Posted on 07/06/2005 10:01:01 PM PDT by annalex
If we as a society want to require two or four years paid service from young people, that's hardly slavery.
Interesting. I wonder if we just change around a few words here and there, we'll see how much that position stands on principals.
If we as a society want to require two or four years paid sex from young people, that's hardly prostitution.
If we as a society want to require two or four years paid abortion from young people, that's hardly contraception.
If we as a society want to require two or four years paid food and shelter for young people, that's hardly welfare.
If we as a society want to require two or four years of wages from young people, that's hardly an unfair tax.
If we as a society want to require two or four years of government run health care from young people, that's hardly socialized medicine.
Even indentured slaves in the early history of America were voluntary.
"Fair" or "unfair" has nothing to do with it. Enforced service and freedom do not go together.
One of mine is that Americans owe something to America.
On what truth is this principal based? I thought that rights were endowed by God. And that the founding principals of America were on restricting government.
The Germans owed the Nazi party something and the Russians owed the Soviets something. They sold their principles for a supposed patriotism that had no grounding in true philosophical principals.
But, as I said earlier, Conservatives are simply a different stripe of liberal with a different function. They are the lukewarm water that acclimates the "slowly boiling frog".
Then don't talk like one. If you have a argument that explains why the time and energy of a free person should be at the disposal of the State, I'd like to hear it.
Societies are cooperative ventures. Everyone has to compromise to a certain extent. We refrain from doing things we'd like to do, and do things we'd rather not, for the sake of the common good.
That's a self-evident truth. The only thing to quibble over is how much we want to allow our society to demand of us.
You think two years of community service is too much; I don't.
If we were to carry your argument a little further, we might ask what right the state has to demand that kids go to school.
"I wonder if we just change around a few words here and there"
All invalid analogies.
"On what truth is this principal based?"
No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
"I thought that rights were endowed by God."
If you believe in God, then you know that rights are only half of an equation, with responsibilities on the other side.
That aside, one of the rights cited in the Declaration is the right to order our society as we see fit.
As a matter of precedent, check out the US Code:
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
For the good of the child. Not for the good of the state. In this case, the state properly intervenes in the sacred relationship of child and parent only to the extent that it may be necessary to defend the rights of the child from a parental default of fundamental duty. However the state has no right to demand that kids go to school because it will make them "good citizens" or economically productive.
Whatever just powers state enjoys to intervene in private life derive from its mandate to be our servant -- not our master.
"However the state has no right to demand that kids go to school because it will make them "good citizens" or economically productive."
If we say it does, it does. We are the state. If we want to require service of young people to make them better members of society, that is quite within the constitution.
The fact that Karl is just now coming to this understanding of the NeoCon political media reinforces what has been obvious to many for years.
Karl Keating can apply his little analogy to my experience with his organization and his own publication "This Rock" several years ago. Why bother? There is much better apologetics and Catholic reading available in lots of different places.
It is nice to see Karl reveal this "inspirations" though.
"For the good of the child."
Hi, we're from the government, and we're here to help you.
No, that's social contract theory. You do know there are other organizational philosophies of societies right?
Social contract is a recent development that fueled the godless blood bath of the French revolution not to mention communism and nazism.
That the GOP and National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator and other organs of the neo-con propoganda machine have adopted Jacobin philosophy has become glaring obvious.
we might ask what right the state has to demand that kids go to school.
Good question, care to take a crack at it without resorting to rhetoric that is indistinguishable from that of Vladamir Lenin or Chairman Mao?
"No, that's social contract theory."
No, that's just life on Planet Earth. That's the way free people act, when nobody is pointing a gun at their heads trying to force some "organizational philosophy" on them.
I stopped subscribing to National Review years ago. Some of the old guard can be found at Chronicles. I used to subscribe to several periodicals; Reason, Conservative Chronicles, National Review, American Spectator, First Things, and Chronicles. Too much time was involved in keeping on top of all that reading. One by one I stopped subscribing. Reason went first as I didn't subscribe to the atomistic ethos of libertarianism. Conservative Chronicles went next as it was too topical. American Spectator was fun I liked Ben Stein's column but it was often too sensational. National Review is probably considered conservative by New York standards but creeping liberalism via the neo-conmen turned me off big time. Chronicles is consistent and traditional, I still subscribe.
And the source of all human rights, according to you. This is what passes for conservatism these days.
We have nothing further to discuss. Words fail me.
What is sad is that an educated adult could believe it is the only possible solution, there's your public education for you.
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Sounds familiar
His earlier stuff is still interesting. Some of it is relevant, some of it is merely historical arcana. Chambers stopped writing for NR for the same reason that I stopped subscribing. Buckley who was quite capable of sublime thought seemed bewildered by Chambers' resignation. Chambers' reasoning was that Buckley was a conservative while Chambers considered himself a "man of the right". IOW, NR and Buckley would always be conservative within a liberal paradigm, while Chambers considered Christianity as essential to a true traditional stance. A difference WFB once described as a difference between the status quo and the status quo ante. Neocons are status quo hence their compromising positions with liberalism while the paleocons are principle based and often appear as take no prisoners to the middle of the road conservatives.
Still one has to ask from time to time; What exactly are you conserving?
Hey, we're sympatico!
I'm not familiar enough with Keating's apologetics to know who he's refering to.
Well, since the crypto libertarians have decided to become abusive...
"Words fail me."
Apparently your little grey cells failed you first.
"And the source of all human rights, according to you."
Just to set the record straight, I am a practicing Catholic and hold that God is the source of human rights.
One human right God gives us, per the Declaration of Independence, is the right to establish government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.
Your inability to deal with that is no part of conservatism.
"We have nothing further to discuss."
Just as well. Doesn't look like you're up to it.
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.