What we can learn from Clint Eastwood

posted at 5:31 pm on March 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

While some people sail off into the sunset when they reach retirement age, Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood has gone on something of a roller coaster ride these past few years – at least in terms of his off screen activities. For those with shorter memories, here are a few of the highlights, and we don’t need to peer too deeply into history to find them.

During the Super Bowl, just a little over one year ago, Eastwood appeared in an advertisement at half time talking about Detroit, the auto industry and America. The outcry was instantaneous. Obviously Eastwood – a long time, well known rarity in Hollywood as a successful conservative – was a traitor. He was “endorsing” the bailout of the auto industry or “helping Obama” or something. He was widely pilloried in conservative circles.

Fast forward only a few seasons and he was featured at the RNC in Tampa, speaking to an empty chair and taking Barack Obama to task. All was forgiven and Clint was a hero of the conservative movement once again. Gone were worries about his Republican bona fides and he was featured on virtually every conservative site – including this one – which you’d care to name.

But now the worm seems to be turning again. Eastwood has signed on for a Friend of the Court brief supporting gay marriage.

He’s one of the few big-time celebrities who is also a big-time Republican.

But Clint Eastwood has veered from the viewpoint of many Conservatives in one regard: the actor signed the American Foundation for Equal Rights’s “Friend of the Court” brief this week.

In doing so, the actor became one of over 100 prominent Republicans to support this gay rights organization’s document, which it has filed with the Supreme Court.

I’m already seeing grumbling on Twitter and elsewhere about this “stab in the back” from Dirty Harry. How quickly we forget what a star he was in the weeks and months before the last election. But once the dust from this particular flap settles out, Clint may have something even more valuable to teach us.

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative. But beyond any of that, he is is own man with his own opinions on each and every subject in which he takes an interest and he doesn’t much give a fig if you disapprove of his position. He doesn’t agree with the text book position of the “real conservatives” on every single issue. And I suspect that, like many of us, he doesn’t pay much attention to what anyone else chooses to define as the “texbook conservative” stance on hundreds of different policy points. He goes where his own beliefs lead him.

The story here about Clint Eastwood has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with the idea that somebody – anybody – can define conservatism for you on each and every issue. There will be disagreements inside the tent on both sides. That’s a sign of a healthy, open minded debate. Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Sorry, but in so far as I get to vote on a ballot measure, I do have a legal say. We are a society of laws, and when voter referenda come to the ballot we get to decide whether a law is enacted or not. Likewise, I get to vote for representatives who may support a platform that in turn affects your life. That doesn’t make me your king, granted, because you hold the same ability to vote yourself.

You couldn’t ban the first two with that narrow of a majority because of the 2nd and 1st amendments respectively. You’d need to override it through constitutional amendment. With shopping malls, we don’t have a set of special protections for that. That’s far easier.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Hey, idiot, we’re not a democracy here. We’re a representative republic that is designed to protect the minorities rights in the face of tyranny of the majority. You and your busy body statist reps have no say in how I live my life if I’m not infringing on your rights. And no, you don’t have a right to go shopping past 10 pm without teenagers around.

And we also have a 1st amendment right to freedom of assembly. If a bunch of teenagers chose to assemble at your mall, the government can do nothing about it. if the owner of the mall chooses to place restrictions on their patrons, they definitely have that ability, but NOT YOU (unless you own the mall).

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Wow, that was some post. I usually have to go to MSNBC for such a heaping dose of moral relativism.

And Clint Eastwood isn’t conservative. Conservatives want to conserve the institute of marriage. Not undefine it.

Dongemaharu on March 2, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Like saying you want a smaller government and then demanding the government intervene to redefine marriage to include gays?

You mean like that?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Maybe the government shouldn’t intervene at all and keep completely out of marriage?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM

A fisting full of dollars.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

..en fuego hy, mi amigo!

The War Planner on March 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I would like to redefine conservatism and redefine marriage among other things. /libtard rino

Why not redefine the word define? It’s easier.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM

By definition, the government tells you how to live your life. Any argument to the contrary is idiotic.

But, why does the person who sets a standard (a law) have to be perfect with respect to that standard? I accept that my legislators are humans. If you expect a perfect being setting your rules, then you really shouldn’t be on the side of SSM, since the only perfect being I know of does not approve.

GWB on March 2, 2013 at 6:53 PM

No, by definition, oppressive tyranny’s do that. By definition a government exists to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS. in other words, government exists to enforce contracts, protect individual’s rights, and protect individuals from foreign invasion. Not to make moral judgments.

So which do you do first? Increase the number of welfare and other government addicted people, or get rid of the welfare state.

That pretty much sums it.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Well, I don’t know what you’re arguing. That we should force single mothers to have abortions?

I always fall on the side of liberty and freedom. I don’t think we have to increase government power in order to keep welfare rolls (another example of government power and theft) from getting too expensive.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Maybe the government shouldn’t intervene at all and keep completely out of marriage?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I thought the Constitution was about individual liberties and rights..
Not groups made up of two or more..

What isn’t spelled out in the Constitution is up to the States or the People..

Electrongod on March 2, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Maybe the government shouldn’t intervene at all and keep completely out of marriage?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM

So no alimony, or child support?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Wow, that was some post. I usually have to go to MSNBC for such a heaping dose of moral relativism.

And Clint Eastwood isn’t conservative. Conservatives want to conserve the institute of marriage. Not undefine it.

Dongemaharu on March 2, 2013 at 6:56 PM

You can define marriage however you want. The federal government is not the place to do that. Go get a job working for mirriam webster if you’re so concerned.

Thanks for clarifying the definition of conservatism for me — I didn’t realize it derived from “conserving the institute of marriage,” that clears a lot up for me.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM

What I learned from Eastwood is that Jazz is a liberal

Kjeil on March 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM

So no alimony, or child support?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM

What a novel idea. How about without an enforceable contract (like a pre-nup) the government has no role in handling non violent domestic disputes?

Maybe fewer women will have unprotected sex with guys they don’t know/trust if the government wasn’t there to act as their baby daddy when they had a kid.

Just a thought.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:03 PM

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative.

My gawd, Jazz do a little damn homework.

Eastwood’s referred to himself as more Libertarian on domestic issues than conservative.

budfox on March 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Hey, idiot, we’re not a democracy here. We’re a representative republic that is designed to protect the minorities rights in the face of tyranny of the majority.

What is a republic? It’s a representative democracy, and in so far as I get to vote on ballot questions, I get to engage in direct democracy. You are correct that we do protect minority rights to an extent (hence why we have a Constitution as well as a judiciary), but these protections do not cover any and all activity.

You and your busy body statist reps have no say in how I live my life if I’m not infringing on your rights. And no, you don’t have a right to go shopping past 10 pm without teenagers around.

Except that I do.

And we also have a 1st amendment right to freedom of assembly. If a bunch of teenagers chose to assemble at your mall, the government can do nothing about it. if the owner of the mall chooses to place restrictions on their patrons, they definitely have that ability, but NOT YOU (unless you own the mall).

