We believe in a culture of life—that every human life is a beautiful, sacred, unique child of a loving God.
We believe in justice for all—at all times.
We believe in liberty.
But the central institutions that best transmit these values—the family and the culture—are under withering attack.
We must renew our families and rebuild our culture!
We need to revitalize marriage, support the formation of families, and encourage a culture of commitment.
We need a culture that encourages what is right and discourages what is wrong—and has the wisdom to understand the difference.
Social Security
The Social Security System is facing a demographic crisis that will someday affect the financial viability of the Social Security Trust Fund. Projections for the financial solvency of the Trust Fund show that as baby boomers begin to enter retirement there will be an increase in the number of people drawing social security benefits, and yet a corresponding decrease in the number of working people who provide those benefits. Clearly, this will present a crisis within the system. We must firmly resolve to keep our commitment to current retirees and those preparing to retire. Further, we must modernize the system to ensure that Social Security is financially sound for our children. I believe every American has a stake in this debate, and I will continue to keep the dialogue open as we work toward a solution.
Marriage
I believe that our society’s strength lies in its most fundamental building block, the family unit. Family begins with marriage. We must defend the institution of marriage by defending the definition of marriage. The right to marry is not the right to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
How we define marriage is vitally important because of the message it sends to the culture—to the young, and to the next generation of citizens. Make no mistake, a society that undermines marriage and the family is undermining itself, and a government that attempts to supplant rather than to support the family and marriage is bent on its own destruction.
Culture and Values
We must clean up America’s culture, beginning in every home. A new callousness can be seen on our television sets and movie theaters, in video games and on magazine racks. While parents remain the first line of defense in the fight to protect our children from inappropriate media content, some of the responsibility for this effort also rests with the producers and distributors of modern media. With this in mind, I introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2006 and was pleased to see the President sign it into law. The Act increased fines on broadcast networks that air obscene and indecent material during the hours children are most likely to be watching. Shielding our children from the violence, obscenity, and indecency in today’s media continues to be one of my top priorities.
The answer seems obvious to me: people do as they are told, and it is advertising that has made people want that SUV, that $1500 range, that $2000 sofa, and sixty channels of crap available 24/7.
American culture has been seriously changed for the worse, it is clear. People do not care for one another as they once did.
I don't have a low opinion of human beings, just morons who allow some damned ad to convince them to act against what is obviously their own best interests.
I don't have a high opinion of ads, either. I detest and loathe advertising and propaganda of all kinds, except ads that either tell you where to buy something I need for less, or tell me about some useful product I have not heard of before.
"Are there no workhouses , jails and poorhouses?"
Scrooge thought that the taxes demanded from him were sufficient and his personal caring would be superfluous.
================================================
So Scrooge was an example of an American in bygone days? Is that your reason for mentioning this?
I suppose that you would accuse the Angel of Christmas Past of being a Liberal, the Angel of Christmas Present of being a Liberal New York Times-type reporter, and the Angel of Christmas Future of being an alarmist and a demogogue as well.
Do you remember the line of Scrooge in "Christmas Carol" when confronted with a request for a charitable contribution?
"Are there no workhouses , jails and poorhouses?"
Scrooge thought that the taxes demanded from him were sufficient and his personal caring would be superfluous.
A Christmass carol is the journy of Scrooge from liberalism to coservatism.
QuoteA Christmass carol is the journy of Scrooge from liberalism to coservatism.
Wow. Read above and honestly read the story again in context of the time period and British Victorian thought. You are way, way off Plane.
Not in the context of the modern modes of thought.
If you were to go through a Dickens novel and replace "Poorhouse" with "Project" and otherwise carefully replace every insitiution contgemporary to his society with its modern equivelent you would convert Charles Dickens into Bill O'Riley.
BTW Georgia was settled with the overflow of debtors prisons in the early 1700's , are you shure that the King was careing before 1830?
QuoteNot in the context of the modern modes of thought.
By contrast look at the conservative viewpoint (both then and today). Most believe in differential education based on wealth (i.e. you wouldn't believe in abolishing private education that is available only to the wealthiest citizens). Most believe in allowing want in some as a price to be paid for the great wealth of others. In fact, the modern argument to abolish benefits systems or severely restrict them is similar to that of the workhouses of yesteryear.
So, really know nothing at all about conservatism ?
Why do you suppose that a voucher system is popular with conservatives?
