ISSN 1335-8715

03-03-2008   Michal Drotován   Kultúrna vojna   verzia pre tlač

Náboženská sloboda a registrácia cirkví

Generálna prokuratúra SR podala nedávno podnet na Ústavný súd, aby rozhodol o ústavnosti zákona o slobode náboženskej viery a postavení cirkví a náboženských spoločnosti (Zákon č. 308/1991 Zb.). Existujú na Slovensku náboženské slobody alebo sú tieto práva obmedzené iba pre vyvolené skupiny? Bola novela zákona 201/2007 Z.z. účelová, aby sa zamedzilo registrácii moslimov?

Pridať nový príspevok

Poznamky pod ciarou
autor: Mišo
webstránka: http://drotovan.blog.sme.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 12:07


Lukas, akosi sa v tom clanku stratili poznamky pod ciarou, neda sa to tam doplnit ?
RE: Poznamky pod ciarou
autor: Lukas Krivosik
pridané: 03-03-2008 12:46


Miso, poznamky pod ciarou, nahodene automaticky vo worde tento redakcny system nezobrazi. Ale skusim napisat Ondrejovi.
RE: Poznamky pod ciarou
autor: Ondrej
webstránka: http://nepto.sk
pridané: 05-03-2008 16:29


Poznamky pod ciarou su doplnene, ale bude ich treba este trosku pozmenit aj v texte, s Lukasom to dame dokopy. Zatial.
Dobry clanok
autor: Maros
webstránka: http://www.marianjanos.blog.sme.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 12:57


Nadpis rubriky kde je clanok zaradeny sa nazyva "kulturna vojna". Podobnym pojmom moc nefandim, ale aj v suvislosti s tymto clankom je legitimna otkazka: Kto je agresorom v "kulturnej vojne"?
RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Alexios I.
pridané: 04-03-2008 11:51


Agresorom sú "relativisti" a "ľavicoví liberáli". Správny konzervatívec pozná svojho nepriateľa. Podobne ho poznali aj náckovia (podľa krivého nosu a znamenia na penise) a komunisti (podľa zlatých hodiniek). Konzervatívci svojho nepriateľa poznajú podľa toho, čo hovorí. Presadzuje zavrhnutiahodné hodnoty tolerancie, dialógu, rovnosti práv, apod.
Na rozdiel od minulosti sa konzervatívci už nevenujú aktívne ničeniu svojich nepriateľov (upaľovanie, mučenie, verejné zhanobenie), ale používajú termín kultúrna vojna, kde sa bežnou argumentáciou utvrdzujú v tom, že inkvizícia bola skvelá a že je homosexualita liečiteľná (a možno dokonca aj vyliečiteľná).

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 12:26


aj ti, co v 60tych a 70tych rokoch obsadzovali americke univerzity a spievali si "Hey Hey, Ho Ho Western Civ' has got to go" su asi vymysleni nepriatelia co

aj ten komunizmus bol len vymyslom v popletenych hlavach americkych antikomunistov, ze

a ten americky profesor ( Ward Churchill ) co oznacil obete 9/11 za 'malych Eichmannov' a vyhlasil ze dostali co si zasluzili, to je obhajca ludskych prav

--

vlastne majme sa vsetci radi, ved vseludska laska je taka krasna, a potom jej prostrenictvom dosiahneme kozmicku spravodlivost.

teraz som docital knihu Reflections on a Ravaged Century od jedneho z najlepsich historikov Sovietskeho Ruska .... no pani, podla tvojej logiky si ten clovek toho navymyslal.

"Na rozdiel od minulosti sa konzervatívci už nevenujú aktívne ničeniu svojich nepriateľov (upaľovanie, mučenie, verejné zhanobenie), "

tak prosim ja sa priznavam, ze v skolke som sa raz pobil ( to som este nebol otvorene konzervativny, ale taky ten zakukleny konzervativec )...a v minulom zivote som bol asi mlady zvazak, pripadne niekedy davnejsie Bernard Gui

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 04-03-2008 12:34


Na ironicke slova sa tazko odpoveda.
Ty naznacujes, ze kondici bojuju proti komunizmu. Lenze SLOVENSKI kondici bojuju viac proti osobnym slobodam, než proti komunizmu. Uz som to tu velakrat konkretizoval > oni sami maju komunisticke ciele , ked propaguju : "bohatym a slobodnym brať, chudobnym a viacdetnym rodinam davať !"

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 13:18


ak ti ide o slovenskych konzervativcov, specialne KDH, tak ta potesim, tych moc nemusim....irituje ma ich spajanie moralizovania a statnej moci, co je asi ta najhorsia mozna kombinacia.

Len ako poznamku, ak si myslis ze princip 'bohatym a slobodnym brat, chudobnym a viacdetnym davat' je komunisticky, tak to sa velmi mylis, a divas sa na svet dost ekonomicky-redukcionisticky. ( rovnaka hlupost je povedat ze nacizmus/fasizmus je pravicovy/lavicovy na zaklade ich hospodarskych politik )

Raz som pocul sarkasticku poznamku, ze pre libertarianov je 2.svetova vojna vojnou fasistickeho Nemecka proti fasistickej Amerike, ktora stala po boku fasistickeho ZSSR. Pripadne si za 'fasisticky' dosad 'komunisticky', ak je pre teba zasad do sukromneho vlastnictva komunizmom.

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 14:08


no aspoň, že na KDH máš názor, aký máš :-) veru, ja ich tiež vôbec nemusím. napísal si to dobre, že spájanie moralizovania a štátnej moci je tá najhoršia kombinácia. rovnako ako teraz riešia, či podporia Radičovú a to len ak sa zaviaže, že bude proti RP a podobným veciam. oni sú ozaj rovnako radikálni ako komunisti, akurát v inej forme. ale takisto nám hovoria, ako máme čo robiť, lebo oni sami to vedia lepšie. kolko krát tu už toto bolo.... do kelu, stále vie niekto lepšie ako my sami, čo máme robiť... každopádne je to pravicová strana, na ekonomiku majú relatívne dobré názory, určite sú mi sympatickejší ako ktorákolvek koaličná strana.. ale preboha, nech už vstúpia do 21eho storočia, lebo tou svojou konzervatívnosťou a skostnatenosťou (nehovorím, že zásady sú zlé, ale treba robiť aj kompromisy) sa zachvílu ani do parlamentu nedostanú.... inak ozaj neviem, koho by som teraz volil.. nie je tu žiadna poriadna pravicová strana.. aj tak mám pocit, že všetkým im ide len o moc a kludne by išli v budúcich volbách vládnuť aj s Fickom, len nech dostanú svoje kreslá... Veľmi sa mi páčil Lipšičov návrh (jeden z mála normálnych politikov v KDH, škoda, že neodišiel), aby sa pravicové strany zaviazali, že s bolševikom do vlády nepôjdu. ale to nehrozí. niekedy mám pocit, že sú horší ako tí v koalícii.
RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 14:58


vies, ked sa v USA po druhej svetovej vojne tvorilo intelektualne hnutie konzervativizmu, postupne nabralo 3 hlavne zlozky : tradicionalistov, anti-komunistov a libertarianov. Tieto tri skupiny sa komplikovane a casto za roznych sporov snazili zostat pokope, a prave v historii tohto 'hnutia', sa da velmi dobre odpozorovat vecny spor liberalov(v zmysle libertarianov) a tradicionalistickych konzervativcov ( pretoze prave medzi nimi sa odohrala vacsina sporov )

Zhrniem to tak : libertariani/klasicki liberali vzdy hovorili, ze staci ak stat ponecha svojim obcanom maximalnu moznu mieru slobody, a obcania s nou nalozia ako uznaju za vhodne, a stat sa do toho nema co miesat.

Do toho sa ale vlozili tradicionalisti, a spytali sa : dobre, CO ale budu ludia robit so svojou slobodou, ked ju uz maju?

Poviem to este inac : tento liberalmi ospevovany stav slobody bol napriklad v Amerike dost dlhy cast relativne dosiahnuty : vlada bola slaba, existovala silna lokalna samosprava, a podobne.

Staci sa pozriet na USA teraz, alebo trebars v 30-tych rokoch, a vidis, ze vsetko je inak.

A teraz otazka : ako je to mozne, ked je vraj volny trh a sloboda obcanov idealnym stavom? Ako je mozne, ze sa Amerika slobodneho trhu a vedome slabej vlady stala Amerikou sucasnosti?

Ocividne je teda podla mna v recepte libertarianov chyba, a tou chybou podla mna je, ze libertariani operuju s nejakou zvlastne optimistickou viziou cloveka.

Od toho by podla mna mali byt konzervativci : vecna straz, pretoze korupcia spolocnosti pride najprv v rovine idei a kultury, az potom hospodarstva.

