Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A True Conservative
MeMyselfAndI | 9/24/2004 | NCSteve

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: conservative; libertarianizethegop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-268 next last
To: exodus
Borders are nothing more than the limit of our ownership, our land. If I decide, as an individual, to let people come onto my property any time they want, it's my Right to do so. I personally know people who do that very thing, allowing the unrestricted use of their homes to people they barely know.

This is a sore point for me since I have very good friends who would love to come and visit me in the US but can not because the US makes it almost impossible for them to get a visa. US Embassies in foreign countries have way too much power in deciding who can and can not come into this country. It is not uncommon for visas to be denied even when the person has a letter from a US Citizen inviting them to the US for a visit. These friends are not even from Muslim countries but from places like Thailand and South Africa. When the government will not even let people into the country when they are specifically invited, there is a major problem.

121 posted on 09/24/2004 3:09:42 PM PDT by killjoy (The sky is falling and I want my mommy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack
It's conflict among those who put a greater emphasis on either political conservativism, social conservatism or fiscal conservatism across all issues.

What you are defining is definitely a form of "one issue" type of fanaticism. You cannot be a true social conservative, and override all fiscal considerations to pursue "social conservatism." Anyone who understands economics will tell you how critical are those fiscal issues to the preservation of your society. You cannot divorce them.

You cannot be a true political conservative, and not be concerned with social and fiscal issues. They are inherently interwoven with the preservation of a healthy body politic. The notion of a divorce, simply does not scan.

You are referring to people who claim to be Conservative, but are in fact focused on particular issues, at the expense of the overall concern for preserving heritage.

122 posted on 09/24/2004 3:10:36 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican; NCSteve
NCSteve -"... all conservatives are libertarian ..."
RedBloodedAmerican - huh?
**********************************
The defining points of libertarians today is their belief in a limited government restrained by written Law, and their belief in the sanctity of an individual's Rights.

Those beliefs were all-important to our Founders, too.

123 posted on 09/24/2004 3:10:40 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Intent? Seriously? Who will decide intent? The thought police? ALL of the references and symbols were added for the same reason - that reason isn't to alienate anyone.

What is that one reason?

124 posted on 09/24/2004 3:12:33 PM PDT by killjoy (The sky is falling and I want my mommy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack
That's not how the Constitution works. All powers not specifically ennumerated belong to the states and the people.

The problem is that you assume that by not persecuting Christianity, the government is "promoting" it. I have no way to argue against such an absurd idea.

The states have no power. The people have no power. The power in this issue rest with the courts and the anti Christian zealots. The reason for that rest with the passive Christians, who instead of standing up for themselves, adopt the arguments of their attackers as their own.
125 posted on 09/24/2004 3:12:56 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
What is that one reason?

Because we're Christians - almost all of us. As such, we're to tell the world!!
126 posted on 09/24/2004 3:13:56 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Because we're Christians - almost all of us. As such, we're to tell the world!!

No, you are Christian. I am not.

127 posted on 09/24/2004 3:17:25 PM PDT by killjoy (The sky is falling and I want my mommy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
The problem is that you assume that by not persecuting Christianity, the government is "promoting" it.

You have it exactly backwards.

You think that by not promoting Christianity, government is perscuting it.

Government's job is not to promote Christianity. Christianity doesn't need government's stamp of approval.

And the funny thing is, you accuse me of adopting the other side's arguments.

When in fact, you have adopted their tactics.

128 posted on 09/24/2004 3:21:26 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
No, you are Christian. I am not.

Great. Don't be. I was talking about the people who put up the symbols we were discussing. Remember that? I'm sick of talking about this and I have to go get my wife. Toodle-oo
129 posted on 09/24/2004 3:21:53 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
exodus - Borders are nothing more than the limit of our ownership, our land. If I decide, as an individual, to let people come onto my property any time they want, it's my Right to do so. I personally know people who do that very thing, allowing the unrestricted use of their homes to people they barely know.
killjoy - This is a sore point for me since I have very good friends who would love to come and visit me in the US but can not because the US makes it almost impossible for them to get a visa. US Embassies in foreign countries have way too much power in deciding who can and can not come into this country. It is not uncommon for visas to be denied even when the person has a letter from a US Citizen inviting them to the US for a visit. These friends are not even from Muslim countries but from places like Thailand and South Africa. When the government will not even let people into the country when they are specifically invited, there is a major problem.
**********************************
There is a major problem with our immigration policies, I agree.

