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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-268 next last
To: Ruadh; Jim Robinson; NCSteve; amdgmary; My2Cents; floriduh voter; phenn; pc93; Republic; ...
"The State as Aggressor" by Murray

"... There is another reason why State aggression has been far more impor­tant than private, a reason apart from the greater organization and cen­tral mobilizing of resources that the rulers of the State can impose. The reason is the absence of any check upon State depredation, a check that does exist when we have to worry about muggers or the Mafia ..."

"... To guard against private criminals we have been able to turn to the State and its police; but who can guard us against the State itself? No one. For another critical distinction of the State is that it compels the monopolization of the service of protection; the State arrogates to itself a virtual monopoly of violence and of ultimate decision-making in society ..."

"... If we don't like the decisions of the State courts, for example, there are no other agencies of protection to which we may turn ..."
**********************************
Before 1803, it was understood that government would not overstep it's bounds and usurp powers not granted by the Constitution. It was also understood that the protection of our Jury system would restrain bad law, and further understood that if the final protection of Jury wasn't enough, we as citizens had enough weapons that we could enforce our will by force on those who had betrayed our trust.

That's the point I made earlier on post # 68.

I believe that the power of Judicial Review usurped by the Supreme Court in 1803 is a major cause of corruption, not just in the Judicial, but in the Executive and Legislative branches as well. Both Congress and the President excuse their actions by saying "if it's not legal, the Supreme Court will tell us so." That gives them an "out," a way of passing and enforcing laws they know are illegal; they by pass the buck to the Judicial, and pretend they don't know when they're breaking the law.

The Courts have made it plain that Jury is an unimportant "Privilege" subject to being withdrawn at the convenience of that Court, and further, that weapons in private hands are likewise a "Privilege" subject to both Law and the Court.

It's only a matter of time until something snaps.

201 posted on 09/26/2004 8:57:56 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Ruadh
"... You have disagreed with me as to the definition of "libertarian" and "communist." Perhaps you are disagreeing as to "anarchist" as well?"
**********************************
To this point, I don't honestly know what you mean when you use the label "anarchist."

To me, anarchy is lawlessness, a place subject to "no law."

I think that what you mean by anarchy is what I mean when I say communism.

Not "socialism;" I don't consider a communist society to be a socialist society.

202 posted on 09/26/2004 10:08:10 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Ruadh
exodus - ""Law" is the human principle involved in organization, not a State, though in practice Law pretty much does mean government."
Ruadh - I don't understand (what you mean by that).
**********************************
A simple explanation is that "Law" is our rules for getting along with other people.

Humans are social animals; we require others in order to feel complete. When alone, we feel lonely. Even when we're "tired of all these people," we mean that we're tired for now, not forever. None of us would choose to be without other humans around.

That presents a problem, in that while being around other people, sometimes what they want conflicts with what we want. If it's just you and one other guy, whoever is stronger gets his way. If it's a large group, what everyone collectively considers "fairness" comes in. Being stronger than another individual isn't quite so great an advantage when twenty-five or a hundred people beat you up because you aren't playing "fair," or in other words, "by the rules of acceptable behavior."

Those rules are Law without "official" structure.

"Rules to live by" become officially agreed-upon Law that is enforced by the community as a whole, and those same rules eventually become Law that is enforced by leaders in our "government."

When I said "though in practice Law pretty much does mean government," I wasn't very precise; I should have said that government, being the enforcer of Law, is easily seen as the personification of Law.

203 posted on 09/26/2004 10:47:53 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: exodus
It's only a matter of time until something snaps.

That's the one consolation about Dems getting control for awhile; it shrinks that time you mentioned.

Any more, Republican control only slows the seemingly inevitable progression toward socialism (and not very much).

204 posted on 09/27/2004 5:27:58 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Any more, Republican control only slows the seemingly inevitable progression toward socialism (and not very much).

In the last four years, not at all. In fact, the last four years have been a net loss in the battle to stop our slide into socialism.

205 posted on 09/27/2004 6:00:19 AM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
If that's the definition of a conservative, how is a libertarian different? Or, for that matter, an anarchist?

This reminds me of these moron teen goths sitting around defining "true goth" all the time. How self serving and juvenile.

206 posted on 09/27/2004 6:22:14 AM PDT by biblewonk (Neither was the man created for woman but the woman for the man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
You're right.
207 posted on 09/27/2004 6:59:20 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
How self serving and juvenile.

Do you ever actually debate a topic? Or is it just more fun to pop in with what you believe to be wry one-liners? I did a search on your moniker, and sure enough, that seems to be your M.O. I hope you will understand when I say that I certainly can't take anything you say seriously and I suspect not may others will either. I don't mind a discussion at all, but I won't even waste my time with someone who thinks debate and stand-up comedy are the same thing.

I do, however, think it is highly ironic that you would label this discussion juvenile. Have a lovely day.

208 posted on 09/27/2004 7:19:46 AM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve


That was an appropriate repsonse to such a reprobate.

I've much enjoyed this thread.


209 posted on 09/27/2004 8:15:23 AM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve; biblewonk; newgeezer; Jim Robinson
I do, however, think it is highly ironic that you would label this discussion juvenile.

It's kinda ironic that Jim Robinson himself took part in this thread and made several comments. So I guess he found it interesting and useful. Or maybe Jim is just self serving and juvenile?

I guess defining a conservative is juvenile but Biblewonk and newgeezer can define juvenile and it's "adult". Go figure.

210 posted on 09/27/2004 8:29:55 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve

I expect that from any thread with the word "libertarian" in it. People who dabble into this arena are among the most defensive on the FR.


211 posted on 09/27/2004 8:39:43 AM PDT by biblewonk (Neither was the man created for woman but the woman for the man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras; biblewonk
Remember what I said about agreeing with you late last Friday afternoon? At the time, I had a feeling it was too wierd. Turns out I was right.

You're just a whiny little pantywaist tattletale. :-)

212 posted on 09/27/2004 8:50:07 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
At the time, I had a feeling it was too wierd. Turns out I was right.

It was probably the first time it happened, so yes, it was too weird.

Turns out I was right.

And if you were right, that would be weird too. :^}

213 posted on 09/27/2004 8:57:09 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
People who dabble into this arena are among the most defensive on the FR.

Possibly so. At least they are in good company with the GOP cheerleaders and Microsoft Windows defenders.

Please note, though, I did not use the word libertarian in the vanity. That burden was dismissively imposed on the thread by killjoy. The concept of less government seems to send some here on FR into a full scale panic. "The Libertarians are coming!"

Another wondrous irony: the idea of less government eliciting such a strong, antithetical reaction on a conservative web forum. Oh well.

Once again, have a great day.

214 posted on 09/27/2004 9:42:15 AM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve

More government/less government is such a highlevel doctrinal statement as to mean very little by itself. I think of the Freepers as a whole and in many cases I see them wanting more from that same government that they previously wanted less of


215 posted on 09/27/2004 9:58:09 AM PDT by biblewonk (Neither was the man created for woman but the woman for the man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
...I see them wanting more from that same government that they previously wanted less of

I'm afraid you're right. And if those who would call themselves conservative join the ranks of those who want the government to be their Mommy, what hope is there for the free world?

Conservative is a label meant to group a category of like-minded ideas. I suppose we could call ourselves "Bob" or "Those guys," but conservatism has a particular meaning, even if it doesn't exactly hold with its linguistic origins. When I hear people trying to characterize Arnold Schwarzenegger or John McCain, or even George Bush (either one) as conservatives, it bothers me. I find it disingenuous and misleading. To put it into a perspective I'm sure you'll appreciate, it would be like members of one of these new-age groups claiming to be Christian. Sure, they mouth pieces and parts of doctrine that are easy for them to swallow (camel-sized or smaller), but there is a vast chasm between where they stand and Christianity.

216 posted on 09/27/2004 10:22:39 AM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: killjoy

Of coure, "In God We Trust" are not the Four Words on all US coins.


217 posted on 09/27/2004 10:36:18 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve
I suppose we could call ourselves "Bob" or "Those guys," but conservatism has a particular meaning,

Funny you would say that since conservation seens to be anti-conservative.

218 posted on 09/27/2004 10:42:39 AM PDT by biblewonk (Neither was the man created for woman but the woman for the man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Funny you would say that since conservation seens to be anti-conservative.

Conservation of what seems to be anti-conservative?

219 posted on 09/27/2004 10:46:08 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

He makes less sense with each and every post.

I've never actually seen a meltdown until now. :)


220 posted on 09/27/2004 10:48:40 AM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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