( a nie, tato 'straz' nema mat charakter moralistickej statnej moci, pretoze ta sa moze zvrhnut v odpornu diktaturu svedomia. )

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 19:04


k tomu USA: no pokial porovnávaš 20, alebo 30te roky, na začiatku 30tych rokov vypukla hospodárska kríza, na základe čoho sa usúdilo, že štát má mať vačšie právomoci a že má viac kontrolovať ekonomický priebeh vecí. vtedy sa dostali do mainstreamu Keynesiánci, ktorý volali po silnejšej učasti štátu na hospodárstve. len v tomto prípade hovoríme o ekonomickej a nie o osobnej slobode. nakoniec sa aj tak ukázalo, že to za moc nestojí a Reaganova monetárna politika priniesla lepšie výsledky. ďalej štát posilnila rozdielna zahraničná politka USA ako v 30tych rokoch, zmenila sa na svetovú velmoc a zvýšili sa výdavky s tým spojené. takže asi pre toto Amerika súčasnosti vyzerá inak ako vyzerala. toto si myslel? či si narážal na nejaké osobné slobody?
RE: Dobry clanok
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 20:34


týmto som chcel povedať, že žiadne liberálne hodnoty nezlyhali...
RE: Dobry clanok
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 05-03-2008 13:51


Firstborn :

"Raz som pocul sarkasticku poznamku, ze pre libertarianov je 2.svetova vojna vojnou fasistickeho Nemecka proti fasistickej Amerike, ktora stala po boku fasistickeho ZSSR."
- Tuto vetu iste nevyslovil libertarian. To, ze to libertarianom pripisuju, to nič neznamena.
Terminologicky chaos je dnes standardom.

Rozdiel medzi komunizmom a fasizmom je jasny (ale nie obrovsky), aj ked ETATIZMUS a ekonomicky socializmus je sucastou oboch- komunizmu aj fasizmu.

Pravicovost a lavicovost su EKONOMICKE pojmy, pre ich hodnotenie sa pouziva miera nasilneho prerozdelovania hmotnych statkov. Pouzivanie pojmu "pravica" pre FASIZMUS je trapne, absurdne. Pouzivanie pojmu "pravica" pre krestanske ideologie je sice bezne, ale mätuce.

Ovela ZÁVAŽNEJŠIE je to, ze FASISTICKE prvky sa dnes objavuju v beznych demokraciach. Zakladnym prvkom fasizmus je (maskovane) spojenectvo velkokapitalu a STATnej moci, pricom tato statna moc je podporovana proletariatom (teda "chudobnymi" lavicovymi volicmi). Malokto dnes chape podstatne vlastnosti fasizmu a nebezpecie z toho plynuce.

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 05-03-2008 14:01


etatizmus je (moze byt) sucastou fasizmu, komunizmu, moderneho liberalizmu, konzervativizmu

"Pravicovost a lavicovost su EKONOMICKE pojmy, pre ich hodnotenie sa pouziva miera nasilneho prerozdelovania hmotnych statkov."

tu sa podla mna kardinalne mylis. Podla mna je zakladnym rozdielom lavice/pravice pohlad na cloveka a jeho podstatu, ekonomicke aspekty su len podruzne.

"Zakladnym prvkom fasizmu je (maskovane) spojenectvo velkokapitalu a STATnej moci, pricom tato statna moc je podporovana proletariatom (teda "chudobnymi" lavicovymi volicmi). "

to ale vobec nie je podstatou fasizmu ... vlastne si prave vyslovil taku hybridnu marxisticku teoriu fasizmu.

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 05-03-2008 14:17


Firstborn :
"tu sa podla mna kardinalne mylis. Podla mna je zakladnym rozdielom lavice/pravice pohlad na cloveka a jeho podstatu, ekonomicke aspekty su len podruzne. "

- Akceptoval by som toto, keby sa jednalo o čiste medziludske vztahy. Ja vsak aplikujem pojmy LAVICA -PRAVICA pre pouzitie vo vztahoch STAT - obcan, a v tomto vztahu ABSOLUTNE ZIADNE "kulturno-eticke" zasahy nepripustam. Preto ma TÁTO rovina vztahu ani nezaujima. Navyse, statu ide v konecnom dosledku HLAVNE O PENIAZE. Peniaze obcanov.
To "kulturno-eticke" dnes zaujima iba malu cast KDHakov.



" to ale vobec nie je podstatou fasizmu ... vlastne si prave vyslovil taku hybridnu marxisticku teoriu fasizmu. "
- zial, zle si ma pochopil . To "spojenectvo" , ktore som spomenul, nie je IDEOLOGICKE spojenectvo, je to vztah, ked si STAT udrzuje moc laviciarskymi heslami, ale v pozadi sa politici (nie STAT!) nechavaju uplacat velkymi koncernami.
(Nepripomina ti toto tak trochu sucasnu realitu ??? Plne huby socialnej pomoci, ktora realne skoncila pri dvadsatkorunackach u lekara. A multimiliardari si hoveju dalej.)

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: francois
pridané: 15-09-2009 17:18


najviac ma vie pobavit,ako všetko pekne rozoberieš,zopakuješ čo napisal ten,na koho reaguješ,a potom to pekne vysvetliš.Cisto ako Hrib,kuva,seš dobrej.Ty si ale voooooool.
RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Alexios I.
pridané: 04-03-2008 13:12


Je zaujímavé, ako niektorí ľudia lipnú na predstave, že je civilizácia, v ktorej existujeme, vybudovaná na dobrých základoch, a tieto (údajne kresťanské) základy treba silou mocou brániť. Na tomto tvrdení nie je v podstate samo osebe nič zlé. Prečo však rukovať do kultúrnej vojny? Prečo každý, kto občas zapochybuje nad zdravými základmi kresťanstva je nepriateľ?
Konzervatívci mali nepriateľov vždy. Boli to kacíri, mešťania, židia, bosorky, svetská moc, továrnici, liberáli, pokrokári, socani, komunisti, fašisti (s nimi sa však vedeli aj spojiť...), atď. apod. Množstvo nepriateľov sa zvyšuje každú generáciu rovnako, ako pribúda dôkazov, že filozofia nie je slúžkou teológie, že zem je guľatá a nie je stredom vesmíru, že existovali dinosauri, že aj pápež je len človek, že voľný trh nie je úplne od veci, že ľudské práva zvyšujú dôstojnosť človeka, a takto by sme mohli pokračovať. Zapieranie je najbežnejšou metódou práce konzervatívcov. Kultúrnu vojnu teda nikdy nevyhrajú, len budú "bojovať" proti stle väčšiemu množstvu ľudí.

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 13:40


Do slova 'konzervativizmus' pohodlne strkas uplne vsetko co sa kedy za konzervativizmus oznacovalo, alebo bolo oznacovane, co potom pouzijes na to, ze 'sme' 'bojovali' proti uplne vsetkemu. Vtipny pristup.


To, ze konzervativci vzdy proti niekomu bojovali, a casto zbytocne, este neznamena ze kazdy, proti ktoremu bojovali/bojuju, je neskodny alebo vymysleny. Sam si dal za priklad fasizmus/komunizmus. Z tvojej reakcie chapem, ze boj proti komunizmu/fasizmu nemal zmysel? Fasizmus a komunizmus boli tiez svojho casu moderne a progresivne, a nadchynali mnohych.

"každý, kto občas zapochybuje nad zdravými základmi kresťanstva je nepriateľ?"

kazdy nie, ale vacsinou ti co si myslia ze 'zdravo pochybuju' alebo su bohvieako neutralni/objektivni su tymi najvacsimi fanatikmi. Vid Pietruchova.

'kazdy kto zapochybuje je nepriatel', 'silou mocou branit'

karikujes si svojho oponenta

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Alexios I.
pridané: 04-03-2008 14:15


Ak hádžem všetko do jedného vreca, potom je absurdné, keď sa konzervatívci tak naivne hlásia k inkvizícii (pozri články aj tu na PS), ideám krížových výprav (porovnaj kázne v kostoloch), apod. Alebo už prebehla nejaká očista?
Vlastne aj moderní komunisti zo seba oprášili Stalina, podaktorí aj Lenina. Marxa sa už zbaviť nevedia, lebo by im nikto neostal, ale ono im to aj tak nevadí, lebo si ho aj tak neprečítali.
Lenže ani konzervatívci by si nemohli priznať, že inkvizícia bola poprením dokonca aj vtedajších právnych zvyklostí, a že križiaci znamenali skôr ventil pre vtedajšiu preplnenú Európu, ako výbuch zbožnosti.
Nehovorím, ktorý boj mal a ktorý nemal zmysel. Len som sa (asi neúspešne) pokúšal naznačiť, že tých nepriateľov života, vesmíru a vôbec majú konzervatívci už trochu priveľa. A že ich neubúda, skôr naopak.

Ale aby som len nekydal. Podľa mňa stojí súčasná civilizácia na neistých nohách. Neistota je to, čo momentálne definuje západ. Západ už totiž dosiahol všetko, po čom túžil, prišiel však na to, že to dosiahol poprením stredoveku. Ono poprenie stredoveku však neznamenalo zánik náboženstva, len zánik kresťanstva vo svojej absolutistickej podobe, keď vládlo širokým spoločenským sféram. Vystriedalo ho iné náboženstvo - pokrok. Ten sa stal moderným a sekulárnym chiliazmom. Lenže po Osvienčime sa ukázalo, že pokrok zlyhal rovnako ako kresťanstvo. A teraz momentálne nevieme, čo s tým.
Neoliberáli ešte stále veria v pokrok a sú preto naivní. Konzervatívci veria kresťanstvu a sú preto ešte naivnejší. A ten zvyšok ("relativisti") už nevie, čomu má veriť. Nejde tu však len o vieru, zdá sa skôr, že ľudia na západe strácajú zmysel existencie. To je tá skutočná kríza, pretože len istý uhol pohľadu na svet nám umožňuje tento svet uchopovať a rozumieť mu.
Preto sa dá konzervatívcom v istom zmysle dokonca závidieť. Majú aspoň svoj spôsob uchopovania sveta, aj keď je zastaralý.
Ak teda niekto napáda základy našej civilizácie, nie je to preto, lebo ju chce rozbiť, ale preto, že jej neverí. A neverí jej, lebo naše náboženstvá (náboženstvo Boha a náboženstvo Pokroku) zlyhali na plnej čiare.
Som preto objektom kultúrnej vojny?

