What has happened to our country?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change

Extreme view of conservatism, somewhere between a caricature and a lie.
All conservatives want positive change, the kind that happens from a general increase in wealth, health and human development.

, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

Social evolution would have done it better, and without the wars and zombiefication that the nanny state dumps on us.

Slavery ended in every modern economy without a war, except in the liberal cozened United States of America. The liberals made us fight the Civil War to end something that was disappearing anyway.

Liberals butt in and take credit for every step of natural societal evolution that they can.

The civil war was fought over taxes, by republicans lol. The south were the democrats at the time. Slavery was the rallying cry to get the northern states in line behind Lincon ( a republican). So the liberals did what? There were no liberals at the time. Liberal hadn't been invented...... On less your saying the parties flipped in 1964?

Hehe

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: ArtemisE

Dems play to their racists, plenty.

"They're gonna put y'all back in chains..."

The irony being that through entitlements, those chains were never removed in the first place.

Food stamps do not equal slavery.... Does it make the already lazy complacent? Yep.

But a horrible comparison.


Bidens comments weren't racist. They were pulling on the heart strings. " look how the GOP is beating up on poor blacks". Racism is placing one race above others or one race below others. It's all propaganda, just not racism.

originally posted by: beezzer

What has happened to our country?

The progressives won.

We are a nation of cowards, victims. The progressives (both left and right) control;
Our speech
Our thoughts
Our futures
Our ability to make a living
Our food

We are now a minority. Independent thinkers, free thinkers, self-reliant people are now the enemy.

The free market decides everything you mentioned.... The government doesn't arrest you for thinking or speaking. If there are protests because of what you say or your fired, that's the free market by any definition.

What I find to be asinine, is people, who believe that they're free-thinking, performing mental gymnastics in order to defend the obvious shortcomings of a Government-engineered society.

To the naysayers: Can you honestly deny what I said in my OP? Can you seriously state that the mentality being forced upon society by the all-wonderful government, isn't detrimental to the advancement of those within it?

originally posted by: ArtemisE

The free market decides everything you mentioned.... The government doesn't arrest you for thinking or speaking.

Free speech zones would beg to differ. The government can and does punish you for thinking differently. Ask a baker in Colorado.

If there are protests because of what you say or your fired, that's the free market by any definition.

That is pressure from vocal groups who force companies to obey.

Wasn't there a CEO who was recently fired because it was found that he gave some money for a proposition against gay marriage?

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

My point completely. Are things perfect? Heeellll no! Are they better then any previous time in history? Obviously!



I'm not on either political side. I'm a social libertarian but think for some things capitalism is not the best way to go, destructive even. The justice system, healthcare and government should not be for profit. When these things are for profit, you don't make the human decision. You make the profitable decision. For all non essential services.

However the present incantation of the GOP are yahoos. Denying evolution and climate change makes them look retarded to the rest of us.

Your point was that government caused all of things cited. My point was that all those things would happen anyway, by natural means.

A social libertarian is a social democrat. Economic rights are the ONLY way to insure any other rights, such as the right to do anything that hurts no one else.

Systems run for profit are run better. The price system is like human language, it tells everyone what any given thing is worth. Social systems are operating blind in the sense that they have no way to value resources. Government programs distort the price system and thereby cause price increases, shortages and retardation of wealth creation.

Health care would be like buying a car and insurance if not for the government.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
What I find to be asinine, is people, who believe that they're free-thinking, performing mental gymnastics in order to defend the obvious shortcomings of a Government-engineered society.

To the naysayers: Can you honestly deny what I said in my OP? Can you seriously state that the mentality being forced upon society by the all-wonderful government, isn't detrimental to the advancement of those within it?

The only world the things you mentioned are institutional is right-wing world. Watch independent media like young turks or other sources and none of the things you mentioned exist..... At least no the way they spin it then serve it back to you. Plenty of people criticize the pres. and no one calls the racist.... But when your critizizing the pres. for being a Muslim socialist communist terrorist who is actively intentionally trying to destroy the country he runs, it comes off as crazy. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Obama. NSA, drone strikes, bergdahl trade. However the fake scandals cloud the waters and make republicans look foolish.



All the PC stuff is the free market deciding. The government isn't arresting the owner of the red skins. People are voicing there disapproval. That's free market.


When someone says something racist and is fired. That's the free market. The government didn't arrest the clippers owner. The nba kicked him out. The government didn't arrest duck dynasty. Advertisers dropped them. Free market.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

My point completely. Are things perfect? Heeellll no! Are they better then any previous time in history? Obviously!