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Wrong again. Occupy Wall Street tried to use the same language to justify permanent encampments and lost in court on the grounds that a right to assembly is not the same thing as a permanent settlement. Likewise, the provision speaks about a right to peaceful assembly. In so far as there are incidents of violence at shopping malls, that can be overruled as well. Additionally, while the current composition of the court would disagree, my reading of the Constitution indicates only that Congress is forbidden from implementing such laws, not local governments.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative. But beyond any of that, he is is own man with his own opinions on each and every subject in which he takes an interest and he doesn’t much give a fig if you disapprove of his position. He doesn’t agree with the text book position of the “real conservatives” on every single issue. And I suspect that, like many of us, he doesn’t pay much attention to what anyone else chooses to define as the “texbook conservative” stance on hundreds of different policy points. He goes where his own beliefs lead him.

The story here about Clint Eastwood has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with the idea that somebody – anybody – can define conservatism for you on each and every issue. There will be disagreements inside the tent on both sides. That’s a sign of a healthy, open minded debate. Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

Thank you Jazz, let us remember that “liberal” once meant something different too and now that it is poisoned, leftists are using progressive. If conservative gets too poisoned, let us use another word. Stop making people on the right divide themselves into little “usses and thems”.

thebrokenrattle on March 2, 2013 at 7:06 PM

My gawd, Jazz do a little damn homework.

Eastwood’s referred to himself as more Libertarian on domestic issues than conservative.

budfox on March 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Be patient with Jazz. He also appeared to be wild-eyed in today’s gay marriage thread that Cato had come out in support of gay marriage, saying that support for it used to only come from libertarians — evidently unaware that Cato is a libertarian think tank.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:06 PM

We’re a representative republic that is designed to protect the minorities rights in the face of tyranny of the majority.

Our founding fathers were wrong(except for George Washington who did not want political parties to be formed). Pure Democracy is better than Representative Republics because Representative Republics are too easy for powerful minorities to impose their will on the majority?

Do you think any western nation(except Canada and Australia who have sane policies) would vote for the immigration laws they have if it were put up to a vote?

Minoritarianism is the root of all problems facing western civilization today… it forces atomistic social relations, destroys civic spirit, and destroys social capital.

The problem with America today is that democracy is a complete fraud and it is being ruled by the minorities.

unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com

ninjapirate on March 2, 2013 at 7:06 PM

What a novel idea.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I could live with that but I doubt most people would.

You claim the government should stay out of marriage. Would that include Sharia marriage which defines the age of consent for females at nine years of age, or would you force your definition of the proper age of consent on them?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:06 PM

As much as I enjoy many of the pieces written by Jazz, I’m not sure this article has a point at all.

A defense of Eastwood? He doesn’t need one. Which is acknowledged in this article.

Defining ‘conservative principles’? Preaching to the choir. Most of those who choose to read HA and who comment here are eminently aware of their right to decide what they think on any issue for themselves, and what action, if any, is appropriate given the positions they choose.

Persuade the base to ‘rethink’ standing by their own principles? That would contradict the other salient points made in the article.

thatsafactjack on March 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM

A bunch of guys sucking face tried to make chick fillet customers vomit. Did it work.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 7:10 PM

What is a republic? It’s a representative democracy, and in so far as I get to vote on ballot questions, I get to engage in direct democracy. You are correct that we do protect minority rights to an extent (hence why we have a Constitution as well as a judiciary), but these protections do not cover any and all activity.

Wrong again. Occupy Wall Street tried to use the same language to justify permanent encampments and lost in court on the grounds that a right to assembly is not the same thing as a permanent settlement. Likewise, the provision speaks about a right to peaceful assembly. In so far as there are incidents of violence at shopping malls, that can be overruled as well. Additionally, while the current composition of the court would disagree, my reading of the Constitution indicates only that Congress is forbidden from implementing such laws, not local governments.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. No, a republic is based on a set of laws (rules, if you will) that specifically spell out what a government can and cannot do. This system of government protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

A democracy is mob rule, where as long as you can get 50.1% of the people to agree with you, you can do whatever the hell you want to everyone else.

The progressives have spent decades trying to convince people we are a ‘democracy’ not a republic and that our constitution was a ‘living breathing document’ not the rule book for how the government was to function.

Everything else you said was meaningless. Occupy wall street couldn’t set up a camp in zuccoti park because that’s private property that none of the protesters owned. If they want to assemble for eternity in someones house, they were free to. If they owned the park, they’d be free to stay there (assuming they didn’t run into any unconstitutional local ordinances or building codes or whatever).

And peaceably assemble doesn’t refer to the assembly, it refers to how they can assemble — peaceably. As in, without molestation or interference from the government.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Our founding fathers were wrong(except for George Washington who did not want political parties to be formed). Pure Democracy is better than Representative Republics because Representative Republics are too easy for powerful minorities to impose their will on the majority?

Do you think any western nation(except Canada and Australia who have sane policies) would vote for the immigration laws they have if it were put up to a vote?

Minoritarianism is the root of all problems facing western civilization today… it forces atomistic social relations, destroys civic spirit, and destroys social capital.

The problem with America today is that democracy is a complete fraud and it is being ruled by the minorities.

unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com

ninjapirate on March 2, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Okay, fine. Then if we’re going to ignore our constitution and our form of government, what “social contract” do we have left that forces me to listen to a word anyone from DC says? Just the threat of force?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Laws exist to codify morality though you seem too retarded to grasp that simple concept. It is a rare law that doesn’t do that. The constitution and the bill of rights are essentially a moral argument which acts as the foundation of a nation.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM

There are many, many laws that don’t codify morality. Laws codify human interactions. A law that would force you to wear a yellow star would be utterly immoral, but it would still be a law.

If you really think that laws codify morality, then you are a statist, because you expect the government to control our morality. That’s not the job of the government.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. No, a republic is based on a set of laws (rules, if you will) that specifically spell out what a government can and cannot do. This system of government protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

A democracy is mob rule, where as long as you can get 50.1% of the people to agree with you, you can do whatever the hell you want to everyone else.

Hence why we have an indirect democracy, with glimpses of direct democracy tossed in now and again. Are there certain protections of the minority from the majority? Yes. Do they cover anything and everything? Not even close.

Everything else you said was meaningless. Occupy wall street couldn’t set up a camp in zuccoti park because that’s private property that none of the protesters owned. If they want to assemble for eternity in someones house, they were free to. If they owned the park, they’d be free to stay there (assuming they didn’t run into any unconstitutional local ordinances or building codes or whatever).

The owners of Zucotti park also were willing to allow OWS to continue, and eventually they were granted office space by a sympathizer. It still didn’t stop them from being eventually cleared out (on ‘health’ grounds by Bloomberg).

