Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Mare Tranquillity]

Golly, Coyote, your damn sheep grease popcorn musta done in Arbiter--just the smell probably got him. You suppose that's what happened to Pale too?

 

[arbitor]

sorry i cant come on here very often. i have been doing alot of work so ive been busy. as for pale i have no idea what he's doing. it seems he has something better to do with his.

about your religion. what contact have you had with your creator? are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion? im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect. what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

 

[9sublime]

sorry i cant come on here very often. i have been doing alot of work so ive been busy. as for pale i have no idea what he's doing. it seems he has something better to do with his.

about your religion. what contact have you had with your creator? are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion? im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect. what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

Some people don't feel the need to fill voids in their knowledge with an immortal, all powerful fatherlike figure.

 

[vyo476]

what contact have you had with your creator?

Western assumption number one: The "Creator" is contactable. This implies a large number of things, but most importantly that said "Creator" is a conscious being. This is not necessarily true.

are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion?

Generalized assumption number one: That all matters of spirituality stem from an organized religion. Coyote has stated that his "religion" is undefined, and yet you seek definition.

Western assumption number two: All religions must have prophets. If you wish to contend that in matters of personal spirituality having what one deems a personal connection to a Creation figure (ie, a "god") makes on a prophet, then so be it; otherwise, do not assume that all religions have prophets, especially not in the traditional Christian sense.

im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect.

Western assumption number three: There is an afterlife. Not all belief systems necessarily contain afterlives.

Western assumption number four: There are two places, the good and the bad. A multi-tiered afterlife has been proposed by a number of religions. Do not assume that, in other belief systems, there is simply "the good place" and "the bad place."

what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

Generalized assumption number two: One must be qualified in order to recieve a positive afterlife. The Declaration of Independence posits that all men are born with certain inalienable rights; given the near-religious fervor in which some people view the Founding Fathers, it would not be surprising for a religion to spring from their writings. In that sense, if man is born with certain inalienable rights, why wouldn't he die with them as well? Entering the afterlife is another kind of birth, is it not?

You have a long way to go before you get far enough outside the assumptions you make based on your own beliefs to truly understand beliefs that are different from your own. Keep trying.

 

[Dr House]

Sadly, both modern liberalism and modern conservatism have authoritarian elements. As the OP correctly pointed out, liberalism seeks to control the economy and forcibly impose a regime of political correctness. However, conservatism also has authoritarian tendencies.

Conservatives seek to erode the separation of Church and State, giving religious more political power than they ought to have. They also seek to deny free passage to immigrants, give free rein to the corrupt military-industrial complex, and meddle in the affairs of other nations. And they have severely eroded our civil liberties in the name of this so-called "war on terror".

That's why the only ideology worth its weight in salt is traditional liberalism/libertarianism.

-Dr House

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

sorry i cant come on here very often. i have been doing alot of work so ive been busy. as for pale i have no idea what he's doing. it seems he has something better to do with his.

about your religion. what contact have you had with your creator? are you some kind of prophet for your so-called religion? im sure you think you are going to heaven or whatever good afterlife you expect. what have you done to make you qualified? have you done anything to earn your place in heaven (or whatever you want to call it)?

Have you ever had an epiphany? An epiphany is something that you experience, it can't really be shared because it takes place inside you. Epiphanies can be very strong, they can make people change their whole lives.

Vyo's comments are spot-on, you are seeing this from a certain perspective and want us to put our experiences into that perspective AND JUSTIFY them. Can't be done. I believe that life continues after physical-body death because I've been out of my body before and I can do it at will. Once you realize that your consciousness isn't tied absolutely to the physical body your perspective changes. I don't believe in a good/bad afterlife with punishments or rewards, I don't have to earn my place in the Universe--I'm here, that means that I'm supposed to be here. The concept of an ultimate evil being is nonsense and there isn't any proof of such a being. The evil we see around us is very human and not supernatural "Stephen King" evil.

Yes, I am a prophet, my own prophet, my beliefs don't require any obedience by other people to the things I believe, I live my life by my own lights and don't ask others to live as I do. I campaign against violence, but I don't commit violence to stop it. Thich Nhat Hanh said (paraphrasing) There is no way to peace, peace IS the way. You can't fight for peace except in the short run. Jesus showed us that very clearly, but few people have the courage and fortitude to follow His example.

