Farewell Poopsmith

[Huayna Capac357]

I don't consider food safety to be authoritarianc (I mean, if the food was marked by saying "Includes X, Y, and Z toxins then it should be allowed, but nobody is going to do that, and the right to be informed is an absolutely libertarian concept), but gun control absolutely is, and is actually a textbook example of why liberals are more authoritarian than conservatives (Generally speaking) in the US.

Gay marriage "bans" aren't really authoritarian at all, its actually less time being spent by government to recognize a social institution.

Food safety is an example of how if maximum liberty were applied it would have an undesirable outcome. That's why I included it.

As for gun control, I will concede that the liberal position is the more "authoritarian" one. However, how do a handful of positions on which liberals are authoritarian (if you wish to use the term) lead to them being moreso than conservatives? On almost all issues, from women's rights to gay rights to free speech to civil liberties, conservatives are more authoritarian.

And gay marriage bans are in fact authoritarian; they deprive a certain group of liberty.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's kind of backward in the USA. Here, the term "liberal" actually refers to the worst kind of authoritarian...

What kind is that? My instinct is to say "fascists", but I admit that I have certain biases in that regard, so perhaps you'd be able to elaborate?

...and the true conservatives are trying to conserve classical liberalism

If they're classical liberals then they're not "true conservatives". That's a contradiction in terms.

And yeah, this. "The worst kind of authoritarian" is unfair because there are, ya know, actual dictatorships. But those CAN'T exist in a Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

 

[Arakhor]

The liberal idea of equality is much like "I love all of you the same; I hate you all." Authoritarianism in equal doces for all citizens is still authoritarian.

Didn't you say that if someone wasn't a Christian, you weren't interested in listening to them talk about Christianity? Why are you doing the same with respect to "liberals"?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Food safety is an example of how if maximum liberty were applied it would have an undesirable outcome. That's why I included it.

Not necessarily though. As I said, the right to be informed as to what you're buying does exist.

As for gun control, I will concede that the liberal position is the more "authoritarian" one. However, how do a handful of positions on which liberals are authoritarian (if you wish to use the term) lead to them being moreso than conservatives? On almost all issues, from women's rights to gay rights to free speech to civil liberties, conservatives are more authoritarian.

There are a lot of issues where liberals are more authoritarian.

Conservatives don't oppose women's rights, they oppose what they feel is akin to murder.

Gay rights can be a valid point, depending on conservative. But most American "Liberals" aren't too concerned with that one either.

Free speech? Conservatives are ABSOLUTELY better in that regard. Liberals are the ones who (Tend to) support hate speech laws.

Civil Liberties... that's true regarding a very specific type of conservative, but the more libertarian-leaning ones, even if not outright libertarians, decry atrocities like the USA PATRIOT Act that put all good conservatives to shame.

And gay marriage bans are in fact authoritarian; they deprive a certain group of liberty

Since when is government condoning of your lifestyle a right?

Didn't you say that if someone wasn't a Christian, you weren't interested in listening to them talk about Christianity? Why are you doing the same with respect to "liberals"?

It wasn't that they were talking to me about Christianity, it was that they were telling me what I believe. Which isn't what I'm doing. I'm pointing out things that liberals do admit, they just downplay them.

 

[Leoreth]

Gay marriage "bans" aren't really authoritarian at all, its actually less time being spent by government to recognize a social institution.

If you define authoritarianism only by how much the government is doing, I see how you arrive at such stupid conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

Don't bother, he's clearly doing his "if there's a dictator it's not a real Republic" circular logic again. You know, because the word Republic encapsulates all that is great and desirable about a state.

@Ghostwriter:
Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as a conservative libertarian.

 

[Arakhor]

It wasn't that they were talking to me about Christianity, it was that they were telling me what I believe. Which isn't what I'm doing. I'm pointing out things that liberals do admit, they just downplay them.

Well, you like judging everyone and everything by your specific, very limited brand of Christianity and applying that to all Christians worldwide, so I guess that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, eh?