And peaceably assemble doesn’t refer to the assembly, it refers to how they can assemble — peaceably. As in, without molestation or interference from the government.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM

And if those assemblies result in a violent outcome, then the manner of their assembly is called into question. And on that, people can and have voted to impose curfews against teenagers.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:16 PM

I could live with that but I doubt most people would.

You claim the government should stay out of marriage. Would that include Sharia marriage which defines the age of consent for females at nine years of age, or would you force your definition of the proper age of consent on them?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:06 PM

I don’t have a good answer to that, I’m afraid. I suppose it’s a states choice to define when someone reaches the age of majority and is able to consent to marriage and/or sex…

I don’t know, I’ll have to think about it. There is a line where a child is certainly not capable of consenting or making decisions (in the US, the age of majority to enter a contract is 18, under that age a person is considered not legally able to make an informed decision), but there is also the issue of religious freedom. If a 15 year old and an 18 year old have sex, should we really treat the 18 year old no differently then someone who forcibly raped someone? Probably not. It’s a tough one, I think you got me there.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Well, I don’t know what you’re arguing. That we should force single mothers to have abortions?

I always fall on the side of liberty and freedom. I don’t think we have to increase government power in order to keep welfare rolls (another example of government power and theft) from getting too expensive.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Which actions do you do first?

Legalize drugs and other degenerate behaviors which will swell the rolls of the welfare addicted who will then vote to keep their welfare which burdens the virtuous people’s freedom.

Or do you work to reduce the number of people on the welfare rolls so that there are fewer people willing to vote for the welfare state and eventually get rid of it as a burden to freedom?

That will pretty much tell me who you are and how much value I will give to you.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

There are many, many laws that don’t codify morality. Laws codify human interactions. A law that would force you to wear a yellow star would be utterly immoral, but it would still be a law.

If you really think that laws codify morality, then you are a statist, because you expect the government to control our morality. That’s not the job of the government.
Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:15 PM

That, among other obligations, is the job of the government. If you want to call me a statist for that, that’s fine.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Namblacrats want to redefine man – boy love as man – man love.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM

There are many, many laws that don’t codify morality. Laws codify human interactions. A law that would force you to wear a yellow star would be utterly immoral, but it would still be a law.

Yes it is moral in character, even if a morality that I reject. The purpose was to save the German nation from the evil Jews, which was from the Fascist point of view, moral.

If you really think that laws codify morality, then you are a statist, because you expect the government to control our morality. That’s not the job of the government.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:15 PM

If you could show me where I said that the government should control our morality you would have a point. You don’t have one.

Laws are moral instruments that reflect the society they exist in. In Nazi Germany that morality was vastly different than the one we have, though that difference is shrinking all the time as liberalism expands.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM

The owners of Zucotti park also were willing to allow OWS to continue, and eventually they were granted office space by a sympathizer. It still didn’t stop them from being eventually cleared out (on ‘health’ grounds by Bloomberg).

And if those assemblies result in a violent outcome, then the manner of their assembly is called into question. And on that, people can and have voted to impose curfews against teenagers.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Yes, the whole health code thing was a sham, and it was not the governments place to kick them out. But the owners of the park wanted to clean the place, which they have every right to do. If they came to an agreement with the dirty hippies, that should have been the end of it.

Again, the peaceable refers to the government response, not to the assembly itself. Case law (which I disagree with) disallows someone to insight an assembly to violence, but there is no law against a bunch of people burning signs and screaming and yelling on private property, nor should there be. Unfortunately, idiots like you pass unconstitutional and freedom-hating ordinances against assembling and against noise.

Can you imagine if you were a voter in the run up to 1776? You’d have had all of the patriots locked up because their assemblies led to violence down the road. Half of them probably would have already been thrown in jail because they would have broken your moral code at one point or another.

Why not just vote democrat and finish the evolution? I’m not sure i understand why you vote republican.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:22 PM

That, among other obligations, is the job of the government. If you want to call me a statist for that, that’s fine.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM

I think they reflect social mores rather than set them. Of course as government expands into more and more realms, it becomes society in a sense.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Social conservatism integrates with economic conservatism. If states pass policies that uphold social conservative values they will prosper.
As others have pointed out, social conservatives are getting ignored by national Republicans and elections get lost.
But you’d want to keep going down that same vain road.

22044 on March 2, 2013 at 6:02 PM

You see – you don’t want a smaller government. You want a government that enforces socially conservative values.

I don’t understand why you can’t keep out of people’s private lives. In that respect social conservatives are as bad as liberals. You have different values, but you, too, want the government to enforce them.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I’m already seeing grumbling on Twitter and elsewhere about this “stab in the back” from Dirty Harry.

I don’t consider it a stab in the back at all. He believes one way on one issue. I believe in something else. He supports us on some things, we can differ on others.

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Which actions do you do first?

Legalize drugs and other degenerate behaviors which will swell the rolls of the welfare addicted who will then vote to keep their welfare which burdens the virtuous people’s freedom.

Or do you work to reduce the number of people on the welfare rolls so that there are fewer people willing to vote for the welfare state and eventually get rid of it as a burden to freedom?

That will pretty much tell me who you are and how much value I will give to you.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Well, I guess I’m losing all value to you…

I think we should fix the things we can fix. Yes, we should absolutely end the drug prohibition — just like alcohol prohibition it has caused humongous problems, goes against the idea of freedom, and has lead to more addicts and more problems then we had before prohibition was enacted.

I don’t think there is a single person out there who is sitting there saying, ‘well i would become a meth addict, but since it’s illegal i won’t. Instead, I’m going to advocate legalizing it first, then I’ll become an addict.’ but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe ending prohibition will result in a ton of new addicts.

Ideally, yeah, it makes more sense to get rid of welfare before we unroll all of these other anti-freedom laws, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. So in the mean time, lets stop locking people up and ruining lives and militarizing our police over some intoxicating plants, and lets do everything we can to phase out the “safety net.”

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

If you really think that laws codify morality, then you are a statist, because you expect the government to control our morality. That’s not the job of the government.
Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:15 PM

That, among other obligations, is the job of the government. If you want to call me a statist for that, that’s fine.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Morality is based on what the voter deemed during an election cycle?

Mine isn’t..

My morality is still the same…
Even with Obama as Prez.

Unless someone forces me to some retraining camp…..

Electrongod on March 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

A Sodomy tax would help pave the Hershey highway.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

You see – you don’t want a smaller government. You want a government that enforces socially conservative values.

I don’t understand why you can’t keep out of people’s private lives. In that respect social conservatives are as bad as liberals. You have different values, but you, too, want the government to enforce them.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM

You are 100% correct. There is no difference in progressives telling me how to live my life “for my own good” and social “conservatives” telling me how to live my life “for my own good.” How about everyone worries about themselves and their families and leave me, my wallet, and my life choices out of it.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Yes, the whole health code thing was a sham, and it was not the governments place to kick them out. But the owners of the park wanted to clean the place, which they have every right to do. If they came to an agreement with the dirty hippies, that should have been the end of it.

