Who said that gays have to be Democrats?

[Kulindahr]

Might I also suggest taking a look at The Republic by Plato? Very enlightening.

Gotta love The Republic -- it's where Plato reveals himself as a hypocrite, which in turn shows his Republic to be doomed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here you go.

Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th cir. 1970).



Because the use of the motto "is of a patriotic or ceremonial character," it appears to have no religious meaning at all. The same might be said of that 1782 document as well.

I don't know if any of the signers fell into the category, but there were many in that day who believed in Providence without it requiring a deity.

 

[WellAlright]

I don't think gay rights should be the deciding factor in what political party one should associate him or herself with.

Believe it or not, there are gay-supporting Republicans out there and anti-gay Democrats out there.

 

[construct]

I don't know if any of the signers fell into the category, but there were many in that day who believed in Providence without it requiring a deity.

Oh, I think Deism pretty much had a deity who preserved the world in existence and provided us with things like natural law and the intelligence to discover it. I doubt that there was much disagreement about whether there was a god of some sort even if it was not worshiped. Their main disagreement was about how much involvement religious considerations should play in establishing federal and state laws.

Still, the references to God (or Providence as Deists typically preferred) seem to me fairly perfunctory. I advocate removal of such ceremonial language, but it's Number 57 on my list of important things to push for.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, allow me to retort.

Lol, you must have not read Kirk's Ten Principles of Conservatism. Kirk clearly states that Conservatism is "the negation of ideology"... before listing ten conservative principles. I assume you're familiar with both the terms negation and ideology?

Based on your reaction to The Republic, you must consider Plato to have been a Liberal... The Republic, much like this thread and the writings of Kirk, has more to do with political theorizing than actual politics.

Based upon the glaring lack of either prudence or restraint, it's clearly apparent that conservatism is not one of the views, or as Kirk would say "frame of mind" shared by yourself or any other "conservative" who has yet posted on this thread. At least according to Kirk's views on the subject.

In closing, Kirk.

I wasn't even thinking of Kirk.

And I was thinking of Plato as a hypocrite, because offers up The Republic as a solution to having a perfect State, yet builds into it a total flaw at its very root -- a flaw seen from how he contradicts his other works.

To wit, he elsewhere asserts that a philosopher may never lie, because a philosopher who lies will stop seeing truth. Yet in The Republic, he puts philosophers in charge -- and requires them to lie. Somehow I can't respect any political theory that's based on lies.

As for Plato being a liberal... he was a statist totalitarian, which is either (or neither) liberal or conservative.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

Who said that gays have to be Democrats?

My father ​

 

[Kulindahr]

Strangely parallels Kirk's ideals, or ideologies if you prefer. Perhaps politics, and necessarily politicians as well, deal with hypocrisy as a matter of course.

As far as statist totalitarianism, it makes sense considering that the majority of Greece was comprised of city-states at the time of his writing.

His thinking was actually considered quite progressive at the time.

I'll have to keep in mind that building a state on a foundation of requiring the leaders to lie to the people is progressive.

 

[saymyname]

I'm in this thread a little late, sadly.

People arguing for the conservative side - you are delusional. You can say whatever you want about 'true' conservatism, but the modern day notion, fused with the GOP, is that of social conservative values (groups like 'focus on the family') and pandering to the Christian crazies. If you want to call yourself a LIBERTARIAN, than by all means DO SO. But even in that case you won't be able to defend that small government, libertarian values would do nothing to protect LGBT on a legal, national level (like employment acts, hate crime legislation, etc.)

But conservatism today is not about "what goes on behind closed doors is not my business", it's about pushing a socially backwards agenda on a society.

No one said gay people have to democrats, anyways. I think we should go further left. I know plenty of queer anarchists and the like. I myself am a socialist.

 

[saymyname]

That's nice, but it doesn't address what he said, which was:



It has been warped in many ways, used to actually stifle freedom of religion, and to teach kids in public schools that religion is to be hidden and not brought into discussion of anything at all.



It is quite true, and I'm talking about liberals in the United States. They don't believe in private property, or free enterprise, or even individuality. They want everyone who uses public lands to go to the same places and do the same things, and in fact want those public lands mostly off limits to the public, and totally off limits to anyone but the middle class and up. They don't care if people lose their businesses or land or homes, so long as their principles are upheld.

And at the highest levels, today's liberals are more interested in providing favors and privileges to massive corporations than in caring for people -- which the current health care proposal shows wonderfully.