A welthyer nd better educated population will generally vote for less dependance on government , that is why Liberals favor less effective education.
So, really know nothing at all about conservatism ?
Why do you suppose that a voucher system is popular with conservatives?
A welthyer nd better educated population will generally vote for less dependance on government , that is why Liberals favor less effective education.
QuoteSo, really know nothing at all about conservatism ?
Why do you suppose that a voucher system is popular with conservatives?
A welthyer nd better educated population will generally vote for less dependance on government , that is why Liberals favor less effective education.
No offence Plane, but your use of "A Christmas Carol" in this context was really horrible. You've used revision to make it into something it never was.
This isn't about vouchers and less government, it is about the story itself. (Sweden uses a vouchers scheme, so I know more about it tham you think).
But look at what you're saying, "dependence on government." You still show this arrogance over those in poverty. As I said, your comparison of Dickens to modern conservatives is revisionism at its worst.
Methnks thou doest protest too much?
I really don't think that the governments war on poverty has been effective under any administration
An I don't thik that the "Chrismass Carol" story endorses better sort of poorhouse , it is about personal involvement and careing by the individual , that is, a conservative position.
QuoteMethnks thou doest protest too much?
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Is there any work you won't defile? ;) (that's a joke!)
I really don't think that the governments war on poverty has been effective under any administration
An I don't thik that the "Chrismass Carol" story endorses better sort of poorhouse , it is about personal involvement and careing by the individual , that is, a conservative position.
Jeezus, you are so far off the mark as to be on a different planet.
The closest thing to Scrooge (before his transformation) these days would be some scumball like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell.
Dickens was a great writer and observer of society. Bill O'Reilly, by comparison, is a loudmouthed blind man.
What you know about liberal political theory is something that appears to have been emitted from one of Rush's orifices and allowed to ferment for decades.
It is scarcely conceivable that anyone should, in our age of the world, exert a stronger social influence than Mr. Dickens has in his power. His sympathies are on the side of the suffering and the frail; and this makes him the idol of those who suffer, from whatever cause. We may wish that he had a sounder social philosophy, and that he could suggest a loftier moral to sufferers
All right then , how do you caricterise Dickens attitude twards government interventon?
===========================================================
The government intervention in Dicken's day were the Corn Laws.
In the 1700's, each village owned a town commons, which was used to grow food for the town. Sometimes the Church held for the town, sometimes the land was held directly by the village.
The Corn Laws took the lands away from both the Church and the villages and they were turned into grazing lands for sheep owned by the nobility and the large landholders. The people, no longer able to support themselves, were forced to leave Britain and Scotland for the Colonies, or to go to the mill cities of the Midlands, such as Leeds and Manchester to work, when there was work. When there was no work, they turned to crime, alcoholism and were sent to prison, poorhouses or transported to the Colonies, first to what is now the US , then to Canada and Australia.
Dickens was against this government intervention, since it destroyed the traditional way of life and replaced it with something considerably worse.
In no part of A Christmas Carol does Dickens advocate that the government do anything for the people. His focus was on the supposedly Christian business class showing more compassion and understanding for their employees. He suggests that Scrooge would enjoy life more and would be thought of more highly if he paid more attention to his family as well as that pof his employee, Bob Cratchit.
Dickens probably thought that the Crown and its bussiness allies should simply leave the people alone: they had already ruined many lives with the Corn Laws and similar schemes.
So while it can be argued that Plane is incorrectly characterizing Scrooge and the story, for Plane to claim that Scrooge's journey is one from liberalism to conservatism is neither entirely out of bounds nor entirely invalid.
In the 1700's, each village owned a town commons, which was used to grow food for the town. Sometimes the Church held for the town, sometimes the land was held directly by the village.
"Aristotle who said: "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual."
"
Plane, this is a primary example of taking something and revising it to fit your political view. I'd have thought evangelicals would be against that. "
"So yeah, I was probably a little harsh on Plane (somewhat deliberately, in hopes he might go learn a bit more of Dickens or perhaps read A Bleak House one of Dickens most superb works that delves into the social, political, and economic issues of his day). Art is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but it doesn't mean that one has to accept poor interpretation. For example, Puff the Magic Dragon was just a song for children, no matter how many anti-marijuana folks like to make it into something much more sinister ;)"
Do they characterize the poor with disgust? Do they wish to establish deliberately demeaning programs through religion to dissuade the poor from seeking charitable aid?