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 14:44


Druha cast tvojho prispevku je velmi zaujimava, a preto sa budem venovat hlavne tej.

Samozrejme, ked bol svet postupne odkuzlovany a krestanstvo stracalo svoju silu, nabozensky instinkt ako taky nezmizol, pretoze ten nikdy nezmizne, len sa meni a pretavuje. Univerzalisticke nabozenstvo potom nahradil Pokrok, Veda, Narod, Ludstvo a ine, pripadne si ludia mysleli, ze nabozensky cit uz nepotrebuju a staci im materialne blaho. Tragicky sa samozrejme mylili.

Presne o tom je aj tento vers T.S. Eliota :

O weariness of men who turn from God
To the grandeur of your mind and the glory of your action,
To arts and inventions and daring enterprises,
To schemes of human greatness thoroughly discredited ...
Plotting of happiness and flinging empty bottles,
Turning from your vacancy to fevered enthusiasm
For nation or race or what you call humanity

S celou druhou castou tvojho prispevku sa vlastne stotoznujem. A vlastne si si nim odpovedal, proti komu 'bojujeme ( to slovo nemam rad, ma zle konotacie ) v kulturnej vojne - nie proti ludom ktori citia prazdno a hladaju nieco, cim by ho nahradili, a preto neveria uz ani Zapadu, lebo citia ze aj ten je prazdny, ale proti ludom, ktori sa pridali k Lavici, uz nie charakteristickej hospodarskou politikou, ale ideologickym kriziackym tazenim proti Zapadu a jeho tradiciam ( pretoze ako povedal Eric Hoffer, nenavist dokaze dat zmysel prazdnemu zivotu ). Hlavy tychto ludi nie su prazdne, ale plne nezmyslov a tito ludia nehladaju, ale su posadnuti fanatickou nenavistou.

Pises, ze konzervativci veria krestanstvu, ktore ale upada, a preto su naivni. Ale COMU ma clovek verit? Krestanstvo (v triezvom porovnani jeho prinosov a zaporov ) prinieslo Zapadu moc a energiu a specificku kulturu politiky, a tak sa stale javi ako ta najlepsia zo vsetkych moznosti, urcite lepsia ako hociktore z nahradnych nabozenstiev, ktore ho chceli zosadit z tronu.

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: Alexios I.
pridané: 04-03-2008 16:00


Ak je to, čo hovoríš, pravda, nerozumiem tomu militantnému krédu PS a tomu, keď otvoria ústa ľudia typu V. Palka, či R. Jocha. Je ostatne príznačné, že obom je zrejme momentálne sympatickejší islam (vo svojej umiernenej podobe), ako západné nekresťanstvo (nechcem povedať ateizmus).
Chápem konzervatívcov, ktorí bránia "tradičné" hodnoty (o ktorých by sa iste dalo diskutovať, ale to je na inú debatu), ale kultúrna vojna? Ak niektorí ľavičiari oprávnene upozorňujú na voľný trh, sú z nich nepriatelia! Ešte raz si prosím prečítaj krédo PS. Tam nájdeš všetkých moderných diablov.
A čomu máme veriť? Bohužiaľ sám neviem, čomu máme veriť. A v tom je vlastne kríza Západu. Priniesol ju zánik meštanskej sebavedomej spoločnosti niekedy začiatkom 20. storočia a odvtedy sa to vlečie. Pravda je zrejme v tom, že nám chýba viera, ale nevie sa, v čo treba veriť...

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: tralos
pridané: 04-03-2008 22:49


Tento skepticizmus a udajna rezignacia na velke naracie, dnes velmi modna vec, je podla mna skor obrazom tych co o tom hovoria nez obrazom spolocnosti.

Kriza nabozenstva- a co opatovny navrat nabozenstva v USA alebo v muslimskom svete.

To ze niektori postradaju zmysel svojho zivota, ze im chyba velky pribeh v ktorom by mali zohravat aspon nejaku ulohu, je vecou osobnej frustracie nez nejakym vseobecne rozsirenym javom.

Tazit z krizi a rozoberat ju bez toho, aby vobec tato kriza vznikla, je domyslavost.

Svet je vzdy plny zmyslu, co na tom ze ludia nevedu disputy o Kantovi a ze uz neriesia nejake svetle zajtrajsky, ze sa neodvolavaju tolko na buducnost a ze nepovazuju za dolezite, aby ich zivot mal nejaky velky zmysel v ramci filozofickych alebo v tomto pripade skor utopickych koncepciach?

Svojho casu som pisal nieco podobne, a to v suvislosti s EU, netrvalo dlho aby som si uvedomil, ze tieto velke pribehy, ktorych horiznot ma trvat starocia su zbytocne.

Poviem za seba, necitim sa frustrovany ani bezo zmyslu, nevidim problem v tom ze ma nenadchyna ani pokrok ani buducnost.

Kriza Zapadu- to je dosledkom spolocneho krachu ako hovori Latour, socializmu a naturalizmu. Tato kriza je vsak len chimera, je to kriza tych, co verili prislubom internacionaly alebo scientistickej vede, alebo obidvom.

Vynimocnost v dobrom, presvedcenie modernych, sa meni na vynimocnost v zlom, utapani sa v koncoch dejin a podobne, - presvedcenie postmodernych.

Kriza mozno ale nikdy nezacala, clovek moze zit spokojny zivot bez toho aby mal vieru v dejiny ci vyvolenost. Snad si len niekto nemysli, ze predmoderni alebo skor pred-postmoderni obycajni ludia, teda ti co mali udajne zivot plny zmyslu a ktory verili v nejake velke projekty a ktori na rozdiel od nas si nemali nezufat ze nemaju v co verit, denne riesili otazky o Vecnom mieri, komunistickej utopii a pod.

Takze, bude dobre ak ti, co neustale vidia vsade upadok a nezmyselnost zivota, hovorili za seba.

romco

oprava
autor: tralos
pridané: 04-03-2008 22:56


v dlhej vete vela chyb:)

-a ktori na rozdiel od nas si nemali preco zufat ze nemaju v co verit-

RE: Dobry clanok
autor: jakubjost
pridané: 05-03-2008 23:14


suhlasim (aj ked podla mna velmi precenujes ten tzv. naturalizmus, ako tomu hovorili za Socrata) a dodam, ze vobec najlepsie bude, ak za seba budu hovorit nielen "upadkari" ale uplne vsetci:).
Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: Dušan
e-mail: dusan.mihalik@chello.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 13:06


Zrušením príspevkov cirkvám by sa vyriešil celý "problém".

Lebo je to zasa celé o peniazoch.

Myslím, že registrácia by mala byť - ale viac menej formálna a ak uchádzaš splní podmienky - tak automatická.

Je predsa smiešne aby štátny úradník rozhodovala čo je a čo nie je cirkev.

A ak niekto bude chcieť rovíjať nejaké okulné vedy, tak sa ani nezaregistruje. Ak by sa chcel "iba" formálne registrovať tak je dobrý podnet na prípadné preverenie štátnymi orgánmi pri nejakom podozrení niečoho nekalého.

Daná novela len vypovedala o "nadštandartnej" spolupráci medzi ficovou vládou a kresťanskými cirkvami pri potieraní "konkurencie".

RE: Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 03-03-2008 14:23


"Lebo je to zasa celé o peniazoch."
-Presne tak.
Svoj nazor uz mozem konkretizovat obycajnym skopirovanim svojho prispevku v inej teme, kde som reagovat na pojem "konzervativne zasady" :

citujem sam seba:
"- Ked tie vase kulturno-eticke principy rozoberiem na drobne, tak z tych principov zostanu (vacsinou!) iba ciste financne zasady pre prerozdelovanie a socialisticke rozdavanie."

Takze aj fungovanie cirkví je o peniazoch zo statneho rozpoctu . To KDH sa predsa len malo spojit s Ficom.

RE: Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: Mišo
webstránka: http://drotovan.blog.sme.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 15:18


Jasne, ja som tiez za odluku vid.
http://www.prave-spektrum.sk/article.php?583

Myslim si, ze pri registracii su mensie cirkvi a nabozenske spolocnosti diskriminovane, napriek tomu som tiez za minimalny pocet sympatizantov na registraciu (min.100 ludi). V clanku hovorim, ze novela bola prijata iba preto, aby sa nemohli registrovat moslimovia, co je dost trapne. V tomto bode suhlasim s navrhom prokuratora Trnku, ktory zakon napadol na Ustavnom sude.

RE: Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: tom
pridané: 03-03-2008 19:15


Samozrejme ide hlavne o peniaze. A už sa teším na inteligentnú debatu "liberálov" keď cirkvi budú chcieť svoje mld. majetky späť, ktoré znárodnili komunisti.

