I’d like some cites for both of those propositions – N.B.: To avoid confusion, make sure they are cites using the contemporary American senses of the words “liberal” (!= “libertarian”) and “conservative”.
Cripes, you two - get a room!
Regards,
Shodan
You’re a conservative? What the fuck is this world coming to? And where the fuck have I been?
“Crack up”? Obviously a marxist.
I think Marxist sex is what you do if you have lost your chains.
Regards,
Shodan
To beat this dead horse even further, I can’t see any reason why Liberal’s cites must refer to American usage. He’s American, you’re American, a lot of the board is American. But most of the World is not American. And this is a message board on the World Wide Web. Please don’t get all Exceptional on us. :dubious:
Thanks, Nancarrow. You saved me some typing.
I still don’t see anything in classical liberalism that says all rights accrue from property ownership. Even the libertarians aren’t that onerous.
I would also add that the terms have flipped twice in American history, once in the Wilson era and again in the Johnson era. Lyndon Johnson was a conservative in the classical sense, and Goldwater was a liberal. Likewise, Wilson was a liberal but would now be viewed as conservative. It has gotten to the point where it’s hard to pin down who is what, frankly, especially on the conservative side. There are social conservatives (which is what Wilson would be called today) and there are fiscal conservatives (like Giuliani and Rockefeller).
Even weirder is the modern view of early Americans, like Jefferson and Burr. The old terms are still used, even thought they’re “wrong” today! Jefferson is called a liberal despite that he championed individualism, reason, and liberty. And Aaron Burr is called a conservative despite that he considered George Washington to be “a man of no talents and one who could not spell a sentence of common English”. If Jefferson were alive today, outside his historic context, he would be called a libertarian. And Burr would be called an effete liberal.
“The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production… All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand.”
Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, Ludwig von Mises
No he wasn’t. Conservatives in the classical sense have always been rare in the US, and by the 1960s, they were pretty much non-existant. A classical conservative wouldn’t use language like:
Or:
If he’s talking about equality, if he’s talking about an inherent dignity of man, he’s not a classic conservative.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with rights as such.
And how do you construe from that quote your proposition that all rights must therefore acrue from property? You seem to have extended Von Mises to mean that those without property have no rights. That is surely false.
Please forgive me, but I looked at the post in IMHO that started this all and this is the original title, minus one letter: ebay buyer wants to combine shipping, but i dk. This has been cracking me up since I read it.
Okay, back to your mature conversation.
Marxist sex is impossible, because nobody can be on top.
Wait-are you sure you mean Burr, and not Alexander Hamilton?
You two need to team up more often.
Damn. It looks like the mods fixed it before I arrived on the scene…and now the curiousity is killing me. I can’t help but think you subconsciously misspelled it as Stan Schmegma.
Ha! You know what’s funny (or pathetic, maybe)? I didn’t even see his earlier post that you quoted. I guess liberals and conservatives are all of the same mind when it comes to making sex jokes (i.e., never pass up the opportunity).
Marxist sex is the 69. It sounds all exciting and you get all heated up to try it, and then you try it, and everything’s all out of place, and you realize that you’re looking at parts of people you don’t want to look at, and nobody’s ever going to successfully get a-head this way.
And something smells funny.