Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?Page 4 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

The idea of giving individuals the greatest amount of freedom is a morally superior concept over having the nanny state influence our lives from womb to tomb. Conservatives and the founding fathers promoted the former, liberals the latter.


So...let's apply your values to the abortion issue. Would you interpret individual freedom to encompass a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body, or would it support a fetus' right to become an individual who would get to enjoy all those freedoms?

Does that include gay couple's freedom to marry? A student's right to not have prayer imposed in school, and to learn about evolution, birth control, the human role in climate change, and all other mainstream science concepts?

Does freedom include freedom to negatively impact others?

One could argue that the term 'liberal' implies individual freedom, while 'conservative' implies restraint. Certainly many who call themselves conservative deny a woman's right to choose, gay's right to marry, student's rights as outlined above, and many other things that could be argued might be included in a list of potential individual freedoms.

Personally I've felt more of a 'nanny' influence from those who embrace the 'conservative' moniker than from those who term themselves 'liberal'. But regardless, I've never heard anyone promote a nanny state, whether liberal or conservative. I've only heard it thrown out as an accusation, not a cherished value.

And if greatest amount of individual freedom DOES include the right to negatively impact others, whether blatantly by molesting or attacking someone, or less aggressively via harassment, racism, sexism, or polluting, I think a strong moral argument could be made for limiting those particular freedoms.

But I also acknowledge that the arguments on the other side often come from those who feel deeply moralistic. And I think both sides can come up with ample examples of past conservative or liberal practices that didn't work out too well.

At their core, I view liberals as aggressively promoting what they view to be positive change, and conservatives cherishing traditional practices. Both perspectives have their place, and I say again that neither is morally superior.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/28/2011 10:10:28 AM

Would you interpret individual freedom to encompass a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body


It makes no difference what anyone here would interpret individual freedom to include. What counts is whether the Constitution can reasonably be read to protect a right to abortion from being infringed too far by state law. I don't think it's even a close call, if you apply the Supreme Court's test for fundamental rights--which, incidentally, it never bothered to apply in Roe.

The Court itself doesn't claim abortion is a fundamental right. And if it's NOT one, 14th Amendment due process sure as he!! does not guarantee it against state governments. If most Americans want to federalize abortion, let them amend the Constitution to allow that. Better than having the Court make up a tall tale to justify the unjustifiable.


Does that include gay couple's freedom to marry? A student's right to not have prayer imposed in school, and to learn about evolution, birth control, the human role in climate change, and all other mainstream science concepts?


You're ignoring a very basic point. Unless something in the Constitution makes any of these things a matter of federal law, what people want to do about them matters only when they're debating their own state's laws. Even a majority doesn't get to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to suit its moral views. If that many feel that strongly about something, let them propose an amendment.


Certainly many who call themselves conservative deny a woman's right to choose, gay's right to marry, student's rights as outlined above, and many other things that could be argued might be included in a list of potential individual freedoms.


This conservative believes any of those rights is subject to the will of the majority in each state, to be recognized unconditionally, with certain conditions, or not at all. The 14th Amendment doesn't say states can't deprive people of their liberties. It just says they can't do it without due process of law. Marriage, for example, is a fundamental liberty, but that doesn't mean a state can't refuse to recognize a man's marriage to his sister.


I think a strong moral argument could be made for limiting those particular freedoms.


We already do that through criminal laws. Some of them can deprive a person not only of his liberty, but of his life.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 78
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/28/2011 10:02:31 PM
Well, to a small boy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/28/2011 10:22:08 PM
Of course opinions "make a difference" in this discussion, as that's precisely what the topic is about.


It's obvious I was not talking about *all* opinions on the subject of this thread, which is what you're implying. I was responding to what a poster had said about certain specific subjects. What I was challenging was the notion that people who aren't willing to concoct new constitutional rights--i.e. conservatives--are not as sympathetic to individual freedoms as those who are. Exactly the opposite is true.

Assume just for a minute that fifty million Americans thought there should be a constitutional right to incest. So what? If the Constitution in fact doesn't recognize and protect any such right, what they thought would only matter if they were trying to amend it.