A k tomu čo hovoria hejslováci: nie je náhodou naozaj stupidné, že v západnom svete za olejové peniaze vyrastajú mešity, ktoré burcujú proti krajinám ktorých možnosti využívajú?! A výsledkom sú vraždy domorodého obyvateľstva. Ale zasa si uvedomujem, že hovoriť o tom je politicky nekorektné.

RE: Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: Dušan
e-mail: dusan.mihalik@chello.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 19:53


Pokiaľ viem tak cirkev dostala už väčšinu majetku späť. Ale ak sú ešte nejaké veci, ktoré náležali cirkvám nech sa im to vráti. Ale bol by som rád, keby sa už v tom urobila bodka.

Pokiaľ ide o druhú časť. Je jedno či chodia blbci či hajzli do kostola, mešity či sú ateisti - stále sú to pre mňa blbci a hajzli.

RE: Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: Marian Kopec
pridané: 03-03-2008 22:31


Ak sa nemylim, tak cirkve tiez nadobudli majetok prerozdelovanim. Obcas v podobe nasilneho zdanovania. Amen!
RE: Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: Dušan
e-mail: dusan.mihalik@chello.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 22:55


Aj to ma napadlo, že ako prišla cirkev k majetku, ale povedal som si, že rok 1948 zoberiem ako základ, lebo ísť pre tento rok tak v tom urobíme riadny zmätok.

A potom - Tom je na to dosť alergický a nemal by ma rád : ).

RE: Zasa zbytočný problém.
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 04-03-2008 7:42


tom :
"A už sa teším na inteligentnú debatu "liberálov" keď cirkvi budú chcieť svoje mld. majetky späť, ktoré znárodnili komunisti. "
- LIBERALI urcite nemaju namietky k navrateniu ulupeneho majetku. Namietky maju "liberali", a vacsina ostatnych, okrem LIBERALOV.

"No problem"
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 03-03-2008 14:25


"Je však otázne čo sa tým dosiahlo, keď 20-tisíc dospelých členov Moslimského spoločenstva je iba otázkou času. "
- "No problem" . Prepiše sa to na 200 tisic.

--
autor: 7gemini7
pridané: 03-03-2008 23:36


Zavítal som predchvílkou na stránku Jetotak.sk... no zaujímavé.. mám pocit, že sa tam kecá vela, ale absolutne o ničom.. prečítal som si asi tri články a doteraz neviem, čo vlastne sú, či pravica, lavica, lebo sú to bláboli do vetra... no jedno sa im musí nechať... majú ovela krajšiu grafickú úpravu.. a to dokáže návštevníkovi spríjemniť pobyt tam. nerozmýšlali ste aj tu nad zmenou, dať tomuto vačší šmrnc?
RE: --
autor: Lukas Krivosik
pridané: 03-03-2008 23:44


Ja by som to charakterizoval ako blaboly do vetra.

Co sa tyka grafiky, pracuje sa uz na tom.

RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 23:56


no a aký svetonázor vlastne predstavujú? lebo som sa to ozaj nedozvedel.. respektíve o čo sa snažia?
RE: --
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 8:53


Jetotak? To su, prosim pekne, 'liberali'...ale taki ti novi, progresivni vies, nie ako tu, ohnisku tmarstva a temnej reakcie.

Orientuju sa hlavne na kulturne otazky ... fandia Palestine a moslimom, Chavezovi, Castrovi ( lebo je uzasne progresivny a socialny ), su ohnivo protinabozenski ( alebo teda protikatolicki ), bojuju za vselijake vzrusujuce nove prava. A podobne.

Je to nieco pribuzne Novemu Slovu a Changenetu

A vobec...staci si len pozriet kto tam pise ;-)

A vsetci ich nepriatelia su rasisti, xenofobi, fasisti, homofobovi a co ja viem co este ( to akoze my tu naokolo *wink wink* )

RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 10:39


heh.... no prečítal som si tam jeden článok.. z ktorého tak nejasne vyplývalo, že sú aj proti Fickovi... teda v podstate sú proti všetkým :-)
RE: --
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 10:53


o to zas ano....Fico je totiz politik bez principov, ide len za mocou, a robi to co sa paci verejnosti, a kedze znacna cast nasej osvietenej verejnosti je mysli narodne a citi socialne, taky je aj Fico....taky mix nacionalizmu a divneho akozesocializmu.

Ludia z Jetotak predstavuju slovensku obdobu europskej/americkej novej lavice.
Su teda aj za mensiny, a proti ludackemu hejslovactvu. ( aspon male plus pre nich)

RE: --
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 04-03-2008 12:00


7gemini7 :
"sú aj proti Fickovi... teda v podstate sú proti všetkým :-) "
- toto je akasi nova moda- byť proti kazdemu, ale absolutne nevyjadriť SVOJE vlastne predstavy, ako by to malo byť.
"Mať vlastne predstavy" je zrejme namahave, nebezpecne aj neslušne. Zial, spusta politikov ale aj novinarov vychovava narod v tomto duchu. Hlavne nemat nazor! A takyto narod ma volebne pravo !

RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 14:16


nuž... včera som pozeral 5 minút Aj múdry schybí... a keď človek vidí tie individua, tak je mu jasné, prečo máme takúto vládu... samozrejme, že je to hlavne ten negatívny výcuc, aby sa malo na kom pobaviť.. ale aj tak... vačšine ľuďom tu stačia drsnejšie slová, guláš na námestí a volby sú vyhraté...
RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 14:20


nedávo som sa bavil s ocom... o tom, keď sa ešte asi 16 rokov dozadu stretol so Slotom.. tak som sa ho spýtal, aký je v skutočnosti a povedal, že úplne normálny chlapík, so slušným vystupovaním.. a dodal, že si myslí, že tie svoje výstupy len hrá, lebo presne vie, akú skupinu voličov tým oslovuje.. svojich stabilných 10 % má vždy... je to smutné, v podstate 10 % voličov predstavuje ožranov, hulvátov a hejslovákov, ale tí si čas na volby nájdu vždy...
RE: --
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 15:00


tak aspon priblizne tusis jednu z vyhrad, ktoru maju konzervativci voci demokracii ;-)
RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 18:51


no demokracia nie je v žiadnom prípade dokonalá.. ale bohužial ludstvo nič lepšie nevymyslelo... ako som čítal na jednom blogu o L.K., ten by rád zaviedol daňovú demokraciu, čo by bolo do určitej miery spravodlivejšie, ale samozrejme nie dokonalé. v každom prípade lepšie :-)
RE: --
autor: Marian Kopec
pridané: 04-03-2008 19:11


Preco je vobec dolezite aky svetonazor niekto zastava? Ak niekto zahlasi, ze 2+2=4 co s tym ma svetonazor? Alebo, ze 2 + 2 = 10 (co je mimochodom takisto spravna odpoved)
RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 19:23


čo si týmto chcel povedať? :-)
RE: --
autor: tomas cunik
pridané: 05-03-2008 16:06


to mas pravdu ze nic lepsie "nasilu" nevymyslelo..lebo najlepsia vec tu bola este skor ako vobec niekto uvazoval o tom, ze treba veci "vymyslat"..

ta "vec" sa vola prirodzeny a spontanny poriadok..a paru ludi to nazyva anarchokapitalizmom..

RE: --
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 06-03-2008 8:02


"prirodzeny a spontanny poriadok..a paru ludi to nazyva anarchokapitalizmom.. "
- Presne tak. Ked som cital rozne uvahy o "dokazovani spravnosti" libertarianskych principov, tak som si uvedomil, ze tieto principy su take akesy prirodzene, ze nie su "dôsledkom" , ale su logicke "same od seba".

ANCAP existuje vsade tam, kde este nik nasilne nezaviedol ine pravidla.

RE: --
autor: tralos
pridané: 06-03-2008 8:24


Spravne same od seba, akosi prirodzene-Gratulujem k vytvoreniu noveho nabozenskeho hnutia.

Ancap podla teba funguje vsade, kde nasilim neboli dane zavezne pravidla, ancap teda nefunguje nikde.

Co si sa nechal presvedcit Dinotopiou ci co? Ani praveky ludia nezili bez nasilia. Kto neuposluchol nacelnika alebo radu, proste dostal kyjakom po hlave a bolo vybavene.

Toto uz naozaj pripomina Utopiu, davno stratenu zem, kde ludia ziju v blahodarnom prostredi bez nasilia a zla, v akomsi prirodzenom, samo od seba dobrom stave.

romco

RE: --
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 05-03-2008 13:58


7gemini7 :
" Slota .....presne vie, akú skupinu voličov tým oslovuje.. svojich stabilných 10 % má vždy"
- Ma viac ako 10%. A mal by este ovela viac, keby mu neodoberali volicov jeho koalicni kamarati.

RE: --
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 04-03-2008 7:48


Lukas:
Tato stranka potrebuje zopar zlepseni - napriklad cas a datum posledneho prispevku v kazdej teme, a meno prispievatela. Moznost typu pisma v prispevkoch, smajliky. Len nie , preboha, ziadna cirkusacke vymalovavanie pozadia a podobne. Aj tato kriklava zlta by sla nahradit bledosivou, bledomodrou.

RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 10:34


hlavne.. nové príspevky by mohlo hádzať na začiatok, nie na koniec, to je podla mňa úplne prirodzené, že to najnovšie je navrchu :-) samozrejme, žiadne debilné vymalovávanky tu nie sú potrebné.. len sa treba trochu pohrať s farbami, nech je to nejaké oživenie.
RE: --
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 11:05


pocuj ty si nejaky podozrivy, podvratny inovator :-)
RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 13:11


Inovácie sú potrebné, inak sa veci nehýbu dopredu :-)
RE: --
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 13:41


no aspon sa nehybu dozadu :-)
NIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 8:46


tato zlta je pekna, jednoducha a prehladna....boze, to uz clovek nema v zivote ziadnu istotu?
RE: NIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
autor: Maros
webstránka: http://www.marianjanos.blog.sme.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 8:50


heh, ty budes asi konzervativec :)
RE: NIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 8:55


ako si uhadol !?!?!?

ale tak uznaj....PS vyzera takto uz x rokov, ma najprehladnejsi system diskusii...a ja uz som si zvykol, ze aj ked sa doba meni, vzdy ked natukam www.prave-spektrum.sk vybafne na mna familiarna svetlozlta.

RE: NIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 10:37


je tu velmi prehladná diskusia, to máš pravdu. na Jetotak.sk sa to nedalo čítať, aj keď som sa snažil.. tu sa mi páči velkosť písma, tá je akurát.. ale vieš... občas sa aj to staré musí meniť, predsalen táto žltá s hnedou vyzerá dosť fádne :-) svet sa mení a PS by sa malo meniť aspoň trochu tiež, aj keď tu zmeny nie sú moc vítané :-)
RE: NIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 10:56


no ved hej...ale bude mi luto aj tak :-), smrk smrk
--
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 23:37


Zavítal som predchvílkou na stránku Jetotak.sk... no zaujímavé.. mám pocit, že sa tam kecá vela, ale absolutne o ničom.. prečítal som si asi tri články a doteraz neviem, čo vlastne sú, či pravica, lavica, lebo sú to bláboli do vetra... no jedno sa im musí nechať... majú ovela krajšiu grafickú úpravu.. a to dokáže návštevníkovi spríjemniť pobyt tam. nerozmýšlali ste aj tu nad zmenou, dať tomuto vačší šmrnc?
RE: --
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 03-03-2008 23:38


Pardon za dva tie isté príspevky.. ale dokým mi ich to sem pridalo, som musel 5x kliknúť
dufam ze sa budu
autor: oblastny komisar
pridané: 04-03-2008 5:36


registrovat ako cirkvi aj trebars vcelari (Cirkev najsvatejsej tisickratpoksvrnenej medonosicky), polovnici (Adventisti sudneho dna jelenov a diviakov), voyeri (Svedkovia jeho a jej) a hovnocucari (Cista zumpa - cista dusa)
KDH pracuje pre Fica
autor: Dušan
e-mail: dusan.mihalik@chello.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 11:49


Nechcem ohovárať KDH, že spolupracuje s Ficom úmyselne, ale takmer všetko čo robia podporuje Fica.

Predčasné voľby za zmluvu, ktorá obmedzuje našu suverenitu bolo trápne, hlavne keď KDH dnes protestuje proti podobnej zmluve zo strany EÚ. Proti Ficovi vtedy pracoval "čas" a KDH mu výrazne pomohlo.
Gaparovič sa KDH môže poďakovať za funkciu prezidenta a vyzerá to, že sa im môže poďakovať na budúci rok znova.

KDH sa snažia byť principiálny, ale vzhľadom na to, že sa nevedia dohodnúť ani medzi sebou ja osobne by som s nikým z KDH do koalície nikdy nešiel.

Treba si spomenúť, ako za Dzurindu "principiálne" KDH ako prvá pár mesicov po voľbách zvýšili VŠ profesorom platy a porušili tým koaličnú zmluvu. Povedali, že to je ich priorita a basta.

KDH sa stala nedôverihodná strana, ktorej koaličný potenciál sa rovná nule.

A ak s niekým pôjdu náhodou do opozície tak to vzhľadom na ich preferencie zásahov štátu bude najskôr Fico - jeden pokus tu už bol.

RE: KDH pracuje pre Fica
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 04-03-2008 12:27


Dusan :
"Nechcem ohovárať KDH, že spolupracuje s Ficom úmyselne, ale takmer všetko čo robia podporuje Fica."

- Na tom vobec NIČ NEZALEŽI, co kto robi. Fico ma taku genialnu agitacnu metodu, ze VŽDY bude mat najviac volicov. Na tom nezmeni nikto nič. Jedine INÝ "FICO", (s inym menom, ale rovnakou metodou) by mu mohol odobrat volicov. Podobne, ako ficov "original" dr. Meciar prisiel o volicov iba vdaka vacsiemu demagogovi, svojmu klonu a naslednikovi, tiez dochtorovi.
Na slovensku sa VŽDY 80-percentna vacsina zoskupi okolo nejakeho super-populistu. Takze KDHaci su v tom nevinne.

RE: KDH pracuje pre Fica
autor: Czechtek
pridané: 05-03-2008 12:09


AMEN!
pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 04-03-2008 15:13


prikladam jeden skvely clanok, ktory nacrtava spory tradicionalistickych konzervativcov a libertarianov vo formativnom obdobi povojvnoveho americkeho konzervativizmu. Velmi dobre ilustruje spory, ktore sa vedu aj tu, na PS, a tiez fakt, ze podrobne poznat historiu americkeho konzervativizmu sa veru oplati
( doporucujem specialne skvelu knihu od George H. Nasha : The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. Je to skvela vec. )

enjoy

The Conservative Consensus: Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater, and the Politics of Fusionism
by Lee Edwards, Ph.D.
First Principles #8
Conservatives have always been a disputatious lot. Their disputes are passionate and often personal precisely because they revolve around the most important thing in politics—ideas. Far from being signs of a crackup or a breakdown, intense uninhibited debate among conservatives is an unmistakable sign of intellectual vigor in a national movement whose influence and longevity continue to surprise many in the political and academic worlds.

The dispute between traditionalists and libertarians has been among the fiercest and most protracted in American conservatism. Like the generational conflicts of the Hatfields and the McCoys, the philosophical feuding between these two branches of conservatism has been going on for some 50 years.

When Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged became a best-seller in the late 1950s and began attracting young conservatives, Whittaker Chambers responded with perhaps the most famous and scathing book review in the history of National Review. As the conservative historian George H. Nash writes in his definitive study of the conservative intellectual movement, Chambers called the novel's plot "preposterous," its characters "primitive," its overall effect "sophomoric." Arrogant, dogmatic, and intolerant of any opposition to its Message, Chambers argued, a voice could be heard on almost every page of the novel, "To a gas chamber—go!"

Rand did not immediately retaliate but later declared that National Review was "the worst and most dangerous magazine in America." Its mixture of capitalism and religion, she said imperiously, sullied the rational with the mystical.

One of the fiercest rhetorical battles in the early days of the conservative movement was waged between Frank Meyer, a young communist turned radical libertarian, and Russell Kirk, a deeply rooted traditionalist. Meyer was not impressed with Kirk's seminal work, The Conservative Mind, saying that Kirk and like-minded conservatives had no grounding in any "clear and distinct principle." Indeed, Meyer charged, Kirk did not comprehend the ideas and institutions of a free society.

Kirk retorted that "individualism" (the term then used for libertarianism) was "social atomism" and even anti-Christian. The political result of individualism, he said, was inevitably anarchy. Custom, tradition, and the wisdom of our ancestors, Kirk declared, constituted the firm foundation upon which a society should be built. "A vast gulf," stated George Nash, lay between Meyer's appeal to universal truths like "the freedom of the individual" and Kirk's critique of such "abstractions" in the name of history and concrete circumstances.

The debate was joined by the free-market economist (and future Nobel laureate) F. A. Hayek. Responding to Kirk's charge that he and other "modern liberals" were guilty of superficial and false assumptions about the nature of man, Hayek wrote an essay trenchantly titled "Why I Am Not a Conservative." The trouble with conservatism, Hayek wrote, is practically everything. It distrusts the new, uses "the powers of government to prevent change," and does not understand economic forces. Since the conservative is "essentially opportunist" and lacks political principles, his main hope with regard to government is that "the wise and the good will rule" by authority given to them and enforced by them.

Furthermore, said Hayek, an acknowledged agnostic, the conservative recognizes "no limit" to the use of coercion in the furtherance of moral and religious ideals. And he is prone to a "strident nationalism" which can provide a bridge from conservatism to collectivism.

Hayek doubted whether "there can be such a thing as a conservative political philosophy." Conservatism, he concluded, may be a useful political maxim, but it does not give us "any guiding principles which can influence long-range developments." Hayek wrote those dismissive words in 1960.

Conservatives openly conceded their intellectual disarray. "The conservative movement in America has got to put its theoretical house in order," William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in frustration. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a conservative European and frequent contributor to National Review, lamented that the movement had no coherent "ideology."

While there were points of agreement between traditionalists and libertarians—a belief in the free market, dismay at the increasing size of the governmental colossus, concern about the Soviet Union's belligerent foreign policy—there were as many areas of dissent. What was the proper balance between liberty and order? What was the appropriate response to the threat of communism? Could devout Christians and secular economists find common ground on the role of morality in the polity? What did libertarians and traditionalists really have in common?

