Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "OverSimplified"
channel.
-
@Crispr_CAS9
"Protectionist policies are a limit." You must not know what the word 'limit' means. You are wrong by definition, no further conversation needed here.”
Limit: a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible. - Or possible. When artificial policies are placed to make the purchases harder through either restrictions or charging much more, that would create a limit. So no, I really am not.
“The existence of anti-tariff liberals is not an argument against the existence of pro-tariff liberals. You have no argument here, so no further conversation needed here either.” - True, but it does not rule out that someone pro tariff can just as easily be conservative.
“Which is why pro-tariff liberals want checks and balances to limit government authority with them. Still support tariffs from a liberal position. Again, you have no argument.” - Ok, and as mentioned, Anti Tariff liberals have argued that allowing the government to impose such tariffs would prevent the government from being limited as it would allow them to control trade on a global level. And ironically pro and anti tariff conservatives have similar debate.
“The existence of pro-tariff conservatives is completely irrelevant to whether or not there were pro-tariff liberals.” - Not in this context, since I have argued that Lincoln through most of his stances absolutely could of been conservative as much as liberal.
“ You found an instance of me treating liberalism and conservatism as broadly (but not strictly) incompatible. This is not an example of me treating Republicans as incompatible with liberalism, or Democrats as incompatible with conservatism, or any other combination of party and ideology. Which was the thing you did that you said I also did. And just to be sure, I double checked that thread AGAIN, and sure enough, I didn't do what you claim in that thread. Try again.” - Maybe not outright, but the connotation you used strongly implied you thought with that mindset. Until clarifications were put in, I was going to question those aspects.
"But I would also argue, as mentioned, that along with most of his other stances did not rule him out from being a conservative either."
“I don't think most of anyone's stances could rule them out of any political ideology, because people have thousands of positions on random things, while political ideologies are defined by only a few subjects. The question isn't 'could you rule out conservatism with a random sampling of Lincoln's positions', it's 'Do any of Lincoln's positions rule out conservatism?' Or more accurately here (since liberal and conservative are not 'strictly' exclusive), 'Do any of Lincoln's positions indicate liberalism OR an incompatibility with liberalism?' See how I avoided the need to prove a negative?” - This is something I already addressed in a previous comment.
“I don't know what thing I said you think this is a response to, but it certainly isn't the thing you quoted immediately beforehand.” - By calling the southern states “Authoritarian states.”
"I did confuse the statuses of classical liberals to libertarians." A mistake as grave as going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.” - Perhaps so.
"Post war" Emancipation Proclamation was during the war.” - Only within the rebel states, slavery was not made illegal on a national level until post war.
“Yes, Lincoln couldn't act politically on his abolitionist preferences until it was politically possible. So?” - So, it proves as mentioned, both anti slavery and abolitionists had the goal to end slavery, where they differed was political method. Lincoln’s methods prior to the war as Anti Slavery.
“It's unlikely that the political environment would have allowed it without the war, so possibly true. Not probative to whether or not he WANTED to abolish slavery.” - Almost Every Anti Slavery wanted it abolished eventually. Again the differences were method and patience. Lincoln’s goal prior to the war within his political stance was to contain slavery in the states it was already in and allow it to be phased out gradually. Lincoln was never going to shoot for an overnight abolishment before the war.
"In some cases true" I think that the proposition 'politicians lie' is so close to always true as makes no practical difference.” - Nothing indicated that Lincoln lied. Yes, you can say Lincoln would of done more than what he claimed, but in an alternate scenario where the Civil War never happened, you would of had no way to prove that. The thing is, you cannot just assume every politician to lie, you contrast what they say with actions that would have contradicted it. And Lincoln didn’t contradict it, at least not till 1865, after the war and its effects took place.
“I agree that many people became MORE abolitionist because of the war. That's not probative to whether or not Lincoln was abolitionist prior to the war.” - I still argue he wasn’t. People like John Brown were abolitionists, they no care of going through the political process and had no interest in trying to compensate any southerner for the emancipation. Lincoln on the other hand, was willing to act on every stance that the Anti Slavery platform stood on.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “That's so wrong it literally made me stand up and walk away from my computer for a minute. If you have abolitionist preferences, you are an abolitionist.” - Once again, both Anti Slavery and Abolitionists aimed for slavery to be made illegal, the difference as mentioned was method, legal procedure, and time.
