""Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect" -F. Wilhoit
You want my actual time frame of thought? here we go:
1:53- reading the post
(1:54-1:57)- this must mean something about having separation of some sort.. Don't know if that's good, or not... Us citizens vs foreigners? Or a law catered to people, while holding some servicemen/ women accountable? This has no context. I don't know the background of the person who made this proposition and their political views/ behavior, in order to get an idea of what he/she meant. Does seem like a good call for 'Balance.'
1:58- conclusion: I think this proposition is 'good,' but any law that follows this proposition in guideline, while in effect, and it shows more problems than solutions, or lacks the maintaining of peace, or the said 'balance,' it seems to promote, then it should be reconsidered. A new law should be considered to replace it, if it is harmful to progress. If the specific law is life-threatening, it should be "put on-hold" (cabineted/filed) and not enforced in the general public.
2:01- Satisfied, but who's F Wilhoit? "Google?"
Most Helpful Opinions
Can you give us some examples of groups conservatives believe deserve no protection under the law yet must be subservient to it.
I'm not sure that's all of it, and I'd probably use the word authoritatrians rather than conservatives. But, for example, the "Hitler restricted gun ownership" cry from the right ignores the fact that his supporters didn't see those restrictions, just the Jews and other "undesirables".
It's gangsterism, isn't it? You're in, or you're out. Apparently, Putin started off in street gangs, then applied to join the KGB because it was the biggest gang around. I'm not sure I'd call Putin a "conservative". Just a dictator.
not sure. that seems to apply to the other side as well. there's always folks at the top whom apply laws to others they don't abide by.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
5Opinion
Not sure. If we’re speaking in basics, I’d say conservatism today is the destruction of the progressive state.
The statement is not correct. The only people obsessed with binding some groups and protecting others are the intersectional ideologues who wish to use the force of law to effect equal demographic outcomes.
Well that was the policy of the democrat party to keep folks divided, even now they seek to use the law to bind Conservative white males and make it so that non white males and feminists are free to break any law.
nah, just more liberal BS. Conservatism means smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom.
I completely disagree.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!