Rightists versus Leftists -one of the most fundamental arguments

[Angmar_nite]

Today me and my favorite history teacher had a extremely heated debate starting from comparisons of Machiavelli, Locke, and Hobbes and ending with the importance and meaning of rights.

She is a pretty left winged person while I am moderately right winged.

Basically the discussion was that originally the government defended the LAND it owned and the materialistic values of it. Then Locke came along and (Along with that one French guy whose name slipped my mind) proposed that the government existed in stead, to protect the rights of its people. Hobbes to the contrary supported the theory that all men were inherently evil.

While I may not go that far, the argument heated up. Both of us repeatedly used modern day events as well as historical ones as examples. She said that Patrick Henry had the right idea Liberty or Death. Rights could only be taken away should the victim willingly accept it or be proven guilty in the court of law.

That was basically a criticism towards Bush's recent policies such as his disregard of habeus Corpus. While, admittedly Bush did not avert them in a tact manner, he has every reason to be aloud to do so. Basically, I said, Bush defends our right to life over habeus Corpus. And to those who do not think America lives are in danger, yet another terrorist plot in my home (New york) has been foiled.

My teacher followed it up with the fact that the Americans of both the Union and the Confederacy fought for their rights. I countered that with the point that Lincoln who championed human rights and rights as a whole suspended free press and habeus corpus.

Now as much as I'm sure this is interesting to you all, I'd like to have your opinions. What do individual rights mean to you? What circumstances if any can they be bypassed?

Remember, ALL human rights. Including the right to LIFE.




Now to find a teacher who would give me a recommendation after this one so kindly said that as great and intelligent as I am, she would not forward a person who supported ideals so antagonistic to her own.

[Thanatos]

I'd rather have freedom than safety.

[Poisoner]

I stand with Patrick Henry.

[Angmar_nite]

What kind of freedom though? Total freedom? Ancient Greek freedom? Anarchistic freedom? And how much safety would you be willing to sacrifice for said freedoms.

Me, I just want a 95% chance that I'll live to a old age without a invasion or coupe that will threaten my life. If it costs 3 obscure freedoms that don't affect the vast majority of us for 5 of those years than so be it.

[tiki_rebb]

If your teacher argues that Locke finds men to be inherently good, she obviously hasn't comprehended the work. Locke was a devout protestant, and his Puritan tradition recognized the inherent evil of man. However, Locke and his intellectual fellows (see the New Model Army debates at Putny) recognized that government was even more prone to evil than men in the state of nature. In Locke's view, there was a Natural Law that men tended to adhere to, revealed by God through scripture and reason. Locke's idea was that government had limited power to preserve men against the evil of others by enforcing natural law.

Hobbes, on the other hand, valued order above all. A closet Atheist, Hobbes believed that the state of nature was a war of all against all, and that government was a tool for limiting the destruction caused. Hobbes' natural law was one of contracts between men, not one laid down by The Supreme Judge.

Machiavelli ought not factor into the conversation. The political environment of Renaissance Italy was so markedly different from Civil War Britain that it is difficult to compare the two. A better comparison would be Machiaveeli's The Prince and his own Discourses on Livy, his works on principalities and republics, respectively.

Finally, the American Left is so divorced from the Founding Fathers that your teacher has little right to invoke Patrick Henry. Henry, of all people, would have grasped the concept of Locke's State of War. In war, aggressors forfeit all natural protections, and combatants have greatly expanded liberty to attack their foes. In war, government has a right to suspend Habeas Corpus under the Anglo- American liberal tradition of Locke and Milton that Henry ascribed to. Consider this: would Henry have thought his own hanging unjust? No, he would expect nothing less as punishment for his rebellion.

[kev-o]

I would prefer safety over freedom. Nowadays the terrorists are using American civil liberties against us. If they claim to the rights upholded in the constitution and are given a pass for it, but later do a terrorist act, then what freedom is there for the American citizens? No one has freedom if they are dead from a terrorist act.

