Cool beans def of a liberal:

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

you prove his contention by "progressively" morphing PRINCIPLE and CONCEPT into VALUE.

More important, you are wrong to assert that RR has reversed the words. RR's use, throughout, is correct. By definition, a principle is a basic truth. IT is unalterable. VALUES change and fluctuate.

Reading online I generally see (and according to the dictionary) it's clear (to me at least) that values are the building blocks of principals. I do see some sites that reverse it, so clearly people do read it both ways.

Regardless, you're just mincing words, it's what you believe that's important. And to think that in this very thread you were accusing me of trying to nitpick on a single point in invalidate an argument. That didn't take long...

When RR refers to the Constitution being founded upon the PRINCIPLE of "all not surrendered is retained" it would be awkward to say the VALUE of "all not surrendered is retained."

That's because it's not a value, it's a principal concept, made up by people, that was meant to set limits on the Federal Government. The limit (i.e. principal) is based on the value of liberty which can't be changed if it's given from God.

In that paragraph you belie your own assertion that a value is an unalterable belief. You don't interpret an unalterable belief. The principle of jet propulsion, for instance, is not to be interpreted. You might interpret the value of jet propulsion, whether it is necessary, too expensive, too toxic, just wonderful, etc. But the PRINCIPLE (not the VALUE as you imply) of jet propulsion is to be APPLIED, not interpreted.

In your example the value would be thrust, and jet propulsion would be a method of achieving that thrust.

My principal may be based on a propeller (like the one on Scott's head), but we both believe god has given us the right to move forward.

So, if for a lilberal, liberty and equality are values, not unalterable principles, to be interpreted, one way by a lib, another way by a con, and who knows what way by any number of anybodys, and if all the rights granted or implied by the Constitution are values to be interpreted in any number of differing ways and not unalterable principles that apply to all alike, then the Constitution is not only flawed, but worthless.

Take equality as a good example. That is a value that our Founding Fathers jumped on as pretty important. A conservative is likely to interpret this strictly as it was written, that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you.

A progressive, who also believes in the value of equality might argue that since the world is a complex system with overlapping generations that equality should extend beyond birth. A good example might be the progressive tax system. I believe it was a principal exposed by Karl Marx, but perhaps based on different values. Some, like Ted Kennedy would argue that if not for it we might not have had the rise of the middle class and the economic engine that it created. Personally I feel there's some merit to this and don't discount the idea simply because it shares socialistic roots.

It's certainly fair to argue that how it has sometimes been applied in this country (i.e. Federal welfare programs) violates the intent of "not surrendered is retained".

But neither has changed the fundamental meaning of equality. For the most part all Americans believe in applying equal rights via citizenship to everyone born on our soil.

Go to other countries and they don't allow this right because their values are different.

Perhaps that is what those who wish to CHANGE it want.

Primarily, the Independent voters who got Obama elected wanted a more transparent government and pragmatic policies. If Obama's more left of center policies don't deliver short-term results it will show in the mid-term elections.

-spence

[scottw]

this is so convoluted Spence...principles(our founding principles) are the basic "building blocks", "truths that we hold to be self evident" that identify, unify and distinguish our nation...VALUES are simply the degree to which an individual or group feels compelled/obligated to adhere to these princilpes based on their wants/needs/beliefs at the time... (values) are not "unalterable beliefs" they change constantly among individuals as well as groups....Values change over time, principles do not...you have this completely upside down because you seek, promote values based on no principles, arbitrary to suit your whims....we all share the same basic principles on which this country is founded, we all have differing values however, for a whole host of reasons...liberal progressives seek to make their values univeral through the deconstruction of the Constitution and it's principles, activism on the courts, supression and activism in the press...the disdain is obvious...the evidence is abundant, I don't think that most self -described "liberals/democrats" have the slightest clue as to the Progressive agenda or the history of the Progressive movement in this country...I hope that this conversation continues because you making things crystal clear and are revealing yourself in a frightening way...nice job

Primarily, the Independent voters who got Obama elected wanted a more transparent government and pragmatic policies. they are getting neither

[spence]

You seem to be having a difficult time differentiating between words and ideas. Call them farnicks and labdubs for all I care...it doesn't change the argument at all...

I think I now understand the argument that the liberal position isn't based on a strong foundation. They just lay claim to the words they want and assert the other side is left empty.

The FOX News crowd seems quite enamored by Glenn Beck these days, here are his top values and principals. See how perhaps if we stopped being honest (a value) that a principal like "America is good" could change.

Principals that Glenn Beck speaks of are:
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not "un"-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

Glenn's 12 values goes as such; honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard, work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude.

-spence

[scottw]

now you are babbling...

America is "good" while not perfect and has been an extraordinary force of good on this planet since it's inception and has done more to improve humanity through charity, protection of freedom and rebuttal of tyrrany, advancement of technology etc..than any other country in world history...however, you wouldn't know this by listening to Obama, Flotus or your average progressive and the blame America first crowd...

you have been reduced to farnicks and lubadubs and cut and paste from Glenn Beck...sad state of affairs for the Alynski, but I still love you

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

America is "good" while not perfect and has been an extraordinary force of good on this planet since it's inception and has done more to improve humanity through charity, protection of freedom and rebuttal of tyrrany, advancement of technology etc..than any other country in world history...

