Why do liberals call themselves "Intellectual Liberals"?

The state cannot be controlled or minimized, the history of the US has proven that, the concept of the US founders has failed. The next step in the evolution of liberty is to eliminate the state altogether. There's nothing the state can do that the private sector couldn't do better.
Corporatism and monopolies are products of the state and "croneyism." Without the monopoly of state coercion there could be a true free market.

 

A democratic form of government IS an imposition on our freedom, any form of government is. Government is the antithesis of freedom.

 

That may be a misunderstanding of modern 'social liberalism', which is somewhat understandable, because some of the social policies of 'social liberalism' will share a few apparent surface similarities with 'socialism' - those similarities really are only skin deep, though! It may also be that the misunderstanding is held by some people who describe themselves as 'liberals', as well as their political opponents! As I have said before, the US 2 party system doesn't help, because it encourages an assumption that anyone who isn't 'us' is 'them', and 'anyone who isn't for us is against us', and also 'anyone who isn't against us is for us', and anyone who isn't 'them' must be 'us', and 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' (so it can apply to both 'sides').

'Social liberalism' does have what could be called an enhanced element of the traditional 'classical liberal' idea of the importance of 'equality' (and the belief that 'freedom' can only come for anyone within a context of 'tolerance' and 'equality of opportunity' in society). It does often include elements like social welfare and healthcare, but the reasoning behind that has to be understood to see why it is still fundementally different from 'socialism'. You have to follow the development of the thinking behind it.

Essentially, 'social liberalism' sees an element of basic social welfare (including healthcare) as being part of the process of ensuring freedom for all in society through ensuring equality of opportunity - it doesn't see social justice and individual libery as incompatable, but as harmonious elements of the same thing, in effect. As a libertarian, I guess you might disagree with that idea, which is fair enough, but it is fundementally different from the idea of state control and economic levelling that is inherent to the socialism agenda of the well being of the community being of greater importance than the well being and freedom of the individual.

The idea of such social measures, like the framework of regulation in financial markets, is to ensure that the circumstances exist in which everyone is able to take the available opportunites offered by a free society. In other words, the idea that freedom and liberty is only really possible within a free society by the elimination of factors such as excessive poverty, lack of education, poor health, and so on that are always going to unfairly hold back certain sections of society. Of course, in order to achieve such things, the state has to be used as a tool (and some tax has to be raised to pay for it) but that is still the state that is in principle and practise under the control of the people, and working for the people to ensure their individual freedom through social justice. That does make modern liberalism in a sense somewhat more 'interventionist' than libertarianism, of course, but it intervening to ensure freedom for all, not to 'equalise' the population or to control the population in the way that 'socialism' seeks to do (because 'socialism' is based in a completely different set of core background beliefs from 'liberalism').

It is 'social liberalism', based in the principles of gaining real freedom for all through creating equal opportunity for all, not 'socialism' based on taking from the rich and giving to the poor in a state-controlled exercise in wealth redistrubution. As a result of this fundemental difference, although the general concept of 'social welfare' might seem at first sight similar, the intentions on which they are based (and the way in which they should therefore operate within society) are different.

This is why the idea that any form of social welfare and/or healthcare will inevitably bring government control of the population in a 'statist' and 'socialist' sense is flawed. It may not be something that people in the US will support anyway, which is fair enough (it's a matter for them), but some of the scare stories being spread are based on a basic misunderstanding - that universal healthcare is solely and inherently a form of 'socialism', and will lead to further 'socialism', 'statism', direct government control of the population, and so on. That isn't the case. 'Social liberalism' is still a form of 'liberalism', and still firmly rooted in the essential principle that the government should only act under the control of the people in order to ensure and enhance the freedom of the population as individuals.

That isn't to say that there aren't 'socialists' in the US also promoting such ideas with the intention of trying to increase governent control and 'statism', and trying to launch their ideas on the back of the ideas of 'social liberalism'. It is, however, possible to not confuse the two groups, and to see the social justice concepts of 'social liberalism' as an end in themselves (as part of the enhancement of freedom for all), rather than as part of some 'socialist' plot to gain control of the state and people in order to destroy capitalism, personal freedom, private ownership of property and so on. 'Social liberals' support the equalisation of equality, and the consequent enhancement of freedom for all, including through the provision of social assistance and social justice, but would never, ever support the socialist agenda of material redistribution of wealth via state control of the economy, property and population - that sort of thing is fundementally against the beliefs of any form of 'liberalism' (including 'social liberalism').

