AgGrad99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Who actually says "nation of immigrants"? Check out their backgrounds.

1. New immigrants themselves - Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Pakistanis, Syrians, Africans. Why? Because it benefits them and can be used against white Americans who have been here for 100s of years.
2. White liberals - They get to virtue signal about how unracist and un-xenophobic they are. They are the loud types who post on social media so everyone knows.

That is mostly it.

Immigrants from the 90s usually DO NOT say it because they don't want the US destroyed. White Americans who have been in the US for 100s of years do not say it but feel uncomfortable speaking up lest someone labels them a racist and a hater and cancels them.

---

And my issue, isn't even the phrase itself.

We are a nation of immigrants. I'm proud that the world sees us as a Melting Pot. It's actually quite extraordinary, that we've been so successful, melding so many diverse cultures into one.

But the phrase is ignorantly twisted to mean we should allow illegals to flood the country; rather than a process which is organized and beneficial for both the immigrant and our country.

I am friends with several people who have gone through the process and became citizens. They are from Mexico, Brasil, S.Africa, the Middle East. They are extremely proud to be Americans now (and despise illegal immigration). That's how it should be!

---

The change is that we moved away from a cultural foundation of "Melting Pot" to one of "Mixed Salad" which preaches separate but equal cultures. The left in this country successfully usurped this founding principle some time ago like they have everything else. And as we all know, not all cultures are equal. Most, if not all, are inferior to ours which is why we've been so historically successful because the people coming here from all over the world knew this to be true and willingly assimilated into our superior culture.

If we had been policing illegal immigration like Trump has done all of these years and focused on a legal immigration process that prioritized needs, we would be in a much better position.

No Spin Ag said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Muslim immigrants are the LAST group any civilized and modern country should be taking. I am sorry, but if you are head over heels for a genocidal pedophile who forced a SIX yr old girl into marriage to be his sex slave, you are a horrible person. Even if you just loosely pledge allegiance to that perverted monster and don't act out his violent commands. We already have too many muslims and Trump needs to implement a complete and total ban on Muslims from ANY country.

I am fine taking Christians from these countries fleeing Islamic persecution, but that is it.

---

When was the last time you went to a medical doctor, especially a specialist that had a Anglo name? Most that I see today have last names of Khan, Agarwal,Masud and other similar names. The only Anglo one I see is my GP.

---

I have a fully Americanized Vietnamese-American female doctor as my primary physician, but you aren't wrong...lots of unfriendly third world robots in medicine nowadays. When our daughter was born in 2021 we were given a list of potential pediatricians and I immediately weeded out all foreign sounding names. Settled on the guy with a normal anglo name and could not have been happier. Even my asian wife agreed that any foreigner, especially female, would be a full on Covid-Karen who was incapable of relating to their patients or listening to them, or, heaven forbid, actually thinking outside of the box on things...and outside of the manual. She knew a white guy would almost assuredly be the most practical.

One of the best decisions we ever made. Can you imagine a muslim or asian/Indian female pediatrician for your child during the pandemic? F that lol

---

My foreign named specialist have been very good and personal. All US trained and raised in the USA. When my wife was a health director up in north Texas one of the pediatrician volunteers who gave of her time was a Muslim. Be careful with generalization.

---

Sorry, I don't have to admire or respect anyone who is in love with a genocidal pedophile like Muhammad. Or trust anyone whose religion says they can lie to and mistreat non-believers. Even Adolf Hitler didn't keep a SIX YEAR OLD GIRL as his sex slave.

I will be just fine in life without Muslims putting their pedo worshiping hands on me.

---

I pray that you are never in an accident and are unconscious and sent to the ER to save your life.

---

You just reminded me of an episode of The Jeffersons where George Jefferson saves the life of a white racist. When the racist is being taken to the hospital on a stretcher, he asks who he needs to thank for saving his life. The paramedic tells him it was George, and the racist says, "He should have let me die."