What the fuck are you talking about? Liberals are not Marxists. Learn some basic political philosophy, will you? Liberals of course support free enterprise and private property. The liberals in the US aren't even "liberal" or "left" enough to socialize health care. How do they not believe in individuality? Liberalism is founded on individual freedom. The entire concept of social liberalism is heavily related to the concept of the individual, being able to do as one wishes. Then you go on to say that they want everyone who uses public lands to go to the "same places" and do the "same things" and that they want "public lands" off limits to the public. Except for middle class people. But first you said they don't support private property. Which is totally different than the concept of public land. Anyways, I'm not even sure what you are going on about here, what your big deal is about public land - could you explain? As for the second half of your statement, what exactly do you think that neocons/the GOP is interested in doing? At least there are some liberals (Kucinich, Sanders) who actually support sane wealth distribution. It's amazing to me how many conservatives are such a blatant tool of their own ideology. Most of your anger, from the sounds of it, things like corporations and wealth and class, should be aimed at capitalism and free trade itself. But instead you're so wonderfully brainwashed by the "small government, no taxes" bullshit the right-wing feeds you every day that you haven't realized that the people supporting that concept of laissez-faire capitalism are the ones that got us into this mess in the first place. The solution to capitalism is not MORE capitalism. Do you watch Fox news? Every single thing you just said about "liberals" could be applied to "conservatives" too. At least liberals have a socially liberal aspect and support basic things like minimum wage, for fuck's sake. Stay classy, Texas. As if 8 years of Bush didn't teach us anything...

 

[saymyname]

you used 2 negatives

i'm not sure you meant what you said or if i'm understanding what you meant

regardless, the libertarian view and nation political plank would help gays in most all areas that we have a problem with currently

I think I meant to say "would do nothing" or "wouldn't do anything to protect..."

How would the libertarian view help gays? Seriously? Libertarians support tiny, small government, zero intervention, lack of federal laws or initiatives. There would be nothing to protect us on a federal level. The only area I could see it helping with is the marriage thing, if the government got out of the business of "weddings" and churches and introduced civil unions for everyone.

What would help gays is radical social liberalism and social democracy. Look at all of the most gay friendly countries. They're all social democratic and socially liberal.

 

[saymyname]

Yeah, I understand their basic idea. Unfortunately the Constitution wasn't exactly written with a mind to protect marginalized, socially oppressed minorities. I realize that their philosophy, in a more ideal world, would not offer "extra" protection because extra protection from the government shouldn't be needed, but in the climate that we have, I think actively resisting oppression involves using federal initiatives, to protect people who are generally at more risk that your average straight white male.

There's also other parts of their philosophy I don't like (their basic disregard for the gains of the labor movement).

 

[Kulindahr]

People arguing for the conservative side - you are delusional. You can say whatever you want about 'true' conservatism, but the modern day notion, fused with the GOP, is that of social conservative values (groups like 'focus on the family') and pandering to the Christian crazies.

And properly speaking, they're reactionaries... kinda like the Spanish Inquisition.

And that's why it's important to employ proper definitions of terms: letting them take the label "conservative" grants a certain respectability. Designating them as what they really are puts them in the proper light.

Though to label them properly we'd have to call them theocratic statist reactionaries.

If you want to call yourself a LIBERTARIAN, than by all means DO SO. But even in that case you won't be able to defend that small government, libertarian values would do nothing to protect LGBT on a legal, national level (like employment acts, hate crime legislation, etc.)

Huh?

Protecting individuals on a national level is what a Libertarian government would be about. A Libertarian commandment for the federal government would be "Thou shalt not discriminate against any person on the basis of anything save activities which willingly and knowingly harm other individuals" -- no need to list all the things as is done now.

The Libertarian Party is the only party that believes in actual equality for gays, because it believes in actual equality for everyone. It's a "What part of 'are created equal' don't you understand?" sort of thing.

But conservatism today is not about "what goes on behind closed doors is not my business", it's about pushing a socially backwards agenda on a society.

That's the definition of reactionary: or, as I like to think of it, people who are so cowardly they can't handle the thought of the world changing, especially if it allows others to be different from them, so they try to force society back toward a "Golden Age" which never actually existed.

 

[Kulindahr]

What the fuck are you talking about? Liberals are not Marxists. Learn some basic political philosophy, will you? Liberals of course support free enterprise and private property.

I'd say you need to get out of la-la land and look at the real world.

Businesses go out of business regularly because of laws and regulations about how business has to be run. These laws and regulations are invariably put into place by liberals. Many people who are perfectly capable of running their own business can't start one because of the same or other regulations. The implementation of those regulations is anti-small business, and thus anti-free enterprise... and pro-giant corporation.

