Comic Genesis Forums

RDB wrote:at the risk of pushing Ralph's buttons:

Gilder = Conservative
Quentyn = Liberal

RHJunior wrote:Only a left winger would have the pretentiousness-- and self delusion-- to claim that QUENTYN is the leftist.

or someone trying to push buttons Ralph

a fool takes offence when it is NOT intended
a greater fool takes offence when it IS intended

shyal_malkes wrote:my appolagies maxgoof if I was easily misunderstood.

it's just that while I know the stag probably is important (maybe VERY important) I just don't know how important it is.

it bugs me not knowing.

Well, the difficult situation is always where God tries to nudge people in the right direction without forcing their hand. Free will, and all that...

Werekitty wrote:

RHJunior wrote:well, lessee.

Quentyn represents individual rights, autonomy, capitalism, self-determination, self-defense, and personal responsibility.... and the innate right of every individual to have the damn government leave him the hell alone. He is the free market alternative for individuals in distress, and represents the blunt fact that all free men are able to sleep at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Gilder represents government authority, bureaucracy, and the suppression of independent thought and action. He is willing, if not to break the law, then to stretch it all out of shape in order to stop a "threat" to his neatly ordered status quo... that "threat" being in the form of an individual who doesn't bend the knee to the nearest authority figure before taking action on behalf of his clients or himself. He believes that matters should always be "left to the authorities," even when said matters are obviously something that the authorities should not and cannot handle.

Only a left winger would have the pretentiousness-- and self delusion-- to claim that QUENTYN is the leftist.

Hm... I thought that bureaucracy, and the idea that people should adhere to authority were consertive ideals...

It is possible that either I am wrong, or the definitions have shifted. I am not sure. There is no way to get a definate definition without somebody placing their personal slant upon it.

The meaning of conservatism you quoted is the definition put forth by liberals, who tend to believe it because the Liberal mindset rejects the concept of "Rule of Law", and embraces the concept of "Rule by Me".
The two philosophies are actually pretty simple and clearly opposite.

Conservatism: The Law should be interpreted as it was written, or if it is found lacking by the People, it should be rewritten. All are equal under the Law, and the Government's job under the Law is to serve the People.

Liberalism: The Law means whatever the Boss says it means. You treat the Boss right, he'll treat you right. You step out of line - buddy, you don't wanna step out of line...

I hate politics.

Wrong target WereKitty......I can live with politics....it's the politicians ya oughtta be hatin'

S'aaruuk

RHJunior wrote:Only a left winger would have the pretentiousness-- and self delusion-- to claim that QUENTYN is the leftist.

I admit my application of that term to him was wrong; I was trying for the counterpart to Gilder's comments to his wife, which sure seem to line up with Wikipedia's definition of conservatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

"Conservatism is any of a number of political philosophies supporting traditional values or an established social order. [...]

In English-speaking countries, conservatism often refers to a political philosophy presented by Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke. Burkean conservatives wish to conserve heritage; they advocate the current social climate. To a Burkean, any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected."

Your response (which I don't disagree with) is more of an example of left-right politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics

WRT Quentyn, I guess Questors are an example of even older traditions...

Ron, probably not convincing anybody and should just shut up

RDB wrote:Ron, probably not convincing anybody and should just shut up

Oh, on the contrary! You are quite right!

I took a course in political science, and one of the things they talked about was the ways in which classical Liberalism and classical Conservatism have virtually switched places to today's liberals resemble older Conservatives, and today's conservatives resembles older Liberals.

Or in other words...

Who switched the price tags, and who moved my cheese?

Okay, so I'm just quoting book titles, but ya get the point...

I dislike the classist slant of government...

And it was created that way.

Werekitty wrote:I dislike the classist slant of government...

And it was created that way.

If you mean it was created for the Male Landed class you are correct. Originally you had to be a land owner and Male to vote. If you are talking political parties well that is not correct. Parties came about by like thinking people coming together to supprot candidates with their views. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about political parties. Parties over the years have come and gone. http://www.presidentsusa.net/partyofpresidents.html lists 6 parties that have won presidential elections. The Republican, Democrats, Federalist, Whig, Union and Democratic-Republican.

I was talking about the government being created for the rich. Alexander Hamilton felt that the government should be controlled by the merchent and banking classes, he believing the masses to be a "great beast".
It was Hamilton's view that the government should put the elite classes first, and that seems to be the way the government is being run.

I also dislike the pervaiding attitude that if you're poor, you're too lazy to change your circumstances.

Sometimes you simply can't change your circumstances.

I also dislike people who milk the system because they are lazy.

