Edit Delete

Ortzy: “I said no such thing.”

OOPS! Sorry to burst your bubble of denial. That’s the great thing about communicating on a computer: there’s a record! We don’t have to rely on the faulty human memory to remember the spoken word.

Here’s a handy black letter law lesson: this cretin committed theft, period. Palin & Yahoo have zero fault. Kernell should get a felony conviction on his record and be required to allocute that he intended to damage Palin with the information he stole.

Even when a key is left under the doormat, the door is still locked. Without permission or authorization to use the key & enter, it’s unlawful entry and if property is taken, theft.

“I said no such thing” = “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises

I have only read part of the document, but it seems to be a fairly accurate presentation of “classical liberalism”. You should notice that contemporary conservatism embraces, but also compromises on, those original principles. While contemporary liberalism and progressivism in part, or whole, reject the principles of liberalism and specifically personal liberty.

The Great Conservative Hoax

If they don’t crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever.

Interesting. This would support my conclusion that conservatives are, in fact, the moderates in this game of life. There are exceptions, of course, both to the left and right; but, in general, contemporary conservatism represents the middle ground.

Ironically, that is the reason why both the left and right hate us, and why we are a common target of attack from both extremes. They can each make a legitimate case to criticize the compromise, and, as such, are at least worth listening to, if not followed. I believe that armed intervention is high on the list of compromises, which so-called “libertarians” reject as unacceptable. They may be right.

Here is another good reference (Constitution and all? related documents):

Constitution Society

If the Tea Partiers think we are moving progressively to the left, then it should be noted that there are some people who believe that even the original compromise was too much. As I mentioned earlier, it is, or should be, the burden and privilege of each individual to decide what quantity and quality of personal liberty and individual dignity that they are willing to sacrifice to maintain civilized society. What is obvious, for reasons of nature and/or nurture, people do not agree on the degree of acceptable compromise.

Edit Delete

For one, the first Amendment is a statement of liberal concepts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It demands a certain respect for others in order to be effective.

The problem with the term, “conservative”, is that it is a relative term; but, then so is the term, “liberal”. In order appreciate what they represent, they must be framed and presented in context. The conservatives want to conserve the foundation of this nation, including the Constitution, concepts described in the Declaration of Independence, and related articles, for all people. There are, of course, variations which embrace and extend those principles; but, they cannot contradict them.

A variation of conservative liberalism, embodied in contemporary liberalism and progressivism, is willing to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the group, class, or, as it has become painfully obvious, the enrichment of a few selfish individuals through progressive involuntary exploitation. This is antithetical to the original meaning of liberalism, within the context of America, and is closely related to the old systems. Therefore, the contemporary use of “liberal” and “progressive” is paradoxical in its usage. They maybe appropriate in another country, or time, but not in America, and not now.

In order to establish civilized society, we all accepted involuntary exploitation to a certain extent; but, the liberals/progressives advocate that we should submit further. It is the burden and privilege of each individual to decide what quantity and quality of liberty, and their individual dignity, that they are willing to sacrifice.

That said, I believe the conservatives, and an increasing number of moderates, and some self-described liberals, have decided that progressive involuntary exploitation has reached its acceptable limit. Moreover, there is an extreme level of waste, fraud, and abuse, permitted and perpetrated by the people granted authority to provide oversight of our affairs. They support policies which are unsustainable and compromise individual dignity without the consent of the people. Even worse, any minority, including an individual, has been allowed to dictate terms and tyrannize the majority, of any classification.

I am having a little difficulty collecting and ordering my thoughts, so I’ll just end this with a few key concepts, for now.

fiscal responsibility = it is not merely “debt”, but compensation due to others who have provided you a product or service.

life is fundamental = there is more than one sovereign life form at stake. This should be axiomatic.

These principles are derived from a certain respect for others.

The establishment of civilized society necessarily results in “socialism-lite”. The only question is one of degrees. How far left are we willing to “progress”? Where is the fine line between oversight and control?

This is a complex issue. At least one aspect that I have not been able to resolve is, what happens when a monopoly, by an individual, group, and, especially a government, are created? What prevents a consolidation of power from being realized? I don’t think there are any easy answers.

I was arguing against the notion that this propensity has something to do with young people having more heart than older people.

I can agree with that. There are many “children” among us. Also, voluntary exploitation, specifically in the form of charity, is not a liberal concept.

groups of people who are permanently disadvantaged

That is a regressive, conceited notion.

I would like to repeat that contemporary liberalism and progressivism is neither and is, in fact, a perversion of the language in its usage. I do not believe in coerced redistribution, but we still need to answer the issues associated with “frozen” resources. We also need to consider people who choose to fail. There are a lot of open questions, which are not answered by any philosophy.

I was a liberal arts major in college, so of course I was drowning in liberals. And because of that, I always had to defend myself against the stereotype that all young conservatives are like Alex on Family Ties—selfish pigs who only care about making money and hate the poor.

The idea that liberalism is just part of the idealism of youth is a dangerous idea for parents to have, especially now. I have several conservative friends and relatives who are not concerned when their kids spout liberal propaganda because they will just think they will out grow it. But why would they out grow it if the people who have the most influence on them do not challenge them on these ideals? Who is going to teach them the value of truth, respect, and personal responsibility if not the parents? We can’t wait for these kids to out grow this nonsense. Remember, the 15 and 16 year olds of today will be voting in the 2012 presidential election.

You can not wait until your kids are adults before you try to pass on your values. By then it is too late. They won’t care what you have to say.

All of which got fixed…

Dunno about the rest of you, but when I was 20, growing up in the 70′s I was positively surrounded by liberal bubbleheads. I swore I was the only sane person around…

…and then the Vietnam war ended. And now all the hippies are in office.

May God have mercy on this Country, and may she still be standing strong in the next ten years.

n.n, “surreal” doesn’t even BEGIN to cover it…

Igor

There was never a golden age of liberalism. Progressives, even ole’ Teddy Roosevelt, have always been elitists and racists. Here is a quick refresher course of liberal history: Progressive History 101 (Minus All that Uncomfortable Racism, Sexism, and Support for Eugenics).

I guess I was lucky because I came to age during the Reagan Era when conservatism was flourishing. I was going to college during this time and I got to see a lot of the great conservative thinkers, such as William F. Buckley, speak in person. I found conservatism and the belief in the individual to be a much more compassionate belief system than liberalism.

That’s only because the language has been perverted. The original philosophy demanded a certain respect for others, which has been lost in contemporary liberalism.

You can review wikipedia to witness the progressives’ ongoing struggle to rewrite history. Ultimately, we will judge each other by our actions, since language will become suspect. Moreover, our history will be passed from person to person, as the legitimacy of central repositories are questioned.

What a strange, surreal time we live in. Not unlike that of its predecessors.

Sorry, Jan,
But I have always hated this saying. I was young and I never flirted with liberalism. Liberalism is not about caring about people, it is about feeling superior and thinking you know what’s better for other people than they know themselves. It is the arrogance of youth (that Bob loves so much) that is behind young people’s liberalism, not their “heart.”

But the second have of the statement is true for any age.

ortzinator, on what planet have you been living? You’re assigning fault to Palin & Yahoo? That’s akin to blaming the bank for a robbery. Even if you leave your key under the doormat, that doesn’t mean thieves are invited in to take whatever they want. It’s theft no matter how you slice it – there is no gray area whatsoever.