign to himself or his community (this includes criminals, terrorists, and the state). Here's a phrase you've probably heard of: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." This justifies the 2nd Amendment for side arms and shotguns. (2) Letter of marque and reprisal - a letter passed by Congress to allow a private citizen who owned an armed ship to sale under the US flag and pursue combat against naval enemies. Basically, licensed piracy. Yes, that implies that private citizens should be able to own cannons, and they did, in fact, do so. This justified weapons of larger sort, up to and including cannons and fully automatic weapons. (3) The difference between an irregular unit (militia) and a regular unit (military) are clear, and "well-regulated" means "in proper working order", and that is the meaning within the context of the 2nd Amendment. www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm(4) I disagree that handguns are "useless" against someone with an assault rifle. Clearly, having a handgun in the face of an armed terrorist is better than NOT having a handgun in the face of an armed terrorist. Remember this little event... www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/ One police officer armed with a handgun killed two men with automatic rifles. This effectively refutes your point about facing armed terrorists. (5) Regardless of what argument you may present on the "futility" of armed citizens, that does not create a reason to disarm Americans. Even if it were, in fact 100% hopeless, that still wouldn't be an argument to disarm the populace. In fact, it proves just the opposite and that the restrictions on citizen weapon ownership are too stringent. Now this gets long, because you also vastly underestimate the nature of the problem posed by the sheer size of the populace. There are more than enough legally owned guns to turn every town into a fortified militia installation. Even small cities, like the one I live in, could easily field 2,000 men in resistance in 24 hours. With the three closest cities, that would 10,000 able bodied armed men, and that's just four towns each of not even more than 50,000 permanent residents. Across the State of Arkansas, that would be a militia of about 50,000 able bodied armed men. In Texas, there'd probably be another 200,000 armed men. Now you're talking about an armed force of a quarter of a million men from TWO States in 24 hours. That is already a formidable army. Add to that other Southern and Midwest States, and we're to as many as half a million armed men, and that would be all combat forces, no support personnel. That's more than the US Army can presently field without recalling all foreign based assets. In 3 days, that military force can be practically anywhere in the United States. Further, you'd have to presume no military desertions. Give us a week, and the right motivations, and that armed resistance could easily swell to 1,000,000 armed men. That's almost as many as the entire US military active personnel, including noncombat personnel. Take to hills and mountains where US military power is largely mitigated? Then that army can hold out for a good long time. None of that is even possible if the populace is unarmed. And, again, even if NONE of that is possible, you don't have an argument for disarming the populace, simply because "it's hopeless", because, clearly, it's not hopeless. With guerrilla tactics, the armed resistance could be last for decades, killing every politician that pokes their head out from cover for more than a second. Eventually someone would have to try to talk terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Athans on Dec 20, 2015 2:47:11 GMT -6
Now you are starting to highlight the root of why discussions about guns go no where. I am going to highlight this point because this is the single biggest point that people miss... It is not an argument to disarm American citizensI, and most liberals, are not trying to "take away your guns." I have a number of liberal friends and they have guns. Liberals like their guns just as much as conservatives do. The difference is they recognize what statistics say about guns and are for COMMON SENSE gun laws, which even the Heller case supported. This is not just liberals, most conservatives are actually for this. We also know that it is not limited to guns, that things like mental health play a role. My question is what would your response be on that front? From my understanding, there is none. I guess basically we just need to get over the fact that a mentally unstable person can easily get a hold of a gun and shoot a place up...cause freedom... Like I have said, I don't have a huge issue with guns. I don't want one and I don't think I need one. The only time I have actually shot one is in the military. I get that people like to hunt or that they are used on farms. I even agree with your quote "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." But here is the thing...where are you that you are so scared shitless you feel the need to have a gun? You live in Detroit? Yes, I would recommend a gun. You live in the suburbs like most of my friends, you probably don't need one. Never have I felt unsafe in my own home. Here is my biggest issue about the seconds vs. minutes...how long is the typical interaction with a robber or home invader? A few seconds? 20? 30? Either they shoot you or you shoot at them and they run off. I have young kids. For me to store a gun in a safe way to ensure they do not get a hold of it and fire it, it would take me more than a few seconds. It is simply not safe for me to have an effective self-defense gun in my house. Funny enough, statistics show that you are more likely to use the gun on your spouse or yourself, or your kids to accidentally use it on each other, than you are to use it defending your home. Every week a child shoots their sibling by accident. I mean if you want to explain "freedom" to little Johnny when he asks where his sister went after he accidentally shot and killed her, that's on you I guess...Personally, I don't want to have that conversation with my kids. The reality is that story happens a lot more, or daddy got drunk and shot mommy happens a lot more than a man sitting down with his son telling them the heroic story about how daddy saved them from a robber. You scared in your own house? Buy a dog...I have a Newfoundland. She is only 80lbs right now but if you heard that dog barking you would have to be crazy to try and come into my house. Again, with the hypotheticals...what if we really did need to rise up against the US government? What if aliens showed up? What if your generation was finally the one in which Jesus decided to come back? If someone is that scared shitless of their government, MOVE. I hear Europe is nice, Australia