mom,

What you said was "I have the right to be protected from harm when reasonable protection is in place."



My point, in response to this statement is twofold: first, a fundamental element of a just society is a guarantee that everyone's rights are accorded. Therefore, if you have a right ot this, in a just society, you must be guaranteed it, QED.
Second, I make a point about the word 'reasonable'. What is reasonable to you is not necessarily the same as what is reasonable to someone else. The very word itself wholly relies on personal value judgement. You and I both would consider my examples of protection listed above to be unreasonable, but in the society you want, you and I amount to a fart in the wind as far as determining what the folks with jails and guns find reasonable. By relying on such squishy standards as 'reasonable', and 'appropriate' in a democracy, you are necessarily turning your prerogative to make these judgements for yourself over to the biggest mob your fellow citizens can muster -- or, worst case, the appointed headman of that mob.



It's all really a moot point anyhow, since you don't have a right to be protected from anything. You have the right to (try to) protect yourself, but that right imposes no obligations on others to do the protecting for you. When you feel the urge to state a right, think, at whose expense will I obtain this? Will another person have to surrender (not trade) their labor or property that I might enjoy this? Rights do not contradict.

I had to page back pretty far to figure out what everyone was doing, but I found it, and for what it's worth, here are my results:

#1 Centrist

#2 Neoconservative

#3 Conservative

#4 Libertarian

#5 Third Way

#6 Left-libertarian

#7 Liberal

#8 Radical

#9 Paleo-libertarian

#10 Paleoconservative

Those who are accused by Stonewall of being "Authoritarian" should note that Stonewall believes fervantly that the Republicans are secretly opposed to everything they profess to stand for, and are actually controlled be a secret cabal that has been attempting to establish fascistic control of the U.S. for over a century.

On 2002-07-12 07:57, firemind wrote:
Those who are accused by Stonewall of being "Authoritarian" should note that Stonewall believes fervantly that the Republicans are secretly opposed to everything they profess to stand for, and are actually controlled be a secret cabal that has been attempting to establish fascistic control of the U.S. for over a century.

Ahem,

argumentum ad hominem in action, folks! Y'know both Hitler and Osama said that 2+2=4!



The notion of an authoritarian-libertarian axis of political thought is fairly well established and recognized. Stone did not make it up, nor are his groupings mischaracterized. If you don't like the fact that you fall on the authoritarian side of the scale, stop trying to control people's lives. It's really quite easy.

On 2002-07-12 07:22, Justin '77 wrote:

On 2002-07-11 22:27, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-07-11 22:11, Justin '77 wrote:
I'd hate to think I wasted my time coming up with long posts for a cave-dwelling heliophobe...

Huh?

A Troll, woman!

Oh, I see. I thought you were referring to those who live in fear of a Heliotrope. :smile:

On 2002-07-12 08:09, Justin '77 wrote:


The notion of an authoritarian-libertarian axis of political thought is fairly well established and recognized. Stone did not make it up, nor are his groupings mischaracterized. If you don't like the fact that you fall on the authoritarian side of the scale, stop trying to control people's lives. It's really quite easy.

Since I came out in favor of drug legalization, against tarrifs, against gun registration, and in every other question that I remember answered in the Libertarian way, I think I am correct to dispute the Authoritarian label.

The problem is, Stonewall associates Conservatism and Neoconservatism with Authoritarianism, when practically no one else does. Thus, what I said was valid.

To be honest, despite what you say, there is unsufficent agreement as to what all these labels mean, so you cannot say with certainty that Stonewall is not mischaracterizing. I say he is.

In fact, no mainstream American political stripe can properly be denoted "Authoritarian". Americans are anti-authoritarian almost unanimously.