 

[palerider]

First off, much of the idea that fascism is suddenly “leftwing” comes from a popular book by Goldberg “Liberal Fascism” – a book of questionable scholarship, that even respected conservative scholars are critical of: http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.html

Knowing that fascism and nazism are left wing ideologies comes from knowing what they are wolf, nto from a book by Goldberg. The left has been trying for decades upon decades to distance itself from fascism and the fact remains that when you look at it closely, it is still no more and no less than modern liberalism and the "right wing" attributes that you like to give it is not right wing, it is just what modern liberalism does when it is in power.

The following characteristics of Mussolini’s fascist state many of which are identified with rightwing ideologies (but not necessarily mean exclusive to):

corporatism of industry

And that was different from what lenin, stalin, mao, pol pot, and castro did how? All modern liberalism seeks to gain control of the means of production. That is classic leftist politics and anti capitalist in the extreme.

repeal of suffrage

I forget, in which of the great leftist tyranies were women's rights upheld and respected? Not the soviet union, not china, not cambodia, not cuba, etc., not korea, not north vietnam. Geez wolf, women were treated badly in all of the great leftist dictatorships.

insertion of religion in education/state

Irreligion. Remember that conversation? In all of the leftist regimes, the religion of the state became the only acceptable religion and the educational system became the primary means of indoctrination. We see that happening here today.

xenophobia

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

anti-liberalism and individualism

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

[*]anti-communism

Funny. They were doing exactly what the communists did and yet, they were anti communist. They were all socialists quibbling over which would become dominant. It was VHS vs Beta. Magnetic tape in different packages.

[*]rampant militarism

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

[*]compulsory patriotism

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

[*]imposition of traditional values over social liberalism

See soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc.

[*]Imposition state control over all aspects of life (keeping in mind liberals prefer state control over the market and economy while conservatives prefer it over the social sphere ie - people’s personal lives)...

See: soviet union, china, cambodia, korea, north vietnam, cuba, etc. In this case you are only pointing out trifling differences between socialism and socialism lite. Both are modern liberalism only with differing degrees of political power.

I have asked you before to name 3 things that you can do without any interference at all from government at either the local, state, or national level without going into the most mundane aspects of your life. You couldn't do it before and you can't do it now. Modern liberalism has intruded into every aspect of our lives. Conservativism exercises control in our lives as well but the control belongs to the people and the control is not encoded into the legal system and enforced by the power of government.

Coyote, for an otherwise very bright individual, you have a very large blind spot with regard to this subject. Think about it just for a second. The things that you identifed as "right wing" in the list above are nothing more and nothing less than standard operating proceedure for modern liberalism when it gains sufficient control over government to actually implement its agenda. The things you claim to hate about conservativism are the very things that are univerally imposed by modern liberalism and enforced via the power of the government and when in your life have you seen our governemnt exercise rational restraint? I haven't seen it. Governments, by nature, go to far and the soviet union, china, cambodia, north korea, cuba, north vietnam, etc. are nothing more and nothing less than the logical end result of modern leftist thinking.

Personally, I far prefer dealing with societal pressures that might be imposed by conservativism to imposition demanded by the power of government and backed with the threat of punishment that are imposed by modern liberalism.

I don't have a lot of time to devote to the conversation now that spring is here because of things I have to do around home and FISHING!!!!!! and to tell the truth, I have lost some interest in the conversation because frankly, I have already won it once already and at this point, we are just rehashing points that I have won already in this thread and others.

To date, no one has successfully defeated a single point that I made in the orignal post on this thread. I will continue but you are going to have to do better than simply call the things that are universally imposed by leftist states "right wing" tactics. Face it, they are left wing tactics and they are worse by far than conservativism because they are demands made by the state rather than by society.

 

[arbitor]

oh dude....... you guys just got burnned. pale, you rock. maybe these guys should check their history instead of spouting nonsense about how all the libertarian societies were acually conservetive and vise versa. its freakin hillarious. i think this debate is over.

 

[peoplespartyguy65]

Liberals believe in tolerance just as long as you believe the way they do.No party yells louder than when at a liberal protest or function a person with a different view tries to speak but is yelled over and never heard. Oh and to add a bit as to how the modern liberals are spiraling towards socialism look no further than the liberal courts in this country and how they make law rather than interpret it.

