Look, a Liberal at Free Republic!

I'm not posting here to argue or incite a flame war. I am not posting to change anyone's mind about anything. I am posting here because I want to understand the Conservative viewpoint. I'm here to listen, but I have some questions.

http://www.conservatism.com/CustomPage.asp?WEBSVCID=1155&SID={8D0C2C23-7287-400D-ADB9-0EF7C5A3056A}&MID=118

I don't know if that document truly represents conservatism or not, but it seemed consistent with what I've seen in popular media (and on the web). But it raised some questions for me. I was hoping visitors of Free Republic would be willing to give their personal viewpoints on a few questions.

Here are my questions. The word "you" here refers to any conservative willing to post their opinion. (I got most of these questions by reading what others have said about conservatives, so that's why some of my questions sound like a test.)

3. Did your father use corporal punishment to enforce discipline? (Were you whipped, beaten, or spanked when you misbehaved?) If so, how frequently? (Once per year? Once per day?)

4. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "To be morally strong, you must be self-disciplined and self-denying. Otherwise, you are self-indulgent and such moral flabbiness ultimately helps the forces of evil."

5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Punishment is nurturing in that it teaches discipline, self-reliance and respect for authority."

6. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Your poverty or your drug habit or your illegitimate children can be explained only as moral weakness and any discussion of social causes cannot be relevant."

7. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The highest moral good is nurturance, including empathy, fairness and protection, but not painful punishment."

8. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Obedience comes out of love and respect for the parent, not out of fear, and strength is in the service of nurturance."

9. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "'Conservative tolerance for inequality' [as described by liberals], should, in fact, read intolerance for forced equality, and acceptance of the natural order of things in which inequality is generally the rule. "

10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The modern North American liberal is 'a keen advocate of change mainly to fulfill his/her ego needs -- needs for power, influence, self-advertisement, self-promotion and excitement.'"

11. Is it possible for a Liberal to be a good person? Is it possible for a Conservative to be a bad person?

12. Is morality (by which I mean right and wrong) absolute, as described in the bible, or is it relative?

14. Which statement do you agree with more: "people are generally good and trustworthy" or "people are generally bad and will try to harm you"?

15. Is corporal punishment (discipline through whipping, beating, or spanking) an acceptable practice?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, do have anxiety (or fear) in your life (on a day-to-day basis)?

"I want to steal from Joe. Should I do this? Well, if everyone were to steal from Joe, would I be happy? Sure I would because I hate Joe. "

The catch to my philosophy is that you must be able to reason. Pulling random questions out of one's anus does not work. (Joe, and your hatred of Joe, have nothing to do with stealing.)

The question would be, "Is stealing moral?". "If everyone were to steal, would I be happier?", or put a simpler way, "Do I want to live in a world where my stuff is always getting stolen?" The answer is no.

M-PI: "You worship no god?"

FreeRepublicLoginName: "That is correct."

M-PI:"You're actually saying that there is nothing in your life that functions as an ultimate concern for you."

FreeRepublicLoginName: "No, that's not what I'm saying at all. ...you are asking me what my "ultimate goal", my "purpose" is. .. My answer is: to be happy. My purpose in life is to be happy".

Once again, your answer shows you to be a very illogical person. Here are the facts:

One of the definitions of god is: something or someone of supreme value -- something or someone that functions as as an ultimate concern in a person's life.

We all care about many things: love of family, the condition of one's home, taxes, war and peace, etc., etc., but for each of us, there can be only one ultimate concern, something so important and valuable that we are willing, at the moment, to sacrifice almost anything for it. (One's ultimate concern can change over time, but that doesn't change the fact that we all have one at all of our stages of life).

You have identified your own personal HAPPINESS to be the thing that functions as your ultimate concern -- the thing you prize, and value most highly at this stage of your life.

FreeRepublicLoginName:I would be grateful if you could provide me an example of "holding opposite attitudes and beliefs at the same time." (cognitive dissonance)

You just provided an example of it yourself. If you really aren't illogical, you will be able to see it.

You said you had no beliefs and no god.

Then you said that happiness is your god at this moment.

That, my friend, is cognitive dissonance.

To the degree that a person exhibits intellectual dishonesty, that is the degree to which they are emotionally and spiritually immature.

Tell me, is there such a thing as absolute truth?

"that is necessary to understand the conservative viewpoint."