Buckley had sought to patch over the philosophical divisions when he founded National Review in 1955 by inviting traditionalists, libertarians, and anti-communists to join the magazine and debate the great issues of the day. But the more they wrote and argued, the more it seemed that the differences between the branches of conservatism were not peripheral but fundamental.

Bridging the Gap: Frank S. Meyer

One conservative, however, became convinced that beneath the conflicting positions and heated rhetoric lay a consensus of opinion and principle. Frank Meyer, who had accentuated the gulf between traditionalists and libertarians a few years before, now dedicated himself to reconciling the differences that, George Nash wrote, "threatened to sunder the conservative movement."

As a staunch individualist, Meyer had argued that "freedom of the person" was the primary end of political action. The State had only three strictly limited functions: national defense, the preservation of domestic order, and the administration of justice between individuals. The achievement of virtue, Meyer insisted, was not the State's business; individuals should be left alone to work out their own salvation.

But Meyer, who had been an extremely effective organizer for the Communist Party in his youth, was a political realist as well as political philosopher who understood that the conservative movement needed both traditionalists and individualists or libertarians to be politically successful.

In his important 1962 book, In Defense of Freedom, Meyer writes that "the Christian understanding of the nature and destiny of man" is what conservatives are trying to preserve. Both traditionalists and individualists should therefore acknowledge the true heritage of the West: "reason operating within tradition." This theory was later dubbed "fusionism," which Meyer said was based on the conservative consensus already forged by the Founders at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

M. Stanton Evans, who as a young conservative worked closely with Frank Meyer and is himself a "fusionist," has pointed out that the great problem confronting the Founders in Philadelphia was to set up a system of government that provided both order and freedom. The challenge was to diffuse and balance governmental power so that "each source of authority would limit and restrain the others" while having sufficient strength to perform the tasks appropriate to it.

In fact, Evans says, neither the "authoritarian" ideas of Hamilton nor the "libertarian" ideas of Jefferson dominated the Constitutional Convention. It was rather the "fusionist" ideas of Madison. The father of the Constitution writes in The Federalist that in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, "the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." The Founders' answer was to create a system of checks and balances, administrative and electoral, that prevented any branch of the federal government from dominating the other.

While far from perfect, and whatever its current condition, Evans argues, the U.S. Constitution has proved that conservatism, beginning from "a profound mistrust of man and of men panoplied as the state, can well serve the ends of freedom."

Another eloquent fusionist was the German economist Wilhelm Roepke, author of A Humane Economy, who stressed the importance of family, church, and community as the indispensable underpinning of a free society. Individuals can "breathe the air of freedom," he writes, only if they are willing to accept moral responsibility for their actions.

To demonstrate that the fusionist synthesis was not a fantasy, Meyer assembled a diverse group of conservative intellectuals and in 1964 published their answers to the basic question, "What is conservatism?" Despite real differences, Meyer writes, the contributors, ranging from Hayek to Kirk to Buckley, agree on several fundamentals:

They accept "an objective moral order" of "immutable standards by which human conduct should be judged."


Whether they emphasize human rights and freedoms or duties and responsibilities, they unanimously value "the human person" as the center of political and social thought.


They oppose liberal attempts to use the State "to enforce ideological patterns on human beings."


They reject the centralized power and direction necessary to the "planning" of society.


They join in defense of the Constitution "as originally conceived."


They are devoted to Western civilization and acknowledge the need to defend it against the "messianic" intentions of Communism.
Meyer points out that the most libertarian of the contributors "agree upon the necessity of the maintenance of a high moral tone in society" while the most traditionalist "respect the moral liberty of the individual person and reject the centralizing state." Therefore, despite sharp differences of emphasis, Meyer says, there does exist among conservatives a "consensus among divergence" equal to that which united those who created the Constitution and the Republic.

However, traditionalists as well as libertarians quickly attacked Meyer's reasoned case for fusionism. L. Brent Bozell, a conservative Catholic and brother-in-law of William F. Buckley Jr., complained that libertarians and so-called fusionists overly stressed free choice in the pursuit of virtue. The purpose of politics, he insisted, was not the promotion of freedom but the promotion of virtue and the building of "a Christian civilization." The story of how the free society has come to take priority over the good society, Bozell said, "is the story of the decline of the West."

Ronald Hamowy, a student of Hayek, reiterated the radical libertarian position that conservatism was the "polar opposite" of libertarianism—hostile to freedom, anti-capitalistic, suspicious of reason, and willing (citing Bozell) to impose its values on its opponents. As for fusionism, Hamowy wrote, "it is no solution to contend…that reason must operate within reason when the crucial problem to be answered involves the choice of which tradition to follow."

And yet by the mid-sixties, the tumult between the disputants had nearly subsided, and fusionism had become, by a process Meyer called "osmosis," a fait accompli. Nash says that most conservatives adopted fusionism because "they wanted to"—that is, they wanted to believe they had found a common basis of understanding. They were tired of feuding, of endlessly debating how many traditionalists and libertarians can dance on the head of a pin.

Fusionism was immensely assisted, Nash points out, by "the cement of anti-communism." Almost all conservatives of whatever philosophical disposition were bound together by the reality of a common deadly enemy: the Soviet Union.

Fusionism was not a rhetorical trick but a recognition that conservatism was "a house of many mansions," in the words of traditionalist Raymond English. Fusionism—ecumenism if you will—was a logical as well as a prudent resolution of a seemingly intractable problem.

Meeting the "Overriding
Political Challenge"

But all of this was so much armchair philosophizing by tweedy intellectuals. Fusionism had to be tested in the real world of politics, or it would have little impact on the development of conservatism as a significant political movement in America.

As it happened, there was a rising politician in the West—part libertarian, part traditionalist in his thinking—who would come to embody fusionism by writing one of the most popular political manifestos in the 20th century and running for President of the United States on a platform that might have been drafted by Frank Meyer.

Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona was an outspoken conservative Republican who attracted national attention in the late fifties by calling the Eisenhower Administration's excessive spending a "betrayal" of the public trust and for exposing trade union corruption in widely televised congressional hearings. There was increasing talk about running him for President in 1960. As part of the campaign, a group of prominent conservatives led by Clarence Manion, a former dean of the Notre Dame Law School, approached Goldwater about writing a "pamphlet" on "Americanism."

The end result was The Conscience of a Conservative, which sold 3.5 million copies and became the most widely read political manifesto of the 20th century, rivaled in American political history, perhaps, only by Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Goldwater's ghostwriter was Brent Bozell, who had already written speeches for the Senator as well as for the late Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.

Goldwater and Bozell were incongruous collaborators: Goldwater the college dropout and Jewish Episcopalian, Bozell the Yale law graduate and Roman Catholic convert. But they shared a Jeffersonian conviction that that government is best which governs least. They looked to the Constitution as their political North Star. They were convinced that communism was a clear danger and an abiding evil.

Published in April 1960, The Conscience of a Conservative transformed American politics by proclaiming a major new factor in Republican and national politics—conservatism. The Chicago Tribune reviewer declared there was "more harsh fact and hard sense in this slight book than will emerge from all of the chatter of this year's session of Congress [and] this year's campaign for the presidency."

Time magazine wrote that The Conscience of a Conservative served notice that "the Old Guard has new blood, that a hard-working successful politico has put up his stand on the right of the road and intends to shout for all he is worth." Columnist Westbrook Pegler asserted that "Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona certainly is now the successor to Senator Taft of Ohio as defender of the Constitution and freedom." Barron's said that Goldwater had "raised an [inspiring] standard to which the wise and honest may repair." Even the Soviet Union's Pravda had its say, writing ominously that the Senator's hard-line anti-communism was "a dangerous, unwise affair…a sortie against peace.… [H]e will end up in a pine box."

What had Goldwater (and Bozell) wrought? A remarkable fusion of the three major strains of conservatism: traditionalism, classical liberalism or libertarianism, and anti-communism.

The Arizona conservative begins by dismissing the notion that conservatism is "out of date," arguing that this is like saying that "the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date." The conservative approach, he writes, "is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today." Many have tried and failed to offer a more succinct definition of conservatism's role in politics.

Believing that theory must always precede practice, Goldwater describes what conservatism is and what it is not. Unlike the liberal, he says, the conservative believes that man is not only an economic but a spiritual animal. Conservatism "looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy." Indeed, he states, the first obligation of a political thinker is "to understand the nature of man."

He proceeds to list what the conservative has learned about man from the great minds of the past:

Each person is unique and different from every other human being; therefore, provision must be made for the development of the different potentials of each person.


The economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature "are inextricably intertwined." Neither can be free unless both are free.


Man's spiritual and material development cannot be directed by outside forces; "each man," he declared with all the conviction of his Jeffersonian soul, "is responsible for his own development."
Given this view of the nature of man, Goldwater writes, it is understandable that the conservative "looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order." But the delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom "practically everywhere on earth."

Even in America, says Goldwater, the trend against freedom and in favor of order is "well along and gathering momentum." For the American conservative, therefore, there is no difficulty in "identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom." Goldwater does not qualify his statement, leaving the clear implication—reinforced in the last one-third of his book, entitled "The Soviet Menace"—that the American conservative has an obligation to preserve and extend freedom not only in America but around the world.

Freedom is in peril in the United States, he writes, because government has been allowed by leaders and members of both political parties to become too powerful. In so acting, they have ignored and misinterpreted the single most important document in American government: the Constitution, an instrument above all "for limiting the functions of government." The inevitable result has been "a Leviathan, a vast national authority out of touch with the people, and out of their control."

