Student of Ideologies - Hello!

[TimelessConserv]

Hello everyone,

I'm just a college student who wants to deepen my understanding of ideologies. I don't hide the fact that I am conservative, but I do believe I am one of the "relatively" open-minded conservatives. I don't follow the news and current events as much as I read ancient philosophers. I imagine people on these boards frown upon the labeling of people's views, but here are my pathetically optimistic reasons for joining these message boards:

1. To better understand the ideology of liberalism.
2. To become more nuanced / balanced / fair in my thinking
3. To have this community weed out my weakest thoughts
4. To have thoughtful members of these boards change my mind on certain issues. Perhaps in a year I'll have to sign up as a new user named "TimelessLiberal."

I do have a website, but it only has a few articles/posts so far. I hope to write more in the following weeks. So far I have an article (dialogue) about Gay Marriage, and one about College and Conservatives. Visit timelessconservative.blogspot.com if you feel like reading amateur philosophy/politics.


Thanks for reading,
I hope to see you around these boards,
----
Timeless Conservative

 

[Kalam]

Welcome, TC.

 

[American Horse]

I read your essay "College professors do not understand conservatism" and Jonathan Haidt's "What makes people vote Republican" with interest.

Your essay seemed to be summed up by this paragraph: "With a focus on the common good of the family group, conservative morality is broader than merely preventing individuals from harming one another. As Haidt puts it, “it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats ‘just don't get it,’ this is the ‘it’ to which they refer." that paragraph in your linked essay seems to encapsulate the strongest and best case for conservatism, as far as it goes.

I'm adding your material to my own collection of ideas about conservatism and liberalism in politics, which for me historically begins in ancient Rome with the beginning of political parties, or factions, the two proto-political "parties", Optimates and Populares. The Optimates were sternly conservative, above all protecting their status and authority, and the Populares were bent on expanding their freedoms at the expense of that status and authority, while still defending most traditions, adding some of their own, and institutions, as much as they existed.

It's interesting to compare these "party" philosophies then and now. My own opinion is that in part of each of the two philosophies, liberalism (Democrats) and conservatism (Republicans), some of the best of those ancient proto-parties is still extant, and then as now both are needed to have a viable civilization. It may be that the duration of their existence is partial proof of that.

For conservatives, it is the belief that traditions and institutions are important for measuring the nobility of our actions, and that they should be changed but slowly and with only the most rigorous debate. This strongly resembles the beginnings, and has grown more noble.

For liberals, the belief in freedom and equality is still inherent in a demand for change, but today has little to do with autonomy. The “nobility” of their proposals for our society are only caricatures in today's world as compared to the ancient ones.

The conservative philosophy has been improved with its hybridization with liberal ideals, and the liberal philosophy has been degraded with its hybridization with conservative ideals, with this result: In today's society the conservative is the proponent of individual autonomy, and the liberal is the proponent of the individual as citizen subordinated to an overarching government.
.

 

[JBeukema]

Hello everyone,

I'm just a college student who wants to deepen my understanding of ideologies. I don't hide the fact that I am conservative, but I do believe I am one of the "relatively" open-minded conservatives. I don't follow the news and current events as much as I read ancient philosophers. I imagine people on these boards frown upon the labeling of people's views, but here are my pathetically optimistic reasons for joining these message boards:

1. To better understand the ideology of liberalism.

define 'liberalism'

1. To become more nuanced / balanced / fair in my thinking

You'll learn that your first point was naive

1. To have this community weed out my weakest thoughts

Wrong forum for that.....

1. To have thoughtful members of these boards

That's a short list; you want to go to LoR or the Dawkins forums

 

[editec]

Hello everyone,


I'm just a college student

Not to worry. Eventually all that will wear off and you'll recover.

who wants to deepen my understanding of ideologies. I don't hide the fact that I am conservative, but I do believe I am one of the "relatively" open-minded conservatives.

Then you're clearly not a modern American style conservative.

I don't follow the news and current events as much as I read ancient philosophers.

You're better off as a result.

I imagine people on these boards frown upon the labeling of people's views,

Are you kidding me? "Trying to cram people into political pigeon holes is probably this board's favorite game.

but here are my pathetically optimistic reasons for joining these message boards:

1. To better understand the ideology of liberalism.

Yeah, good luck with that. The word USED to mean a certain set of principles and approaches to governance, but nowadays it basically means that you believe certain things about certain issues few of which really have much to do with classical liberalism.

1. To become more nuanced / balanced / fair in my thinking

A noble enough goal

1. To have this community weed out my weakest thoughts

Oh some of us can do that for ya, to be sure.

1. To have thoughtful members of these boards change my mind on certain issues.

It remains to be seen if your mind is changeable

1. Perhaps in a year I'll have to sign up as a new user named "TimelessLiberal."

I doubt it. If you really do get it you'll realize that the word liberal has become so hobbled with nonsense that it's no longer a useful label.

