Quote from: StormBringer;234233But, you brought up this notion that there are no conservatives in power, neatly putting yourself in the corner of having to prove a negative.

I've used a well known and accepted definition of what a Conservative is. If that doesn't match your perceived notions, the fault is not with me.

For what it's worth, I'm quite disappointed that the Repulican Party had been and continues to drift away from those same ideas.

Quote from: Jackalope;234239Leo Strauss, generally considered the intellectual father of the modern conservative movement.

Strauss is considered a major influence not on Conservatism, but on Neoconservatism. See the wikki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

I've been talking about mainstream Convservatism, if I had meant Neoconservatism I would have said so.

Quote from: gleichman;234244Strauss is considered a major influence not on Conservatism, but on Neoconservatism. See the wikki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

I've been talking about mainstream Convservatism, if I had meant Neoconservatism I would have said so.

Quibbling details.  There are no meaningful differences between mainstream conservatives and neoconservatives.  More importantly, in American politics we tend to refer to "neoconservatives" as "conservatives."

And seriously, i find it laughable that someone who regularly refuses to see any disction between liberals, leftists, Marxists, Fabians, libertarian-socialists ("anarchists"), and other left of center political philsophy would DARE to quibble over neoconservative and conservative.  Just another example of the utter fucktardness that is the conservative mindset.

But rather than play this game with you, why don't you name some actual conservatives?  In fact, name six.

Quote from: Jackalope;234245Quibbling details.

Nothing in the post that threatens to derail the thread, so back to ignoring while monitoring you.



If anyone else has a question related to anything in that post or any other of his that I haven't touched on, let me know. I'll be glad to address it.

Quote from: gleichman;234250Nothing in the post that threatens to derail the thread, so back to ignoring while monitoring you.

If anyone else has a question related to anything in that post or any other of his that I haven't touched on, let me know. I'll be glad to address it.

So basically you aren't going to name any conservatives, and thus will be able to always play the Not A True Conservative card whenever anyone offers evidence.

For all your talk about discussion and debate, you are amazingly unwilling to engage in it.  You are as close-minded, duplicitous, and irrational as every other conservative I've ever interacted with.

I really want to thank you and John Morrow.  Over the last few years, I had been slowly slipping away from liberalism.  Being surrounded by liberals, and rarely hearing conservative voices, I had really forgotten just how completely idiotic, irrational, hateful and stupid conservatives are.  But you two have done wonders for reminding me why I choose the side I choose.

Quote from: gleichman;234250Nothing in the post that threatens to derail the thread, so back to ignoring while monitoring you.

Ignoring I understand but why monitoring ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;234268Ignoring I understand but why monitoring ?

In case I say something that will derail the thread.

I have no fucking idea what he's going on about.  Smells like excuses to ignore the valid points I've raised.  Conservatives are full of such excuses.

Quote from: David R;234268Ignoring I understand but why monitoring ?

So he doesn't derail the thread by an attempt like the Strauss thing. It's easy enough to ignore empty claims, but another to deal with something that might look related- but really isn't. The latter is what the thread is about, pointing out that the fringes don't define the middle.

In short, it's not about him- it's about keeping the air clear for others.

Quote from: Jackalope;233997The growth of government is a direct result of the very attempt to protect the lives, liberty and property of all citizens against the depredations of a small economic elite that has traditionally been able to control and dictate the terms of small government.

Libertarian economic policy will ultimately only result in a return to the vast disparity in opportunity that plagued the 19th century and lead to the formation of the international socialist movement.
........................

Oh Geez, that is such bullshit.




- ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;234281Oh Geez, that is such bullshit.

Easy to say.  Now provide an actual argument, or be rudely dismissed as a windbag and idiot.  Or better yet, rebut this argument:

If an unregulated market and the lack of government social programs will ultimately lead to increased freedom and prosperity for all, then why did it become necessary historically for people to form an international movement opposed to capitalism?

In short, if libertarian ideas are so good, why do they already have a proven record of failure?

Quote from: Koltar;234281Oh Geez, that is such bullshit.

It also sounds more Marxist/Communist than his claimed stance of Anarchist. March of history, conflict of classes, the need for strong government to protect the masses...

These are not the terms an Anarchist deals in.

Quote from: Jackalope;234288then why did it become necessary historically for people to form an international movement opposed to capitalism?

It was never necessary.
 Marx and Lenin were BOTH wrong.


 And your version of history is very fuzzy.

And true Capitalism has not yet really happened anywhere....yet.


- Ed C.

Quote from: gleichman;234289It also sounds more Marxist/Communist than his claimed stance of Anarchist. March of history, conflict of classes, the need for strong government to protect the masses...

These are not the terms an Anarchist deals in.

Dude, what you know about anarchism would fill a teaspoon, while what you don't know would fill oceans.

Quote from: KoltarIt was never necessary.
Marx and Lenin were BOTH wrong.

If Marx was so wrong about the alienating nature of capitalism, then why were international socialist movements so successful?  

Why were socialists able to so thoroughly capture the attention of working class people around the world if unregulated capitalism was providing opportunity and prosperity for the masses?

QuoteAnd your version of history is very fuzzy.

Meaningless noise Ed, meaningless noise.

QuoteAnd true Capitalism has not yet really happened anywhere....yet.

Nonsense.  Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

We live in a capitalist country.  Claims to the contrary are, again, nothing but a True Scotsman fallacy.

Furthermore, we have already seen what happens in an unregulated capitalist economy: The wealthy use their wealth to corrupt the democratic process and gain undue advantage over their competitors by using state force to maintain their economic hegemony.

Quote from: Jackalope;234295If Marx was so wrong about the alienating nature of capitalism, then why were international socialist movements so successful?

If Marx was so right about the alienating nature of capitalism, why have all the real Marxist revolutions risen from intellectual elites leading disgruntled agrarian workers and peasants in undeveloped countries rather than the working class rising up in heavily industrialized nations?  

Quote from: Jackalope;234295Why were socialists able to so thoroughly capture the attention of working class people around the world if unregulated capitalism was providing opportunity and prosperity for the masses?

Why have so few industrialized nations fully embraced socialism and why have so many nations that flirted with socialism become more capitalist if socialism did a better job of providing opportunity and prosperity for the masses than capitalism?

Quote from: John Morrow;234307If Marx was so right about the alienating nature of capitalism, why have all the real Marxist revolutions risen from intellectual elites leading disgruntled agrarian workers and peasants in undeveloped countries rather than the working class rising up in heavily industrialized nations.

This question makes no sense as written.

QuoteWhy have so few industrialized nations fully embraced socialism and why have so many nations that flirted with socialism become more capitalist if socialism did a better job of providing opportunity and prosperity for the masses than capitalism?

The industrialized nations we are speaking of had previously embraced democracy, which allowed for the rise of liberalism.  Essentially there was no ultimate need for a revolution in the democratic West, and so rather than a Marxist vanguard leading a communist revolution, you get FDR seeking a middle way: liberalism, which protects the right to own property while ensuring a reasonably fair distribution of wealth and protecting workers from the worst excesses of capitalism.

I have no idea what you mean by "why have so many nations that flirted with socialism become more capitalist,"  as this simply isn't an accurate reporting of the facts.

Unless, of course, you don't actually know what socialism is...which I've found is true of most right-wingers.