Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I like Michael Savage's response on that.Ok, I'll bite on the level of freedom. Not that I brought it up in this post.
Yes, the more laws enacted, the less freedom I have to murder, rape, sell this or that narcotic, prostitute myself, drink beer on Sunday, dance, end my life with the aid of a physician, have sex with children, look at porn on public buses, operate pyramid schemes, them type of things.
Some are bad bad bad, some good, some none of your business if I do it in my own home with other consenting adults.
I think of Mexico when I think of lawless small government. Is there another place I should be thinking of? Perhaps a superpower I'm forgetting about? MAYBE Australia? New Zealand?
At the very least I believe in laws and a good number of punishments because folks can't be trusted.
You are correct. People can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves in a free society which is why some government is needed to make it work but since government enacts laws that removes us from our state of freedom then government is the thing that acts against freedom but since we can't be trusted we still need it at the same time. It kind of sucks but until God makes us perfect people that can function without any external control we will always need government.
The question is shouldn't government take the form that comes as close as possible to maintain the free society?
Is this going to turn into a post about legalized pot? If so I would so happily tie pot legalization to the same bill which made any vehicle accident while high on pot or alcohol an attempted murder charge. My view being do whatever as long as you don't go driving stoned and risk MY life or that of folks I like.
I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show. It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by. This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>". A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates. A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.
The question is which one is better? I believe the conservative way of thinking is better because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over. I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.
☭proletarian☭;2008372 said:I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show. It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by.
Why is it bad to have as one of your principles that all are free to express themselves, regardless of whether you agree with them?
This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>". A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates. A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.
The question is which one is better? I believe the conservative way of thinking is better
You believe its better to be the bigot you describe?
Wrong. They have no right to violate your home in any way. It is your home, and their presence is not welcome. There is a huge difference between running into your house with a bullhorn and saying what I will to any willing to listen without violating anyone else's privacy or space.
If you can't see the difference, then you've already proven yourself a retarded piece of fecal waste.
I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to
And? You might not want to walk an extra 200 feet, but I don't want you walking through my house. You might not want to go someplace out of your way for target practice, but we don't want you shooting at cans in the backyard, facing the school across the road.
You might not always want to listen to the police when they tell you you're too drunk to drive, but we don't want you killing our children.and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.
Dumbass.
I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show. It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by. This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>". A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates. A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.
The question is which one is better? I believe the conservative way of thinking is better because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over. I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
That says it all !! Liberalism is destroying this country due to political correctness, lack of morality and I can go on.
Liberalism in this country needs to be kept at bay...For all you Europeans who like your liberalism..cool...it's diferent here and don't push it on us.
Also, why is it that people feel it is necessary to pull another person's comment apart and disagree with it on a word by word basis.
I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show. It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by. This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>". A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates. A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.
The question is which one is better? I believe the conservative way of thinking is better because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over. I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
That says it all !! Liberalism is destroying this country due to political correctness, lack of morality and I can go on.
Liberalism in this country needs to be kept at bay...For all you Europeans who like your liberalism..cool...it's diferent here and don't push it on us.
Lack of "morality"? Sounds like you wanna kill someone. Yep, round 'em up and kill 'em for not being "moral".
☭proletarian☭;2017872 said:Also, why is it that people feel it is necessary to pull another person's comment apart and disagree with it on a word by word basis.
You posted multiple fallacies. Multiple fallacies were addressed.
They're your arguments. If you don't like the implications of your arguments, that's your problem.
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" Our nation was founded on madness!!!! or just a mild disorder in thinking progress is possible????
"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron
These hypothetical, meandering attempts at ideology definitions are tiring and often wrong. This one makes little sense. I find too many of today's youth have little understanding of ideology and less of the broad categories that make them up. Often they cross into each other and blend parts of each in order to work in the real world. For anyone seriously interested in understanding ideology I recommend this book as a good start. Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780192802811): Michael Freeden: Books
For me liberalism is essentially a state in which each individual can review a set of conditions that apply to all. These conditions allow individual freedom and the possibility of it meaning something to each person, but they are constantly under scrutiny and adjustment. Liberalism, as Jeremy Waldron writes, is about a social order that is acceptable to the people living under it. That almost seems too simple, but consider CEOs who make millions while the workers make minimum wage or have their work shipped overseas so CEOs can make more, and you'll find few who would gladly accept this state of things.
My cynical definition of conservatism today is found here and while it was written a few years ago, it still fits. What is a conservative? Political Pass
In my mind and experience conservatism is basically reactionary, particularly in the realm of politics. Few conservatives seem to even understand their own ideological stance? What I find interesting is I agree with most of Kirk's points but often it is the degree and not the substance that matters. A genuine conservative on conservatism: The Kirk Center - Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk
Starr's piece lays out why liberalism works better than conservatism, but conservatism has entrenched interests on its side and that can be a powerful force for the status quo, regardless of the status quo. http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles07/Starr.WhyLiberalismWorks.pdf
"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
For me liberalism is essentially a state in which each individual can review a set of conditions that apply to all.