Are you certain that the demeaning nature of the treatment of the poor in the time of Dickins was an intended program?
There are those within and without Christianity who consider the message of Christ to be malliable , so why not reverse the teaching of any teacher to mean what you want it to?
I find it most encouraging that my simple "advertisement" for Brownback has stirred the intellectual juices. Commendations to all, I say!
The Professor, Proud to be a 2006 NCAA National Champion Gator!
I support each and every one of these positions. Not surprisingly, I may add. ;D Why don't you?
| Senator Brownback was a chief sponsor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would stop activist judges from imposing same-sex marriage on the people of all 50 states and redefining marriage for all of us. This Amendment would preempt such arbitrary judicial rulings by defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the U.S. Constitution. |
| to remove the financial incentive of the ACLU and other left-wing groups from suing various governmental entities related to First Amendment and religious expression issues, Brownback has authored legislation which would end reimbursement of legal fees for the ACLU from taxpayer’s funds. |
| I introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2006 and was pleased to see the President sign it into law. The Act increased fines on broadcast networks that air obscene and indecent material during the hours children are most likely to be watching. Shielding our children from the violence, obscenity, and indecency in today’s media continues to be one of my top priorities. |
1. I know the FDA isn't well-liked, but look at some of the minor stuff they do. Let's take something like rules for pasteurization of milk. Mind you, there other processes that work (we use a very expedient process in this country, which is actually what manufacturers prefer, but is also why our cheese and milk taste like crap compared to Europe and Canada). Still, this is likely an overall good thing as it prevents nasty infections from the public. Who would handle such minor regulations with Libertarians? Would it be no one?
Why can't it be handled like the pasteurization of eggs?
======================================
Are eggs pasteurized? How? ???
However, the government (via the FDA) makes it nearly impossible to buy non-pasteurized milk.
I've always wondered a few things about Libertarians Prince, if you don't mind answering. Honest questions, so no tricky follow ups or expected answers here.
1. I know the FDA isn't well-liked, but look at some of the minor stuff they do. Let's take something like rules for pasteurization of milk. Mind you, there other processes that work (we use a very expedient process in this country, which is actually what manufacturers prefer, but is also why our cheese and milk taste like crap compared to Europe and Canada). Still, this is likely an overall good thing as it prevents nasty infections from the public. Who would handle such minor regulations with Libertarians? Would it be no one?
2. How do you explain The Jungle? by Upton Sinclair. I'm aware of the background of the author and the book, but the story itself is very much based on reality. Isn't it difficult to argue for industry without the burden of government when past examples of it have not exactly been shining moments? I know Sinclair didn't really mean for his book to inspire further legislation on inspection, but that was an argument from a socialist view, not a Libertarian view.
Yet we are told past bad actions by businesses reveal a need to regulate them and to take authority over their own operations away from them. I think this is the reverse of the situation we ought to have. I'm not saying businesses should get a free pass to do whatever they want. Certainly they ought to be held responsible for abuses of rights and fraud and the like. But it seems to me that businesses are more open to correction than government.
Rockefeller ran his compeditors out of business
Do Libertarians believe in "Market Failure?"
What about corporate structure itself. Is there a point at which a company could be so large and powerful that it might be a threat to liberal freedoms?
Neither Government nor business can be trusted to remain honest , how is the best balance struck?
With the People vigilent , the business community can be played off against the govenment and vice versa, if the populace igores one or both the potential for abuse rises to certainty.
Thanks for the answers Prince.
Though it is flawed, I've noticed that my scores on the Political Compass test have changed over the years (though certainly in a definite direction). It is interesting to see how that relates to one's actual political philosophy.
Though we might differ drastically in some concepts, I think we have a lot of agreement on individual liberties, which is surprising in some cases. Perhaps it shouldn't be.
What do you think is the nature of rights? Are they fundamental and unalienable or merely what society says they are? Or something else? You don't need to get in depth, and you can take your time. I may be away from the Saloon for a few days.
I'll think on it then (though you may have to remind me if it has been a few days!).
What do you think is the nature of rights? Are they fundamental and unalienable or merely what society says they are? Or something else?
But these exist only in the here and now. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." We do? Why? Who died and made John Locke a god?
