<p>
, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek = Win.</p>
<p>Otherwise, I’m going to stay out of this conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Way to demonstrate those critical thinking skills you were talking about by invoking a 19th-century English economist’s view on what “conservative” meant in 19th-century England. A quite different meaning than what “conservative” means today in contemporary American politics. The word “liberal” in the 19th century meant somebody who believed in maximum human freedom. Today they would be called libertarians or some strain of “conservative” in American politics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen sister! Take so-called “fair trade” for example. Every college student seems to favor it, I rarely hear anything bad spoken against it. It is merely assumed that this “fair trade” thing works out best for everybody, when in fact, with a basic understanding of economics, one can predict that “fair trade” only benefits the lucky few farmers who get to participate in the program while disadvantaging the much larger number of impoverished third-world farmers who are not able to participate because if they did it would bring the artificially high “fair trade” price back down. It’s econ 101 stuff, but don’t tell that to the guy feeling good about himself for buying a cup of fair trade coffee at the bookstore.</p>
<p>THAT is shallow, one-dimensional thinking, and that’s the type of thing I’m talking about. An older, more experienced, wiser person might stop and wonder how it can be sustainable to hold the price of a good above the equilibrium point (though they might not think about it in those terms).</p>
<p>Itachirumon, I was on the verge of respecting you in spite of our disagreements until you revealed how poor your understanding of so-called conservatives is. My view is that if a person’s attitude is “people who disagree with me are just evil or stupid,” then whether they are right or wrong about their <em>own</em> views, they themselves are not to be taken seriously because they haven’t taken the time to really understand the issues, which means understanding alternative points of view.</p>
<p>I consider myself anti-war and in favor of open, relatively unhindered immigration, but I perfectly understand that people very much in favor of war and militarism and strict limits on immigration are not necessarily, evil, or racist, or stupid, or whatever else you may think. In fact they make many very important points which are often ignored or swept under the rug by people who oppose war or favor open immigration. Your comment comparing modern-day social conservatives to lynch mobs, slave-holders, Jim Crow people, and the like, is pure slander.</p>
<p>As for the abortion issue, since you brought it up, let me ask you this: what other reason for being pro-life is there <em>apart</em> from considering an unborn baby to be a human with the basic right to life? If an unborn baby isn’t a human with the right to life, I cannot think of a rationale for being against abortion. So I don’t understand the pro-abortion crowd that wants abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Why wish for it to be rare if you have no moral problem with it? If it’s just another medical procedure? Nobody says the same thing about other procedures, with the exception of very painful and dangerous ones like chemotherapy. So why even “lean pro-life” AT ALL if you don’t consider unborn babies to be human beings?</p>
<p>Jumping off from there, IF unborn babies are human beings with the basic right to life, or if there is even a good enough reason for believing in the possibility, even if one isn’t sure, then the mother doesn’t really enter into it, does she? It’s not just “her body” anymore, but somebody else’s, right? This new human being, right? That’s IF you accept the idea, or even entertain the idea, that an unborn baby is a human being. If I told you I had a box that may or may not contain a baby and I pointed a gun at it, would you then say “I don’t think I’m comfortable with this, but that’s your box and not mine, so I won’t interfere with your right to pull the trigger”? Probably not.</p>
<p>So why the difference when it comes to abortion? I’ll tell you why: because you’re following the crowd. You’re following the liberal line about abortion-on-demand, the same way I used to follow the conservative line about war, the military, and illegal immigration, until I learned more about economics and history and those things were incongruous with my main views.</p>
<p>So why is abortion part of the liberal line? Why do people who purport to care about the down-trodden and the oppressed ignoring the most vulnerable, voiceless demographic there is, the unborn child? Well, why do conservatives, who talk about small government and human freedom, advocate using the power of the state to invade other countries and remake them in our image? The answers are a bit complex, and I won’t go into them here. But I wanted to ask the questions.</p>
<h2>It is absolutely imperative that everyone has the right to vote, no matter whether they pay taxes or not. The instant their right to vote is taken away, or even just diminished, we lose our democracy. Once one group’s right to vote is taken away, what’s to stop the government from doing that again to another group? Once you give the power to strip away voting rights to the government, the government isn’t going to be satisfied with just that sole group. Anyone who opposes the viewpoint of those in power will lose their right to vote. It may be a slow process at first, but eventually those in power will gain enough momentum to establish an authoritarian state. All because they had the power to let the voices of the people not be heard. ~ TheFatAnorexic</h2>
<p>In theory I agree with you, but in reality - it’s a tough pill to swallow, that’s all I’m saying.</p>
<p>The cold truth is that our government caters to the demands of the tax recipient, rather than the taxpayer - which is the engine of our economy. Eventually that engine is gonna burn out, which in my personal opinion is the intent of some politicians- burn out everyones engine, and force everyone to ride the government bus.</p>
<p>Whether you argee or not, there is something inherently with the way entitlements are being “marketed” by politicians. Their tactics are no different than a carck dealer. If you give them a taste, they will always come back.</p>
<p>The formula is simple. Money promised = votes. </p>
<p>Voting irresponsibly, especially under the premise of “I’ll get more money and free stuff”, is dangerous, period.</p>
<p>It’s basically like giving loaded a pistol to a toddler and saying, “have a good time”, then when the toddler shoots himself in the foot they all blame the gun, not the stupid person who gave it to them.</p>