It's odd to think that people's racism is that strong, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who woud rather die than have their, or their familiy member's, lives saved by anyone they see as an "other."

---

It's not seeing a muslim as an "other". It's being unwilling to place a loved one's life in the hands of somebody whose religion directs them to harm the loved one.

The muslim can be a fantastic medical provider but can also deliberately mistreat a patient.

You can't see into the heart of a man to see if he obeys the country's law or the hippocratic oath or muhammad.

YouBet said:

---

Waiting on a Natty said:

---

Lots of people drive from San Antonio to Boerne (and other places) to get their DL renewed. So my guess these ME people drove over to Boerne from the Medical Center area of San Antonio.

---

I have to think this is it. Going to the DMV has been "globalized", if you will. Kind of like people going on medical vacations.

People will travel quite far to get an appointment at a far-out location, if they can get in sooner.

---

We have driven to Pleasanton and Castroville for DMV service in the past. I hear Austin wait times are even worse than San Antonio. It's a DMV thing. The state has totally effed it up. It has nothing to do with the Hajis

Burdizzo said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Waiting on a Natty said:

---

Lots of people drive from San Antonio to Boerne (and other places) to get their DL renewed. So my guess these ME people drove over to Boerne from the Medical Center area of San Antonio.

---

I have to think this is it. Going to the DMV has been "globalized", if you will. Kind of like people going on medical vacations.

People will travel quite far to get an appointment at a far-out location, if they can get in sooner.

---

We have driven to Pleasanton and Castroville for DMV service in the past. I hear Austin wait times are even worse than San Antonio. It's a DMV thing. The state has totally effed it up. It has nothing to do with the Hajis

---

Yep, when we lived in Dallas there were discussions on Metroplex board about the best places to go elsewhere in North Texas or even further because getting an appointment in Dallas was months out in many cases.

ME92 said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Muslim immigrants are the LAST group any civilized and modern country should be taking. I am sorry, but if you are head over heels for a genocidal pedophile who forced a SIX yr old girl into marriage to be his sex slave, you are a horrible person. Even if you just loosely pledge allegiance to that perverted monster and don't act out his violent commands. We already have too many muslims and Trump needs to implement a complete and total ban on Muslims from ANY country.

I am fine taking Christians from these countries fleeing Islamic persecution, but that is it.

---

When was the last time you went to a medical doctor, especially a specialist that had a Anglo name? Most that I see today have last names of Khan, Agarwal,Masud and other similar names. The only Anglo one I see is my GP.

---

I have a fully Americanized Vietnamese-American female doctor as my primary physician, but you aren't wrong...lots of unfriendly third world robots in medicine nowadays. When our daughter was born in 2021 we were given a list of potential pediatricians and I immediately weeded out all foreign sounding names. Settled on the guy with a normal anglo name and could not have been happier. Even my asian wife agreed that any foreigner, especially female, would be a full on Covid-Karen who was incapable of relating to their patients or listening to them, or, heaven forbid, actually thinking outside of the box on things...and outside of the manual. She knew a white guy would almost assuredly be the most practical.

One of the best decisions we ever made. Can you imagine a muslim or asian/Indian female pediatrician for your child during the pandemic? F that lol

---

My foreign named specialist have been very good and personal. All US trained and raised in the USA. When my wife was a health director up in north Texas one of the pediatrician volunteers who gave of her time was a Muslim. Be careful with generalization.

---

Islam calls for its believers to treat people of other religions badly. Whether by taxing them, forcing them to not do things that Islam prohibits, or by straight up calling for their killing.

It's very difficult to know if an individual is a 'good' muslim who follows islamic rules or a 'bad' muslim who can be trusted to not discriminate against people of other religions.

---

A good Muslim is actually a bad Muslim.
And a bad Muslim is actually a good Muslim.

Confusing but think about it.

infinity ag said:

---

Keep this in mind.