 

That is where 'libertarianism' and 'liberalism' are likely to disagree. I would argue that corporatism and monopolies are inevitable products of entirely uncontrolled (or under-regulated) markets, where there is no regulatory mechanism in place to ensure that corporations cannot simply progressively eliminate their competition to gain monopolies (or achieve similar outcomes by forming cartels to distort the market), and that it is that which has allowed the situation to develop where the state has become corrupted so that it is acting in the interests of the corporations instead of in the interests of the population and their liberty.

I would certainly agree that business is better carried out by private companies than by the state (I am a liberal, not a socialist!), but I would argue that one thing the government, under the control of the people and acting in the interests of the people, can do better than those business is to ensure that those businesses are not acting uncompetatively in their own interests rather than in the interests of free trade and a free market economy (particularly in the context of an economy which is already dominated by large corporate interests).

Again, we want the same outcome - a free capitalist economic system, operating without corruption or distortion by either direct state intervention in business or by corporate interests (which is not the outcome sought by socialism). We just disagree on what the best way is of achieving that as a practical, working system.

 

A free market advocate would point at that a true monopoly can only be created via regulation. The problem with a monopoly, In theory, is the ability of a monopolistic pricing. So long as there are not barriers to entry any firm with an alleged monopoly has to consider competition from potential firms. The only true monopoly there seemed to be under a free market, without help, was the NYSE. And no one every accused them on monopolistic pricing. And, in the end, they did receive competition and it looks like they will cease to be in the not too far off future. However the post office, utilities, cable...those are created monopolies and it is hard to find industries with poorer quality and more outlandish prices.

The checks on a private corporations corruption is far greater than the check on an elected officials.

 

A liberal free market advocate (liberals also advocate a free market economy in effect, not an economy operated by governments, but just one with some basic groundrules to ensure fair competition) would argue that completely unrestricted markets also allow monopolistic pricing to develop because the market can become effectively controlled and distorted by large corporations who have such power in the market that they can effectively control supply of raw materials as well as prices and to ensure that competition is unable to actually compete freely. Instead of remaining a competative market, it eventually becomes a market controlled by a few large corporations, 'survival of the fittest' dictating that the 'strongest survive' until the point where there effective competition becomes virtually impossible.

There are examples of the kind of distortion of markets happening to an extent, for example, with supermarkets (in the UK certainly), where a small group of companies have taken effective control of the food supply markets, destroying competition from small independant operators and shutting down the highstreet (not a great thing for those consumers who rely on them!) in favour of their out of town superstores. On the one level, it can be argued that it has reduced prices overall, which is a good thing, but it those few companies are now so powerful that they control the supply of commodities to the extent that farmers are now often having to sell to them at a loss (with prices dictated by the supermarkets, because there is effectively nobody else left to sell to, and they are able to dictate exclusive supply contracts to make sure it stays that way), and going out of business at a rapid rate. That isn't a good thing for the economy overall. There is competition within the supermarket area at the moment, but that small area (controlled by just a few huge companies) is distorting other parts of the economy with its power, and the number of companies in control is reducing as the biggest players wipe out and/or purchase their opponents.

Obviously liberals and libertarians will disagree about exactly what is going on there and why, and how to deal with it, which is fair enough. The point, though, is that liberals and libertarians are firmly in favour of a free capitalistic system operating through private enterprise, but disagree on the best way to achieve that in terms of its practical operation. Socialists are not in favour of a free capitalistic economic system at all, though, but are in favour of an economic system controlled and operated directly by government through state ownership of the players in it. That's something entirely different, and not something liberals would support. In economics, the liberal instinct and basic liberal ideology is closer to libertarianism (although clearly not exactly the same) in its essence than it is to socialism - a free market, albeit with limited groundrules to ensure that it remains free and competative, not a state controlled economy.

I don't expect any libertarians to actually agree with liberals on the methodology, of course - libertartians have their own views. However, to accuse liberalism as being the same as socialism is not correct - it is entirely different, and based on entirely different thinking and entirely different basic principles.