Again, the peaceable refers to the government response, not to the assembly itself. Case law (which I disagree with) disallows someone to insight an assembly to violence, but there is no law against a bunch of people burning signs and screaming and yelling on private property, nor should there be. Unfortunately, idiots like you pass unconstitutional and freedom-hating ordinances against assembling and against noise.

Yeah, if “freedom hating” means that I support laws against harassment and disturbing the peace, then I’m willing to be called freedom hating. You are right about the health-justification though being a sham.

Can you imagine if you were a voter in the run up to 1776? You’d have had all of the patriots locked up because their assemblies led to violence down the road. Half of them probably would have already been thrown in jail because they would have broken your moral code at one point or another.

Why not just vote democrat and finish the evolution? I’m not sure i understand why you vote republican.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:22 PM

When it comes to the Revolution, I doubt that I would have had much in the way of sympathy for the King, specifically because he was denying people a say in how they were governed. That again goes to the issue of natural rights, and that’s where what is necessary to keep in accord with a higher law supercedes the laws of man. In so far as there were public lynchings of people who did nothing other than voice disagreements, yes, I’d be willing to see such ‘patriots’ locked up.

As for why I don’t vote for the Democrats, here’s a short list why: abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, drugs, violent crime, death penalty, and an assortment of bioethical and family issues.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m a social conservative. That’s why I vote the way I do, and Jazz seems determined to make sure that I no longer have a motive to do so.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

I don’t understand why you can’t keep out of people’s private lives. In that respect social conservatives are as bad as liberals. You have different values, but you, too, want the government to enforce them.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM

This is gibberish. You want the government to enforce laws on murder, rape, theft, and property just as everyone else does. The values that you want enforced are slightly different than what liberals want enforced, and significantly different than what conservatives want enforced. You just like to make a pretense that you aren’t actually enforcing those values for ideological reasons.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Wow, the cognitive dissonance of that statement should be making your head explode. Abortion, SSM, Obamacare, it is what the liberals do every single day. They use the coercive force of the federal government to force people to submit to what they consider immoral and unethical behaviors.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Yes, exactly. Isn’t that why we fight them? Because we don’t want them to force their morals upon us? Should we turn around and force our morals upon them?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Morality is based on what the voter deemed during an election cycle?

Mine isn’t..

My morality is still the same…
Even with Obama as Prez.

Unless someone forces me to some retraining camp…..

Electrongod on March 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Granted. Morality is not arbitrarily defined by who says what when. It stems from a set of premises and derivational rules that result in conclusions pertaining to human behavior. As such, it’s an existent truth irrespective of the will of the voters. But when there’s a dispute regarding the nature of that truth, we resolve it through voting. That doesn’t by definition make it right, but it indicates what the majority thinks is so.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Yes, exactly. Isn’t that why we fight them? Because we don’t want them to force their morals upon us? Should we turn around and force our morals upon them?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

If you think you’re right, yes. And that’s what matters: the substance, and in turn the policy, of what you believe. The particular differences in policy is what separates liberals from conservatives.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM

As for why I don’t vote for the Democrats, here’s a short list why: abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, drugs, violent crime, death penalty, and an assortment of bioethical and family issues.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m a social conservative. That’s why I vote the way I do, and Jazz seems determined to make sure that I no longer have a motive to do so.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Okay, but you have no philosophical problem with how democrats run the country. You have no philosophical or ethical problem forcing people to conform to how you wish to live… So if a politician came along promising to outlaw abortion, throw gays in jail, round up all of the illegals and execute them, chop of the hands of people smoking weed, and — ((im not sure about the rest, I don’t think anyone is FOR violent crime, the death penalty is a split issue (I imagine as a christian you are against using the government to murder people? or am I wrong?) And I wasn’t aware the GOP has a position on bioethics, but whatever)) you’d be okay with that?

As long as YOU are happy and YOUR morality is what is being enforced, you have no problem whatsoever with big government? Because, buddy, I gotta tell you, that’s not what many of us believe in at all. That’s what statists believe in.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Maybe the government shouldn’t intervene at all and keep completely out of marriage?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM

So no alimony, or child support?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Not enforced by the government, no. They can be included in a private marriage contract.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:36 PM

That, among other obligations, is the job of the government. If you want to call me a statist for that, that’s fine.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Okay. You are not different from any liberal who wants to force his values on me. You have other values, but your methods of enforcing them are the same.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Okay, but you have no philosophical problem with how democrats run the country. You have no philosophical or ethical problem forcing people to conform to how you wish to live… So if a politician came along promising to outlaw abortion, throw gays in jail, round up all of the illegals and execute them, chop of the hands of people smoking weed, and — ((im not sure about the rest, I don’t think anyone is FOR violent crime, the death penalty is a split issue (I imagine as a christian you are against using the government to murder people? or am I wrong?) And I wasn’t aware the GOP has a position on bioethics, but whatever)) you’d be okay with that?

Let’s take those 1 at a time.

If the politician promised to outlaw abortion, I would be fine with that. Abortion extinguishes an innocent human life who has done nothing to harm anyone else, and has as much of a right to life given that we believe in a principle of general equality, where all are created equal.

Regarding the throwing of homosexuals in jail, I’d regard that as excessive (unless it were for those nymphomaniacal protesters in San Francisco who appear determined to disturb the peace and flaunt their junk — but note that that’s behavior-based rather than simply desire-based).

Regarding the rounding up of illegals, I favor implementing Mexico’s policy when it comes to illegals. Two years of jail followed by deportation for the first offense, followed by 10 years of jail and deportation for every subsequent offense.

Regarding the chopping of hands of weed-smokers, I favor imprisonment. Again, I think that would be an overreaction. Justice is the assignment of reward or punishment in proportion to the crime committed. In my estimation, the permanent removal of a bodily function and imposition of physical injury is excessive.

Lastly, I am not a Christian, but an atheist. As for the government murdering others, murder is the deliberate and unjust taking of a human life. Given that justice is a core principle of conservatism, I would oppose that. However, there are instances where it is justified to deliberately take a human life.

As long as YOU are happy and YOUR morality is what is being enforced, you have no problem whatsoever with big government? Because, buddy, I gotta tell you, that’s not what many of us believe in at all. That’s what statists believe in.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM

You’re articulating what libertarians believe in. And it’s not a matter of my happiness, but a matter of my reasons. Otherwise I’d be demanding that we ban rap music and tilapia because I can’t stand either of those, but I’m not.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

As long as YOU are happy and YOUR morality is what is being enforced, you have no problem whatsoever with big government?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Most of us believe that morality will be imposed just as the founders did, and we believe that the moral agents should be situated at the lowest possible level in society to maximize freedom. Churches, towns, counties, states, and last of all the federal level. The left is at war with the family, the church and the local community precisely because these act as a counter-balance to the imperial state. By advocating liberal moral positions you are creating a dependent population that will vote for a vastly increased government out of economic self-interest.

