|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 22, 2010 18:09:01 GMT -8
...ever done that made our country better?
Replys eagerly awaited.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 23, 2010 10:29:55 GMT -8
I detect in your challenge a presupposition that you yourself may not have realized. The presupposition is this; political forces, groups, parties, whatever you want to call them, are supposed to "do something" to improve society. According to this belief, it is mandatory that such groups and forces should use the police power of the state to bring about changes that they, the political class, hold to be indispensable elements needed to create a better world. Conservatives believe that the state serves its citizens best by operating only in a limited number of critical areas that create the least intrusive structural framework needed to have an orderly society. Actually, libertarians believe this even more strongly. The following scenario simplifies things a bit, but nevertheless serves as a useful example of what I am talking about. . . Libertarians (and conservatives) realize that no orderly society can do without a criminal justice system. To do so would encourage individuals to seek retribution themselves, thus creating continuous and tragic feuds as families retaliated against other families to answer acts of violence committed against them. Collectivists (they want to be called "progressives" these days) are not content with laws against theft, robbery, assault, murder, and breech of contract. They demand that the justice system work to punish not only overt violations of law, but also to punish intent. Therefore we have "hate crime" laws which, for the first time in history criminalize a person's thoughts. Collectivists also seek to right everything they perceive to be a wrong. They yearn to bring about "social justice" regardless of whether other citizens believe that their concept of "social justice" is bogus. The whole concept of "social justice" boils down to this: the progressives know what's best for society and believe it is their holy (oops! can't use that word.) I mean their solemn duty to perfect a grossly imperfect society no matter how many foolish or evil people stand in their way. Libertarians and conservatives argue that our government, from the state level on up, has tried to do far too many things to micromanage the lives and economic endeavors of the American citizenry. Collectivists can conceive of no limits to their appetites for compelling needed changes in individual and corporate behavior. Such people are consumed by arrogance and a feeling of superiority over the unwashed masses. Those who fear and oppose the limitless appetite for power displayed on the Left do not feel that they have all the answers for everyone. They believe that, as much as possible, we should be left to pursue our goals according to our own desires and judgment. In other words, libertarians and conservatives (I would say more the former) realize that to seek to change society by force is at least partly the result of an incredible lack of humility. Most of us, at one time or another, think we know what is best for others. We all have relatives (especially brothers-in-law  ) who strike us as lazy and unmotivated. Why doesn't that good-for-nothing Elmer get off his butt and look for a job? Or; Why doesn't that clueless sister of yours quit marrying those total losers? We may or may not be correct in our evaluations, but it's a good thing that we do not have the power to compel our lazy in-laws and clueless sisters-in-law to do what we think they should. Such people have to lead their own lives and deal with the consequences of their actions. We should keep in mind that those very people may have similar thoughts aimed at us. Who is to say that our evaluations of them are more accurate than their evaluations of us? The issue boils down to this. When the government tries to make things "fair" it usually ends up manipulating society in foolish and harmful ways. Better to let people live their lives and handle their own problems. But collectivists and progressives just can't let well enough alone. They can imagine no area of life that their coercive use of state power would not make better. I'll end by this comment that comes up from time to time. Namely, we are all better off when the legislature is not in session because it is then that those worthies will not be able to cause problems for the nation. So what have conservatives (and ,I will add, libertarians) done to make the country better? Nothing! And that's a good thing, since every time a politicians tries to make the country better he inevitably screws things up. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 23, 2010 12:34:01 GMT -8
Very well put. I even admire how you did not use the pejorative "liberal" as I would have. I think I would add one more idea and that is liberals think they can spend your money better than you can and should therefore be entitled to some of what you have. You all get the idea. I hope that everyone gets the idea that government has some legitimate functions and should concentrate on doing those functions economically and efficiently. Butt out of just about everything else. They do more harm than good and that also answers the basic question that started the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 24, 2010 7:26:13 GMT -8
Nothing. I agree with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 24, 2010 8:33:44 GMT -8
Liberals are deluded people who think the State should take up all of the responsibilities that the local church used to carry in society. The Church found jobs for the poor or disabled. The Church provided food when men could not feed their families. The church provided education to those who wanted it and could profit from it. The Church provided social programs to keep families united and people safe in their communities.
Now, all of that is gone and the state has stepped in. Divorce is skyrocketing. Children born out of wedlock is the norm rather than the exception in many communities. Now we have foodstamps. When they run out, people still run to the Churches, but most of them have forgotten the role they used to play in society and they now tell you to look to the state for assistance. God and his churches only handle spiritual matters now-a-days.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 24, 2010 10:41:25 GMT -8
Liberals are deluded people who think the State should take up all of the responsibilities that the local church used to carry in society. The Church found jobs for the poor or disabled. The Church provided food when men could not feed their families. The church provided education to those who wanted it and could profit from it. The Church provided social programs to keep families united and people safe in their communities. Now, all of that is gone and the state has stepped in. Divorce is skyrocketing. Children born out of wedlock is the norm rather than the exception in many communities. Now we have foodstamps. When they run out, people still run to the Churches, but most of them have forgotten the role they used to play in society and they now tell you to look to the state for assistance. God and his churches only handle spiritual matters now-a-days. No yet! Our church has provided 700,000 meals since Obama took office and we are on course to provide 1,000,000 by the end of the year. Your point how ever is still valid since government is trying to put roadblocks in front of private charity and tax the rest of us to fill the void. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 24, 2010 11:54:23 GMT -8
I detect in your challenge a presupposition that you yourself may not have realized. The presupposition is this; political forces, groups, parties, whatever you want to call them, are supposed to "do something" to improve society. According to this belief, it is mandatory that such groups and forces should use the police power of the state to bring about changes that they, the political class, hold to be indispensable elements needed to create a better world. AzWm Wrong again, william. I do know that I am presupposing that that people organize themselves into political forces, groups, partys, or whatever to improve the societys that they live in. It has always been so. Can you tell of any society that has not? What you presuppose is that it is the political elite is behind it. Wrong. It is the People. Change, william, comes from the bottom up. It was not the government that agitated for the emancipation of the slaves in this country. The conservatives in the southern states chose to break apart our country to preserve their power to own people like they were livestock. It was was not the government that sent tens of thousands of women marching for sufferage. It was not the government that sent hundreds of thousands marching for Civil Rights. Those movements, which made this country better, came from the bottom up. Conservatives fought this all tooth and nail. Used the coercive power of government to oppose it all. It was only when liberals(the word comes form Liberty, btw) were able to convince the majority of the country of the rightness of their cause that these positive changes came about. Our Constitution says that "We the People" can chose our government and chose how to live under its laws. It is you conservatives, and libertarians, that want tell the rest of us what our government should do and not do. Makes me wonder if you have a fundamental problem with democracy, william. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 24, 2010 12:04:07 GMT -8
I detect in your challenge a presupposition that you yourself may not have realized. The presupposition is this; political forces, groups, parties, whatever you want to call them, are supposed to "do something" to improve society. According to this belief, it is mandatory that such groups and forces should use the police power of the state to bring about changes that they, the political class, hold to be indispensable elements needed to create a better world. AzWm Wrong again, william. I do know that I am presupposing that that people organize themselves into political forces, groups, partys, or whatever to improve the societys that they live in. It has always been so. Can you tell of any society that has not? What you presuppose is that it is the political elite is behind it. Wrong. It is the People. Change, william, comes from the bottom up. It was not the government that agitated for the emancipation of the slaves in this country. The conservatives in the southern states chose to break apart our country to preserve their power to own people like they were livestock. It was was not the government that sent tens of thousands of women marching for sufferage. It was not the government that sent hundreds of thousands marching for Civil Rights. Those movements, which made this country better, came from the bottom up. Conservatives fought this all tooth and nail. Used the coercive power of government to oppose it all. It was only when liberals(the word comes form Liberty, btw) were able to convince the majority of the country of the rightness of their cause that these positive changes came about. Our Constitution says that "We the People" can chose our government and chose how to live under its laws. It is you conservatives, and libertarians, that want tell the rest of us what our government should do and not do. Makes me wonder if you have a fundamental problem with democracy, william. This is almost like you are arguing against what you stand for. Are you going to join the Tea Party in throwing Democrats out of Congress? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 24, 2010 14:13:49 GMT -8
Wrong again, william. I do know that I am presupposing that that people organize themselves into political forces, groups, partys, or whatever to improve the societys that they live in. It has always been so. Can you tell of any society that has not? What you presuppose is that it is the political elite is behind it. Wrong. It is the People. Change, william, comes from the bottom up. It was not the government that agitated for the emancipation of the slaves in this country. The conservatives in the southern states chose to break apart our country to preserve their power to own people like they were livestock. It was was not the government that sent tens of thousands of women marching for sufferage. It was not the government that sent hundreds of thousands marching for Civil Rights. Those movements, which made this country better, came from the bottom up. Conservatives fought this all tooth and nail. Used the coercive power of government to oppose it all. It was only when liberals(the word comes form Liberty, btw) were able to convince the majority of the country of the rightness of their cause that these positive changes came about. Our Constitution says that "We the People" can chose our government and chose how to live under its laws. It is you conservatives, and libertarians, that want tell the rest of us what our government should do and not do. Makes me wonder if you have a fundamental problem with democracy, william. This is almost like you are arguing against what you stand for. Are you going to join the Tea Party in throwing Democrats out of Congress? Here is your problem, win. You have this little cutout that you prop up and say this is you, Liberal. I, the conservative, get to define you and tell you what your are. Liberals are not what you say they are. By your own admission conservatives have done nothing for this country. They have only held it back. Liberals have made this country great. You conservatives, despite your churlishness, are welcome along for our ride to continued greatness. We don't expect you to help. You never have. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 24, 2010 14:42:43 GMT -8
This is almost like you are arguing against what you stand for. Are you going to join the Tea Party in throwing Democrats out of Congress? Here is your problem, win. You have this little cutout that you prop up and say this is you, Liberal. I, the conservative, get to define you and tell you what your are. Liberals are not what you say they are. By your own admission conservatives have done nothing for this country. They have only held it back. Liberals have made this country great. You conservatives, despite your churlishness, are welcome along for our ride to continued greatness. We don't expect you to help. You never have. Sounds more like you are trying to define me and are living in some dream world where modern liberism has ever had any lasting good. It is like you just can't fathom the idea that living large on someone else's money can only last till he runs out of money and can't borrow any more. If you care about your children and grandchildren, face the real situation and join us in throwing the liberal bums out of office so we can curb spending. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 24, 2010 14:47:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 24, 2010 21:15:22 GMT -8
We should never lose sight of what is truly special about the United States. I refer to the unique relationship between the individual and the state embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Before the American Revolution, it was the common view around the world that some people were simply more worthy than others, whether that be through accident of birth or by force of arms. Members of the favored classes did not have to do anything special, or much of anything at all, to maintain that favored status. Those of the lower classes, no matter how upstanding and hardworking, no matter how righteous, no matter what their contributions to society, could not shake their mantel of inferiority. For instance, the word of a gentleman was automatically believed over the word of a common tradesman or farmer.
That changed with the creation of the U.S. Constitution and the founding of the United States of America. Suddenly there was a land in which the humblest laborer was no less worthy a citizen than was the richest merchant. No matter how far we fell below our high ideals (the worst example was the toleration of slavery for three quarters of a century), we nevertheless proclaimed the equality before the law of every citizen. Furthermore, we treasured our form of government, one in which the people held rights that could not be taking away by those who governed. Equally important, the government was obliged to operate only in a limited number of roles specified by the Constitution.
Things started to go wrong with the arrival of the progressives in the early 20th Century. No doubt with the noblest of intentions (but also with a huge portion of presumption), the progressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, began to regret that the Constitution put limits on what they could do to “help” the people. Instead of cherishing the concept that the government should in most instances stand aside and allow the people to pursue happiness by dint of their own efforts, the progressive sought to make things better by constantly increasing the size and power of the government.
The essential moving force of progressivism is the belief that society is seriously flawed and only the more enlightened among us can correct those flaws. In order to do that, of course, progressives must control the government and use the police power of that government to see to it that the necessary changes in society and the economy are made. Sure, some of the less enlightened citizens will complain, but, don’t forget, It’s all for the good of the people!
That such a belief is hopelessly naïve should be abundantly clear after a century or more of government meddling in the affairs of ordinary Americans. The constant fiddling with the U.S. economy by the FDR administration failed to do more than turn a very serious recession (for which the GOP bears considerable responsibility) that would have straightened itself out in a couple of years into a world-wide depression which got a bit better in the mid 1930s and then plunged again in 1937/38 as the government continued to meddle with the economy.
Despite all the experimentation, FDR’s big government initiatives failed to bring unemployment down to below 10% until about 1940. That was more than a decade AFTER the stock market crash in 1929. (The unemployment rate was much higher than 10% during the 1930s, perhaps as high as 25% during the worst years.)
What have we seen from the current administration? We have seen the same mistakes made in the 1930s, with a new twist or two. My favorite is the auto bankruptcies, in which a favored group, the UAW, got a sweetheart deal while secured creditors got the shaft. How that can possibly we legal is beyond me.
And then there is the health insurance act which, for the first time in history, authorizes the government to compel you to buy a product regardless of whether you want to. What's next, a mandate that you must buy a bicycle and use it to ride to work? Yes, that sounds crazy, but perhaps not so crazy after the precedent has been set that the government, besides taking a huge portion of your money, can now tell you how to spend at least a part of what you have left.
So, let’s be clear. Government has a role, a very big and important role to play. But that role is, or should still be, limited by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, however, is seen as a hindrance by those who feel the need to tell the rest of us how we should live. It’s too bad that so noble and groundbreaking a document has been so devalued by our current political ruling class. But that’s what happens when you have a ruling class to begin with.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 24, 2010 22:00:36 GMT -8
william, I agree with your first two paragraphs. It needs to be pointed out that in the thirteen colonies many rose from humble origins to power and influence in their mature years. The rest of your post is twaddle.
|
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Aug 24, 2010 23:02:36 GMT -8
There have been good and bad things done by both liberals and conservatives.
It is beyond arrogance to imply that conservatives have brought nothing to the table, whilst saying that liberals are what have made America great.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 25, 2010 6:53:05 GMT -8
There have been good and bad things done by both liberals and conservatives. It is beyond arrogance to imply that conservatives have brought nothing to the table, whilst saying that liberals are what have made America great. Then answer the question. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 25, 2010 8:33:01 GMT -8
william, I agree with your first two paragraphs. It needs to be pointed out that in the thirteen colonies many rose from humble origins to power and influence in their mature years. The rest of your post is twaddle. Spot on. I'll also add that if it wasn't for Progressives and, to a lesser extent, the labor movement the average American would still be working in slave-like conditions for 12 hours a day M-F with a 1/2 day on Saturday. Whether you like it or not, there has always been (and still is) a class system in the U.S. It is different than Europe in that our classes, for the most part, are based upon economics vs. birthright so it is much, much easier for one to increase his/her status in the U.S. than in Europe. Still, for the most part, the upper class benefits at the expense of the lower class and does everything in it's power to keep, or enhance, the status quo. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 25, 2010 12:10:42 GMT -8
william, I agree with your first two paragraphs. It needs to be pointed out that in the thirteen colonies many rose from humble origins to power and influence in their mature years. The rest of your post is twaddle. Twaddle? Looks pretty much on the money. Where does he go wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 25, 2010 13:41:39 GMT -8
Well, I wouldn't call it twaddle, but at least the so-called "progressives" of the early 20th century still had enough respect for the Constitution to make progress by following the guidelines provided in that instrument. For example, in 1920, we believed firmly enough that it was necessary to adopt the 19th Amendment to extend voting rights to women in federal elections. (Some states had already extended state voting rights to women, with that liberal moonbat enclave Wyoming having done it some 4 decades earlier). Today's liberals find that process too difficult, so they simply get some federal judge to smuggle in whatever they want - with no pesky interference by the legislature or the people - by finding things in the Constitution that the drafters and ratifiers never knew they put there. For a recent example, see Vaughn Walker. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 25, 2010 16:56:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 25, 2010 20:48:28 GMT -8
Then answer the question. crickets... Win has taught me everything I know about being a conservative. Now, that I know it all, let me say that liberals want to raise taxes to pay for "lazy lay abouts" who want to make babies but do not want to support them. Anything for the lay abouts is the Liberal motto. |
|
) who strike us as lazy and unmotivated. Why doesn't that good-for-nothing Elmer get off his butt and look for a job? Or; Why doesn't that clueless sister of yours quit marrying those total losers? We may or may not be correct in our evaluations, but it's a good thing that we do not have the power to compel our lazy in-laws and clueless sisters-in-law to do what we think they should. Such people have to lead their own lives and deal with the consequences of their actions. We should keep in mind that those very people may have similar thoughts aimed at us. Who is to say that our evaluations of them are more accurate than their evaluations of us?