While deeply concerned at the tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men, Goldwater states his conviction that most Americans want to reverse the trend. The transition will come, he says, when the people entrust their affairs to men "who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given."

Having laid the philosophic foundation that "the laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline," Goldwater becomes specific about a broad range of issues, including education, federal subsidies, taxes, states' rights, organized labor, and foreign policy. Echoing the flat tax proposals of the economist and future Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, with whom he was in frequent contact, Goldwater states that "government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth, and no more."

Regarding the Cold War, Goldwater identifies the central problem: "the communists seek victories" while the United States and the rest of the free world seek "settlements." The Arizona conservative proposes a seven-point program to achieve victory, including the maintenance of defense alliances like NATO, the achievement of U.S. military superiority, and the encouragement of "the captive peoples" behind the Iron Curtain "to overthrow their captors." Using words that Ronald Reagan would echo in campaign speeches and then as President some 20 years later, Barry Goldwater asserts that America's objective "is not to wage a struggle against communism, but to win it."

It now remained for Barry Goldwater to test this fusing of traditionalist and libertarian ideas in a political campaign, which he proceeded to do in his 1964 run for the presidency.

"To Set the Tide Running Again"

Before and after he captured the Republican nomination for President, Goldwater addressed the fundamental issues that have dominated much of the political debate in America for the past four decades:

Social Security. It is in actuarial trouble. We should seek to strengthen it by introducing some voluntary option.


Government Subsidies. We should work toward reducing and, where possible, eliminating them, starting with agriculture.


Privatization. We should start selling government-owned properties, like parts of the Tennessee Valley Authority, whose functions can be better carried out by the private sector.


Law and Order. The rights of victims should take precedence over the rights of criminals.


Morality in Government. The President and all in public office must avoid scandal and corruption and set a good example for society.


Communism. Why not victory?
The need for what Goldwater called "morality in government" was a constant campaign motif. In a nationally televised address, he discussed the "terrifying" deterioration of the home, the family, and the community, of law and order, and of good morals and manners and blamed the deterioration on 30 years of modern liberalism. After all, he said, stressing his traditionalist side, "it is the modern ‘liberal' who seeks to eliminate religious sentiment from every aspect of modern life."

Goldwater took presidential politics into previously unexplored territory by listing categories of people whose votes he did not want: "the lazy, dole-happy people who want to feed on the fruits of somebody else's labor" or those "who are willing to believe that communism can be accommodated." He wanted the votes of people who believed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, who rejected promises of something for nothing, whose votes couldn't be bought. He wanted the votes of those who knew that "something must be done" about an America in which the federal government "will tell you what business you can be in," whether your children can pray in school, and what to charge "for the things you sell." "Let's get our country back!" he urged.

In the opening speech of his presidential campaign in Flagstaff, Arizona, Goldwater sounded both libertarian and traditionalist themes. He pledged to stop "the cancerous growth of the federal government" and to let the people "use more of your money for yourselves." At the same time, he promised "not to abandon the needy and the aged" and pledged that "we shall never forsake the helpless."

Regarding morality, he said that "the tone of America" was too often being set "by the standards of the sick joke, the quick slogan, the off-color drama, and the pornographic book." In a clear reference to the indicted Bobby Baker, who had become a millionaire as secretary of the Senate when Lyndon B. Johnson was Senate majority leader, Goldwater said that "the shadow of scandal falls, unlighted yet by full answers, across the White House itself." Public service, he charged, "has become for too many at the highest levels, selfish in motive and manner. Men who preach publicly of sacrifice practice private indulgence."

The central fusionist theme of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign had been established in his acceptance address at the Republican National Convention. It was "to set the tide running again in the cause of freedom," but a freedom properly understood:

This party, with its every action, every word, every breath and every heartbeat has but a single resolve, and that is freedom—freedom made orderly for the Nation by our constitutional government; freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God; freedom—balanced so that order, lacking liberty, will not become a slave of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty, lacking order, will not become the license of the mob and the jungle.

This eloquent description of "ordered liberty" (drafted by Ohio State professor Harry Jaffa) has not received the attention of historians that it should because of Goldwater's closing words, underlined in the original text:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Inside the convention hall, conservatives reveled in the stinging rebuff of the Republican liberals who had long reviled conservatives for being "extremists." But most of the mass media focused on the word "extremism" and ignored the qualifying phrase "in the defense of liberty," reducing Goldwater's carefully calculated sentence to the simplistic slogan "Extremism is no vice!"

In those distant days, there were no spin doctors who immediately mixed with the news media, describing Goldwater's speech as one of the most brilliant in convention history, drawing attention to the Lincolnian and Churchillian accents, placing the extremism line in perspective with references to Aristotle, Tom Paine, and Patrick Henry. (What could be more extreme than Henry's ringing declaration, "Give me liberty or give me death!") In those days, politicians proposed and the media disposed.

On November 2, 1964, Goldwater delivered his last campaign speech in the small mountaintop town of Fredonia, located on the Arizona–Utah border, and talked about the simple virtues of its hard-working people. He praised their courage for raising cattle "where cattle probably shouldn't have been raised" and without government help and for living their lives "as they felt God wanted them to."

The next day, the American people went to the polls and gave President Lyndon Johnson his fondest wish: a landslide victory. Johnson won the presidency by the largest popular margin in history, receiving 43.1 million votes to Goldwater's 27.1 million—61 percent of the vote. Johnson carried 44 states for a total of 486 electoral votes. Goldwater won just six states: the Deep South's Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina and his home state of Arizona.

The esteemed newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann wrote that the Johnson majority "is indisputable proof that the voters are in the center." Political reporter Tom Wicker argued that Republicans can win only as a "me-too" party. The New York Times' James Reston summed up that "Barry Goldwater not only lost the presidential election yesterday but the conservative cause as well."

"To Begin the World Over Again"

And yet 16 years later, Ronald Reagan won the presidency running as an unapologetic conservative, and in 1994, Republicans gained a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Why?

Almost 30 years to the day after Goldwater was roundly defeated, a USA Today–CNN–Gallup Poll in November 1994 found that 64 percent of Americans agreed with the Republicans' Contract with America. The people wanted smaller government, lower taxes and spending, tougher anti-crime measures, and less Washington meddling in their lives. Every one of these ideas was first proposed by Barry Goldwater in his 1964 campaign. What had been rejected as extreme was now accepted as mainstream.

Ronald Reagan benefited from the Goldwater candidacy in several critical ways. He became a national political star overnight with his 11th-hour televised address for Goldwater, entitled "A Time for Choosing." It is certain that Reagan would not have been given the opportunity to appear on local radio, let alone national TV, if Nelson Rockefeller or any other Republican liberal had been nominated.

Reagan was approached in 1965 and importuned by influential conservatives to seek the Republican nomination for governor of California because of his TV speech for Goldwater. In June 1966, the day after he was nominated, Reagan called Goldwater's presidential campaign manager to say, "Had it not been for you and Barry I would not have won this nomination." He later wrote Goldwater: "You set the pattern.… I have tried to do the same and have found the people more receptive because they've had a chance to realize there is such a thing as truth."

The "pattern" Reagan was referring to was a fusionist blend of traditionalist and libertarian thought; the "truth" was ordered liberty. As governor of California and then President of the United States, Ronald Reagan demonstrated time and again that he was a master fusionist.

In November 1979, when he formally announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President, Reagan addressed the concerns of many Americans who wondered, in the face of President Jimmy Carter's inept handling of the economy and U.S. relations with Iran and other nations, whether America's best days were behind it. He said:

A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality—and above all—responsible liberty for every individual; that we will become that shining city on a hill.

Phrases such as "the principle of…responsible liberty for every individual" came naturally to Reagan because he embodied the idea of fusionism. He was a liberal Democrat turned conservative Republican. He was the son of a shoe clerk who became a Hollywood film star. He was a union leader who cherished the entrepreneurial spirit. He happily joined every left-wing pro-Soviet organization he could find after World War II but then opposed the attempted communist takeover of the Hollywood trade unions. He loved to quote the Founders, especially Tom Paine, who said during the American Revolution, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

But Reagan also honored the Constitution and its many checks and balances, including those directed at him as chief executive. He had a rare ability, present in only a few men of any generation, to understand what was on the minds and in the hearts of the American people and to communicate it in simple but expressive language to the nation and to the world.

In his acceptance address at the Republican National Convention in July 1980, Reagan reflected yet again the traditionalist, libertarian, and anti-communist sensibilities of a true fusionist. He stressed how Americans of every political disposition and in every walk of life are bound together by a "community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace, and freedom." He urged the delegates before him and every member of "this generation of Americans" to dedicate "ourselves to renewing the American compact."

Specifically, he promised to limit federal spending, cut income tax rates by 30 percent over three years, institute a stable monetary reform, reinforce the military, and negotiate with adversaries when possible but always from a position of strength. He daringly ended his address with a moment of silent prayer for America—placed on earth by Divine Providence, he said, to be an "island of freedom…a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to be free."

Throughout his presidency, Reagan emphasized America's mission as a champion of freedom and challenged those who denied freedom, especially the Soviet Union. In March 1983, he told a group of evangelical ministers that the West should recognize that the Soviets "are the focus of evil in this modern world" and the masters "of an evil empire."

