[Zerogouki]

Besides, nobody talks more about the state than libertarians.

Yeah, in the same way Richard Dawkins rails against creationism.

Tell me what being a disciple of the state entails.

Trusting the state to be the solution to all of your perceived ills.

Liberals are forever trying to change the state.

Yes... to give it even more power over the economy, over our guns, over the media, over who employers can or cannot hire...

Disciples do not try to change. They follow.

Trying to change the state is their equivalent of prayer.

Conservatives follow established norms. That may signal "discipleship"... and the answer to the original question is ''''no, conservatives are''''.

Neocons are disciples of the state. Paleocons are not. Paleocons want to make the government less powerful in a lot of areas.

The two are very different. Just lock John McCain and Ron Paul in a room and let them argue with each other, and the differences will be like night and day.

[ninurta]

[]Neoconservatives and modern leftists are both disciples of the state. Only libertarian-minded folks are not.[]

The statement is nonsense. Besides, nobody talks more about the state than libertarians.

Yeah, in the same way Richard Dawkins rails against creationism.

QFT!!!

Tell me what being a disciple of the state entails.

Liberals are forever trying to change the state. Disciples do not try to change. They follow. Conservatives follow established norms. That may signal "discipleship" but the liberal's constant attempts to change the state signal the opposite. [/quote]
Just like disciples of christianity never change.

As for what being a disciple of the state entails, thinking that the state is the answer to all problems is one of the things.

So the whole premise of the thread is flawed and the answer to the original question is ''''no, conservatives are''''.

No, just Neocons + Neolibs.

This is an amazingly pointless discussion. How amusing!

[hip hop bunny hop]

Neocons are disciples of the state. Paleocons are not. Paleocons want to make the government less powerful in a lot of areas.

An accurate example of a Paleoconservative would be Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's agenda includes: ensuring that whites of Western European descent remain the majority in the USA, decrying the "radical homosexual agenda", forcing prayer on children, eliminating reproductive rights, etc...

Surely, if only those policies were enacted there would be less government intrusion.

The two are very different. Just lock John McCain and Ron Paul in a room and let them argue with each other, and the differences will be like night and day.

This is true, but Ron Paul is not a paleoconservative. Ron Paul is arguably a Libertarian, or just a Republican who takes the Southern Strategy to heights never before seen, as suggested by the below quote:

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,”

[TheGoatman1]

I don't consider "modern liberalaism" to be worship of the state. Wanting the government to work for the people, and to ensure that everyone has access to quality medical care isn't state worst at all. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread the concern of government control over the Media,healthcare,the economy and who gets hired/fired. What you should be more concerned about is that corporations are in control of those things. Their only concern is short term financial gains. In my mind, you have two options, and only two: Big government, or big business. Now if the people truly controlled the government, we wouldn't even relly have g government, we would have "big people", or "big democracy". Wouldn't that be nice? Just picture it!

[Zerogouki]

Buchanan's agenda includes: ensuring that whites of Western European descent remain the majority in the USA

Citation/source?

decrying the "radical homosexual agenda",

Or in other words, maintaining the status quo. We already have DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell". How much more intrusion could he possibly advocate in this area?

forcing prayer on children,

"State-sponsored" does not equal "forced"

But yeah, he is kind of a dick about that one.

eliminating reproductive rights, etc...

If by "eliminating reproductive rights" you mean "protecting the right to life", then yeah. Believing that a government should investigate and prosecute homicide isn't really a radical, far-right concept.

I don't consider "modern liberalaism" to be worship of the state. Wanting the government to work for the people, and to ensure that everyone has access to quality medical care isn't state worst at all.

Expecting the government to be Santa Claus, with the ability to magically produce wealth out of thin air, is worship of the state.

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread the concern of government control over the Media,healthcare,the economy and who gets hired/fired. What you should be more concerned about is that corporations are in control of those things.

I'd sooner trust a few million corporations who are competing with each other for my money than trust a bloated, corrupt, inefficient government monopoly/bureaucracy that is not accountable to anyone and is not required to stay competitive.

Their only concern is short term financial gains.

No, their concern is long-term financial gains. The ones that are only interested in short-term gains don't last long... unless bailed out by Uncle Sam, which I vehemently detest.

In my mind, you have two options, and only two: Big government, or big business.

I pick Big Business. My copy of Windows XP works way better than any government agency I've dealt with. This pizza from Pizza Hut is pretty good, too.

Now if the people truly controlled the government, we wouldn't even relly have g government, we would have "big people", or "big democracy". Wouldn't that be nice? Just picture it!