 

I would argue that that isn't true, or at least shouldn't be. Private corporations can corrupt markets if there is nothing in place to stop them, and are free to perform any kind of corruption they like in order to get ahead of the competition until the point where there is no effective competition left. The only check on them is whatever legal framework is in place (and if there isn't really a legal framework, that doesn't help much!), and the shareholders (and their best interests are served by allowing whatever it is is maximising their profits anyway, however 'corrupt' it may be).

If the checks on elected officials aren't better than that, it suggests a failure in the way the democratic system is set up and operated. It would suggest that the government has become remote from the people, and uncontrolled by the people. In combination with unrestricted corporatism, it may well have even become controlled primarily by corporate interests instead of the interests of the population. If that's the case, it's a flaw in the democratic system, and that should be addressed.

One problem in the USA in particular, of course, is the sheer scale of the country, size of the population, and power of the federal government combined with its remoteness from the population. That tends to be somewhat less of an issue in smaller democratic countries where the elected representatives to the 'top table' of government are more accessible to the population at large, but it can stil be an issue if things aren't set up correctly. The answer is to decentralise the democracy, and bring the government closer to the people, and under greater control and scrutiny by the people (which is, or should be, very much a feature of a liberal agenda).

That process is happening in the UK (though not as evenly or as rapidly as I would like!) through devolution and the devolving of powers to more local institutions. In any case it remains true that I can speak face to face to my elected representative within the highest parliament, should I choose to, and usually within a few days (depending on when they hold their constituency surgery session). I can do so in an unrestricted way, I can tell them what I think directly, or ask them what they are doing and why. I can scrutinise their expenses and so on, check on their voting record and record of parliamentary work, and I can question them directly and personally on it (as well as 'lobbying' them on any issue I want to). I can personally 'hold them to account' in a way that the federal system in the US doesn't really allow, and although obviously I can't personally remove them, I can make anything I'm not happy with public in a way which could actually damage their electoral chances (bearing in mind that they have greater effective competition, with more major political parties - 4 of them, in this part of the UK).

If it were to be suggested that the federal government democratic system in the US has become (over a long period) inherently too remote from the people to be trustworthy, and that the whole system has become corrupted as a result, I would find it difficult to argue against that. I confess I do find it strange that a country of the vast scale of the USA has only 2 major political parties to represent the entire range of views held by such a large and diverse population - no wonder those views get mixed up in the way 'liberalism' and 'socialism' (and to an extent 'libertarianism' and 'conservatism') have been!

The fact that it is clearly in the interests of both of those parties to maintain that monopoly of power between themselves is worrying, and neither seems to find it in their interests to reduce their effective governmental power once they gain it. They might tinker around the edges here and there, but only in changing the way the perpetuate their power. That is a situation, in my opinion, that the population of the US should be trying to address, instead of perpetuating it through flinging mud in the continued 'left/right' polerised battles, accusing each other of trying to make the situation worse (while both of their parties have it in their interests to actually make things worse). In fact, I could cite the US federal government, with its limited electoral choices and effective monopoly of two nominal 'competitors' who actually have an interest in maintaining the system (and each other, so there is someone to blame and dump problems on when it all goes horribly wrong!), as an example of what happens in an virtually unrestricted marketplace where the players are free to act as they like, but that would just be my 'liberal' opinion, of course!

 

agreed the government can create monopolies but in a democracy the government works for the people.

presently the US has a privileged based market where big businesses can get away with inferior products and services because they have alot of money to stifle innovation and competition.

elected officials are scrutinized by the entire public whereas private businesses have a smaller circle to issue checks and balances.

 

Liberalism has been very hard for me to understand and wrap my brain around, I guess because today's liberalism makes no sense to me and is completely different and opposite of what so called liberalism(actually libertarianism) used to be in the early days.

From what I read and researched, liberal thought(if it really was such) in the early days(during the time of our Founding Fathers), was good. But today's liberal thought is completely backwards, different, and flawed.

