Yes, and the various polls we've had have confirmed this. What makes it seem heavily conservative is that we have a number of conservatives who fit the Furious Typer mold, and the volume and vehemence of their posts tends to outweigh that of the libertarian side.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Why I Am Not a Conservative
- Thread starter downzero
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conservatism libertarian
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yes, and the various polls we've had have confirmed this. What makes it seem heavily conservative is that we have a number of conservatives who fit the Furious Typer mold, and the volume and vehemence of their posts tends to outweigh that of the libertarian side.
IndyMonkey
Shooter
- Jan 15, 2010
- 6,835
- 36
I got him too.
VUPDblue banned smoking357 for posting troll threads, do we have a new smoking357?
I don't think so. Downzero has been far more involved in the discussions of the board than smoking357 ever was. I agree that copy/paste threads aren't the greatest threads generally speaking, even when I agree with the material posted, but holy crap guys, he's new. Does every new guy need to be compared to the last troll we had on board?
You really should go to the Netherlands to try and understand the Dutch. Not just Amsterdam either. They are a multicultural nation now that is having a hard time coming to grips with their mistakes(tolerence). I am not saying this to bash the Dutch but to only point out their arrogance and to some degree their ignorance. When you speak even to the highschool drop out(who is usually stoned out of their minds) he usually knows three languages not just knows them but is fluent in them. So they usually end up looking down their noses at you because you only know english. The superiority complex they have is almost deafening to me. You go there and they will never agree with America as we are hillbillies, hayseeds and cowboys. Not enlightened enough. They are eager to point out your faults without ever looking at themselves. It is amazing in one instance they will condem Arizona for their new law without ever looking how they treat their own illegals. Their conservatives make teddy k look like he is agreeing with Rush. It is a whole different world and it is very tuff for me to take anything they say to heart. But they do make an excellent beer and I once had an excellent breakfast at Barneys
IndyMonkey
Shooter
- Jan 15, 2010
- 6,835
- 36
Hes not a troll, just a young guy who is on his way to be a Lawyer.
It makes a little more sense now.
"Hey guys, I just moved here last month with my old man. I'm moving to Iowa soon for law school, so I won't be around long.
My name is Tim. I'm a regular USPSA competitor, and have shot in IDPA and ICORE as well. I'm a C-class in Limited and Single Stack divisions, and a D-class in production division. I'm also a Range Officer. I will be staffing the Indiana Sectional, so if anyone wants to sign up, please do so, here:
2010 Indiana Section Match
I also dabble in some other things, like multi-gun, a little bit of high power, and of course, lots and lots of reloading. I even have a little side business selling pistol bullets, but only by word-of-mouth.
JJlaughner is a personal friend of mine and I believe he's a member here. He got me into shooting USPSA 5 years ago.
I was at the most recent cigar night in Schererville and I hope to make a few more!"
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
I don't mind cut & paste threads, but to crack someone when you made even less of an attempt smacks me of hipocracy.
Someone mentioned word games upthread. That's what a lot of this is. There is no such thing as a pure liberal (except maybe Michael Dukakis), progressive, conservative, or libertarian. There are tendancies and leanings, but a many of these are discarded based upon selfishness and situations one finds themselves in.
For example, a liberal may say stay out of people's bedrooms, until it is their 12 year old daughter having sex with a 20 year old man. Then they want government intervention, and implementation of the death penalty. Conversely, a libertarian farmer will have distain for government intervention unless and until he needs it to save his farm. We all want outcomes that favor us.
And I agree that it's poor form, though it could easily be inferred from downzero's posting of the article that he approves of its message, so:
"Agree"
"Drivel"
Pretty much the same substance.
Some do. Others pay more attention to the means than the ends, and prefer that these align with their core values. One of the great evils of the modern State, to the libertarian, is that it creates the conditions that hinder free market competition, and then offers "help" to ameliorate those same conditions -- at the cost of freedom. This has been without a doubt the state of affairs in farm policy in the USA for the last century, more or less.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
I would submit that nearly without exception individuals will change their core values situationally, in most instances not even realizing they've done so. Examples of this can be found in various threads on this forum. Remember the thread about the pastor in Bloomington that shared his back yard with area homeless? The same people that scream about property rights and libertarian principles were the most vocal in condemning this man's charity and calling for government intervention. Same thing happens every time that I read that a property owner doesn't want guns on their peoperty. Or the fact it's somehow an infringement on out liberty for the police to ask us a question, but it's OK for them to put a beatdown on a thug as long as we think the thug deserved it. The libertairian mindset gives way to collective rights.
I am not being condemning. I recognize that I am guilty or this behavior from time to time. Selfishness is a necessary human trait. Most humans, with rare exceptions like Mother Teresa, allow their selfishness to cloud their judgment at one time or another, or on one subject or another. I do not think these momentary lapses rise to the level of hipocracy, but I do note the inconsistency between words and deeds.
I don't track what others have said from thread to thread, unless the threads are concurrent -- I simply can't remember who's who and who's said what. It's a personal failing of mine -- goes with the ass burgers.
