Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 04/06/2010 8:29:46 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
I disagree. I really don't think that conservatives "expect less of people". We expect people to do more for themselves and expect less of government. It also states the 'liberals welcome reforms', which is not true. This is a conservative value and position. We do not abandon our principles and philosophy of government but through a constitutional framework are actively engaged in the continual reforming of the process of governance so that the liberties and freedoms and benefits which it subsequently yields to our society might be sustained.
Liberals on the other hand want to 'transform' or 'establish' or otherwise 'change' the process of our governance to achieve vague and undefined values using whatever means, constitutional or not, they find necessary. It also states that conservatives 'are distrustful of the average citizen's ability to direct a government'. This is an absolute lie. The Constitution vests the ultimate power of all government squarely on the shoulders of 'the people', trusting them above and beyond the ability of ANY government or political entity. The structure of our government is heavily dependent on the active participation of a just and moral people and is well documented. It has been carefully designed with the understanding that the majority of the people are in fact 'good' and will recognize and respond to tyranny when it arises and move to defeat it.
The truth is that Conservatives distrust the power which government provides to the elected and, like the Founders, full well understand the nature of government to drift towards tyranny--- whether it be under the banner of 'protection' or 'provision' or 'utopia'. Therefore the Constitution and the framework which it establishes defines exactly what powers are held by the government and what powers are held by the people. It goes even further in that it recognizes powers that are beyond both, which cannot be violated by either, as they do not originate from any individual or by government decree but from the Creator alone.
The handout is a very poor reflection on the contrast and positions of the two positions sited. It offers neither historical or current objectivity and should be classified as political propaganda.
It’s amazing how one individual who is supposedly educated...can be so bloody ignorant. This teacher cannot even define the essential differences between Liberals and Conservatives. She gets it 100% wrong.
“From my studies, this analysis of philosophical/worldview differences is pretty accurate.”
Of course, it is not “pretty accurate.” At best it is a caricature of the differences between liberals and conservatives, and at worst it is full of intentional half truths. For example, take the statement, “most liberals do not believe in original sin, and as a consequence they feel people can be improved by education and knowledge.” The clear implication is that most conservatives believe in original sin and, therefore, do not believe people can be improved by education and knowledge. Ignoring all atheistic conservatives, ignoring the variations in the concept of “original sin,” and leaving aside the difficulty of accurately explaining any theological concept of original sin, there is probably no conservative who believes people cannot be improved by education.
The teacher could have easily made this statement much more accurate by saying that many conservatives believe people are flawed (excessive selfishness and guilt being chief among the flaws) and that education cannot completely cure the flaws in all people (and likely not in any people).
The two statements sound alike to someone who does not think about them very much, but they are very different. Because they are so different, and because it would be so easy to make the more accurate statement, the teacher is likely either rather dumb or rather devious (evil).
“The fallen nature of mankind is the reason we are told, in scripture, basically to ‘mind your own business.’”
I am not qualified to have much of a theological debate. However, the story of the Good Samaritan and Jesus’s great commission (”go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”) don’t seem to say “mind your own business.”
Take up your argument with Thomas Sowell.
This analysis follows his “Conflict of Visions” almost to a T, even though this analysis has a bit of a leftward slant.
What is meant by “improvement” is, on the left side, “perfection of intellect and morality” and on the right, the assertion that people cannot be improved through education refers to the “fixing” of the basic fallen nature of mankind.
No conservative believes you can “fix” the fallen nature of mankind, and this is the kind of “improvement” that the left believes possible through societal institutions and education. This is why they treat Ivy Leaguers as demi-gods.
“mind your own business” doesn’t mean ignore the physical or spiritual state of your fellow “God’s images”.
It means, or I meant by it, to do your best within your sphere of expertise or experience,
and don’t go telling someone operating outside of that sphere how they should do their jobs.
2 Thess 3:11-12 (right after 3:10 - work or don’t eat)
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.
Other verses command us to work diligently within our own calling, and not interfere with the work of others.
Libs feel and Cons think.
Libs feel that cons are mean.
Cons think libs are stupid (ideologues).
Therein lies the effort to propagandize.
Actually, the entire philosophy and principles underlying America's Constitution are based on the Framers' exceptional research and understanding of the historical struggle of individuals to be free from oppression by those who saw themselves as their "masters"--whether feudal lords, kings, rulers, or elected officials under some "government over people" scheme.
Those wise Framers were passionate about liberty. After all, their forebears in America had been enjoying a small measure of it in America for many decades, although limited by the King. Edmund Burke made that observation in his "Speech on Conciliation" before the British Parliament prior to the Declaration of Independence in America.
Once their philosophical foundations had been declared in 1776, they struggled to develop a form of self-government which would allow maximum ordered liberty for individuals.
In 1787, under heading of "We, the People," they declared the purpose of their document to structure that form of self-government which would limit the government and free the people.
Their understanding of human nature and the human tendency to abuse power caused them to write a document which would curb that tendency and limit it severely.
Jefferson (that Founder the liberals love to misquote) wrote extensively on the subject, and THE FEDERALIST contains several essays which deal with the Constitution's intention to curb that part of man's nature which tends to abuse delegated power.
The teacher simply doesn't understand history or the Constitution which allowed her the freedom to misinform her students.
". . . it was intended to bind them down by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson
Surely Jefferson didn't believe elected officials needed to be "bound down" because they were, by nature, good, gracious and ready to be trusted to "take care of" "We, the People." (Sarcasm)
Few days old, but you’ve got to check this one out.
I respectfully disagree. I would argue the opposite. This conservative believes that mankind's true nature is to be free, that only out from from the iron fist of government and regulation will mankind reach its true potential, a potential of greatness.
I think you misunderstand the “tragic view” of man’s nature.
It corresponds with the biblical “sin nature” of mankind,
where individuals cannot achieve a state of perfection morally or intellectually,
and therefore should not be given power over others.
I don't believe in the concept of good vs. evil, per se. Joy vs. sorrow is more accurate description. I don't believe in Satan or the devil as a tangible entity. I do believe that certain men are capable of doing evil things--which ultimately lead to sorrow. Man's nature is one of goodness.
My spiritual beliefs are not in line with many on this site.
I have done years' worth of ideological and worldview studies, and the basis of all ideological error is summed up in the above statement.
Anyway, I'm sure you know of Thomas Sowell. I'd suggest you read "Conflict of Visions" or at least the chapter of the same title in his latest "Intellectuals and Society". He addresses the "Tragic Vision" vs the "Unconstrained Vision" very well.
Thanks for the recommendation.
This ping list is for the “other” articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. Metmom holds both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
EXACTLY!
What a great definition.
Consider it stolen ;-)
That is a very optimistic view of pessimism. :)
Should make a good shirt for the TEA parties.
(I hope this type of handout is not what typically passes as "advanced placement" material. It looks and reads more like something written for the elementary or middle school level.)
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.