Citizenship vs. Liberalism

[regent]

In actuality most of the revolutionaries and founders were with money and land it would be somewhat natural that some would believe them to be conservative, and some were. The main point, however, with our revolution and eventual Constitution, was the use of liberal ideas, ideas from Locke and others. The founders and framers conducted a war and set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas.
Liberal ideas, as being ideas as found in scholarly books on political ideologies, not as many posters define liberal and conservative.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tories emigrated before and during the war; they're allegiance was to the state (conservative idea, right?). The patriots, on the other hand - the founders and, indeed, most Americans at the time - espoused the individualism and natural law principles that conservatives today espouse.

Conservatives today want the government to get out of the way so the Corporations and the Christian churches can run the country.

How many people died at the hands of Corporations and Churches in the 20th Century?

None that I know of. At least, there were no cases of Institutionalized murder, rape, torture and genocide by those two that I know of.

At least 150,000,000 (One Hundred Fifty Million) people died at the hands of government.

Okay so you don't disagree with me for once. The Corporations and the Church should have more power.

 

[norwegen]

Conservatives today want the government to get out of the way so the Corporations and the Christian churches can run the country.

Okay, you've cracked our code. When we call for a return to constitutional government, that is exactly what we mean.

Your mom was right; you're a genius.

Ok, which if any of these statements does not apply, in general or as a consensus, to the modern American conservative?

1. They want less regulation of business.

2. America is a Christian Nation

Liberals know neither history nor the mind of republicanism.

Deregulating a sector means that that sector will be king? Get real.

 

[Edgetho]

I've already won that argument dozens of times.

Now you tell us, how many poor people would be better off if we took away their Medicaid, their public schooling, their food stamps, and any housing assistance they get?

How many would magically rise out of poverty?

Because that's YOUR solution. Explain to us, in detail, how YOUR solution works better...

...and to go back to my original point, name the countries where that works.

Lying as usual, huh fuckwad?

Where did any of us, including PC, ever state that we wanted to ELIMINATE those programs?

You're just a lying fuck. You really and honestly are.

scumbag

Seriously,

how can you claim simultaneously that you think the programs HURT the POOR, and then turn around and claim you don't want to get rid of those programs?

How do you put those two positions together without looking irrational?

How about we streamline them? How about we be more careful about letting anybody and everybody on them?

I was listening to a 50 year old man telling 4 or 5 teenagers how he was scamming the system and how to do it themselves.

We can argue about whether it's epidemic or not but there is no argument it's a lot money we're giving away right now.

How about we work on the culture a little bit, too?

How about we convince the TV shows to show a little more respect for marriage and the nuclear family?

How about, for the first time, you admit it's a problem?

Eliminate them? I defy you to show me a Conservative that wants to eliminate them.

For somebody who doesn't believe in Christianity, you've sure been on that cross a long time

 

[Edgetho]

Conservatives today want the government to get out of the way so the Corporations and the Christian churches can run the country.

How many people died at the hands of Corporations and Churches in the 20th Century?

None that I know of. At least, there were no cases of Institutionalized murder, rape, torture and genocide by those two that I know of.

At least 150,000,000 (One Hundred Fifty Million) people died at the hands of government.

Okay so you don't disagree with me for once. The Corporations and the Church should have more power.

Typical dimocrap. Obsessed with power.

How about we don't give ANYBODY any power at all?

Nobody. Not the government, not the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM....

Not even to The People.

I mean, Corporations can go to hell, AFAIC. As long as we have a Capitalist Society, competition will keep them in line.

How about nobody gets to tell other people what to do?

Not even The People.

There's too much power and too much power is being used.

I'm an opponent of power

 

[Kondor3]

The Founding Fathers were Liberals?

I don't think so.

DOA, right from the start...

I see it differently.

...And Conservative Radicals are called Reactionaries. They look back in time, and what to live there.

So much for the attempt to avoid the same, boring most-frequently-used labels...

 

[Kondor3]

The Founding Fathers were Liberals?

I don't think so.