The big problem with your question is that there is not a specific "conservative viewpoint" in the same way as there is a "liberal" viewpoint.

"Liberalism" as the leftist philosophies are called today, are all derived from socialist philosophies. Conservatism, or the "Right," on the other hand, can be anything under the sun as long as it is not the Left.

A quick look around this site ought to make that plain enough.

You cannot put us into some neat little box. But then, that has always been the thrust of leftist philosophy, putting everyone into a box designed by the state. It is part of the reason why leftist philosophies are totalitarian philosophies. And I suspect that you are already quite aware that "conservatives" do not fit into such boxes.

"You have identified your own personal HAPPINESS to be the thing that functions as your ultimate concern -- the thing you prize, and value most highly at this stage of your life."

This statement is true. It seems to be a restatement of what I already posted, so I do not understand your point.

I also fail to see how my "answer shows [me] to be a very illogical person". I am curious; rather than explaining your viewpoint, why do you say: "If you really aren't illogical, you will be able to see it"? (I could very well make that same statement about you, and it would get us absolutely nowhere.)

I'm beginning to notice a feature of conservatives. They have their beliefs, which they accept as true from the outset. When it comes time to defend those beliefs through reason, conservatives make strange, illogical arguments that cannot be followed, like the Chewbacca Defense.

It is for this reason that us Liberals seem to "blow off" your arguments so much of the time. It's not that we arbitrarily choose to reject your evidence, or disrespect your arguments -- we argue amongst ourselves all the time, and are usually fairly open to new viewpoints. It's that your evidence is not evidence at all, and really makes absolutely no sense. (Defending an argument by quoting from the Bible is one example. Referring to disproven "facts" as truth is another.)

"You said you had no beliefs and no god.
Then you said that happiness is your god at this moment. "

Well, if you assert that me pursuing my happiness is equal to "happiness is [my] god at this moment", then I guess I would agree. Does pursuing my happiness in life really mean that I have "beliefs"? I would say no, but it's a nice topic for discussion.

"To the degree that a person exhibits intellectual dishonesty, that is the degree to which they are emotionally and spiritually immature."

So the fact that I don't consider "pursuit of happiness" to be the same as "beliefs" means that I'm "intellectually dishonest and emotionally and spiritually immature"?

"Tell me, is there such a thing as absolute truth?"

Yes, I think that the Universe we live in (and share) is the absolute truth.

I also think that no human has every known the absolute truth about any topic. Instead, we have models -- some of which are very, very precise and accurate -- but all of which are not "truth".

'"Liberalism" as the leftist philosophies are called today, are all derived from socialist philosophies. Conservatism, or the "Right," on the other hand, can be anything under the sun as long as it is not the Left. '

It's very funny to see you write this, because I think Liberals would say the same thing about conservatives (replacing "socialism" with "facism").

Actually that seems to be true with a great many of the statements I've seen conservatives make... perhaps we have more in common that we like to admit.

The catch to my philosophy is that you must be able to reason.

Have you read Benjamin Frankin's autobiography, by chance? His philosophy was quite similar. He came to the realization that we should live by the Biblical Commandments because reason tells us that living in that manner is good for us and good for society.

For Franklin, this worked very well as he was meticulous in examining his reasons from all sides. It may work well for you. I believe that your philosophy would work very poorly for most people. We are seeing this now as mothers and fathers abandon their families in the name of happiness. They even convince themselves that their children will be happier despite the emotional pain BECAUSE the parent is happier. Most people are not reasonable. Most people are selfish bastards.

It's very funny to see you write this, because I think Liberals would say the same thing about conservatives (replacing "socialism" with "facism").

There is hardly any difference at all between socialists and facists and neither is conservative. Hitler, often called a facist, did not believe in personal freedom, private property, or human rights.

We conservatives DO believe in these things as long as one is not infringing upon the rights of others. Conservatism taken in the extreme would be anarchy, not facism.

They have their beliefs, which they accept as true from the outset. When it comes time to defend those beliefs through reason, conservatives make strange, illogical arguments that cannot be followed, like the Chewbacca Defense.

Please tell me, do you support abortion but abhor the death penalty?

Innocent babies ought never be killed. That is why we are against abortion. But sometimes war HAS to be fought. It is for the greater, global good. This is much different from a woman saying, "For MY good, I will kill this child."

