Compassion and the Republican Party of the USA

[Ritter]

This has been an eye opening thread. I treated it as a bit of a joke I confess but some people really take this conservative, liberal labels very seriously. Maybe it is a US thing. For me the most important thing is to be open minded. Make your stand on where the evidence takes you not where your orientation dictates.

In other words, join the vast Right-Wing conspiracy.

I kid, I kid...

Or do I?

 

[JimJimmers]

This has been an eye opening thread. I treated it as a bit of a joke I confess but some people really take this conservative, liberal labels very seriously. Maybe it is a US thing. For me the most important thing is to be open minded. Make your stand on where the evidence takes you not where your orientation dictates.

I'd like to ask you, Drett, if you're willing to participate. Are there any of The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk That you disagree with? I'd like to know which ones and why, to get a different perspective on things. And just to be clear, I'm not trying to start a debate or an argument. I marvel at the different definitions of Conservative, and I generally don't consider myself one. However, by Russel Kirk's list, I would qualify. I was looking to get a sort of counter-point to the principles.

 

[zone]

Conservatives are not and cannot be, by principle, bigots. We judge by charactor, or more basic, by your ability to add to society in a number of ways. We see ability, not skin color or ethnicity, unlike liberals and those too ashamed to call themselves liberals, the ''moderates'', who judge solely by pigments and where you were born.

In fact to call a conservative bigoted is, for all leftists, hypocritical.

oh...what about people who can not àdd to society`.

what do you mean by ADD to.
and what kind of society are you talking about.

We see ability, not skin color or ethnicity - uh...no. thats not what i see.

what if some are less àble`than others....junk em

 

[Drett]

oh...what about people who can not àdd to society`.

what do you mean by ADD to.
and what kind of society are you talking about.

We see ability, not skin color or ethnicity - uh...no. thats not what i see.

what if some are less àble`than others....junk em

We see the ability unless you are a liberal of course, then you just make our blood boil

 

[Drett]

I'd like to ask you, Drett, if you're willing to participate. Are there any of The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk That you disagree with? I'd like to know which ones and why, to get a different perspective on things. And just to be clear, I'm not trying to start a debate or an argument. I marvel at the different definitions of Conservative, and I generally don't consider myself one. However, by Russel Kirk's list, I would qualify. I was looking to get a sort of counter-point to the principles.

Sounds like an interesting exercise to do on the weekend.

Nooo its a trap

Damn voices in my head. Never understand what they are going on about.

 

[Isa615]

The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk

-reads list-

huh. i literally agree with all of them.

 

[Drett]

Here is the list of Liberal Principles. You may find you agree with those as well.

Ten Principles of Classical Liberalism - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[Drett]

Conservatives are not and cannot be, by principle, bigots. We judge by charactor, or more basic, by your ability to add to society in a number of ways. We see ability, not skin color or ethnicity, unlike liberals and those too ashamed to call themselves liberals, the ''moderates'', who judge solely by pigments and where you were born.

In fact to call a conservative bigoted is, for all leftists, hypocritical.

This principle of liberalism, from the link directly above, would suggest you have this interpretation of liberalism wrong.

Principle 9. Accidents of birth, geography, or ancestry do not define an individual and should not result in manmade restrictions of that individual's rights or opportunities. Every individual should be judged purely on his or her personal qualities, including accomplishments, character, and knowledge.

 

[Ritter]

This principle of liberalism, from the link directly above, would suggest you have this interpretation of liberalism wrong.

Principle 9. Accidents of birth, geography, or ancestry do not define an individual and should not result in manmade restrictions of that individual's rights or opportunities. Every individual should be judged purely on his or her personal qualities, including accomplishments, character, and knowledge.

Do we really have to discuss the difference between classical liberalism, progressivism (that took up the term liberalism to suit their fancy only to recoil back to it), and all the faces of conservatism (for which we would have to take into account culture and time)?

 

[JimJimmers]

Here is the list of Liberal Principles. You may find you agree with those as well.

Ten Principles of Classical Liberalism - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Interesting read, for sure. I do consider principles 1 & 10 to be mutually exclusive outside of communism, as someone's rights will inevitably be sacrificed for the goals of #10. One cannot, for example, build an interstate without sacrificing someone's property. Under communism, the state could reasonably build whatever they wanted without taking anyone's property, but only because no one owns any in the first place. I consider communism to be a violation of principle #1 also, as that deprives people of liberty to own property. And it is certainly in violation of number 4.


Again, not trying to start a debate here, but that is how I look at things. I did mostly agree with the rest of the list, although number 6 appears to be leaning towards Democracy, and I still favor a Republic for many reasons.

 

[Ritter]

Interesting read, for sure. I do consider principles 1 & 10 to be mutually exclusive outside of communism, as someone's rights will inevitably be sacrificed for the goals of #10. One cannot, for example, build an interstate without sacrificing someone's property. Under communism, the state could reasonably build whatever they wanted without taking anyone's property, but only because no one owns any in the first place. I consider communism to be a violation of principle #1 also, as that deprives people of liberty to own property. And it is certainly in violation of number 4.


Again, not trying to start a debate here, but that is how I look at things. I did mostly agree with the rest of the list, although number 6 appears to be leaning towards Democracy, and I still favor a Republic for many reasons.

It was a very good article, but can anything really stand up next to Russell Kirk's writing? Probably not.

 

[Ritter]

That was said half in jest. But only half. I'm very serious in my devotion to Kirk's writings about two hundred and fifty days out of the year.

 

[Drett]

Do we really have to discuss the difference between classical liberalism, progressivism (that took up the term liberalism to suit their fancy only to recoil back to it), and all the faces of conservatism (for which we would have to take into account culture and time)?

View attachment 64580

Wow I don't want a liberal like Luke Pricard disappointed with be. What have I done.

 

[SonInMe]

As far as the interstate scenario, taking land for an interstate in communism would be confiscation without compensation, in the USA its confiscation with compensation putting more importance to ownership.

 

[Ritter]

As far as the interstate scenario, taking land for an interstate in communism would be confiscation without compensation, in the USA its confiscation with compensation putting more importance to ownership.

Interstate Communism!

Because international Communism is so yesterday...



(Yes, I own this shirt)

 

[charlesbro]

Republican or Democrat, Americans are all screwed.
lol
God bless the USA?

 

[Ritter]

Republican or Democrat, Americans are all screwed.
lol
God bless the USA?

Love you too.

 

[zone]

As far as the interstate scenario, taking land for an interstate in communism would be confiscation without compensation, in the USA its confiscation with compensation putting more importance to ownership.

i sure hope your horses or mules don't poop on the interstates you shouldn't be using.

 

[SonInMe]

the real problem with private ownership in the USA is this...there is none.

We rent our properties from the state. Its called land tax or a school tax. If we do not pay it, the government takes our property.

If we own land where a road is planned, they will give you money for it....and a tidy sum too...but they will take it.

 

[charlesbro]

The government wants our money, but can't spend a single dime properly!