Posted on 09/24/2004 12:33:11 PM PDT by NCSteve
My definition of a "true" conservative is pretty simple:
A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government. A political conservative believes the only valid function of the US Federal government is to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade. A political conservative believes that anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted at all costs.
A political conservative also believes that the sovereignty of the US is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children. A political conservative believes that treaties and trade agreements that violate that sovereignty are anathema and those who support them are treasonous.
A social conservative believes that the US was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian values. A social conservative believes that personal responsibility is second only to fealty to God in importance as a personality trait. A social conservative believes that the traditional family is the most important social construct and is fundamental to the survival of our society.
A fiscal conservative believes that you have first rights to the fruits of your own labor. A fiscal conservative believes that just as we all must live within our means, so must the government. A fiscal conservative believes that it is immoral for the government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens in order to redistribute it, no matter what the reason.
A "true" conservative is a political, a social, and a fiscal conservative. Simple as that.
No law anywhere in this nation prevents an individual from praying any time he wants.
The Supreme Court outlawing prayer in school was a terrible mistake and certainly not demanded by the Constitution. It was an activist court forcing their own secular progressive values down all of our throats.
Religion is not an individual matter. It is a cultural matter.
To: tacticalogicThe Founders were a product of their times, just as we are today.
"... Sodomy was a criminal offense and was forbidden by the laws of the original thirteen states when they ratified the Bill of Rights ... In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."
I don't know where you get the notion that the Founding Fathers were "live and let live" in their thinking. They weren't faced with the same flagrant debauchery that we are today. One reason might be that in those days committing such flagrant debauchery might find you with each limb tied to a different horse, with one of the Founding Fathers yelling "getty-up!"
# 43 by Jaysun
**********************************
Just as the Founders would have punished the practice of sodomy, they would have accepted without question the Right of a man to beat a wife who wouldn't behave.
Things are reversed today, with most of us accepting without question the Right of an individual to practice sodomy if he wants, while we'd barely be questioned if we took matters into our own hands and punished an abusing husband.
Oh my hind foot.
A man's relationship with Christ is absolutely an individual matter.
Prayer was not outlawed in school, ever.
Prayer organized by public schools was ruled unconstitutional.
There's a world of difference.
You think it was peachy for our forebearers in this country?
exodus - "An anarchist is not a libertarian."I am a libertarian, Ruadh, while you don't know what you believe, other than that people shouldn't hurt each other or steal.
Ruadh - I am a libertarian. I posted a definition of what that meant (post #70). Let me repeat: A libertarian is one who opposes the initiation of force to invade the rights or steal the product of other people. The means to achieve the goal of minimizing such invasions are in dispute, with some libertarians, called minarchists, saying the best way is a small, limited government. Others, the anarcho-capitalists, assert that private defense and arbitration agencies can do better. Both agree on the goal and differ only on the means. Both are libertarian.
**********************************
Ruadh, you say in post # 70 that
"... The heart of libertarianism is self-ownership and the nonaggression principal; that an adult person has the right to do whatever he wishes with his own life and production, and that no person or group of people has the right to initiate force or fraud to invade that right or steal that production. Libertarian political activity is aimed at achieving a society where this right to self-ownership is respected to the maximum extent possible. It should be clear that using the force of government for anything beyond this is itself aggression (i.e. initiation of force), hence "the least government is the best government."Do you really believe that your property or self would be safe with without Law to restrain aggression?
There is disagreement among libertarians as to what political arrangement would best accomplish this purpose. Some say limited government, such as that laid out by the U.S. Constitution is the best we can do, others assert that this experiment has failed and it's time to try anarchy ..."
To: exodus; tacticalogicMe too!!
Those were the days. I can't tell you of the times I've wanted to take a strap to my lusty wench for not obeying me! ;o)
# 148 by Jaysun
**********************************
Just the other day I told my wife, "Woman, you WILL obey me ..."
>SHhhh< I think she's coming ... let's change the subject, okay?
We can definitely agree to disagree, and I bear you no acrimony. As I said earlier, it's been a fun discussion.
Exactly so. The founders were very explicit in their views that regulation of social and moral issues were best left to the governments closest to the people: the states.
I thought long and hard about that one. My conclusion is that a belief in that right is not necessarily criteria for conservatism, it is criteria for being a human being. I can find no justification for anyone who supports the reduction of a human life to that of a "choice" to include themselves among civilized humanity. In short, it was omitted because I felt it was self-evident.
To: JaysunIf Jefferson's argument were accepted by our leaders today, the "war" on drugs wouldn't be possible.
To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen), which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.
- Thomas Jefferson, on establishing a national bank.
# 56 by tacticalogic
**********************************
They did have these things to deal with and much more. Imagine having these problems and at the same time not having modern conveniences such as medicine, surgery, understandings of physics, transistors, computers, and the internal combustion engine. I wouldn't want to switch places with them.
To: EternalVigilanceWell said, NCSteve.
"... In short, (the Right to Life) was omitted because I felt it was self-evident.
# 153 by NCSteve
**********************************
To: Repairman Jack; NCSteve; Jaysun; tacticalogicAny one who believes that the government should act "despite ... limitations on their power" is not a conservative.
"... Social conservatives believe that the federal or state government can and should act, despite the other limitations on their power, to support institutions that tend to engender a strong moral character, such as church and marriage."
# 57 by NutCrackerBoy
**********************************
To: tacticalogicIf the Founders were here today, they wouldn't be talking about change.
I'm with you. My point was that in arguing the role of the federal government we have to remember that we aren't playing in the same park that the Founders were. The states are impotent today. I assume that since ALL of the colonies had sodomy laws, decent social policy was something that they considered important. As such, I would have to assume that they'd be right behind President Bush in wanting to amend the Constitution if they were here today.
# 62 by Jaysun
**********************************
And if we adhered to this guidance, fully a quarter or a third of the Federal government would simply cease to exist. Imagine the long period of prosperity and peace that would ensue. Other than the scores of unemployed lawyers, that is.
The problem I have with the non-aggression part of modern libertarianism or Thoreau Libertarianism, if you will, is the inevitable corollary that nothing is worth fighting for. Galt's Gulch and Watership Down are beautiful ideas in a Utopian principle. However, I cannot discover any practical way to get there. We must, in the end, use force to counter those who would impose their will on us by force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.