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.
Odd 'question' you ask. -- Is that what ~you~ think phil?
Impoverished? No. Free? Yes.
I don't begrudge you that glib answer. I've failed to convince you of a truth before your eyes, that religious culture staves off creeping totalitarianism, and, conversely, creeping power of the state (e.g. banning public school prayer) chokes religious culture's ability to thrive to the next generation.
You are a hard sell. But thankfully, I need exert nothing to convince you that a religious culture can suddenly become a purely secular culture - we see easily that in Canada and all of Europe the churches lay empty. It is not a coincidence that socialism has greater strength there than here. So much for the free market of ideas.
I may be a hard sell, but friend, we're still on the same side.
exodus - "I am a libertarian, Ruadh, while you don't know what you believe, other than that people shouldn't hurt each other or steal."Yes, you're right.
Ruadh - Wow. Shouldn't you more accurately be claiming that YOU don't know what I believe, other than what I've posted?
**********************************
Sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive.
Nevertheless, a definition of "libertarian" that does not cover Rothbard is like a definition of "communist" that excludes LeninLenin was not a communist. Lenin was a socialist; he only used the honorable label of "communist" to justify his tyranny.
**********************************
Murray N. Rothbard - A Legacy of LibertyRothbard was right, Gingrich betrayed the Contract with America.
"... Rothbard's theory was his practice. He was involved in nearly every political and social development of his time, from Robert Taft's presidential campaign to the 1994 elections. His last article, appearing in the Washington Post, warned that Newt Gingrich is more likely to betray the revolution than lead it ..."
**********************************
Ruadh - Your distinction between libertarian and anarchist excludes one of the most prominent libertarians of the 20th century, Murray Rothbard, of all people.From what I've read on that website, Rothbard was not an anarchist.
Murray N. Rothbard - A Legacy of Liberty
"... Rothbard was called "the state's great living enemy" because he applied traditional standards of morality to government. If it is wrong for a person to demand your money or your life, it is also wrong for a band of criminals calling themselves the government to do so. Rothbard's "anarchism" only sought to make the government subject to the rule of law ..."
**********************************
exodus - "Do you really believe that your property or self would be safe with without Law to restrain aggression?"Safety is never absolute.
Ruadh - Well, they are not safe now, in any absolute sense. The real question is whether they'd be safer with or without a state (which is what I presume you mean by "Law" in this context.) I am personally conservative enough to be not easily convinced by theoretical arguments such as those offered by Rothbard. I should like to see a functioning anarchy before I buy it.
**********************************
To be precise, I don't mean "the State" when I say Law; I mean the Rule of Law, which when active, becomes government. "Law" is the human principle involved in organization, not a State, though in practice Law pretty much does mean government.
From what I've read, Rothbard didn't advocate anarchy. He wanted government to both follow and be subject to Law, just as citizens are.
There has never, and never will be, a "functional" anarchy. Anarchy is chaos, not civilization. Any period of anarchy has always, and will always be, followed closely by the organization of the weary survivors, tired of the brutality they had been exposed to by evil men, those who are always ready to take advantage of those weaker than they are.
Law both allows and protects civilization. Without Law, there is no civilization.
"From what I've read on that website, Rothbard was not an anarchist." -exodus.
"Let us consider, for example, what it is that sharply distinguishes government from all other organizations in society. Many political scientists and sociologists have blurred this vital distinction, and refer to all organizations and groups as hierarchical, structured, "governmental," etc. Left-wing anarchists, for example, will oppose equally government and private organizations such as corporations on the ground that each is equally "elitist" and "coercive." But the "rightist" libertarian is not opposed to inequality, and his concept of "coercion" applies only to the use of violence. The libertarian sees a crucial distinction between government, whether central, state, or local, and all other institutions in society. Or rather, two crucial distinctions. First, every other person or group receives its income by voluntary payment: either by voluntary contribution or gift (such as the local community chest or bridge club), or by voluntary purchase of its goods or services on the market (i.e., grocery store owner, baseball player, steel manufacturer, etc.). Only the government obtains its income by coercion and violence—i.e., by the direct threat of confiscation or imprisonment if payment is not forthcoming. This coerced levy is "taxation." A second distinction is that, apart from criminal outlaws, only the government can use its funds to commit violence against its own or any other subjects; only the government can prohibit pornography, compel a religious observance, or put people in jail for selling goods at a higher price than the government deems fit. Both distinctions, of course, can be summed up as: only the government, in society, is empowered to aggress against the property rights of its subjects, whether to extract revenue, to impose its moral code, or to kill those with whom it disagrees. Furthermore, any and all governments, even the least despotic, have always obtained the bulk of their income from the coercive taxing power. And historically, by far the overwhelming portion of all enslavement and murder in the history of the world have come from the hands of government. And since we have seen that the central thrust of the libertarian is to oppose all aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian necessarily opposes the institution of the State as the inherent and overwhelmingly the most important enemy of those precious rights." -Murray Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty3.asp
You have disagreed with me as to the definition of "libertarian" and "communist." Perhaps you are disagreeing as to "anarchist" as well?
