Explain Conservatism

[Arthur Brain]

I love how people will quote someone like John Maynard Keynes as an authoritative moral source. I don't think I can up with someone who might possibly more immoral than Keynes. The man was a moral slimeball.

The quotes come from Murray Rothbard's book, Keynes the Man, that is available from Mises.org as a free download. It is published under the Creative Commons License.











The following is especially for you, ACW. Since you quote him as an authority on wickedness I thought this was very appropriate for you to read.

The first two chapters of Murray Rothbard's book speak to Keynes' morality. He held that homosexuality was far superior heterosexuality. And he actively pursued a life of bi-sexuality. The Apostolic confrontation in the second paragraph that follows is a reference to a secret society that Keynes belonged to called The Apostles. They were a group from Kings and Trinity Colleges, mostly, that considered themselves far above the rest of the world. They basically despised anyone not of their group. Keynes said the following about it in a letter to another friend.



Now a paragraph each from the first two chapters on Keynes' morality.


The 3 seen in the parenthetical above is a link to a footnote. I include it in the following quote.

ACW ain't gonna like that...

:rotfl:

 

[Gary K]

ACW ain't gonna like that...

:rotfl:

Yeah, I kind of created that post with his reaction to it in mind. He quotes someone as an authority on wickedness with no idea of who that person really was. Seems to me it's kind of important to know who you're quoting on morality and what they stood for during their lifetime.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, I kind of created that post with his reaction to it in mind. He quotes someone as an authority on wickedness with no idea of who that person really was. Seems to me it's kind of important to know who you're quoting on morality and what they stood for during their lifetime.

Well, be prepared for a lot of deflection, bluster and how you might be a homosexual just for disagreeing with his unassailable self righteous stance...just sayin'...

 

[Gary K]

Well, be prepared for a lot of deflection, bluster and how you might be a homosexual just for disagreeing with his unassailable self righteous stance...just sayin'...

LOL. He's pretty much already gone in that direction with me. Not that far, but he was heading in that direction. If he does, so what? I don't really take him very seriously on an intellectual or knowledgability basis. If he had a lot of credibility in those areas he would have never quoted Keynes as an authoritative source on morality.

 

[Lon]

I did. How about you try and rebut that...

Yup and along with that:

"Conservativism" is interested in 'conserving.' Nutshell: It desires to preserve and celebrate what is inherited and works. It is a group that is interested in the past, and not making the mistakes of it, so the only change it desires is that which compliments it.

Seems a redundant request for some reason :think:

Double-check...

Yep, all good :up:

 

[quip]

"Conservativism" is interested in 'conserving.' Nutshell: It desires to preserve and celebrate what is inherited and works. It is a group that is interested in the past, and not making the mistakes of it, so the only change it desires is that which compliments it.

The only problem here is that the strident conservative is often quite parsimonious towards what 'works' and 'complements' needed change.

 

[Lon]

The only problem here is that the strident conservative is often quite parsimonious towards what 'works' and 'complements' needed change.

Compliments on your gracious correction :e4e: As far as the comment, you are correct, that is both the strength and weakness of conservativism. It does not want to spend, but rather see a proof-in-works first. I think 8 years of Democrats, for instance, lets us realize what worked already. Checks and balances.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Caught in yet another lie?

Not 'again' even lain: Do you just like alienating people or offending them unnecessarily?

I pointed out that Senator Ted Cruz was the only true conservative in the last Presidential election and you stated that before you "went Tennessee" (whatever that means) you supported Cruz.

Again, I don't remember ever seeing you say anything about Ted Cruz in the dozens of political threads here on TOL during the Presidential primaries. Surely you would like a heartfelt apology from me by pulling up one (just one) post of yours supporting Ted Cruz.

While I wait for that post (just one), let's address this supposed basis for what conservatism is:

Originally Posted by Lon

"Conservativism" is interested in 'conserving.' Nutshell: It desires to preserve and celebrate what is inherited and works. It is a group that is interested in the past, and not making the mistakes of it, so the only change it desires is that which compliments it.

