If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?

Do we need to continually reinvent terminology in order to repeatedly expose a prevalent problem???

 

Wrong!! any society will have some shared beliefs so you cant believe anything even in America and for example be a statist Nazi. Make sense?

 

Please don't be a fool, we can always accuse the other of having reading comprehension problems. It means less than nothing without very specific support. Do you understand?

 

??? obviously if you think they are dead wrong you would refuse to become them or to become like them. And??

 

No it does not, a mans beliefs are his own and the state can stay the hell out of it as long as he is not hurting anyone. I dont care if you are a nazi, Muslim, transgender, that loves the idea of eating babys for lunch. As long as that person does not hurt anyone, pays their taxes, and follows the law of the land, let them be.

 

sure, in America you can believe in Nazi statism but probably you should be monitored in case the beliefs become deeds. Make sense?

 

eating babies for lunch is against the law and Nazis inevitably want to more than believe. Do you understand?

 

let them be?? So if 1000's were becoming Nazis on the way to millions you would let them be because you have no sense of right and wrong?

 

Their thoughts are their own and again: As long as that person does not hurt anyone, pays their taxes, and follows the law of the land, let them be. It is like free speech, I believe that it is the speech I detest the most that has to be protected the most vigorously. Because some day the things I say and believe though right and rational to me may be seen as detestable by the majority.

 

So a few Nazis on the way to millions would not bother you because you have no judgement Makes you wonder why Founders argued for Constitution that had so many restrictions in it?

 

What a dumba$$ thread.

 

I think I would be bothered by that and I would vote for candidates that speak out against it, teach my children that they are wrong, and speak with my community about it. But I will not have the rights of citizens trampled upon in order to silence belief. It the same reason you do not give up freedoms for security. All of a sudden you are not free or secure. Our rights are precious and we must stand against any erosion of them by the state. Not one step back should ever be allowed.

 

Somebody got a brand new paperback of the Constitution from the Cato Institute. A lot of thought went into the OP. Respect it for what it is.

 

It's just a cheap putdown, as you well know.

 

Nothing bad would or should happen to them. They would get hired into the private sector with the windfall gained by not paying near as outrageous amounts for incompetent, abusive, corrupt, rotten central federal government.

Then they would be forced to do the work of one worker instead of 1/3 a worker, working for a legitimate business as opposed to a corrupt crony contractor, university, public union or nonprofit, to do that work in the form of 20-30 hours of actual work per week instead of 10, and to live on the same benefits and retirements that their betters in the private sector must.

 

So, put downs are the exclusive rights of conservatives, only??? Where in the Constitution does it mention that rights of citizens are contingent to ideological philosophy???

 

Put downs are fine. I enjoy all sorts of put downs, no matter who says them.

But yours are stale and unimaginative. They are, in a word boring.

Your don't want to be boring, do you? Use some imagination. Show the world how clever you are.

You have a right to be boring, to be sure. But your readers won't know you from the vast unwashed mass of unimaginative and monotonous progressives. I certainly can't. You are just a generic brand. Boring.

What this world need is better and fewer progressives. Try harder and make the cut.

 

The OP seems to be the biggest statist on this forum, and yet wants to outlaw statists. The irony is overwhelming.

 

Traditional conservatives? Maybe to an extent. The modern party of Trump? That's hilarious.

 

So that's Trump's appeal. . . . He keeps you entertained. I won't bother you further with my boring responses.

 

I agree. It isn't that conservatives have reading comprehension problems. It is more like some get so emotionally attached to their "ideas" that everything else gets twisted to conform.

 

I was thinking Mars

 

Dear @james M
Given that liberalism (and Constitutionalism for that matter) are both beliefs or creeds (albeit political),
The Constitution cannot make anyone's beliefs illegal. For that would be contrary to the First Amendment.

However, I think what we can argue is that Liberalism cannot be imposed through govt,
and taxpayers cannot be forced to pay for Liberalist policies against our beliefs,
including our Constitutional beliefs, by the same respect for First Amendment free exercise,
and equal protections of the laws from discrimination by Creed.

What we can do is agree to compel such Parties to pay and manage their OWN beliefs
for their OWN members voluntarily. And only where the public AGREES to adopt programs,
policies and beliefs into govt laws could those be supported by CONSENT of taxpayers.

But in no way can beliefs be imposed on the public,
nor can govt be abused to force people to change or comply with one belief or another.

The problem is the First Amendment has only been interpreted to mean certain
religious beliefs, even Atheism which is a secular and not an organized belief system,
but has not been applied to political beliefs.

I don't see why not.

If you are interested in such a reform movement, to recognize political beliefs
as included in First and Fourteenth Amendment protections, I'm already with you on that!

In this sense, it is unethical and unconstitutional for parties to impose their political beliefs
and creeds through public laws or govt, and especially to punish or tax people as a way
to compel them to comply with beliefs against their free choice, will and consent.

So if that is what you mean by making it "illegal [to impose through govt]", yes,
we could argue for this by way of the First Amendment expanded interpretation
to include political beliefs. Where govt cannot be abused either to prohibit or to
establish them. And the alternative would be to recognize party organizations
and platforms as political religions and beliefs, and require they fund their own
policies and programs instead of imposing these through govt on taxpayers by force of law.

 

In all your loonyness you have hit upon the difference between conservatives and liberals. Yes I am a liberal and I stand behind the state. But that is what conservatives like you, or should I say Libertarian cult members, so oppose. Do you not realize that the Constitution is an instrument of the state? If you oppose the state, then it only follows that you really don't care about the Constitution.

In our current climate, the opposite of a statist (using your cult's terminology) is a corporatist. In a state, one has rights, freedoms, and benefits. In a corporation, one gets only what one's higher ups decide. In a state, the security of the state allows me to get whatever treasures I have the wherewithal to achieve. And the state won't fire me.

 

It is usually referred to as The Constitution. Where are you from?