Posted on 02/11/2016 12:02:09 PM PST by Torcert
When it comes to any federal act, you only need to ask yourself one question: "Is it Constitutional?" If challenged, you can add, "Well is it, Punk ?"
“lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)”
How’s that for a working definition?
Bookmark
Well, the main aspect we have to remember is that the Constitution restrains the Government and not the people.
Thus the primary way we can keep control from creeping up is to apply the founding documents and limit the Government.
Excellent - and clearly on the Right side of the scale.
The problem arises when comrades from the national Socialist Left like to mis-characterize wanting a ‘strong national defense’ as something else in an effort to muddy the waters.
And unbelievably, I’ve had some of them try to assert that socialism (moving up the government control scale in spades) will somehow yield them more freedom..... smh.
I would argue that Monarchy and Oligarchy are one in the same. You cannot keep a Monarch in power without those willing to support the Monarch, hence the Oligarchy.
Of course.
The key is reinstating the Constitution front and center against the feds as the Supreme Law of the Land and Ruler over the feds. Applying the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, brings into high definition the illegality and invalidity of most federal government activity. The key is for Americans to reclaim and learn THEIR Constitution and THEIR political freedoms and to influence their states and elected officials to enforce the Constitution against the feds.
Yes, I would tend to agree.
The very notion of a political spectrum is crap. Every voter has a certain set of interests. Sometimes they weave a consistent political narrative through it, themselves. Sometimes politicians say, “you stand for this principle on this issue... can I get you to stand for it on this issue.” More often, voters trust a candidate of a given party on one issue, so they can be talked into agreeing on another issue. But that’s more often being a team member than a rational relationship between issues: Take for instance, the way leftists support both Islam and gay rights.
For a few, there is a persistent ideological framework to their positions. For instance, I’m very much NOT of the gun culture. But I’m very pro-2nd amendment because I’m a constitutionalist. But we true ideologues are far few and far between. And then, it’s not a spectrum; it’s just whether you believe an ideology — any of dozens — or not.
Even the most basic ideological oppositions are artifices of a binary election system. For instance, even communism isn’t antithetical to a free market; in fact, the only economic-political system that can let true communism exist is a free market.
If 1% of the money spent funding leftist ideologies were spent, instead, investing in means of production, and if the government allowed free markets, anyone who wanted to could belong to a commune by now. It’s the political structure that makes one have to be genocidal, freedom-hating statist to be a communist.
By the way, the political circle is also crap. Once people get away from the political mainstream, they can get away from the basic oppositional structure of the binary system. In doing so, they can have commonality with other ideologies associated with the either side of the binary system. A freemarketer and a communism may find less separating them than an economic neoconservative and a statist, but it’s ludicrous to say that an extremist freemarketer becomes more communistic, and merely slander to associate fascists with conservatives.
Well, you should notice that only the ends of the spectrum are numerically defined.
The other ideologies are on more of a ‘sliding scale’ as it were - with some people even in the same ideological circles being at different points on the scale.
Part of what needs to be understood is that in a relative sense most ideologies are disposed on the scale as was detailed.
Example: Communist way over on the left, Conservative over on the right.
I once had a Bernie Sander supporter try to claim that he was ‘Libertarian Socialist’ - which does not make any sense being those two ideologies are at very disparate parts of the scale. With Libertarian being of very limited government and Socialism being of big oppressive government.
That assertion by that BS supporter was like someone trying to claim to be a ‘authoritarian anarchist’.
I would agree with that circle postulation as making no sense.
For that to be the case, one would have change from full totalitarian to full anarchist at a single point on the ‘Circle’.
The Problem is that I fear that too many don’t know the source of their freedoms and can’t remember history....
What is the point?
Conservatives have misused the language, and have little credibility. The guest host on David Webb yesterday called Sanders a communist.
Conservatives frequently call people like Kasich liberal and democrat.
Reagan would not have done that, but we have come very far from Reagan.
Agreed. But I think that could be changed and I think it starts with a mass re-education in the Constitution as the basis of their political freedom and a desire to learn it.
Maybe if people saw that they have basically two choices, freedom or tyranny, they would pick political freedom and learn about the Constitution as the legal basis and protection of their political freedom the alternative being slavery to the tyranny of the feds.
I think in the Trump campaign at least, we’re seeing people snapping back at the establishment and willing to go another direction. That is a hopeful sign that many may be willing to repossess and learn the freedom that is theirs and how it is protected by the limits on the feds by the Constitution as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Linear scales are pretty useless for describing multi dimensional concepts. For example, there are left wing anarchists and right wing statists, neither of which fall on your line.
I’m sorry, but politics simply can’t be described in one dimension. You need at least 2 axis to accurately describe a political philosophy.
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.