I will say that I don't ever recall swapping sides on any of these issues, and I do notice certain folks lining up on "my" side with some consistency. I don't condone beatdowns as a rule, and I was one of the voices defending the Bloomington guy's decision to house the homeless. I don't recall a time when my libertarian mindset has given way to collective rights, though I am certainly open to having it pointed out to me.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
I wasn't calling you out at all. I was countering your statement "some", where I think it is "almost all" people will sacrifice a self-described core belief at some point to the tyranny of the moment. Not saying you were one of the guilty parties.
Sorry for confusion.
But ofcourse since your going to cite how liberalism brought to us and triumped by our Founders, then perhaps you'd care to know the mindset of the Founders, too?
Liberalism at it's finest?
Do you really want to equate Liberalism with that of our racist white founding Fathers?
I think in fairness we need to define our terms.
The last thing I have ever considered myself is "liberal." However I have largely found that I agree with the libertarian platform, which does have some parallels with true "liberalism."
Modern day liberalism has perverted a term which was once something very positive, into something synonymous with Socialism, collectivism, welfare, etc.
At its inception liberalism was about strong individual rights. Today in America it is about collective rights.
Similarly, people associate "Conservatism" with international meddling, constant warring with other nations, and a developing police state. I don't think this is what true conservatism represents either.
However, we are left with the associations that these modern terms have been pinned with. That's why I consider myself libertarian more than anything.
In regards to the Founders, I think that in their own day they would have been described as liberals, in modern times they would be libertarians. They were not the gun-grabbing socialists that you may be associating the term with. They were liberators.
He's good at giving the neg rep.I did read it. In my opinion it's Drivel. I still have my right to an opinion, even if it's opposite of yours. I choose not to argue with those I totally disagree with. I truly don't understand why you, and a few others, continue to visit this sight when all you do is argue with the majority of posters. It has to be disheartening to have 90% of the members think your ideas are nuts. I've read much of what you have written in other threads and disagree with most of it. I didn't give you Neg Rep for your opinions though as you just did to me. Thanks so much for dinging me, reminds me of a child that strikes out at others b/c they don't want to play with them.
I'll second the drivel opinion. I tried to read it too. Then I skimmed looking for something to gain my interest. Sadly nothing caught my attention. It
could be that there were no shiny objects inserted into the wording though.
Robert Richardson
Master
- Jan 28, 2009
- 3,684
- 113
Blah,blah,blah,blah! That was some boring stuff right there.
You miss the point as well. This text was not posted to get conservatives to agree with Hayek, or find points of agreement between them. In fact, much of the essay is dedicated to showing that conservatives lack any unifying philosophy other than preserving the existing order.
If you read carefully, it almost seems as if Hayek suggests that conservatism has no value other than putting the brakes on "progress," aka, progressivism. But he specifically states that conservative criticism cannot change the endpoint and only affects the speed in which progressive policy positions are incorporated into our law.
What is unbelievable to me is that Hayek's reasoning is still just as valid today as the day this essay was published. Our political spectrum is not a line from left to right. If anything, his "triangle" with socialism, conservatism, and liberalism (or libertarianism for those of you who prefer) on the corners of the triangle is much more accurate. And I think all of you can point out some "liberal" democrats and republicans (democratic freedom causus, republican liberty caucus, etc.) as well as many socialist democrats (obviously not all of them admit to it, but at least half or more are obvious socialists), and of course conservative republicans. After that, you can observe some even more scary combinations of the ideologies, where the socialists and the conservatives combine together (by their love of state power) to enact laws contrary to liberty.
And I think if you look at the worst laws passed with bipartisan support, for example, like the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. This legislation was enacted with broad approval of socialist democrats and conservative republicans alike. It was only the liberals, in both parties, who said, "Hey, wait a minute....this violates the First Amendment! We can't vote for this..."
People can think whatever they want about Hayek specifically. The answers as to why communists and socialists are NOT liberals among other important political distinctions are found in this document. I guess the real problem is that the essay is so long that it doesn't lead well to posting on a forum where people move from one thing to the next too quickly, and can't stand the idea of lots of words and no pictures in the writing they're reading.
I tend to think that if many intelligent conservatives understood the danger of standing behind something merely because they wished to preserve the current order, they would adopt libertarian positions on many issues, among them are some of the most important ones that Fletch mentioned.
It's amazing all the troll discussion that goes on because I cut and pasted this, initially, with no commentary. I'm perfectly willing to defend the work from attacks, but I just don't think I'm worthy to drive the discussion initially when the author is a Nobel Laureate. If I was posting the words of Obama, it'd be a different story.
You, sir, obviously understand the subject matter in the first post completely.
I just wish more would understand that "liberals" are not the enemy--they are liberators. It is "progressive" social engineering that we all fear more than anything, which has brought us ridiculous ideas like social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., that will one day bankrupt this country if we don't get them under control.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
...
I just wish more would understand that "liberals" are not the enemy--they are liberators. It is "progressive" social engineering that we all fear more than anything, which has brought us ridiculous ideas like social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., that will one day bankrupt this country if we don't get them under control.