I do have a website, but it only has a few articles/posts so far. I hope to write more in the following weeks. So far I have an article (dialogue) about Gay Marriage, and one about College and Conservatives. Visit timelessconservative.blogspot.com if you feel like reading amateur philosophy/politics.

I'll be looking for your posts here, instead.


Thanks for reading,
I hope to see you around these boards,
----
Timeless Conservative[/quote]

 

[Bfgrn]

The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

 

[JBeukema]

The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

I's say that goes right to the heart of it

 

[Annie]

The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

 

[Bfgrn]

The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

First of all, I don't subscribe to right wing definitions of liberal...

Our founding fathers CREATED a government, not a corporate entity, a war machine or a prison state...

Liberals believe in controlling government, not the other way around. Government serves essential functions that the individual can't do on his or her own...

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[Bfgrn]

I read your essay "College professors do not understand conservatism" and Jonathan Haidt's "What makes people vote Republican" with interest.

Your essay seemed to be summed up by this paragraph: "With a focus on the common good of the family group, conservative morality is broader than merely preventing individuals from harming one another. As Haidt puts it, “it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats ‘just don't get it,’ this is the ‘it’ to which they refer." that paragraph in your linked essay seems to encapsulate the strongest and best case for conservatism, as far as it goes.

I'm adding your material to my own collection of ideas about conservatism and liberalism in politics, which for me historically begins in ancient Rome with the beginning of political parties, or factions, the two proto-political "parties", Optimates and Populares. The Optimates were sternly conservative, above all protecting their status and authority, and the Populares were bent on expanding their freedoms at the expense of that status and authority, while still defending most traditions, adding some of their own, and institutions, as much as they existed.

It's interesting to compare these "party" philosophies then and now. My own opinion is that in part of each of the two philosophies, liberalism (Democrats) and conservatism (Republicans), some of the best of those ancient proto-parties is still extant, and then as now both are needed to have a viable civilization. It may be that the duration of their existence is partial proof of that.

For conservatives, it is the belief that traditions and institutions are important for measuring the nobility of our actions, and that they should be changed but slowly and with only the most rigorous debate. This strongly resembles the beginnings, and has grown more noble.

For liberals, the belief in freedom and equality is still inherent in a demand for change, but today has little to do with autonomy. The “nobility” of their proposals for our society are only caricatures in today's world as compared to the ancient ones.

The conservative philosophy has been improved with its hybridization with liberal ideals, and the liberal philosophy has been degraded with its hybridization with conservative ideals, with this result: In today's society the conservative is the proponent of individual autonomy, and the liberal is the proponent of the individual as citizen subordinated to an overarching government.
.

AH... you say: "In today's society the conservative is the proponent of individual autonomy"

YET, you define conservatism for what it really is; conformity and collectivism: "With a focus on the common good of the family group, conservative morality is broader than merely preventing individuals from harming one another. As Haidt puts it, “it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

The Optimates were sternly conservative, above all protecting their status and authority...

 

[midcan5]

"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

Welcome. An excellent book on Ideology is linked below, worth a read.

In truth we are all conservative and liberal. Getting through youth and adolescence, getting married, serving in the military, raising children, working with others, growing up and living in society requires balance. Freedom means something other than an abstract concept - It is only in our behaviors that we show who we are.

The two quotes here by two liberal thinkers capture a bit of my ideal liberal thought. I think in politics and society liberals look forward, conservatives backward. Conservatism often seems to me only a justification for privilege and hierarchy. Power in another sense.

Conservatism (always?) is basically reactive (see Link AH), whether it be to oppose civil rights, suffrage, gay marriage, individual rights (abortion) or other more practical things such as welfare, UHC, or social security. American conservatism is a hodgepodge of things that today has fallen apart because it had no sound agreed upon base of ideas. Mixing free market greed and religious fundamentalism is a tough mix.

I guess you have read Russell Kirk but I included a conservative for balance. LOL As time moves the only direction it can, conservatives start to sound like liberals as things do change in spite of our initial discomfort.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019280281X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247138810&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Michael Freeden: Books[/ame]


Agee is hard on you guys.
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

AH - excellent assessment of the reactionary element of C.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246707264&sr=1-8]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy: Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]


Conservatism - some we can all agree on others I find ????
The Kirk Center - Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

"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

 

[editec]

The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

Excellent question, Annie.

This simplictic notion that one can define liberals or conservatives based on what they feel about human nature, while comforting to partisans, is basically wrong.

Both liberals and conservatives believe that people need to be left alone MOSTLY.

Sadly the DNC and RNC don't.

One big difference is, I think, is how they define individuals.

Modern conservatives believe that corporations should be given many of the same rights as individual citizens.

