Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. And I never argued against that statement. I argued against ruveyn's statement and defended it against your criticism.

The constitution has been rewritten thats what amendments are. The reasons something is done are usually relevant. Unity in the states was key if not all of the states signed there was a greater chance of being overtaken by the European presence in the Americas. Unity was more important than slavery in this instance to be sure the opportunity to free those slaves actually presented itself in the future. You may view it as wrong but America might not exist today if not for the expediency of those politicians.

You interpreted his use of right-wing as a reference to conservatism because thats what made the most sense. Unless you are saying you misinterpreted his statement your post is irrelevant.

For any word there is the word itself, a single term, and under that term is the definition, or concept, that the term represents. When labeling someone of the past according to a modern set of political definitions they ought to be consistent in considering the stances that such a person of the past had according to the modern definitions. Likewise, when labeling a person of the present with political definitions of the past they should likewise be consistent. Going by the stances held by an individual provides a percentage of match to a definition, whereas going by a relative measure of that time period without regard to the stances adhered and then applying a modern label is a great way to perform equivocation.

I actually agree with you. I was just arguing hypothetically from a fixed perspective to make a point. Allowing slavery for political expedience made sense at the time, but it would be wrong today.

Maybe we should just end this now as I've already made my point and we don't seem to actually be disagreeing on anything substantive. My problem was with ruveyn saying that the Founding Fathers were conservative (in which he meant by todays standards) and therefore conservatism is the principle by which the country should be run today. I don't like arguments appealing to authority figures from the past in any case. I think modern problems need fresh perspectives.

Why not just go by their actual views without applying any kind of modern political label? Why not just use the labels they themselves used?

Because the label represents a collection of views generally associated. It saves time from having to enumerate all stances of each individual. However, it does depend upon the discussion as to which is more important. Arguing that a historical figure was this or that and then going on to say, therefore we should be this or that seems a bit off in most cases, doesn't it? George Washington owned slaves, so should we? Julius Caesar burned cities and killed lots of people, so should we? Adolf Hitler kept a small mustache, so should we not have facial hair? ETC. If it's a matter of saying "I like this historical figure", alright, but that in itself conveys no moral implications.

Yea, I agree with all that.

My main contention is how conservatives keep harping on how Jefferson favored limited government in 1790 and therefore we all should favir limited government today in 2010, without taking into consideration how much the world has changed since 1790. I think if conservatives are going to appeal to intellectual athorities they should as least pick ones familiar with the modern world. It's not like there aren't any. Milton Friedman would be a good place to start.

And of course then its valid that they would label todays conservatives as being very liberal.

So no, you cant really count them in conservative membership. You cant force someone into your club.

What are you talking about? Conservatism isn't a club or a political party. and unless for some reason you think they don't approve of the traditional government of America which they setup yes they may be considered conservatives this doesn't align them with any of today's current political parties. As for them viewing today's conservatives as liberal you very well may be right i don't see how that invalidates my statement.

You are taking things too literally. Perhaps I should have said niche instead of club.



Beyond the span of their lives they never approved of anything your government did, and traditional, by its very definition isnt something that happened in times future to them. ie: no US government was traditional to them. ie: they were progressive in terms of the governments they knew. So no, if they had the terms to make use of, it seems pretty unlikely they would call themselves conservative. The fact that they organised a government at odds with traditional values in their world pretty much puts lie to the idea that they thought "the old ways are best" or "lets be set in our ways".

The mormons are pretty infamous for baptizing dead people. You seem hell bent on doing something similar with dead presidents. Now dont take that literally; its a metaphor.

They were neither proto-cons or pre-libs. They were just men, and from what I know of them, they resented the deification of social leadership.

I am not deifying them. What they would call themselves isn't relevant. This discussion is about what category they would fall under if we measure them by today's standards. Seeing as they lived in the past and set up how our government(for the time following their deaths) was to be run it stands to reason they would be conservatives. By today's standards the policies they implemented in our government are conservative. Your argument really has nothing to do with what I'm saying, I suggest you reread my posts and try and understand what I'm saying again.

It is here.

here where? and even if a political party decides to call itself a conservative party that doesn't necessarily mean it is a defining factor when considering conservatism as a whole.

i'd like to use this reasoning to state that anthony weiner and dennis kucinich are conservatives and you just don't realize it yet.

dennis kucinich wants to ban handguns i don't see how wanting to limit the right to bare arms is conservative. I have no idea who the other guy is and its time for me to sleep so I'm not going to find out anytime soon.


EDIT: Unless of course your implying that he will change the traditions of American government in which case i would have to say maybe but not likely.(in my opinion)