John Dickerson just seems confused as to what 'conservatism' is. There are many definitions, because there are many forms.
If he defines it as 'small government', then he's actually referring to libertarianism.
My definition of 'conservative' would be that it's a desire to keep things as they are or to return to a time when things were considered to have been better.
And it says nothing about the size of government. Conservatives might use social pressure to discourage activities they disapprove of. Or they might use the force of government to enforce their views.
The only philosophy that genuinely wants small government is libertarianism, which unfortunately doesn't lead to maximum freedom of the individual, because corporations have much more power. So some regulation by government is necessary. Which is basically the liberal position.
Confusing 'liberal' with 'progressive' is as bad as confusing 'conservative' with 'libertarian'.
Bach, "The only philosophy that genuinely wants small government is libertarianism, which unfortunately doesn't lead to maximum freedom of the individual, because corporations have much more power. " Only if corporations are granted the rights of an individual which is, OF COURSE, the antithesis of Libertarian ideals. Only if we accept the progressive definition of rights and humanity.
"Confusing 'liberal' with 'progressive' is as bad as confusing 'conservative' with 'libertarian'." Stop the presses: I actually completely agree with you on this point. I would just add that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been hijacked by far more cynical movements. Progressives are the real issue. They have their hand in ALL camps. Technocracy is the aim. Divide and conquer is the game.
Conservatives love to fantasize about taking up arms against their democratically elected government when they lose the presidency. Fueled by conspiracy theories, they are buying guns and ammunition because you need guns and ammunition to protect your guns and ammunition. Idiots
The real answer, Mike? To dry up the supply. The reason for that? Anyone's guess. Only a Quisling would assert these vast purchases are for practice. Perhaps the LAV's are also for practice? The increasing amount of warrant-less taps and searches? The check points? One of these aspects alone should cause alarm with ANY free minded person... let alone all of them in concert. Before you rant on at me anonymous, I am neither a 'conservative' or 'American'. I do not belong to one team or the other. I don't see much difference in the policies of neocons and neolibs. I am, however military, and know very well what that kind of VAST purchase amounts to: A warning of things to come.
If conservatives where as fanatical about fast cars as they are about guns, an analogous situation would be conservatives buying fast cars in order to outrun police who might try to crackdown on fast cars. They’re so stupid.
John Dickerson just seems confused as to what 'conservatism' is. There are many definitions, because there are many forms.
ReplyDeleteIf he defines it as 'small government', then he's actually referring to libertarianism.
My definition of 'conservative' would be that it's a desire to keep things as they are or to return to a time when things were considered to have been better.
And it says nothing about the size of government. Conservatives might use social pressure to discourage activities they disapprove of. Or they might use the force of government to enforce their views.
The only philosophy that genuinely wants small government is libertarianism, which unfortunately doesn't lead to maximum freedom of the individual, because corporations have much more power. So some regulation by government is necessary. Which is basically the liberal position.
Confusing 'liberal' with 'progressive' is as bad as confusing 'conservative' with 'libertarian'.
Bach,
Delete"The only philosophy that genuinely wants small government is libertarianism, which unfortunately doesn't lead to maximum freedom of the individual, because corporations have much more power. "
Only if corporations are granted the rights of an individual which is, OF COURSE, the antithesis of Libertarian ideals. Only if we accept the progressive definition of rights and humanity.
"Confusing 'liberal' with 'progressive' is as bad as confusing 'conservative' with 'libertarian'."
Stop the presses: I actually completely agree with you on this point.
I would just add that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been hijacked by far more cynical movements. Progressives are the real issue. They have their hand in ALL camps.
Technocracy is the aim. Divide and conquer is the game.
He sure has sold a lot of guns.
ReplyDeleteConservatives love to fantasize about taking up arms against their democratically elected government when they lose the presidency. Fueled by conspiracy theories, they are buying guns and ammunition because you need guns and ammunition to protect your guns and ammunition. Idiots
ReplyDelete-KW
Why is the DHS buying millions of rounds of ammunition-- more per employee than the army?
DeleteCorrection-- not millions, billions.
DeleteWell, at least by citing the NRA, you are citing a credible source.
DeleteThe real answer, Mike?
DeleteTo dry up the supply. The reason for that? Anyone's guess.
Only a Quisling would assert these vast purchases are for practice. Perhaps the LAV's are also for practice? The increasing amount of warrant-less taps and searches? The check points? One of these aspects alone should cause alarm with ANY free minded person... let alone all of them in concert.
Before you rant on at me anonymous, I am neither a 'conservative' or 'American'. I do not belong to one team or the other. I don't see much difference in the policies of neocons and neolibs.
I am, however military, and know very well what that kind of VAST purchase amounts to: A warning of things to come.
If conservatives where as fanatical about fast cars as they are about guns, an analogous situation would be conservatives buying fast cars in order to outrun police who might try to crackdown on fast cars. They’re so stupid.
ReplyDelete-KW
The IRS fascism is precisely why we have the Second Amendment.
DeleteGovernment is not to be trusted, and can become tyranny. The evidence is staring us in the face.
KW,
DeleteYou're an O-bot: An apologist for an administration. How stupid is THAT?
Fast cars? How about FAST AND FURIOUS? And no, KW, I don't mean the movie.