tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466544526845171847.post4961561345138223281..comments2013-01-28T02:46:13.609-08:00Comments on Redonkulus Blog: What's the difference?redonkulus476http://www.blogger.com/profile/02196069493716013924noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466544526845171847.post-58896594225544946602010-07-24T13:51:20.506-07:002010-07-24T13:51:20.506-07:00You make some interesting points.
I think the Rep...You make some interesting points.<br /><br />I think the Republican Party is a fairly good approximation of classical liberalism. Not in a completely pure sense. But I think Locke, Madison, Smith, et al. would've perhaps been open to laws banning abortion and laws against drugs, etc. I don't know that all of these classical figures were complete purists. I mean, yeah, there are plenty of egregious examples of hypocrisy, e.g. ag. subsidies. But, compared to most other influential political parties in the world, the 'publicans are quite classically liberal.<br /><br />I'd almost say that modern American conservatism (among the thinkers, maybe not the politicians in all cases) is something like classical liberalism plus prudence (plus some Judeo-Christian values).<br /><br />-redonkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466544526845171847.post-16199006202467576882010-07-22T01:57:21.158-07:002010-07-22T01:57:21.158-07:00I think there's a lot that to say here that ca...I think there's a lot that to say here that can't really be said without defining the terms we want to use. Like what is meant by conservatism? The conservatism of the Republican party is pretty far from both "the negation of ideology" and from classical liberalism, but maybe a more philosophical conservatism fits that bill. <br /><br />"Prudence and judgment" can't possibly be the defining qualities of a philosophy though. There's no singular notion of prudence or good judgment, so really all that means is that conservatism doesn't blindly suggest things that are contrary to what is good. But that very same can be said of most if not all serious philosophies.<br /><br />I think though that if you're talking to someone who feels a solution is applicable independent of time and place, he probably hasn't found the objectively true answer so much as not taken into account time and place. Maybe a lot of people feel time and place have no bearing in libertarian thinking, but I don't think that's necessarily true. <br /><br />Atheism, for some people (myself included), simply says "I see no evidence for god, so I don't believe in god any more than I believe in unicorns, which also lack evidence." But I certainly see evidence for liberty every day: I seem to choose the things that I do every day. Whether or not the universe is determined, everyone perceives free will, and it still makes complete sense to talk about it. To begin with the assumption, true or not, that there is no free will is essentially meaningless. The answer to every "Why?" is simply "Because," and it is literally impossible for you to change anything so why bother? In fact, you can't even bother not bothering, you just... do what is determined. Even if the world is determined, there's a very real, universal human notion of free will which cannot be ignored.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06622603609776849905noreply@blogger.com