“If you opt to push for merely anti-slavery policies because you don't think people would accept abolition, you're a politician.” - An Anti Slavery politician. I’ll explain more when getting down to the quote on this point.
“This is only partially true.” - In the context of slavery, it was fully true. Now how blacks were to be treated after had contrasting views, but within the context of slavery itself. Both wanted to have it removed.
“In a famous POLITICAL statement.” - Something he acted upon before the war started. Lincoln even stated that he approved of the proposed Corwin Amendment which would of constitutionally protected slavery in the states it was already in. You can’t say Lincoln was an abolitionist when he was more than willing to make this kind of compromise with the south as a last ditch attempt to prevent secession, which would of made slavery in the southern states constitutionally protected, maybe forever from how it was seen at the time. The reason the south did not accept such a deal was because part of their reason for secession was not just preserving slavery but expanding it.
“Contemporaneous private correspondence contradicts it.” - Like?
“The letter to Horace Greeley is probably the most famous example.
"Hence why Lincoln knew he could not be an abolitionist" Why he could not ACT as an abolitionist." - And Lincoln says in that same letter, “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” - Lincoln even in this letter openly stated that he would not prioritize abolishment over keeping the Union unified and that he disagreed with the idea that the Union should not be saved unless it freed all the slaves. That is even in the context if this letter, an Anti Slavery stance. And this was in 1862, only strengthening my argument that if Lincoln changed his mind, it wouldn’t had been till much later on.
“This is essentially the same argument broadly applied, with Lincoln as the narrow case. Whether you agree with my assessment of how to describe the people in power has no bearing whatever on whether or not I said they were unopposed. I didn't. I never said there were no conservatives in the North, or no liberals in the South. That is what you claimed, you were wrong.” - No, but you did state that the overall sides were treated that the north was predominantly liberal. What you basically implied was the opposition was in the minority.
“It literally does. The core of conservatism is the maintenance of traditional social hierarchies. Abolishing a traditional social hierarchy is as opposed to conservatism as it is possible to get.” - Not in the context of the North, since as mentioned slavery for the most part, was already gone from the north since the late 1700s to early 1800s. To them, the absence of slavery was the tradition and that the south were using an outdated economic institution since the north already were displaying more practical methods of economy.
“Northern Conservatives would want to maintain the existing status quo of the Union, which would equate to an opposition to abolition for reasons you yourself have neatly explained in this thread.” - Again I said most, most conservatives would be opposed to abolitionism. And prior to the war they were for the reasons I mentioned before. But like every issue, there were exceptions, and as the war continued the stance on slavery became more and more radical, even amongst the conservatives.
"Started as anti-slavery and became abolitionist by the mid 1850s, maybe.” - Nope, as mentioned all evidence showed that before and during the war he was exercising an Anti Slavery practice and even his own statements made clear he was not willing to go the abolitionist route before and during the earlier years of the war. You can’t try to challenge that on the pretense of “He might be lying because politicians lie.” Without evidence of words or actions that contradicts his statements, that argument is made mute.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “They're not opposites per se, but most liberal ideologies are opposed to most results of most conservative ideologies, and vice versa.” - Depending on the timeframe. But that is only because given the history of society, authoritarianism was what was being conserved back then. However that has been much different today.
“So while you 'can' have conservative liberals or liberal conservatives, it is rare.” - I wouldn’t say that it is automatically rare. It is just their relevance to societies back then was somewhat small and mute.
"Lincoln wasn’t a liberal" In our previous communications I've given a definition of liberal that absolutely does apply to Lincoln, can you give a definition that doesn't?” - Liberalism definition: Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom.
"since both sides viewed the conflict as one for liberty." One side viewed the wars as for the preservation and expansion of slavery, so I'm going to go ahead and say they weren't concerned with liberty in any meaningful way.” - You are judging that by your standards. But you forget at the time, slavery as fucked up as it was, was consider part of the liberties of property rights. So once again, it was a concept of liberalism to them. I am not saying you have to agree with it, but it was viewed by that at the time.
"WW1 - you are aware that it was old fashioned Empires" “At the time, political power in Germany derived from the King. In Britain, the King had an advisory role. “ - True, but considering Britain was still a traditional empire with forced control over colonies, I doubt you could realistically call that liberal. Especially by the very logic you used to disprove the south.
“France was a republic.” - Only in name really. It still operated as a traditional empire. Yes, you could argue it was less centralized, which was great. But that didn’t change its rhetoric especially in international affairs.