If you're talking about state issues, it's a whole different ball game, and the opinion of every voter in the state means something. The majority makes the laws. So, if the majority in a state chose to make incestuous marriages legal, I don't know why it couldn't.

But that's a lot different from claiming the Constitution demands that every other state do the same. What about the votes of the majority that disagreed? Voting is as fundamental an individual right as we have. Or maybe, for the enlightened, liberal advocates for individual rights, the only rights to be protected are the one they've cooked up for groups they sympathize with.


This isn't a discussion about what is or is not constitutional. That is an entirely different topic.


I don't think it's different at all. The most fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals, as the terms are usually used in the U.S., is how they see the role of the federal government. Since the Constitution is the design for that government, I don't know what could be *more* relevant.

Liberals (the term is ironic) want to impose whatever social policies they think are bright and beautiful on everyone, and they don't much care if the Constitution authorizes their wonderful schemes. Hence Speaker Pelosi's cavalier dismissals of questions about the constitutional authority for the Obamacare law. That sort of disrespect for the rule of law strikes me as anything but moral.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:14:38 AM

I was responding to what a poster had said about certain specific subjects. What I was challenging was the notion that people who aren't willing to concoct new constitutional rights--i.e. conservatives--are not as sympathetic to individual freedoms as those who are. Exactly the opposite is true.


What you were responding to was my response to this:



The idea of giving individuals the greatest amount of freedom is a morally superior concept over having the nanny state influence our lives from womb to tomb. Conservatives and the founding fathers promoted the former, liberals the latter.


Had I been responding to you I would certainly have included the constitution in my remarks, as that seems to be the only language you speak.

But I wasn't.

One of the points I keep stressing here is that different people interpret morality differently. You're a prime example. When you said:


That sort of disrespect for the rule of law strikes me as anything but moral.


you made clear that for you, morality and legality are deeply connected, and you're likely to look to the law first when contemplating the morality of any particular issue. I respect your right to feel that way.

I feel differently.

As I've made clear before, I do respect the constitution, including the amendment provisions. But before contemplating if an issue is worth amending the constitution, one must first develop a position likely to garner enough support to make embarking on the amendment process worth the effort.

That position won't be developed based on what IS legal, but on what SHOULD be the law. And that means contemplating morality first, THEN going through whatever legal processes are needed to assure that the law reflects morality, not the other way around.

My examples were meant to challenge the position that giving individuals the greatest freedom is morally superior. That was an ethical position, and I responded from an ethical perspective. Whether it's up to states, the U.S., or individuals to decide whether a woman can have an abortion is beside the point. My question was how someone who cherishes individual rights would respond to that highly charged and divisive issue.

I find it interesting that many here seem to think of the founding fathers as the epitome of conservative thought. I would argue the exact opposite. For their day, they were incredibly liberal and progressive, willing to challenge the status quo to the point of building a new country from scratch based on principles no nation before had ever adopted as their core values. How much more progressive can you get?

And I would also argue that our citizenry and elected leaders have consistently contemplated morality first, albeit often differing vociferously as to which position is most morally just, and THEN looked to law to see if it supported their position or needed to be changed to do so.

So let's stick to first things first, eh? Once we've agreed on whether conservatism, liberalism, or neither is morally superior THEN we can sort out whether we need a constitutional amendment to support our conclusion.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/29/2011 1:10:45 AM
The founding fathers morality was based as well on slavery, class, and misogyny.

For me, morality other any politician is based on consistency. So many "pro-life" politicos are the most blood thirsty when it comes to the death penalty, wars on innocent people, shunning the poor, children and homeless. Those that wear their Crosses on their sleeves most prominently, at the same time show disdain for the teachings of their Christ. As Gandhi put it, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

The Christian liberals for the most part, apply the Beatitudes in social issues, where Christian conservatives tend to apply the olde testament.

Jimmy Carter is one of those rare politicians who actually walks the talk.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:13:05 AM
But before contemplating if an issue is worth amending the constitution, one must first develop a position likely to garner enough support to make embarking on the amendment process worth the effort. That position won't be developed based on what IS legal, but on what SHOULD be the law. And that means contemplating morality first, THEN going through whatever legal processes are needed to assure that the law reflects morality, not the other way around . . . our citizenry and elected leaders have consistently contemplated morality first, albeit often differing vociferously as to which position is most morally just, and THEN looked to law to see if it supported their position or needed to be changed to do so.


I agree with all that.


you're likely to look to the law first when contemplating the morality of any particular issue.


I don't know how you get that out of anything I said, and it's certainly not true. For example, I don't believe the U.S. government has the moral right to dictate what Americans must (and by implication, may not) buy, just because the Obamacare law claims it does.


Whether it's up to states, the U.S., or individuals to decide whether a woman can have an abortion is beside the point. My question was how someone who cherishes individual rights would respond to that highly charged and divisive issue.


On the contrary, that is just the point. Someone who cherishes individual rights respects the right of the majority in each state to make laws about all sorts of moral issues, including abortion. Unless a state law has no reasonable basis whatever, or directly conflicts with a federal law, or somehow violates the U.S. Constitution, for example by infringing too far on a freedom it guarantees--that state law is valid.

Staying with your example, until 1973 each state regulated abortion as it saw fit--just as it regulated euthanasia, incest, involuntary sterilization, and thousands of other matters of individual rights and morality. Only in about 15% of the states was abortion banned outright. And if it ever became a matter of state law again, most states now would probably allow it with very few or no restrictions. If it were a matter of California law, that's what I personally would favor.

But I respect the right of the majority in each state to take a different view. I do not believe there was any constitutional authority for the Supreme Court to deprive the majorities in most of the states of their right to regulate abortion. Even the Court itself has practically acknowledged that Roe was wrongly decided, stopping just short of saying so.

The fact a lot of people--or five judges--are convinced their beliefs about something are morally superior doesn't give them the right to impose those beliefs arbitrarily on the whole country. Moral beliefs almost never justify breaking the law--including our highest law, the Constitution. As that becomes a habit, the rule of law, which is based on reason, gives way to what's been called the '"rule of man"--i.e. arbitrary dictates. And there is a word for arbitrary rule by dictate--tyranny.


How much more progressive can you get?


You're trying to play a trick with words. The political philosophy of people who describe themselves that way today, or of their namesakes a century ago, is not even remotely like the one generally shared by the men who wrote the Constitution. You're right that the principles of self-government the U.S. is founded on are very radical--in the best sense. The phrase "American exceptionalism" refers to how unique this form of government was, and is even now, in all history.

Conservatives recognize how valuable and timeless those principles of government are, and how vital they are to the individual freedoms of all of us. That's why we are determined to preserve them. Statists, on the other hand, ironically call themselves progressive or liberal but are wedded to tired old collectivist ideas that were discredited a long time ago. They like the idea of a strong central state responsible for the totality of policies. Totalitarianism, or statism, can be either "rightist" or "leftist," and it's just as lamentable either way.

Someone might think it was obvious that more central planning necessarily means less individual freedom--or even almost none at all--but that seems to escape self-styled liberals. They feel less of a kindred spirt with American ideas of government than with ones that took root in Europe. They should have lived in the 1920's and '30's. Maybe they could have joined FDR's bright boys on their excursions to the Soviet Union, studying how wonderfully that system worked, and hoping to transplant its marvelous, new, moral, progressive ideas here.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/29/2011 4:23:56 PM

I agree with all that.


Cool. We've got a foundation to build on.


you're likely to look to the law first when contemplating the morality of any particular issue.


I don't know how you get that out of anything I said, and it's certainly not true.


I get that from your regular habit of citing the constitution when an ethical question is raised. The topic of this thread is not whether Liberalism or Conservatism is more constitutionally defensible, but whether one is morally superior to the other.


Someone who cherishes individual rights respects the right of the majority in each state to make laws about all sorts of moral issues, including abortion.


That doesn't make any sense to me.

If it's an individual right, it matters little whether an international treaty, federal law, state law, or municipal ordinance infringes on it. In any case someone other than the individual is dictating what that individual can and cannot do.

I do want to be clear that I am not the one who equated maximum individual rights with morality. While I cherish my individual rights, I also am acutely aware of the moral imperative to be sensitive to my impacts on others and to do what I can to contribute to the greater good that extends beyond my individual life.


You're trying to play a trick with words. The political philosophy of people who describe themselves that way today, or of their namesakes a century ago, is not even remotely like the one generally shared by the men who wrote the Constitution.


We're arguing semantics. And that's the major flaw in this thread. It's clear that we can't come close to agreement on what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" mean, much less "morally superior". And that's why I resist labeling myself, but if pressed feel most comfortable with the term "progressive". That's got nothing to do with however progressives of a century ago defined themselves, or even how others today might define it. I simply look to the root word - "progress" - and find that captures my philosophy as well as any one word can.

A strong trait of our species is our continued drive to improve our lot in life. That presents itself both on the individual and collective level. It's a core principal of capitalism, with rags to riches tales frequently cited as proof of its merits.

Likewise every new form of government has been introduced with the intent of creating a better system than the one that came before. That's what inspired those radical founding fathers to do what they did. Some succeed better than others in achieving that goal. If they fail, once again a few form of government is introduced to improve the lot of citizens.

So why should we think that we've done all the improving we can do? I, like many others, advocate for change that is intended to improve the quality of life for future generations. That may mean increasing some individual rights, limiting others.

And that's worked out for us so far. Few would argue today to restore the individual right to keep a slave, challenge someone you don't like to a duel to the death, or spew unlimited toxins into the air or water.


Someone might think it was obvious that more central planning necessarily means less individual freedom--or even almost none at all--but that seems to escape self-styled liberals.


I'm not a self-styled liberal, but it certainly escapes me.

Prior to federal intervention, mining companies in WV paid miners by the ton of coal mined in company scrip that could only be spent in the company store on company products at company products. They lived in company homes, most not much more than shacks, and if they became injured, sick, or just fell out of favor with the company were tossed out on the street penniless, because they'd never been paid a penny in the first place.

Today, thanks to modern labor and safety regulations, miners have far more individual freedom. Likewise we all enjoy cleaner water and air than we did prior to passage of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. That translates to individual freedom from negative health impacts, among other benefits.

Central planning CAN have negative impacts on personal freedoms, as we saw on the other side of the Iron Curtain, but it doesn't have to. It's the quality of the planning that matters, not the lack of it.

Sure there are some European concepts that may be worth emulating. We should always look to others to see if anything they're doing is worth incorporating into our own system, just as they do with us. That's how we all collectively make progress, and it needn't equate to abandoning the core values we continue to cherish.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/29/2011 6:42:31 PM

If it's an individual right, it matters little whether an international treaty, federal law, state law, or municipal ordinance infringes on it.


Not so. States have inherent authority to make laws and policies about all sorts of things. They can and do make "enabling" laws which delegate some of this authority to local governments. Treaties act like federal laws. If they conflict, the more recent one trumps the other, and both trump state laws they conflict with.

The United States has NO inherent powers. It has only the limited, enumerated powers the states and their people agreed to give it in the Constitution. So who's restricting an individual right makes a big difference. States have authority to limit the right to marry to people above a certain age, for example, but Congress does not.




I do want to be clear that I am not the one who equated maximum individual rights with morality.


Our laws don't equate the two either. Very few individual rights, if any, are absolutely immune from legal restriction. For example, freedom of speech does not include inciting a mob to imminent violence, nor does the law which makes cars wait at red lights deprive their passengers of liberty without due process.


Today, thanks to modern labor and safety regulations, miners have far more individual freedom.


Yes, in some ways. But at one time, the prevailing view was just the opposite. Between 1904 and 1937, the Supreme Court struck down more than 200 modern laws like that, on the ground that they interfered with the "freedom of contract"--the individual's right to exchange his labor for compensation. One of the suits was by a man who claimed a child labor law, by limiting his son's work hours, was costing his family badly needed income.


If they fail, once again a few form of government is introduced to improve the lot of citizens.


Not necessarily. Lots of governments have been replaced by ones which were far worse. The regimes of Idi Amin and Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, just to mention three fairly recent examples, were hardly improvements. Democracies, even democratic republics like this one, are fragile things. When you're lucky enough to have the standard of the world, it's reckless not to think long and hard before tinkering with it.

Our form of government doesn't become outmoded, because despite utopians' faith in the perfectibility of mankind, our nature doesn't change. We're no more angels now than in 1787--and no more to be trusted with power. When changed times have called for improvements, we've always been able to make them through amendments.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:40:44 PM

When you're lucky enough to have the standard of the world, it's reckless not to think long and hard before tinkering with it.

The 'standard of the world'? You mean places like these?


U.S. Newsweek.com has ranked a list of top 100 best countries around the world based on five categories: Education, Health, Quality of Life, Economic Dynamism and Political Environment.
The Scandinavian countries Finland and Sweden occupied the first and third places on the list. The United States didn’t successfully squeeze into the top 10 while China was rated 59th.
Following are the top 10 best countries on earth:
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Luxembourg
6. Norway
7. Canada
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Denmark
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/photo/2010-08/18/c_13450304.htm



Forbes - The Best Countries For Business
#1 Canada
#2 New Zealand
#3 Hong Kong
#4 Ireland
#5 Denmark
#6 Singapore
#7 Sweden
#8 Norway
#9 United Kingdom
#10 United States
#11 Australia
#12 Belgium
#13 Finland
#14 Switzerland
#15 Netherlands
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/10/03/the-best-countries-for-business/



Lonely Planet’s Best in Travel: Top 10 countries for 2012
Which countries will come into their own as travel destinations in 2012? We’ve collated hundreds of ideas from everyone at Lonely Planet, including our extended family of travellers, bloggers and tweeters to work out the very best. This list of the top 10 countries for 2012 – in ranked order – was voted for by a panel of inhouse travel experts, based on topicality, excitement, value and that special X-factor.
1. Uganda
2. Myanmar (Burma)
3. Ukraine
4. Jordan
5. Denmark
6. Bhutan
7. Cuba
8. New Caledonia
9. Taiwan
10. Switzerland
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/europe/travel-tips-and-articles/76856



Human Development Index (HDI) - 2011 Rankings
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Netherlands
4. United States
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Ireland
8. Liechtenstein
9. Germany
10. Sweden
11. Switzerland
12. Japan
13. Hong Kong
14. Iceland
15. South Korea
16. Denmark
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index



The Best and Worst Places for Women
Newsweek/The Daily Beast analyzed dozens of data points for 165 countries to determine which countries offer women the most expansive rights and the best quality of life.
1, Iceland
2, Sweden
3, Canada
4, Denmark
5, Finland
6, Switzerland
7, Norway
8, United States of America
9, Australia
10, Netherlands
11, New Zealand
12, France
13, Luxembourg
14, Portugal
15, Republic of Macedonia
16, Republic of Moldova
17, Philippines
18, Belgium
19, United Kingdom
20, Romania
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/20/best-and-worst-countries-for-women-the-full-list.html



World's Most Livable Cities
The Economist's World's Most Liveable Cities 2011
1 Melbourne Australia
2 Vienna Austria
3 Vancouver Canada
4 Toronto Canada
5 Calgary Canada
6 Sydney Australia
7 Helsinki Finland
8 Perth Australia
9 Adelaide Australia
10 Auckland New Zealand

Mercer 2010 Quality of Living Survey
1 Vienna Austria
2 Zurich Switzerland
3 Geneva Switzerland
4 Auckland New Zealand
5 Vancouver Canada
6 Düsseldorf Germany
7 Frankfurt Germany
8 Munich Germany
9 Bern Switzerland
10 Sydney Australia

Monocle's Most Livable Cities Index 2011
1 Helsinki Finland
2 Zurich Switzerland
3 Copenhagen Denmark
4 Munich Germany
5 Melbourne Australia
6 Vienna Austria
7 Sydney Australia
8 Berlin Germany
9 Tokyo Japan
10 Madrid Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities


http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/livable_cities_worldwide.html
http://www.expatinvesting.org/the-worlds-most-politically-stable-countries-and-most-politically-unstable-countries/
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 86
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 7:34:35 AM
This forum has focused on what is morally superior.

But what is more functional?
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 87
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 7:57:21 AM
A Gent...



This forum has focused on what is morally superior. But what is more functional?


Excellent point, but form follows function. What is the best "form" for society to take? Is it towards individual liberty, as proposed by the definition of modern "conservatism", or is it a more collectivist mentality and central control favored by the modern "liberal".

Societies are determined by their beliefs, and those beliefs will in turn will outline the functioning of life within those societies.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 8:05:41 AM
The 'standard of the world'? You mean places like these?


That's just the kind of thoughtful, cut-and-paste analysis I've come to expect from you. And I can well understand your envy of the United States.


But what is more functional?


If you want efficiency, nothing beats a dictatorship. Just a word from on high, and it's done. No need for all that delay and debate.

But there's a deeper moral question. What about the consent of the governed? How legitimate is a government that imposes the will of an elite few on the many? In this country, of course, that elite consists of people who call themselves liberals. For the moment, they have their emblem occupying the White House.

These anointed ones are not only morally but also intellectually superior. And it's their duty to keep us backward, nativist yahoos--the great vulgar, consumerist, McCarthyite masses--in line. After all, noblesse oblige.


Whats there to be envious about?


I am very sure you know the answer to that, and that it galls you constantly.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 89
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 9:53:51 AM
Well now, that seems like a misnomer!

"How legitimate is a government that imposes the will of an elite few on the many? In this country, of course, that elite consists of people who call themselves liberals."

Well in your statements there, it would seem like or you make it sound as though liberals can do anything they want! Then why is it the 1% are in control of a majority of the assets of this country? Wouldn't that by the very nature of the word elite, make them so? I mean if they control the businesses, the assets, and in some cases seem to wish to change the value of a man's vote, by passing voter restrictions, they would have elite status.

As for "intellectually superior" since they build the buildings and name them for themselves on the ivy league campuses, they should be able to get their "elite" children to the front of the line, thereby giving them the best education, thereby making THEM the intellectually superior ones, right?
 Javan2
Joined: 7/9/2005
Msg: 90
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 10:09:04 AM
All politics is based on the ideas of individualism vs. collectivism. Believe it or not the republicans go the farthest in protecting the rights of the minority, because they believe (the ones who know better) " that the smallest minority group is that of the individual". The conservatives have the most powerful ideas, the problem is that they do a piss poor job at explaining these to the populations of the East and Western coast. Many rank and file republicans also embrace tribalist-collectivism which is still a form of collectivism which is anti-individualist. This is why most African-Americans will not embrace conservatism.

Some people have made this agument for example on the other side of the issue:


Do Black People Really Love Slavery and Oppression ?


We need to teach our young people the value of curiosity and productivity and not punish these in their presence.

Herman Caine was asked recently, "Why do so many black people only vote for democrats "? He answered this question very poorly. He should've said, "Black people pay lip service to the idea of hating oppression, but by the way that they vote, you'd think that they love it".

For example, A young blackman who works and makes $1,300.00 a week in Texas will take home $1,100.00 dollars, but that same young man working in Baltimore (The east coast) making $1,300.00 per week will only take home $800.00 plus dollars.That's $500.00 per week of his labor. Taking $2,000.00 per month of an individual's earnings how is this not oppressive?

Government has a printing press and the ability to print what it needs. If this isn't oppression, I don't know what is oppression. The corporation paid the young man for working and the government punished him for doing the same thing by the tune of $500.00 dollars a week or $2,000.00 per month or $24,000.00 dollars per year.

During slavery, the slave master thought himself "Noble Too". Many blacks say that they are against slavery, but by their actions in voting, for them it's really just a matter of who the slave master is based on their voting pattern and the result there of in this case.

I say, " Slavery is wrong regardless of who the slave master is at all times". During slavery, The slave wanted his freedom and also to benefit from the fruit of his labor.

The greatest opportunities are born from curiosity and productivity, this is the lesson we must teach our children. Earnest opportunity isn't born from punishing productivity. No matter how tempted we are to make it so.

So, I Herman Caine would tell black people and all people to "wake-up and stop participating in their own oppression".

Because, altimately, it amounts to an attack on productivity in the presence of all people making it an even less attractive option the more the attack on it is witnessed by others.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 91
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 10:56:55 AM

For example, A young blackman who works and makes $1,300.00 a week in Texas will take home $1,100.00 dollars, but that same young man working in Baltimore (The east coast) making $1,300.00 per week will only take home $800.00 plus dollars.That's $500.00 per week of his labor. Taking $2,000.00 per month of an individual's earnings how is this not oppressive?


It's not that I doubt your opinions...it's just that I doubt the validity of your example...could you please justify your numbers with...let's say...facts???
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:00:53 AM
in some cases seem to wish to change the value of a man's vote, by passing voter restrictions


Yes, by all means, let's not have any of those voter restrictions. It's bad enough that we already discriminate so unfairly against foreigners, convicted felons, and minors.

People who want to dilute the vote could take lessons from Mr. Obama and his acolytes. He's not so crude as to do something so outrageous as to require voters to establish that they live here. No, he learned from Mr. Alinsky's little red book that the trick is to hide what you're doing, so it will go right over the heads of those Palinite mouthbreathers. They're too busy clinging to their guns and their religion to notice--until it's too late.

So, his Justice Dept. makes it official policy not to enforce voting rights laws against black defendants. That's why his administration dropped the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party member Mr. Whatzisname.

This upstanding citizen had violated federal law by standing outside a Philadelphia polling place, club in hand, muttering threats to people on their way to vote. Forget the fact it would have been dead easy to convict Whatzisname and punish him for his crimes, since a court had already entered a default judgment against him.

Mr. Holder was also told to go after Arizona for daring to pass SB 1070, a fair and very well-drafted law which (although he hadn't read it) required state officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Why? Because the President does not want those laws enforced.

Mr. Obama sees illegal immigrants as potential votes in favor of his longed-for fundamental transformation of this country. If he's re-elected, amnesty will be a sure thing--and bingo! His attack on SB 1070, acquiesced in by a lackey of a federal judge, nullifies the votes of the majority of Arizonans who supported it. But why should they count, anyway?

Mr. Obama also knows how to use administrative agencies, which are technically part of the executive branch. He couldn't get his Cap-and-Trade scheme through Congress, but he has the EPA. And the EPA has a truly bizarre Supreme Court decision to rely on. (Thank you, Justice Stevens.) This masterwork of legal sleight-of-hand says that for purposes of the Clean Air Act, CO2--you know, that poison gas we exhale all the time, the stuff that puts the fizz in our Dr. Pepper--is a "pollutant."

So, EPA now has authority to make a rule which does pretty much what Cap-and-Trade would have, without all that fuss and bother of having to get the voters' approval. What's the big deal about wrecking the national economy, anyway, if that's what it takes to protect the public (not to mention Gaia) from that terrible, toxic greenhouse gas--carbon dioxide!

Morality uber alles, I always say.

Below:

I had forgotten how easily the 13th amendment was adopted by the states after the Civil War


There you go, talking all that constitution stuff. I don't even know what that amendment says, but isn't it obvious it has nothing to do with morality? And don't you think that when you just know a thing is right, you shouldn't let some old, outdated piece of paper from the days of powdered wigs get in the way?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 93
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:02:28 AM

We're arguing semantics. And that's the major flaw in this thread. It's clear that we can't come close to agreement on what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" mean, much less "morally superior".


I understand your frustration. It is hard to have a serious discussion when the other side wants to define both terms.


When changed times have called for improvements, we've always been able to make them through amendments


Oh yes, I had forgotten how easily the 13th amendment was adopted by the states after the Civil War that destroyed a large chunk of the country. My guess is that some people then didn't hear the call of the times that there was a need for improvement. Perhaps they were confused about the validity of their individual right, honored by past generations, to treat other human beings as their property.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 94
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:07:47 AM
timetogo3223

We could just as well be discussing who is morally superior, men or women. And I expect we would have much the same, or same form of rhetoric.

One of the things that characterizes Americans in contrast to Canadians is how black and white, or good and evil things are to Americans. As with liberals and conservatives...and there is no other way and no tolerance for the other perspective. Canadians to a greater degree are more open to considering the other's point of view and find a middle way.... a more temperate culture.

Gray in his Mars and Venus model submits that neither gender is wrong, but neither is complete. When the two sides make and effort to understand and balance each other, they accomplish much more together than either can alone.

I expect the reason why this principle - common sense really - is not applied more readily in the US is that too many institutions depend on the extremes in order to justify their existence and support their hold on power/profits.

And the institutions are suffocating the life out of the US.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 95
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:09:08 AM
Ah yes...so says the defender of the constitution (when the intrepretation suits him) and the supreme court (when the ruling supports his beliefs).

Voter registration is designed to reduce the number of young, elder, and minority voters (those stinkin liberal voters) in order to reduce the number of democrat votes....it's just another gerrymandering ploy by the uber right.


voter registration laws are deaigned to eliminate voter fraud and to make sure only citizens vote


Utter right wingnut evangelical bullshyte...voter registration is the new gerrymandering of the uber right.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 96
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:17:23 AM
Bs...pfffttttt.....you can make up all the bs you want...but your word means squat...show me actual citizens who have been deprived of their right to vote...liberal talking point bs..if a citizen is deprived of their right the courts will resolve the issue....
voter registration laws are deaigned to eliminate voter fraud and to make sure only citizens vote
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 97
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:21:54 AM
A Gent said "or same form of rhetoric"

I think you miss the point, that(rhetoric) IS the purpose of this thread! We both know that either side will cling to their beliefs, we both know that this continued will degenerate into a bash fest.

If a question of whether men or women, conservative or liberal, democrat or republican or any competing entities is framed upon an abstract basis, it will always fall along the lines of either side believing it holds the high ground.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 98
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:46:39 AM

but your word means squat


Coming from a poster that throws out the troll postings without ever providing one ounce of third party verification or support is laughable in the very least and just foolish at best.


show me actual citizens who have been deprived of their right to vote


Oh, that is easy...please read slowly...we wouldn't want you to miss those liberal talking points:

A report from New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice showed that in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, all of which will enact stricter photo ID laws before the 2012 election, 3.2 million potential voters do not have the state-issued ID that will be required for them to vote.

Lawrence Norden, an author of the Brennan Center report, said he “absolutely” thinks the new ID laws could impact the outcome of the election.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/states-with-strict-voter-photo-id-laws-more-than-trippled-in-2011/
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 99
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 11:57:05 AM
Blah blah blah "show me actual citizens who have been deprived of their right to vote"

NO!! Do your own damn research! There are at least 10 states with major change legislation pending on voter rights, they will affect college kids, poor people.

Try google, under voter registration laws. I don't have to make things up, what's real is bad enough.

Why do some of you feel you can make accusatory statements, with little to no facts, but then expect we should go out and do your research for you?

"voter registration laws are deaigned to eliminate voter fraud and to make sure only citizens vote"

Yes, that is what they were MEANT to do! I agree and embrace those concepts. But they can also be used to prevent certain groups, who are legitamite citizens from voting by establishing certain requirements they may not be readily able to meet.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/30/2011 2:25:47 PM

3.2 million potential voters do not have the state-issued ID that will be required for them to vote.


Well, then let them get the required ID. If someone isn't even civic-minded enough to bother to get off their backside and do that, they can't be very concerned about the issues being voted on.

Also, I don't believe the tear-jerking tales about nonagenarians and disabled people having to travel fifty miles to get the ID, or how the few offices which dispense them are only open from 5 AM to 6 AM one day a week, or similar baloney.

Every state, including the ones mentioned in that report, has lots of good lawyers to draft and review legislation like that. Mr. Norden knows that any law which did much to chill the right to vote--which the Supreme Court considers as fundamental as any civil right we have--would probably be unconstitutional. If the liberals who are the sole keepers of our moral flame are outraged by those laws, they can challenge them in court.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?