Modern liberals think that corporations should not be given those same rights.

However, since the supreme court long ago granted corporations some of the rights of citizens, those liberals are basically screwed.

I personally believe that granting organizations which can theoretically exist forever some of the same rights as citizens, was a tremendous mistake for a democratic republic.

Essantially it them pits the private citizens up against teams of citizens who cannot personally be sued, who control organizations which can live forever.

I'm not explaining this well but this puts enormous power into those citizens who own or control large corporations, and puts citizens at an enormous disadvantage when push comes to shove.

Once again, I'll note that the ruling granting corporations some of the rights of citizens is another example of the unspoken of, but very obvious CLASS WAR that America has been in since 1787, in my opinion

And sicne both the DNC and RNC are completely comfortable with this, this is another example of why I think the differences between the parties is basically exaggerated.

 

[Annie]

The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

First of all, I don't subscribe to right wing definitions of liberal...

I defined liberal, where?

Our founding fathers CREATED a government, not a corporate entity, a war machine or a prison state...

Your point? Yeah, the constitution set up a government, so?

Liberals believe in controlling government, not the other way around.

Really? How are they doing that? I do see the control of business, industries, individuals. I fail to see any limitations/regulations on government. A good example is just how much of the 'stimulus' has gone to state gov'ts, to pay for short falls. At the same time, regulations on how they spend that money? Non-existent.

Government serves essential functions that the individual can't do on his or her own...

Anything that a particular individual cannot do, becomes the purview of the government? That is what 'liberals' believe?

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

Once again, this quote has to do with what according to what you previously wrote? People can decide whether or not to partake of risky or even detrimental behavior, according to Lincoln, no? Yet, the present government seems bound and determined to nanny all, whether in utero, 35, 95...

 

[JBeukema]

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? '

i thought he said 'liberals', not 'Democrats'

 

[Bfgrn]

The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

Excellent question, Annie.

This simplictic notion that one can define liberals or conservatives based on what they feel about human nature, while comforting to partisans, is basically wrong.

Both liberals and conservatives believe that people need to be left alone MOSTLY.

Sadly the DNC and RNC don't.

One big difference is, I think, is how they define individuals.

Modern conservatives believe that corporations should be given many of the same rights as individual citizens.

Modern liberals think that corporations should not be given those same rights.

However, since the supreme court long ago granted corporations some of the rights of citizens, those liberals are basically screwed.

I personally believe that granting organizations which can theoretically exist forever some of the same rights as citizens, was a tremendous mistake for a democratic republic.

Essantially it them pits the private citizens up against teams of citizens who cannot personally be sued, who control organizations which can live forever.

I'm not explaining this well but this puts enormous power into those citizens who own or control large corporations, and puts citizens at an enormous disadvantage when push comes to shove.

Once again, I'll note that the ruling granting corporations some of the rights of citizens is another example of the unspoken of, but very obvious CLASS WAR that America has been in since 1787, in my opinion

And sicne both the DNC and RNC are completely comfortable with this, this is another example of why I think the differences between the parties is basically exaggerated.

editec...the Supreme Court case was in 1886 when the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

Our founding fathers and corporations

...nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

That sounds nothing like the corporations of today, so what happened in the last two centuries?

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

 

[Annie]

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

Excellent question, Annie.

This simplictic notion that one can define liberals or conservatives based on what they feel about human nature, while comforting to partisans, is basically wrong.

Both liberals and conservatives believe that people need to be left alone MOSTLY.

Sadly the DNC and RNC don't.

One big difference is, I think, is how they define individuals.

Modern conservatives believe that corporations should be given many of the same rights as individual citizens.

Modern liberals think that corporations should not be given those same rights.

However, since the supreme court long ago granted corporations some of the rights of citizens, those liberals are basically screwed.

I personally believe that granting organizations which can theoretically exist forever some of the same rights as citizens, was a tremendous mistake for a democratic republic.

Essantially it them pits the private citizens up against teams of citizens who cannot personally be sued, who control organizations which can live forever.

I'm not explaining this well but this puts enormous power into those citizens who own or control large corporations, and puts citizens at an enormous disadvantage when push comes to shove.

Once again, I'll note that the ruling granting corporations some of the rights of citizens is another example of the unspoken of, but very obvious CLASS WAR that America has been in since 1787, in my opinion

And sicne both the DNC and RNC are completely comfortable with this, this is another example of why I think the differences between the parties is basically exaggerated.

editec...the Supreme Court case was in 1886 when the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

Our founding fathers and corporations

...nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

That sounds nothing like the corporations of today, so what happened in the last two centuries?

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Perhaps I'm missing something here. When it comes to corporations, you're for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, including original documents against them? For everything else, you are for an evolving interpretation?

 

[editec]

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

Excellent question, Annie.