<p>FatAnorexic, I disagree. For one thing, I believe the importance of an individual’s right to vote has been greatly overstated in this country, and elsewhere. But that’s a HUGE topic and I won’t go into it here. Let me just say that if you are not paying for government, you shouldn’t have a voice. Pure democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Let me point out to certain people among us whose reading skills require sharpening, that I am not against voting at all. Voting is an important check on government power. But it is only one check among many, and it’s debatable whether it’s even the most important check or not. And since voting is, in many ways, a way for the people to say how their tax dollars will be spent, only those who actually pay taxes should have a say. Letting people who consume government benefits without paying for them have a vote is like letting little kids who pay no rent to their parents have a vote on how much of the household budget is to be spent on video games and candy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know I’m just jumping into the argument, but this isn’t a very good comparison to make because it ignores the fact that most people seek abortions because of either a sexual mistake or an inability to provide for the future infant. Even if one believes that an unborn child is a human being with the basic right to life and the same feelings and emotions as an infant, what’s more humane - having an abortion, or leaving the baby as an orphan? Having an abortion, or raising the baby in a miserable household? These circumstances don’t exactly simplify down very well to your baby-in-a-box analogy.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, however, I’m a pretty strong liberal (most likely because I’m a high schooler), and I find that you’ve made some very cogent arguments throughout this thread. Recently, I’ve been speculating about my political future, and you’ve made it pretty clear. I respect that a lot.</p>
<p>If I ran the country (big sigh from CC readers that I don’t), your voter registration would be accompanied by a W-2. Even if it’s for minimal amounts, I don’t care. Just show that you’ve contributed to the system, and then please - by all means cast your vote.</p>
<p>Also, take a look at how some Democrats are against the most basic voter protection protocols, such as having to show ID when voting.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but if that doesn’t raise a red flag about their intentions, I’m not sure what does. </p>
<p>I need to show my ID for simple things like purchasing alcohol and cigarettes, using a credit card, getting pulled over for a traffic violation, and often times applying for a job, yet having to show my ID when voting is somehow off limits?</p>
<p>Obviously there is some suspicious intent…</p>
<p>I’m a liberal, and I think most of the leftist sentiments that abound on college campuses stem from students’ idealism; in addition, there are a number of socially-minded student groups that cater to these feelings and provide a productive outlet for them. However, I also think certain facets of intelligence (e.g. critical thinking and open-mindedness) lend themselves to liberal thinking.</p>
<p><a href=“e.g.%20critical%20thinking%20and%20open-mindedness”>quote</a> lend themselves to liberal thinking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>… lol</p>
<h2>I also think certain facets of intelligence (e.g. critical thinking and open-mindedness) lend themselves to liberal thinking ~ Apple1984</h2>
<p>Statements like that is why people don’t like liberals.</p>
<p>Herndon, Va.: Mr. O’Rourke: You are my favorite author. In your journey from “hippie dope-taking liberal” to “judicious alcohol-drinking conservative” was there any point where you looked at the history of your life and said “What the hell happened?”</p>
<p>P.J. O’Rourke: No. I had a clear road-to-Damascus experience. When I was a hippie I thought I was a Socialist. Then I got my first paycheck and found that state, federal and local governments took almost half my pay. Thereby I discovered that we had socialism already. And since I was opposed to the status quo I went out and joined the Republican Party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. I’ll file that away in my mental cabinet of “**** that doesn’t matter.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you weren’t. That’s impossible. Because I made no complaints about democracy, let alone irritated or self-righteous one. That’s what I’ve been saying. It is clear that someone **** in your coffee today because your response was totally out of proportion and nonsensical, as it was not based on anything I said. That is why I believe that something else has made you so bitter about this, and now it is my turn to feel bad for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I were happier, I would float around in a state of euphoria all the time. Moving would simply make me sad!</p>
<p>…So, after 4 pages, most of the answers to the question boil down to ‘because they’re ignorant/stupid.’</p>
<p>Good job being open-minded. OH WAIT, That’s only for stupid liberals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… Aren’t they? That explanation seems to work with all of our other discussions about college students.</p>
<p>I didn’t see anyone call college liberals ignorant or stupid.</p>
<p>I think the predominant answer has been that liberalism fits their lives better now, but that it often changes as one gets older.</p>
<p>
The funny thing is, I would like to have your point of view. I do believe that if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t deserve a slice of the pie. But I also have another, far stronger belief: Our government is inherently corrupt. Politicians will always be liars, cheaters, and slanderers. I never trust the state because the state will never be truly just. If you give that kind of power to the government, they can do whatever the **** they want. And what’s to say once they have taken your right to vote, they won’t take the other checks against government power away? The government is full of greedy, corrupt, unethical ******** who care only for themselves. </p>
<p>
There are very few things I hate more than people taking advantage of welfare. There really ought to be a law against this kind of behavior. I mean if I was that desperately poor and someone offered me free stuff, I would certainly say yes. It’s the fault of the politicians for exploiting this. When they should be trying to give people a leg up on equal opportunity, they are merely giving them the fruits of others’, namely everyone who works, efforts.</p>
<p>I think you’re mixing social liberalism with fiscal liberalism. </p>
<p>I am extremely socially liberal, but I am fairly conservative fiscally. I want the government out of my life and out of my wallet. That is why I support gay marriage, pro-choice, etc but I am also for lower taxes. </p>
<p>Younger generations are almost always more liberal than older generations. Our parents were more liberal than their parents and so on.</p>
<p>Oh, and also, the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to be liberal.</p>
<p>Why don’t you go back and read what you wrote and then try to say you didn’t complain about democracy. Also, why don’t you try coming up with your own ideas instead of using up space on the post to quote me…?</p>