The same applies to the death penalty. Some people are so unconcerned with the law or rules that they cannot be allowed to live free amoung people. It is right that they be eliminated, then by no chance will they be released, or escape to kill again. Some here, concerned with problems in the judicial system, no longer support the death penalty. IF we could be positively assured that liberal judges would not release dangerous predators onto our streets, even less people would support the death penalty.

To allow dangerous despots to continue torture, to kill innocent babies in the womb, and to allow dangerous killers to walk our streets is hardly a "compassionate" choice.

The main point I was trying to make is that there is no underlying "conservative" platform that we all follow, although there will be some conservatives who will claim theirs is the only true "conservatism." I personally despise leftist philosophy, as I believe it cannot help but be totalitarian.

Consequently I find myself on the "Right," merely by virtue of opposing the Left.

However, I think you will find that "conservatism" includes anything from libertarianism to the Religious Right.

When I call myself a conservative, I mean that I wish to conserve the principles on which I believe our country was founded: personal liberty and individual freedom. These principles are consistent, IMO, with classical liberalism, as followed by our founding fathers, which is very much the opposite of what is termed liberalism today. Libertarianism is somewhat closer.

perhaps we have more in common that we like to admit.

I hate to start on that supposition except to say that I'm inclined to agree. I'm pretty sure that a discussion of such could be interesting. There's no doubt in my mind that there are many on both sides who are not believers in freedom.

"Most people are not reasonable. Most people are selfish bastards. "

This statement coincides with the predictions made by those 4 nutty Berkeley professors. Conservates tend to believe this (according to that "study"). In my experience, people are generally good (and only human), and if people would stop closing their minds with religion then their honor and reason would shine through.

I've noticed that the more of a "bible thumper" someone is, the more of an immoral, hippocrat lifestyle they lead.

"Have you read Benjamin Frankin's autobiography, by chance?"

Benjamin Franklin is one of my life heroes. I try very hard to be like him. Here are a couple of quotes by Benjamin Franklin that make me think he was a liberal:

On the Iraq war:
"There has never been a good war or a bad peace."

On Ashcroft, the "PATRIOT" act, War on Drugs, and Dept. of Homeland Security:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety "

"He came to the realization that we should live by the Biblical Commandments because reason tells us that living in that manner is good for us and good for society."

Yes, I remember reading this from him. Actually, I agree with that statement 100% -- the virtues of the bible are both good and reasonable, and people should follow them. (But that does not imply that God exists or is real. Note that the virtues of the bible are the same virtues of the Koran, and of the Tao Te Ching.)

It's also interesting to note that he did NOT attend church and believed that worship was a very personal thing, not to be taught by any church authority. (He was a Deist.)

In my view, there are perfectly good reasons that the commandments in the bible are good to follow. It may surprise you, but I live by Christian values more than most of the Christians I've met. But the fact that those virtues are good does not imply that all the mysticism in the mythology of the bible is true. I think that is something Franklin would have agreed with.

"Hitler, often called a facist, did not believe in personal freedom, private property, or human rights.

We conservatives DO believe in these things as long as one is not infringing upon the rights of others. Conservatism taken in the extreme would be anarchy, not facism. "

This is hilarious because if you replace "Conservatism" there with "Liberalism" you'd have some of the standard fare from liberals, right down to the bit about Anarchy. (When I read Anarchist writings they sound like Liberal writings taken to extremism.)

It sounds like there's common ground here. Either that, or Dianna is half way to becoming a liberal and just doesn't know it yet :)

This statement coincides with the predictions made by those 4 nutty Berkeley professors. Conservates tend to believe this (according to that "study"). In my experience, people are generally good (and only human), and if people would stop closing their minds with religion then their honor and reason would shine through.

And therein lies our problem. You look at the world with murderers, rapists, thieves, cheaters of all sorts and those who are just plain mean and still somehow see good. While commendable, I submit that it is illogical, unreasonable and the source of all disagreement between us.

A very liberal cousin of mine and I were talking about social welfare programs. I told her that if tax rates became high enough my husband would quit work to go fishing. We were already at the point of turning down overtime because the time away from home wasn't worth the money earned. She insisted people would still work, and work hard just for the love of their fellow man, because they are soooo goood.

Funny, that at the time, I was a stay at home mom. I and my children had food, clothing and shelter. We had our needs satisfied as well as many as our wants. As long as that was the case, I had little incentive to work.