That's a rather superficial explanation of conservatism. Could you be more specific like where do these conservatives (who are "interested in conserving") get their ideology from, i.e. from the writings of Ludwig Von Mises, Ron Paul, etc.

 

[Rusha]

I pointed out that Senator Ted Cruz was the only true conservative in the last Presidential election and you stated that before you "went Tennessee" (whatever that means) you supported Cruz.

That *might* have been true at one point, but it didn't take much for him to become another Trump-Yes-Man republican ...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I love how people will quote someone like John Maynard Keynes as an authoritative moral source. I don't think I can up with someone who might possibly more immoral than Keynes. The man was a moral slimeball.

The quotes come from Murray Rothbard's book, Keynes the Man, that is available from Mises.org as a free download. It is published under the Creative Commons License.

The following is especially for you, ACW. Since you quote him as an authority on wickedness I thought this was very appropriate for you to read.

I can't thank you enough ffreeloader for coming out as a Libertarian, as few people (once the godless cult is exposed) want to admit that they are.

Keep in mind that I'm not stating that you are a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, I'm just stating that you believe that Libertarian doctrine is legitimate.

Now that you've used the term "moral slimeball", let me quote the following and I'll allow you to decide what term you want to use towards this piece of human scum:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights



Can we both agree that someone who would write something like that is beyond sick? What term should we use towards the author of that article?

'Moral degenerate'?
'Barbarian'?

How about we call that sick piece of human scum this?:

'Murray Rothbard: The founder of the modern day Libertarian movement'.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I pointed out that Senator Ted Cruz was the only true conservative in the last Presidential election and you stated that before you "went Tennessee" (whatever that means) you supported Cruz.

That *might* have been true at one point, but it didn't take much for him to become another Trump-Yes-Man republican ...

While I haven't been following Texas SenatorTed Cruz much since the Presidential primaries, I'm not aware of him selling out God and our biblically based Constitution in order to gain favor with secular humanist Donald Trump.

Perhaps you could supply some quotes from Cruz showing his "support" for Trump.

 

[Rusha]

Perhaps you could supply some quotes from Cruz showing his "support" for Trump.

He endorsed him and continues to support him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...playing-with-fire-by-supporting-donald-trump/

Any politician (be it Republican or Democrat) who supports this wretched person has sold out America.

 

[Gary K]

I can't thank you enough ffreeloader for coming out as a Libertarian, as few people (once the godless cult is exposed) want to admit that they are.

Keep in mind that I'm not stating that you are a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, I'm just stating that you believe that Libertarian doctrine is legitimate.

Now that you've used the term "moral slimeball", let me quote the following and I'll allow you to decide what term you want to use towards this piece of human scum:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights



Can we both agree that someone who would write something like that is beyond sick? What term should we use towards the author of that article?

'Moral degenerate'?
'Barbarian'?

How about we call that sick piece of human scum this?:

'Murray Rothbard: The founder of the modern day Libertarian movement'.

LOL. You still insist on saying I'm a libertarian. That is funny. Just because I agree with some of libertarian thought doesn't mean I agree with all of it. I'm not for legalizing drugs. I'm not for legalizing prostitution. I'm not for a lot of things libertarians are for.

As to the quote you gave, I agree with most of it. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. That is what is meant by liberty. The fact that you completely disagree and see that as terrible just confirms once more that you are totalitarian in all of your thinking. You see the state as the all-powerful, never wrong, enforcer of what it says is moral, rather than the individual making their own moral decisions. You just keep on reinforcing your totalitarian ideas while thinking you are being moral. Sorry, the totalitarian state is the most immoral form of government there is, and that is your idea of the perfect state.

 

[drbrumley]

LOL. You still insist on saying I'm a libertarian. That is funny. Just because I agree with some of libertarian thought doesn't mean I agree with all of it. I'm not for legalizing drugs. I'm not for legalizing prostitution. I'm not for a lot of things libertarians are for.