I'm quite ready to believe that the Founding Fathers were Radicals.

Some of them Liberal Radicals.

Some of them Conservative Radicals.

Some of them Egalitarian and even Abolitionist in nature.

Some of them Wealthy and well-Propertied and some even Slaveholders to boot.

All of them being forced to morph into the first Americans by the events of the times.

They found a Middle Ground, in fostering Egalitarianism - amongst White Folk, anyway.

It fell to another generation to pay the ultimate price for that Founding Compromise between Liberal and Conservative positions of the Founding Times.

In short, they were radical Whigs. The Whigs reemerged in the 1850s to ally with the abolitionists and establish the modern Republican Party, the party that would eventually attract conservatives.

Frankly, it's my perception that there were enough of both Liberals and Conservatives (as we understand those terms in our present time) amongst the rolls of the Founding Fathers... proto-Democrats and proto-Republicans and proto-Independents... before those came to identify partisan leanings. And there seemed to be plenty of cross-over, as well; including propertied types who were stronger advocates for the Common Man than some of their less entrenched colleagues.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[boilermaker55]

As if someone copies down all the blatantly wrong statements you make.
It has been said on this board by many on the right to leave if you don't like the country, leave.
It has been said over and over.

What is so absolutely asinine about this thread is the OP thinks they have more right to exist in this country and those that disagree with their personal ideology should leave.
Then on the next breath the makes statements about individuality.
How collectively idiotic when you make both statements and they try to prove their point by making both statements.

"...those that disagree with their personal ideology should leave."

I'd like to see you provide where I said that.

 

[candycorn]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion.....but my pal, Mr. H, insists on the bottom line first....so here it is:
Liberalism is the very opposite of the intent of 'citizenship.'





1. 'Citizenship' is the goal and aspiration of Western political systems, and can be recognized by its result: both "human rights" and "natural rights," which are the pre-condition of their consent to be governed.

a. Those values are memorialized in the United States Constitution, the abrogation of which is the justification for revolution.
While conservatives believe it is the citizen's right to replace an unjust government, Liberals believe that the government is the government, for better or for worse.



2. There is a responsibility that flows from citizenship, duties to others, basically to strangers, including a defense of their common territory and the maintenance of the law that applies within said jurisdiction.
Roger Scruton, "The West and the Rest."

a. Note the central idea: territory. There is no common territory without borders, and without national sovereignty.







3. The tenets of Liberalism are counter to this theme. Liberalism endorses open borders, and a 'citizen of the world' view....a construct that never has and never will exist.

a. Since the dawn of politics, some men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

4. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism.

a. Imaginary, not only unproven: data is available documenting the deleterious effects. Called communism, socialism, Liberalism, whatever, it responsible for over 100 million slaughtered human beings.

How to explain its endorsement by the Western elites? Simple: it is a religious belief, largely based on a tragic misunderstanding of human nature, and the Left’s inability to confront, or even recognize, evil.







5. To recognize those wedded to this view, simply note who supports the communist inception, the United Nations.

a. "A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.
He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know






It is not communism, one-world government, or the loss of national sovereignty that promises peace and security.

"They are migrating in search of citizenship - which is the principal gift of national
jurisdictions, and the origin of peace, law and stability and prosperity that still prevail
in the West."
Roger Scruton, "A Political Philosophy," p. 5



Beware of a President intent on giving away America's sovereignty.

Nobody cares or read what you wrote.

Suffice to say this:

If you want to live like a Republican;
Then you should vote like a Democrat.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lying as usual, huh fuckwad?

Where did any of us, including PC, ever state that we wanted to ELIMINATE those programs?

You're just a lying fuck. You really and honestly are.

scumbag

Seriously,

how can you claim simultaneously that you think the programs HURT the POOR, and then turn around and claim you don't want to get rid of those programs?

How do you put those two positions together without looking irrational?

How about we streamline them? How about we be more careful about letting anybody and everybody on them?

I was listening to a 50 year old man telling 4 or 5 teenagers how he was scamming the system and how to do it themselves.