And thus ScottW illustrates another failing of many conservatives, a deep belief (a principal really) that their own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink held so dear they're unable to even ponder a hypothetical scenario which is unsettling.

Perhaps this is why they tend to reject academic thought as it often encourages this sort of thing?

I'd note that in the Peanuts cartoons the children always thought their teachers were babbling as well.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

And thus ScottW illustrates another failing of many conservatives, a deep belief (a principal really) that their own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink held so dear they're unable to even ponder a hypothetical scenario which is unsettling. HUH? I have no idea what that means but...explain the unsettling hypothetical scenario that I(we smelling like roses(8 letters-%$%$%$%$) types) was/were supposed to ponder again?

Perhaps this is why they tend to reject academic thought as it often encourages this sort of thing? you are going elitist on us peasants again

I'd note that in the Peanuts cartoons the children always thought their teachers were babbling as well. they were...remember ? waaa,waaa,wa,waa,waaa,wa,wa,wa,waaa,waaa

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;694272]Reading online I generally see (and according to the dictionary) it's clear (to me at least) that values are the building blocks of principals. I do see some sites that reverse it, so clearly people do read it both ways.

Did you not also say that values and principles are used interchangeably by most people? So brick and house are interchangeable? So one can refer to a whole by one of its parts?

[QUOTE=spence;]Regardless, you're just mincing words, it's what you believe that's important. And to think that in this very thread you were accusing me of trying to nitpick on a single point in invalidate an argument. That didn't take long...

So is it mincing words if I #^&#^&#^&#^&er over whether to call my home a brick or a house? So what really matters is whether I "believe" it's a brick or a house? I didn't accuse you of trying to nitpick on a single point to invalidate an argument. I said your comments seemed to nitpick at some of RR's langauge and I picked a half dozen examples. It was Scott W., not me, who mentioned the method of attacking a single, insignificant point to invalidate an entire argument. My focus on your nitpicking was actually a demonstration that the great bulk of your response was incorrect and that you did not even engage the real points of RR's post. Nitpick was actually a mild, rather kind, choice of words to describe your deceptions.


[QUOTE=spence]That's because it's not a value, it's a principal concept, made up by people, that was meant to set limits on the Federal Government. The limit (i.e. principal) is based on the value of liberty which can't be changed if it's given from God.

Is a principal concept a principle? Could RR have said "the principal concept of "all not surrendered is retained"? Is the VALUE of liberty equal to or the same as the CONCEPT of liberty? Is concept also interchangeable with value and principle? And what are the building blocks of concept if it can be interchanged with principle? What, indeed, are the building blocks of VALUE if values are the building blocks of PRINCIPLE? If a value is the "unalterable belief" can belief be interchanged with value and is principle also an unalterable belief when it is interchanged with value? Same for concept? So how could RR have reversed value and principle if they're interchangeable?

[QUOTE=spence]In your example the value would be thrust[/I], and jet propulsion would be a method of achieving that thrust.

Is thrust an unalterable belief? Can thrust and jet propulsion be interchanged? Why are the values I mentioned of no merit and only your "thrust" is THE value? Are you straining to discredit my example of a principle? The PRINCIPLE of Jet Propulsion IS in the lexicon. It is SCIENTIFICALLY recognized as a PRINCIPLE. And are you saying ("value is the unalterable belief and a principal would guide how the value was applied") that the PRINCIPLE of Jet Propulsion cannot be applied? That a principle cannot be applied? I guess it can be applied when it is interchanged.


[QUOTE-spence]Take equality as a good example. That is a value that our Founding Fathers jumped on as pretty important. A conservative is likely to interpret this strictly as it was written, that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you.

[QUOTE=spence]A progressive, who also believes in the value of equality might argue that since the world is a complex system with overlapping generations that equality should extend beyond birth. A good example might be the progressive tax system. I believe it was a principal exposed by Karl Marx, but perhaps based on different values. Some, like Ted Kennedy would argue that if not for it we might not have had the rise of the middle class and the economic engine that it created. Personally I feel there's some merit to this and don't discount the idea simply because it shares socialistic roots.

[QUOTE=spence]But neither has changed the fundamental meaning of equality. For the most part all Americans believe in applying equal rights via citizenship to everyone born on our soil.

But are we mincing words? It's what you believe that's important. If a conservative believes "that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you." And a liberal believes equality should extend beyond birth and in the progressive tax system, they certainly believe equality to be a DIFFERENT value, concept, principle.
And their beliefs are not interchangeable.

[spence]

Are you trying to parody yourself

This is becoming all very clear to me know. The liberal position has no strong foundation because they don't know which words to use to describe it!

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you trying to parody yourself

This is becoming all very clear to me know. The liberal position has no strong foundation because they don't know which words to use to describe it!