Many consider Reagan's "evil empire" speech to be the most important of his presidency, a compelling example of what former Czech President Vaclav Havel calls "the power of words to change history." When Reagan visited Poland and East Berlin after the fall of the Berlin Wall, former dissidents told him that when he called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," it gave them enormous hope. Finally, they said to each other, America had a leader who "understood the nature of communism."

In his farewell address to the American people in January 1989, President Reagan sounded the same fusionist themes that had given him decisive electoral victories in 1980 and 1984. He protested that he was not so much a "Great Communicator" as a communicator of great things that came from the heart of a great nation—"from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries."

He praised the American Revolution, which for the first time in history reversed the course of government with three little words: "We the people." Our Constitution, he said, is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. This belief, he said, "has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years."

Fusionist Renewal and the Future of Conservatism

Today, in the wake of the 2006 elections and the escalating debate among neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, libertarians, and just plain conservatives about the future of conservatism—with some arguing that it has none—a "new" fusionism has been proposed as a solution. It is time, some say, for Republicans and conservatives to return to their small-government roots and get away from so-called religious extremism. They point to Barry Goldwater as the historical model, claiming that he had little interest in the moral side of the political equation.

As we have seen, this is a serious misreading of Goldwater's fundamental views as best-selling author and presidential candidate. Goldwater consistently offered a blend of traditionalist and libertarian ideas. In 1964, for example, he said that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions." A little earlier, he wrote that if the Christian Church doesn't fight totalitarianism, "then who on earth is left to resist this evil which is determined to destroy all virtue, all decency"? Jerry Falwell couldn't have phrased it any better.

Republicans and conservatives must remember, says Dick Armey, House Majority leader from 1995 to 2003 and himself a libertarian, that "the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. [We] must keep both in the fold."

Frank Meyer, the intellectual father of fusionism, and Barry Goldwater, the first political apostle of fusionism, sought to unite, not divide, all conservatives. Their goal was a national movement guided by constitutional principles of ordered liberty. The solution for the American conservative movement in these challenging times is not a new but a renewed fusionism.

Donald Devine of the American Conservative Union, an old-line fusionist like M. Stanton Evans, has called for "utilizing libertarian means for traditionalist ends"—the ends being the return of political power to states, communities, and the people. His proposal, applauded by traditionalists and libertarians, is a response to the Big Government conservatism of recent vintage. In his latest book, Getting America Right, President Ed Feulner of The Heritage Foundation lays out a six-point program to begin rolling back the welfare state and reinforcing traditional American values. As governor of our most populous state and then President for a total of 16 years, Ronald Reagan demonstrated conclusively that fusionism works.

But fusionism requires more than a consensus as to goals: It needs a foe common to all conservatives. Militant communism served as a unifying threat from the late 1940s through the late 1980s. In the early 1990s, without the soothing presence of Ronald Reagan and with the collapse of communism, large fissures appeared in American conservatism. These fissures produced paleoconservatives pining for the isolationist 1930s and neoconservatives resurrecting Wilsonian dreams of a world made safe through democracy.

Leviathan's lengthening shadow across America did not suffice to bring conservatives together until Newt Gingrich and his merry band of congressional revolutionaries offered America a Contract that was fusionist in spirit and helped them win a majority in the House of Representatives. President Bill Clinton countered with his own brand of Democratic fusionism, proclaiming that the era of Big Government was over and signing a conservative welfare reform bill.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the jihad proclaimed by Islamic fundamentalists temporarily united the nation and the conservative movement, but political partisanship quickly reemerged to make prudential governance and reasoned discourse difficult if not impossible.

The impasse can be broken with a renewed fusionism based on limited government, the free market, individual freedom and responsibility, a balance between liberty and law, and a commitment to moral order and to virtue, both private and public. These are the core beliefs, bounded by the Constitution, on which American conservatism rests and by which its leaders have always sought to govern.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/fp8.cfm

RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: Maros
webstránka: http://www.marianjanos.blog.sme.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 16:14


No snad stacilo hodit ten link. Mne to pripada tak akoby tu cast ludi zila v USA realite. U nas je to napriklad s pravicovostou konzerv dost blede. A teda ak ma byt hnacim motorom integracie konzerv s liberalmi boj proti socialistom (a komunistom)vyprodukuje to len velmi malu skupinu.
-
Akosi je problem aj v tom ze prienikov medzi konzervami a liberalmi (libertarianmi) moze byt nekonecne mnozstvo druhov. A v existencii tejto skupiny je vrodeny konflikt idei, ktory podla mna spajanie vylucuje, ovsem minimalne partnerstvo by umoznoval.
-
V konecnom dosledku je rozdelenie a partnerstvo lepsi sposob ako prilakat viac volicov, ako nasilna fuzia.

RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: 7gemini7
e-mail: 7gemini7@azet.sk
pridané: 04-03-2008 20:32


tak sa integrujme zatial len po ekonomickej stránke, tam máme všetci rovnaké názory.. v dnešnom Slovensku to bude na pár rokov stačiť.... respektíve spolupracujme v tejto oblasti. v otázkach osobnej slobody sa totiž asi nikdy nezhodneme....
RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 05-03-2008 14:05


"tak sa integrujme zatial len po ekonomickej stránke, tam máme všetci rovnaké názory"
- ale kdeže .... Nasi KDHaci su socialisti ako remeň. Ked zvazim fakt, ze Fico viac slubuje, ako rozdava, tak mi vychadza, ze KDHaci viac penazi slubuju, ako Fico rozdava.
Takze skutocna integracia ......
A hlavne - KDHaci maju liberalov (...tarianov) za uhlavnych nepriatelov. A toto prevazi.

RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: AS
pridané: 05-03-2008 17:38


" A hlavne - KDHaci maju liberalov (...tarianov) za uhlavnych nepriatelov. "

A plati to aj naopak . ;-)

RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: tomas cunik
pridané: 05-03-2008 23:28


hahaha takymto generalizovanim dostal legitimitu aj hitlerov rasizmus...

pravda je vsak taka ze lipsic (KDH ak by niekto nevedel...)je v sucasnosti najvacsim libertarianom v parlamente..a minule volebne obdobie ho preskocil asi len rudo zajac..keby si "libertariani" naozaj otvorili oci tak by zistili ze je v parlamente v sucasnosti 5 stran, ktore su vascou hrozbou pre slobodu, ako KDH...

RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: LIBERTARIAN
pridané: 06-03-2008 8:10


tomas cunik :
"takymto generalizovanim dostal legitimitu aj hitlerov rasizmus..."

- Presnejsie : dostal LEGALITU. Legalitu dava demokraticke hlasovanie ČOMUKOLVEK. Legalitu dava VACSINA hlasov. Legitimitu chapem ako vyssi, eticky princip, ktory nevznika hlasovanim vacsiny.

Pravda je, ze v parlamente su aj ovela horsi , ako je KDH.

RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: Lahvac
pridané: 09-03-2008 21:42


Nie, nepochopil si to.
RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: tomas cunik
pridané: 09-03-2008 22:27


no ja ako iusnaturalista nepriznavam demokratickemu alebo autokratickemu rozhodovaniu ani legalitu heh...ale je pravda ze som hovoril o dacom inom..
RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: libertarian
pridané: 10-03-2008 10:00


Pokial som to pri bleskovej navsteve wikipedie dobre pochopil. tak jusnaturalismus - to je sučast ANCAPu, libertar.
RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: tomas cunik
pridané: 10-03-2008 16:04


iusnaturalizmus je vlastne prirodzene pravo...taky david friedman nic podobne neuznava a predsa je anarchista.ale je pravda ze vacsina libertarianov su iusnaturalisti..
RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: libertarian
pridané: 11-03-2008 16:11


Friedman - ... ked som cital nedavno nejaku jeho knihu, tak som dost zapochyboval o jeho anarchizme. Este tak nejaky pravicovy liberal, ale nic viac. Zdal sa mi skoro umierneny etatista.
RE: pre Libertariana, Marosa, 7Geminiho7
autor: Lahvac
pridané: 12-03-2008 17:19


A co tak sa namiesto hladania najstylovejsej nalepky sustredit na obsah?
uzivajte drogy, nepite alkohol
autor: Czechtek
pridané: 05-03-2008 12:07


http://www.aktuality.sk/spravy/zahranicne/mojzis-bol-na-vrchu-sina...
RE: uzivajte drogy, nepite alkohol
autor: Firstborn
webstránka: http://www.townhall.com
pridané: 05-03-2008 14:02


co tym chcel basnik povedat?
RE: uzivajte drogy, nepite alkohol
autor: brasil
pridané: 05-03-2008 22:44


To,ze svini sa len o kukurici sniva.

Pridať nový príspevok

 

Upozornenie

Príspevky v diskusii k článku sú osobnými názormi jednotlivých čitateľov. Redakcia Pravého Spektra za ich obsah nenesie žiadnu zodpovednosť.

Diskusné príspevky, ktoré sú v rozpore so zákonom budú odstránené.

O problematických príspevkoch nám môžete dať vedieť e-mailom na adresu redakcie.

Copyright © 2001-2017 Pravé Spektrum, občianske združenie
Stránka používa redakčný a publikačný systém Metafox od Platon Group
Webdizajn: amneziak