"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."  John Stuart Mill


Of course, the people to whom he was referring will have no idea who he was.

he your hero?  Wow, guess we know what that make you!  

Your man from history... besides - what the heck do I care about the ramblings of a You're-a-peeing who lived in the 1800's?

Mid nineteenth century Conservative/Liberal definitions have nothing to do with the prevailing attitudes of today.

Well Wormie,The word liberal meant something admirable when this countrey was founded. e.g. Thomas Jefferson was then a liberal and he certainly would not be as "liberal" is currently defined. The word was hijacked by a gaggle of Bolsheviks and other misfits. You have to do better than look down your long liberal snout at the peasants if you are going to sell them your snake oil. Clean up your act!!

I heard that somewhere, and it seems to apply here.

I don't wear underwear.

... often refer to themselves as "18th century liberals" and love John Stuart Mill - as opposed to John Stewart.

... that explains the free rape tests.

Really? How about this?

"However, limiting the power of government is not enough. "Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”

Or

"But the great ethical doctrine of the discourse, than which a doctrine more damnable, I should think, never was propounded by a professed moral reformer, is, that one kind of human beings are born servants to another kind... But I again renounce all advantage from facts: were the whites born ever so superior in intelligence to the blacks, and competent by nature to instruct and advise them, it would not be the less monstrous to assert that they had therefore a right either to subdue them by force, or circumvent them by superior skill; to throw upon them the toils and hardships of life, reserving for themselves, under the misapplied name of work, its agreeable excitements."

Or maybe you meant the servitude of women.

"Mill is also famous for being one of the earliest and strongest supporters of women's liberation. His book The Subjection of Women is one of the earliest written on this subject by a male author. He felt that the oppression of women was one of the few remaining relics from ancient times, a set of prejudices that severely impeded the progress of humanity.[8]"

Perhaps you should stick to biology. It's pretty obvious you know very little about history or political philosophy. Nice try though. Enjoy the home version of our game as your lovely parting gift.

Dumbass

that someone might offer an answer using the real definition of conservative- one how opposes change- and suggest that people on the left can be conservative in that regard.

Plus, I just wanted to infer that most of the knee-jerk conservatives on this board are stupid. They get so defensive when someone points out their lack of knowledge and how brainlessly they repeat what they hear from the echo chamber.

I really wish there were more thoughtful conservatives here willing to listen and support their ideas with real information and practical analysis. Sadly, that's not the case so, in the absence of real discourse, I am left with the prospect of prodding the menkeys.

The definitions of liberal and conservative have changed many times over the years, for you to latch on to a single definition that happens to suit your purposes is every bit as narrow minded as those you seek to ridicule.

Forget about inference, I'll it say straight out that most of the "knee jerk liberals" are equally as stupid. All partisans are almost by definition stupid, anyone who has so little ability to think for himself that he has to parrot the beliefs of others is a moron, whether he be a Republican or a Democrat.

I hope you don't think I'm entirely serious about all this shit.

but I can't stop laughing.

"Sure George Carlin dies from a heart attack, but Pauly Shore is still going strong.  There is something wrong with that"

Quit doing it or I'll bite your fingers off.

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 3:00:37 PM

"those who are "incapable of self-government"" should be regulated and govened by those who are capable...

so who is to say who is capable and who is incapable?  You?

a loop-hole commonly used to justify slavery, bigotry, segregation, subjugation, and in the century past, genocide.  Get real.

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 3:19:56 PM

is far different from what his ideas actually were.

Mill was clear who should answer your question. He was clear that government MUST be the servant of it's people, therefore a government which has as its basic purpose to protect the welfare of its citizens will be the better way to determine who should be governed.

That's just basic PoliSci 101, which you would know if you weren't such a science nerd. Should convicted felons in prison vote? We let government decide. Should you be able to drive 100 mph in a residential area? We let government decide.

Just because some asshats think the know who god wants to get married and use government to enforce their superstitions doesn't negate Mill's ideas.

Get real indeed.

of benevolence, unless all are very well intended and honest, then the risk always comes of the man on the white horse - and it is that which we must protect against... for he will impose his will on us.

Some, in a given population, will always wish to impose their will on others.  Just as they do on your local TER P&S board.  The loop hole is there, and it will be taken advantage of... and that is psych 201.

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 4:52:51 PM

-- Modified on 9/22/2008 4:54:16 PM

You have no idea what you are arguing. Perhaps you should read some Mill before interpreting his 'ideas'?

and it is the very same loophole that libs use to foster and form their concept of what government should be - and what government should do.  That is, they feel that they are better and more able... to govern those "unable to govern themselves"  AND That is straight from Mill's philosophy... as I say.... would you care to live in Skinner's Walden 2 community... I for one would not...

who are you to say who is capable?  what gives you the right.

Blacks for years in this country had a legitimate argument that they were being classified as less intelligent - when given IQ tests.  IQ tests that were biased by the questions and the way the questions were asked.  Clearly they were unfairly judged... but it took YEARS for even that "little thing" to be corrected.... JUDGEMENT - of who is fit, that is the question - is it not? and Mill can define that any way he wants.

the pronouncements of their leaders... they are still smart folk... witness Pelosi - and her fossil fuel comment... (natural gas is not a fossil fuel) - or that their leaders are hold the moral high ground... cause they have empathy for folk... yea, Kennedy had empathy for MaryJO... and Clinton... empathy for monica... but darn it - she kept that damn blue dress...

and they want to shove these folks and their ideas  of how I should live my life down my throat....   sure.

BO... just the latest incarnation of snobbish elitism.

It's a recognition of reality. Children are not capable of governing, are they? Or would you advocate extending the right to vote to 3 year olds?  If not, what gives you the right to deny them that?

It is a fact, then, that some people are unable to govern themselves and if they are to be a part of a society, they must then be governed. Who decides who will govern and who will be governed? Well, government decides.

What Mill was pounding home in this aspect of his political philosophy is that a government which enables the largest number of its citizens to have some degree of power in governing themselves will better be able to serve the needs of those citizens, which is what the primary purpose of government is.

I'm interested in what you would propose as an alternative to government since you appear to believe that all people should be ungoverned. Anarchist cooperatives?