I still have to wonder if liberalism was made to appear to be and look like it is something good, when in actuality it is not. The liberalism of today, there is NOTHING good and free about it. A better word for the intellectual thought of our Founding Fathers would be Libertarianism, NOT Liberalism. Today, liberalism is oppression and tyranny. A push toward dictatorship. I understand that supposedly the term liberal derives from a Latin word that means free. There is NOTHING free about liberalism. See below:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.- Bill of Rights

Quoted from one of my earlier posts in this thread:

Many liberals are anti-gun. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives the right to have and bear arms. Never before in American History has this right and freedom been under such great attack, and danger of being taken and stripped from the American People.

The 2nd Amendment was NOT written and given for hunting purposes, but to keep the government in check and to fight off invaders and/or enemies from within.

What's happening today in the U.S. so closely mirrors and parrallels former Nazi Germany and USSR. Our government has turned on the American People.

You quoted someone..."Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

I said exactly. We haven't remembered or learned a thing.

What happened in those Countries was NOT freedom. They had their freedoms stripped, as we are having ours stripped today in the U.S. Freedom of speech under attack. Right to privacy under attack. Right to be safe and secure in your homes and persons, under attack. The Constitution as a whole, under attack, and about to be abollished, due to liberal thinking.

Truly we are in a police state, the likes that hasn't been seen since former Nazi Germany and USSR. This is due to liberal thinking. If there was really liberal thought in the early days of our Founding Fathers, it is certainly NOT the liberal thought of today.

Everyone is being monitored and surveiled and spied on. Thanks to people like Janet Napolitano, and agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, and bills and acts like the Patriot Act...such liberal thinking has redefined and put labels of terrorist, extremist, threat, target of interest, on good, law abiding citizens, gun owners, Military Veterans, people that believe in apocalyptic literature(such as the Book of Revelation), those against abortion, homosexuality, one world government/new world order.

They've turned the words completely around on good, innocent people, criminalizing and demonizing them. This is why we say good has become evil, and evil has become good. That is liberal intellectualism. It is seriously wrong, flawed, and evil. It is backwards. It is corrupt thinking. In short, it makes NO sense.

One on here responded to one of my posts in this thread concerning abortion. I wrote that when there is a heart beat, that child is a life/alive.

The one who responded said the child is not alive until the first breath. A likely, liberal response for an excuse to murder an unborn child so there is no guilt or penalty or responsibility.

Animals have more rights and protection than the unborn children because of your corrupt, liberal way of thinking.

My response to that liberal thought is, if there is a heart beat, there must be breathing.

That child is alive. If you don't want the child, DO NOT abort. Put the child up for adoption or in an orphanage. There are many couples that would love to have children but cannot, and would adopt.

 

From: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/how2bliberal_19990710.html

Liberal Thinking

Sadly, we don't know who wrote this, but we are delighted to share it with those of you who have requested it:

I understand modern conservative thought. I understand libertarian thought. I understand classical liberalism.

What I can't begin to comprehend is modern liberalism. Maybe you can help me.

As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:


You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the government.

You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand ... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without telling you have your best interest at heart.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution. You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced of logic and a bit sadistic.

Well, then.

If that doesn't describe the modern American liberal, I don't know what does.

Author Unknown

Whoever wrote this, he/she is right on.

 

10 Steps to Understanding Liberal Thinking

By: John Lillpop
The liberal brain does not collect and process information in a logical, reasonable, and objective manner. Rather, liberal thinking is dominated by an obsession with power, and use of that power to preserve elitist advantages.

This distorted perspective makes it very difficult to understand exactly how liberals think without advanced training in Abnormal Psychology.
Nonetheless, the following non-technical summary should be useful to lay people.

How liberals think on 10 major issues of the day:

1. The U.S. Constitution Is Unconstitutional

According to liberal dogma, the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights are unconstitutional because all were crafted by an exclusive conclave of white male Christians.

Women, Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, the handicapped, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and the blind were all under represented, if at all.

Because of this devastating lack of diversity, the Constitution must be regarded as a “living document,” subject to change in accordance with ever changing demographics and contemporary values.

2. Free Speech

Freedom of speech must never be quashed, except for criticism directed at minorities and sensitive constituencies of the Democrat party.

Burning Old Glory is protected free speech, whereas expressions of conservative values by people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are unacceptable “hate speech,” which must be subjected to “fairness” censoring by the federal government.

3. Abortion, the Death Penalty and Assisted Suicide

On issues of life and death, liberals are especially vulnerable to tripping on their own hypocritical double talk.