Here's more from Rothbard: "Libertarians favor the abolition of all States everywhere, and the provision of legitimate functions now supplied poorly by governments (police, courts, etc.) by means of the free market. Libertarians favor liberty as a natural human right, and advocate it not only for Americans but for all peoples. In a purely libertarian world, therefore, there would be no "foreign policy" because there would be no States, no governments with a monopoly of coercion over particular territorial areas. But since we live in a world of nation-states, and since this system is hardly likely to disappear in the near future, what is the attitude of libertarians toward foreign policy in the current State-ridden world?"
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty13.asp
At the time the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, the States had legislation on the books that accomplished all of the things which the ACLU has lately interfered with. The framers of the Constitution were not idiots. If they intended anything remotely like what you suggest--and suggest over and over again in various threads--they would have addressed it. If you read the Constitution as an entity, you will note that they did address those things which they wanted the States to cease doing--both in Article I, Section 10, and by implication in Article IV.
You can cite provisions out of context--and clearly without understanding--until you are blue in the face. That will not change the intended nature of our systems.
And the absurdity of your claiming to be a Libertarian, but denying the rights of local governments to set moral standards for themselves, should be equally evident. Obviously, it is more in accordance with the concept of free individuals for the Police power to be invested in the Governments near to them--the Governments that they can influence directly--and not in far off Washington.
Incidentally, I am not sure just what you are intending to say on the subject of whether Conservatism is correctly addressed in the lead essay? That is the subject, you know.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The Federal Government was set up with very important functional roles, relating to Commerce, avoidance of problems between the States, and protecting all of them from foreign dangers, etc.. The day to day interaction of Government with respect to questions of health, safety and morals--the Police Power--was left to the States; or better put, not delegated to the Federal Government.
In short, moral rule setting was never intended to be a Federal function.
"Moral rule setting" was never intended to be a primary function of State or local government either.
We were to have a republican form of government in the States, where our individual rights to life, liberty, & property were not to be infringed.
Moral rule setting by majority will is against all of our basic Constitutional principles.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been the avenue by which the Federal Courts have interfered with the exercise of State Police powers, where someone claimed, on one of various rationales, that they were unfair.
After the civil war, some States were violating the individual rights of former slaves, using the 1833 Marbury opinion as their rationale. The 14th attempted to stop those violations.
The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment has been the vehicle to apply restrictions originally put on the Federal Government, which was not supposed to act in certain fields, to the States, which from time immemorial have had the role to act in those very fields.
State & local governments can reasonably regulate public behaviors, using Constitutional methods.
-- See Art. VI, as to how all Officials are bound to support our Constitution as the Law of the Land.
You are very confused. At the time the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, the States had legislation on the books that accomplished all of the things which the ACLU has lately interfered with.
You seem obsessed with the ACLU, Flax.. Why? -- I am not their defender.
The framers of the Constitution were not idiots. If they intended anything remotely like what you suggest--and suggest over and over again in various threads--they would have addressed it. If you read the Constitution as an entity, you will note that they did address those things which they wanted the States to cease doing--both in Article I, Section 10, and by implication in Article IV.
You ignore Article VI, with its clear demand that States honor the "Law of the Land"; -- "anything in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
You can cite provisions out of context--and clearly without understanding--until you are blue in the face. That will not change the intended nature of our systems.
You can say I lack 'understanding' till you're blue, but that doesn't change the clear words of our Constitution, as I cite them.
And the absurdity of your claiming to be a Libertarian, but denying the rights of local governments to set moral standards for themselves, should be equally evident.
I've never denied that local governments have the power to set reasonable standards for public behavior, as you well know.
Obviously, it is more in accordance with the concept of free individuals for the Police power to be invested in the Governments near to them--the Governments that they can influence directly--and not in far off Washington.
You preach to the choir, Flax.
Incidentally, I am not sure just what you are intending to say on the subject of whether Conservatism is correctly addressed in the lead essay? That is the subject, you know. William Flax
I addressed what you had to say about "Moral rule setting".
-- Setting 'moral rules' is not a primary function of a republican form of government.
In the days of our founding fathers, that was known as "liberal." The Democratic party usurped the meaning of liberal and now it means something disgusting.