This simplictic notion that one can define liberals or conservatives based on what they feel about human nature, while comforting to partisans, is basically wrong.

Both liberals and conservatives believe that people need to be left alone MOSTLY.

Sadly the DNC and RNC don't.

One big difference is, I think, is how they define individuals.

Modern conservatives believe that corporations should be given many of the same rights as individual citizens.

Modern liberals think that corporations should not be given those same rights.

However, since the supreme court long ago granted corporations some of the rights of citizens, those liberals are basically screwed.

I personally believe that granting organizations which can theoretically exist forever some of the same rights as citizens, was a tremendous mistake for a democratic republic.

Essantially it them pits the private citizens up against teams of citizens who cannot personally be sued, who control organizations which can live forever.

I'm not explaining this well but this puts enormous power into those citizens who own or control large corporations, and puts citizens at an enormous disadvantage when push comes to shove.

Once again, I'll note that the ruling granting corporations some of the rights of citizens is another example of the unspoken of, but very obvious CLASS WAR that America has been in since 1787, in my opinion

And sicne both the DNC and RNC are completely comfortable with this, this is another example of why I think the differences between the parties is basically exaggerated.

editec...the Supreme Court case was in 1886 when the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

Our founding fathers and corporations

...nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

That sounds nothing like the corporations of today, so what happened in the last two centuries?

[URL="http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/"]http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/[/URL]

Thank you, BFgrn, for expanding on my theme, here.

Yes the above is exactly where the Supreme Court, in my opinion, screwed the pooch when it comes to corporations.

We have essantially granted entities which are immortal enormous legal and financial powers and rights which are determimental to the democratic part of our democratic republic.

 

[Bfgrn]

Annie, I will allow Robert F. Kennedy Jr answer your question...he frames it perfectly IMO...

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

This White House has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/speeches/2005-09-10rfkjr.asp

 

[midcan5]

Annie, I will allow Robert F. Kennedy Jr answer your question...he frames it perfectly IMO...

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government.....

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/speeches/2005-09-10rfkjr.asp

Thanks for that. Robert was a genuine good guy.

"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." Abraham Lincoln in a letter to William F. Elkins, November 21, 1864.

A piece I wrote years ago. http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50779-end-of-democracy.html

 

[American Horse]

"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

Welcome. An excellent book on Ideology is linked below, worth a read.

In truth we are all conservative and liberal. Getting through youth and adolescence, getting married, serving in the military, raising children, working with others, growing up and living in society requires balance. Freedom means something other than an abstract concept - It is only in our behaviors that we show who we are.

Indeed, that is part of what I was suggesting above, but many of us get hung up on youthful idealism, and that is the crux of the matter; our expectations about both our side and the other side are unrealistic or extreme in our appraisal of our own or the other sides motives and intent. Conservatives are forced to consider the ideas of the other side (because they are reacting), liberals can ignore conservatives in the lawmaking process until they experience dissent from their own side. Even if they fail to pass their initiatives they benefit from having the issue. In that event conservatives gain by being able to hone their facts to bring practical development to the change. Even the media's left lean helps conservatives by honing their skill to be constructive, while it handicaps the liberals because they have it as a crutch to lean on.

The two quotes here by two liberal thinkers capture a bit of my ideal liberal thought. I think in politics and society liberals look forward, conservatives backward. Conservatism often seems to me only a justification for privilege and hierarchy. Power in another sense.

True, but conservatives, those who are thinking people, look backward to the foundations of the institutions worth saving, while trying to understand what the demands for changes will mean in practical or real terms. Many liberals and conservatives are ardent 'true believers' who won't look realistically at the flaws in their ideology, or will forgive or ignore any transgression as necessary and a part of what's needed because of the frailty of the people who make up their movement; the ends justify the means.

Conservatism (always?) is basically reactive (see Link AH), whether it be to oppose civil rights, suffrage, gay marriage, individual rights (abortion) or other more practical things such as welfare, UHC, or social security. American conservatism is a hodgepodge of things that today has fallen apart because it had no sound agreed upon base of ideas. Mixing free market greed and religious fundamentalism is a tough mix.

I can see that, and it always has been, but things have changed drastically since the time of the first liberals and conservatives as opposing forces in the earliest political systems of a republic. But we see the same from liberalism, as it advances ideas and defends them ruthlessly, even when they are risky; and even though they are theoretically worthy, they need to be joined with conservative discipline (understanding the power of incentives for good and ill) to work in the real world.

I guess you have read Russell Kirk but I included a conservative for balance. LOL As time moves the only direction it can, conservatives start to sound like liberals as things do change in spite of our initial discomfort.

This is true, and I call it pragmatism as opposed to idealism and to claim to act on "principles" regardless of outcome.

"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

Excellent standard.
Which side is most likely to adhere to it?

Thanks for the links....AH