 

[Traitorfish]

GhostWriter, I hate to do this, but please tell us: who was that it had Hitler appointed Chancellor of Germany, the conservatives or the Social Democrats?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Don't bother, he's clearly doing his "if there's a dictator it's not a real Republic" circular logic again. You know, because the word Republic encapsulates all that is great and desirable about a state.

He's actually technically right. I made an error by not typing "Constitutional" Republic. My fault.

@Ghostwriter:
Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as a conservative libertarian.

Ron Paul. Granted, there is such thing as a liberal libertarian as well, but those generally hang out on the far left. I can't conceive of a libertarian social democrat, primarily since they use the prisoner of libertarianism, the state, as a weapon to do all their dirty work.

GhostWriter, I hate to do this, but please tell us: who was that it had Hitler appointed Chancellor of Germany, the conservatives or the Social Democrats?

I don't know who made him chancellor. Hitler wasn't conservative or liberal however. To describe Hitler as either left-wing or right-wing is useless.

 

[Leoreth]

He's actually technically right. I made an error by not typing "Constitutional" Republic. My fault.

Following TF's argument: Weimar Germany had a constitution.

Ron Paul. Granted, there is such thing as a liberal libertarian as well, but those generally hang out on the far left. I can't conceive of a libertarian social democrat, primarily since they use the prisoner of libertarianism, the state, as a weapon to do all their dirty work.

What makes him particularly conservative? To me, Paul is a libertarian, period.

I don't know who made him chancellor.

Better stop your sentence after admitting your ignorance.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Since when is government condoning of your lifestyle a right?

Well, at the very least, not condoning of it is authoritarian. No one was debating whether it was a right.

Though I do think it is a right

 

[useless]

Ron Paul is a bigoted racist, who would ban abortion and gay marriage if he had his chance.

 

[Traitorfish]

He's actually technically right. I made an error by not typing "Constitutional" Republic. My fault.

Caesar assumed the role of dictator legally, under the provisions made for that position in Roman constitutional law. There had been a number of previous dictators in the Roman Republic; Caesar was exceptional only in that he surpassed the customary term of six months.

I don't know who made him chancellor.

Well, it was the conservatives, which should have been a wee bitty obvious given that he had all the leading Social Democrats exiled or murdered. (Don't they teach this stuff in the US?) Point being, this line which you draw between conservatism and how tholl nuvah teyk oor freedooooooooooooom isn't particularly consistent with the historical record.

Hitler wasn't conservative or liberal however. To describe Hitler as either left-wing or right-wing is useless.

No, he was right-wing. Nothing about the practice or theory of the National Socialists represented a fundamental departure from the existing European far-right. If it had, the established far-right probably wouldn't have fallen wholly in step behind the regime.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What makes him particularly conservative? To me, Paul is a libertarian, period.

That's actually refreshing, since more people (Wrongly) argue that he's not libertarian than that he's not conservative.

That said, conservative-libertarian tends to be a mixture of both, as opposed to purely libertarians who have no trace of social conservatism. There's a bit of overlap.

Ron Paul is a bigoted racist, who would ban abortion and gay marriage if he had his chance.

G-Max's hyperbole looks like almost zero in comparison...

First of all, since when is banning abortion or gay marriage "Bigoted"?

 

[useless]

His newsletters make it clear that he believes gay people are sub-human scum.

Is banning inter-racial marriage bigoted/racist?
If you think it is racist, then why isn't it bigoted/homophobic/Heterosexist (RIP VRWC) to ban gay marriage?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

First of all, since when is banning abortion or gay marriage "Bigoted"?

Banning gay marriage is bigoted because it seeks to deprive one group of people a right simply based on negative beliefs about that group.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, but bigotry is Bad, and Ron Paul is Good, therefore Ron Paul can't be a bigot. Maths, see?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Banning gay marriage is bigoted because it seeks to deprive one group of people a right simply based on negative beliefs about that group.

Like biological differences in the sex act?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Like biological differences in the sex act?

So marriage is about entirely about sex? Okay asexuals and infertile people. You can't marry now.

 

[Traitorfish]

Like biological differences in the sex act?

Marraige isn't about sex, unless you're bigoted against asexual people.



Not that it would surprise me if Ron Paul was.

 

[useless]

What does that have to do with depriving people of their rights?