Namely:

A woman’s right to abort the life of an innocent child is inalienable; whereas execution of a convicted killer is cruel, unusual & barbaric.

Starving a helpless victim like Terri Schaivo to death is acceptable; but using lethal injection to end the life of a brutal killer is not.

4. Religion

Religious faith and belief in God are outdated pagan concepts, which do more harm than good. Sophisticated citizens can rely on the Democrat party for support from cradle to grave, obviating the need to rely on beliefs and rituals long since debunked.

Symbols of Christianity such as the Ten Commandments, the Cross, Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and the like must be hidden from public view so as to offend no one.

Publicly wishing a friend or family member “Merry Christmas” is clearly an act of civil disobedience and unconstitutional.

While Christianity is to be suppressed at all costs, Islam must be openly promoted in the name of religious awareness, sensitivity and tolerance.

The separation of state and government applies fully when dealing with Christianity or Judaism, but is irrelevant with regard to Islam and all other religions.

Delivery of Christmas cards and gifts by the United States Postal Service is an unconstitutional violation of state-religion separation and must end immediately.

5. Taxes

Leveling the playing field between haves and have-nots is the most important function of government, even more critical than national security.

To support that objective, no government role is more essential than levying and collecting taxes, otherwise known as redistribution of wealth.

Tax cuts are wrong when returned to people who actually paid taxes, but are perfectly fine when sent to those who paid none.

Although most liberals deny that Jesus even lived, many use the quote in Matthew 22:21, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s…” to justify higher taxes.

Paying taxes is the “Christian Conservative” thing to do!

6. Marriage and Same-Sex Issues

The traditional American family consisting of one man and one woman is just one of several possible arrangements, all of which are equally moral and acceptable.

Marriage is no longer necessary to sanctify man-woman relationships.

Although the institution of marriage is no longer vital to heterosexual partners, it is absolutely essential that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. To deny them that basic right is discriminatory, immoral, unfair, and clearly unconstitutional.

7 Racism, Diversity and Affirmative Action

Liberals believe that discrimination based on race or gender is wrong. Except when waged against Caucasian men, in which case it is mandated by law and called Affirmative Action.

“Our Diversity Is our Greatest Strength” is the liberal pledge of allegiance to socialism.

Enforcing U.S. borders and immigration laws, including deportation of illegal aliens, is wrong because it targets Hispanics, obviously based on racial profiling.

Those who support English as the official language of America are racists. But those who prefer Spanish and other foreign languages over English are not because of the inherent value of diversity.

Conservatives who seek to preserve American language and culture are bigoted hate mongers, whereas new immigrants, including illegal aliens, must be allowed to maintain and celebrate their cultural heritage at all costs, even if it interferes with assimilation into mainstream America.

8. Preserving the American Dream for Working Class Americans

According to liberal propaganda, they are the only hope for American families, notwithstanding the fact that Democrats support the influx of millions of illegal aliens who work for lower wages and without benefits, and drive down the standard of living for working families.

Skyrocketing gasoline prices devastate working American families, but protecting Alaskan wild life is a greater priority.

Businesses are oppressive institutions that must not be allowed to become too large and powerful. By contrast, government creates wealth & happiness and should be expanded whenever possible.

Outsourcing of American jobs to foreign nations is driven by immoral corporate greed.

By contrast, open borders and amnesty are acceptable because most illegal aliens are future Democrats.

Huge profits are obscene and un-American, except when enjoyed by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, Teddy Kennedy, and other liberals.

9. Global Warming, the Environment, and Energy Independence

According to liberal technocrats like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, and Dennis Kucinich, global warming is a greater threat to the health and well being of humanity than the war on terror.

Some liberal extremists even think that the colors of the American flag should be changed to green, white, and blue so as to reflect the importance of the environment to our nation, while simultaneously deleting the color red, which symbolizes blood shed in illegal wars waged by Bushes 41 and 43.

10. Use of Military Force, Invading Foreign Nations

Military force must never be used, except when needed to advance interests not vital to the United States, or to obscure a Democrat president’s sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.

Invading a foreign nation is wrong, except when aliens from Mexico invade America.

Understanding liberal thinking is probably more trouble than it is worth. The more prudent action would be to take all necessary steps to assure that liberals are not elected or reelected to political office.