I think the nature of rights exists within the minds of man. I don't believe we are endowed with any fundamental or inalienable rights. Nor do I believe that it necessarily depends upon the whims of society (though it could if one's government was set up in such a way).
So, for example the idea that the right to one's property is the building block of other rights and is a fundamental right is, to me, just an abstract notion to support one's own political philosophy.
Prime Minister Thatcher was an avid believer in exactly the same thing and once said that any Conservative who didn't believe in the fundamental right to own property should leave the party.
But these exist only in the here and now. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." We do? Why? Who died and made John Locke a god?
Now, as a faithful follower of Christ, the only real "right" I can consider truly inalienable is the right to choose whether or not to accept or deny the Holy Spirit. There are consequences to living with that choice but to my knowledge none of them force me to accept those "truths to be self-evident."
So, in your opinion, rights are merely abstract concepts? I am curious as to how that does not leave rights as merely what society says they are (which, in my opinion, would mean they are privileges and not rights).
So, the philosophy requires the notion of property rights to prop it up and is not built upon a foundation of property rights? Or am I misunderstanding?
Not that I agree with Thatcher's sentiment, but the idea of property rights as fundamental indicates to me that it was, to Thatcher, a building block and not a prop.
Well you may not hold those truths as self-evident, but the people signed the document apparently did.
But you say these rights exist only in the here and now. Why? Recognizing them may be relatively recent in human history, but that doesn't mean they did not exist before John Locke or the seventeenth century or whatever marker you like of the beginning of the ideas of rights and natural law and all that jazz.
I would certainly feel more comfortable responding to that if I had some clarification on what you mean. I think you've mentioned being Catholic before, and so I'm thinking this may be a point of semantic or possibly theological difference from what I am used to encountering in the Protestant side of Christianity. I think I know what you mean, but I would like to be sure.
Did I answer the question UP?
I had another for you as well.
Apologies, I certainly did not respond with any intention of ill-will. I sincerely apologise if that was the result.
My question is what do Libertarians think and what would they do with traditionally nomadic people such as the Roma? These folks are generally not wealthy enough to purchase land, but have a long history of travelling and setting up camps on open land. Would they still have that right? Would a Libertarian government provide some sort of designated sites for them, or would private land-owners be expected to meet that need?
Or, would the Roma be expected to simply acclimate themselves to a modern, capitalist lifestyle?
Yes, rights are abstract concepts. That doesn't mean they are unimportant, but I don't see them as fundamental or anything upon which to build a political philosophy.
[...]
I'm not saying that it is a "prop," but there is no clear reason for it to be a starting point for one's political philosophy (or any philosophy). In fact the entire concept of rights as inalienable does not necessarily follow as an ideological starting point. To me, and again you asked me what I think, it smacks of utopianism.
Yet, the phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident" is the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so."
There's no more inherent truth to the founding father's statement of these "truths" than to Louis XVI's belief that he inherited a divine right to be King and therefore impose his will upon the people of France. That was just as "self-evident" to the French monarchy and the aristocrats of Europe.
It is reference to the one unpardonable sin. True, I drifted into theology, but we can be assured that this is constant and never-changing. Christ indicated that this sin is so grave as to be unpardonable, even in His supernatural mercy. Therefore we can assume that here there must be a choice, a "right" to decide whether to accept the Divine Paraclete or not.
Apologies, I certainly did not respond with any intention of ill-will. I sincerely apologise if that was the result.
My question is what do Libertarians think and what would they do with traditionally nomadic people such as the Roma? These folks are generally not wealthy enough to purchase land, but have a long history of travelling and setting up camps on open land. Would they still have that right? Would a Libertarian government provide some sort of designated sites for them, or would private land-owners be expected to meet that need?
Or, would the Roma be expected to simply acclimate themselves to a modern, capitalist lifestyle?
That seems unnecessarily harsh. The phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident" seems to me short for "we accept this and we're not going to spend a lot of time and paper writing a philosophical treatise." To equate it to "because I said so" implies that there was something arbitrary to the ideas and complaints in the document. For all of my libertarian cynicism, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers were petulant children. There were serious intellectual reasons behind their decisions, but the Declaration was not the place to explain them all, otherwise it would be a book, and a book is not what was needed.
This does not mean that nothing should be considered self-evident or that saying something is self-evident is necessarily an intellectual crutch.
That some rights are unalienable seems self evident to me , short this idea and you come to the rediculous notion that no abridgement of rights by law coould be wrong.
There would likely have to be some sort of reason for an anti-Roma sentiment in society, but I don't know why that would occur in a generally libertarian society.
So, in your opinion, rights are merely abstract concepts? I am curious as to how that does not leave rights as merely what society says they are (which, in my opinion, would mean they are privileges and not rights).
The idea that all are equal before the law (as opposed to kings, nobility or clergy having special privileges is not self-ev8ident, either, but it is a good start for a fair society.
It is a moral argument, but by no means are the "truths self-evident." Think of it this way. If a propisition is "self-evident" then any reasonable individual should understand it and be unable to offer a legitimate reason to disagree. I think you'll find a great deal of reasonable people who will offer logical reasons why this argument is not self-evident.
In Britain they tend to illegally camp on private land. [...]
On the other hand the Roma do sometimes leave trash and sewage on the private land. They do commit petty theft and run con games (there are parts of Majorca where having your wallet lifted is part of the "tourist" experience). As a general rule in many parts of Europe, if you're in a large crowd be very cautious of little girls selling flowers or other such things.
They also buck traditional society. Their children are often undereducated and sometimes malnourished. They sometimes refuse to go to clinics or seek medical attention even if it is free. They distrust society and society distrusts them.
Let's put it this way - if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept of "rights" have any meaning?
You may well be free, but your rights to life and property won't protect you from tigers and tsunamis.
"Rights" are a meaningless concept absent agents bound to acknowledge them. In other words, rights are a contract between agents competent to acknowledge them.
It is not self-evident that all men are equal. I seriouwsly doubt if any two men have EVER been equal.
If it were true, then any one of us could replace any player in the NBA, the NFL, or any other sporting league. We could all be Lance Armstrong, or Barry Bonds, or Donald Trump.
Any woman could be Oprah, or Hillary, or Paris Hilton.
In what respects is it right for the state and the law to acknoledge the inequality of persons?
Let's put it this way - if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept of "rights" have any meaning?
Yes.
You may well be free, but your rights to life and property won't protect you from tigers and tsunamis.
Uh, rights do not do protect me now, even though I live with a society of people around me. And no one said they would.
"Rights" are a meaningless concept absent agents bound to acknowledge them. In other words, rights are a contract between agents competent to acknowledge them.
I disagree. Laws are meaningless without people around to acknowledge them, but rights are not laws. Humans have rights as humans not as parts of a society, imo. Rights do not require a contract or agreement to exist. If they did, they would be privileges and not rights.
In what respects is it right for the state and the law to acknowledge the inequality of persons?
What do you mean by inequality?
QuoteLet's put it this way - if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept of "rights" have any meaning?QuoteYes.
How so?
QuoteYou may well be free, but your rights to life and property won't protect you from tigers and tsunamis.QuoteUh, rights do not do protect me now, even though I live with a society of people around me. And no one said they would.
Then what use are they?
Then I have to ask - how do you define "rights", where do they come from, and how do you know that you have them?
The utility of this line of inquiry has probably run its course. Instead of flogging the moribund nag, would it be more productive to list (and explain why) certain "rights" are so inherent in the nature of man so as to be "self-evident"?
The notion of ownership of oneself is interesting but problematic. It casts what I perceive to be an essentially economic model on a reality (personhood), which is actually damaged by such reductionism. The essence of humanity is much more comprehensive and profound than a category derived from the marketplace.
But accepting the premise, and incidentally the primacy of property rights in the list of human entitlements, you must immediately admit, as with bargaining in the agora, one can conceivably bargain away his foremost property right, that is, himself. The usual method is by contract. Take, for example, a player in the NFL: does he still own himself or does the team owner possessed of his contract? Is this arrangement, logically extended, a ceding of one's humanity?
While there are a host of issues your continued discourse on this topic raises, I will focus on only one, perhaps one of the most important and fertile: your apparent conception that a man is "king unto himself," a relatively complete autonomous actor, as opposed to being both that but also a member of a collective (or many collectives) in most situations. This difference implies a lot, the most topical to this board being the reciprocal demands an individual and a group (of whatever kind) expect of each other, indeed, can demand of each other.
At this point, maintaining for the sake of argument that my "amalgam" more closely resembles reality, I note that your positing of a foundational notion of property rights is, well, acontextual, imagined as a starting point through a method undisclosed and untested.