Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

What? No! That won't happen! The government will have used their special magic powers to drive out the evil business men so they can have us living in a land of milk and honey!

"So, why do we need all these regulations and programs? Can't people be trusted to work it out themselves?"
"No! People are idiots and that's why we need government keeping things in line or it would all be chaos"
"So people can't function without central planning to keep things running?"
"Yes"
"So...aren't governments made up of people themselves? Where's their central planners"

Compare this to...

"So why don't you believe in evolution? You really think life couldn't have formed on it's own through the principles described by the theory?"
"No, it could never happen. Anything so complex would have to have a creator. It's obvious!"
"So anything complex must have a creator?"
"Yes"
"But...such a god would be complex too. Doesn't he need a creator according to your own logic?"

This is why I call anti free market people dogmatists because they use the exact same fallacious, special pleading argument employed against the theory of evolution which coincidentally, the free market borrows a lot of ideas from. It sounds okay at first but both ultimately beg the question that the collectivists cannot answer: You say things need central planning but why does god/gov get a free pass?

You must explain why god/gov gets to be the exception to your own claims or else you're not explaining anything.

Strawman arguments, Nirvana fallacies, hypocrisy, blind faith in a set forth ideology. Why, I would venture to say this is a Hawkeye post!

As much as you would like opponents to adopt a position so easily dismissed, that doesn't mean you get to pretend that is always their position. To do so is intellectually lazy and dishonest. If I wanted to argue like you, I could just as well claim that anyone who disputes government regulation must stand for the position for pure, uncivilized, caveman-style anarchy. I won't do that, however, because it would be a bad argument, even if that doesn't stop you.

Where you most certainly go awry is that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you believes in magic-fueled, benevolent authoritarianism. This shows no attempt to grasp that the power base in democracies and republics is inherently distributed to the constituency, so you "centralized planning" charge seems as petty engineering to the bad comparison that is your argument. Democratic governments are expected to be utilized by the constituencies to collectively govern themselves, forming and protecting laws, rights, services, representation, and more that are guaranteed in exchange for the agreement to be governed. As I've tried to tell you before but you so happily ignore in your childish, anti-government tirades, democratic governments are established to by, of, and for the people rather than some alien hostility seeking to suppress and dominate the people. As such, violations of that basic tenet that you might rail against can only have one root cause: the constituency has somehow failed to uphold it.

[sodacat]

The basis of those rights is that we think that these laws make life better not worse. Occasionally we're wrong, which is why things change. If rights were handed down from on high then they wouldn't need to be crossed out over time.

The rights don't come from government, they come from men. Government only enforces the rights. The problems arise when government starts listening to a small number of men while still enforcing itself on all men.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by DalekSec

Lastly, and here is where it gets rather icky for many, once you remove “Creator” from the equation, the only possible sources of our rights are nature (Which tends to be silent) and Govt. (Which tends to be not so silent) . You have then, replaced the Creator (God) with Govt. Spooky don’t you think?

There's always man. Man creates his own rights. Government is an extension of man, and serves only as a tool of man to secure his rights. The security of rights by government is derived of man seeking to secure his own rights.
I don't find that too scary if done properly. No need to make government a boogie-man.

Edit: Sodacat, logic high-five!

[DalekSec]

Good point.

However, if men can endow men with rights and men are fallible, can they not make mistakes or take those rights away all together?

*grin*

Originally Posted by kia252

There's always man. Man creates his own rights. Government is an extension of man, and serves only as a tool of man to secure his rights. The security of rights by government is derived of man seeking to secure his own rights.
I don't find that too scary if done properly. No need to make government a boogie-man.

Edit: Sodacat, logic high-five!

So man is self creating and the final authority on all matters then?

Who has the power of force (God's wrath if you like) Govt. or man?

"If properly done" are probably the most frightening words in human language with regards to Govt.

Govt. is like fire, kept small and contained it can give us warmth and light. Allowed to spread unchecked, it consumes everything. Without a higher authority (Creator) what contains Govt. and or man?

[kia252]

That all seems mighty absolutist.

The best answer I could say is that man is final authority on his own behavior, and by extension of my argument, the behavior of the government he establishes for himself. There are consequences should man fail to check his behavior, and man has nothing else to blame should he earn those consequences. The fire is his own doing, for man is the check on himself and the government he creates.

I suppose I decided on the qualifier of "if properly done" to allow the ground that some men are not so just, and that there must always be due vigilance that they not undermine the efforts of man to secure its own rights.