I note that the test (which, of course, incorporates its own assumptions) has no "Authoritarian" label. Stonewall has taken it upon himself to label people.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 08:30 ]</font>

On 2002-07-11 14:18, justmom wrote:

On 2002-07-11 12:19, David '47 wrote:

On 2002-07-11 10:48, justmom wrote:


...In the interest of hashing out ideas, I was wondering about (a moot point now because of vouchers?) God and schooling. I know there are many Christians who want to see prayer back in school. I would be happy to just have NO God in school. If we are going to swallow the line about 'separation of church and state'. Then lets go for it ALL way.

Schools should teach ONLY, Reading, Math, History, Science, Spelling, English and extra curricular Art and Music...

Do you think that there is some form of "God in school" that is contrary to your beliefs? And was the failure to include languages other than English intentional, or merely an oversight? I'm more than a little curious.

English was more or less an oversight. Initially I ment it like sentence stucture, grammer that type of thing.

Do you disapprove of studying literature? I guess I'm still a bit confused here.

... But, yes, a second language would be of great benefit. And I would prefer seeing the second language from very early grades, not starting in High School.

Here we agree completely. As a country, we tend to be much more xenophobic because we've selectively isolated ourselves from all but English speaking cultures.

As to your question " Do you think that there is some form of "God in school" that is contrary to your beliefs? ".
Yes, if you are willing to agree with me on this point- Religion is a basis of beliefs and values which believers of said religion try to live their life accordingly.-

Ah, a point of disagreement. Your definition is far too generic. That would be a fine definition of philosophy, which encompasses religion of course. But it also encompasses ethics, morality and logic, which are decidely NOT religions

If that is true, than I would like to make the point that Moral Relativism, and/or Secular Humanism is a form of religion.

Not that old saw again! I live in the land of Falwell, and that's a common position here. I've yet to hear a valid defense of that assertion, though. In fact, I think it even misses the cut as philosophy.

Moral Relativism teaches you can't judge anothers culture by your own. Or there is no right or wrong. This teaching is diametrically opposed to everything I believe. And it's being taught in school.

Teaching people to evaluate other cultures on terms other than ours merely forces a student to evaluate based on principal rather than prejudice. In no way does that mandate that a practice of any culture should get a passing grade just because it meets the criteria of that culture. But its equally true that practices that are essentially benign but very non-western are perfectly fine, even though ;they may seem strange to us.

From my perspective, almost all of the more fundamentalist religous cultures fail the test on the same basis - they rely on absolutes that are not verifiable to adopt practices that are immutable by definition. In a society like that, assigning the mantle of "godliness" to a practice makes opposing that practice virtual cultural suicide - no matter how repugnant it may be.

The only problem we have is sorting which practices belong in each category - a THOUGHT process!

As is, meditating to find your spirit guide. Which is introduced when children are taught about American Indians. My religion teaches that this is what you do if you want to open yourself up to demonic presence. So, you see how that can be a teaching opposing my beliefs. Also the California school system has a Social Studies book in the 7th grade curriculum which has 12 chapters... For 2 full months children are taught from 2 chapters on Islam. In these 2 months children memorize the Koran, take on a Islamic name, simulate Ramadan by fasting, memorize the 5 tennants of Islam, and more.

This sounds like studying "about" religion, rather advocating beliefs. Personally, I find that healthy. We should include all religions on the list, though. Sometimes Christianity is excluded simply because it is so ubiquitious that including it is considered absurd. That's no excuse.

Also a bill that passed the CA assembly last year or perhaps the year before, mandated that children will be taught sexual tolerance starting with 1st. grade... I know that one can certainly make the point this really doesn't have anything to do with God per se. What I am opposed to is that the schools are teaching about sex of any sort to children who are merely trying to figure out how to tie their shoe laces.

What is sexual tolerance? It soesn't sound like a sex ed kind of thing. More likely its "boys be nice to the girls, and girls, don't make fun of the boys". At that age, that's about all that's likely to be understood.

Also the refusal to teach absinence alongside of safe sex. I think teens of that age are certainly in for a lot of sexual pressure, but, I don't like the assumption that 'well they are going to do it anyway'. I say give them some ammuntion to say, No. Since they are shown "the safe way" to say , Yes.