-spence

Naw (unless you and I are interchangeable) I'm just demonstrating your absurdity with absurdity by extending your language and logic to its absurd conclusions. Wait . . . that would be a parody of you!

Actually, diction that shifts, changes, interchanges, (a mark, in my opinion, of much liberal argument) IS a sign of weak foundation. A strong foundation, in argument, evokes clear, direct, unambiguous language. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, shifty words, bespeak uncertainty. Such words are often used to cover up lack of proof or merit. Politicians have to be masters of weak, unfounded diction. You should run for office, or consult for and write for them.

By the way, did you notice in my previous reply that it was not me that accused you of nitpicking a single point to invalidate an argument? The "straw man" is, of course, a common way to create a false or non-existent foundation to an argument. You're also adept at that--turning my demonstration of your SEVERAL nitpicking nonsequiturs in response to ReelinRoc against me by implying that I was doing the very thing of which, you say, I was accusing you--trying to nitpick on a single point to invalidate your argument--when, of course, I never made such an accusation, scottw said that, not I, nor was I doing such a thing.

You do the same to ReelinRoc in your response to scottw when you say that you agree with a lot of RR's post, but "what I don't agree with is outright demonization of liberalism based on rejection of moral relativism. This I do believe is a bunk argument." ReelinRoc did not do that. His main contention, to which you hardly respond, is that a liberal/progressive is dangerous because of liberal redefinition of "rights" and the lib/prog (Obama's) view that negative rights "exceptions to powers not granted" is a fundamental flaw of the Constitution, and that a Bill of Rights should also be included declaring what the Government CAN or should do for you. He NEVER mentions moral relativism. He may not even imply it. It was ME who injected that phrase in a response to you. It was MY OPINION that the concept of "principles" IMPLIES (among other implications) counterintuition to moral relativism. Yet you debunk the remainder (to that which you agree) of his post on the count of what he never said.

You do the same again in the ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT thread (the article by Hanson). You say "the author is clearly trying to make the same moral relativism argument against lilberalism as was made in the other thread" ??? Again, Hanson was not speaking about liberalism. He was speaking STRICTLY about OBAMA. Three posts earlier in the same thread, you said "his core argument, that liberals don't care about lying because all truth is relative, is pretty silly." I pointed out, in reply, that Hansen was speaking about Obama, not liberals.

You persist in seeing what you want rather than what is there, setting up straw men to knock down, shapeshifting words, using phrases like "I don't know anyone who believes". You're relentless, you are a MASTER.

[scottw]

EERIE.. DE JA VU

Here are several quotes from Mises’s Bureaucracy, first published in 1944, but holding relevance for today.


“The characteristic feature of present-day policies is the trend toward a substitution of government control for free enterprise. Powerful political parties and pressure groups are fervently asking for public control of all economic activities, for thorough government planning, and for the nationalization of business. They aim at full government control of education and at the socialization of the medical profession. There is no sphere of human activity that they would not be prepared to subordinate to regimentation by the authorities. In their eyes, state control is the panacea for all ills.” (p. 4)



“America is faced with a phenomenon that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee and could not foresee: the voluntary abandonment of congressional rights. Congress has in many instances surrendered the function of legislation to government agencies and commissions, and it has relaxed its budgetary control through the allocation of large appropriations for expenditures, which the Administration has to determine in detail.” (p. 5)



“Today the fashionable philosophy of Statolatry has obfuscated the issue [of tyrants versus popular government]. The political conflicts are no longer seen as struggles between groups of men. They are considered a war between two principles, the good and the bad. The good is embodied in the great god State, the materialization of the eternal idea of morality, and the bad is the ‘rugged individualism’ of selfish men. In this antagonism the State is always right and the individual always wrong. The State is the representative of the commonwealth, of justice, civilization, and superior wisdom. The individual is a poor wretch, a vicious fool.” (p. 76)



“The fading of the critical sense is a serious menace to the preservation of our civilization. It makes it easy for quacks to fool people. It is remarkable that the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated. The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism are the intellectuals, not the boors. (p. 108)



“The main propaganda trick of the supporters of the allegedly ‘progressive’ policy of government control is to blame capitalism for all that is unsatisfactory in present day conditions and to extol the blessings which socialism has in store for mankind. They have never attempted to prove their fallacious dogmas or still less to refute the objections raised by the economists. All they did was to call their adversaries names and to cast suspicion upon their motives. And, unfortunately, the average citizen cannot see through these stratagems.” (p. 111)



[The Middle Way] “The most detrimental outcome of the average citizen’s repugnance to a serious concern with economic problems is his readiness to back a program of compromise. He looks upon the conflict between capitalism and socialism as if it were a quarrel between two groups – labor and capital – each of which claims for itself the whole of the matter at issue. As he himself is not prepared to appraise the merits of the arguments advanced by each of the parties, he thinks it would be a fair solution to end the dispute by an amicable arrangement: each claimant should have a part of his claim. Thus the program of government interference with business acquired its prestige. There should be neither full capitalism nor full socialism, but something in between, a middle way.” (pp.117-118)