Muslims are nice people (mostly) when they are by themselves or in small groups. When they congregate into mobs, the little Muhammad within them comes to the fore and they transform into blood-thirsty barbarians.

So be careful before you say "My friend Akhmed is such a nice guy... he gave me biryani for Ramadan". Yes, but that is because doesn't have 100 military age Muslim men surrounding him. When he does, you will be mincemeat.

---

Bullseye. You never ever hear Muslims in the US condemning atrocities committed by their brethren whether in the US or across the globe. Make no mistake, they may be kind to you, but they would also celebrate your death under the right circumstances

CDUB98 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree, and as expected, you used the modern liberal examples as your basis.

You don't understand the concept from my point of view.

---

I understand that you don't understand what liberalism is.

---

Incorrect

You don't understand the difference between what the Founders were and what those *******s from the 60s onwards were/are?

Classical
Modern

Different ideologies. Barely overlapping. The modern a *******ization of the former.

---

The founders weren't strictly liberal. They were political philosophers who agreed to a large degree with Montesquieu, whose ideas were heavily influenced by his Christianity, and Aquinas among others, and they weren't a monolith. Their sole influence weren't Hobbes and Locke believe it or not. That's a lie. They definitely understood the pragmatic nature of liberalism as a political philosophy, and its limitations. they actually understood the need for religion in the public square. They understood community, and that people cannot commune around their differences.

Pointing to the founders as models of liberalism is such a lie. Actual liberalism cannot resolve conflicts of will except to side with the more debased will. If there's a difference between what you're thinking about as the 2 concepts of liberalism, it's just that one is downstream of the other.

---

I agreed with everything up until the bolded.

Why does it have to side with the debased will? I'd argue that the debased will is the one more likely to infringe upon someone else's natural rights.

So, we're not going to agree, obviously, but seems we've reached a point where we could now talk. Sadly, TA is not a great venue for it.

If, fundamentally, you don't believe the Founders had the best vision/version of gov't the world has come up with, then your only alternatives are eventually some form of authoritarian oppression. Either secular or theocratic. If you, personally, want an authoritarian theocracy, then we likely have no common ground.

Bottom line for me is: I do not want to be ruled. I will oppose any authoritarian gov't. I will support a gov't that wants to leave me the hell alone. In a very simplistic way, that is the compromise of the Founders.

Once the gov't became involved in social engineering at the Federal level, it was game over. I originally typed in a starting point, but didn't want to open that can of worms.

What we have today is a 100% illiberal gov't, and only getting worse. The solution should not be more illiberalism.

---

Because the law has to take a side, and liberalism's preference is secularism. There are no secular ideals that preclude debased anti-Christianity. It's rooted in a distorted view of freedom, that is actually willfulness. The ability to do whatever you want. Christianity is a constraint on your ability to do whatever you want. We either submit to rule, or we're an authority unto ourselves, which is liberalism. If I'm an authority unto myself, then I can do whatever I want.

Off topic sort of but privatize DL and vehicle registration and you'll be in and out 20 minutes after you walk in with no appointment.

cecil77 said:

---

In the current usage, you are misusing "liberalism". The FF were "classical liberals" which is, pretty much, now called "libertarianism".

You're incorrect on a bunch of other stuff as well, but it's just not worth engaging someone who is entrenched in their beliefs.

---

Tell me about what the libertarian presidential candidate thought. I think the founding fathers would hang that guy publicly.

Bob Lee said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I disagree, and as expected, you used the modern liberal examples as your basis.

You don't understand the concept from my point of view.

---

I understand that you don't understand what liberalism is.

---

Incorrect

You don't understand the difference between what the Founders were and what those *******s from the 60s onwards were/are?

Classical
Modern

Different ideologies. Barely overlapping. The modern a *******ization of the former.