[Chaigidel]

half of the current "terrorist plots" are straw dogs ! ! i really dont believe that any of them would have been enacted , nor do i think the "terrorists" acted without encouragement from FBI informers, or the terrorists themselves are simply supremely the low ring of competent terrorists, because frankly I dont see alot of sophistication from these recent "catches"

[Angmar_nite]

My own eyes watching the smoke rise from the ruins of the WTC did not see straw dogs. We ignored Bin Laden's threat and promise once are we so foolish as to do so again?

Every major paper in the United States reported that an attempt to blow up massive pipes of Jetfuel under the ground was foiled by an (ex-drug dealer) informer.

There was even a topic on TWC about that.

[Chaigidel]

yeah but I also saw that anyone who knew the air port or how fuel worked would have known that blowing up the pipes would just cause a minor fire with no casualty because of the numerous shutoff valves all along the line---they would have to set off a mile of explosives to rupture the line and even then it would shut off at the tanks and if they did the tanks they were all away from people--- 9/11 was not a straw dog nor was many other plots im sure-- but i seriously think these little groups they pick up are barely threats at all

doesnt mean they shouldnt be arrested for being dumbasses

[Angmar_nite]

If no deaths, at least a tremendous amount of resources would be wasted repairing the damages and ensuing investigations. Are you recommending taking in these poorly planned attacks every few months and a well planned one every decade and just shrugging them off?

[David Deas]

I think it's hilarious how such a fake threat has rooted itself so deeply in the consciousness of the right. The war on terror is a confirmed joke. But it just goes to show that if you repeat something often enough, eventually people will start believing it.

[tiki_rebb]

I think it's hilarious how such a fake threat has rooted itself so deeply in the consciousness of the right. The war on terror is a confirmed joke. But it just goes to show that if you repeat something often enough, eventually people will start believing it.

I hope you didn't have any credibility to begin with, because if you did... well... it's gone.

9/11, USS Cole, WTC Bombing, Embassy Bombings, terrorism in Iraq (not the resistance mind you, but the monsters that bomb markets and schools), the countless plots, public and otherwise, against Western interests. The WOT is real. End of story. That said, it would be better labeled War on Islamic Fascism, terrorism being a tactic. For example, the War on German Fascism would not be aptly described as "The War on Blitzkrieg".

That said, as an extreme conservative (in the American sense, Classical Conservative Liberal for those who have had a decent political education), I say Liberty (capital "L" on purpose) over security ANY day. But we have to remember that the Laws of Nature that bestow Liberty also bestow the right to extreme measures in her defense. The two can be balanced without compromising either. For example, a US Citizen detained on suspicion of financing Terrorism has a claim to his or her Civil Liberties. An illegal alien arrested for conspiracy has some basic liberties, but their relationship to the state is not one that gives them claim to all legal protections. An individual captured on a battlefield is in a clear State of War against the state and her citizens, and their political liberties are forfeit. Read Locke on the subject for a clearer explanation.

Please forgive the pompous tone.

[kev-o]

If everyone is killed than there is no freedom people will enjoy because everyone is dead.

[kev-o]

I hope you didn't have any credibility to begin with, because if you did... well... it's gone.

9/11, USS Cole, WTC Bombing, Embassy Bombings, terrorism in Iraq (not the resistance mind you, but the monsters that bomb markets and schools), the countless plots, public and otherwise, against Western interests. The WOT is real. End of story. That said, it would be better labeled War on Islamic Fascism, terrorism being a tactic. For example, the War on German Fascism would not be aptly described as "The War on Blitzkrieg".

That said, as an extreme conservative (in the American sense, Classical Conservative Liberal for those who have had a decent political education), I say Liberty (capital "L" on purpose) over security ANY day. But we have to remember that the Laws of Nature that bestow Liberty also bestow the right to extreme measures in her defense. The two can be balanced without compromising either. For example, a US Citizen detained on suspicion of financing Terrorism has a claim to his or her Civil Liberties. An illegal alien arrested for conspiracy has some basic liberties, but their relationship to the state is not one that gives them claim to all legal protections. An individual captured on a battlefield is in a clear State of War against the state and her citizens, and their political liberties are forfeit. Read Locke on the subject for a clearer explanation.