Property is regulated in so many ways that calling it "private" is a legal fiction. That includes everything from environmental to zoning to aesthetic regulations -- again, put in place invariably by liberals. It drives up prices of homes, businesses, farms, etc. Whatever it may be called officially, what liberals have made property is a lease system with severe restrictions on the use of land.

The liberals in the US aren't even "liberal" or "left" enough to socialize health care. How do they not believe in individuality? Liberalism is founded on individual freedom. The entire concept of social liberalism is heavily related to the concept of the individual, being able to do as one wishes.

Yeah, and conservatism is heavily related to the concept of small government.

In practice, liberalism means passing so many laws and implementing so many regulations to "protect" people that individualism is destroyed, and the poor are trapped in poverty. A study by the Oregonian determined that the price of a $220,000 house includes $40,000 just due to regulations. When remodeling, it's not uncommon for the cost of the licenses and fees to exceed the cost of materials. Again, these laws and regulations are invariably enacted by liberals.

Then you go on to say that they want everyone who uses public lands to go to the "same places" and do the "same things" and that they want "public lands" off limits to the public. Except for middle class people. But first you said they don't support private property. Which is totally different than the concept of public land. Anyways, I'm not even sure what you are going on about here, what your big deal is about public land - could you explain?

They don't support private property -- they support the name only; in practice they regulate it to the point it may as well be units in a mall, leased and only able to be used the way the owner specifies.

Then they say that public land is for recreation, etc. etc., but steadily shut down access. President Clinton put more acres of public land off limits to the public than the area of the two smallest states combined. Liberals here locally every year block off more back roads, shut off more access to camping, block more trails to swimming holes, etc., so that if one wishes to enjoy public land, one has to go to the same places everyone else does, with the proper equipment -- all meant, they say, for our safety, but in effect for the exclusion of anyone who can't afford to spend several thousand on recreation equipment,

As for the second half of your statement, what exactly do you think that neocons/the GOP is interested in doing? At least there are some liberals (Kucinich, Sanders) who actually support sane wealth distribution.

"Sane wealth distribution" is usually a euphemism for taking from those who are capable of producing wealth and giving it to those who aren't. Economically, that reduces the efficiency of the economy by more than the value of the money taken from the productive.

As for the neocons, they're interested in doing across the board what Obama is doing with his health-care bill: enriching the large corporations at the expense of liberty and individual wealth.

It's amazing to me how many conservatives are such a blatant tool of their own ideology. Most of your anger, from the sounds of it, things like corporations and wealth and class, should be aimed at capitalism and free trade itself.

Mega-corporations are not the product of free enterprise; they're the product of liberals establishing regulatory boards and "conservatives" establishing corporate welfare. In a truly free market, there would be no giant agribusinesses reaping billions in subsidies, or companies getting tax breaks for moving into a town; there wouldn't be government regulatory boards which in practice serve as gatekeepers who preserve the dominance of the industry they regulate by the existing corporations.

The problem is not capitalism, but its distortion by government interference -- and wrong-headed government interference, at that. For example, the banks which got themselves into trouble and were deemed "too big to fail" should not have been bailed out and allowed to remain too big to fail; the solution to a business being too big to fail is to cut it into pieces that aren't too big.

But instead you're so wonderfully brainwashed by the "small government, no taxes" bullshit the right-wing feeds you every day that you haven't realized that the people supporting that concept of laissez-faire capitalism are the ones that got us into this mess in the first place. The solution to capitalism is not MORE capitalism. Do you watch Fox news? Every single thing you just said about "liberals" could be applied to "conservatives" too. At least liberals have a socially liberal aspect and support basic things like minimum wage, for fuck's sake. Stay classy, Texas. As if 8 years of Bush didn't teach us anything...

Ah, the minimum wage, which destroys jobs every time it's raised, and moves work from the private sector to the public, thus increasing the size of the government and the rolls of those on government support.

I haven't seen Fox news in... well, since before my dad died, so it's been a while. I watch the local Fox channel because they report the local news more honestly than any other outfit, though -- and their weather guy gets the forecast correct more often than anyone else.

As for what I've said about liberals applying to conservatives -- no, it doesn't. Conservatives really do believe in private property, and really do believe in free enterprise. If the conservatives in the legislature here had their way, I as a handyman would be able to advertise that I do plumbing, carpentry, roofing, painting, and landscaping -- which I can't, thanks to liberals who have reserved those terms for "licensed" practitioners, effectively setting up guilds which can then charge one heck of a lot more (like the $130/hr my mom had to pay for a plumber awhile back, even while he was driving back to the shop for a part). If conservatives here had their way, I'd be able to buy a piece of land in a rural area smaller than 160 acres, and build a house on it at my own speed, and move into it when I wished, finished or not -- but thanks to liberals, I have to buy at least 160 acres to put a new house on, and I have to build it all within a set period of time, and I can't move in without a "certificate of habitability", nor can I park and RV on my land and live in it while I'm building my house.