Werekitty wrote:I was talking about the government being created for the rich. Alexander Hamilton felt that the government should be controlled by the merchent and banking classes, he believing the masses to be a "great beast".
It was Hamilton's view that the government should put the elite classes first, and that seems to be the way the government is being run.

Please be careful with putting words into the mouth of any Founding Father. Those who don't automatically dismiss you outright will demand proof. Sooooo... link please?

And even if he did say it, he may be only half wrong. So far every country where the people ruled, i.e. Democracy, it turned into mob rule. Laws were tossed aside when they became "unpopular" whether they were right or not. The United States of America were founded on the rule of law, meaning even an unpopular law can be legal, even if it's unjust. Also, they were founded by a large group of Christians, many of them protestents. This might explain why we have yet to fail where the Greeks crashed and burned (although our country's far younger than theirs was when it hit bottom).

Werekitty wrote:I also dislike the pervaiding attitude that if you're poor, you're too lazy to change your circumstances.

While this isn't necessarily true on a case by case basis, it's been found that many people who are poor are just that: lazy. They can't get a job, can't get a home, can't get anything because they won't work for it. "It's too hard! I can't do it!" And these people fail.

Werekitty wrote:Sometimes you simply can't change your circumstances.

Sometimes you can't, no. But knowing that requires the right perspective. Attitude isn't everything, but it helps. And to be honest, I'd say that there are a lot of cases where a person could improve their life if they tried harder. The only time you really can't is when changing it involves breaking the law, even if it's something as small as a government regulation against lawn gnomes on your front yard. Less beuracracy would probably help out everyone, including the poor.

Oh, and btw... by saying government is "slanted" towards the rich, granting them more favor than the poor... you've implied that the "rich" are to blame for that bias, and thus, indirectly responsible for poverty. Whether or not you meant to it doesn't matter. People will draw the same conclusion I just did. Mind your words lest you lose your own meaning.

Werekitty wrote:I also dislike people who milk the system because they are lazy.

This is something I think we can all agree on. There will always be poor people. And there will always be scam artists. That some people are a combination of the two isn't all that surprising.

You can't avoid politics unless you avoid people.
Politics is the name for the methods we choose to interact with each other. The word "polite" comes from the same root.

I've seen people attempting to connect American conservatism with support of royalty, though America has never had a royalty, and in fact owes its existance to a bloody revolt against a monarchy. Our founders designed our government to make the rise of a strong centralized power like that monarchy here impossible. That is our tradition, if one wishes to speak of traditions. It was summed up as "Give me liberty, of give me death!"

Werekitty wrote:I was talking about the government being created for the rich. Alexander Hamilton felt that the government should be controlled by the merchent and banking classes, he believing the masses to be a "great beast".
It was Hamilton's view that the government should put the elite classes first, and that seems to be the way the government is being run.

Oddly enough, it is the Hamiltonian-influenced Federalists from which that the Republicans of the 1860s got their ideals.

Of course, not many people realize that, back then, the Republicans were considered the liberals, and the Democrats considered the conservatives - in the sense of social values, at least.

(In this case, Conservative meaning supporting the current status quo or revert to a previous, stricter situation, Liberal meaning to change the status quo to something more liberal in its interpretation.)

Of course, originally the Democratic Republicans (Which is the ultimate ancestor of the current Democratic party) were liberals - they wanted the sufferage to extend to 'everyone'(Ie, all white males). The Federalists just wanted the rich to be able to vote. I'm not touching slavery in this set, because while Jefferson (THE Democratic-Republican) was against slavery, I don't recall the Federalist policy. I know it was touchy...

Thing is, as times change, what people consider to be 'liberal' views of society or 'conservative' views of society will change as well. A modern 'conservative' (Such as Ralph) would be considered a far-left Liberal back in the early 1800s (At least on social issues.)

In the future, my social views, while now very liberal, would be considered conservative.

My point is, you can't say that liberalism or conservativism is good, period. May I remind you that while the extremely conservative Southern Democrats, in the early 1860s, attempted to break away from the Union over State vs Federal Rights, the flashpoint of the arguement was slavery - the South wanted it, and the North didn't - and since the North ended up having more votes, slavery was eventually taken away. Interestingly enough, those same ideas and ideals behind the Dixiecrats can now be found in the Southern Republican Party ^^

Oh, and the idea that popped into my head when I first read this -

Yes, Hamilton said a quote like that. But generally, the founding fathers were felt to be afraid of total 100% direct democracy, which they felt would devolve swiftly into mob rule. Its nearly 2 am, I'm not sourcing this; but I've read it in many a civics and history book, and I think its generally accepted.