© Copyright 2011 - http://www.thelandofthefree.net

And there you have it, folks.

 

George Santayana, was an American Philospher. The quote, Those who can not remember the past, are condemed to repeat it.

Are we, rounding up people for ethnicity? Are we pulling certain people aside, to check their papers? Well, the Republicans would certainly love to do that to the Muslim and mexican pop.

Just to be clear, it started under Bush, and Obama kept it. Many Libs. I know, hate it too.

I"m just curios. Because the right in this nation love to say they're patriotic, how much do you really know about the American Revolution? Because, I can say that most don't know a lot, and we wouldn't let our founding fathers exist in a modern world.

Of all the subjects, you had to pick Aboration. Fine, let's get this over with. The left believes, that without an aboaration, the mother's rights are infringed. It's her body, her rules.

 

That's where we're headed, quickly. We're going down the same exact path they did. It's been happening in increments, but ever faster since 9-11.

I know quite a bit about the American Revolution, and that it happened because of the abuses, oppression, and tyranny being done to the Colonists by the hands of King George III of England.

The abuses, oppression, and tyranny are happening again, but by our own government.

Abortion is still murder, no matter how one looks at it.

 

OK you make a rational point...which is more than I can say for allot of the "knee-jerk" posts in here...but consider this:

Your Founding Fathers wanted what? Well, seems to me they mostly wanted to create a set of governing rules that would be much more FAIR to the citizenry. A formula that was a direct result of, and in opposition to, the monarchy that ruled the colonies at the time.

To the English and their Monarchy, were the colonies to separate, it would hurt them financially, and tarnish their international standing. Since then...in fact shortly there after...the British crown lost almost all power to rule in lieu of a parliamentary system similar to what the USA and pretty much all western nations have...we call it Democracy. Anyway...

So your Founding Fathers produced a Constitution that best described their vision...from the perspective of wealthy, yet well meaning (I'm sure) colonists of the year 1787. This document, and admittedly its wonderfully well written and insightful, was generated by REVOLUTIONARIES from the perspective they had well over 200 years ago. Granted, the American Constitution does allow for "Amendments" thus allowing it to change with the times...but by and large, the dated REVOLUTIONARY perspective of the document is still its "backbone".

Now lets move on...

The Second Amendment was adopted along with the Bill of Rights in 1791. Again...well over 2 centuries ago. At that time, revolutionary perspectives still prevailed, thus the need for such was reasonable.

IS IT STILL REASONABLE?

That debate has been going on for along time now in the States. And while these rotten "Liberals" that you speak of oppose this...they are simply expressing the attitudes of people with a modern perspective. The perspective of people who are crowded into cities and living one on top of the other. An environment in which, I'm sure we all can agree, was NOT nor could it have been foreseen by these Founding Fathers...and IS NOT optimal considering the sheer concentration of people...in other words...people instinctively understand that as population density increases, the probability of violence increases (the common Rat Theory).

I do understand your yearning for conservative values and ideals, as I happen to be a Canadian Conservative. But we are also members of a society. A society that is crowded and in no real immediate threat of invasion. Nor is it REALLY true that government is actively trying to destroy all this is good. What they are doing is a direct result of, and expression of, current and modern living conditions both locally and globally. Because...whether you like it or not...our technological advances have given rise to "The Global Community". Thus all of humanity must now become members of an additional community...including American Conservatives.

Moving on...

This is where you take leave of your senses...

Nazi Germany AND The Soviet Union were both direct results of unfavorable and unFAIR living conditions. For the US to truly be moving in that direction, things would have to get ALLOT worse. You've been through a full-blown Great Depression and yet...no revolution or dictatorial situations came about...I seriously doubt they ever will again...at least not in our lifetimes...as it would take an apocalyptic event to spark such conditions. Whether you like it or not...REVELATIONS is just a story. A scary story intended to maintain order through fear. And abortions and homosexuality are not new. But the concentration of or population makes their occurrences more visible.

What I'm saying is...it is not REASONABLE to rail against the modern world. Its like pissing into a wind storm. No matter what you do...yer gonna get pissed on. What's the point? Is it not more REASONABLE to live within today's society instead of wanting to live outside of it?