I have yet to see the "just say no" approach work on anybody that truly <u>needs</u> to be dissuaded from an acitivity - regardless of what it is. That goes for teenagers in spades. Teens like to do what's cool, and THEY define cool - not adults. I have no problem including the "just say no" approach along with the "safe sex" approach. I strongly oppose relying on it completely.

My opinion might change if there's a culture shift, and teen sex becomes more of a TEEN taboo.

On 2002-07-12 08:20, firemind wrote:
Since I came out in favor of drug legalization, against tarrifs, against gun registration, and in every other question that I remember answered in the Libertarian way, I think I am correct to dispute the Authoritarian label.

Oh, yeah, I just remembered, I came out against regulation of gambling, too.

Yet, somehow, Justin and Stonewall says I'm for controlling people's lives.

Go figure. Who's irrationally labeling people? It ain't me, folks.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 08:34 ]</font>

"The notion of an authoritarian-libertarian axis of political thought is fairly well established and recognized. Stone did not make it up, nor are his groupings mischaracterized. If you don't like the fact that you fall on the authoritarian side of the scale, stop trying to control people's lives. It's really quite easy."

You know The Reform, Mr. Maroncelli; that thing Clinton vetoed three times, then signed ever so reluctantly, listening to his leftside kicking and screaming as he penned his named upon the dotted line. That thing now nearly six years old, hailed as a success ever so grudgingly by those who still hate it, loath it and despise the fact that it DEVOLVED so much power away from their greedy lusting fingertips.

Newt Gingrich was the author, I believe, of the The Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Was Newt, and the GOP-led, 104th Congress, in on the "authoritarian side of the scale," seeking "to control people's lives"?

And is it, as the 104th proved, "really quite easy", Mr. Maroncelli? Mr. Patton?

Yes, argumentum ad hominem, indeed!

Marc:

I seem to remember (though I could be wrong) that Newt was one of the Republicans Stonewall liked, along with Reagan.

I guess my analysis of Stonewall can be summed up by saying I consider him an anomaly.

Actually, that's not quite right. He has made it clear that there is a fringe but not negligable faction in America that, like I said, is convinced that the Republicans don't ACTUALLY believe what they say, and are REALLY all about increasing their power and control.

This is not abjectly ridiculous, and you will frequently hear some Republicans make essentially the same claim about Democrats.

What is anomolous is that he unincludes Reagan and (I think) Newt from this. Usually, if people hate the Republicans, they DESPISE Reagan and Newt.

How people vote is, of course, a better objective measure than what they say.

Still, I think it is unreasonable to portray Republicans as wanting to increase government control over people's lives when, as you point out, they frequently vote the opposite way.

To argue that said votes are an anomoly, and the real nature of the GOP (except for Reagan and Newt!) is to increase control, is what strikes me as, well, strange and anomolous.

But, like I said, apparently Stonewall is not alone. He seems to be getting a lot of his information from this Lew Rockwell guy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 08:46 ]</font>

The fact is, is that folks like Mr. Maroncelli and Mr. Patton, for all their powerful chestbeating, fancy left/right charts, and tools of language, merely are just too clean for the game of politics. And for them to remain clean, they must rise above the dirty fray of actual deed. Thus they invent the means of defining liberty and freedom so as to keep themselves above it all.

With great bravado they stand upon the sidelines, alternately laughing and screaming, with Declaration and Constitution in hand waving wildly at the players upon the field. They are the Monday morning quarterbacks full of scorn and ridicule for the bird-brained dumbass that dropped the ball the day before.

Funny, I have always thought of them as the real assholes, who wouldn't know how to score if their life depended on it. :smile:

On 2002-07-12 08:53, Marc Lamb wrote:


The fact is, is that folks like Mr. Maroncelli and Mr. Patton, for all their powerful chestbeating, fancy left/right charts, and tools of language, merely are just too clean for the game of politics. And for them to remain clean, they must rise above the dirty fray of actual deed. Thus they invent the means of defining liberty and freedom so as to keep themselves above it all.

