-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter Buckeyeskickbuttocks
- Start date
I'd like to retract my previous statement. I hear Tressel teaches fundamentals, so they're a-okay in my book.
Upvote
0
Fungo Squiggly
Mortal enemy of all things Bucky
Yahoo Pickem Champ
Former Game Champion
'18 BPCFFB II Champ
'18 Keeper League Champ
GoBucks89;1178666; said:
i just ask for accurate reporting.
oops, i guess the buckeyeplanet site is not as reliable as some people think.
Upvote
0
Fungo Squiggly
Mortal enemy of all things Bucky
Yahoo Pickem Champ
Former Game Champion
'18 BPCFFB II Champ
'18 Keeper League Champ
FCollinsBuckeye;1178672; said:
That's what YOU say.
Upvote
0
Bucky Katt;1178676; said:
I can unequivocally say that I have NEVER said that.
I have typed it, however.
Upvote
0
As to BKB's question. Well, I'm not sure I represent the "conservative" position on fundamental rights, but here is a quick synopsis of my thoughts.
The concept of fundamental rights is a construction of the modern western mind that has never really existed. We talk about fundamental rights as if they are the rights we had before entering into a society. We like to think of the romanticized individual, presented by philosophers like Locke and Rousseau or found in fiction like Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, who existed independent of others, but at some point found it beneficial to enter into soceity and therefore give up some of the "rights" they had in nature, but not all of them. However, anthropology and history has shown us that such individuals never existed other than the hermit who divorces oneself from society. (So in a sense, in the isolated cases it really is man moving from society to nature, rather than the other way around.) Man has always been a societal being existing in a group. Even the rugged individuals of the frontier wilderness existed in societal structures, even if that society begins at the most basic level of the family unit--however defined.
This being said, when I think of the rights that I believe we should have, it is not that they come directly from the government, but rather they are the rights that either the collective majority or those who hold/held power over a group/society/political identity has decided to allow individuals to have because they are not perceived a threat to the existence of the society. Obviously, each group/society/political identity is going to define these threats differently based upon their understanding of how the individual/the group/and "god" all associate with each other.
Let's the example of defining marriage. If you look at the history of marriage across all cultures, it is distinctly a social institution. It is a creation by societal structures (whether they be government or not) that exists for the benefit and well-being of the society. The notion that it is an action of two individuals choosing to commit themselves to each with only the well-being of those individuals a necessary consideration is an abborition of history unique to the west over the last 50-200 years (I could make arguments for either of those time periods). Therefore, to say that individuals have a right to marriage that originates beyond what a society says is marriage makes zero sense. Individuals may have a right to enter into a relationship with each other, but by definition only the group/society/political entity gets to decide if the relationship constitutes marriage or not.
The concept of fundamental rights is a construction of the modern western mind that has never really existed. We talk about fundamental rights as if they are the rights we had before entering into a society. We like to think of the romanticized individual, presented by philosophers like Locke and Rousseau or found in fiction like Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, who existed independent of others, but at some point found it beneficial to enter into soceity and therefore give up some of the "rights" they had in nature, but not all of them. However, anthropology and history has shown us that such individuals never existed other than the hermit who divorces oneself from society. (So in a sense, in the isolated cases it really is man moving from society to nature, rather than the other way around.) Man has always been a societal being existing in a group. Even the rugged individuals of the frontier wilderness existed in societal structures, even if that society begins at the most basic level of the family unit--however defined.
This being said, when I think of the rights that I believe we should have, it is not that they come directly from the government, but rather they are the rights that either the collective majority or those who hold/held power over a group/society/political identity has decided to allow individuals to have because they are not perceived a threat to the existence of the society. Obviously, each group/society/political identity is going to define these threats differently based upon their understanding of how the individual/the group/and "god" all associate with each other.
Let's the example of defining marriage. If you look at the history of marriage across all cultures, it is distinctly a social institution. It is a creation by societal structures (whether they be government or not) that exists for the benefit and well-being of the society. The notion that it is an action of two individuals choosing to commit themselves to each with only the well-being of those individuals a necessary consideration is an abborition of history unique to the west over the last 50-200 years (I could make arguments for either of those time periods). Therefore, to say that individuals have a right to marriage that originates beyond what a society says is marriage makes zero sense. Individuals may have a right to enter into a relationship with each other, but by definition only the group/society/political entity gets to decide if the relationship constitutes marriage or not.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
BGrad,
It sounds as though you reject the notion that mankind is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".
Interesting.
It sounds as though you reject the notion that mankind is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".
Interesting.
Upvote
0
MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
As well you should. I definitely resent the rise in influence of social conservatives in the GOP, and I do not tolerate them very well.buckeyegrad;1178654; said:
My opinion is that social conservatism is not generally compatible with libertarian views. Social conservatives try to criminalize all sorts of things that the libertarian believes should be a matter of personal choice. Abortion rights, gay rights, flag burning -- these are all areas in which the Christian right (= social conservatives, by and large) have attempted to legislate behavioral limitations where libertarians (who may find the behaviors odious) think government should butt out. One area where libertarians may agree with social conservatives is in school prayer, but as one wag said - prayer will exist in school so long as teachers are handing out tests.
These are gross generalizations, I'm aware, so your mileage may vary.
Upvote
0
MaxBuck;1178685; said:
I take your point here well, but you said "liberterian fiscal conservative", so I was assuming you were limiting your comments only to fiscal issues where I am certainly in that camp; not the broader idea of general liberterianism. Of course, I would also argue that liberterianism in general has never been part of the foundation of the GOP (and only fiscal liberterianism since the 1950s with the rise of William Buckley's brand of conservatism).
Upvote
0