I'm not on either political side. I'm a social libertarian but think for some things capitalism is not the best way to go, destructive even. The justice system, healthcare and government should not be for profit. When these things are for profit, you don't make the human decision. You make the profitable decision. For all non essential services.

However the present incantation of the GOP are yahoos. Denying evolution and climate change makes them look retarded to the rest of us.

Your point was that government caused all of things cited. My point was that all those things would happen anyway, by natural means.

A social libertarian is a social democrat. Economic rights are the ONLY way to insure any other rights, such as the right to do anything that hurts no one else.

Systems run for profit are run better. The price system is like human language, it tells everyone what any given thing is worth. Social systems are operating blind in the sense that they have no way to value resources. Government programs distort the price system and thereby cause price increases, shortages and retardation of wealth creation.

Health care would be like buying a car and insurance if not for the government.

That depends on what your measuring stick for success is. If profit is your measure, sure free market is best. If healing the sick is your "win" then with profits reinvested you can treat more people.


It's the stock holder mentality that's sinking capitalism. It's no longer about turning a profit. It's about making more then last year. No matter how profitable you are. If you didn't make more then you did last year your investors lost money. That's made them constantly take from labor to pay investors, killing the middle class.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

My point completely. Are things perfect? Heeellll no! Are they better then any previous time in history? Obviously!



I'm not on either political side. I'm a social libertarian but think for some things capitalism is not the best way to go, destructive even. The justice system, healthcare and government should not be for profit. When these things are for profit, you don't make the human decision. You make the profitable decision. For all non essential services.

However the present incantation of the GOP are yahoos. Denying evolution and climate change makes them look retarded to the rest of us.

Your point was that government caused all of things cited. My point was that all those things would happen anyway, by natural means.

A social libertarian is a social democrat. Economic rights are the ONLY way to insure any other rights, such as the right to do anything that hurts no one else.

Systems run for profit are run better. The price system is like human language, it tells everyone what any given thing is worth. Social systems are operating blind in the sense that they have no way to value resources. Government programs distort the price system and thereby cause price increases, shortages and retardation of wealth creation.

Health care would be like buying a car and insurance if not for the government.

All insurance is a rip off. If it wasn't it wouldn't be profitable.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Extreme view of conservatism, somewhere between a caricature and a lie.
All conservatives want positive change, the kind that happens from a general increase in wealth, health and human development.

Now who is lying? At least you put "wealth" first in your list. Conservatives have made a science of justifying selfish, anti-social behavior. How else do you explain things like the neocon obsession with Reagonomics/Trickle-down economics/Supply-side economics and the incessant fawning over Ayn Rand?

Social evolution would have done it better, and without the wars and zombiefication that the nanny state dumps on us.

Slavery ended in every modern economy without a war, except in the liberal cozened United States of America. The liberals made us fight the Civil War to end something that was disappearing anyway.

Liberals butt in and take credit for every step of natural societal evolution that they can.

Familiar with the Middle Ages? I suppose you also don't believe that a significant percentage of the self-described conservatives in this country possess an anti-intellectual bent? Look at any issue of religion vs reason — see a lot of leftist creationists? Why do you think every conservative politician and pundit is always blabbering on about common sense and the liberal takeover of universities?

"The liberals made us fight the Civil War to end something that was disappearing anyway." Ugh. That's why the origins of the Civil War lie ostensibly in southern states taking issue with the federal government trumping states rights by blocking expansion of slavery to western territories?

Typically unreasonable opinions of somebody who relates everything to economics, particularly heterodox Austrian economics (Ludwig von Mises, pffft). In many ways, libertarianism is the new communism — both are ideologies premised on unsound economic theory which rely on a miserable failure to account for human nature and action.

a reply to: ArtemisE

All the PC stuff is the free market deciding. The government isn't arresting the owner of the red skins. People are voicing there disapproval. That's free market.

Put it on a national referendum then, and I'll believe that it's the People voicing their opinion, rather than the Government forcing an individual to do something that is utterly ridiculous.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ArtemisE

The free market decides everything you mentioned.... The government doesn't arrest you for thinking or speaking.

Free speech zones would beg to differ. The government can and does punish you for thinking differently. Ask a baker in Colorado.

If there are protests because of what you say or your fired, that's the free market by any definition.

That is pressure from vocal groups who force companies to obey.

Wasn't there a CEO who was recently fired because it was found that he gave some money for a proposition against gay marriage?

The baker forced to make the cake for gays is a fair example, but of course you can find one example of anything. Groups speaking out and getting someone fired is the free market. Opposing groups try the same. The market decides who wins.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: ArtemisE

All the PC stuff is the free market deciding. The government isn't arresting the owner of the red skins. People are voicing there disapproval. That's free market.