---

The founders weren't strictly liberal. They were political philosophers who agreed to a large degree with Montesquieu, whose ideas were heavily influenced by his Christianity, and Aquinas among others, and they weren't a monolith. Their sole influence weren't Hobbes and Locke believe it or not. That's a lie. They definitely understood the pragmatic nature of liberalism as a political philosophy, and its limitations. they actually understood the need for religion in the public square. They understood community, and that people cannot commune around their differences.

Pointing to the founders as models of liberalism is such a lie. Actual liberalism cannot resolve conflicts of will except to side with the more debased will. If there's a difference between what you're thinking about as the 2 concepts of liberalism, it's just that one is downstream of the other.

---

I agreed with everything up until the bolded.

Why does it have to side with the debased will? I'd argue that the debased will is the one more likely to infringe upon someone else's natural rights.

So, we're not going to agree, obviously, but seems we've reached a point where we could now talk. Sadly, TA is not a great venue for it.

If, fundamentally, you don't believe the Founders had the best vision/version of gov't the world has come up with, then your only alternatives are eventually some form of authoritarian oppression. Either secular or theocratic. If you, personally, want an authoritarian theocracy, then we likely have no common ground.

Bottom line for me is: I do not want to be ruled. I will oppose any authoritarian gov't. I will support a gov't that wants to leave me the hell alone. In a very simplistic way, that is the compromise of the Founders.

Once the gov't became involved in social engineering at the Federal level, it was game over. I originally typed in a starting point, but didn't want to open that can of worms.

What we have today is a 100% illiberal gov't, and only getting worse. The solution should not be more illiberalism.

---

Because the law has to take a side, and liberalism's preference is secularism. There are no secular ideals that preclude debased anti-Christianity. It's rooted in a distorted view of freedom, that is actually willfulness. The ability to do whatever you want. Christianity is a constraint on your ability to do whatever you want. We either submit to rule, or we're an authority unto ourselves, which is liberalism. If I'm an authority unto myself, then I can do whatever I want.

---

The bolded part is where you, and many like you lose the entirety of understanding.

A basic tenant of freedom and liberty is that your rights end where my rights begin, and vice-versa. This in no ways gives anyone carte blanche to trample on anyone and everyone. I don't know how many times on this board I've seen some version of that idea written. I just roll my eyes and move on 99% of the time.

The securing of individual rights is where the function and structure of gov't come in, with the best example being what the Founders originally intended.

The very idea that government must be the social decision maker is a modern day, illiberal idea. I reject that completely. This country started going wrong the minute busybodies believed they had the right/authority to force others to do what they wish, rather than leave them alone.

The gov't does not have to take a side. The gov't should, as much as possible, be taking no side. It should secure individual rights and prevent another individual from trampling those rights....and vice-versa.

The idea that somehow Christianity is incompatible is incorrect, IMO. In fact, John Adams' quote that is so often posted here is spot for both our Constitution and the liberalism of that day to work. Why, because a strong Christian is orders of magnitude more likely to be self-sacrificial, which is essential in controlling oneself to not trample on others. Of course, our human nature throws up a giant asterisk on everything.

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

In the current usage, you are misusing "liberalism". The FF were "classical liberals" which is, pretty much, now called "libertarianism".

You're incorrect on a bunch of other stuff as well, but it's just not worth engaging someone who is entrenched in their beliefs.

---

Tell me about what the libertarian presidential candidate thought. I think the founding fathers would hang that guy publicly.

---

The actual Libertarian Party is full of whack jobs and should never be taken seriously.

Should gays be allowed to adopt?
Should effeminate men in dresses be allowed to teach children in the public schools?

Just a couple of examples. How does liberalism resolve these conflicts? Whose individual liberty should you violate? The law will either permit them or they won't.

CDUB98 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

In the current usage, you are misusing "liberalism". The FF were "classical liberals" which is, pretty much, now called "libertarianism".

You're incorrect on a bunch of other stuff as well, but it's just not worth engaging someone who is entrenched in their beliefs.