Fire can also be harnessed just as much as a great creative force as a destructive one.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by DalekSec

Good point.

"If properly done" are probably the most frightening words in human language with regards to Govt.

Not quite...

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -Ronald Reagan

And LOL at "Militant Amish."

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

Not quite...

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -Ronald Reagan

"

lulz

'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

That was especially true when Reagan said it!

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by kia252

I suppose I decided on the qualifier of "if properly done" to allow the ground that some men are not so just, and that there must always be due vigilance that they not undermine the efforts of man to secure its own rights.

This is why the government is obliged to listen and respond to us based on what we have to say, not what they or jeebus think. As sodacat said, "The problems arise when government starts listening to a small number of men while still enforcing itself on all men" OR when the government starts listening to no one at all or refers to religious scripture for answers.

How the hell is the government or gawd supposed to know what's best for anyone else without listening? God doesn't even talk to people so how the government could know definitively how to he feels, I don't know. The fact remains, our species is the deciding factor regarding what is right and wrong for our species. That includes how our government, an extension of us, is conducted. That's "government done properly"; a government that listens to the people.

Originally Posted by DalekSec

My point is that words mean things and ideas matter. While I am not a Christian, Jew or Muslim (Or much else than a confused possible Pagan or Militant Amish PERHAPS), the removal of the divine has consequences.

ZOMG, conducting one's behaviour based on what one can confirm exists? That's just bananas!

Every nation that founds law based on human intellect is due some great floods and famines and PLAGUES!

Wait a tick. Nations like Sweden and the Netherlands are very areligious. They rank extremely high in human development and output.

One of which is to remove the very source (As the Founding Father recognized it and TERMED it) of all the rights we enjoy.

Utter horseshit.

This notion was based on their conviction, not any amount of evidence of a big guy upstairs. The fact your founding fathers believed something irrational with conviction does not make it true.

Yes, one can rightly argue that codified law is codified law and even if we remove all references to the divine, or outlaw religion all together, it is still, codified law.

It stands for all the same things when you remove gawd from the equation too, without infringing on a person's right to reject the notion of anything supernatural.

However, what is that codified law regarding rights based on at that point? Aside from our desire to believe we still enjoy rights endowed to us by nothing in particular.

Rights are enforced by law, which is created by us. That's why laws are to be challenged.

Throughout the human experience, it became pretty obvious to our species that working together was to our benefit. We're self interested creatures. We want what's best for us as an individual.

Progress doesn't come without cooperation. Cooperation doesn't exist without everyone being granted certain respects by everyone else. No one is inclined to work with the dude who raped their wife or a puppy killer. Killing co-workers makes synergy hard to attain and stunts output.

With this conclusion, our particular society decided what our rights are.

Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Some people are, however, short sighted and selfish and don't pick up on how cooperation and respect for others will benefit them. They believe it is to their best interest to take as they please as it immediately sates their self interest.

This is why governments exist. They protect the freedoms and rights of the individuals within their region and enforce behaviours by which to ensure this. The rights themselves, however, remain the product of the human experience and something a society decides upon for themselves.

Lastly, and here is where it gets rather icky for many, once you remove ?Creator? from the equation, the only possible sources of our rights are nature (Which tends to be silent) and Govt. (Which tends to be not so silent) . You have then, replaced the Creator (God) with Govt. Spooky don?t you think?

No, I don't think it's spooky because it's illogical. The government is made up of people who are a representation of us. We decide what our rights and freedoms are through experience and our inherent selfishness as human beings and those of us in government enforce them if they are accepted by the vast majority of us.

Unlike god, the government is influenced and changes it's tune based on the evolving beliefs and desires of the people it's created to protect.

[DalekSec]

I think you miss my point as a matter of philosophy! Further, while I am not religious, I am not prepared to consider the possible existence of a "Creator" as utter crap, nor do I think it all that wise to dismiss the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

As a matter of philosophy, is it a good idea to elevate man and by extension, Govt. to the same position once held by the divine? Saying men are the natural and only guardian of “Rights” and by extension , is it not, putting the fox in charge of the hen house? Having that much faith in men and Govt. is, I admit beyond me.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by DalekSec

I think you miss my point as a matter of philosophy! Further, while I am not religious, I am not prepared to consider the possible existence of a "Creator" as utter crap, nor do I think it all that wise to dismiss the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

As a matter of philosophy, is it a good idea to elevate man and by extension, Govt. to the same position once held by the divine? Saying men are the natural and only guardian of “Rights” and by extension , is it not, putting the fox in charge of the hen house? Having that much faith in men and Govt. is, I admit beyond me.