If charities are in charge of local welfare then there exists no role for the federal or state government. If such do not exist then the state, or federal government will step in to assume that role. This is repeated again and again with differing issues.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Not enforced by the government, no. They can be included in a private marriage contract.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Would that include Sharia marriage which defines the age of consent for females at nine years of age, or would you force your definition of the proper age of consent on them through the government?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Okay. You are not different from any liberal who wants to force his values on me. You have other values, but your methods of enforcing them are the same.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:40 PM

I’m willing to concede to that characterization, sure, because I still believe in the legitimacy of the rule of law, the right of the governed to have a say in how they are governed, and an expectation that citizens obey the laws that they either vote into law or have their representatives pass in so far as they are in accordance with natural law.

If believing that government retains legitimate coercive authority makes me no different in your eyes, then so be it.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:44 PM

You’re articulating what libertarians believe in. And it’s not a matter of my happiness, but a matter of my reasons. Otherwise I’d be demanding that we ban rap music and tilapia because I can’t stand either of those, but I’m not.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

I see. Why not ban rap music? You could probably get 50.1% of the population on board. You don’t seem to have a problem with using the government however you want to make yourself happy (and yes, that’s what it is. You’re deluded if you think you know enough to tell everyone how to live their lives)

Most of us believe that morality will be imposed just as the founders did, and we believe that the moral agents should be situated at the lowest possible level in society to maximize freedom. Churches, towns, counties, states, and last of all the federal level. The left is at war with the family, the church and the local community precisely because these act as a counter-balance to the imperial state. By advocating liberal moral positions you are creating a dependent population that will vote for a vastly increased government out of economic self-interest.

If charities are in charge of local welfare then there exists no role for the federal or state government. If such do not exist then the state, or federal government will step in to assume that role. This is repeated again and again with differing issues.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

What about my positions is liberal? I believe people should have economic freedom, personal freedom, and freedom from tyranny. I mean, those are “liberal” positions in the classical sense of the word, but they are the antithesis to modern day liberal / progressive ideals.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:52 PM

I’m willing to concede to that characterization, sure, because I still believe in the legitimacy of the rule of law, the right of the governed to have a say in how they are governed, and an expectation that citizens obey the laws that they either vote into law or have their representatives pass in so far as they are in accordance with natural law.

If believing that government retains legitimate coercive authority makes me no different in your eyes, then so be it.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:44 PM

So if a bunch of us got together and decided we wanted to pass laws that affected you — say we ban alcohol — that’d be fine by you and you’d obey those laws and think everything is fine just because half of us felt that way?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:53 PM

I see. Why not ban rap music? You could probably get 50.1% of the population on board. You don’t seem to have a problem with using the government however you want to make yourself happy (and yes, that’s what it is. You’re deluded if you think you know enough to tell everyone how to live their lives)Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Because I have no reason to ban rap music outside of personal preference. Rap is characterized by a particular use of voice and instrumentation. While it may grate my nerves, that alone does not violate anyone’s natural rights, nor does it erode at virtue (that can only be done by the music’s message or accompanying displays) or hamper nobility. It does not block traffic, nor render the fire department without an ability to respond to emergency calls, nor does it intrinsically have any other deleterious effects.

Now, if a majority want to ban it, they can. At the same time, I wouldn’t be voting with that bloc because I wouldn’t have a reason to do so.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

If you could show me where I said that the government should control our morality you would have a point. You don’t have one.

Laws are moral instruments that reflect the society they exist in. In Nazi Germany that morality was vastly different than the one we have, though that difference is shrinking all the time as liberalism expands.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I said that you EXPECT the government to control our morality, not that you want them to do that, although I’m quite sure that the latter is true.

Since you think that it is the job of the government to codify morality, your fight against the liberals is just about who controls the government, because the side that controls the government controls morality.

Social conservatives are not for small government. That’s why I find it a bit ironic that you mentioned the definition of conservative. Conservatives are for small government. Small governments don’t micromanage other people’s private lives.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Hmm…Gives fresh meaning to Mr. Eastwood’s role as “Ramrod” Rowdy Yates on Rawhide.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 2, 2013 at 7:58 PM

So if a bunch of us got together and decided we wanted to pass laws that affected you — say we ban alcohol — that’d be fine by you and you’d obey those laws and think everything is fine just because half of us felt that way?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:53 PM

That’s a bad example for you to cite specifically because I don’t drink and I would favor reinstituting prohibition. So I’d be a yes vote. =P

And in case you’re wondering about the difference between that and rap, alcohol when consumed in sufficient quantities impedes one’s capacity to judge as well as act. That’s why I’d vote to ban alcohol.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM

What about my positions is liberal? I believe people should have economic freedom, personal freedom, and freedom from tyranny. I mean, those are “liberal” positions in the classical sense of the word, but they are the antithesis to modern day liberal / progressive ideals.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:52 PM

The false separation of Christian morality from the government is one. That isn’t in the constitution and only shows up in the Danbury letter, nor does it accord with the behavior of the founders who celebrated mass in the Capital Building.

The idea that morality can be divorced from government leaves the field vacant for the left to sweep in with their agenda which is exactly what has happened in the past 50 years. You basically give the federal government to the left and assume they will act with restraint and charity. If you don’t fight their moral agenda the rest simply won’t matter, because their agenda is intended to destroy the fundamental framework of society leaving it dependent on big government to step into the breach. They don’t want society to function properly. A dysfunctional society is a society that they can assume control of.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Now, if a majority want to ban it, they can. At the same time, I wouldn’t be voting with that bloc because I wouldn’t have a reason to do so.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You’re a nut. No they can’t. The first amendment prohibits it. I’m starting to think you’re just putting me on here and that you don’t believe anything youre saying.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:01 PM

You’re a nut. No they can’t. The first amendment prohibits it. I’m starting to think you’re just putting me on here and that you don’t believe anything youre saying.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I said earlier that the 1st amendment specifically prohibits Congress from doing anything. While the current court interpretation prevents state governments from doing anything, I think the courts’ legal interpretation is erroneous.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM

And in case you’re wondering about the difference between that and rap, alcohol when consumed in sufficient quantities impedes one’s capacity to judge as well as act. That’s why I’d vote to ban alcohol.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Well, if you do believe this drivel, you’re not worth my time. Clearly you’re a little petty tyrant who derives no pleasure from life and who wants to spread your misery to everyone else.

If you don’t fight their moral agenda the rest simply won’t matter, because their agenda is intended to destroy the fundamental framework of society leaving it dependent on big government to step into the breach. They don’t want society to function properly. A dysfunctional society is a society that they can assume control of.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Whatever, I’m done with this conversation.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Most of us don’t care what gays do at all. That’s the point, go do whatever. Live your life.

What we do resent is being bullied by the politically correct. Having All Things Gay shoved in our faces every day, and being told we must applaud them.