---

Tell me about what the libertarian presidential candidate thought. I think the founding fathers would hang that guy publicly.

---

The actual Libertarian Party is full of whack jobs and should never be taken seriously.

---

Oh. I was told that's what classical liberalism is called now.

Bob Lee said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

In the current usage, you are misusing "liberalism". The FF were "classical liberals" which is, pretty much, now called "libertarianism".

You're incorrect on a bunch of other stuff as well, but it's just not worth engaging someone who is entrenched in their beliefs.

---

Tell me about what the libertarian presidential candidate thought. I think the founding fathers would hang that guy publicly.

---

The actual Libertarian Party is full of whack jobs and should never be taken seriously.

---

Oh. I was told that's what classical liberalism is called now.

---

It's always qualified. Note words like, "small L libertarian", or close to Libertarian. The idiots and whacks drive sane people away.

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

In the current usage, you are misusing "liberalism". The FF were "classical liberals" which is, pretty much, now called "libertarianism".

You're incorrect on a bunch of other stuff as well, but it's just not worth engaging someone who is entrenched in their beliefs.

---

Tell me about what the libertarian presidential candidate thought. I think the founding fathers would hang that guy publicly.

---

A person misrepresenting a term does not alter it's meaning.

cecil77 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

In the current usage, you are misusing "liberalism". The FF were "classical liberals" which is, pretty much, now called "libertarianism".

You're incorrect on a bunch of other stuff as well, but it's just not worth engaging someone who is entrenched in their beliefs.

---

Tell me about what the libertarian presidential candidate thought. I think the founding fathers would hang that guy publicly.

---

A person misrepresenting a term does not alter it's meaning.

---

Exactly. Thank you!

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

In the current usage, you are misusing "liberalism". The FF were "classical liberals" which is, pretty much, now called "libertarianism".

You're incorrect on a bunch of other stuff as well, but it's just not worth engaging someone who is entrenched in their beliefs.

---

Tell me about what the libertarian presidential candidate thought. I think the founding fathers would hang that guy publicly.

---

A person misrepresenting a term does not alter it's meaning.

---

Exactly. Thank you!

---

But, that being said, terms, over time, do change meanings. "Liberalism" is one of them, which necessitated the use of "classical liberalism". As a stand alone term now, "liberalism" is in general "social liberalism", at least that's how 99.9% of people mean it.

Bob Lee said:

---

Should gays be allowed to adopt?
Should effeminate men in dresses be allowed to teach children in the public schools?

Just a couple of examples. How does liberalism resolve these conflicts? Whose individual liberty should you violate? The law will either permit them or they won't.

---

While big issues of today, you're nit-picking to try your point.

One could go into much deeper philosophical discussion around laws of nature and cultural norms on these before answering. But, I personally do not need to.

But, again, you are placing modern liberalism at the front, IMO.

From the time of the Founders, such ideas would be so societally unacceptable, they would not be an issue to even discuss. Should still be that way. Thus, society would take care of it and gov't would not need to. In a sane world, abhorrence of nature in not accepted.

Trying to translate to today's world, like every human, I have my own hypocrisies. To both questions, I would vote no, but for two different reasons.

1) From a purely governmental reason, again, see nature and the natural order of things. Children are the order of mother and father. Yes, I already know your next question is no-fault divorces. Don't even go there.

One could also argue that by allowing those, it is trampling on the individual rights of the child. A bit harder to bracket, but possible.


2) My own personal values say no, because it is against my Christian beliefs, but I do not expect the gov't to point its gun at someone else's head until they bend the knee and submit or the gov't pulls the trigger.

Herein lies the difference you authoritarians will never understand.

Yes, there are always exceptions to everything, and if you search hard enough, you will find them.

Society needs to right itself first. The gov't will then follow.

And before you want to pop off and quote me from above, first carefully read my words. There is nuance.