 

[peoplespartyguy65]

Western assumption number one: The "Creator" is contactable. This implies a large number of things, but most importantly that said "Creator" is a conscious being. This is not necessarily true.

So no intelligence is behind the organized universe in which we live? If there were no intelligence behind the universe I would have to believe that chaos would rule. Look at it this way. The two of us are sitting at a table having a discussion. We both hear something and turn to look for a moment. After realizing it was nothing we both notice that a box of matches that was on the table fell and the matches formed the Star of David(just an example) would you be one to believe that this happened by itself or that someone while we were not watching did this?

 

[Coyote]

oh dude....... you guys just got burnned. pale, you rock. maybe these guys should check their history instead of spouting nonsense about how all the libertarian societies were acually conservetive and vise versa. its freakin hillarious.

Uh dude...maybe you should check out some history instead of yuck-yucking like an idiot child. You have yet to contribute a single fact to this debate. Keep trying though, I'm rooting for ya

i think this debate is over.

You mean like "mission accomplished?"

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-mission.jpg

 

[palerider]

You mean like "mission accomplished?"

Intellectual dishonesty doesn't suit you coyote. You know as well as I that the "mission" that the soldiers were being congratulated for had been accomplished. Saddam had been ousted and in his speech, bush stated clearly that a great deal of work was left to be done.

Being deliberately obtuse isn't attractive.

 

[peoplespartyguy65]

History can only teach us so much,and what about the party of [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]responsibility[/FONT]. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. The party has changed since then. So the history of either party really wont be telling you much as to where they are going. Truth be told I'm really not to keen on our two party system,but as we are stuck with it for the time being ,the lesser of two evils is [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]conservatism.
I also wont pretend to be something I'm not while posting here. I served my country and have been on both ends of the political spectrum. I'm no brainiac. I'm just an [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]observer[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] of the history in which I have seen in my life.
[/FONT]

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Liberals believe in tolerance just as long as you believe the way they do.No party yells louder than when at a liberal protest or function a person with a different view tries to speak but is yelled over and never heard. Oh and to add a bit as to how the modern liberals are spiraling towards socialism look no further than the liberal courts in this country and how they make law rather than interpret it.

I wanted to jump in on the initiating post of this thread, but there were far too many things to tackle. Reading through it I felt I knew what Dorothy felt in the wizard of oz, what with all the straw men, and flying harpies. Your post though no less hysterical is at least brief if not based on fact or reality.

One of the most public liberals of our times was Phil Donahue. Phil always allowed those he disagreed with to have their say, along with the respect owed to fellow human beings of all ideological thought. Disagree... Prove me wrong. it should be simple if so.

loud protesters are usually obnoxious and hold no liberal views if they act as described.


Liberal courts have no interest in socialism as socialism is not law.

who has appointed most all the judges for going on 30 years

 

[RenegadeFuture]

Modern Liberalism, Authoritarianism?

Very provoking.

You suggest that the ultimate development of left-wing policies is authoritarian communism? Where inequality is supposed to be inexistent, and anyone who has any conflicting ideas risks being shot by the thought police? Every equality but equality of ideas. Not a very nice place.
Both the USSR and Nazi Germany had radical socialist economic policies and command economies, true.
Nazism believed in racial superiority and Eugenics, persecuting "inferiors" and "undesirables", and anyone who disagreed or didn't discriminate risked being shot.
In both economies, it is also true that the economy was controlled and welfare was provided, but for different goals. The Nazi German economy was strictly controlled by the state, in a form of state capitalism, to prepare for war, to reach the election pledge of increased employment, and also to keep the populace under strict control. The USSR had a command economy to achieve the goal of "equality", and by its nature, the state had absolute control over the economy.
So, you have a point there. Forcing complete social equality also hands massive power to the state, and does not equal "liberty". Ironic.
Nazism forced the opposite, of course. In that sense, both ends of the scale are authoritarian and oppressive, and control every aspect of life, including the economy. And, you will find that both ends of the scale have the same ends. The US is nowhere near economic authoritarianism, but you could see it going that way if you went further to the economic right.

The question is, where do we find a "fair" middle ground? Forced inequality and discrimination=fascism? Forced equality= communism?