What is the United States of America?

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I heard Rush Linbaugh today say that he admires the moral view of religious people who see the world in black and white, right and wrong. According to Rush there is no gray. Your post reminds me of that. Utter BS."
************************************************** ******
Can anyone explain his chain of 'logic' to me?

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone explain his chain of 'logic' to me?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not ask me?

[ QUOTE ]
conservatives who want to maintain the culture of economic freedom

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think you're talking to? Please! Conservatives in this present administration want to preserve the culture of global economic monopoly of big business.

Simply voting the conservative party is not the way to improve this country and it's pretty clear you're going to anyway no matter what, regardless of what scum the RNC conjures up next to run for office. I find that to be ridiculous.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Voting for the LESSER of two evils is ridiculous?
I suppose I should vote for the GREATER of two evils.
Now, I find that to be ridiculous.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[dr_venkman]

The 'lesser of two evils' is the choice they give to people who can't think of a third of their own.

Someone with your handle ought to know more about this subject than you appear to.

[Felix_Nietsche]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think you're talking to? Please! Conservatives in this present administration want to preserve the culture of global economic monopoly of big business.



[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to American liberals who fight against corporate hegemony?

[dr_venkman]

I don't speak for Liberals so I don't know.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an argument for libertarianism, not conservatism. Conservatives believe the welfare state decreases motivation or fosters dependency; they're typically unsympthatheic to claims about social freedoms. What you're arguing for (more laissez-faire capitalism to foster indiviual freedom) is more Milton Friedman than Edmund Burke, so to speak; and while many refer to Friedman as a conservative, he was much more closely alligned with Neoliberalism than he was with classical conservatism.

This is just a point to exercise caution about political labels; I understand what you mean when you refer to yourself as a conservative, Felix; but if we put any value on heightened debate and intellectual honesty, than to refer to yourself as a conservative if you believe this to be true:

[ QUOTE ]
Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

is wrong. You're much more liberal than you give yourself credit for, IMO.

[Felix_Nietsche]

There are many defintions of liberal and conservative. Before arguing a position BOTH PARTIES must agree to the SAME defintions.

E.g. When I was in college, William F. Buckley (the headmaster of American conservatism) came to campus to debate conservatism v. liberalism (I forget whom he debated). The defintions that they agreed upon were roughly as follows:

Conservatism: the belief that countries benefit more from smaller less active govt.
Liberalism: the belief that countries benefit more from larger more active govt.
***These are the defintions I subscribe to***

To call someone 'conservative' or 'liberal' is an ECONOMIC way of communicating what their BASIC set of political belief. Obviously some people's politcal beliefs can be quite complicated but it can take HOURS of careful questioning to discover all their politcal beliefs. Fuh-get-about-it. Give me the big picture. Call yourself 'conservative', 'liberal', or perhaps an hybrid of both.

Some people try to argue the defintion of political conservatism is advocating the status quo.
I think this is silly because a person can become conservative one day and liberal the next depending on what laws are passed. If the govt passes a law for higher taxes and I want lower taxes, I now become a 'liberal' because I want to change the status quo. Good defintions never change.


"Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms."
*************************************************
It is a cliche' but money is power. If people keep more of their money via lower taxes then the people have more power. If the govt keeps more money thru higher taxes, then the govt has more power. The less power the govt has, the less they can control people's lives.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
I've Already Tried Voting Libertarian

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! -lot of good that did you, 'eh?

but, seriously, I'll take personal and social freedom over economic freedom any day- i think you have it backwards when you say that economic freedom leads to social freedom.

actually, one isn't much good without the others; life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (the original phrasing of that famous statement) are all irrevocably connected.