And yes, in general Hamilton was in favor of the rule of the rich. My thinking on his reasoning? The rich would have an even better incentive to get the country running and propserous if they had a stronger say. I must say, I agree with quite a bit of his economics (...I'm a Hamiltonian, I'll admit it), but I feel that with today's communications technology, his fear of mob-rule is unfounded.

Remeber the situation the Founding Fathers had for a nation: The world was changing over from agricultural farms to city industry; something that even Jefferson saw, acknowledged, and encouraged (...or at least not hindered by breaking the Bank of the United States; unlike that idiot Jackson.) Things were changing, and the rules they were making was for a society that was slowly coming out of existance... And by less than a hundred years later, was nearly gone.

Actually, they preferred rulership by LAND OWNERS. Which isn't the same thing as rule by the "rich." Even a poor schlub could own an acre of land.

basically because they believed that a country should be run by those with something important invested in it.

StrangeWulf13 wrote:

Werekitty wrote:I was talking about the government being created for the rich. Alexander Hamilton felt that the government should be controlled by the merchent and banking classes, he believing the masses to be a "great beast".
It was Hamilton's view that the government should put the elite classes first, and that seems to be the way the government is being run.

Please be careful with putting words into the mouth of any Founding Father. Those who don't automatically dismiss you outright will demand proof. Sooooo... link please?

And even if he did say it, he may be only half wrong. So far every country where the people ruled, i.e. Democracy, it turned into mob rule. Laws were tossed aside when they became "unpopular" whether they were right or not. The United States of America were founded on the rule of law, meaning even an unpopular law can be legal, even if it's unjust. Also, they were founded by a large group of Christians, many of them protestents. This might explain why we have yet to fail where the Greeks crashed and burned (although our country's far younger than theirs was when it hit bottom).

Werekitty wrote:I also dislike the pervaiding attitude that if you're poor, you're too lazy to change your circumstances.

While this isn't necessarily true on a case by case basis, it's been found that many people who are poor are just that: lazy. They can't get a job, can't get a home, can't get anything because they won't work for it. "It's too hard! I can't do it!" And these people fail.

Werekitty wrote:Sometimes you simply can't change your circumstances.

Sometimes you can't, no. But knowing that requires the right perspective. Attitude isn't everything, but it helps. And to be honest, I'd say that there are a lot of cases where a person could improve their life if they tried harder. The only time you really can't is when changing it involves breaking the law, even if it's something as small as a government regulation against lawn gnomes on your front yard. Less beuracracy would probably help out everyone, including the poor.

Oh, and btw... by saying government is "slanted" towards the rich, granting them more favor than the poor... you've implied that the "rich" are to blame for that bias, and thus, indirectly responsible for poverty. Whether or not you meant to it doesn't matter. People will draw the same conclusion I just did. Mind your words lest you lose your own meaning.

Werekitty wrote:I also dislike people who milk the system because they are lazy.

This is something I think we can all agree on. There will always be poor people. And there will always be scam artists. That some people are a combination of the two isn't all that surprising.

I have no link to this. I read it in a history book.

Read it in a...

Okay. I'm not going to get upset.

Werekitty... you've any idea how unreliable textbooks can be this day? Even the Mainstream Media *coughyeahrightcough* has done special reports on how politicians and others can influence the production of textbooks, for good or ill.

Please, let me be frank:

"I read it in a textbook" is not considered a viable argument here. Please have a link next time you say something like that. Some poor naive lurker might take your word for it, when it might have no basis at all! And the spread of misinformation is bad for everyone.

If anyone can find a link proving her point, go ahead and post it. Otherwise, I'm declaring this one untrue for the most part.

If I were not well provided by my father and had a supportive family, I would be poor. I have Asperger's and it took me years to find my job...a very fulfilling but low paying one. It helps that I am taking medication which I could not have afforded before,
Also, I could probably find a link to prove anything remotely reasonable. Textbooks are where most people get their information, and are at least as reliable as the World Wide Web.

[...unWARP!]

Good evening.

I believe she said history book, not text book, which are not necessarily the same thing. History books are documentaries, text books about history are edited for a particular learning range and have quizzes at the end of each chapter. History books MAY be used as text books for history class, depending on what era/region you're learning that semester.


Zacatepongolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

Thanks Jam.

That's right. I did say HISTORY book. It's rather irronious to assume that all history books are text books, wouldn't you say?

And you can't really trust history texts, expecially the ones in the public school system. They are being filled with more myth than actual history. This way the kids being spewed out from the public school system will be little drones who think that the government has their best interests at heart.

In fact it's Don't Know Much About History by Kenneth C Davis.

Lots if interesting facts in there that they NEVER taught you in class.