“The United States was a republic.” - We only joined at the tail end of the war. So I would not associate the heavy lifting to the USA. Not to mention, Wilson was far from a freedom loving guy, just saying.
“Russia was conservative until the communists got power, but they also got completely destroyed by Germany, so saying they won would be insane.” - That we can agree.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 " I wouldn’t say that it is automatically rare." “Neither would I. Nor did I. I said it is rare, which is true. As you evidently agree.” - I agree with it being rare, but that is also dependent on what standard you hold them to.
"Liberalism definition" Free markets? Check.” - High degree of tariffs and regulations is not promoting a free market. At least not by a classical liberal standard.
“Equality under the law? Check.” - Somewhat, depends on timeframe.
“Economic and political freedom (of individuals under the law)? Check. So... that's Lincoln fitting your definition. So you can't give a definition of liberalism that doesn't fit Lincoln.” - Did you seriously ignore all the points where Lincoln directly violated these individual freedoms? Forced conscription and suspending the protections of publishing anti war media is not promoting individual freedoms bud.
" was consider part of the liberties of property rights." Not by liberals, only by conservatives. That's basically my point.” - Um no, by liberal conservatives. As mentioned the south did believe that they were operating as classical liberals against what they perceived as a overmore overreaching government. Were they correct? That is a matter of perspective. Were they hypocritical? You bet your ass they were. But that is the point. The standards were vastly different.
"but it was viewed by that at the time. " “No, it wasn't viewed as liberalism at the time.” - Yes it was. As mentioned through classical liberalism’s definition.
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom.
Free Markets and laiseez- faire economics? Check.
Civil liberties under rule of law? Mainly pertaining to the property rights? Check.
Limited government? - Check, considering the south was pushing for a less centralized government than the Union, at least in theory.
Economic freedom? - Check.
Political freedom? - Check.
Now as I mentioned, the south were hypocritical on most if not all these points.
The difference between them and Lincoln in that context is that Lincoln never claimed to be a liberal. Even by his own words, he admits that the Republicans at least in a broad pov was conservative in value.
“"The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."
Now as I mentioned, Lincoln’s standard of conservatism was very different from the southern standard.
Where you see a concept of Northern Liberalism vs Southern Conservatism, I see as two competing concepts of American Nationhood rooted in a mixture of both conservative and liberal values for both sides.
"Britain was still a traditional empire" A traditional empire was a authoritarian monarchy, which Britain was not at the time.” - It was a constitutional monarchy which still exercised imperial power with having colonies that made up almost a third of the world.
"I doubt you could realistically call that liberal." I didn't say WW1 was won by liberal utopias, I said the liberal (comparative) side won. Britain had some illiberal policies, but was more liberal than Germany.” - Comparative, is not what you claimed when responding to his other comment. And comparatively means squat. That is like saying that democracy won the Eastern front just because the Soviet Union might have been slightly more democratic than the Third Reich. See the problem with that line of thinking?
"It still operated as a traditional empire. " “Objectively wrong. France wasn't even a monarchy, so it's a nonsense to call them an empire. An empire is not merely a country with imperial policies. You understand that, right?” - Imperial structures does not automatically require the existence of a monarchy. Monarchies yes, are typically associated with Empires, but it does not require it to be considered an Empire or at the very least an Imperialist state.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “That's is, objectively, an insane thing to say. To the extent that I expect it to be retracted if this conversation is to continue.” - You will expect nothing. And yes it is irrelevant in the context of WW1. Trying to compare two Empires and say one is slightly less imperialistic than the other does not change the fact that the war was started to conserve their imperial influences and power base. Nothing about that is liberal. Now if you want to make that statements on ideologies that are more specific such as Marxism vs National Socialism, or Confederation or Republic, then go for it. But to base your entire argument of “liberalism winning WW1 '' on the idea that Britain and France were only slightly less centralized in power than Germany at the time of WW1 is frankly laughable and revisionist crap.
“I'll respond to the rest, but address this first or don't bother at all.” - Just did.
"High degree of tariffs and regulations is not promoting a free market."
“American liberalism of the time saw tariffs as necessary for state funding. They also viewed 'free market' as being a interstate, not international, concern.” - No evidence to back that claim sir. Even modern conservatives to this day largely support Tariffs and the modern liberals oppose that, but even in a historical context. The party to support tariffs before the Republicans were the Federalists. The advocates of increased federal power, I doubt you can say the federalists were liberal.
