Originally posted by Darth Jello
So you just comment without context and create arguments that aren't there because it entertains you to act like a smartass and create conflict. Wow, the mod was right, you are an idiot.
So, you think a mod personally attacked me? Interesting. Personal attacks are against the rules, and now you are accusing a mod of personally attacked me? I think what is really going on is you are filled with hate and would like to personally attack me any chance you get.
You should put me on your ignore list. You will suffer less.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
or I could just report you for a long history of launching personal attacks, going off topic, creating needless conflict etc. That would be fine too.
I have never personally attacked you. I have only attacked your ideas.
I did not go off topic. You only had a problem with me not reading your posts.
I am not the person causing trouble or conflict.
Re: How big a part is religion to the conservative ideology?
Originally posted by KidRock
Do you believe there can be conservatives in the United States that hold no religious beliefs? Or do you feel it's an intricate part of the ideology?
Yes, there certainly is; unfortunately for conservatives, the Religious (whack-job) Right has deeply entrenched itself with the Conservative ideal.
What's worse, these "conservatives" aren't really conservatives, they want to ass-mangle the Constitution to include Jesus, certain cherry-picked Christian ideals, [constitutionally] declare what is and isn't marrige and a bunch of other non-conservative nonsense.
In short: They make Jefferson and the other framers of the US cry.
Re: How big a part is religion to the conservative ideology?
Originally posted by KidRockCertainly. Like Robtard said, the Christian Right aren't real conservatives in the first place.
Do you believe there can be conservatives in the United States that hold no religious beliefs? Or do you feel it's an intricate part of the ideology?
However, I see no difference between theoratic politics and secular politics. Both are based on presuppositions that an over arching entity(God, or the Union) holds authority over a population of people, neither of which can prove that they do, or even exist.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Even on finances he is not as conservative as the ideas I associate with that title.
He's an anarch(ocapital)ist, is that not the ultimate end of conservative economic theory? Obviously it conflicts with Republican ideology but that's not the be all and end all of conservatism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's an anarch(ocapital)ist, is that not the ultimate end of conservative economic theory? Obviously it conflicts with Republican ideology but that's not the be all and end all of conservatism.
Re: Re: How big a part is religion to the conservative ideology?
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
However, I see no difference between theoratic politics and secular politics. Both are based on presuppositions that an over arching entity(God, or the Union) holds authority over a population of people, neither of which can prove that they do, or even exist.
Erm, a union exists so long as people are working together toward a common goal. So long as a government exists a form of union exists. As for it's authority, that exists because it is given by the people to that group. You could argue that it doesn't deserve authority but that's about it. Or you could leave, which would fit much better with an ideology that opposes working with others.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's an anarch(ocapital)ist, is that not the ultimate end of conservative economic theory? Obviously it conflicts with Republican ideology but that's not the be all and end all of conservatism.
It depends on whether or not the concept of property is defined as the ultimate arbitrator of decision making. The way I see conservatism, i is that it is protectionist in nature and defends the rights of countries ultimately over the rights of property. Anarcho capitalism is the ultimate result of Ayn Rands Objectionism.
Re: Re: Re: How big a part is religion to the conservative ideology?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm, a union exists so long as people are working together toward a common goal. So long as a government exists a form of union exists. As for it's authority, that exists because it is given by the people to that group. You could argue that it doesn't deserve authority but that's about it. Or you could leave, which would fit much better with an ideology that opposes working with others.
Whether or not X deserves authority is pretty much what political discourse is about. Unfortunately, taxation doesn't allow us the choice of whether or not we have a "most perfect union".
Re: Re: Re: Re: How big a part is religion to the conservative ideology?
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Whether or not X deserves authority is pretty much what political discourse is about. Unfortunately, taxation doesn't allow us the choice of whether or not we have a "most perfect union".
Nothing prevents you from making a new one. Founding a new government is an unregulated market (your only competition is other governments who in this case are simply "companies"😉, lots of people have done it and are still doing it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I really just haven't seen him come out strongly for conservative ideas.
that is because your definition of conservatism is probably closer to that of neo-conservatism
the other reason is probably because I try to be more of a pragmatist than a radical. I'm way of the scale to the right, and advocating the disassembling of the state because it doesn't have the right to rule people does little to promote human standards of living.
I'm also much more of a Burke Conservative, where I feel progressive change is both necessary and inevitable, but that such change must come over time and with the greatest care, rather than with sweeping reform. I think most things need to change, but I understand that radical change is worse than the status quo.
I guess since I'm already in the rant: On the extremes, the rhetoric of the right and the left can become very similar. The distinction I prefer is that of individual vs collective rights. One of the best examples might be the legalization of marijuana. From my experience, liberals are more likely to make arguments referring to the health effects and potential social and economic bonuses from legalizing the drug (I would almost characterize it as asking permission for something from the government, thereby empowering a central authority) whereas conservatives more often make arguments about the rights of the state to prevent people from doing something (which I would characterize as restricting the power of a central authority), the former using rhetoric of society, the latter of the individual.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
It depends on whether or not the concept of property is defined as the ultimate arbitrator of decision making. The way I see conservatism, i is that it is protectionist in nature and defends the rights of countries ultimately over the rights of property. Anarcho capitalism is the ultimate result of Ayn Rands Objectionism.
in your definition, conservatism is about enhancing the right of the state at the expense of the individual then?
Are you saying this is what Rand would have suggested also?
Originally posted by inimalist
in your definition, conservatism is about enhancing the right of the state at the expense of the individual then?Are you saying this is what Rand would have suggested also? [/B]
Ultimately, yes. Conservatives think of the state like the steward and watchmen of people's property and their livlihood(Freedom, security, property).
Ayn Rand saw free markets and states as totally inseparable, and dependant on each other for sucess. She hated anarchism.