You lost me migo. National referendum?

Put it on a national referendum then, and I'll believe that it's the People voicing their opinion, rather than the Government forcing an individual to do something that is utterly ridiculous.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change

Extreme view of conservatism, somewhere between a caricature and a lie.
All conservatives want positive change, the kind that happens from a general increase in wealth, health and human development.

, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

Social evolution would have done it better, and without the wars and zombiefication that the nanny state dumps on us.

Slavery ended in every modern economy without a war, except in the liberal cozened United States of America. The liberals made us fight the Civil War to end something that was disappearing anyway.

Liberals butt in and take credit for every step of natural societal evolution that they can.

The civil war was fought over taxes, by republicans lol. The south were the democrats at the time. Slavery was the rallying cry to get the northern states in line behind Lincon ( a republican). So the liberals did what? There were no liberals at the time. Liberal hadn't been invented...... On less your saying the parties flipped in 1964?

Hehe

I agree that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, but that is the opinion of 90-99% of the voting public. The public that thinks the government is divine and that green pieces of paper are the same as wealth.

By the way, the War to Eliminate the Decentralization of Power, (AKA the Civil War), had slave holders on both sides. It was fought to preserve the Union-- or in other words, to make the South, and farmers, pay most of the taxes.

The Crisis was caused by the Tariff which was raised 100% just before the war.

The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.

mises.org...

The war started when Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter. Lincoln's action started the war. Most northerners expected the South to leave and possibly return later.

a reply to: beezzer

Free speech zones would beg to differ. The government can and does punish you for thinking differently. Ask a baker in Colorado.

I agree that free speech zones are a ridiculous abomination. I disagree with you about the baker in Colorado.

What you're not addressing is that just as people have organized to force the government to institute protections against discrimination, organized opposition to free speech zones on a large scale would similarly lead to their demise. I'd be willing to donate my own time and money to an effort to end free speech zones.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: beezzer

What has happened to our country?

The progressives won.

We are a nation of cowards, victims. The progressives (both left and right) control;
Our speech
Our thoughts
Our futures
Our ability to make a living
Our food

We are now a minority. Independent thinkers, free thinkers, self-reliant people are now the enemy.

The free market decides everything you mentioned.... The government doesn't arrest you for thinking or speaking. If there are protests because of what you say or your fired, that's the free market by any definition.

The free market is symbiotic with all of those freedoms. The free market needs free speech and is also the protector of free speech.

In a free market, free speech keeps everyone informed and productive.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change

Extreme view of conservatism, somewhere between a caricature and a lie.
All conservatives want positive change, the kind that happens from a general increase in wealth, health and human development.

, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

Social evolution would have done it better, and without the wars and zombiefication that the nanny state dumps on us.

Slavery ended in every modern economy without a war, except in the liberal cozened United States of America. The liberals made us fight the Civil War to end something that was disappearing anyway.

Liberals butt in and take credit for every step of natural societal evolution that they can.

The civil war was fought over taxes, by republicans lol. The south were the democrats at the time. Slavery was the rallying cry to get the northern states in line behind Lincon ( a republican). So the liberals did what? There were no liberals at the time. Liberal hadn't been invented...... On less your saying the parties flipped in 1964?

Hehe

I agree that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, but that is the opinion of 90-99% of the voting public. The public that thinks the government is divine and that green pieces of paper are the same as wealth.

By the way, the War to Eliminate the Decentralization of Power, (AKA the Civil War), had slave holders on both sides. It was fought to preserve the Union-- or in other words, to make the South, and farmers, pay most of the taxes.

The Crisis was caused by the Tariff which was raised 100% just before the war.

The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.

mises.org...

The war started when Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter. Lincoln's action started the war. Most northerners expected the South to leave and possibly return later.

Lincoln was still a republican and neither side was liberals.... I grew up in Vicksburg MS I know my civil war lol. The south didn't think they were getting enough for the mountain of taxes they were paying. The north didn't wanna lose said mountain of taxes. Both sides were in it for the money.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

My point completely. Are things perfect? Heeellll no! Are they better then any previous time in history? Obviously!



I'm not on either political side. I'm a social libertarian but think for some things capitalism is not the best way to go, destructive even. The justice system, healthcare and government should not be for profit. When these things are for profit, you don't make the human decision. You make the profitable decision. For all non essential services.

However the present incantation of the GOP are yahoos. Denying evolution and climate change makes them look retarded to the rest of us.

Your point was that government caused all of things cited. My point was that all those things would happen anyway, by natural means.