I believe the problem is too much government control. They're afraid of too much movement, thinking that if people come and go as they want, they wouldn't have as much control of us as they would if people just stayed put when they're told to.

It's become a problem with our internal movements, too.

Get your papers in order, killjoy. You'll need them soon, even though you're a citizen, just to travel within our own nation.

130 posted on 09/24/2004 3:22:42 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan


Um, if you're suggesting there is no conflict among conservatives then you are sadly mistaken.

And if you think there shouldn't be conflict among them, that's even worse. The conflict serves as a crucible.

There is no "perfect conservativism" because no two conservatives think alike.

We are not Borg.


131 posted on 09/24/2004 3:24:06 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack; Jaysun
Even if you are a skeptic, as I am, the appropriate mental model is that we are a nation "under God". Both the people and the government exist in the world and are capable of doing good or evil. If necessary for you, think of this God as an abstract God, but for sure that God is based on the monotheistic God of Judaism and Christianity.

The First Amendment affirms that persons of various belief systems won't be persecuted, and that, for example, persons of a certain Christian denomination won't be installed by law in the government.

As long as these basic tenets aren't violated, it is perfectly appropriate and desirable that Christian symbols be put on courthouses, for example, because that affirms that the intent is that government power be exercised morally.

132 posted on 09/24/2004 3:24:27 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: exodus
"An anarchist is not a libertarian."

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.
133 posted on 09/24/2004 3:26:23 PM PDT by Ruadh (Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end. — LORD ACTON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack
You think that by not promoting Christianity, government is perscuting it.

OK genius. What in the hell do you call it when we have our asses dragged to court to stop praying, stop referencing God, stop do anything that might "offend" someone? What is that? Is it called "promotion" if we're allowed to go our way left alone? I suppose those "offended" by Christianity are the only relevant people in America? How much goes on that "offends" Christians?

Never mind. I suppose you'll say that others aren't "left alone" when I put a cross on my door.
134 posted on 09/24/2004 3:26:38 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy


And what if some Imam demands one of their moon symbols be placed up there, for the same reasons?

Or that we place "One Nation Under Allah" on the dime?

I am a Christian, and a patriot, which is why I am optimistic about my ideals winning out in a free market of ideas, and why I believe my values don't need government subsidy.


135 posted on 09/24/2004 3:27:08 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
OK genius. What in the hell do you call it when we have our asses dragged to court to stop praying

No law anywhere in this nation prevents an individual from praying any time he wants.

stop referencing God

Where? In legislative bills, or in your own life? Under your employer's rules, or in your own house?

stop do anything that might "offend" someone?

That's about as broad a charge as you can make. Sounds good, but let's hear a specific.

136 posted on 09/24/2004 3:29:29 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Never mind. I suppose you'll say that others aren't "left alone" when I put a cross on my door.

What you put on your property is your business and no one else's.

137 posted on 09/24/2004 3:30:06 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack
No one is suggesting that all Conservatives agree on all issues. That was not my point.

My point is that any "Conservative," who would claim there is a conflict between political, social and fiscal conservatism, is not a real Conservative. That is all the point I was making on the subject. The political, social and fiscal spheres are inherently interrelated, and anyone who tries to focus exclusively on only one sphere, is more focused on aspects that are not necessarily premised on Conservatism, at all.

138 posted on 09/24/2004 3:30:38 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan


I see. My mistake. :)


139 posted on 09/24/2004 3:31:57 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack
What if some Imam demands one of their moon symbols be placed up there [on a courthouse], for the same reasons [symbolic of morality in government]?

I would be surprised not to see those symbols if I were in a Muslim country. There is no widespread tradition here in the US of Islam as the common moral basis, and so putting those symbols on a courthouse in America would have an entirely different meaning. Also, Islam does not have a sufficient distinction of mosque and state, as Christianity (these days) does.

140 posted on 09/24/2004 3:32:29 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-268 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson