Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
What exactly is it that conservatives conserve?
Civilization.
Debt destroys civilization. Treating citizens as subjects destroys civilization. Taking profits away from people who produce things that help people, hurts civilization. Treating people as if they are some kind of pollutant, some toxic agent that doesn’t belong on the planet, hurts civilization. Punitive taxes, unchecked illegal immigration, social safety nets being turned into hammocks, runaway spending, unchecked centralized police-state power, disrespect against people who actually produce goods and services that other people need; all of these hurt our ability to live together. They hurt our sense of community and they hurt our sense of brotherhood.
I agree: I hope grandparent-hood changes Hillary’s perspective a bit. I’m not yet at a stage of life where I can comment on that intelligently, although Todd and Sarah Palin already are.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mkfreeberg: What exactly is it that conservatives conserve? Civilization.
Very good. That’s a reasonable and traditional use of the term conservatives, who often see themselves as bulwarks against unbridled change.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 06:19Liberals, on the other hand, can’t make a very strong claim to be liberating themselves or anybody else from anything at all. Except financial prosperity.
- mkfreeberg | 05/08/2014 @ 16:57mkfreeberg: Liberals, on the other hand, can’t make a very strong claim to be liberating themselves or anybody else from anything at all.
History contradicts that claim. The drive for equality started with freedom of conscience to ending slavery to equal protection to ending segregation to universal suffrage. Today, liberal democracy is the standard to which the whole world aspires.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 17:45History contradicts that claim. The drive for equality started with freedom of conscience to ending slavery to equal protection to ending segregation to universal suffrage. Today, liberal democracy is the standard to which the whole world aspires.
Equality? Can’t have both equality and liberty, anywhere; not unless everyone has equal luck, along with an equal work ethic.
Is America’s modern liberal movement, the model of an aspiration toward an equal, shared, work-ethic?
- mkfreeberg | 05/09/2014 @ 05:12mkfreeberg: Equality? Can’t have both equality and liberty, anywhere; not unless everyone has equal luck, along with an equal work ethic.
Binary thinking. There is more equality *and* liberty when people have freedom of conscience rather than the Church deciding such matters. There is more equality *and* liberty when people aren’t limited in their opportunities by the class they were born into. There is more equality *and* liberty without slavery. There is more equality *and* liberty when everyone is treated equally before the law.
- Zachriel | 05/09/2014 @ 06:55Not if the work ethic is not also equal.
If it isn’t — and I think we can all agree that it isn’t — then lazy people are going to end up earning less than hard-working people. What then? Is it really “binary thinking” to point out that there are only two choices to us; to forcibly redistribute, or not to forcibly redistribute. And that, if we choose to redistribute, we have the equality but not the liberty; if we choose not to, then there is liberty, but we have allowed unequal outcome to follow in the wake of (naturally) unequal diligence.
In the end, it is really those who believe in both equality and liberty, who are indulging in the simplistic binary thinking.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:04mkfreeberg: Is it really “binary thinking” to point out that there are only two choices to us; to forcibly redistribute, or not to forcibly redistribute.
Yes, it’s binary thinking, because it doesn’t account for degrees of redistribution, such as when government taxes and spends to build a road for trade or a fortification self-defence, a form of redistribution.
mkfreeberg: In the end, it is really those who believe in both equality and liberty, who are indulging in the simplistic binary thinking.
We gave you examples of past reforms that increased equality *and* liberty. Or are you denying that ending slavery didn’t increase overall equality *and* liberty?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:12Yes, it’s binary thinking, because it doesn’t account for degrees of redistribution, such as when government taxes and spends to build a road for trade or a fortification self-defence, a form of redistribution.
Yes, that’s redistribution. Acknowledging that it is a “yes” is certainly not unwarranted binary thinking.
“There is a fly in my soup” would be similar “binary” thinking; there is soup contaminated by flies, and there is soup not contaminated by flies. Acknowledging increments is fine, but it leads to flawed thinking when it results in pretending a thing is the opposite of itself. That’s a fundamental law of thought.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:26mkfreeberg: Yes, that’s redistribution.
Then virtually everyone accepts the need for some redistribution. However, most people would disagree because they use a different sense of the word redistribution.
mkfreeberg: Is it really “binary thinking” to point out that there are only two choices to us; to forcibly redistribute, or not to forcibly redistribute.
Force is a continuum. Government is a continuum. If you are positing zero force and zero government, then you are positing something that doesn’t exist in society. Consequently, there is only one actual choice per your reckoning, forcibly distribute. Yes, most people would call that binary thinking, thinking that doesn’t admit to shades of gray. However, if you prefer, we’ll simply call it overly simplistic.
In any case, liberty and equality do not form a dichotomy. We gave you examples of past reforms that increased equality *and* liberty. Or are you denying that ending slavery didn’t increase overall equality *and* liberty?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:45Then virtually everyone accepts the need for some redistribution.
So y’all were wrong in y’all’s labeling of “binary thinking.” Y’all are also wrong in asserting “virtually everyone accepts the need for some redistribution”; it may surprise y’all to learn that many people simply accept the redistribution as a necessary evil, tolerated for the purpose of funding vital functions that do not produce their own assets and thus require support from the constituency.
It takes an extremist liberal to view redistribution as the goal.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 06:31mkfreeberg: Y’all are also wrong in asserting “virtually everyone accepts the need for some redistribution”; it may surprise y’all to learn that many people simply accept the redistribution as a necessary evil, tolerated for the purpose of funding vital functions that do not produce their own assets and thus require support from the constituency.
Z: need
mk: necessary
mkfreeberg: It takes an extremist liberal to view redistribution as the goal.
The Constitution was formed in part “in order to” provide for the common defence, and to promote the general welfare, so apparently a few people saw redistribution (defined above as anything requiring tax and spend authority) as an important purpose of government.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 06:37The Constitution was formed in part “in order to” provide for the common defence, and to promote the general welfare, so apparently a few people saw redistribution (defined above as anything requiring tax and spend authority) as an important purpose of government.
That could be right.
It might not be, however. It’s not a very specific description. It suggests a deliberate vagueness, necessary to escort the assembly to the question of how the government should work, sidestepping the far thornier question of what exactly it is the government should be doing. For example: A strong and enforced border, with a sustained defense against foreign invasion, could qualify as “promote the general welfare.” Arresting people for trying to kill your or to take your stuff, also could qualify. Lots of things could.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 06:52mkfreeberg: It might not be
Not might. That’s from the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which then details that the Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 12:42Not might. That’s from the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which then details that the Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare.
Uh huh. Right next to where it talks about redistribution.
Are y’all trying to argue that there aren’t some expenses involved in doing what conservatives thing government should be doing, like maintain a standing army and defend against invasion? That would be silly.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 12:58mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to argue that there aren’t some expenses involved in doing what conservatives thing government should be doing, like maintain a standing army and defend against invasion?
You had said that taxation was redistribution (05/10/2014 @ 05:26). We answered based on that use of the term, even though it is contrary to what most people mean.
In any case, we have provided several cases where liberty and equality are not at odds. There is more equality *and* liberty when people have freedom of conscience rather than the Church deciding such matters. There is more equality *and* liberty when people aren’t limited in their opportunities by the class they were born into. There is more equality *and* liberty without slavery. There is more equality *and* liberty when everyone is treated equally before the law.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 13:19You had said that taxation was redistribution (05/10/2014 @ 05:26). We answered based on that use of the term, even though it is contrary to what most people mean.
Y’all had said it was “binary thinking” when I pointed out there were two choices open to us, to redistribute or not to redistribute. Since then, y’all have gone off on this tangent about the government’s stated functions, such as building roads and providing for a common defense, instead of fulfilling those vital functions, has something to do with equality. And y’all still haven’t made the case that this has anything to do with liberty.
After all the wrangling, I’m afraid the only point y’all have managed to make is something like this: “One can believe that liberalism leads to greater liberty, but only by engaging in sophistry.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 15:55mkfreeberg: Y’all had said it was “binary thinking” when I pointed out there were two choices open to us, to redistribute or not to redistribute.
And we pointed out ambiguity in the terms of the expression.
mkfreeberg: Since then, y’all have gone off on this tangent about the government’s stated functions, such as building roads and providing for a common defense, instead of fulfilling those vital functions, has something to do with equality.
You had demonstrated black-and-white thinking when you said “Can’t have both equality and liberty, anywhere”. We pointed out that liberty and equality are not necessarily opposed, the terms admit to shades of gray, and provided examples. You have repeatedly ignored those examples.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 18:07We pointed out that liberty and equality are not necessarily opposed, the terms admit to shades of gray, and provided examples. You have repeatedly ignored those examples.
Yeah, that’s usually what people do with poor examples.
Are your examples supposed to prove that liberty and equality can coexist?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 18:45mkfreeberg: Yeah, that’s usually what people do with poor examples.
You say, but don’t provide such an argument.
mkfreeberg: Are your examples supposed to prove that liberty and equality can coexist?
Not merely coexist, but both can increase simultaneously.
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 06:02You say, but don’t provide such an argument.
No need to.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 08:40We pointed out that liberty and equality are not necessarily opposed, the terms admit to shades of gray, and provided examples. You have repeatedly ignored those examples.
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 10:24We pointed out that liberty and equality are not necessarily opposed, the terms admit to shades of gray, and provided examples. You have repeatedly ignored those examples.
The examples don’t substantiate y’all’s point. Think y’all need to brush up on what “shades of gray” mean. In that particular metaphor, gray is merely a mixture of black and white — opposites.
So even if y’all did find an example to support this shades-of-gray idea, it wouldn’t support the idea that the two can exist in harmony. If more white is added to the gray, it becomes less black; if more black is added, it becomes less white. They are diametrically opposed forces, mutually exclusive.
If there’s going to be liberty, there has to be inequality. There are some people who don’t like to have money because they don’t like dealing with it. It’s just a fact.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 18:44mkfreeberg: The examples don’t substantiate y’all’s point.
You say, but don’t support.
We have provided several cases where liberty and equality are not at odds. There is more equality *and* liberty when people have freedom of conscience rather than the Church deciding such matters. There is more equality *and* liberty when people aren’t limited in their opportunities by the class they were born into. There is more equality *and* liberty without slavery. There is more equality *and* liberty when everyone is treated equally before the law.
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 05:09M: The examples don’t substantiate y’all’s point.
Z: You say, but don’t support.
Wow! I say y’all haven’t supported y’all’s point, y’all say I haven’t supported my statement that y’all haven’t supported y’all’s point. It’s like holding one mirror up to another mirror and looking into infinity! Okay, I’ll go for broke: Y’all haven’t provided support for y’all’s claim that I haven’t provided support for my claim that the examples don’t substantiate y’all’s point.
I’ll have to add a chapter on pretending-to-have-a-discussion, to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 05:55mkfreeberg: Y’all haven’t provided support for y’all’s claim
Yes, we have, by providing examples where liberty and equality are not at odds. There is more equality *and* liberty when people have freedom of conscience rather than the Church deciding such matters. There is more equality *and* liberty when people aren’t limited in their opportunities by the class they were born into. There is more equality *and* liberty without slavery. There is more equality *and* liberty when everyone is treated equally before the law.
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 05:58Yes, we have, by providing examples where liberty and equality are not at odds. There is more equality *and* liberty when people have freedom of conscience rather than the Church deciding such matters.
That actually isn’t liberty or equality. If everybody could decide right and wrong with complete autonomy, there wouldn’t be anything to stop someone from deciding it was “right” to rob y’all’s house, or dorm room, or momma’s basement, or whatever. Lots of criminals happen to think they’re only doing what’s “right.” Then the rest of us wouldn’t have any liberty, because we’d be living in a lawless society.
And it isn’t equality, because merely giving people this “freedom of conscience” doesn’t equalize their incomes or their net worth. So once again, y’all have offered an example that sucks. It doesn’t substantiate anything at all.
I’ll have to add a chapter on “‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ are really just buzz words” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 06:18Zachriel: There is more equality *and* liberty when people have freedom of conscience rather than the Church deciding such matters.
It’s amazing how many times you will avoid answering simple questions.
mkfreeberg: That actually isn’t liberty
So you’re saying freedom of conscience is not a form of liberty. That’s very odd.
mkfreeberg: or equality.
So having the power over religious questions concentrated in Rome is no more unequal than each person having the freedom to choose. That’s also very odd.
mkfreeberg: And it isn’t equality, because merely giving people this “freedom of conscience” doesn’t equalize their incomes or their net worth.
Economic equality is only one form of equality. There’s also political and social equality. For instance, the U.S. Constitution forbids titles of nobility.
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 06:29So you’re saying freedom of conscience is not a form of liberty. That’s very odd.
No, actually I explained my reasoning very adequately. Read up.
Economic equality is only one form of equality. There’s also political and social equality. For instance, the U.S. Constitution forbids titles of nobility.
That’s unfortunate for democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 21:36mkfreeberg: No, actually I explained my reasoning very adequately.
Freedom of conscience is an essential liberty.
mkfreeberg: Read up.
You said “And it isn’t equality, because merely giving people this ‘freedom of conscience’ doesn’t equalize their incomes or their net worth.” However, that’s not the only form of equality.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 03:59http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
You said “And it isn’t equality, because merely giving people this ‘freedom of conscience’ doesn’t equalize their incomes or their net worth.” However, that’s not the only form of equality.
That’s certainly true. But it is the form of equality that captures the passions of liberals.
It’s necessary to pay due respect to that distinction in America, especially when discussing the difference between liberals and conservatives, since liberals want everyone equal in very few ways, and conservatives want people equal in different ways. Generally, liberals want everyone to reach the finish line at the same time, and conservatives want everyone leaving the starting line at the same time; it’s the difference between equal outcome and equal opportunity.
Also, liberals operate from a definition of “everyone” that is different from what normal people use that word to describe. Example: Everyone should sacrifice more, everyone needs to expect a little more control in their lives, Obama is everyone’s president, everyone needs to stop arguing with Him and just do what He says. Such statements are not supposed to include George Soros, Warren Buffett or Michelle Obama. Even within liberal echo chambers, nobody would ever suspect such a thing.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
Right. Words from a revolution of American conservatives, weary of aristocracy. Today it’s the liberals who want to return to an aristocratic social structure, and the conservatives who insist everyone is created equal. Our conflict today, as was the case then, is really about privilege. Women-and-minority privileges; government-regulator privileges; liberal-lobbyist privileges; Sandra Fluke’s privileges. It’s a conflict between whether the conservatives had the right idea holding those truths to be self-evident, or should we go back to a system of paupers, Barons, Dukes, Lords and Earls.
I should be sure and add a chapter on aristocratic privilege to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 06:07mkfreeberg: But {economic equality} is the form of equality that captures the passions of liberals.
Liberal goals have included political equality, ending segregation, universal suffrage.
mkfreeberg: Generally, liberals want everyone to reach the finish line at the same time, and conservatives want everyone leaving the starting line at the same time; it’s the difference between equal outcome and equal opportunity.
Again with the binary thinking. Liberals are a diverse group, just as conservatives are a diverse group.
Most liberals want equality of opportunity, including equal access to education, and a stronger social safety net. Some want a more equal distribution of economic benefits, but they are more often considered left wing. Most conservatives in the U.S. want equality of opportunity, are more inclined towards private education, and want less of a social safety net. Some want to use political means to maintain their economic advantages, but they are more often considered right wing.
mkfreeberg: Words from a revolution of American conservatives, weary of aristocracy.
They revolted against lawful authority and established a republic. That’s hardly the action of conservatives.
mkfreeberg: Today it’s the liberals who want to return to an aristocratic social structure, and the conservatives who insist everyone is created equal.
That’s hardly the case. Modernday liberals want universal healthcare insurance and gay rights. That’s clearly a move towards greater equality.
mkfreeberg: Women-and-minority privileges; government-regulator privileges; liberal-lobbyist privileges; Sandra Fluke’s privileges.
Women and minorities still suffer overt and covert discrimination, not privilege. Sandra Fluke? What? For advocating that birth control be included in health insurance? Meanwhile, Cliven Bundy wants to tell you about the Negro, and how they would be better off as slaves picking cotton. First black President, and what happens? The right goes apoplectic over whether he is a “real American”.
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 10:53Liberal goals have included political equality, ending segregation, universal suffrage.
It’s interesting how whenever y’all try to make liberals look good, y’all end up grasping for the conservative desires for “equality.” We’re all created equal; unborn babies and unfreed slaves deserve to be treated with respect and dignity; equality at the starting line, not necessarily at the finish line; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are not what liberals envision for equality. It can be easily proven, anytime. Liberals expect their candidates to lose the midterms right now, so they’re making a whole lot of noise about equality today — but it isn’t what y’all are talking about, they’re talking about rich people who have more money than they do, who should be forced to give it away. That’s all a true liberal really understands — you have it, I want it, so I should get it. That kind of “equality.”
All other kids of equality are more like what the conservatives had in mind when they formed the Republican party to get rid of slavery.
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 18:16mkfreeberg: It’s interesting how whenever y’all try to make liberals look good, y’all end up grasping for the conservative desires for “equality.”
Redefining words on the fly is not an argument. You yourself defined conservatism as conserving civilization. That often means preserving existing social hierarchies.
mkfreeberg: We’re all created equal; unborn babies and unfreed slaves deserve to be treated with respect and dignity; equality at the starting line, not necessarily at the finish line; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The vast majority of Americans, liberal and conservative, support the Declaration’s basic premise. At the time, it was a radical document. The question since has been how to achieve those ends.
mkfreeberg: These are not what liberals envision for equality.
Liberal causes have included universal suffrage, public education, ending segregation, a basic social safety net.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 03:47Redefining words on the fly is not an argument. You yourself defined conservatism as conserving civilization. That often means preserving existing social hierarchies.
Conservatives and liberals are in favor of entirely different situational brands of “equality.” I’ve provided many examples.
Not that that should have been necessary. We have many liberals who are actually opposed to equality, as conservatives define it. And proudly so. They won’t string that sentence together word for word, but that’s the position they take, they’re very proud of it, they congratulate each other for it.
I’ll have to add a chapter on these two kinds of equality to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 05:18mkfreeberg: Conservatives and liberals are in favor of entirely different situational brands of “equality.”
As we pointed out, liberals have advocated universal suffrage, public education, and the end of segregation. Clearly, their views include non-economic inequality.
mkfreeberg: I’ve provided many examples.
Many liberals want more economic equality, and believe that too much economic power has resulted in too much political power being concentrated in a few hands.
mkfreeberg: We have many liberals who are actually opposed to equality, as conservatives define it.
Advocacy of affirmative action in education is meant to address persistent social inequality.
As usual, you didn’t respond to the point. You yourself defined conservatism as conserving civilization. That often means preserving existing social hierarchies.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 08:16As we pointed out, liberals have advocated universal suffrage, public education, and the end of segregation. Clearly, their views include non-economic inequality.
It might be an interesting thought exercise to come up with a position that would equalize how multiple classes of people are treated, that today’s liberals would support.
Gay married couples suffering a total loss of security when they get divorced, the way straight married couples do? Fathers being awarded custody in those straight-divorces, fifty percent of the time? An end to racial quotas and set-asides…Justice Sotomayor has made it abundantly clear how liberals see that. The constitutional amendment that says all laws passed by Congress must apply equally to Congress? Illegal aliens from Mexico being treated the same way Americans would be treated if they emigrated illegally to Mexico?
No, the people we call liberals were fascinated with pigeonholing and categorizing people according to class, during the Eugenics era, during the Jackson presidency, during Abolition, during the Civil Rights era, and now. They don’t want everyone treated equally. They’d never be able to handle it. Ever.
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 17:49mkfreeberg: It might be an interesting thought exercise to come up with a position that would equalize how multiple classes of people are treated, that today’s liberals would support.
You seem to think that by recognizing historical discrimination that somehow it’s the same as advocating inequality. Dr. King didn’t create the different classes. He opposed segregation, but certainly spoke of the black community and the white community.
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 04:31M: It might be an interesting thought exercise to come up with a position that would equalize how multiple classes of people are treated, that today’s liberals would support.
Z: You seem to think that by recognizing historical discrimination that somehow it’s the same as advocating inequality.
Recognizing, no. But, treating people unequally is treating people unequally, right?
Y’all are now violating the fundamental law of thought, the Law of Identity, by arguing that a thing is not itself. When y’all’s argument depends on that, it’s time to pack it in.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 06:46mkfreeberg: Recognizing, no. But, treating people unequally is treating people unequally, right?
Are you saying that slave owners owed nothing to their slaves?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 08:09Do you think Jourdon Anderson was ever paid for his faithful service to the Colonel?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 09:32What was the agreed-upon wage rate?
Even when things are done that are obviously wrong, agreements matter. Otherwise, the democrat party would have to pay perhaps trillions of dollars to the poor working families, particularly black families, whose plight they made much worse over the last several decades.
As fascinating a side-conversation as that all is — treating people unequally is treating people unequally. A is A.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 18:44mkfreeberg: What was the agreed-upon wage rate?
Anderson was a slave. He wasn’t given a choice. You didn’t answer. Are you saying that slave owners owed nothing to their slaves? Do you think that someone should be able to steal something and not have to make restitution?
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 02:56You didn’t answer. Are you saying that slave owners owed nothing to their slaves?
Y’all’s question was “Do you think Jourdon Anderson was ever paid for his faithful service to the Colonel?”
I can appreciate that “You didn’t answer the question!!” is a time-honored tactic used as a last resort by liberals who’ve lost arguments, but someone forgot to tell y’all; it’s important to form a good understanding of what question is being asked. Zachriel Member #1 doesn’t read what Zachriel Member #2 typed, yet again.
It also might be good to ponder what point it is y’all are trying to make. Things really sucked for slaves before Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant ended the institution? I would agree with that.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 04:39mkfreeberg: Y’all’s question was “Do you think Jourdon Anderson was ever paid for his faithful service to the Colonel?”
You didn’t answer that question. Let’s grant that he was never paid by the good Colonel. Are you saying that slave owners owed nothing to their slaves?
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 10:17You didn’t answer that question. Let’s grant that he was never paid by the good Colonel. Are you saying that slave owners owed nothing to their slaves?
Are y’all asking whether he was, or whether he should’ve been?
Looks like like y’all need to go off and have a conference. This would be one of many reasons why multiple anonymous persons sharing a common blog-comment-ID is a rare practice; turns out, it isn’t a good one.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 18:58mkfreeberg: Are y’all asking whether he was, or whether he should’ve been?
If you steal something, do you owe your victim restitution?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 04:56If you steal something, do you owe your victim restitution?
If someone figures out you owe them restitution, do they get to break into your house and take it?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:02Zachriel: If you steal something, do you owe your victim restitution?
mkfreeberg: If someone figures out you owe them restitution, do they get to break into your house and take it?
We are finally beginning to understand why you are afraid to engage in a real discussion, and refuse to answer straightforward questions. When you do answer questions about your position, it ends up that you have positions that are absurd—absurd even to you.
It’s a question of morality. If you steal something, do you owe your victim restitution?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:13I have to make sure this really is the question y’all are asking. Y’all have shown a failure to coordinate among y’all’selves what the question is. This is one of many reasons why it’s a rare practice for anonymous individuals to share a commenter ID; turns out, it isn’t a good one.
Since y’all make y’all’s confusion everybody else’s problem, it’s entirely reasonable for me to wonder if that’s been all ironed out or not. Has it been? Have y’all had y’all’s meeting about what question is being asked?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:17It’s a question of morality. If you steal something, do you owe your victim restitution?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:22It’s a question of morality. If you steal something, do you owe your victim restitution?
Of course you do, IF it is possible.
Sometimes it isn’t possible, right?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:26mkfreeberg: Of course you do, IF it is possible
Thank you for answering. Morally, you owe it even if it is not practical to repay.
The slave holder owed back wages to the slave?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:40The slave holder owed back wages to the slave?
He certainly owed something.
However, if he didn’t pay it, I expect civilization found a way to endure. True?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:45mkfreeberg: He certainly owed something.
Thank you for answering.
If the government had decided to give Jourdon Anderson forty acres and a mule in order to help him reintegrate into society —leaving aside whether this would have been wise or not—, would that have violated the 14th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:55If the government had decided to give Jourdon Anderson forty acres and a mule in order to help him reintegrate into society —leaving aside whether this would have been wise or not—, would that have violated the 14th Amendment?
Since the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee concerns equal protection, it isn’t possible to answer y’all’s question without knowing how the Government is deciding this. Did Jourdan Anderson sue his former “employer” and receive a judgment? Or was some special class defined, of which Mr. Anderson was a member, and treated unequally? Or perhaps the class became the beneficiary in a class-action suit?
Y’all understand the separation of powers between the legislative and the judicial branches, right?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:09mkfreeberg</b: Did Jourdan Anderson sue his former “employer” and receive a judgment?
That wasn’t the question. Anderson couldn’t conceivably sue his former employer under a state that allowed his enslavement.
If the Congress had decided to give Jourdon Anderson forty acres and a mule in order to help him reintegrate into society —leaving aside whether this would have been wise or not—, would that have violated the 14th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:17If the Congress had decided to give Jourdon Anderson forty acres and a mule in order to help him reintegrate into society —leaving aside whether this would have been wise or not—, would that have violated the 14th Amendment?
Since the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee concerns equal protection, it isn’t possible to answer y’all’s question without knowing how the Government is deciding this.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:19mkfreeberg: Since the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee concerns equal protection, it isn’t possible to answer y’all’s question without knowing how the Government is deciding this.
Thought you arguing that the words of the text were all that mattered?
Congress finds that Jourdan Anderson needs help reestablishing his life after having been perniciously denied his freedom for years.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:24Thought you arguing that the words of the text were all that mattered?
Congress finds that Jourdan Anderson needs help reestablishing his life after having been perniciously denied his freedom for years.
The words of the text in the Constitution, say the judicial power is not invested in Congress. Article III. I’ll wait while y’all go look it up.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:33mkfreeberg: The words of the text in the Constitution, say the judicial power is not invested in Congress.
Congress holds hearings to determine facts to guide them in legislation. Are you saying they can’t gather facts and reach conclusions before legislating? That’s very odd.
Seriously, you should try to subject your views to skepticism before posting them. Does that even begin to make sense?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:44Congress holds hearings to determine facts to guide them in legislation. Are you saying they can’t gather facts and reach conclusions before legislating? That’s very odd.
Oh okay, I can see I’ll have to look this up for y’all…
Hamilton, writing on the independence of the judiciary in Federalist #78:
The legislature is not (supposed to be) empowered to pass sentences. The Titus Oates incident is one of many historical events that led to this check on their power, although there have been others. There are other checks on Congress’ power put in place over this concern, such as the prohibition in Article I, Section 9 against the Bill of Attainder.
But y’all’s question was about the Fourteenth Amendment. From y’all’s statement “Congress finds that Jourdan Anderson needs help…” we can see this would violate the Separation of Powers doctrine. To answer the Fourteenth Amendment question specifically, we’d need to know if they found he needed this help as an individual, or as part of a targeted class. But I don’t suppose it very much matters if it’s already clarified that Congress is acting outside of its constitutional authority.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:58mkfreeberg: Oh okay, I can see I’ll have to look this up for y’all
Seriously, you’re saying Congress can’t hold hearings to determine facts to guide them in legislation.
mkfreeberg: The legislature is not (supposed to be) empowered to pass sentences.
No one is passing a sentence. No one is being punished. Slaves are being given forty acres and a mule to help them reintegrate into society.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 07:06Seriously, you’re saying Congress can’t hold hearings to determine facts to guide them in legislation.
I’m saying that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused should have certain rights. They should enjoy the right to a trial by a jury of their peers from the state and the district in which the alleged crime was committed, and the trial should be speedy and public. In short — Congress should not be able to pass sentence. Maybe we should write that into the Constitution somewhere.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 12:28mkfreeberg: I’m saying that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused should have certain rights.
That wasn’t the scenario we presented. The proposal was to give former slaves given forty acres and a mule to help them reintegrate into society.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 12:29That wasn’t the scenario we presented. The proposal was to give former slaves given forty acres and a mule to help them reintegrate into society.
Yes, of course. When the government gives assets to people, they never take the assets from someone else in order to do it. They just sort of conjure it all up.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 14:54mkfreeberg: When the government gives assets to people, they never take the assets from someone else in order to do it.
So now you’re saying the government can’t tax and spend?
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 18:55Didn’t say “can’t.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 04:40mkfreeberg: Didn’t say “can’t.”
The question concerns constitutionality. Under the U.S. Constitution, can the government tax and spend? Can it tax and spend for the general welfare? Can it hold hearings to collect facts to determine what qualifies as the general welfare? If the Congress determines that reintegrating slaves into society will help the general welfare, and that providing them with forty acres and a mule will help reintegrating them, leaving aside the wisdom of such a course, is it constitutional? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 05:14So y’all’s proposal is to use the Article I Section 8 authority to tax and spend, and its implicit authority to “hold hearings” to figure out that a guy who’s been dead since 1907 had a tough time of it, and make amends by way of unequal treatment of persons living today who are somehow to be associated with him. And then call it equal treatment.
I already know the argument fails, since it treats unequal treatment as equal treatment. Even so, these finer details are lost on me. How is it, exactly, that y’all intend to violate the original principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution, and in how many places? We have Congress passing sentence just like at a civil trial, we have treating people unequally; that’s two. Are there more?
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 05:41mkfreeberg: So y’all’s proposal is to use the Article I Section 8 authority to tax and spend, and its implicit authority to “hold hearings” to figure out that a guy who’s been dead since 1907 had a tough time of it, and make amends by way of unequal treatment of persons living today who are somehow to be associated with him. And then call it equal treatment.
You didn’t answer the questions. As usual you respond fearfully when questioned about your position.
Under the U.S. Constitution, can the government tax and spend? Can it tax and spend for the general welfare? Can it hold hearings to collect facts to determine what qualifies as the general welfare? If the Congress determines that reintegrating slaves into society will help the general welfare, and that providing them with forty acres and a mule will help reintegrating them, leaving aside the wisdom of such a course, is it constitutional? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:01Z: As usual you respond fearfully when questioned about your position.
Mike Adams:
Are y’all trying to say I did not accurately evaluate the point y’all were trying to make? I really doubt y’all need my help forming any opinions about what the Constitution does & does not allow. Y’all may not always be correct about these things, but y’all are never in doubt.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 06:08mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to say I did not accurately evaluate the point y’all were trying to make?
No. We’re pointing out that you consistently refuse to give direct answers concerning your position.
mkfreeberg: I really doubt y’all need my help forming any opinions about what the Constitution does & does not allow.
That’s why we ask questions.
Under the U.S. Constitution, can the government tax and spend? Can it tax and spend for the general welfare? Can it hold hearings to collect facts to determine what qualifies as the general welfare? If the Congress determines that reintegrating slaves into society will help the general welfare, and that providing them with forty acres and a mule will help reintegrating them, leaving aside the wisdom of such a course, is it constitutional? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:21mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to say I did not accurately evaluate the point y’all were trying to make?
No. We’re pointing out that you consistently refuse to give direct answers concerning your position.
Okay well first, that’s not true. I have occasionally been known to bother with answering y’all’s questions. Obfuscation has been the result of that, more often than enlightenment. Secondly: If there is no issue with my inaccurately evaluating the point y’all are trying to make, then what does it matter whether I answer y’all’s questions? Y’all are anonymous. It really doesn’t matter much if somewhere, there’s some anonymous individual or group of individuals who fail to understand something. Somewhere, there’s someone who fails to understand just about anything.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 17:25mkfreeberg: Okay well first, that’s not true.
Okay. You *almost never* give direct answers concerning your position.
mkfreeberg: what does it matter whether I answer y’all’s questions?
It shows the weakness of your position when you will post hundreds of words, but won’t answer simple questions about your position.
Under the U.S. Constitution, can the government tax and spend?
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 17:52It shows the weakness of your position when you will post hundreds of words, but won’t answer simple questions about your position.
Under the U.S. Constitution, can the government tax and spend?
Is this an example of a question I have been refusing to answer, and in so refusing to answer, have been betraying the “weakness of my position”? This would undermine y’all’s statement about this, since I’ve already gone on record saying Congress does have this authority.
Furthermore, this position should have been clear to anyone paying attention who can think logically about an opponent’s thought process, as opposed to blocking it out. The Constitution means what it says; its language authorizes this; therefore, the authority should be there.
Frankly, if y’all’s questions are indeed posed honestly and in good faith, I have to conclude y’all would have a lot fewer of them to ask if y’all were able to show more of a mark of an educated mind. I am not the first who has noticed this.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2014 @ 04:33mkfreeberg: Is this an example of a question I have been refusing to answer, and in so refusing to answer, have been betraying the “weakness of my position”?
Sure. Now, you’re presuambly going to add another hundred words without directly answering.
mkfreeberg: This would undermine y’all’s statement about this, since I’ve already gone on record saying Congress does have this authority.
It’s not clear from your statement whether that is your position or not. You still haven’t answered directly, but we’ll take that as a yes, Congress does have the authority to tax and spend.
Can Congress tax and spend for the general welfare?
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 05:15M: Is this an example of a question I have been refusing to answer, and in so refusing to answer, have been betraying the “weakness of my position”?
Z: Sure.
Then, I’ll make a note of it that when y’all say I haven’t answered a question, there’s a decent possibility that I actually have answered, since the claim bears no relationship at all to what’s true. Busted clock.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2014 @ 18:09mkfreeberg: Then, I’ll make a note of it that when y’all say I haven’t answered a question, there’s a decent possibility that I actually have answered
As we noted, where you said you answered, there was no direct answer. We took it as a “yes”, but you haven’t confirmed or denied that was your actual answer.
Under the U.S. Constitution, can the government tax and spend? Can Congress tax and spend for the general welfare?
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 05:47As we noted, where you said you answered, there was no direct answer. We took it as a “yes”, but you haven’t confirmed or denied that was your actual answer.
That’s probably okay. If everything in life was certain, and all of the time, it would get boring.
Proceed with y’all’s argument, and I’ll let y’all know if y’all are wrong. I’m capable.
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 06:32mkfreeberg: Proceed with y’all’s argument, and I’ll let y’all know if y’all are wrong.
You claimed that “we can’t have both equality and liberty”.
Binary thinking. Equality and liberty are not absolutes, but continuums. In addition, it is possible to increase both equality and liberty. For example, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment increased both equality *and* liberty*.
The discussion diverted to an example of providing help to former slaves to reintegrate them into society. You apparently think this is unconstitutional. (As usual, it’s hard to tell because you avoid simple declaratives.) So we asked you a series of questions to understand where you think the break in constitutionality occurs.
Under the U.S. Constitution, can Congress tax and spend? {You sort of answered yes, but won’t confirm that is your position.) Can Congress tax and spend for the general welfare? Can Congress hold hearings to collect facts to determine what qualifies as the general welfare? If the Congress determines that reintegrating slaves into society will help the general welfare, and that providing them with forty acres and a mule will help reintegrate them—leaving aside the wisdom of such a course—, is it constitutional? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 06:45Binary thinking. Equality and liberty are not absolutes, but continuums.
I’ve yet to hear of an advocate for equality taking the position, “Okay, that’s equal enough.” If they were ever to do that, they would be conservatives, and by y’all’s exotic definitions they would become advocates for inequality. Advocates for equality, once they see things equalized somewhat, want more. Like all the rest of modern liberalism it is extremist by nature. It’s got to be that way because equality is a destructive operation; it is clean-up. You don’t stop cleaning up when you’re halfway cleaned-up. Left to their own devices, they will obliterate all life, since as long as there is life, there is inequality.
Oh, I can think of one exception to this: Rich, rich left-leaning democrats who push for higher taxes on the wealthy, and find out they’re the ones who are about to get taxed. Every now and then, some of them will decide they like inequality just fine…in that one circumstance.
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 18:55mkfreeberg: I’ve yet to hear of an advocate for equality taking the position, “Okay, that’s equal enough.”
Then they wouldn’t be on the political left, by definition.
mkfreeberg: If they were ever to do that, they would be conservatives…
That’s correct, or at least moderates. That’s why there is a shifting center. As reforms are implemented, people’s perception of equality changes. Someone who was a liberal in 1965, may find the changes of 2014 to be too much. On the other hand, the changes that occurred in 1965 are so deeply rooted in the culture today, that overt racial discrimination is considered extreme, even though it was common enough then. Once upon a time, a ruling nobility was considered the reasonable center.
mkfreeberg: If they were ever to do that, they would be conservatives, and by y’all’s exotic definitions they would become advocates for inequality.
If they are against increasing equality, then they are obviously content with existing inequality. As you mentioned, this may be because they think existing inequality is best (e.g. meritocracy), or because the attempt to create greater equality would be too socially disruptive.
mkfreeberg: Like all the rest of modern liberalism it is extremist by nature.
Liberals balance liberty (that’s the root of the word, you know) with equality. Many liberals advocate primarily for civil liberties, for instance. Perhaps you mean the political left. But even then, your claim of extremism is no more valid than saying those on the political right are necessarily extremists.
People may think the world can be made more equal without advocating absolute equality. That puts them on the political left, by definition, but doesn’t necessarily make them extremist. What makes someone an extremist is the belief that the ends justify the means.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 05:16Then they wouldn’t be on the political left, by definition.
Right. The political left is for more equality, and more, and more, and more, until equality is complete. And life has ceased to exist.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 06:19mkfreeberg: The political left is for more equality, and more, and more, and more, until equality is complete.
No, that would be someone on the absolute left. Most people on the political left are somewhat moderate. They might advocate gay rights, and a social safety net, but still want to have a meritocratic market.
For instance, Bill Clinton advocated workfare, but wanted to provide assistance to help people move into the workforce. He has also advocated universal health care insurance, but worked to increase international market competition by lowering trade barriers.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 06:24No, that would be someone on the absolute left. Most people on the political left are somewhat moderate.
Right, if we have just ONE more rule, ONE more tax, ONE more program, they’ll say “Okay I’m happy now” and take up needlepoint and drop politics.
We just never seem to get there.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 06:29mkfreeberg: Right, if we have just ONE more rule, ONE more tax, ONE more program
And that’s what often happens. Many people who fought for civil rights in 1965, are satisfied and now want social stability, or even a return to traditional values.
As usual, you engage in black-and-white thinking. “Liberals” and “Left” are not monoliths. They are labels we attach groups of people who share some attributes, but differ substantially in other ways.
mkfreeberg: We just never seem to get there.
Consider that the political center has been moving left since the Renaissance. It’s reasonable to worry about too rapid of social change, but change doesn’t seem to be slowing down.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 06:40And that’s what often happens. Many people who fought for civil rights in 1965, are satisfied and now want social stability, or even a return to traditional values.
And the difference between how liberals treat those people, and how the revolutionaries treated those within their midst who were not sufficiently revolutionary, differs only by the absence of an actual guillotine being put into use. Liberalism is extremism by nature. It has been since the storming of the Bastille.
And that’s what often happens. Many people who fought for civil rights in 1965, are satisfied and now want social stability, or even a return to traditional values.
You certainly can be a “moderate” or “extreme” conservative. Conservatism is life; most of us are in favor of life in general, but now & then have our reasons for being annoyed with certain forms of life, if we’re willing to be honest.
Liberalism is death. You can’t be a little bit dead. You can’t crusade for more death, until everybody is kinda-sorta dead, and then stop.
The fact that a lot of so-called liberals fail to understand this, doesn’t matter. They’re death-crusaders. They have to keep going until everyone is dead, or until they’re dead themselves, or until they become apostates of the movement; and, very, very few of them are willing to commit apostasy.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 17:09mkfreeberg: And the difference between how liberals treat those people, and how the revolutionaries treated those within their midst who were not sufficiently revolutionary, differs only by the absence of an actual guillotine being put into use.
Um, turns out that that is a significant difference.
mkfreeberg: Liberalism is death.
Now you’re just being silly. Dr. King was a liberal. Was he a purveyor of death? Though his was a message of reconciliation.
—
Brittanica: liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.
Wikipedia: Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.
Merriam-Webster: liberalism, a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 17:19Um, turns out that that is a significant difference.
Sure there is!
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 20:15mkfreeberg: Sure there is!
Yes, there is. (Nor does one ill-thought view represent an entire philosophy.)
Dr. King was a liberal. Was he a purveyor of death?
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 03:16Under the U.S. Constitution, can Congress tax and spend? {You sort of answered yes, but won’t confirm that is your position.) Can Congress tax and spend for the general welfare? Can Congress hold hearings to collect facts to determine what qualifies as the general welfare? If the Congress determines that reintegrating slaves into society will help the general welfare, and that providing them with forty acres and a mule will help reintegrate them—leaving aside the wisdom of such a course—, is it constitutional? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 03:49Dr. King was a liberal.
Wrong.
Under the U.S. Constitution, can Congress tax and spend? {You sort of answered yes, but won’t confirm that is your position.) Can Congress tax and spend for the general welfare? Can Congress hold hearings to collect facts to determine what qualifies as the general welfare? If the Congress determines that reintegrating slaves into society will help the general welfare, and that providing them with forty acres and a mule will help reintegrate them—leaving aside the wisdom of such a course—, is it constitutional? Why or why not?
Yes, to all of the above — insofar as Congress’ actions remain legislative and not judicial.
Congress MUST operate within the parameters of the U.S. Constitution. Always. If any act of theirs ventures outside the perimeter of constitutional authority in any way, the entire act is null and void. This has been well established for over two centuries now.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 17:55mkfreeberg: Yes, to all of the above — insofar as Congress’ actions remain legislative and not judicial.
Thank you. Why did you just answer that the first time, oh, nevermind. So, Congress can hold hearings, possibly determine that reintegrating slaves into society will help the general welfare, that providing them with forty acres and a mule will effect that reintegration, the allocate funds to do so.
mkfreeberg: Congress MUST operate within the parameters of the U.S. Constitution.
Of course. That was the question.
mkfreeberg: Wrong.
Oh gee whiz. King was considered a liberal by people of his time, his opposition was called conservative. He was even often accused of being a communist. King supported federal supremacy to end segregation in public accommodations, supported affirmative action, supported income redistribution, jobs programs, and government spending on cities. He opposed the Vietnam War as a war of colonialism. His most important speech was at the March on Washington for *Jobs and Freedom*. King was shot dead while supporting a strike by a public employees union in Memphis.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:31Oh gee whiz. King was considered a liberal…
Whenever y’all express exasperation against truth, I notice y’all tend to run & duck & hide behind passive-voice statements.
How would y’all define Dr. King as a “liberal”? He didn’t sit to one side or to the other of Louis XVI in parliament. He had a dream that one day, people would be considered not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Hey, that’s what he said…
In the age of Obama, that makes you a right-wing extremist. Not even a conservative moderate. But something of a whack-job. If Pharoah Barry and Justice Wise-Latina Soto have their way.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:35mkfreeberg: How would y’all define Dr. King as a “liberal”?
Because his political views are primarily those of a liberal, certainly on the political left.
Federal power over states’ rights
Ending segregation
Affirmative action
Income redistribution
Jobs programs
Urban renewal
Opposed the Vietnam War
Marched for jobs and freedom
Supported a strike by a public employees union.
These are all positions of the political left. “Jobs and freedom” is just another way to say equality and liberty.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:40The American dream, King said at Lincoln University in 1961, “says that each individual has certain basic rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state. To discover where they came from it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity, for they are God-given.… The American dream reminds us that every man is heir to the legacy of worthiness.”
That’s conservative. I think most people would agree it isn’t liberal, the way we define it today.
By the way, I don’t recall y’all answering: What year of vintage would y’all’s definition of “liberal” be? If it comes from somewhere around 1917, as I suspect is the case — or really, anytime before the Florida election debacle of 2000 — it’s probably obsolete. It would be silly to assert otherwise.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:58mkfreeberg: I think most people would agree it isn’t liberal, the way we define it today.
So someone who supports an expansion of the welfare state, affirmative action, jobs programs, income redistribution, public employees unions, is a conservative?
What this shows is how your position leads to contradictions. You can’t reconcile a belief in God-given rights with progressivism, so you have to ignore King’s actual political positions.
mkfreeberg: What year of vintage would y’all’s definition of “liberal” be?
Liberal means much the same today as it did in previous generations, though the issues have changed.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 05:59Liberal means much the same today as it did in previous generations, though the issues have changed.
Now we know why y’all’s “definition” is wrong, and cannot ever be right. A lot more has changed with that word than just issues, and y’all refuse to acknowledge it.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 07:33mkfreeberg: Now we know why y’all’s “definition” is wrong, and cannot ever be right.
No. Liberals still support equality and liberty. The political center has moved. On the other hand, it hasn’t moved so much that Dr. King would be considered on the political right.
Try to focus. Would someone who supported federal power over states’ rights, an expansion of the welfare state, ending discrimination, affirmative action, jobs programs, income redistribution, ending foreign wars, and public employees unions, be considered on the political left or right today?
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 07:39