Sarah, m’dear, I fear you are distracting us from friend** Liberal**'s ever-fascinating discourse. Until now, I had hardly considered these rarefied heights, where existentialism bumps up against political science. Admittedly, these weeds are a bit thick for a country boy such as myself, but I am nonetheless enthralled. Such exotic issues are raised!
What of the soul, for instance? Does it possess the body, or does the body possess the soul? And karma? Might a citizen petition the legislature to relieve one of the onerous burden of past lives, on the basis of ultra ex post facto? Or is this a strictly private matter, to be discussed with the existentialist adviser of one’s choice?
I am sure you are within your rights as the OP, but that brings up other questions to resolve. Is the thread your “possession”, like your tea-cozy, or is it an independent agent, like your cat? How does that reflect on your confessed conservatism? And do you hate Von Mises to pieces? Or have you been, as I, blissfully ignorant of his existence, and entirely content to remain so?
No he isn’t. He’s saying that the idea of the dignity of man comes from the ideas that…“All men are created equal.” “Government by consent of the governed.” “Give me liberty or give me death.” …in other words, that respect for the dignity of man is a fundamental American principle that derives from our humanity, and that to deny human dignity, to deny equal rights, is not only unconstitutional, it’s a betrayal of our values.
Frankly, yes. You’re hyperbolizing again.
No, the classical conservative believes that rights come from tradition and practice, and even the magistrate doesn’t have the right to take them away.
It’s not goalpost-moving at all. You posted a quote from Mises saying the “progam” of liberalism begins with private ownership of the means of production, without giving a reason. Such a “program” could be based on the assumption that people have rights in property, or it could be based on the assumption that, utterly regardless of rights, an economy in which the means of production are privately owned is more productive or efficient than one in which they are collectively owned; the two have nothing to with each other and either could be true while the other remains false.
Patchouli? Eau de nark. Get in close enough, you’ll detect a faint whiff of Old Spice. No, I definitely don’t want to see you starring in “Republican Moms in Cages III”.
Got a better idea. Just make a list of the ten people you personally know who you are sure, totally* sure*…don’t smoke dope. Ask them for some, going down the list. You’ll connect.
I assume all conservatives are exactly this way until I know them better. I love Schmenge’s posts because they confirm my pre-conceived notions of what a conservative on-the-street really is. (Note: Pre-conceived notions are prejudices.) The OP is exactly right in her fear. This guy is a cartoon conservative. And I don’t think it is an elaborate ruse either. He really is that way. Or so I imagine. If people tell me that conservatives aren’t “that” way, I now have proof. And I didn’t know he was Happy Wanderer, whose posts I will have to look up to see if they are consistent. Schmenge is a wonderful name.
I liked the name Happy Wanderer. It made me feel drunk and think of the Expos.
Liberal, did you say Goldwater was a Liberal? Then why did he write **Conscience of a Conservative? Just trying to fool all of us in 1964? Or was he writing about LBJ?
Hurry up and get to the part about “to each according to her needs.”