I don’t have to approve of your anything, much less cheerlead it.

Moesart on March 2, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Well, if you do believe this drivel, you’re not worth my time. Clearly you’re a little petty tyrant who derives no pleasure from life and who wants to spread your misery to everyone else.
Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:04 PM

In that case I’m the only tyrant you’ll ever see that believes in giving everyone an equal voice through a vote apparently.

And who says I get no pleasure from life? Heck, I saw this video and laughed heartily. Sorry if you think that the only joys to be had from life come from the bottom of a bottle.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:06 PM

I said that you EXPECT the government to control our morality, not that you want them to do that, although I’m quite sure that the latter is true.

No, I expect them to pass laws dealing with moral questions, which they do.

That’s called reality.

Since you think that it is the job of the government to codify morality, your fight against the liberals is just about who controls the government, because the side that controls the government controls morality.

More gibberish.

When you want all laws abolished I will take statements like this seriously.

Conservatives are for small government. Small governments don’t micromanage other people’s private lives.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You aren’t a conservative. You are simply confused and don’t want to face the reality that you have to take a stand in life despite being told by your teachers and society in general not to judge anyone. The reality is that someone’s morality will be made into law, and currently it is the liberal agenda that is dominant.

They believe in what they are doing and their political opponents aren’t really sure that they believe anything at all. Obviously they are going to win any such contest.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM

This is gibberish. You want the government to enforce laws on murder, rape, theft, and property just as everyone else does. The values that you want enforced are slightly different than what liberals want enforced, and significantly different than what conservatives want enforced. You just like to make a pretense that you aren’t actually enforcing those values for ideological reasons.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Ah, come on. You really believe that I don’t want to be murdered and raped for ideological reasons?

You can’t be serious.

It is the government’s duty to protect the individual. It is not the government’s duty to shape society. Social engineering is not the government’s duty.

Like the liberals, you don’t think in terms of the individual, but in terms of society.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Ah, come on. You really believe that I don’t want to be murdered and raped for ideological reasons?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 8:09 PM

The laws passed are moral attempts to codify behavior, which is what you are trying to squirm out of despite how idiotic your claim is. You support imposing those moral precepts as much as anyone else does despite your claim not to.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Yes, exactly. Isn’t that why we fight them? Because we don’t want them to force their morals upon us? Should we turn around and force our morals upon them?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

If you think you’re right, yes. And that’s what matters: the substance, and in turn the policy, of what you believe. The particular differences in policy is what separates liberals from conservatives.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM

That’s why many conservatives are caught between Scylla and Charybdis.

Methods express values. The most important value is freedom. I don’t care if a liberal or a conservative sends me to jail, if I don’t comply.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

Jazz, methinks he doth protest too much.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on March 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM

The laws passed are moral attempts to codify behavior, which is what you are trying to squirm out of despite how idiotic your claim is. You support imposing those moral precepts as much as anyone else does despite your claim not to.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM

I lied, I’m back. That’s a really dumb argument. Do you not understand that our system was invented to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority? And who’s a bigger minority then the individual?

Different people have different ideas of morality, have different ideas about how to live to their lives, and different ideas about what they enjoy doing and what they don’t enjoy.

We get angry when blanket laws come out of DC that effect people throughout the country and the politicians have no idea / don’t care how the laws will effect different people differently. But you can’t extrapolate that out? You’re problem with big government is not big government, it’s that you and people who believe what you believe aren’t the ones in charge of it.

And a government big enough to impose and enforce morality is big enough to take away the things you enjoy doing, or that you believe in. So if you want someone to blame for the federal government imposing gay marriage (if they do) look in the mirror. Because you didn’t fight to stop the government from passing DOMA which banned gay marriage from being recognized outside of the states it was passed in, clearly you don’t think it’s outside the scope of the federal government to decide which marriages are legit and which arent.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Well, I guess I’m losing all value to you…

I think we should fix the things we can fix. Yes, we should absolutely end the drug prohibition — just like alcohol prohibition it has caused humongous problems, goes against the idea of freedom, and has lead to more addicts and more problems then we had before prohibition was enacted.

I don’t think there is a single person out there who is sitting there saying, ‘well i would become a meth addict, but since it’s illegal i won’t. Instead, I’m going to advocate legalizing it first, then I’ll become an addict.’ but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe ending prohibition will result in a ton of new addicts.

Ideally, yeah, it makes more sense to get rid of welfare before we unroll all of these other anti-freedom laws, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. So in the mean time, lets stop locking people up and ruining lives and militarizing our police over some intoxicating plants, and lets do everything we can to phase out the “safety net.”

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

So, you are solidly in the column tyranny. Got it.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Methods express values. The most important value is freedom. I don’t care if a liberal or a conservative sends me to jail, if I don’t comply.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I do think you’re striking upon a defining difference. I don’t regard freedom as the most important value. I regard natural rights as such, followed by law & order. So long as the law does not impose upon natural rights (including the right of the governed to determine how they are governed), then if a majority want to ban or mandate something, I think that supercedes an individual’s desire for freedom. That is both the privilege and the cost of living in civilized society.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM

If you think you’re right, yes. And that’s what matters: the substance, and in turn the policy, of what you believe. The particular differences in policy is what separates liberals from conservatives.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM

And buddy, that ain’t true. Liberals positions change with polling numbers. They believe in big government by any means necessary. Conservatives (supposedly) believe in a small government that respects the individual and protects the rights of the individual without concerning itself with “societial trends” or whatever.

If I was the president of the country, I would no sooner impose my new england values on someone from utah or alabama then I would allow some other jerk to impose his values on me. It’s ludicrous to think that you have all of the answers in life and that you KNOW how everyone should be living their lives. You have no idea, none of us do. We only know how we choose to live our lives, we might have beliefs, but we can’t say with 100% certainty that we have the correct answers… and even if we did, you can’t impose morals on people, that’s something that people come to individually and people will oppose fascism / statism whenever it’s shoved in their faces. In other words, the more you shove your beliefs down peoples throats with the implied threat of force (government), the more they will rebel against them.

To persuade people you have two options: honest persuasion (get them to change their mind) or forceful coercion (force them to do what you say. The former is much more efficient, and dare I say moral, then the latter.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I lied, I’m back. That’s a really dumb argument. Do you not understand that our system was invented to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority? And who’s a bigger minority then the individual?

Why shouldn’t minorities be exterminated and crushed without mercy?

Answer that question without moral reasoning and I will take your objection seriously.

You can’t.

Different people have different ideas of morality, have different ideas about how to live to their lives, and different ideas about what they enjoy doing and what they don’t enjoy.

A stunning revelation, but since Genghis Khan liked hunting people for sport I am fairly confident we can exclude him from our club, even if that is personally hurtful to him, and somewhat judgmental of his differing life choices.

You’re problem with big government is not big government, it’s that you and people who believe what you believe aren’t the ones in charge of it.

