The new conservadurism???

[jpena92]

The tirtheen colonies started their independence in the XVIII century influenced by the liberal ideas of Europe.
When the independence finished the new country started to apply the liberal ideas opposed to the English ancient costums of monarchy and oath the king, etc...
Then a few years later the thirteen colonies or United States started to protect their new costums their new goverment and in that point the United States changed of role I mean they change the liberlism for the conservadurims. Why?
They start a campaign (militar and intelectual) against all other ideas that didnt match with theirs like the indian ideas o European ideas (Monroe doctrin).( In the reality the Monroe doctrin means America for the "Americans" but for American they understood American from USA because they attacked ancient "American" settles, Spanish in the Caribbean, invasion to Mexico, the buying of Alaska, etc...)
United States started to try to conservate their own ideas and they deneay a changed (that I think was one of the causes of their civil war) at the point of continuing with the slavery in their territories and some other costums that in Europe were abolished earlier than in USA.
And supporting this comentary is the theory of August Comnte who said that "the liberals are who reapeals laws and the conservative are who create laws... the liberals when they goal their objective in that moment they change from liberals to conservatives to conserve the change."

[Mr. Delainey]

You raise some interesting points, Jorge.

American liberalism can be looked at both negatively or positively.

If you look at it positively, the individual is sovereign, they have absolute control over what it is they do, believe, live, etc. In the negative sense, it is difficult to pass laws that apply to everyone equally--individuals naturally oppose any attempts at limiting their freedom.

In the case of Canada, same sex marriage passed as a federal law precisely because built-in to Canadian political culture is respect for government. I wouldn't go so far as to say Canadians are obedient; however, they respect the rule of law as it applies to society as a whole. Whereas in the United States same sex marriage is more difficult to pass into law (federally at least) because individuals equate a federal law allowing same sex marriage as somehow a violation of the individual's belief system, i.e. Theists (people who believe in a god) oppose this practice because it's a violation of an individual's personal belief system.

This is ironic because the same laws that protect a Christian's right to believe in God or a Buddhist's right to believe in whatever it is they believe in, likewise protect a homosexual's rights to get married. If you remove the right of the gay couple, you thereby diminish all other individual freedoms. To put it simply: all individual liberties must be preserved--even then ones we do not agree with (especially the ones we do not agree with).

[jpena92]

In Spanish is a word "libertinaje" that means the exces of liberty I mean a freedom without limits. The problem with that its that you can hurt an other freedom with your own freedom and if this comes general for everyone, our own liberty will take us a state of autodestruction for example, Im free of walk nude (just an example).
And thats one of the dutys of the state ensure the liberty of everyone by LIMIT THE FREEDOM OF EVERYONE a funny thing because like Emmanuel Kant once said "The right its the set of conditions that allows our freedom accomodate in the freedom of everyone else" in less words we need to be slaves of the law to be free (maybe not as literally because actually you are free of electing if you follow the law but if you dont follow the law you will punish) (Max Webber refers to this as "the three authoritys").

Changing the topic in Mexico passed a local law only in "Distrito Federal" (the capital state) that allows the marriage, the adoption, to be heritet and the posibility of heritate in less words the local government gave legal recognition to the same sex partners. The problem came with the catholic church. Why?
Because the homosexuality its seen like a mortal sin acttualy the priest incharge of 'Basilica de Guadalupe" (the second more powerfull priest in Mexico just below the cardenal) said in a public interview "Mexico its not a secular state thats a "bullnuts" and let that demonds (refering to the homosexuals) be married its a "bullnuts" too..."
And infortunately its true the catholic church in Mexico have the power and control of more than 89% of the population and the church can actually move and control all that people like they did before in all the history of Mexico.
The reason of the accesibility of change in a society its the stage of evolution of society. As Comte said.
"The theological stage" (first stage) its the society who dont understand their arround and all that happen its by the will of the gods or god.
"The metaphysic stage" (the second) its when the society start to think about their arround and they start to investigate them and they can understand it but their science its very limited and the gaps that they have they associet it with the god will (in this stage its more comun the religions with one god or divinity)
"The positive stage" its when everything its related with the science the freedom and the knowledge its free and universal and the religion its only a complement of the people I mean it doesnt have a central importance.
And evidence of this its that the industrial revolution started in a era of anti religion ideas when all the other countrys in Europe had the catholicism as their oficial religion( i dont try to mean that the catholicism is the bad guy in the progress of a country), in England and Holland (protestants countrys) started the revolution of ideas ( the illustration XVIII century) and then the revolution of machines and the production forms (industrial age second half of XVIII century and the first half of the XIX century). The illustration started in france and England having of consecuence the french revolution in France and a lot of rebel movements in England and Europe ( like the ludism of Ned Lud in England) the creation of sindicats, other revolutions against monarchys and revolutions against the last revolution and other revolution against the other revolution and an other and an other... it was a chaos because the new goverments after the monarchys they didnt know how to control the people that they taught to fight for their freedom and their equality actually their own people turned against their own goverments changing it a lot of times until the arrival of the positivism.

[Mr. Delainey]

I think it's pretty cool that you got to study all these different philosophies as a teenager. I never got an exposure to thinkers like Comte, Kant, etc. until I went to university.