Comments on Point/Counterpoint: United We Slave: The National Fascist League Backs...

Conservatism is a term that only makes sense in a ...

2009-11-25T14:19:19.825-08:00

Conservatism is a term that only makes sense in a specific context. Objectivism is much more explicit philosophically. Anonymous, you might be confusing conservatism from an American constitutional point of view (which I favor) with neoconservatism, which I vehemently oppose.

I don't know about others, but I'm not even a cons...

2009-11-23T08:52:59.975-08:00

I don't know about others, but I'm not even a conservative. I'm an Objectivist. I can't even imagine anything that Bush and Objectivism have in common.
As far as conservatism is concerned, it's a pretty vague word. As to "economic conservatism", Bush's policy was anything but, because he presided over one of the largest expansions of big government in U.S. history. As to "social conservatism", it's just hideous bullshit that I have never espoused.

Yes I hear this all the time from conservatives th...

2009-11-23T04:01:56.530-08:00

Yes I hear this all the time from conservatives that "Bush was not truly one of us!", it is a convenient dodge.

First, I believe that in many cases religious char...

2009-11-22T11:43:45.601-08:00

First, I believe that in many cases religious charity also follows the no-strings-attached model. At least my experience shows that. Second, the more moderate version of charity that you’re describing is just a different type of the same phenomenon. I do admit that in some rare cases, if you can afford it, you can help a person out of pure humanism, as it were. This especially applies to emergencies. However, most charities, even the moderate ones that you mentioned, treat the entire human life as one uninterrupted emergency. I don’t see why such charity is necessary and I cannot see anything beneficial in it. At least in a civilized and relatively free society, in an overwhelming majority of cases one can earn one’s living and has no need to resort to charity, even to the moderate kind. If he does resort to it, he aspires to the unearned and lays a claim on others’ lives. If he subsequently allows others to lay a claim on his life through the same mechanism, it doesn’t absolve him.
I believe the difference between these two kinds of charity is basically the same as the difference between social democracy and communism – in essence, they’re the same. The pure “self-help” model is earning money through your own effort. The pure “no-strings-attached” model is the radical version of charity. The moderate kind of charity is just a mix between those two.
This is one of the reasons why I hate Christianity – Christian charity was the prototype of the welfare state from the very beginning. And even a degree of coercion was involved – since the tithe paid to the church was mandatory.

ReaganX, we may be conceiving of charity different...

2009-11-21T17:33:48.069-08:00

ReaganX, we may be conceiving of charity differently. I've always preferred church charity, the validity of religion being a separate point, becausea person seeking help had to face the people who he was asking help from. The person, if he was normal, usually felt an obligation to return the favor or get his act together - at least if his conscience was worked on enough through church attendance. Secondly, charities like the Salvation Army go by the philosophy of helping people to help themselves. The Salvation Army helped my grandfather when he arrived to the U.S. from Germany and they gave him a place to stay, practice good hygiene, and helped him get a job. After that, my grandpa would donate to the Salvation Army each year to help those who were in a similar position as he was when he arrived. This is not exactly like "no strings attached" charity, it is more about promoting human dignity than dependence. The government welfare state, on the other hand, promotes dependence and a sense of entitlement to the fruits of other people's labor and is thus obviously more reprehensible. Then there are the leftist "charities," which are neomarxist propaganda mills straight from the Frankfurt School, such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace (a former president and co-founder of Greenpeace admitted that the reasoning behind Greenpeace was 100% politically driven rather than environmentally driven and eventually he became frustrated with how far left it was becoming and thus quit). The leftist charitable organizations promote altruism through charities to coax people into valuing 'joinerism' more than rational self-interest. It is essentially a way of prepping people for slavery.

There’s one thing that I disagree with, though. I ...

2009-11-21T16:06:54.131-08:00

There’s one thing that I disagree with, though. I think charity is wrong not only when used by either Obamaoists or Bushite idiots for political purposes but INHERENTLY wrong. Aiding someone you value IS NOT charity. Aiding someone you don’t value IS charity and represents AN EVIL, not a good.

"will not find Bush-lovers."

2009-11-21T15:48:16.674-08:00

"will not find Bush-lovers."

Mr Anonymous, however hard you try, you will not B...

2009-11-21T15:47:50.976-08:00

Mr Anonymous, however hard you try, you will not Bush-lovers here. You're asking the wrong person. Bush is just a milder version of Obama. Compassionate conservatism is a moderate version of socialism.

"United We Suck."

2009-11-21T15:45:27.839-08:00

"United We Suck."

Since when are conservatives all consumed with com...

2009-11-21T12:43:58.144-08:00

Since when are conservatives all consumed with competition? Do you think competition drove the sweetheart deal Bush got when he was in a jam down in Houston before he was governor?