Now, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security are IMO overreactions to 9/11. This thinking will subside but...humans tend to be a little slow and docile as a group...so this will take time. Have patience...we usually do the right thing in the end...

This is a debate that may never go away. In fact, I'd suggest the organized religion will fizzle and die before this debate. It sounds like its something you oppose vehemently. So be it. But please don't suppose that anti-abortion is purely a Republican/Conservative cause. It is not. There are millions of Democrat-Christians who believe as you do on this issue, yet vote for Democrats.

I hope this all makes sense to you?
The bottom line is...times and conditions change...and we need to change with them...or get left behind.

The choice is yours...but don't try to hold-up necessary progress just because you aren't comfy-cozy with it. All you'll do is create a TON of frustration for yourself...and get run right over in the process...

 

From: http://ask.yahoo.com/20050920.html

What's the difference between communism, fascism, and socialism?
Shelly
Houston, Texas

Dear Shelly:

"This ism, that ism. Ism, ism, ism."

John Lennon was right -- there are a lot of "isms." The ones you mention are politically loaded and often used interchangeably, although the meanings are actually quite different. Hopefully, the definitions below explain the differences. However, please note that definitions don't always mimic real-world scenarios.

In very broad strokes, socialism is an economic system in which "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." In modern societies, socialism often attempts to eradicate class divisions. While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism," the two aren't the same -- communism is a more extreme form of socialism.

Communism advocates the "collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members." While communism is first and foremost an economic system, it's also a political ideology that rejects religion. And just as communism is a form of socialism, Marxism, Maoism, and Leninism are branches of communism.

Like socialism and communism, fascism uses a central authority to maintain control, but "terror and censorship" are common. It results from economic failure in democratic political systems. Interestingly, while socialism and communism are both on the left end of the political spectrum, fascism contains elements of both "left and right ideology" and rises from economic collapse. The most famous fascist was Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. That ought to tell you it's not a good way to run a country.

As I said earlier, they are all interconnected(intertwined), at least to an extent.

 

Your last line of the paragraph, Negative. That would ruin American sovereignty for our Nation, and each individual State.

The global dictatorship and tyranny will not happen here without a fight. The globalists/UN/illuminati, knows this, that's why they're trying to ban firearms and abolish the 2nd Amendment. We are the last of the resistance to oppose their corrupt, global schemes.

I have no issues with people: liberals, democrats, republicans, libertarians, tea partiers...my issues are with flawed and wrong thinking, ideologies, mindsets. Each party has problems. That's why I'm a Constitutionalist.

 

In other words, take off the tin foil hat. The only people going to let govts. like the USSR or Nazi Germany will be the right.

Do you happen to realize, that when we we're complaining about taxes, we didn't have to pay any taxes?

Sure, tin foil hat.

A ton avis.

 

Well Bush had an Masters from Yale, and you guys called him a moron, so the hypocricy is THICK!!!

 

Especially when you look at how many of their "programs" have had serious unintended consequences because they were short sighted and poorly thought out.

 

The whole reason why the "right" fights for their 2nd Amendment Rights is to prevent the crap that happened in those two Countries from ever happening in the U.S.

We have the 2nd Amendment to keep the government in check. And YES, that right still is VERY, VERY necessary today, more so today than ever before in the history of this Nation.

The liberal left would be the ones to allow our government to take over the American People, because the liberal left are anti-gun.

 

Actually why don;t we just stick to the ACTUAL question asked, why do liberals claim to be "intellectuals" when Bush had an Ivy League Masters Degree and you guys called him an idiot?

 

Yes, taxes are unConstitutional. The federal income tax is unConstitutional.

 

"No taxation, without represnation". We didn't pay any taxes then. They were putting some minor taxes on us.

 

Good discussions. However, I strongly disagree that "we need to change with them." That's not freedom. I will NOT have my life dictated or controlled by any human being, society, or government.

I'm so sorry to hear that you believe the Book of Revelation is just a story. One day, many are going to be shocked and disappointed. I'm not judging you, I just wonder how you came up with that conclusion.

There is so much more to this life, world, and universe than meets the eye. There is an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. The Bible is 100%, Absolute Truth. History, archeological discoveries, and fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy are some of the proofs, to name a few.

 

Yes, I know. I'm agreeing with you on this point, as I did a couple posts before. I said taxes were unConstitutional.