Compassionate Conservative--A Deservedly Dead Misnomer

I think you're over-analyzing it BR. Or perhaps judging it by your own higher standards.

The sad fact is that most political dogma is just that: dogma.

For many people political allegiance is like religion - you are born into it or else converted to it through some life incident and after that don't think or analyze it at all...just keep repeating the mantras and turning up at Church or the voting booth.

Imo it's a mistake to expect any coherent analysis or consideration of the alleged beliefs in either case. It's like a program that got installed once and runs at certain times in the background.

Let's just stop there, because we agree. It was nothing but a campaign slogan, a brand of Republicanism, if you will.

This is a deeper and more complicated question than I suspect many realize. If you want to discuss rights and the genre of political philosophy you need to be willing to discuss it seriously.

I will mention the very basics on this subject. There are two primary theories or philosophies about rights that center around the categories of negative rights and positive rights. As near as I can tell, rights categorized into these two categories are in conflict with each other.

Examples of negative rights would be things like lief, liberty and property.

Examples of positive rights would be things like education, health care, etc.

The reason these things are in conflict with each other should be obvious. In order to fulfill the positive rights, the negative rights of others must be violated.

That's the basics. There's more to say about this if you are truly interested and not merely rabble rousing. But I have to run for now.

Here's some reading on this important subject:

Positive Rights:



Other items:

What are Positive and Negative Rights

The Fallacy of Positive Rights

The Perils of Positive Rights

Conservatives are compassionate.

I see you're keeping it classy by reposting PRIVATE messages. Nice.

You have expectations of privacy on the internet. Really?

If you want it to be classy post a classy message a$$fu¢k

Wow, you mean conservatives get angry too? Who would have thought?

OMG!!! Hypocritical post of the day. Trying to expose hypocrisy while flaunting it.

Of course he has no standards so he cannot be judged in his own mind.

Conservatives are also very intelligent and not juvenile at all.

This post was not in response to SDW2001BC.

Yeah I love this.

I really really do.

Why don't you send me a private message SDW2001BC?

Sending him a private message telling him to "shut the fuck up" and calling him an "asshole", on the other handthat's the very definition of classy.

I will take a basic stab at one part myself. You have the right pursue those things, but not the right to have them handed to you for free. If one does not have to work for something, generally they take it for granted. In the case of education that is my stance.

For health care, I am still mulling it over. It all comes down to legislating morality (from where I am looking at your argument). Either you want them to do it or you do not. So it becomes a catch-22 in many respects. I like the idea, but not the implementation.

Hope that helps to get this back on track.

Best explanation ever!

Not that it will make a difference to BR though. You've explained everything he asked.

The children are ALREADY provided with a free (well... taxpayer funded) education... so what is your point with regards to education?
Are you proposing that a Bachelors degree should be provided for everyone by the governement? (tax-funded).
Why stop there... why not provide everyone with a "free" Masters Degree... why not a Doctorate? While education post-highschool is nice... great even... It is certainly not necessary, and certainly not a "right" to be provided to you by everyone else. If you want it, work for it. There are plenty of ways to get yourself a college education without going into debt.... Pay-As-You-Go still works.


On to health-care.
If the government is going to pay for everyone's healthcare, then you need to give up your right to live as you please. If your health care is going to be provided on the public's dime, then the public gets to tell you WHAT you can eat, HOW MUCH you can eat, WHAT activities you can participate in (no hang-gliding, parachuting, mountain climbing, etc.) What vices you may have (NO drinking, smoking, drug-use, etc.)
Is that REALLY the kind of environment you wish to live in???
Again, it comes down to making personal choices and CHOOSING to consider your own health when you make decisions. Not just decisions about how you treat your body, but decisions about how you manage wealth (money) for possible problems down the road (in the form of cash saved, or insurance purchased.)
Which is more important to someone? having a new car and a big TV and eating out, or taking care of their future health needs? That's a personal choice and you get to live with the consequences of that choice. If you want socialized medicine and the loss of personal freedoms that go along with it, then why do you live in the U.S.?... there are places you could emigrate to that provide that stuff.

Can you explain how all these children in other countries, many have have higher GDP to debt ratios than the U.S. are not saddled with debt?


I just don't understand this reasoning that declares that government taking on double the debt for everyone is "free" while people taking on individual debt themselves is "broke".

I agree that the US military establishment has, in fact, become a beast much more preoccupied with both its own existence for its own sake as well as extending the tentacles of the American empire. It should be substantially reduced to a much smaller and more effective defensive stature.

All that said, do you have anything to add to your own thread except vacuous platitudes?

I beg to differ.

Do you have any thoughts on my first post in this thread?

So much for having a decent, intelligent debate. \



I guess this is the part where I get to casually dismiss what you want to do as nothing more than stealing from other people to pay for the things you don't want to pay for yourself.

Let me know when you want to have a real discussion.

I'm still waiting.

No it isn't. I can already predict where this will go. It was predictable from where it all began. You prefer to speak in empty platitudes and superficial understandings rather than to diver deeper into the ultimate implications of what you wish for.

Someday perhaps you'll recognize that much of what you ask for requires slavery and theft to accomplish. Until you do you'll just continue throwing out simplistic questions and assertions.

Later.

Tell you what...maybe when you have provided the "rule" that distinguishes fair theft and enslavement from immoral theft and enslavement, then we'll talk.

You also are using a term/phrase ("fair taxation") I disagree with in the first place.

I tried to begin near the top of the thread by getting to the root problem that plagues all or most of the debates around the serious and controversial issues of our day...the basic understanding about rights. You don't want to go there. I believe we cannot make any progress until we have some understanding on that level.

I guess we're at an impasse.

KoSH actually said it much better than I would have. Further education is fine but not something required to make it in the world. Once you have your basic education down: you can read, write, do math at more than a basic level, can think through problems and stick with a task to completion, you should have the skills required to more than simply survive. It may be harder to get a higher paying job, but then you put in that little bit of extra effort, put yourself through school and make your way up if you so desire.

I have not completed College (got through 2 years and was basically done with school) and have not found it hard to make my way through the corporate ladder. It has not even slowed me down so far and I am satisfied with where I am. If I desire to get into management and the headaches therein, I may go back to school. However, management is not worth it to me. I enjoy my spine right where it is and my, admittedly limited, freedom to do as I please in the lead role I am in at work keeps things interesting.

If you don't want to go into debt over school, don't go into debt. Make it work some other way. Nobody is required to foot the bill for you, if it is worth doing, it is worth having to work for.

Why don't you address his first post in the thread which was more than a link dump and a . He put some effort in, return the favor and encourage it. I think you could have a really good debate if you just backed down a bit and met him at least 1/4 of the way there.

Admittedly, you are more than doing your part to keep the thread on track, and his post was square on for the original post.

And now you are narrowing your focus quite a bit. Does not change my opinion, but it does narrow the field a bit. I suppose you could ask why that is. Why does that cost as much as it does? Could it be because the benefits on the other side are so high that it is worth the debt up front to gain the reward later? They are very specific fields with very specific skill sets. Arguably not just anyone can go into them, even if they had the money to burn.