I think you're making connections that are not necessary. The Founding Fathers were largely deists that believe in a Creator. However, this is not an endorsement on Divinity or Divine Authority, but, one could argue, the most acceptable idea of origin at the time due to relatively limited progress of science in explaining nature. The very declaration of a purely democratic republic was a rejection of Divine Authority assumed in monarchies.
Additionally, you seem to contend that if we wish to deny the recognition of a Creator unlike the Founding Fathers, we must dismiss all of their other beliefs. I see no reason to refuse the whole when one can just reject a tenet we now know is unreasonable and extend and adapt the ideas to reflect this revelation.

I would be cautious in saying man has taken the place of the divine. Certainly man is the final authority of his own behavior, as he has always been even in cases where he believes he must temper his behavior to meet the standards of a higher authority. Let us not, however, assume that this gains him far more counter-productive qualities granted to the divine like omniscience, omnipresence, infallibility, etc.
Man secures his own rights knowing that it is his self interest, and man establishes societies and government to collectively pursue the interest of the constituency at their discretion, far better than an individual could.
There is no faith in men or government to always be right, but rather the sober realization that man must accept charge of himself in lieu of no alternative authority, and the expectation that man will advance beyond his shortcomings in serving his own self interest. What I do not quite get is how you can applaud the wisdom of the Founding Fathers or celebrate your own ability to pursue your own self interest, and yet claim the idea of trusting man with his own fate is beyond you.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I think you miss my point as a matter of philosophy! Further, while I am not religious, I am not prepared to consider the possible existence of a "Creator" as utter crap, nor do I think it all that wise to dismiss the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

Sooooo.... because they were the founding fathers their unfounded beliefs should be taken seriously. That makes no sense. Everyone was religious ages ago. It wasn't a matter of wisdom or intelligence. It was a social norm, just like women in porn removing their pubic hair. Trend.

How about you take the stuff they had to say that was of value and is pertinant today and ditch supernatural stuff that, really, has nothing to do with anything? Or do you think gawd actually talked to those guys and that the American Constitution is his word?

Those founding fathers said something else... about.... keeping the church and state seperate. Any enforced belief in a creator, regardless which one, is religious and active discrimination against rationalist atheists. It's unconstitutional.

The supernatural might exist. There's no evidence for it though. Even if it does, it in no way affects our day to day lives. The things we can confirm exist, however, do. Those are the things that need to be taken into account when laws are being made, not what Thunderfoot would do. No one knows people better than people. That's why it's people that are best suited to decide what human rights are.

As a matter of philosophy, is it a good idea to elevate man and by extension, Govt. to the same position once held by the divine?

There's nothing wrong with the general population having the same status as the government. It's called equality. The government is supposed to be a reflection of the people, not an old boy's club with it's own agenda.

No one, however, gets elevated to god status. That status is removed from the equation in rational society. Everyone and everything is held responsible for their actions. If god exists, they have shit-all to do with the government. Talk to and about them at home. When discussing political matters, discuss what we can confirm exists only.

Saying men are the natural and only guardian of ?Rights? and by extension , is it not, putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

No, it's putting the hens in charge of the hen house. No one gets the "I'm god so I get a free pass" role. Everyone is held accountable.

Having that much faith in men and Govt. is, I admit beyond me.

It's easy to have faith in a government that is ultimately just and accordingly responds to the populations comments and concerns.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

RE: Gawd, there's no explanation needed, LTH. If gawd exists, gawd is magical. If it's magical it doesn't need to be sensical or adhere to the scientific method. Sadly, sinse the inception of the scientific method, every mystery ever solved has resulted in an answer that... wasn't magic. At all.

Last I checked, gawd had shit-all to do with the government (or anything occurring in the universe) though. The government isn't magical in the least. I can verify that for you. (See? I'm using the Scientific Method!) So an explanation as to why the government doesn't require central planning is due.

All the more reason why the question demands answers in the case of government. Yes, they're not the same thing but I'm focussing on the one thing they do have in common: They both demand blind faith in them.

Kia: Until you actually put a claim on the table, save your keys some wear and don't bother posting. A long series of "you're wrong because I say so" and peppered with insults isn't worth reading. Better yet, grow a pair and try answering the question that I notice nobody ever touches.

No, it is not blind, anti government rants. It's based on evidence which you repeatedly refuse to even address, thus reinforcing my accusations of dogmatism on your part. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.