The problem with your thesis is that you don't get to define words in the public domain. The word liberal has been co-opted and is used as a synomyn (or replacement) for the word progressive. This happened 50 years before you were born.
You are not going to drag anyone back to the original intent of the word. In fact it is a leftist ploy to attempt to do so.
I didn't read the article either. But it never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people can't tell the difference between traditional word meanings and modern word meanings, or that the word(s) take on different connotations depending of WHERE they are being used. Or.....they absolutely recognize it and are being purposefully disingenuous in their attempts to demonize and belittle people who hold differing views.
I proudly call myself a conservative. Strictly speaking, the full term would be American conservative. Unlike most of the other political labels, conservative by itself doesn't mean diddly. It doesn't hold it's own platform. It doesn't have an independent standard against which issues can be judged. It simply means adherence to the traditional form of government. Which is to say that I could just as easily be a conservative in 16th Century England and support a strong monarchical system.
But American conservatism is a different beast altogether. And I feel that the author knows this since he takes great pains to draw the line between liberalism as a general political philosophy and American liberalism. (To be fair, I'm making a leap of inference based on the comments in the thread.)
Typical of discussions involving word usage and meaning, no one thought to create a single operational definition for the term before embarking on the dialogue. So instead of arguing the merits of different political philosophies, the author is probably wasting a lot of time and energy arguing about some words' definitions. Of course, since the majority of our resident libertarians do the same here, it doesn't surprise me.
I proudly call myself a conservative. Strictly speaking, the full term would be American conservative. Unlike most of the other political labels, conservative by itself doesn't mean diddly. It doesn't hold it's own platform. It doesn't have an independent standard against which issues can be judged. It simply means adherence to the traditional form of government. Which is to say that I could just as easily be a conservative in 16th Century England and support a strong monarchical system.
But American conservatism is a different beast altogether. And I feel that the author knows this since he takes great pains to draw the line between liberalism as a general political philosophy and American liberalism. (To be fair, I'm making a leap of inference based on the comments in the thread.)
Typical of discussions involving word usage and meaning, no one thought to create a single operational definition for the term before embarking on the dialogue. So instead of arguing the merits of different political philosophies, the author is probably wasting a lot of time and energy arguing about some words' definitions. Of course, since the majority of our resident libertarians do the same here, it doesn't surprise me.
It's funny that you say that, because I've read a tremendous amount of scholarship that suggests that even 50 years ago, the same debate was going on about the meaning of the word.
Furthermore, if a word you're using takes on a meaning totally contrary to its definition, wouldn't you agree that's an incorrect use of the word? The word "liberal" has the same root word as "liberty." Is stealing my money at gunpoint, "liberty"? Obviously not and we should rightly condemn anyone who calls that such.
The "leftist" comment illustrates another point in this essay, that there is no left and right.
Furthermore, I have never, not even once, seen a progressive democrat call himself a liberal. I have seen Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc., call these people liberals, but never the people themselves.
But if you can't stand the difference in wording, copy the document, use the replace function to replace "liberal" with "libertarian" and continue reading. While I do think it is important to have an understanding of what the words mean, it's not the real crux of the work.
If a dictionary cannot define terms or words, or we cannot use word history to decide what they mean, what defines the bounds of a word's use?
Many progressive tenets are completely opposite to the dictionary definition of liberalism. In Economics, we call free trade and other free market policies "liberalization." Are you telling me that protectionist policies and interventionist monetary/fiscal policies are now the liberal positions?
Additionally, most of the world, including our ally Great Britain, has a "liberal" party that is much like our libertarians. They call their progressive party what it is--labour! Germany is the same way.
And, since someone mentioned "true" conservatism, I'd ask you to define that as well. If this essay is correct, conservatism has no unifying philosophy and thus "true conservatism" is whatever is going on at the time. If conservatism really isn't a philosophy other than to put the brakes on the philosophy of progressives, there certainly aren't too many people left to defend freedom, especially when progressives and conservatives are at odds with liberals.
And I assure you, that if you read the article, you'll have some actual substantive criticism, because you're most of the way there, but you just have to read the material before you can engage in a debate about it, I'm sorry to say.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Jojo_2000
- fnpfan
- Meatstick
- Hornett
- dustinfz6r
- Hayden F
- Ingomike
- ArevaloSocom
- cstoltie
- Born2vette
- brchixwing
- Midwestjimbo
- Basher
- FreeLand
- TheGrumpyGuy
- d.kaufman
- Zackerpacker002
- jzwhts
- ChooterMcGavin1973
- Butch627
- mhs
- Greyhound11
- morve80
- jrh84
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- bigdaddy1427
- Got SIG?
- Leo
- Firehawk
- Colt556
- snorko
- 66chevelle
- crookcountygo
- Triton
- chivio2000
- Count Blackula
- Piezak
- pokersamurai
- Wolfhound
- Hassiebawked
- wagyu52
- Eulogy32
- BMWRich
- rosejm
- GasTube138
- vitamink
- joncon
- Hillbilly
- Irish354
- miguel