"Lincoln directly violated these individual freedoms?"
“Liberalism is respect for individual freedoms UNDER THE LAW. Which Lincoln did not violate.” - The northern citizens he suppressed on anti war were under the law. Did not change what he did. Unless of course your logic is that it was legal, therefore it makes it liberal. You know like Slavery was. I don’t think I need to explain further on the holes of that logic.
“No. Sorry, you're simply wrong. There is no conception of liberalism, alone or in combination with any other ideology, that views slavery as acceptable. None.” - Again, only if you view it in a modern sense. Not classical liberalism. Now yes, I will admit that the concept of accepting slavery while preaching freedom is hypocritical. That isn’t the point though, what is was that the south absolutely viewed it as their individual rights to keep slavery around. A promotion of individual freedom. They viewed it as liberal, if you equate the concept to freedom.
"the south did believe that they were operating as classical liberals "
“They 100% did not. They loudly proclaimed themselves as conservatives.” - Which is not the opposite of liberalism and the two are not mutually exclusive! We have been over this already.
“So if Lincoln called himself a conservative and acted as a liberal,” - He didn’t act as a liberal. Your logic is freeing the slaves automatically makes him a liberal when it doesn’t!! As mentioned he had more liberal stances in some issues but more conservative stances in others. Same went for the south at least by their own logic and reasoning.
“and the South called themselves conservatives and acted as conservatives, I'm inclined to call Lincoln a liberal politician,” - You’re inclined to call nothing. I am sorry, I don’t think you reserve the right to declare Lincoln as something he clearly was not even by his own statements. Once again, protectionist policies flies in the face of free markets, arrest of people who make anti war press flies in the face of individual liberties, and his racist outlooks that he had for much of his career flies in the face of equality. Like I said, I am not suggesting Lincoln couldn’t have changed his mind on issues later on. And I am sure he did for the Blacks as the war hardened him.
“and the South conservative. Because actions matter more than statements.” - And as mentioned his actions have still proven counter. If Lincoln was a liberal, he sure as hell was a hypocritical one. And mind you even agreeing that actions matter more, that does not mean the words should not be accounted for. Especially when no actions contradict it.
“ In which the monarch essentially had no actual power. Unlike the Germans, where the monarch had significant power.” - True, but you would find even that changed during the war. And the policies were still rather comparable to one another. And the British Empire had the parliament since 1688. And gave reforms to promote the middle class into voting in 1833. Barely shorter timeframe than the Americans having slavery legal. And I doubt the form of government that had remained mostly consistent for a period of 81 years could be called liberal if you were basing the concept on change.
"Imperial structures does not automatically require the existence of a monarchy. "
“I'll take this as a demonstration that you don't know the difference between 'imperial' and 'empire'. An empire is necessarily a monarchy. By definition.” - German Third Reich. Reich was German for Empire and the Nazis did not have a monarch in any way shape or form. Empires typically had monarchies but it was not required to fit the rest of its definition. Which called upon an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority.
“A non-monarchal political structure could engage in imperial actions, but could NEVER be an empire.” - Tell that to Hitler.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@looneyburgmusic "1. Because it is trying to erase the history of those events and what made it up." - Bullshit." It really isn't. It is erasing reminders of the events and what occurred in them. Especially when as many of the Dems now do are trying to advocate their total destruction.
"You don't need monuments to defeated traitors who tried to destroy this nation and whom killed brave American Patriots to remember "history" - that's what these wonderful things called "History Books" are for." - I never said it was automatically needed, but its existence does enhance its study and reminder of said history, also to note that many of the Confederate people the statues were built for already had a long standing career in the Union prior. Are we to disregard the work they did for the Union over siding with a secession?
"Also Bullshit. Washington or Jefferson were not traitors to the United States, were they? So only other traitors to the United States would want to 'erase' those individuals, and would be stopped, just as the "Confederate" traitors were stopped, in the War of the Southern Rebellion." - Here is the thing, legally speaking the southern generals are still regarded as American vets. As don't forget even Lincoln himself pardoned them, there were many reasons for this, but one in particular in the context of the time was secession was not technically illegal yet. Now this changed in 1869 with Texas v White. But until then, there was no concrete legal document stating secession to be illegal within the bounds of the US constitution. That does not make what the south did right, but it does put into perspective that the south did not just view their departure as "Screw America." It was viewed in the context that they believed the Federal government was violating their individual rights and liberties, including state powers that were stated in the constitution. Now yes, most of these stances were done to preserve slavery and the south was more than willing to flip flop positions when it suited them. But in the context of what was viewed at the time, Lincoln did not consider the south to be some enemy nation.