Neocons and the GOP have their own evils, but the only way they screw with free enterprise is by favoring giant corporations, and the only way I've seen them fiddle with private property is by restricting where "adult businesses" can be located.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think I meant to say "would do nothing" or "wouldn't do anything to protect..."

How would the libertarian view help gays? Seriously? Libertarians support tiny, small government, zero intervention, lack of federal laws or initiatives. There would be nothing to protect us on a federal level. The only area I could see it helping with is the marriage thing, if the government got out of the business of "weddings" and churches and introduced civil unions for everyone.

What would help gays is radical social liberalism and social democracy. Look at all of the most gay friendly countries. They're all social democratic and socially liberal.

The Libertarian view would help gays because, for starters, Libertarians don't regard any social group as a political football to be exploited, and that's so because they really honestly believe that "all men are created equal". With Libertarians there wouldn't be any need for listing all the things no one is to discriminate on the basis of, because they'd list the only thing on the basis of which one may discriminate: harm to others. Since two people being gay and sharing their lives doesn't harm anyone, no one could discriminate against them -- and since three people bonding in the same way doesn't harm anyone, there wouldn't be any restrictions on how many people can get "married", either.

And Libertarians actually believe in equality before the law, and don't act as though some are more equal than others.

DADT? Out the window, because "all men are created equal".

DOMA? Out the window, for the same reason and because of freedom of association.

ENDA? Already covered above.


Put a Libertarian in the White House and a pile of Libertarians in Congress, and the issues gays have been hammering on for a generation would be taken care of virtually overnight.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, I understand their basic idea. Unfortunately the Constitution wasn't exactly written with a mind to protect marginalized, socially oppressed minorities. I realize that their philosophy, in a more ideal world, would not offer "extra" protection because extra protection from the government shouldn't be needed, but in the climate that we have, I think actively resisting oppression involves using federal initiatives, to protect people who are generally at more risk that your average straight white male.

There's also other parts of their philosophy I don't like (their basic disregard for the gains of the labor movement).

Actually, the Constitution was written with that in mind, because it didn't recognize minorities or majorities, it recognizes individuals and decrees that they're all equal before the law.

That we have turned to writing laws specifically to protect certain kinds of minorities illustrates how far from the Constitution our practice has been.

What disregard for the gains of the labor movement? Libertarians begin with the truth that each individual is his/her own owner. They are thus free to organize in any fashion they see fit, and that include unions. Banding together to face down something oppressive is a very Libertarian thing, and that's what unions do.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your view expressed here of American Liberalism is so extreme that it is entirely untrue.

I think it's bizarrely paranoid, and would invite laughter in a serious forum of political debate in presentia actuale.

That's a description of observed reality.

They lie about it, claiming that they're trying to protect people, or maybe they're just so obtuse that they don't see what they're actually doing, but what I wrote is based on what liberals have actually done -- as opposed to what they blather about.

 

[palemale]

Mega-corporations are not the product of free enterprise; they're the product of liberals establishing regulatory boards and "conservatives" establishing corporate welfare. In a truly free market, there would be no giant agribusinesses reaping billions in subsidies, or companies getting tax breaks for moving into a town; there wouldn't be government regulatory boards which in practice serve as gatekeepers who preserve the dominance of the industry they regulate by the existing corporations.

The problem is not capitalism, but its distortion by government interference -- and wrong-headed government interference, at that. For example, the banks which got themselves into trouble and were deemed "too big to fail" should not have been bailed out and allowed to remain too big to fail; the solution to a business being too big to fail is to cut it into pieces that aren't too big.

Kuli, this statement is sheer nonsense. The problem in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was that the Robber Barons built ever larger and more powerful corporations. They did so in large part by commandeering the power of government, and often the coercive power, of government to enlarge their businesses and enrich themselves at the expense of workers and local communities. One of the most egregious examples of this was the Ludlow Massacre, where Rockefeller and other coal companies used the Colorado National Guard to suppress a strike in the Colorado mines. The guard attacked the miners' camp and slaughtered 20 people, including 11 children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/sfeature/sf_8.html

The problem is not capitalism's distortion by government, but rather capitalism's distortion of government. This argument over theory is nice, but at some point reality must intrude if we are to have a government that works and ensures that we remain a prosperous country that does not fall behind the rest of the world.

