toldailytopic: Liberal vs. Conservative. Where and why do you stand?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skavau

New member
Are you really so stupid as to assume I meant to say sexual perversion is the only reason empires fall?

No, but you implied it as one of the reasons. The point is of course is that your position has no consistency in history and remains completely unfalsifiable. I have no reason to believe it is true.
 

Newman

New member
I want a government SO small that I can flay it alive, THEN drop it in acid.

I'm hard to pin down. I don't trust regulators (they're usually evil power-hungry thugs) but I don't trust the private sector's fat cats either (they're also evil, power-hungry thugs). They even wear the same uniform, the bureaucrat and the boss and the regulator and the would-be petty tyrant.

In short, every political position of mine can be derived of complete lack of trust towards authority.

I vote "least fascist viable political candidate".

Either anti-authoritarian liberals who oppose the war on drugs and assaults on free speech or anti-authoritarian conservatives who defend the Second Amendment and the people's right to employ themselves without stumbling through miles of red tape.

I like this guy.

I thought anarcho-syndicalism was a leftist take on anarchism that pushed for labor forces to unite and rule. I could be wrong. I'm not very good with my anarcho-"blanks", except for capitalism.

Do you like Ron Paul and what he stands for?
 

Nydhogg

New member
I like this guy.

I thought anarcho-syndicalism was a leftist take on anarchism that pushed for labor forces to unite and rule. I could be wrong. I'm not very good with my anarcho-"blanks", except for capitalism.

Do you like Ron Paul and what he stands for?

Actually it's a leftist form of anarchism, but there's no "rule" there to speak of. I've also been influenced by agorism, though, and I take sort of a middle ground between the two :p.

As for Ron Paul:

- I don't like his pro-life stance. And his proposal to jurisdiction-strip the SCOTUS is boneheaded, it might result on killing the check of judicial review and we'd all be screwed.

- The gold standard (any standard really) is a step on the right direction, but he's not yet understood the evils of the money monopoly.

- He opposes the War on Drugs. Good. I support that position fully.

- He's pro-gun and takes a hardliner stance on the Bill of Rights. Good.

- He's a non-interventionist. Good.



Overall I like the guy, but I can't support someone that would eliminate judicial review (his infamous "We the People Act") to save a bunch of fetuses. A bunch of babies, even all the babies in the world, are not worth a single one of my rights.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Actually both the Japanese and Chinese empires lasted far longer. Neither was Christian, and neither had the christian hang ups with sexuality.

Chinese? You joking? Far more repressed than we are. Japanese, not so much. But then not so long-lived, either. The Chinese civilization recently surpassed the Egyptian civilization for the longevity record.
 

Nydhogg

New member
Chinese? You joking? Far more repressed than we are. Japanese, not so much. But then not so long-lived, either. The Chinese civilization recently surpassed the Egyptian civilization for the longevity record.

I'm not speaking about the Japanese civilization, but the Japanese Empire. It outlasted the Byzantine one (300s-1400s versus (313-2010).

Japanese culture as we know it lasted from the 700s to now.


The Egyptians were also notably sexually licentious. Their civilization didn't collapse because of it. Their problem? They got rich and lazy and too used to bribing invaders instead of maintaining independence. Thus, their invaders eventually took the nuclear option and invaded them,


Both Byzantium by a long shot.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
No, but you implied it as one of the reasons. The point is of course is that your position has no consistency in history and remains completely unfalsifiable. I have no reason to believe it is true.
It can be one of the reasons, if it is present. But if an empire falls and it is not present, then it is clear the reason was something else entirely. But you are too stupid to actually reason that all out.
 

csuguy

Well-known member
Politics is corrupt and there are better things to spend my time on - why bother with the left wing or the right wing? I say let them do their thing and I'll do mine.
 

Newman

New member
Politics is corrupt and there are better things to spend my time on - why bother with the left wing or the right wing? I say let them do their thing and I'll do mine.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but their thing necessarily imposes limitations on your thing.
 

csuguy

Well-known member
Well, I hate to break it to you, but their thing necessarily imposes limitations on your thing.

I don't mind appropriate government limitations. If they go beyond moral bounds in limiting me - I will simply ignore them. If necessary, I'll go to another country. There is nothing special about this country that I should have any loyalty to it, nor any other country.
 

