Any rightists in house? Watch

ModYom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by JohnPaul_)
Nonsense.

I'm a conservative because I like to keep traditional things in society, those particular are the guarantors of human liberty, because I am a libertarian.

Conservatism just means one conserves, it doesn't dictate what I like to conserve.


Posted from TSR Mobile
so, as a Lib Con what things would you ban or keep from becoming legal?

issues such as: prostitution, drugs, gambling, fox hunting, t-shirt/hot dog stand free-for-all, immigration, etc....gay marriage
0
reply
ModYom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by JohnPaul_)
A good description which is often used to try and render conservative libertarians and their arguments out of date and thus not worth bothering with.

You may choose to prefer living in a 'modern' society which is governed by the secret police, KGB and gulags.

In that case, I'd rather be an extreme reactionary.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Goodwins law by-proxy, (ie: Stalin instead of Hitler) how typically 'libertarian' and unoriginal

don't you have anything more to offer than tired old cliches?:rolleyes:

who ever said anything about Communism?
0
reply
ModYom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by JohnPaul_)
A good description which is often used to try and render conservative libertarians and their arguments out of date and thus not worth bothering with.
I suggest you go live out in a libertarian third world nation for a while, see how great that is, or perhaps take a hypothetical time machine back to the 18th century US -see how great that is for the guy on the street..........iow: a free for all does not work out so well
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by ModYom)
I suggest you go live out in a libertarian third world nation for a while, see how great that is, or perhaps take a hypothetical time machine back to the 18th century US -see how great that is for the guy on the street..........iow: a free for all does not work out so well
Now don't be silly. Libertarianism is what we lived under, classically, in the UK. We never had socialism of any form, other than on a voluntary family level. Freedom to do what we want, for the good of our people, is what we lived by. Lolbertarianism doesn't work when you mix in state intervention with business. remove government from business and you can have your libertarianism.
0
reply
ModYom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Now don't be silly. Libertarianism is what we lived under, classically, in the UK. We never had socialism of any form, other than on a voluntary family level. Freedom to do what we want, for the good of our people, is what we lived by. Lolbertarianism doesn't work when you mix in state intervention with business. remove government from business and you can have your libertarianism.
that's right, it so good and the old days, kids dying of preventable diseases, women being raped by their bosses, totally unsafe working conditions, sweat shops, forced labour etc etc...sure , why not just revert back to that again:rolleyes:
0
reply
cleverasvoltaire
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by JohnPaul_)
Someone who is pro-capitalism, pro constitution (optional), anit-multiculturalism, smaller government etc...


Posted from TSR Mobile
Traditionalist?
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by ModYom)
that's right, it so good and the old days, kids dying of preventable diseases, women being raped by their bosses, totally unsafe working conditions, sweat shops, forced labour etc etc...sure , why not just revert back to that again:rolleyes:
>there were people dying of disease in the distant past because governments didn't force people to be treated.

Okay. Tell me something that isn't obvious.

>forced labour

Poor peasants being oppressed to work for resources to raise their family. What a shame there is no "right to exist".
0
reply
ModYom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
and you want to go back to that by the sound of it - so, why was that system so much better than what we have now?
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by ModYom)
and you want to go back to that by the sound of it - so, why was that system so much better than what we have now?

Nobody has the right to just exist. You earn your way in life lest you weigh down your relatives and become a burden. Not becoming a burden to your family because of healthcare socialism creates a breakdown in family bonds. You weaken those bonds, society collapses. Socialism is destroying society.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by JohnPaul_)
Nonsense.

I'm a conservative because I like to keep traditional things in society, those particular are the guarantors of human liberty, because I am a libertarian.

Conservatism just means one conserves, it doesn't dictate what I like to conserve.


Posted from TSR Mobile
okay then, well you're not using "conservative" in the political sense like you are with libertarianism which was why I didn't understand what you were trying to say, because obviously in a political sense "conservatism" means economically liberal/libertarian (right wing) but socially authoritarian (and not socially liberal)
1
reply
ModYom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Nobody has the right to just exist. You earn your way in life lest you weigh down your relatives and become a burden. Not becoming a burden to your family because of healthcare socialism creates a breakdown in family bonds. You weaken those bonds, society collapses. Socialism is destroying society.
I think you'll find that it was Thatcher who started this off , ' no such thing as society' and all that.....

and how does the family bond help if they can't afford healthcare, just let the kids and grandparents die is it?
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
obviously in a political sense "conservatism" means economically liberal/libertarian (right wing) but socially authoritarian (and not socially liberal)
Obviously? Can you give me some examples of social authoritarian in a conservative way? The left are far more socially authoritarian, trying to control what we think and who we can associate with. Enforced diversity and positive discrimination aren't socially authoritarian?

