Posted on 10/28/2003 8:58:48 AM PST by bassmaner
Of course I don't think you speak for all conservatives. I asked you because you're the first person to respond to my question . . . ever. Most pro-W.o.D. posters have ignored it ever since I began asking forms of it about a year ago. And I thank you for your honesty and your willingness to discuss it.
I'm confused by your two statements. You don't think support for individual rights is a conservative principle, yet you seem to support individual rights w/r/t firearms, and you call yourself a conservative. Is this---firearm ownership---perhaps the only area in which you support individual rights?
Sure they did -- that collective being the individual states.
The Constitution placed limits on the federal government only. The states were bound by their individual state constitutions. If a state wanted to ban guns, or free speech, or establish a state religion, they were free to do so.
Or didn't you know this?
What is it that defines them as "conservative" legislators, if not the laws they help pass?
Our society. Our values. Our way of life. Our traditions.
All of which are destroyed by making individual rights and individual liberties the foundation for the way we live.
I don't believe in anarchy.
You're contradicting yourself. In another post, you said the 2nd Amendment doesn't imply a collective individual right, but an individual right. Which is it?
Exactly who constitutes "our"?
Those are great Hallmark sentiments. Unfortunately, any citizen of any country could say the same words; there is nothing uniquely American about your 'conservatism'.
It is the fact that American society and culture created revolutionary libertarian values which makes it possible to speak of conserving those values.
If you don't think that the principles of the Revolution merit conservation, perhaps you'll admit, then, to being a Tory, not an American Conservative.
All of which are destroyed by making individual rights and individual liberties the foundation for the way we live.
I don't believe in anarchy.
The Wizard of Oz not withstanding, strawmen aren't real people.
What does define a political position is the extent to which one interprets this individual right.
As a conservative, I say that society has a right to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society. As a conservative, I am comfortable with my previous definition of "arms" and who may or may not restrict them. A conservative does not define his position as one of championing individual rights and individual liberties over the good of society.
A libertarian would place individual rights, individual liberties above all else. Carrying an M249 SAW around while shopping at the local grocery store, why not?
As long as one's constitutionally protected rights are not being violated, I believe that they may be tempered by society.
(Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. If a state wishes to restrict or ban guns, and it is allowed by the state constitution, it may do so.)
Oddly enough, doing this is completely legal in my state.
Hah! Starting with what, drugs?
You're great at wrapping yourself in conservative rhetoric when it comes to the things you want. Where were you when this country was losing these "priciples of the Revolution"? Find one for me today.
But you want to restore these priciples starting with legalizing all drugs -- and you dare to cite the era of the Revolution and call it a principle. That takes balls.
I think John Adams had people like you in mind when he opined that our Constitution was wholly inadequate to the government of any other than a moral and religious people.
The General Assembly giveth and the General Assembly taketh away.
I would think that's it's more of the principle of ownership of one's own body, and the legitimacy of government regulation of the use of that body.
That's not true, because a communist would read "the right of the people" to mean the right of the people as a collective, not the right of people as individuals. Therefore, vis-a-vis a person's relationship with his or her government, this---interpretation of what constitutes individual rights---most definitely defines a political position.
As a conservative, I say that society has a right to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society.
Society does not have rights. An individual has rights. The Bill of Rights applies to people, not to an American society.
As a conservative, I am comfortable with my previous definition of "arms" and who may or may not restrict them. A conservative does not define his position as one of championing individual rights and individual liberties over the good of society.
Obviously. That's why I asked you: "What's an appropriate metric for determining how much influence the government (any kind, federal, state, or local) may have on our personal lives? Where do you draw the line between public and private behavior?"
As long as one's constitutionally protected rights are not being violated, I believe that they may be tempered by society.
So rights are something granted by the government?
(Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. If a state wishes to restrict or ban guns, and it is allowed by the state constitution, it may do so.)
Really, even ban? Even given the 14th Amendment?
Sorry. I should have been clearer. "Our" means "not you".
Now, let's see if you can put a sentence together not followed by a question mark. You called individual rights and individual liberties a conservative position. Then what constitutes a libertarian position when it comes to rights and liberty?
I said it was a libertarian scenario. But "nightmare", "libertarian", whatever.
Nonsense? Your "right" to carry an M249 SAW into the 7-11 was given to you, not by God, but by the Georgia General Assembly. And they can take it away.
Are you deliberately trying to be an asshole? I hope not.
Now, let's see if you can put a sentence together not followed by a question mark. You called individual rights and individual liberties a conservative position. Then what constitutes a libertarian position when it comes to rights and liberty?
You should probably ask a libertarian. I consider myself more of a classic liberal in the mold of John Locke, absent his defense of slavery. As such, I believe in the sovereignty of an individual insomuch as the state has to provide compelling, overwhelming reason if it wishes to legislate or make administrative rules or grasp power in areas not clearly defined in its formative document, i.e., the Constitution.
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.