CDUB98 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Should gays be allowed to adopt?
Should effeminate men in dresses be allowed to teach children in the public schools?

Just a couple of examples. How does liberalism resolve these conflicts? Whose individual liberty should you violate? The law will either permit them or they won't.

---

While big issues of today, you're nit-picking to try your point.

One could go into much deeper philosophical discussion around laws of nature and cultural norms on these before answering. But, I personally do not need to.

But, again, you are placing modern liberalism at the front, IMO.

From the time of the Founders, such ideas would be so societally unacceptable, they would not be an issue to even discuss. Should still be that way. Thus, society would take care of it and gov't would not need to. In a sane world, abhorrence of nature in not accepted.

Trying to translate to today's world, like every human, I have my own hypocrisies. To both questions, I would vote no, but for two different reasons.

1) From a purely governmental reason, again, see nature and the natural order of things. Children are the order of mother and father. Yes, I already know your next question is no-fault divorces. Don't even go there.

One could also argue that by allowing those, it is trampling on the individual rights of the child. A bit harder to bracket, but possible.


2) My own personal values say no, because it is against my Christian beliefs, but I do not expect the gov't to point its gun at someone else's head until they bend the knee and submit or the gov't pulls the trigger.

Herein lies the difference you authoritarians will never understand.

Yes, there are always exceptions to everything, and if you search hard enough, you will find them.

Society needs to right itself first. The gov't will then follow.

---

So, punt...

Liberalism is a rejection of authority. Christians believe the government has a role in promoting justice. See the conflict?

Quote:

---

So, punt...

Liberalism is a rejection of authority. Christians believe the government has a role in promoting justice. See the conflict?

---

I didn't punt. I answered your question.

No, your brand of Christianity believes in gov't promoting "justice."

Now, define justice, because if you ask a hundred people, you'll get a hundred answers.

You are no better than the radical Muslims.

Quote:

---

Liberalism is a rejection of authority.

---

And dear Lord, we're back to this?

You were wrong the first time you wrote it, and you are wrong again.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Vepp said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

What kinds of immigrants do we want? Muslim? Hindu? Christian?

Two out of the three groups have a legal path, and I'll let you guess which ones.

---

Christian. Conservative voting educated Christians. That's who we want. Diversity sucks balls. Unity is our strength.

---

And not the squishy "classically liberal" type Christians who ceded culture by withdrawing God from public spaces. We want the Gen Z male Christianity that looks fondly upon the crusades.

---

Violence justified by religion. What could go wrong?

---

The principles of the crusades were both overdue and completely justified. Islamic conquest was encroaching on Europe from east and west; killing, enslaving, and raping. We exist as a nation in large part because the Christian men of midevil Europe took up arms to expel the hoards from their lands and preserve an enclave for their women and children.

So yes - the proper way to consider the crusades (at the big blue arrow level) is with gratitude. We don't need lukewarm self-loathing soft emasculated Christians. We need men who will embrace the masculinity necessary to identify destructive forces and shelter their families and communities from them.

---

The crusades were just as much about money as they were about religion. To quote from "The Ascent of Money", the crusades were "as much about overcoming Europe's monetary shortages as about converting heathens to Christianity" (25). Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon that quote yesterday.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, punt...

Liberalism is a rejection of authority. Christians believe the government has a role in promoting justice. See the conflict?

---

I didn't punt. I answered your question.

No, your brand of Christianity believes in gov't promoting "justice."

Now, define justice, because if you ask a hundred people, you'll get a hundred answers.

You are no better than the radical Muslims.

---

I can draw a straight line from committed liberals like you subordinating your religious beliefs to a belief in individual liberty, to the current state of the West. And you can't connect the dots for some reason.

What I'll say for Muslims to your point though, they actually understand religion and how it relates to the political.

Committed liberals. That's a funny one.

Oh, how horrible that I don't want gov't oppression. The horror.