(Original post by ModYom)
I think you'll find that it was Thatcher who started this off , ' no such thing as society' and all that.....

and how does the family bond help if they can't afford healthcare, just let the kids and grandparents die is it?
Thatcher didn't start anything- let me reiterate: we have never been a socialist state until WWII. Its introduction marked the end to British civilisation and the end of our empire.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Obviously? Can you give me some examples of social authoritarian in a conservative way? The left are far more socially authoritarian, trying to control what we think and who we can associate with. Enforced diversity and positive discrimination aren't socially authoritarian?
ummm off the top of my head: the conservatives proposing to go to war in syria, censoring pornography, keeping drugs illegal, keeping euthanasia illegal, keeping brothels illegal, etc. and "enforced" diversity, by definition, would be - so yes. and I never said the left (especially labour) weren't authoritarian. they're just not "conservatives" in a political sense which suggests being right wing *as well* as authoritarian. I wish there could be a term that easily describes left wing and authoritarian but there isn't...
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
ummm off the top of my head: the conservatives proposing to go to war in syria, censoring pornography, keeping drugs illegal, keeping euthanasia illegal, keeping brothels illegal, etc. and "enforced" diversity, by definition, would be - so yes. and I never said the left (especially labour) weren't authoritarian. they're just not "conservatives" in a political sense which suggests being right wing *as well* as authoritarian. I wish there could be a term that easily describes left wing and authoritarian but there isn't...
The right are far more interested in personal freedoms and liberties than the left, which is where Thatcher's "no such thing as society" bit comes in.

While it can be argued that you should be legally able to take any drugs you like, the NHS largely prevents the "sovereign of your own body" line. In a socialist healthcare system, you are not sovereign over your own body. Without a socialist healthcare system, you are sovereign as far as you feel no guilt for the pressure and stress you bring on your family and friends. Any drugs that alter the mind also bring democracy and voting rights into question, so I think prohibition is far better an option than removing rights, don't you think? I don't see anything wrong with maintaining the law on social standards. The family is ultimately what paleoconservatives aimed to conserve. Not really the case any more, sadly.


I have a term for you, Zippy- fascism. left-wing authoritarianism.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by HigherMinion)
The right are far more interested in personal freedoms and liberties than the left, which is where Thatcher's "no such thing as society" bit comes in.
I don't disagree - I am not saying the left is by definition more libertarian socially than the right, I am saying that "conservatism" by definition is not socially libertarian

While it can be argued that you should be legally able to take any drugs you like, the NHS largely prevents the "sovereign of your own body" line. In a socialist healthcare system, you are not sovereign over your own body. Without a socialist healthcare system, you are sovereign as far as you feel no guilt for the pressure and stress you bring on your family and friends. Any drugs that alter the mind also bring democracy and voting rights into question, so I think prohibition is far better an option than removing rights, don't you think? I don't see anything wrong with maintaining the law on social standards. The family is ultimately what paleoconservatives aimed to conserve. Not really the case any more, sadly.
they could just make it so that people who abuse drugs (or alcohol) don't get NHS treatment which makes absolute sense, or perhaps, they could tax drugs to pay for the treatments the NHS would bring


I have a term for you, Zippy- fascism. left-wing authoritarianism.
I said an "easy" term; "conservatism" is one word for "socially-authoritarian fiscally libertarian", while there is no one word term for "socially conservative, fiscally authoritarian"
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by zippity.doodah)

they could just make it so that people who abuse drugs (or alcohol) don't get NHS treatment which makes absolute sense, or perhaps, they could tax drugs to pay for the treatments the NHS would bring


I've debated this point with my Marxist cousin before, and unfortunately it doesn't fly. Too much exclusion removes the whole point of a national health service. Where do you draw the line, you know? Class A drugs, class C, heavy smoking or drinking, how heavy is too heavy? If you are a professional hardcore sportsman and refuse to insure yourself- should the NHS cover you for the inevitable injury you will sustain at work?
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by HigherMinion)
I've debated this point with my Marxist cousin before, and unfortunately it doesn't fly. Too much exclusion removes the whole point of a national health service. Where do you draw the line, you know? Class A drugs, class C, heavy smoking or drinking, how heavy is too heavy? If you are a professional hardcore sportsman and refuse to insure yourself- should the NHS cover you for the inevitable injury you will sustain at work?
I would say anything reasonably self-inflicted; that would, thus, include all alcohol and drugs, but as for sports, it would only cover things which are clearly dangerous and unreasonable - if you go snowboarding way too fast/steaply, for example, as opposed to if you're an olympic athlete and you're running on the track and break your leg by slipping up
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by HigherMinion)
However, classical liberalism is still nothing to do with equality of opportunity, which is nothing more than a buzzword for modern politics.
God, I agree with HigherMinion. Shoot me now.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
I would say anything reasonably self-inflicted; that would, thus, include all alcohol and drugs, but as for sports, it would only cover things which are clearly dangerous and unreasonable - if you go snowboarding way too fast/steaply, for example, as opposed to if you're an olympic athlete and you're running on the track and break your leg by slipping up
We spend more on health than anything else in the country. What do you think the people would prefer (I'm only giving two choices, but you can throw something else out):

1. Abolition of the NHS and total legalisation of drugs/abortion/etc.

2. NHS telling fatties and drug addicts where to get off, still no legalised drugs.

All that money can either fuel a stronger army, infrastructure repair or simply tax cuts.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by HigherMinion)
We spend more on health than anything else in the country. What do you think the people would prefer (I'm only giving two choices, but you can throw something else out):

1. Abolition of the NHS and total legalisation of drugs/abortion/etc.

2. NHS telling fatties and drug addicts where to get off, still no legalised drugs.

All that money can either fuel a stronger army, infrastructure repair or simply tax cuts.
wait, where are you getting this weird idea that legalising drugs will abolish the NHS? like I told you already, there is an option of either excluding self-inflicted conditions (e.g. drug-related) which makes sense, or simply tax drugs when they're legal to fund treatments for the addicts - which also makes sense. all this and no NHS abolition for conditions of an involuntary nature.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (10)
21.74%
No (36)
78.26%

Watched Threads

View All