No. Fucking. Shit.
This is becuase he is a hypocrite. He supports a large bureaucracy and increasing the scope of the Federal Government so long as it coincides with his interests and moral beliefs. Saying that he is for limiting the scope and size of the Federal government is contrary to his position on this issue and that makes him a hypocrite. Why you can’t see this is beyond me.
I’m for the freedom to walk down the street swinging my fists.
That doesn’t make me a hypocrite if I announce I’m against people being punched in the nose.
My general philosophy: freedom to walk down the street swinging a fist - is modified by a more specific philosophy: not hitting people.
His general philosophy is small federal government. It is modified by a specific philosophy: government should enforce moral values.
Not hypocrisy.
The conservative is the one he feels is guilty of the type of hypocrisy he’s pitting in that section of the OP–his own, self-avowedly conservative legislator.
Later, he brings in NYC and applies no labels at all, yet you focused solely on the word “conservative” from the beginning of the OP and translated it into “Republican.”
For my two cents, I expect pretty much every politician to be a hypocrite, especially when it comes to gambling. I find the “liberal” hypocrisy worse than the “conservatives’” because, frankly, I expect no better of the conservatives right now.
I don’t understand this example at all. Having a specific philosophy that is contrary to your proclaimed general philosophy is the very definition of hypocrisy. You are proclaiming beliefs, feelings and virtues that you do not hold. Senator Kyl has proclaimed a belief in limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government. He clearly does not hold this belief becuase his specific beliefs in many areas under the umbrella of morality and government are anathema to that general proclamation ergo he holds hypocritical beliefs. While Mr. Kyl may be for limiting the scope of Federal Government in other areas the many beliefs he holds in enlarging the scope of the Federal Government in moral issues are sufficient to render his statement of limiting the Federal Government in general false.
See, I don’t see this at all. In fact, I see the opposite: Bricker’s first post in this thread, in it’s entirety, went thus:
Where is this criticism that you are referencing? It seems pretty clear that he is not trying to excuse what Senator Kyl is doing by claiming “oh, Democrats do it too” (the tu quoque accusation which has been pretty clearly rebuffed by this point), but rather asking the OP if his/her outrage is caused by the political persuasion of Senator Kyl (conservative, which is usually used interchangeably with “Republican” on the boards. Not always-but usually) or by his actions, in which case he lists several instances in which Democrats are doing similar things. If the outrage is at the action, then the OP should be quick to condemn them as well. If the outrage is at the Senator because he’s a conservative, well then this entire thread is no more than more partisan glurge of the type that regularly clogs these boards. Now, the OP did in fact condemn the actions of those Democrats doing the same thing that Senator Kyl is doing, and kudos to him for doing so, but everyone else seems to be doing nothing more than making a partisan political attack on what they perceive (without any basis in fact, AFAICT) as a partisan political attack.
For reals? So, although I deplore physical violence and think that it is wrong to harm another human, the fact that I make an exception for self defense makes me a hypocrite?
I think you’ve confused “hypocrisy” with “nuanced.”
In the text bolded above, why are these special classes of business? Why does the free market system espoused for other business not work for them?
I know you don’t understand this example at all.
But it doesn’t have anything to do with the example being false.
I’m against placing people in chains against their will. But I support the ability of the police to use handcuffs.
I’m against using sharp implements to cut open people and remove their organs. But I support the ability of cardiac surgeons to exercise their trade.
I’m agaiinst the GENERAL PRINCIPLE. But I support it under the following SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Can’t get any simpler than that. You still don’t understand it? Someone else will have to explain it to you.
Now this is a good question. Is the distinction a meaningful, principled one?
A libertarian would say that the free market system should be sufficient for all cases.
This is where libertarians and conservatives part company. A conservative believes that the free market system has no particular moral compass, and that a pure free-market society will inevitably make the right purely business decisions, but because man is sinful, not the right moral decisions. So morality is a special case in which the free market system cannot be left to function alone. Why? Because the free market concerns itself entirely with market forces, not moral ones.
Because the free market system would allow these businesses to flourish, and to certain conservative mindsets, those businesses represent a social ill that needs to be stamped out. Supporting a free market does not mean thinking all products should be legal. Even the most ardent, libertarian free market proponent is not going to advocate the return of, say, the slave trade, or the legalization of contract killing. No one thinks that all conceivable industries should be allowed to operate freely. The difference is where one draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable trades.
The ardent libertarian would - I assume - absolutely welcome the slave trade, as long as the slaves are “created” voluntarily – that is, by people selling themselves into slavery with full understanding of what they are doing. Contract killing would be impermissible because it constitutes the initiation of force against an unwilling victim.
At the risk of actually addressing the OP, i’d just like to point out that these are really two separate issues.
Rag on politicians all you like about their gambling policies, but i don’t think that the police in this case deserve the same level of opprobrium. The police are charged with enforcing the law, not writing it. If those poker clubs in New York are illegal, then it’s rather pointless to slam the cops for shutting them down. Rather, direct your attention to the legislators who have the power to change the NY laws regarding gambling.
Also, the cops who raided the poker places were taking their orders from further up the chain of command, and the upper-level cops could well have been acting under pressure from politicians or district attorneys or even the press.
Now, i agree that the police sometimes selectively enforce these archaic laws, but in the end it’s up to the people, through their elected representatives, to change the law.
That’s true, but the libertarian opposition to those things would have little to do with free market economics. Libertarianism is about more than just economics, and in this case the opposition to slavery or contract killing would be based on issues of personal ownership, and the comcomitant belief that you have no right to usurp another person’s property in him- or herself by enslaving or killing him or her.
Can you not read?
Had I stated the underlined portion in quatrain form, I could have been the next Nostradamus. Enjoy yourself.
And you still don’t acknowledge the problem with “I want government not to interfere with people’s lives, just their morality”? :dubious:
Exactly my point: the free market is a component of libertarian thought, but is balanced with other factors, such as the principle of non-coercion. Conservative thought is also strongly free market, but is balanced with factors such as public morality and traditional values. To say that a conservative is being a hypocrite because he does not support a free market in every circumstance is a straw man. The free market is an important part of conservatism, but it is not an over-riding consideration in all decisions.
Which is not to say that there isn’t a huge element of hypocrisy in a lot of conservative moralizing, only that it is not a necessary element in conservative moralizing.
And yes, Bricker, the same can be said of the left, as well.
An inarticulate blowhard whose “prophecies” are about as accurate as a $2 watch? I couldn’t agree more. Based upon your earlier post, this is indeed an apt description of you.
Well, see, you have a problem with it, and I have a problem with that (hey, here’s a big clue as to why I am not a Republican, despite my conservative/libertarian leanings on many issues), but many people believe that interfering with peoples morality (or defining it) is a legitimate function of government. That’s not to say either side is wrong necessarily(although naturally I think they are), it just recognizes that it is a legitimate subject for debate.
Most politicians of any notable rank are douchebags and asswipes. However, you have seriously mischaracterized the situation in NC regarding the lottery, by claiming that “it is the Democrats opposing gambling.” Five hardly counts as “the Democrats.” In fact, the Democrats pulled a sneaky pete and passed the lottery. It seems that the matter appeared deadlocked, causing Senate Leader Marc Basnight to declare the matter closed for the year. After a couple of Republicans left town for the weekend … Oops! Just kidding! Your cite, dear fellow, is shite.
Wow, Bricker. Either you were too hasty with your generalization that it was “The Democrats” or you were outright lying.