Posted on 02/25/2002 4:58:50 AM PST by doc30
The problem as I see it... is that conservatism (as a political philosophy) lacks objective and substantial definition.
There is no single foundational principle for conservatism from which to draw when confronted with a decision.
Conservatives cannot be identified by common principle.
Hence even conservatives don't know what a conservative is.
In this country it was the intent of the founders that our laws be based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even the small number 3 or 4 who did not subscribe themselves to those beliefs had stated that this was their intent. of the far greater number of Christians who made up the body of the founders this was definitely the case. Subscribing to another view is by definition not conservative in this country. By not conservative I mean Liberal Traitor. I include traitor because it departs or betrays the intent of the foundation on which this country was built.
State your principles.
I'll just use the same as the authors of the Constitution....oh, they didn't use some single "foundational principle" as a universal litmus test for their work....well then, must not be required of all men, just some.
In all seriousness, the Socratic Method can be so drawn out...but since it is so much fun......Let's see, ...
What significant non-monarchial governments have endured and functioned well based upon one single foundational principle? Please list them.
True conservatives? A belief in God and Judeo-Christian morality.
Everything else is appetite. Unless appetite is restrained by this fundamental principle, it isn't conservatism no matter how you cut it. It's just libertarian baloney.
Okay, you may now come back with one of your trademark verbal sneers.
Point number 6 on how to obfuscate the truth when you're not able to argue effectively for your point of view.
6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.
So a professed belief in the God of Abraham is the defining delimiter of "conservatism"?
The overwhelming majority of elected officials profess such a belief system, and yet their political opinions are as vast and varied as the sands of the oceans.
Conservatism is supposed to be a political philosophy.
What rule (or rules) define it?
Where?
I'd like to look at them.
Inasmuch as I cannot point to ANY government at all, which has endured and functioned well... I guess I'd have to say no.
Are you suggesting that the lack of a predicate is sufficient reason to dismiss a governmental form?
I asked me, Tex, but I didn't know the answer.
I'm not "denying" anything.
I have simply asked you to state your principles.
If you have posted anything resembling a set of principles, I have not had an opportunity to see it.
Could you either point to them, or do me the courtesy of repeating them here?
Let's say that in a post I write "gun control is bad". That could be taken as an "attack ad" against Sen. Chuckles Schumer. (And now that I think of it, calling him Chuckles could be an "attack ad", but I digress...) Never mind that I'm in California or that Chuckles was the furthest thing from my mind at the moment I wrote it; because gun control is one of Chuckie's issues and because the post is readable by users in New York, it's considered an "ad" in favor of his opponents. The cost of the "ad" would have to be reported to the FEC as a donation. The "ad" would also be subject to the same blackout rules as any other covered ad.
It does make its undertaking more a matter of trepidation, doesn't it? However, many enduring and well thought of governments have been created and existed without a single underlying foundational principle and to ask the one question as central would imply the other would be as well. In truth, the worth of a man, or a government, is not as simple as either question would imply.
We are seriously off the original topic of the thread, and the topic we are exchanging comments over, we have done to death countless times with few converts on either side.
When the Republic was threatened by the Clinton presidency, we were both here and I will settle for that.
It would appear to me that we should be fighting any infringement of our First Amendment rights, regardless of how much or how little it might impact us personally.
Once the nose of the camel is under the tent...
If every system of government ever devised required a tried and true predicate on which to establish itself, there would never be any new form of government (including the American experiment).
However, many enduring and well thought of governments have been created and existed without a single underlying foundational principle
????
and to ask the one question as central would imply the other would be as well. In truth, the worth of a man, or a government, is not as simple as either question would imply.
I am not suggesting the value of government independent of the content of the principles... I am suggesting that a lack of principles makes chaos.
We are seriously off the original topic of the thread, and the topic we are exchanging comments over, we have done to death countless times with few converts on either side.
True enough.
When the Republic was threatened by the Clinton presidency, we were both here and I will settle for that.
Ahhhh.... the ties that bind. :^]
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.