too...Australia really did take away everyone's guns and I don't hear about them running around scared because of what their government might do to them. Can we at least stop calling this country the home of the BRAVE? A black guy walking in the street and people "fear for their lives," people see a Muslim and they are scared things are going to start blowing up. Americans are scared shitless of Syrian kids coming here. Americans are so afraid in their own homes they need to have guns. They are so afraid of their government they need to sit around stroking their guns. Stop being such babies about it. Man up, join the military. No, I'm not talking about that 4 years and done shit in the national guard, I mean like pick up your gun and get your ass back over there. I just don't understand why Americans are so afraid...to live in America. I lived in Germany for 2 years, it is lovely, they even speak English, move there. Let's just admit it, it comes down to people liking guns. If you live in Montana where police literally are an hour away, get your gun. If you live in Detroit, get your gun. If you like to shoot animals, get your gun. If you have farm work that requires a gun, get your gun. But let's stop acting like every day people are heroically defending their homes in the war-torn, drug cartel controlled, United States. Let's stop acting like it is even mildly conceivable we will need to take up arms against the State. I mean if we did have to do that, you know what I would tell the general? Bomb em. A carpet bomb would take out your little resistance pretty quickly. And finally, stop saying it is about disarming American citizens. NO ONE is proposing that Obama "takes your guns." P.S. This was not directed at you. This was just a rant about the gun debate in general. Like I said, I don't really care that much. I have no desire to have a gun, but I also have no desire to have a truck...not saying a truck is bad, I just don't want one. What gets me going (besides the hypotheticals) is the suggestion that we are trying to take away everyone's guns, we are not. And a joke...If one person with a hand-gun took out 2 people with automatic rifles, do we really need semi-automatic weapons at all  |
|
|
|
Post by LibertyIsForTheWin on Dec 20, 2015 21:35:12 GMT -6
"If someone is that scared shitless of their government, MOVE."
LOL Kevin... Too easy.
If you don't like a country where guns are legal, MOVE. You can go to Canada or England, and not even have to learn a new language!
See what I did there?
And it's not hypothetical. There's examples all around the world regarding this. Your assertion that "it could never happen here in the US" is, in fact, a hypothetical. According to BLM (your side), it happens every day, doesn't it? And you have to explain to me why disarming everyone (illegalizing open and/or concealed carry) is desirable in light of Paris and San Bernandino.
|
|
|
|
Post by Athans on Dec 24, 2015 23:42:53 GMT -6
Once again, my friend, you miss the point.
Did I say I am for a country in which guns are illegal? Quote me. Matter of fact, I said "get your gun" a number of times.
Also, why are you using Paris and San Bernandino as examples? Is there a reason you chose the 2 Muslim incidents and not the Planned Parenthood shooting or the Church shooting done by Dylann Roof?
Why do you keep thinking this argument is about getting rid of guns? Please, just answer that for me. I never said anything about getting rid of guns, yet that is what you automatically jumped to. Why do you keep doing that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Athans on Dec 24, 2015 23:52:45 GMT -6
I missed it the first time...you are bringing BLM into this and calling it "my side?" If you follow BLM you will see that Minnesota (where I live) is a main point of conflict. I do not see how that factors into this debate. My belief is that the root of the problem is violence done by police and then not being held accountable. This isn't about the State, this is about the police force. The FBI is investigating these cases. Either way, is your argument that we should arm ourselves to shoot police? Shoot at a cop and see how that works out for ya...
|
|
|
|
Post by LibertyIsForTheWin on Dec 26, 2015 16:33:42 GMT -6
Once again, my friend, you miss the point. Did I say I am for a country in which guns are illegal? Quote me. Matter of fact, I said "get your gun" a number of times. Also, why are you using Paris and San Bernandino as examples? Is there a reason you chose the 2 Muslim incidents and not the Planned Parenthood shooting or the Church shooting done by Dylann Roof? Why do you keep thinking this argument is about getting rid of guns? Please, just answer that for me. I never said anything about getting rid of guns, yet that is what you automatically jumped to. Why do you keep doing that? No, just forgot about them. They just further my point. Anyone that wants to have choices in an active shooter situation should own and carry a gun. Anyone that wants to defend themselves from a overreaching state authority should also own a gun. It takes only one bullet. And I cued my argument from your assertion that a state isn't a threat to people. It is obviously the case that the state is and always will be a threat to the people. It happens today all the time, and, yes, BLM makes these claims. Being armed is the only deterrent to any intentional violation of Natural Rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Athans on Jan 1, 2016 9:16:08 GMT -6
Ironically enough, a 12 year old black kid with a fake gun was shot and killed by police while white people walk around with semi-automatic rifles slung over their shoulders. A black person with a gun is just inviting cops to shoot them because the cops "fear for their lives" when it is a black person with a gun. Why don't they have this response when it is a white person with a gun? Do black people not have the right to defend themselves?
Another point...
I was watching this bit last night. They took a 13 year old boy, an actor, to try to buy different things. He tried to buy beer, cigarettes, scratch-offs, and porn. In every case the store clerk laughed and told him they couldn't sell him that. My thought was "yeah, duh, what is the point of this bit?" I should have known...the last stop was the gun show. The kid went in, at age 13, and bought a gun.
This is the stuff we are talking about. Common sense gun laws. We are not talking about disarming the American people. Explain to me a situation in which a 13 year old needs a gun. What would stop that kid from bringing that gun into school tomorrow and shooting his classmates? He isn't defending his home or fighting off the state. All we are asking is for it to be just as hard to get a gun as scratch-off... Why does this sound so absurd to you?
|
|