No, I already told you what I believed on this score and you ran away because it didn’t line up with what you want to believe.

clearly you don’t think it’s outside the scope of the federal government to decide which marriages are legit and which arent.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:24 PM

No, I don’t and neither did the founders who wrote the constitution.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:34 PM

And buddy, that ain’t true. Liberals positions change with polling numbers. They believe in big government by any means necessary. Conservatives (supposedly) believe in a small government that respects the individual and protects the rights of the individual without concerning itself with “societial trends” or whatever.

I tend to think the “size of government” is an irrelevant issue. For example: with respect to the cost of entitlements, I think we spend too much and we should reduce our spending. In that regard, I favor “shrinking” government. Yet when it comes to illegal immigration, I think we do a shamefully poor job in enforcing our laws and our borders, and thus I favor increasing border patrols and workplace raids, thus wishing for an “expansion” of government in that regard.

If I was the president of the country, I would no sooner impose my new england values on someone from utah or alabama then I would allow some other jerk to impose his values on me. It’s ludicrous to think that you have all of the answers in life and that you KNOW how everyone should be living their lives.

I don’t need to think I know everything in order to consider a binary option of “yes” or “no,” for passing a measure and to dedicate some thought to considering a particular issue on a ballot, and then make a decision regarding how I vote.

You have no idea, none of us do. We only know how we choose to live our lives, we might have beliefs, but we can’t say with 100% certainty that we have the correct answers…

Again, granted. But that level of knowledge also isn’t necessary to have an opinion and to decide on a course of action.

and even if we did, you can’t impose morals on people, that’s something that people come to individually and people will oppose fascism / statism whenever it’s shoved in their faces. In other words, the more you shove your beliefs down peoples throats with the implied threat of force (government), the more they will rebel against them.

It depends upon the nature of the force and the amount of threats. A truly tyrannical regime (like Saddam’s Iraq) tends to be quite well-versed at achieving compliance through oppression. Other countries are able to achieve compliance not through tyrannical means, but because their laws are considered to be reasonable and are generally well-received by those they govern.

To persuade people you have two options: honest persuasion (get them to change their mind) or forceful coercion (force them to do what you say. The former is much more efficient, and dare I say moral, then the latter.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:29 PM

And I advocate using the former to achieve the political power and consent necessary to do the latter.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

I do think you’re striking upon a defining difference. I don’t regard freedom as the most important value. I regard natural rights as such, followed by law & order. So long as the law does not impose upon natural rights (including the right of the governed to determine how they are governed), then if a majority want to ban or mandate something, I think that supercedes an individual’s desire for freedom. That is both the privilege and the cost of living in civilized society.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Freedom is the most important of the natural rights, and without which, none of the other rights matter. I would rather be free and live in a dangerous society then a ‘safe’ slave. Clearly you disagree.

So, you are solidly in the column tyranny. Got it.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM

huh?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

I’m not sure that Clint calls himself anything but sure, he seems to be as much libertarian as anything. Fine. That’s his choice.

I think the point of the post was that people on both sides change what they say about him based on the position he took last and whether or not he agreed with them.

Perfectly valid point. If anything, the comments here prove it.

IndieDogg on March 2, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Conservatives rightly understand that with freedom comes the responsibility to be personal responsible for one’s actions.

Libertarians apparently do not. Libertarians apparently believe that any action, no matter how much it harms other people’s freedom is sacrosanct, if and ONLY if it is degenerate in nature.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Why shouldn’t minorities be exterminated and crushed without mercy?

Answer that question without moral reasoning and I will take your objection seriously.

You can’t.

Because the individual is more important than the group. Individuals are the ones that innovate, run businesses, run economies, and ultimately is what we all are. But look to the Soviet Union and other place where collectivism has been tried to see how that turns out. Disregarding the natural rights of the minority is tyranny, and is a government I don’t think anyone would want to live under. If 51% vote to steal everything from the other 49%, I think you’d have a problem with having no minority rights if you were in that 49%.

No, I already told you what I believed on this score and you ran away because it didn’t line up with what you want to believe.

….

No, I don’t and neither did the founders who wrote the constitution.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:34 PM

I don’t remember your answer, but I “ran away” because I had to tend to stuff at home and was getting sick of arguing with statists.

And read the constitution, let me know when you find the word marriage, and which enumerated job of Congress marriage is to be found under. I didn’t realize the founders, in their wisdom, set up a mechanism for congress to define and enforce marriages.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Freedom is the most important of the natural rights, and without which, none of the other rights matter. I would rather be free and live in a dangerous society then a ‘safe’ slave. Clearly you disagree.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

I do disagree. I think that life is the most important of all natural rights, because without it one cannot exercise any other right. To be alive is to exist, and if you do not exist you cannot be free. If you are not alive, you cannot be enslaved, you cannot be raped, and you cannot have your possessions stolen. Sure, people can do things to your corpse, and take what was once yours, but as a matter of simply existing and being an entity that possesses those rights, without life, you simply no longer exist.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Conservatives rightly understand that with freedom comes the responsibility to be personal responsible for one’s actions.

Libertarians apparently do not. Libertarians apparently believe that any action, no matter how much it harms other people’s freedom is sacrosanct, if and ONLY if it is degenerate in nature.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 8:38 PM

I believe in responsibility. If a person or company acts in a negligent or otherwise irresponsible way, the aggrieved party should be able to bring the person or company to court and sue for damages. If a person infringes on someone elses natural rights, the aggrieved should be able to sue, and the state should be able lock someone up (depending on the severity of the crime) and deprive them of their right to freedom.

Other than that, of course an individuals rights outways “other peoples freedoms” (I assume you mean the freedom to not be offended by someone elses behavior or whatnot). To say otherwise is to believe in collectivism like the progressives, and like I said, I believe in freedom not tyranny.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I do disagree. I think that life is the most important of all natural rights, because without it one cannot exercise any other right. To be alive is to exist, and if you do not exist you cannot be free. If you are not alive, you cannot be enslaved, you cannot be raped, and you cannot have your possessions stolen. Sure, people can do things to your corpse, and take what was once yours, but as a matter of simply existing and being an entity that possesses those rights, without life, you simply no longer exist.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

So as long as you’re breathing, that’s all that matters? You’d have no problem with 51% of us voting to make you our slave as long as we allowed you the right to live?

I think I’d rather die then live without freedom. Glad others felt the same way back in 1776.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:46 PM

So as long as you’re breathing, that’s all that matters? You’d have no problem with 51% of us voting to make you our slave as long as we allowed you the right to live?

