Do you folks understand that in order to be free, a people have to be argumentative, often disagreeable, contentious, suspicious of leadership figures, resistant to impersonal emotional appeals, self reliant, self-interested, and willing to resort to violence in order to preserve their liberty?

I'm guessing that you don't, but maybe I'm wrong.

This isn't meant to inflame you, it is an encouragement for you to define yourselves for the benefit of our community, and for yourselves.

Conservatives, being more cerebral, are constantly defining themselves publicly. Liberals, I note, tend to simply recite slogans. I'd like a more substantial set of definitions, and I'm sure many others would too.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

I think the thing the conservatives like yourself don't and won't understand is that it takes a balance. Or at least it takes a balance to live amongst humans as a human. Unless of course you prefer a complete collapse of society and humanity as we know it.

"Liberty" is a subjective term that falls on a spectrum. By virtue of living in a society you sacrifice a degree of "liberty" or "freedom" in order to coexist peacefully with your fellow human beings. We are constantly attempting to balance the needs of society to restrict certain freedoms with the desires for maximum freedoms for the individual.

What many "conservatives" attempt to propose, at least philosophically, is anarchy. Society cannot exist in anarchy and anarchy cannot exist but for brief bursts. Humans are naturally inclined to form a society, and in that, even if we were to adopt the mentality asserted by your post, we would soon enough find ourselves back in the same position where we continue to attempt to balance the needs of society with the liberty of the individual.

So it's not nearly as black and white or simplistic or even as callous as you attempt to make it.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Now that's different, I must say. I'm so used to being accused of being a militaristic fascist who favors rigid social roles that being described as an anarchist almost takes my breath away!

I agree with you about balance, of course. I submit though that without the traits I described being a set of prominent characteristics in the general population, liberty in any form that we might recognize will not long endure, as rule by strength, not law, is Humanity's "base state."

I ask further though, whether you agree with my original assertion that the traits I cite are necessary for a people to have significant liberty for a protracted, mulch-generational period.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Sadly, it seems to many that the "conservative" position is this dichotomy of both extreme controlling tendencies and abdication of social responsibility (anarchy). The policies give pause and confuse many of us who are more interested in the nuance and balance you agreed was necessary.

Now perhaps that is just the rhetoric of the Republican party that is filled with such diverse inconsistency.

I think that many of the traits you describe are GENERALLY unnecessary. The only NECESSARY trait you described is a suspicion of leadership. The rest are only situationally applicable at best.

And Humanity's base state is rule by strength. What the Republicans fail to recognize that INCLUDES "majority rule" and "rule by law". So when the liberals point out that the conservatives are using the government to perpetuate "rule by strength" instead of individual rights, they balk and complain about areas were balance can never and will never be achieved in a society.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Personally, I think that the ability to embrace a large set of dichotomies are what separates us from the beasts, a necessary component intellectualization.

This is why Conservatives abhor the concept of pure democracies, and why many of us wish to see ideologues in power, rather than purely pragmatic people.

That is, democratic processes guided and bound by generally accepted principles rather than democracy unbound.

Slavery is pragmatic, a gang rape is democratic.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Now you went cerebral like a danged Conservative. I don't understand what you wrote. Too much thinking invilved.

__________________
Truth, Justice and the American way

You put a lot of thought into being wrong about trying to define everyone. Try to figure yourself out first. You have no clue what I believe so trying to define it from your perspective is idiocy.

__________________
Truth, Justice and the American way

That I don't know what you believe is hardly surprising, since it appears to be incoherent.

It also seems to be based in a confusion of what you wish to be true with what actually exists.

But do feel free to address the question in the original post.

Carry on.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

But your question is rhetorical. You question people about whether they understand that they have to fight and die to defend their liberty. You ask this as though only republicans serve and defend their country. As though all the finer qualities of Americanism rest only in the republican party. You assume too much about what the left believes as a group. Once you have defined that in the worst possible way you claim some superiority in reason. I would submit that there is very little corelation between party affiliation and patriotism or the understanding of what it takes to defend ones self. In fact many of the leaders on the right avoided serving. Including your candidate. It seems that those that are most gung ho are those who have never served. So if your question is do liberals understand your views? Who cares?

__________________
Truth, Justice and the American way

IMO, the OP is a loaded question designed to flame, not a serious question of wanting to understand the other side's point of view.

I vote my conscience, and I vote out of my values. I think that's what most of us do.