[The_Kelzor]

i would imagine that most americans and probably most people period would support the Lock political philosophy rather than that of Hume, but really are democratic institutions better for society or that of a king...maybe a mixture of the both like a semiomnipotent president whom is restricted by laws and balanced by some other existing institution? i know that as americans and especially in a forum such as this with strong libertarian feelings, we would probabaly cherish civil liberties as good and nothing but, but can a society be given too many civil liberties? does america have too many or not enough? is what is good for you on a personal level good for society?

[Slutter McGee]

Originally Posted by The_Kelzor

i would imagine that most americans and probably most people period would support the Lock political philosophy rather than that of Hume, but really are democratic institutions better for society or that of a king...maybe a mixture of the both like a semiomnipotent president whom is restricted by laws and balanced by some other existing institution? i know that as americans and especially in a forum such as this with strong libertarian feelings, we would probabaly cherish civil liberties as good and nothing but, but can a society be given too many civil liberties? does america have too many or not enough? is what is good for you on a personal level good for society?

Greater freedom is better for society. It allows society to produce more. By working for ones rational self-interest, one is able to better society as a whole. As government seeks to regulate the amount one can improve himself, they lower the productive value of ones work. Loss in production, in turn, affects the job security of low income workers.

I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I understand the need for government. I also understand the need for limited government. I fully recognize that I have a moral obligation to pay my taxes for legitimate and constitutional government expenditures. I do not, however, recognize the ligitimacy of taking my personal earnings and redistributing them to someone else through looting tactics. The less one is taxed, the more likely they are to be able to own the capital needed to provide some asshole who wont get off welfare a job.

The problem with liberals is that they assume, rich people hoard their money. But thats not true. Rich people want to get richer, and they do that by investing in the means of production, allowing poor people something call job opportunities.

In this nation we believe that all men and women are entitled to a decent wage and a decent living. Frankly I don't think anybody is entitled to anything other than to not have their equal rights to life liberty and property violated by and individual, a corporation, or the government.

Fucking victim mentality.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[taco]

Everything and I mean everything in life works better if moderated..........except money.

[TacoSusio]

[TacoSusio]

^sorry, but they were all out of cow bells....

[The_Kelzor]

i think people can have an excess of civil liberties. i tihink the traditional ideas of predetermined morality is good for society. liberal culture take the bohemian stance that morality is determined from within and can only be decided by ones inner self. this is bad for society because society should in gereral agree on some things...morality is one...if one group of people in a society think that abortion, divorce, prostitution, and explicit sex is bad and another culture disagrees completely then you will have problems...this is why traditional values are better...because they keep everybody on the same page. with liberal values anybody can believe in just about anything and therefore conflict will happen...and civil liberties are based current values...

[Slutter McGee]

Originally Posted by The_Kelzor

i think people can have an excess of civil liberties. i tihink the traditional ideas of predetermined morality is good for society. liberal culture take the bohemian stance that morality is determined from within and can only be decided by ones inner self. this is bad for society because society should in gereral agree on some things...morality is one...if one group of people in a society think that abortion, divorce, prostitution, and explicit sex is bad and another culture disagrees completely then you will have problems...this is why traditional values are better...because they keep everybody on the same page. with liberal values anybody can believe in just about anything and therefore conflict will happen...and civil liberties are based current values...

I disagree with you completely, but I understand the point you are trying to make. I believe that the only excess of civil liberties would be in the State of Nature, basically Hobbes' term for anarchy. Men and women recognized that the formation of the sovereign was well worth the liberties that they gave up.

What I am having problems understanding is what ethical theory you believe should encompass an entire culture. You seem to believe that most classical liberals (libertarians) are completely arbitrary in their morals, as each individual decides what he believes is moral or not. But most classical liberals have a strict system of morality, not based on arbitrary commands from God, but rather based on respecting the fundamental and universal rights of others.

What you are suggesting is a compromise between Representative Democracy (Rights theory) and Theocracy (The enforcement of arbitrary commands from God) and toltalitarian Democracy (the arbitrary wishes of what ever party happens to have a majority in Congress), which requires the regulation of three sets of often contradicting morals.

Thats why our federal government was designed for the protection of individual rights, not to legislate arbitrary moral wishes on society.

Sincerely,

Slutter Mcgee

[gilligan]

Originally Posted by Slutter McGee

Fucking victim mentality.

here here

[The_Kelzor]

i have not really stated what kind of government would be the best but perhaps what you suggest could work although i would perfer maybe an authoritarian regime rather than a totalitarian one...in fact i think theocracy with represenative democracy would work fine by itself without any inclusion of a king..simply because morality would be dictated from the beginning and would keep any ideas of morality from evolving which would(as we are seeing now in America) upheavel and conflict....my point is that: excess is not good for any society and traditional morality controls that... liberals do have a moral code but it is ultimately dictated by their inner self....people like this want more and more rights so that law will not conflict with their inner self along with other people...when this happens cental goverment becomes weaker and weaker to the point where people begin to question the point of government at all...this leads to break down of the existing society...it seems obvious to me....represenative democracies alone only work well in smaller areas...this is because the bigger the country is, the more diversity and the more minorities....the more unhappy people...honestly i feel more pride in being from texas than i do in being an american if truth be told...i am sure this sentiment is shared throughout the US..i do not have the same morals as californians or new yorkers. it is a common fact that people from liberal states dislike texas and southerners and think they are racist sexist white trailor trash hicks....why should i care about people and try to relate to them when they dislike the region that i live in(which i am personally proud to be from)?