Of course what you are ignoring is many of the people who want to take down CSA statues are the same people who want to do so for Washington, Jefferson, etc. And I will mention as well, who gets to decide whether the statues gets removed, who should hold that decision? And where should the statues go? That is important to note as well. The thing is the Civil War was part of American history and I personally would rather see as much of that history preserved for people to see how far we came as a country since then and so that it is easy to learn from.
1
-
@looneyburgmusic “How? Or, build a museum.” - Agreeable, let me know when the people wanting to take the statue removed do that, also as mentioned, who gets to decide that?
"Are we to disregard the work they did for the Union over siding with treason against the United States?" - There, fixed that typo for you. Also, yes. Traitors lose all rights to be remembered for anything. - You fixed nothing, call it treason all you want, By that logic so are we, or are we going to forget the US very existence was formed on treason to the British crown. And not according to the US recognition they did.
“NO. THEY. ARE. NOT.”- Yes there are. US Public Law 85-425, Section 410 gave Confederate Veterans the same legal status as US veterans in terms of pension rights.
That story, that Congress made traitor confederates "US Veterans" is a lie. - Read above.
“In order to be "pardoned" you must first admit your guilt in the crime you are being offered a pardon for. And a pardon only removes the legal PUNISHMENT, not factual GUILT.” - Once again secession at the time had a gray area that existed, while no legal document said they could do it, nothing said they couldn’t either.
“In other words, by accepting a pardon, those "confederates" were admitting to Treason Against the United States.” - Once again only if you equite a secession to treason. But as mentioned before, there was no legal binding document that stated secession was illegal at the time of the Civil War.
“Yes, it was. Under the Constitution, which specifically reserves to CONGRESS the power and authority to determine what is, and is not, a "State". - Determining what is and isn’t a state does equate to whether or not a state could legally leave the Union. What it was saying was only Congress had the power to control the entry of new states, not whether current ones could leave.
"...they believed the Federal government was violating their individual rights and liberties" - “Too bad.” - And they would just as easily say the same to you. And you're missing the point, the constitution does mention that if the government becomes a tyrannical power violating the individual liberties of its people that the states and people could abolish it.
“The Federal Constitution is supreme. Again, tough shit on those traitors.” - 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As far as the south was concerned the Federal Government was violating a state’s constitutional rights to its self determination. Now, I don’t agree with this given that many of their actions were done before the North enacted anything that could violate it. But it is easy to see at the time why they would think this.
“Irrelevant. The South itself DID consider itself to be a "separate" nation.” - Only according to you, but guess what it is factually relevant considering that was the primary reason the north did not work to punish the south post war, nor that it committed many major atrocities against the south during the war if avoidable. Its treatment was very much treated as an internal conflict between American countrymen, as such the south was subject to the same rights in war that the northern soldiers were given. You don’t get to deny that just because it suits your agenda.
"Of course what you are ignoring is many of the people who want to take down CSA statues are the same people who want to do so for Washington, Jefferson, etc. " -
“Such as? Examples?” - Says the one who didn’t even know of the implications of Texas v White or Public Law 85-425. And it is pretty easy to google examples happening rn, I would send you links but Youtube would automatically delete it, apparently they hate people using links.
“Of "Confederate" traitors? How about the nearest junk-yard?” - You are only proving my point. The extremes you are having to dismantle that history is why people are fighting against it.
“It's already been preserved - in history books.” - History books are not the same as settings and monuments. I don’t even think I have to explain this to you. Reading a book is not the same as being in location and viewing the monuments that occurred alongside it.
“Also, if that was the point, where are all the monuments in the South to the victorious and righteous Union Patriots, who put down the traitors and their rebellion?” - Many were never built in the south in the first place, or did you forget that they were initially bitter post war. The thing is I agree that having both sides be accounted for in things such as monuments would go a long way. Perhaps have a statue of the major generals of both sides of a particular battle. That would definitely help bring a more neutral feeling to things, but of course I wouldn’t be surprised if people like you found a way to complain anyways.
1