How many people in France took their annual August vacations leaving behind elderly relatives and understaffed hospitals?

It sounds like there's common ground here. Either that, or Dianna is half way to becoming a liberal and just doesn't know it yet :)

Our ways of achieving these ends are different. Personal freedom does not equal abortion because the right of the baby are interfered with. Personal freedom does include the right to choose your own car. There is no infringement of freedom in that case as car emissions contribute little to pollution and one is paying for his or her own gas.

How on earth do liberals think they support private property rights? Liberalism taken to the extreme is about government control of everything. We've seen it. That isn't anarchy but could lead to anarchy, I suppose when the people rebel.

Extreme conservatism becomes libertarianism where everyone is doing their own thing, often stepping on others toes, government is not involved, and business would be in control as much as the people would allow.

"Please tell me, do you support abortion but abhor the death penalty? "

Saying that a liberal "supports abortion" is like saying a conservative "supports kids dying from gun-related accidents". I think abortion is bad, as do most every person, but I think the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her life, body, and health overrides my personal opinion about abortion (or anything else, for that matter).

I see the death penalty as different, because, unlike an abortion, my tax dollars go to support the institution that is actually killing the person. A civilized society has no need for something as savage as a death penalty. Knowing that somebody "bad" has died does not make me feel better about the world. And given the number of times we've been wrong (given recent advances in DNA evidence) the risk of killing an innocent person is not worth the benefits of knowing that a "bad" person has died. (Actually, I see no benefits to knowing that a "bad" person has died.)

"But sometimes war HAS to be fought."

This is not actually true. War never "has to be" fought. It is your personal anxiety and aggression at the world that makes you have this view, and if you could get over it the world would be a much safer place.

"It is for the greater, global good."

Look at the pictures in the links I gave you. Look at the faces of the people. Imagine if it was your family, your mother, your baby who was accidentally bombed by the not-so-smart bombs. Would you consider that to be the "greater, global good"?

The people dying in Iraq are not the people who did 9/11. They are civilians (7000 so far) who are as innocent as the ones who died in the twin towers.

This is not actually true. War never "has to be" fought. It is your personal anxiety and aggression at the world that makes you have this view, and if you could get over it the world would be a much safer place.

Are you saying we should never have fought Hitler? We should never have fought the American Revolution which has brought freedom and prosperity and hope to millions?

Imagine if it was your family, your mother, your baby who was accidentally bombed by the not-so-smart bombs.

Sometimes 100 must be killed to save 1000. Do you not agree, given the numbers of corpses in mass graves that Saddam and sons would have killed many more given the next 30 years to do so than our bombs killed?

It is awful that innocents die in war. We do our best to confine the killing to combatants but that isn't always possible. Supporting increases in military spending would help us to develop "smarter" and more precise weapons.

About abortion vs gun control...with abortion there is no stated right to kill babies in the Constitution. There is no greater good aside from the mother's own personal satisfaction. She has the ability to control her life without abortion, she simply has to show personal responsibility.

Gun rights are explicitly in the Constitution. The ownership of guns prevents far more deaths and crime in sheer numbers vs accidental deaths. And the ownership of guns keeps our government on notice that we will and can fight back. This contributes toward keeping our society free. If the United States falls, freedom will be almost impossible to defend the world over. Much, much greater good.

'In my experience, people are generally good (and only human), and if people would stop closing their minds with religion then their honor and reason would shine through. '

"And therein lies our problem. You look at the world with murderers, rapists, thieves, cheaters of all sorts and those who are just plain mean and still somehow see good. While commendable, I submit that it is illogical, unreasonable and the source of all disagreement between us. "

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you!

This view of the world as "murderers, rapists, thieves, cheaters" (and "meanies") is something I am very interested in. I, too, see this viewpoint as a major source of the liberal/conservative split, if not _the_ source.

I submit that you would be happier in life if you would let go of your fear. People are not out to hurt you. (Not even black people.) The Fox nightly scarenews does not represent the real world. Liberals are not out to take away your rights. If you leave your door unlocked at night you will not be killed in your sleep. "Africanized Killer Bees" are not migrating to your home state. If you misbehave, you will not go to hell.

It's okay to feel good about the world. Try it for a week, and (assuming you survive all the murderers and rapists) you are guaranteed to feel better about yourself. Living in fear devalues your life, your humanity, and your happiness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.