True democracy is a horrible failure because it boils down to tyranny by majority. That was how Prop 8 got passed.

[hip hop bunny hop]

Citation/source? ? really? He's been pretty vocal about it, and he writes about in "Death of the West" and in other places. He actually was explicit in decrying the immigration reforms of 1965 because they made it easier for non-western whites to immigrate to America.

"State-sponsored" does not equal "forced", really? Come on, in practice it will be forced.

If by "eliminating reproductive rights" you mean "protecting the right to life", then yeah. Believing that a government should investigate and prosecute homicide isn't really a radical, far-right concept. - yeah, it is. Likening a first trimester abortion to homicide is a far right concept.

[TheGoatman1]

I pick Big Business. My copy of Windows XP works way better than any government agency I've dealt with. This pizza from Pizza Hut is pretty good, too.

Corporations can be more efficient. Yes, but you must understand in some situations efficiency isn't what matters most. Windows XP works great (vista, not so much! That is why I use Macs), but people who don't have 123 dollars get nothing. So when coporations are in charge, more people sufer than neccessary. i would gladly sacrifice efficiency for Justice anyday, even if it costs a little more.

[Zerogouki]

people who don't have 123 dollars

...are free to use Linux.

when coporations are in charge, more people sufer than neccessary

History proves the opposite to be true.

In 1964, the health-care system of the United States was the envy of the whole world. It provided the highest quality of care at prices that nearly everyone could afford, and by some amazing coincidence, it was also almost totally privatized. In 1965, we got Medicare and Medicaid. Ever since then, the Federal government has gotten more and more involved in medicine, and now our medical system is the laughing stock of the industrialized world. Coincidence?

In 1952, we had the best educational system in the world, and had no Federal Department of Education. In 1953, Eisenhower decided to get the government's damn dirty nose into the matter. Ever since then, government has gotten more and more involved in education. Now our educational system is the laughing stock of the industrialized world. Coincidence?

[TheGoatman1]

...are free to use Linux.

Excellent metaphor! We need something like Linux for healthcare and education I agree. Not quite as efficient, but available to people who can't afford it. I didn't know you were for the public option?

As far as your examples, correlation doesn't equal causation. if you are going to put forth that government involvement mucked things up, please describe in detail how this occurred.

[Zerogouki]

Excellent metaphor! We need something like Linux for healthcare and education I agree. Not quite as efficient, but available to people who can't afford it. I didn't know you were for the public option?

Our government spends 700 billion dollars per year developing Linux? Since when? I always thought that Linux was something that a bunch of volunteers did on their own time and dime. My bad.

[TheGoatman1]

Fair enough. As soon as anti-government involvement types donate enough money and volunteer time to cover all americans healthcare, I'll stop advocating for government coverage.

[Zerogouki]

cover all americans

Wrong.

We would only cover those who can't afford it.

This sort of dishonesty is making me weary and sick. Not just from you, not just from the left even... from everyone. Even my hero RPA is spouting some homophobic crap in another thread and making the rest of us libertarians look like douchebags.

Is it really so hard to debate without distorting your opponent's position? Really?

[hip hop bunny hop]

libertarians look like douchebags.

Just because Ron Paul dresses like a dork doesn't mean ALL libertarians dress like dorks.

[ninurta]

Is it really so hard to debate without distorting your opponent's position? Really?

Aparently so. I wonder if we can even have a civilized debate where we debate the other person's actual position and not work to dismantle and build it into something it is not.

Fair enough. As soon as anti-government involvement types donate enough money and volunteer time to cover all americans healthcare, I'll stop advocating for government coverage.

I am against voluteering to help "all" americans, I'd rather help give healthcare to a Darfuri than to Bill Gates since the rich can afford it just fine. All we want is donations to help those who can't afford it, that won't be hard to achieve. We'll build casinos if donations don't add up. Or even sell marijuana when we unban it.

[ALiberalMind]

But please just move to Argentina. I don't want my kids to live their lives as servants to the state here in America.

Yeah! Cause you know, countries like Somalia with no form of government are ever more prosperous! Oh wait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

I'd recommend doing some reading on the Gilded Age.

[ninurta]

Yeah! Cause you know, countries like Somalia with no form of government are ever more prosperous! Oh wait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

I'd recommend doing some reading on the Gilded Age.

Funny video, but it is based on a idea that is just wrong. Somalia is not libertarian.

[Zerogouki]

I'd recommend doing some reading on the Gilded Age.

You mean the 50 years of virtually uninterrupted economic growth during which blue-collar wages rose faster than at any other time during America's history?

Yeah, that was horrible.