 

[JB3]

Kuli, this statement is sheer nonsense. The problem in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was that the Robber Barons built ever larger and more powerful corporations. They did so in large part by commandeering the power of government, and often the coercive power, of government to enlarge their businesses and enrich themselves at the expense of workers and local communities. One of the most egregious examples of this was the Ludlow Massacre, where Rockefeller and other coal companies used the Colorado National Guard to suppress a strike in the Colorado mines. The guard attacked the miners' camp and slaughtered 20 people, including 11 children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/sfeature/sf_8.html

The problem is not capitalism's distortion by government, but rather capitalism's distortion of government. This argument over theory is nice, but at some point reality must intrude if we are to have a government that works and ensures that we remain a prosperous country that does not fall behind the rest of the world.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The reason we HAVE mega-corporations today is because the sheer complexity and breadth of over-regulation means that only businesses with deep pockets can survive. (hence, mega-corporations) While liberals like to pontificate about the good of regulation, OVER-REGULATION (which they seem to prefer more often than not) is the cause of many of the ills in the business sector.

BTW, I suggest you read this book on why the idea of the 'Robber Barron' was a complete myth:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Business-America/dp/0963020315"]Amazon.com: The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America (9780963020314): Burton W. Folsom, Forrest McDonald: Books[/ame]

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli, this statement is sheer nonsense. The problem in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was that the Robber Barons built ever larger and more powerful corporations. They did so in large part by commandeering the power of government, and often the coercive power, of government to enlarge their businesses and enrich themselves at the expense of workers and local communities. One of the most egregious examples of this was the Ludlow Massacre, where Rockefeller and other coal companies used the Colorado National Guard to suppress a strike in the Colorado mines. The guard attacked the miners' camp and slaughtered 20 people, including 11 children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/sfeature/sf_8.html

The problem is not capitalism's distortion by government, but rather capitalism's distortion of government. This argument over theory is nice, but at some point reality must intrude if we are to have a government that works and ensures that we remain a prosperous country that does not fall behind the rest of the world.

Nice history lesson. But the problem is still the same one, except that it's become a little more subtle now: government has handed corporations the means to stifle competition, and they use them. We would not have the giant corporations we do if the government hadn't given them special privileges.

But even in your history lesson, the problem wasn't actually capitalism distorting government; that's just a limited example of the ever-present problem of wealth distorting government, which is as ancient as Rome and was probably ancient then. Concentrated wealth is always the enemy of liberty and justice, regardless of the system under which it's amassed -- and the amassing of great wealth presently in the U.S. is encouraged, aided, and abetted by government -- the present administration more than just included.

And this has nothing to do with theory; it's all practical: which way the distortion goes (presently, both ways) tells where changes need to be made. And the biggest change that's needed is to lessen the authority of government for meddling in business affairs, because without that big business wouldn't have much interest in manipulating government.

 

[saymyname]

And properly speaking, they're reactionaries... kinda like the Spanish Inquisition.

And that's why it's important to employ proper definitions of terms: letting them take the label "conservative" grants a certain respectability. Designating them as what they really are puts them in the proper light.

Though to label them properly we'd have to call them theocratic statist reactionaries.



Huh?

Protecting individuals on a national level is what a Libertarian government would be about. A Libertarian commandment for the federal government would be "Thou shalt not discriminate against any person on the basis of anything save activities which willingly and knowingly harm other individuals" -- no need to list all the things as is done now.

The Libertarian Party is the only party that believes in actual equality for gays, because it believes in actual equality for everyone. It's a "What part of 'are created equal' don't you understand?" sort of thing.



That's the definition of reactionary: or, as I like to think of it, people who are so cowardly they can't handle the thought of the world changing, especially if it allows others to be different from them, so they try to force society back toward a "Golden Age" which never actually existed.

The Libertarian Party is most certainly NOT the only party that believes in equality for gays. What complete and utter nonsense. The Green Party, the Socialist Party USA - I'd vote for them in terms of LGBT equality before I'd vote for the Libertarians, who would do nothing to protect marginalized people - people who are typically MORE AT RISK and more likely to be discriminated against than most people. I get that THEY believe in total equality and liberty, but MOST PEOPLE DON'T, and in that case, we need laws, yes, extra laws, to protect us from the 'reactionaries' you talk about. In terms of the semantics over the term reaction and conservative, that last definition you gave of reactionary is basically what I think of as conservative.