We can argue about whether it's epidemic or not but there is no argument it's a lot money we're giving away right now.

How about we work on the culture a little bit, too?

How about we convince the TV shows to show a little more respect for marriage and the nuclear family?

How about, for the first time, you admit it's a problem?

Eliminate them? I defy you to show me a Conservative that wants to eliminate them.

For somebody who doesn't believe in Christianity, you've sure been on that cross a long time

Weird. This is the first time I'm hearing someone say that those programs hurt the poor while at the same time saying they shouldnt be eliminated.

Hurting the poor is ok, Edge just want the hurt streamlined.

And run TV....totally reasonable.

 

[Edgetho]

Seriously,

how can you claim simultaneously that you think the programs HURT the POOR, and then turn around and claim you don't want to get rid of those programs?

How do you put those two positions together without looking irrational?

How about we streamline them? How about we be more careful about letting anybody and everybody on them?

I was listening to a 50 year old man telling 4 or 5 teenagers how he was scamming the system and how to do it themselves.

We can argue about whether it's epidemic or not but there is no argument it's a lot money we're giving away right now.

How about we work on the culture a little bit, too?

How about we convince the TV shows to show a little more respect for marriage and the nuclear family?

How about, for the first time, you admit it's a problem?

Eliminate them? I defy you to show me a Conservative that wants to eliminate them.

For somebody who doesn't believe in Christianity, you've sure been on that cross a long time

Weird. This is the first time I'm hearing someone say that those programs hurt the poor while at the same time saying they shouldnt be eliminated.

Hurting the poor is ok, Edge just want the hurt streamlined.

And run TV....totally reasonable.

You're a juvenile douche.

Every study shows that people get a job within 6 weeks of them losing unemployment. Whether they been on it for 6 Months or 2 years.

Same amount of time lapses between their unemployment benefits running out and them getting a job.

Can't say as I blame them, frankly.

But I'm tired of paying for it indirectly... Or directly.

Same with Welfare. You got "X" amount of time and you gotta find a job or give us a very good explanation as to why.

But dimocrap scum, one in particular, the liar in chief, killed the work requirement of welfare.

How come it worked fine under a Republican Congress and a Republican President, but not for the liar in chief?

You're a fucking douche. All you wanna do is talk in circles.

I'm tired of paying for you to sit home and play Parcheesi in your Mom's basement while the rest of America has to go to work to support you're sorry ass.

Now you're gonna tell me that you're an executive somewhere but you can't tell me the name of the company because they'd kill you if they did.

You're also to tell me how you made well into six figures last year and how popular you are with your boss because you're so fucking smart.....

And you wanna tell me about welfare?

Right

 

[norwegen]

The Founding Fathers were Liberals?

I don't think so.

I'm quite ready to believe that the Founding Fathers were Radicals.

Some of them Liberal Radicals.

Some of them Conservative Radicals.

Some of them Egalitarian and even Abolitionist in nature.

Some of them Wealthy and well-Propertied and some even Slaveholders to boot.

All of them being forced to morph into the first Americans by the events of the times.

They found a Middle Ground, in fostering Egalitarianism - amongst White Folk, anyway.

It fell to another generation to pay the ultimate price for that Founding Compromise between Liberal and Conservative positions of the Founding Times.

In short, they were radical Whigs. The Whigs reemerged in the 1850s to ally with the abolitionists and establish the modern Republican Party, the party that would eventually attract conservatives.

Frankly, it's my perception that there were enough of both Liberals and Conservatives (as we understand those terms in our present time) amongst the rolls of the Founding Fathers... proto-Democrats and proto-Republicans and proto-Independents... before those came to identify partisan leanings. And there seemed to be plenty of cross-over, as well; including propertied types who were stronger advocates for the Common Man than some of their less entrenched colleagues.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, you're somewhat wrong. The statists (Tories) were leaving (or keeping silent). They were a stark minority.