You drew no straight line because you only see thing through the lens of oppression, and the very thought of not being able to oppress everyone into your version of Christianity enrages you.

I experienced something similar recently at a local park. Took the kids to the park near us, hadn't been in a while... packed with ninjas. I was like WTF?! When did this happen?!

WHO IS DOING THIS AND WHY?!?!

CDUB98 said:

---

Committed liberals. That's a funny one.

Oh, how horrible that I don't want gov't oppression. The horror.

You drew no straight line because you only see thing through the lens of oppression, and the very thought of not being able to oppress everyone into your version of Christianity enrages you.

---

How are you a Christian in any sense if you think Christianity is oppressive? That doesn't even make sense.

Bob Lee said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Committed liberals. That's a funny one.

Oh, how horrible that I don't want gov't oppression. The horror.

You drew no straight line because you only see thing through the lens of oppression, and the very thought of not being able to oppress everyone into your version of Christianity enrages you.

---

How are you a Christian in any sense if you think Christianity is oppressive? That doesn't even make sense.

---

Thank you for demonstrating very clearly just how much you don't get it.

I don't get it because it's incoherent. Oppression is inherently unjust.

In modern usage "liberals" want lots of governmental control and are essentially authoritarian. Think "social liberal". Oddly enough "social conservatives" are just as authoritarian. Both seek to regulate society to be what they think society should be.

Classical liberals, i.e. libertarians, believe the the fundamental purpose of government is to ensure individual liberty. When delved into deeply, that handles virtually all of the societal issues you've been mentioning. The problems is that governmental moral authority is to baked into most people's concept of "society" that they really can't parse through the notion of a libertarian society. Here's a hint: It wouldn't be what you're going to post in response, assuming you do.

cecil77 said:

---

In modern usage "liberals" want lots of governmental control and are essentially authoritarian. Think "social liberal". Oddly enough "social conservatives" are just as authoritarian. Both seek to regulate society to be what they think society should be.

Classical liberals, i.e. libertarians, believe the the fundamental purpose of government is to ensure individual liberty. When delved into deeply, that handles virtually all of the societal issues you've been mentioning. The problems is that governmental moral authority is to baked into most people's concept of "society" that they really can't parse through the notion of a libertarian society. Here's a hint: It wouldn't be what you're going to post in response, assuming you do.

---

How is it less authoritarian to foist your ideals onto the rest of us?

Edit: I can't think of a more oppressive government that one that's radically permissive.

Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.

It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.

Good example. The bathroom use issue a couple years ago. "Convervatives" came down on Target and others saying "you can't do that". That stance is actually the liberal (modern usage) stance. The conservative stance is "you're a private business, you can do what you want, but you have to post your bathroom policies on your front door". Then the consumer chooses. We've haven't stepped in to a Target since then.

cecil77 said:

---

Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.

It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.

---

No force? So a fantasy world?

cecil77 said:

---

Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.

It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.

Good example. The bathroom use issue a couple years ago. "Convervatives" came down on Target and others saying "you can't do that". That stance is actually the liberal (modern usage) stance. The conservative stance is "you're a private business, you can do what you want, but you have to post your bathroom policies on your front door". Then the consumer chooses. We've haven't stepped in to a Target since then.

---

So you think it should be legal for men to use the bathroom with little girls. That's what you just said.

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.

It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.

Good example. The bathroom use issue a couple years ago. "Convervatives" came down on Target and others saying "you can't do that". That stance is actually the liberal (modern usage) stance. The conservative stance is "you're a private business, you can do what you want, but you have to post your bathroom policies on your front door". Then the consumer chooses. We've haven't stepped in to a Target since then.

---

So you think it should be legal for men to use the bathroom with little girls. That's what you just said.

---

I think it should be legal for private business to do what they want regarding bathrooms, including not providing them. However, their bathroom policies should be clearly and prominently posted at the front doors, and a specific policy warning statement prominently posted on bathroom doors.