define conservatism

[flaja]

He pretends that Libertarian values cannot coincide with Conservative values, it is an inane argument falsely reasoned.

A Conservative believes in smaller government, a Libertarian does as well. A Conservative believes in following the Constitution, a Libertarian does as well.

A conservative believes in traditional values of morality, a libertarian does not.

A conservative understands that society must be preserved. A libertarian believes we are all still living in a state of nature in which no person can be regulated by society.

BTW: The last time the human population of the earth lived in a state of nature, Cain killed his brother.

 

[flaja]

Not quite for the reasons stated by others. Conservatism is the belief that the Federal Government should do only what is stated in the Constitution as Amended, and nothing else.

It was my intent to formulate a definition that would not be based on the context of any country or political system.

BTW: What happens when two people have different (and incompatible) interpretations of what the Constitution, as amended, means? Which interpretation is right?

 

[jillian]

It was my intent to formulate a definition that would not be based on the context of any country or political system.

BTW: What happens when two people have different (and incompatible) interpretations of what the Constitution, as amended, means? Which interpretation is right?

The interpretation of the Supreme Court.

 

[no1tovote4]

A conservative believes in traditional values of morality, a libertarian does not.

A conservative understands that society must be preserved. A libertarian believes we are all still living in a state of nature in which no person can be regulated by society.

BTW: The last time the human population of the earth lived in a state of nature, Cain killed his brother.

One can be conservative in more than just "morals", this is an oversimplification. One can be Constitutionally Conservative. A libertarian is not an anarchist, this is an exaggeration.

Even then they didn't live in a state of nature, they were dictated rules to follow by a Supreme Being in that particular book. This idea that there is some "state of nature" that man lives without society is a strawman. Nobody here suggested anarchy as even a good idea, let alone part of their ideology. Even Libertarians believe in the unfortunate necessity of government. They just believe in limiting it more than you do.

The idea that one cannot be Conservative and hold many Libertarian views as well is inane. It is simplification brought to an extreme bent that no person actually lives in. It smacks of some idea of a black and white reality in which all people fit into one specific category from which they may never stray.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

A conservative believes in traditional values of morality, a libertarian does not.

Not necessarily. Many disapprove of drug use and so forth, but simply realize that it should not be the government's role to try and improve people. If they infringe on me or my property, that is a different matter, and one of the few legitimate functions of government.

BTW: What happens when two people have different (and incompatible) interpretations of what the Constitution, as amended, means? Which interpretation is right?

The interpretation which was widely understood when the law was written. Otherwise, you're just changing the constitution without having any sort of proper debate about it, which is dangerous.

The interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Legally, yes. If four of them were to say that the 1st amendment does not cover jokes about Khazakstanians, then they've effectively changed the law. Even though they are lying through their teeth.

 

[jillian]

The interpretation which was widely understood when the law was written. Otherwise, you're just changing the constitution without having any sort of proper debate about it, which is dangerous.

The Constitution was always intended to change with time... thus Plessy v. Ferguson being overruled by Brown v Bd of Ed.

Legally, yes. If four of them were to say that the 1st amendment does not cover jokes about Khazakstanians, then they've effectively changed the law. Even though they are lying through their teeth.

Lying? Doubtful they'd say the first doesn't cover jokes about Khazakstan and its inhabitants.

But what if it suddenly decided making fun of the president was no longer covered by the First? Would that be lying or a function of the fact that judges are political appointees... albeit for life?

 

[glockmail]

It was my intent to formulate a definition that would not be based on the context of any country or political system.

BTW: What happens when two people have different (and incompatible) interpretations of what the Constitution, as amended, means? Which interpretation is right?

1. Great, a New World Order type. Seriously, most conservatives don't give a damn about how they are defined in other countries. I certaintly don't.

2. Then you go to the Supreme Court. Or read The Federalist to get a feel for how the Framers were thinking. I'll tell you what you don't do: you don't look at case law for a trend or prior ruling, unless it is 100% the same issue. And you certaintly don't look at international case law, as our favorite commie ACLU lawyer Ruthie Ginsburg did.

 

[glockmail]

The Constitution was always intended to change with time... thus Plessy v. Ferguson being overruled by Brown v Bd of Ed.


....

Any proof of this, LawyerChic? Or is this more Left Wing garbage?

 

[Annie]

The Constitution was always intended to change with time... thus Plessy v. Ferguson being overruled by Brown v Bd of Ed.

...

Actually I don't think that had to do with 'time.' It was understood and galvanized many at the time, Plessy was bad law. Much like Roe was.

 

[flaja]

The interpretation of the Supreme Court.

True, but only as long as enough politicians (and voters) don’t say otherwise by amending the Constitution. And just because the Supreme Court issues a decision, there is no guarantee that the decision is morally or ethically right or that the nation won't be harmed by letting the decision stand.

 

[flaja]

One can be conservative in more than just "morals", this is an oversimplification. One can be Constitutionally Conservative. A libertarian is not an anarchist, this is an exaggeration.

If you libs aren’t anarchists, why do so many of you want to do away with things like the FDA, Federal Reserve and SEC? And if you libs have morals, why do so many of you wish to legalize drug use and whordom?

 

[jillian]

True, but only as long as enough politicians (and voters) don’t say otherwise by amending the Constitution. And just because the Supreme Court issues a decision, there is no guarantee that the decision is morally or ethically right or that the nation won't be harmed by letting the decision stand.