The same kind of thing is happening now to the word "conservative." Instead of limiting government, many self-proclaimed conservatives want to expand governmental powers to encompass every detail of American life. This is not conservative. It's the same kind of planned existence that Frederick Hayek warned us about in The Road to Serfdom.
I was raised to understand that there is no political formula that can guarantee freedom. The only thing that defends our freedom is what is inside each of us. Some professed conservatives and many liberals today violate all of those principles. That comes as no surprise to me. I was warned again and again that it would be this way. The label "conservative" does not guarantee patriotism. The Republican or Libertarian parties cannot tell us how to be free, or what we need to do in order to protect the birthright of liberty that has been bestowed upon us.
Only we can do that in the silence of our own minds.
I say that almost every single day I post on your forum. I am roundly denounced by many, many "conservatives" here. Go figure.
(Are you) asserting that a stateless society is not necessarily an anarchy...?I'm saying that there has never been a system of government that could be called anarchy.
**********************************
I can't think of a single instance where anarchy "functioned" within a nation; not even a part of a nation; not even a single town or village. There might be anarchy (by that I mean lawlessness) for a short while, but within a very short while the citizens of the area will organize some form of Law, even if it's nothing more involved than allowing a local strong man to become a dictator.
Anarchy is not a "society." Anarchy is the short period between one society and the next, and it is always the result of the violent overthrow of the previous society.
That guy Rothbard doesn't seem to know how to use small paragraphs, so I've gone down the line taking his ideas in order.I don't see anything here to indicate that Rothbard is an anarchist; on the contrary, I agree with everything he's said so far, and I'm sure that as you read him point by point, you wouldn't be able to show where the Founders of our country would disagree with him either.
The Founders and those who preceded them made all these points more than 200 years ago. Yes, any government tends to become a tyranny, and all governments are evil, but a necessary evil as we must have Law; thus government is an evil that must be held in tight control.
. That is the stated reason our founders created a government with a written system of Law, and why they limited the acquisition of power allowed by that government.
Thanks for the link to Rothbard's essay. Here's my summery of his first points. --
"The State as Aggressor" by Murray Rothbard
THE CENTRAL THRUST of libertarian thought, then, is to oppose any and all aggression against the property rights of individuals in their own persons and in the material objects they have voluntarily acquired ..."
"... In the libertarian society there would be no "district attorney" who prosecutes criminals in the name of a nonexistent "society," even against the wishes of the victim of crime. The victim would himself decide whether to press charges ..."
"... Furthermore, as another side to the same coin, in a libertarian world the victim would be able to press suit against a wrongdoer without having to convince the same district attorney that he should proceed ..."
"... Moreover, in the system of criminal punishment in the libertarian world, the emphasis would never be, as it is now, on "society's" jailing the criminal; the emphasis would necessarily be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim of his crime. The present system, in which the victim is not recompensed but instead has to pay taxes to support the incarceration of his own attacker—would be evident nonsense in a world that focuses on the defense of property rights and therefore on the victim of crime ..."
"... most libertarians are not pacifists ..."
"... There will be no governmental machinery that pursues and tries criminals even against the wishes of the victim ..."
"... the critical difference between libertarians and other people is not in the area of private crime; the critical difference is their view of the role of the State—the government. For libertarians regard the State as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public. All States everywhere, whether democratic, dictatorial, or monarchical ..."
"... the government and its rulers and operators have been considered above the general moral law. (There are many examples in history of men,) most of whom are perfectly honorable in their private lives, who lie in their teeth before the public. Why? For "reasons of State." Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by "private" citizens ..."
"... The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law (even) to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions (for "public" servants) ..."
"... if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place ..."
**********************************
"The State as Aggressor" by Murray RothbardRuadh, what Rothbard calls "Left-wing anarchists," I call communists.
"... Left-wing anarchists, for example, will oppose equally government and private organizations such as corporations on the ground that each is equally "elitist" and "coercive." ..."
**********************************
Communists are those who worry that someone else might possibly be getting more than "their fair share." They believe that even though not everyone is equal in ability or determination, everyone should nonetheless be equal in possessions and decision-making power.
Communism is not anarchy, but still, it isn't a form of government that will work for anything larger than a village or town. There will never be a communist nation, because people as a whole will never surrender their lives and property to control by others, no matter how much they "trust" those others.
Communism will work only as long as the society surrounding the commune will accept it's refugees. When they decide that they do not want other people controlling their life and property through "community" decisions, they would be free to leave and go to a more logically ran society.
If society ever as a whole becomes communist, it will be only a matter of time until those unhappy with having their Rights trampled on, being unable to leave, become numerous enough to rebel against their "community" overlords.
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.