Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:03:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1064 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
>
> Scott Edward Sanburn wrote:
> Like David Koresh?
I'm totally lost. Could you clarify, Chris? (I should have gotten more sleep
last night!)
>
>
> I think that Mob Rule is where we are now...oh yeah, that is a
> representative democracy.
Isn't a mob rule like 500 people outside a building, for example, demanding a
hanging?
> Fetal testing or murder? Both, I guess.
Most corporations and government agencies do illegal things. I am not surprised
by any of it, but both should be prosecuted if they violate the law.
>
> I do not support those things either. But here's how I view the words
> "liberal" and "conservative." Conservatives want things to stay as they
> are (or were recently) and liberals are in favor of change. Not all
> change is good, and neither is the status quo. In the political climate
> of the US I consider myself a liberal WRT human rights (except that I
> support the 2nd amendment) and conservative WRT fiscal issues. But this
> is imperfect too.
Me too. I think by today's definitions of political thoughts, conservatives want
to change things and liberals want the status quo.
I think our definitions are not the same. I am a firm believer in changing most,
if not all of, the current disaster of our federal government and of the
unconstitutional state of it. I call that conservatism, in it's current
definition (source National Review, etc.)
> > I am and always will be a moral, and economic conservative.
In terms of change, Chris, not your definition. I think our social ills are
caused by leftist (liberal) mentality, i think both economic and social changes
are needed to keep America great. The status quo is killing us.
> Wow. I'm glad that I can't claim that. I strongly favor >improvement.
Do you understand now? :)
> Right. That's a belief that we all have in common now, but it was
> liberals fighting to make that happen against a conservative tide that
> liked the status quo. That's how we get progress. I agree that US
> liberals seem (right now) to be hell-bent on bankrupting the US but
> they're just trying to fix some problems. As usual, they're going about
> it all wrong, but they come up with some pretty good ideas now and again.
I agree. But their way of thinking has failed time and time again. You cannot
change human nature.
> > I do not agree that because I am black or homosexual or a woman, that means that I
> > DESERVE special privileges, such as lowering of
> > standards to get into college, or the military, etc. That is wrong. I really
>
> Wow, I didn't realize that you were a black lesbian. Scott is an
> unusual name for a black woman ;-)
Come now, Chris, I am an "evil" white male. :)
> I agree, mostly. In an ideal world (Libertopia would be getting us
> closer) we wouldn't have to even consider such things, but in our
> current world, where such government meddling is normal, I'm not sure
> that sometimes affirmative action is a bad thing. For instance, is it
> possible that getting blacks into (and graduated from) college to
> provide role-models to other blacks is a terrific investment in the
> future? What if $30K spent that way saves us $100K in welfare? (I'm
> not picking on blacks, I really mean the lower SES segment regardless of
> ethnicity which is largely irrelevant.)
>
> The big harm (aside from stealing my money to fund it) that affirmative
> action does is helping people to succeed such that they never get to
> know if they succeeded based on their own merit, or only did so due to
> assistance. Same with welfare programs - they are degrading and people
> using them long enough start to forget that. They get used to being
> leaches and forget what it is to be human.
>
> > As far as I can remember, Lincoln ended slavery,
> > there were a lot of both Republican and Democratic people on both sides of the
> > issue. The biggest segregationists were Southern Democrats, however. I think
> > slavery was horrid, and segregation equally as bad, and I am glad people stood
> > up for that and got it changed.
>
> 1) I don't thing segregation was equally bad, morally it was better and
> actually is was better for some and worse for others.
Segregation of people because of race violates everything America stands for.
Integration of races is what is supposed to be.
>
> 2) What are you getting at with the slavery thing? I'm not getting it.
Slavery is/was a horrible thing where people were not treated equally. When I
say affirmative action and so forth, it is the same principle, picking people
because of skin color, etc.
> > Don't use that, however, for ever single issue, because it is not prevalent anymore.
> > It's history, learn from it, and never repeat it.
>
> It's not prevalent, but it is still relevant. Negroes in the US really
> missed the boat in a big big way and nothing serious has been done to
> fix it.
What can we do? I had nothing to do with it, we can't change history. Learn from
it and move on.
> I'm not sure what can be. And I know it's wrong to hire people
> just because of their race, but I think that the average Negro in the US
> has a mindset that is less likely to bring fiscal success than the
> average Caucasian.
I know many black people that are successful without affirmative action and
without government assistance. It's peoples willingness to follow the rules and
get ahead. Anyone can make it. We cannot do anything about slavery, it happened
over one hundred years ago, and no one is affected now. There are so many
scholarships and the like for minorities and opportunities, that no one should
feel they are victims. If they are, it is by their own choice.
Like I said in a previous post, I am in full agreement with you and Larry on a
lot of issues and what you have posted before. I think that our definitions are
screwed up. I don't know if I could ever be called a liberal, though! :)
Jeffersonian maybe, but not just a liberal.
Scott "clouding up the waters and making people say, "what?"" Sanburn
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher L. Weeks
> central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