A social libertarian is a social democrat. Economic rights are the ONLY way to insure any other rights, such as the right to do anything that hurts no one else.

Systems run for profit are run better. The price system is like human language, it tells everyone what any given thing is worth. Social systems are operating blind in the sense that they have no way to value resources. Government programs distort the price system and thereby cause price increases, shortages and retardation of wealth creation.

Health care would be like buying a car and insurance if not for the government.

All insurance is a rip off. If it wasn't it wouldn't be profitable.

Insurance is a product that people buy. Insurance is as good as the economy it is in.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

My point completely. Are things perfect? Heeellll no! Are they better then any previous time in history? Obviously!



I'm not on either political side. I'm a social libertarian but think for some things capitalism is not the best way to go, destructive even. The justice system, healthcare and government should not be for profit. When these things are for profit, you don't make the human decision. You make the profitable decision. For all non essential services.

However the present incantation of the GOP are yahoos. Denying evolution and climate change makes them look retarded to the rest of us.

Your point was that government caused all of things cited. My point was that all those things would happen anyway, by natural means.

A social libertarian is a social democrat. Economic rights are the ONLY way to insure any other rights, such as the right to do anything that hurts no one else.

Systems run for profit are run better. The price system is like human language, it tells everyone what any given thing is worth. Social systems are operating blind in the sense that they have no way to value resources. Government programs distort the price system and thereby cause price increases, shortages and retardation of wealth creation.

Health care would be like buying a car and insurance if not for the government.

That depends on what your measuring stick for success is. If profit is your measure, sure free market is best. If healing the sick is your "win" then with profits reinvested you can treat more people.

You seem to be badmouthing profit. Profit is an increase in the economy, an increase in the amount of money available for whatever. Profit exists because something is done or created. Profit means an increase in wealth in society.

It's the stock holder mentality that's sinking capitalism. It's no longer about turning a profit. It's about making more then last year. No matter how profitable you are. If you didn't make more then you did last year your investors lost money. That's made them constantly take from labor to pay investors, killing the middle class.

Yes there is something to what you say. Sometime in the last few years I read that the best and brightest of engineering, business, law-- and smart people in general, have devoted their careers to making money by money transfer rather than production. Lots of brainpower captured by the liberal enabled central banking cartel.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Conservatives are by definition, traditionalists. They reject all change, even when it means embracing a false sense of history to justify an emotional reaction to progress.

- Violent crime is at a historic low.
- Infant mortality is at a historic low.
- Average life expectancy is at a historic high.
- More people have more liberty than ever.

That's not to say that things are perfect, that all change is progress or that we should ever stop being vigilant. Let me briefly expand on that last item. The first part, more people, is indisputable: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, etc.

The second part of my statement is a bit more complicated to address, but let's look specifically at Freedom of Speech as it's been interpreted throughout history as an example:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

My point completely. Are things perfect? Heeellll no! Are they better then any previous time in history? Obviously!



I'm not on either political side. I'm a social libertarian but think for some things capitalism is not the best way to go, destructive even. The justice system, healthcare and government should not be for profit. When these things are for profit, you don't make the human decision. You make the profitable decision. For all non essential services.

However the present incantation of the GOP are yahoos. Denying evolution and climate change makes them look retarded to the rest of us.

Your point was that government caused all of things cited. My point was that all those things would happen anyway, by natural means.

A social libertarian is a social democrat. Economic rights are the ONLY way to insure any other rights, such as the right to do anything that hurts no one else.

Systems run for profit are run better. The price system is like human language, it tells everyone what any given thing is worth. Social systems are operating blind in the sense that they have no way to value resources. Government programs distort the price system and thereby cause price increases, shortages and retardation of wealth creation.

Health care would be like buying a car and insurance if not for the government.

That depends on what your measuring stick for success is. If profit is your measure, sure free market is best. If healing the sick is your "win" then with profits reinvested you can treat more people.

You seem to be badmouthing profit. Profit is an increase in the economy, an increase in the amount of money available for whatever. Profit exists because something is done or created. Profit means an increase in wealth in society.

It's the stock holder mentality that's sinking capitalism. It's no longer about turning a profit. It's about making more then last year. No matter how profitable you are. If you didn't make more then you did last year your investors lost money. That's made them constantly take from labor to pay investors, killing the middle class.

Yes there is something to what you say. Sometime in the last few years I read that the best and brightest of engineering, business, law-- and smart people in general, have devoted their careers to making money by money transfer rather than production. Lots of brainpower captured by the liberal enabled central banking cartel.

Omg you are brainwashed! The liberal banking cartels!!?!? That's an oxymoron!

I have no clue how they convinced you liberal was the right word for all evil.