Up to about the 1820s or so, Americans were republican. Eighteenth-century Americans were Enlightenment thinkers. They knew history, reason (the natural law), and the Scriptures. They were aware that their society was truly egalitarian, one in which aristocracy was not inherited but rather merited. And they had this peculiar Whiggish idea that society and government ought to be separate and distinct. This was their thinking, their culture, the way they lived. The Revolutionary War didn't change that. The Americans didn't really experience any social or institutional changes as a result of the war. What the war did, in effect, was affirm to them and the world what they already knew about themselves; that they were self-determinant individuals.

Faction at the Philadelphia Convention was not between statism and individualism, but rather resided within the individualist camp, the Whigs, between the more centrist, constitutionalist Federalists and the more right-leaning Articles of Confederation anti-Federalists. The big debate, I think, was between consolidation (Federalists) and confederation (ant-Federalists), and later, secondarily, between a stated Bill of Rights and an implied one.

The left-leaning Tories really played no significant role in creating our new government.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm telling you what MacArthur said. What kind of reason are you using to now say I agree with what every general has said? MacArthur was a conservative, perhaps too conservative even for the Republicans to nominate for president, but he believed as do most historians that the constitution was, in its day, a liberal document.

You brought it up to make some kind of point. Kennedy was considered a liberal then but wouldn't get the time of day from the modern Democrat party since it's been hijacked by extreme progessives, as evidenced here. Liberal in the 1700's hardly is synonomous with what we have today. Context matters.

Not by today's

Kennedy in this time was more liberal than Obama. Speaking of context.

Not by today's standards. Try to keep up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When Alexander Hamilton visited his home, Jefferson pointed to portraits of Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, saying, “They are my trinity of the three greatest men the world has ever produced.” Locke advocated “democratic sovereignty,” arguing that authority was legitimate only with the consent of the governed.


So…how does that fit with ceding some of our sovereignty to a UN body? Here you go:
“ The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.”
Locke, “Of Civil Government,” bk2, ch19, sect.217.
Fonte, "Sovereignty or Submission," p. 24

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion....

You get points for trying and persistence, but until you can use those quotes accurately and in context you are going to lose all those points because of lackluster reasoning, illogical allegations and utterly fallacious conclusions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is my wont to construct a series of quotes that lead to an overwhelming and undeniable conclusion....

You get points for trying and persistence, but until you can use those quotes accurately and in context you are going to lose all those points because of lackluster reasoning, illogical allegations and utterly fallacious conclusions.

As is the wont of so many simpletons, you accuse of inaccuracy and out of context quotes....but give no examples.

The clear conclusion is that there are no such cases, and you remain just another one of the mindless drones that the leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.



Which brings us to the insight into the explanation for your posts:

“The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.”
Francesco Guicciardini, "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"



Please....don't stop trying,

 

[jillian]

You keep repeating it as if it was true. .

because it is true. your definitions of liberalism and what you pretend it is are irrelevant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You keep repeating it as if it was true. .

because it is true. your definitions of liberalism and what you pretend it is are irrelevant.

Wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is it out of fear of the truth that so very many Liberals deny that our Founders were far from the meaning of "Liberals" today?


Melanie Phillips explains the clear distinction between classical liberals, those who would be called conservatives, today, and the progressives who stole the term, and we recognize as modern liberals.

Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter.

But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
From “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





Classical liberals, i.e., conservatives= a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter.


Modern liberals= their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness

 

[PoliticalChic]

In actuality most of the revolutionaries and founders were with money and land it would be somewhat natural that some would believe them to be conservative, and some were. The main point, however, with our revolution and eventual Constitution, was the use of liberal ideas, ideas from Locke and others. The founders and framers conducted a war and set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas.
Liberal ideas, as being ideas as found in scholarly books on political ideologies, not as many posters define liberal and conservative.

"....set up a new type of government based on liberal ideas."

Really?


Well, then, reggie....which, pray tell, of these is a "Liberal" idea?

The view of the Founders: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


.....exactly where, in that scheme, does ObamaCare fit?




Astounding how many of you Liberals are willing to fabricate in the face of clear and obvious facts.