Tyrathca

New member
I don't mind appropriate government limitations. If they go beyond moral bounds in limiting me - I will simply ignore them.
The problem is people's opinions differ on what is appropriate and what the moral bounds are.
If necessary, I'll go to another country. There is nothing special about this country that I should have any loyalty to it, nor any other country.
This assumes that there exists a country which does not suffer the same issues as the one one you leave. Thus leaving might not solve anything.
 

csuguy

Well-known member
The problem is people's opinions differ on what is appropriate and what the moral bounds are.

It's not a problem - I can gauge for myself what is morally permissibly. Everyone has to judge this for themselves. If they find that the government has overstepped these bounds, they can go with either of the two options I suggested.

Of course, the course of action you would take would depend upon the specifics of what you are talking about. I am concerned with Christianity, the study and practice thereof. Politics and Christianity don't go together, and I choose to align myself with Christianity.

This assumes that there exists a country which does not suffer the same issues as the one one you leave. Thus leaving might not solve anything.

If leaving won't solve the problem then I go with the earlier solution: ignore the immoral demands of the government and continue on my merry way.
 

Skavau

New member
It can be one of the reasons, if it is present. But if an empire falls and it is not present, then it is clear the reason was something else entirely. But you are too stupid to actually reason that all out.

Except I already knew that was what you believed. I even said it in the post of mine you just quoted. Your position though still has no relevance in reality and is unfalsifiable.
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
- I am for the death penalty (executing those guilty of capital crimes).
- I am pro-life (protecting those that are innocent).
- I support limited government.
- I support the right to protect oneself.
- I oppose legalizing sexual perversion.
- I oppose legalizing recreational drugs.
- I support homeschooling.

I suppose that makes me a staunch conservative.

You can't really support "limited" government while at the same time wanting to ban nonviolent actions like "Sexual perversion" and drugs.

You've got your wishlist on one of the two (drugs) and it has left us with the highest prison population in the world, and a mass police state that would never have been dreamed of by our forefathers, who did not see fit to ban drugs. In fact, drugs weren't banned until 1914, by which point progressive nuthead Wilson was in power. Thanks a lot. Nixon made this problem even worse.

Absolutely agree with you on protecting the unborn, but that's kind of in a class by itself. Abortion is wrong because its murder. It kills another human being, and therefore, any legitimate government should not allow that. I believe that homosexuality, prostitution, marijuana, hard drugs, pornography, fornication, adultery, exc. (No deliberate order here) are all immoral, but none of these actions aggress against other people so no limited government should ban any of them.

Actually it's a leftist form of anarchism, but there's no "rule" there to speak of. I've also been influenced by agorism, though, and I take sort of a middle ground between the two :p.

As for Ron Paul:

- I don't like his pro-life stance. And his proposal to jurisdiction-strip the SCOTUS is boneheaded, it might result on killing the check of judicial review and we'd all be screwed.

- The gold standard (any standard really) is a step on the right direction, but he's not yet understood the evils of the money monopoly.

- He opposes the War on Drugs. Good. I support that position fully.

- He's pro-gun and takes a hardliner stance on the Bill of Rights. Good.

- He's a non-interventionist. Good.



Overall I like the guy, but I can't support someone that would eliminate judicial review (his infamous "We the People Act") to save a bunch of fetuses. A bunch of babies, even all the babies in the world, are not worth a single one of my rights.

Even if you're pro-choice, if you're an anarchist or even a limited government libertarian you should agree with Ron Paul on this issue. The enemy of liberty, whether you are an anarchist or even support limited government, is a massive, centralized government. You shouldn't be supporting the Federal government (A higher level of government, and a more powerful one) telling the states (A lower, less powerful government) what to do, it just makes the problem worse. The Bill of Rights was designed to limit Federal power, it wasn't intended to apply to the state level at all.

For the record, I am pro-life, I believe abortion is ethically equivalent to murder (I believe the same about aggressive war, for the record) and I believe that constitutionally the only government with the legal authority to ban and punish murder is the state government. Ron Paul is absolutely correct on this one and it is completely appropriate to take a power from the courts that they ought not to have in the first place, either constittuionally or morally.
 

WizardofOz

New member
chart


Let's bump this thread. I challenge others to post their results of either this, or any other political compass quiz. :thumb:

Political Compass
 

WizardofOz

New member
chart


Let's bump this thread. I challenge others to post their results of either this, or any other political compass quiz. :thumb:

Political Compass

I'd like to see [MENTION=13925]Grosnick Marowbe[/MENTION] post his results. He is the most interesting man on TOL after all. I've also asked [MENTION=13737]aCultureWarrior[/MENTION] to do the same in the past but he never got around to it (that I recall).

What do you say? I'm curious how far in the blue fringe you would be. :think:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Nice trick question right from the start
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top