As to the quote you gave, I agree with most of it. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. That is what is meant by liberty. The fact that you completely disagree and see that as terrible just confirms once more that you are totalitarian in all of your thinking. You see the state as the all-powerful, never wrong, enforcer of what it says is moral, rather than the individual making their own moral decisions. You just keep on reinforcing your totalitarian ideas while thinking you are being moral. Sorry, the totalitarian state is the most immoral form of government there is, and that is your idea of the perfect state.

Indeed!!!!

 

[Lon]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Caught in yet another lie?

No, but the accusations are lies. Try to avoid them and all appearances of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5:22

Love believes all things, hopes all things, not accuses of all things lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I pointed out that Senator Ted Cruz was the only true conservative in the last Presidential election and you stated that before you "went Tennessee" (whatever that means) you supported Cruz.

He endorsed him and continues to support him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...playing-with-fire-by-supporting-donald-trump/

We already had a discussion in my WHMBR! Part 4 thread as to why Senator Ted Cruz reluctantly ended up endorsing Donald Trump back in Sept. of 2016 after Trump was named as the Republicrat Party's nominee. If you need to be reminded of why, I can pull up those posts in instead of going into detail here.

Do you have anything current showing Texas Senator Ted Cruz saying positive things about Donald Trump?

Any politician (be it Republican or Democrat) who supports this wretched person has sold out America.

I'll take that statement a bit further and say that any person who embraces a culture of death LGBTQ flag waver, which Donald Trump is, is a wretched person.

Can you give me an "Amen to that!" Sandy?

 

[Rusha]

We already had a discussion in my WHMBR! Part 4 thread as to why Senator Ted Cruz reluctantly ended up endorsing Donald Trump back in Sept. of 2016 after Trump was named as the Republicrat Party's nominee. If you need to be reminded of why, I can pull up those posts in instead of going into detail here.

No reminder needed. There is not enough influence, bribery or threatening on the planet that would cause me to endorse such a creature. Would *you* have endorsed Trump?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
We already had a discussion in my WHMBR! Part 4 thread as to why Senator Ted Cruz reluctantly ended up endorsing Donald Trump back in Sept. of 2016 after Trump was named as the Republicrat Party's nominee. If you need to be reminded of why, I can pull up those posts in instead of going into detail here.

Do you have anything current showing Texas Senator Ted Cruz saying positive things about Donald Trump?

No reminder needed. There is not enough influence, bribery or threatening on the planet that would cause me to endorse such a creature.

So you have nothing current to show that Ted Cruz is a supporter of Donald Trump? I didn't think so.

Now that your attempt at smearing the only true conservative that ran in the last Presidential primaries is done:

Remind me Sandy, which candidate did you endorse? As I recall it was the LGBTQ flag waver John Kasich from Ohio.

Would *you* have endorsed Trump?

Again: anyone that proudly endorses the LGBTQ culture of death as Donald Trump and John Kasich do, is wretched.

Can I get an "Amen to that!" Sandy?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Caught in yet another lie?

No, but the accusations are lies. Try to avoid them and all appearances of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5:22

Love believes all things, hopes all things, not accuses of all things lain:

How about instead of finding a post (just one) where you endorsed Senator Ted Cruz for President, you supply a post where you share the Word of God with your good friend Arthur Brain?

You surely must recall you telling me that the only reason that you're friends with a pro homosexual agenda person like Arthur is so that you can share God's Word with him.

Just one post, Lon, that's all I'm asking.

 

[Rusha]

No reminder needed. There is not enough influence, bribery or threatening on the planet that would cause me to endorse such a creature. Would *you* have endorsed Trump?

Now that your attempt at smearing the only true conservative that ran in the last Presidential primaries is done:

Remind me Sandy, which candidate did you endorse? As I recall it was the LGBTQ flag waver John Kasich from Ohio.

Would you like to guess who did NOT endorse Trump.

John Kasich.