Please forgive the pompous tone.

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think foriengers should recieved the same constitutional rights as Americans. There needs to be a seperate system of laws that are only for foriegners who come here under a visa or greencard. To give the constitutional rights to everyone would mean giving it to the terrorists in Gitmo. They would recieve a trial buy jury even though they are not American and they are enemies.

[tiki_rebb]

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think foriengers should recieved the same constitutional rights as Americans. There needs to be a seperate system of laws that are only for foriegners who come here under a visa or greencard. To give the constitutional rights to everyone would mean giving it to the terrorists in Gitmo. They would recieve a trial buy jury even though they are not American and they are enemies.

I would disagree, and here is why.

I believe that, constitutionally, such a system would pass muster. The Federal Government has the right to establish courts and their jurisdictions, and a Guest's Court could be established. The tricky part is that most criminal offenses are matters for the states, and each state would need its own system. This would be incredibly costly. Further, as a nation founded on Liberty (although never truly realizing it), we ought to err on the side of too much freedom. Those who reside in our country legally ought to be extended the courtesy of a fair shake. It may exceed our moral obligation, but nevertheless I feel it is right.

By the way, thanks for the backup

[VoodooTengo]

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think foriengers should recieved the same constitutional rights as Americans. There needs to be a seperate system of laws that are only for foriegners who come here under a visa or greencard. To give the constitutional rights to everyone would mean giving it to the terrorists in Gitmo. They would recieve a trial buy jury even though they are not American and they are enemies.

Thats the sort of attitude thats a problem, a lot of them aren't terrorist per se they are people who fought agaisnt America and were captured, but by no definition terrorists, and they deserve a trial because a lot of them have no valuable intelligence, pose no threat to America, and will be there indifinately. Plus giving them trials and not making it seem like an indefininte detnetion facitilty would help us gain goodwill whcih we desperately need.

[tiki_rebb]

Thats the sort of attitude thats a problem, a lot of them aren't terrorist per se they are people who fought agaisnt America and were captured, but by no definition terrorists, and they deserve a trial because a lot of them have no valuable intelligence, pose no threat to America, and will be there indifinately. Plus giving them trials and not making it seem like an indefininte detnetion facitilty would help us gain goodwill whcih we desperately need.

Sure, they might not be "terrorists", just as a member of the US CIA isn't a lawful combatant. But anyone running around with an AK shooting at Americans in a war zone is a combatant, an unlawful combatant at that. Judicial processes do NOT apply to these folks. The label "terrorist" might not apply, but they surely do not have a right to a trial. If China invaded the US, and I bore arms against them as a civilian, I would not expect the Geneva convention to apply. Heck, a goodly number of the combatants detained in Iraq and Afghanistan are foreign to those respective states.

As for the image point, yeah, we take a hit. But "'tis better to be feared than loved". I'd rather win a war and be unpopular than lose one. The strong are feared, the weak despised. Besides, fear and love are compatible. The rest of the world just needs to get their heads straight.

[Last Roman]

I think it's hilarious how such a fake threat has rooted itself so deeply in the consciousness of the right. The war on terror is a confirmed joke. But it just goes to show that if you repeat something often enough, eventually people will start believing it.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

[tiki_rebb]

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

I could say the same about those who deny the war is real. I think it's safe to say that when fighting and killing and dying occurs on this scale between two or more factions, there is a war on.

"A witty phrase proves nothing" (Voltaire, was it?)

[tiki_rebb]

I'm done with this thread, we are far enough off topic. I hope we helped illustrate the modern applications and permutations of Lockean, Hobbesian, and Machiavellian thought.

You know what they say about arguing on the internet...