With great bravado they stand upon the sidelines, alternately laughing and screaming, with Declaration and Constitution in hand waving wildly at the players upon the field. They are the Monday morning quarterbacks full of scorn and ridicule for the bird-brained dumbass that dropped the ball the day before.

Funny, I have always thought of them as the real assholes, who wouldn't know how to score if their life depended on it. :smile:

This is a vey good post.

In many different areas of human affairs, it commonly occurs that a given faction will expend more energy disputing and attacking the factions they are ideologically closest too, and not the ones that are their ideological opposites.

The Libertarians are frequently this way.

In my opinion, the tendency to spend more energy attacking those ideologically closest to you is a sign that you are really more interested in merely posing than in actually accomplishing anything. "Hey, look at me, I'm more free than you!"

Such "purists" can play a valuable role, but they can also be annoying sometimes. It takes all kinds, I guess.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 09:05 ]</font>

On 2002-07-11 15:03, justmom wrote:
Fantastic analysis Stonewall. I would hold hands with a Libertarian anyday. I will NEVER see eye to eye with a far left Liberal.

Surprise, surprise! Of course, Stonewall may have a serious problem with you anti-drug position.

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?" And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

I said "yes", and I've had the displeasure of dealing with an adult cocaine abuser, too. My reasons are three:

• As bad as cocaine use may be, there is no reason to tell a consenting adult that they must go to jail for doing this. That also applies to skydiving and other dagerous pursuits.
• By defining drug users as criminals, you fail to motivate them to address the problem as an addiction. I doubt there are many cops or judges qualified to provide drug rehab services, but I'll bet the medical community has resources. I'll also bet that drug users will avoid treatment if there's any possibility that they will get arrested.
• 90+% of the problems related to cocaine use are related to its illegal status, rather than to the drug itself. By defining drugs as "illegal", we have conspired to finance the most sophisticated crime syndicates of all time, to say nothing of the terrorist organizations that also use drugs as finacial instruments.

None of this argues for permitting children to use cocaine or any other drug - cigarettes and beer included!

Okay, I re-took the test... again...
I basically just changed the gambling question because I mis-interpreted it last time, and I answered some of the questions I said "not sure" about, and changed 1 or 2 of the other answers to "not sure".

1. Neo-Conservative
2. Centrist
3. Conservative
4. Libertarian
5. Third Way
6. Paleo-Libertarian
7. Liberal
8. Paleo-Conservative
9. Left-Libertarian
10. Radical

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlexMnWi on 2002-07-12 09:06 ]</font>

Geez, Alex, don't take Stonewall's admonitions so seriously that you gotta go retake the test again and again. Stonewall is a hard guy to satisfy. Unless you agree with him 98%, you're a lurking fascist.

I'm sure you're a great guy who would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the lovers of liberty if real tryanny threatened.

It's not like there was a question like "Do you believe it should be illegal to criticize the President?" Many of the questions were such that reasonable freedom-loving Americans could disagree. The questions are designed to split hairs between a population that is remarkably in agreement about a lot (but not all) of the big questions.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 09:20 ]</font>

Talk about opening a can of worms, how about popping open a can of synthetic polio virus. I must conclude from this that a daunting new day has dawned, a 4T kind of day. And I must confess that science opened this damned door, or the can, and got us into this predicament. Religion alone is not capable of such enormous mischief. But those ?evil doers? certainly are religious enough to play along with technology.

There will be no defense against an attack of engineered viruses, brewed in some nerd?s basement, just like the virtual ones. HIV move over, here comes a batch of tricked out monsters, eating anything they please.

Please, consider the magnitude of this ?accomplishment.? It?s a worrisome thing. And it was predicted.

I took the test, but this time I did it two ways. First I answered based on how I *feel* about the issues:

#1 Libertarian
#2 Paleoconservative
#3 Left-libertarian
#4 Radical
#5 Neoconservative
#6 Centrist
#7 Paleo-libertarian
#8 Conservative
#9 Liberal
#10 Third Way

This time I took it based on what I *believe*:

#1 Liberal
#2 Radical
#3 Third Way
#4 Neoconservative
#5 Centrist
#6 Paleoconservative
#7 Left-libertarian
#8 Conservative
#9 Libertarian
#10 Paleo-libertarian

Interesting eh?

On 2002-07-12 09:10, firemind wrote:
Geez, Alex, don't take Stonewall's admonitions so seriously that you gotta go retake the test again and again. Stonewall is a hard guy to satisfy. Unless you agree with him 98%, you're a lurking fascist.

I'm sure you're a great guy who would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the lovers of liberty if real tryanny threatened.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 09:10 ]</font>

Stonewall didn't tell me to re-take it; someone brought up one of the questions, and I thought of it differently because I mis-interpreted it the first time so I re-took it.

On 2002-07-12 09:15, Croaker'39 wrote:

Talk about opening a can of worms, how about popping open a can of synthetic polio virus.

Yes, this is an interesting development.

We could eliminate every last smallpox virus, but as long as its DNA sequence was known, somebody could potentially recreate it.

As with any other technology, genetics can be used for good and ill. We have no choice but to figure out how best to deal with it. Life is hard.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 09:28 ]</font>

On 2002-07-12 04:20, Tristan Jones wrote:

Hannity is a pure right wing nut.

No, he is a hardcore Kool-Aid drinker. Today he spends all his time condemning "right-wing nuts" for not lying prostrate before our lord and savior George W. Bush. And he used to be a good guy with an independent and more liberatarian take. In fact he USED to be what you would consider a "right-wing nut." But that all changed in 1999 and 2000 when this Bush puppet was thrust forward. Hannity and these other "conservative" commentators suddenly underwent "spiritual transformations" of some sort such that George W. Bush was exalted as the next Reagan and the culmination of (and Gray Champion after) decades of conservative effort when it was unambiguously clear that Junior was a stuttering, stammering idiot and would be the third Bush (Clinton was the second Bush because the real agenda has been 100% consistent since the late '80s, and it has not been the "conservative" agenda). These commentators were and are utterly shameless. But what on earth did the Bush people use to spark this "spiritual transformation" in them? Was there green stuff involved? Weird....

That said, Hannity is really not a bad guy though. He does not try to create a false reality for his audience on the radio. Although he propagandizes incessantly for the fraudulence in the White House, he does not try to prevent true conservative critics from getting through on the phone (I don't listen to him very often so I am assuming that he takes these calls all the time rather than once a month or something). On the other hand, that flatulent fraud Limbaugh will not even let the critics through on the phone as he deliberately paints a false reality for his audience in the fine tradition of Joseph Goebbels. If one should get past the call screener, then the Flatulent One immediately cuts them off and calls them a "seminar caller" from the Democratic National Committee. He has absolutely no respect for the truth and, like the master Machiavellian scumbag and con man that he is, coldly, cruelly, and so hypocritically exploits the weaknesses of his audience to further his ends which for some reason just happen to be those of the fraudulence in the White House.

So where Limbaugh really is the basest sort of user of his fellow man and just a degenerate scumbag, Hannity really is not a bad guy...because he does not treat his audience like putty in his hands or even garbage. But it is still profoundly disappointing that he went from an independent, principled, and actually more libertarian commentator to a cheerleader for the fraudulence in the White House, contradicting everything he ever stood for in the past. But then "conservative" commentators down the line "transformed" themselves in this way through 1999 and 2000 with very few exceptions. It is really weird and really tragic for this country.

On 2002-07-12 07:14, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-07-11 23:23, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-11 22:47, AlexMnWi wrote:

Okay, I took it again re-interpreting some of the questions and this is what I got:

1. Neo-Conservative
2. Conservative
3. Centrist
4. Third Way
5. Liberal
6. Libertarian
7. Paleo-Conservative
8. Radical
9. Paleo-Libertarian
10. Left-Libertarian

Dude, you are just completely Authoritarian. You picked up all the Authoritarian factions right and left before you even set foot on the Libertarian side of the board. The Authoritarian Right quadrant is your home base and the Authoritarian Left is your meld. I suspect that this will turn out to be fairly representative of Millies.

Of course, you must note that I am not a communist or a socialist, in the sense that "centrist" was #3 on my list.

No, but the results suggest that you would work with authoritarian Leftists who have the potential to be communists before you would work with "small government" types who honor the Founding Fathers.

On 2002-07-12 07:57, firemind wrote:
Those who are accused by Stonewall of being "Authoritarian" should note that Stonewall believes fervantly that the Republicans are secretly opposed to everything they profess to stand for, and are actually controlled be a secret cabal that has been attempting to establish fascistic control of the U.S. for over a century.

You are tiresome and inherently dishonest...just a scumbag supporting fellow scumbags who simply says "f' you" to his fellow man. I believe no such thing and have never said any such thing. All I have ever said is that we have had the same unambiguous human garbage in control for the past 15 years, specifically a "free" trade elite exercising control through Bush, Clinton, and Bush, continually wresting our sovereignty through blatantly unconstitutional "agreements" like GATT, NAFTA, WTO, FTAA.... It is frankly pretty obvious. But I am sure that you being the sympathetic-to-the-elite scumbag that you have revealed yourself to be will heed no dictates of consience to be honest and will continue to mischaracterize me or anybody else who opposes this unambiguous human garbge. The truth is your worst enemy.

On 2002-07-12 09:34, Stonewall Patton wrote:
[Hannity] is a hardcore Kool-Aid drinker...
.
.
.
That said, Hannity is really not a bad guy though....

I wouldn't have though a "hardcore Kool-Aid drinker" could be "not a bad guy, though."

Shows what little I know. I obviously have much to learn about the mysteries of Stonewallism.

(Maybe this means I'M not such a bad guy, too.)

On 2002-07-12 09:50, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I believe no such thing and have never said any such thing.

Geez, Stonewall, if I am mistaken I apologize, but you really surprise me. I am quite certain you HAVE said exactly this before.

How do you distinguish between believing that "the Republicans are controlled be a secret cabal that has been attempting to establish fascistic control of the U.S.", and what you just said about an evil elite?

You have written a lot on this forum, and I am sure anyone could find words you have written that back up my statement.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 09:58 ]</font>

On 2002-07-12 08:20, firemind wrote:

Since I came out in favor of drug legalization, against tarrifs, against gun registration, and in every other question that I remember answered in the Libertarian way, I think I am correct to dispute the Authoritarian label.

The problem is, Stonewall associates Conservatism and Neoconservatism with Authoritarianism, when practically no one else does. Thus, what I said was valid.

To be honest, despite what you say, there is unsufficent agreement as to what all these labels mean, so you cannot say with certainty that Stonewall is not mischaracterizing. I say he is.

Oh, of course you do. We are talking about consolidated governmental power versus decentralized governmental power; top-down control versus bottom-up control. The desire to consolidate governmental power so as to rule people from the top-down is Authoritarian. The desire to decentralize governmental power so that people cannot be ruled (such that they are their own rulers) is Anti-Authoritarian or Libertarian. That is all the chart represents and this difference is clear. And, yes, neo-cons and conservatives (defined as Bush-type mercantilists/corporatists) are elitists who seek to consolidate governmental power (and have been doing so ravenously of late) in order to rule everybody else from the top-down. They are Authoritarian.

No man is born a master and no man is born a slave. Neo-cons and Bush-type conservatives (mercantilists/corporatists) know this but it does not deter them in any way. No, of course they would not wish to be ruled arbitrarily by some other mere mortal. But that does not stop them from ruling everybody else arbitrarily. They must be special. Either that or they are scumbags.