I think I’d rather die then live without freedom. Glad others felt the same way back in 1776.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:46 PM

I didn’t say that breathing was all that matters. I said that life was the most important of natural rights, not the only natural right.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM

I didn’t say that breathing was all that matters. I said that life was the most important of natural rights, not the only natural right.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM

And I’m saying that without individual freedom, no other rights matter. To me at least.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM

And I’m saying that without individual freedom, no other rights matter. To me at least.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM

That’s fine. I happen to think that life takes priority because it is a prerequisite for anything else. You can have life without individual freedom, but you can’t have individual freedom without life.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:51 PM

K. Well, I’m migrating over to the QOTD. See you over there, I’m sure.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Because the individual is more important than the group. Individuals are the ones that innovate, run businesses, run economies, and ultimately is what we all are. But look to the Soviet Union and other place where collectivism has been tried to see how that turns out. Disregarding the natural rights of the minority is tyranny, and is a government I don’t think anyone would want to live under. If 51% vote to steal everything from the other 49%, I think you’d have a problem with having no minority rights if you were in that 49%.

I am not going to insult you by pretending you don’t understand the point. You do and you want to evade it.

Tyranny is morally wrong.

Stealing is morally wrong.

You can’t make the argument without reference to morality because laws are moral impositions.

And read the constitution, let me know when you find the word marriage, and which enumerated job of Congress marriage is to be found under. I didn’t realize the founders, in their wisdom, set up a mechanism for congress to define and enforce marriages.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Article I, Section 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Wasn’t that hard to find and congressional ability to pass laws on marriage have never been declared invalid. Doubtless you will find the reasoning why it’s an outrage next to the ‘Good And Plenty Clause’.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Would that include Sharia marriage which defines the age of consent for females at nine years of age, or would you force your definition of the proper age of consent on them through the government?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

If you think you have to hit me over the head with Sharia Law, you are already thaaat close to losing the argument.

Sharia marriages that include 9 year old girls are unconstitutional and therefore invalid from the start.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Sharia marriages that include 9 year old girls are unconstitutional and therefore invalid from the start.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Why is it unconstitutional if government has no role in marriage?

Shouldn’t it be a private matter?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Rap is characterized by a particular use of voice and instrumentation. While it may grate my nerves, that alone does not violate anyone’s natural rights, nor does it erode at virtue (that can only be done by the music’s message or accompanying displays) or hamper nobility.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

How do you separate rap music from its message?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 8:44 PM

No, one of the fundamental aspects of liberty, personal property.

We are not a free society. at a minimum, depending on what state I live in, 25% of my labor is stripped from my possession to pay for the livelihood of others, inherently the degenerates.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Hot Air & Ace are facing the music- SSM is here to stay, win in the courts this year or not. Frankly it’s nice to see and they are making a very effective argument- all of you mind your own damn business!

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM

How do you separate rap music from its message?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Rap by itself is undefined in terms of its content. It could call on everyone to be upstanding citizens. It could call on everyone to kill cops. It could leak nuclear missile secrets. In isolation, it has no message.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM

You aren’t a conservative. You are simply confused and don’t want to face the reality that you have to take a stand in life despite being told by your teachers and society in general not to judge anyone. The reality is that someone’s morality will be made into law, and currently it is the liberal agenda that is dominant.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Taking a stand in life and using the government to force people to live according to one’s moral expectations are two completely different things.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Wait, I’m hopelessly confused. Is Eastwood CPAC-eligible, or not? Where’s the Hot Gas parliamentarian?

Barnestormer on March 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Taking a stand in life and using the government to force people to live according to one’s moral expectations are two completely different things.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM

If it were a vacuum you would be right. But government is the morality of the people. If the morality of the people were to be personally responsible for their own actions, you would have a point. This nation passed the point where this is the case many decades ago.

So long as Social Security and the rest of the welfare state exists your two choices are, have the government increasingly subsidize degeneracy on the backs of the virtuous and decline into a third world despot or work to limit the amount of degeneracy the nation will allow on the backs of the virtuous and hope to one day get rid of the subsidization of the degeneracy.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 PM

The laws passed are moral attempts to codify behavior, which is what you are trying to squirm out of despite how idiotic your claim is. You support imposing those moral precepts as much as anyone else does despite your claim not to.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Okay. Explain to me the morality of the seatbelt.

And if you really think that it is not the government’s job to protect the individual, but to shape society, then – well, sorry, you belong into one of the socially engineering utopias of the 20th century.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:26 PM

DBear on March 2, 2013

…as usual GFY!
…or… your own mouth…take your pick!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Okay. Explain to me the morality of the seatbelt.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:26 PM

A moral concern for the life of others, a concern that the medical bills not burden others who might be forced to pay for them, and a concern for children who will be injured in a care crash because of their parents choices.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 9:29 PM

That will pretty much tell me who you are and how much value I will give to you.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Rather a pretentious little snot, aren’t you.

Solaratov on March 2, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Rather a pretentious little snot, aren’t you.

Solaratov on March 2, 2013 at 9:31 PM

You either really are a libertarian, or you are a tyranny supporter disguising your actions under guise of libertarian words that the ignorant might not notice.

he chose to out himself, and I am sure you are are the same as him as nothing more than degenerate enabling tyrants.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 9:35 PM

I do think you’re striking upon a defining difference. I don’t regard freedom as the most important value. I regard natural rights as such, followed by law & order. So long as the law does not impose upon natural rights (including the right of the governed to determine how they are governed), then if a majority want to ban or mandate something, I think that supercedes an individual’s desire for freedom. That is both the privilege and the cost of living in civilized society.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM

What you are thinking of, in my opinion, is a pure democracy. But that’s not what the Founding Fathers wanted. The rights of the minority have to be protected.

Obama said, “I won.” I don’t think that’s how our society is supposed to work.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM

What you are thinking of, in my opinion, is a pure democracy. But that’s not what the Founding Fathers wanted. The rights of the minority have to be protected.

Obama said, “I won.” I don’t think that’s how our society is supposed to work.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM

The minority, not the degenerate.
There also was no provision for the subsidizing of other peoples lives at the end of the government gun contemplated either.

You can have freedom and personal responsibility. Not one without the other.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 9:45 PM

What you are thinking of, in my opinion, is a pure democracy. But that’s not what the Founding Fathers wanted. The rights of the minority have to be protected.

Obama said, “I won.” I don’t think that’s how our society is supposed to work.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I was also troubled by Obama’s quote of “I won.” From that statement and its accompanying context, I inferred two things:

1.) He thinks that by winning an election, he has the authority to do whatever is within the set of powers granted to him by the office that he won. That doesn’t trouble me, and I think that’s correct.

2.) He thinks that because he won election that he does know better than everybody else (which pertains to a concern of yours and Timin’s, I think), and consequently will not listen to any argument from the opposition, regardless of its merits.

I don’t mind when someone is willing to gather enough information relevant to a situation to make a decision, deliberates, and then does so. What’s alarming about this is that Obama is not even willing to have a debate or listen to any other argument. That strikes me as remarkably arrogant. It’s one thing to hear the arguments and then decide. It’s another to make a decision before knowing anything and to do so by simply reacting without any thought. Openly admitting that he refuses to deliberate or consider competing principles shows that he is literally prejudiced (i.e., he pre-judges).

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3