Takes an awful lot to amend the constitution. It's happened only 27 times in more than 200 years.... and other than prohibition (which was repealed) the Constitution was NEVER amended to restrict anyone's rights... only to expand them.

As for the decisions of the high Court... there have been bad decisions... Dred Scott; Plessy, Bakke ... time passes, the Court changes as new Justices take the bench, then the issue gets revisited. Short of amending the constitution (which again... is rare) you just wait. Nothing else to do because we're a country of laws (at least in theory).

 

[jillian]

Actually I don't think that had to do with 'time.' It was understood and galvanized many at the time, Plessy was bad law. Much like Roe was.

Roe was a badly written decision with a right result.

 

[Annie]

Roe was a badly written decision with a right result.

If you are constitutionally driven, how can you reconcile? The problem wasn't in the 'writing' but in the reasoning.

 

[flaja]

Not necessarily. Many disapprove of drug use and so forth, but simply realize that it should not be the government's role to try and improve people. If they infringe on me or my property, that is a different matter, and one of the few legitimate functions of government.

Laws against things like drug abuse and prostitution are not meant to protect individuals from themselves, but rather protect society from individuals.

The interpretation which was widely understood when the law was written.

Where do you this interpretation? And you cannot tell me to look at things like the Federalist Papers or the writings of the Founding Fathers, because they did not all leave a complete record of their views and they often disagreed with each other when they did.

Legally, yes. If four of them were to say that the 1st amendment does not cover jokes about Khazakstanians, then they've effectively changed the law. Even though they are lying through their teeth.

True. But a decision of the Court can stand only as long as voters say it can stand. Like it or not we can overturn a Court decision by amending the Constitution. But, most of the time the Court gets it right because it is seldom that we amend the Constitution for the express purpose of overturning the Court.

 

[flaja]

1. Great, a New World Order type. Seriously, most conservatives don't give a damn about how they are defined in other countries. I certaintly don't.

Huh?

2. Then you go to the Supreme Court. Or read The Federalist to get a feel for how the Framers were thinking. I'll tell you what you don't do: you don't look at case law for a trend or prior ruling, unless it is 100% the same issue. And you certaintly don't look at international case law, as our favorite commie ACLU lawyer Ruthie Ginsburg did.

As I've already said the Framers did not leave a complete record of their intent and their intent was not always the same.

 

[flaja]

Any proof of this, LawyerChic? Or is this more Left Wing garbage?

Where in the Constituon does it say the document's meaning can never change?

U. S. Constitution, Article III, section 2.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Tell us what “law and fact” means if the Supreme Court cannot interpret, and thereby determine, the Constitution’s meaning. Then tell us what the Framers intended this to mean. Then explain how and why any of the Framers (especially the ones that eventually served in the federal government under the Constitution) complained when the Court expressly determined the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The Constitution was always intended to change with time... thus Plessy v. Ferguson being overruled by Brown v Bd of Ed.

Yes, but that is why they included an amendment process. That, plus the fact that the states are free to enact their own legislation, so long as it doesn't violate the amendments in the federal constitution.

For the record, I am not saying that the constitution is a sacred document or couldn't use some serious changes.

If you libs aren’t anarchists, why do so many of you want to do away with things like the FDA, Federal Reserve and SEC? And if you libs have morals, why do so many of you wish to legalize drug use and whordom?

Some libertarians fall into the anarcho-capitalist camp, yes. But you don't have to be anarchist to recognize that government should be limited to preventing violence against people and their property.

FDA: It used to be that it would certify drugs as safe, which is pretty easy, fast, and cheap to do. Sometime in the 60's however, they changed to "safe and effective". Now it takes billions of dollars and many years to push a new drug through, driving up the cost and denying life-saving cures to people who are dying. And when they are approved, the new treatments are expensive, in order to cover the great expenses of the approval process. The bottom line however, is that you own your own body, not the state.

Federal Reserve: It was created by collusion between the government and private banking interests--Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and the Rothschilds. It enables government to raise money through the printing press instead of taxes. Not surprisingly, we got into a senseless european war a scant 4 years after it's creation (along with the income tax), and meddling by the Fed also caused the Great Depression, as well as the mini-depression of the 70's. It greatly exaggerates the boom/bust business cycle, and robs people of purchasing power via inflation, which is a regressive tax. That's why sound money (gold or silver) was supported by unions, farmers, and churches in the last century.

Aside from that, it's a great institution.

Drug use, prostitution, gambling: It's not that these are great things, it's that the government war on these is much worse. It's a gigantic waste of resources when criminals who are actually a threat to other people are on the loose. If the government is going to be in the business of saving people from themselves, where do we stop? Banning liquor? Banning fatty foods? Banning divorce?

 

[no1tovote4]

If you libs aren’t anarchists, why do so many of you want to do away with things like the FDA, Federal Reserve and SEC? And if you libs have morals, why do so many of you wish to legalize drug use and whordom?

LOL. The FDA is the entire government? Taking out parts of the government that they believe to be better served either by the individual or locally doesn't make them anarchists, this is another silly strawman...

As for "whoredom", so long as two are adults when making the agreement I can see no reason to limit them to whatever you believe to be "not sinful". It is their soul and their decision to live with. Also, the laws against prostitution create a black market that allows the strong to make the postitutes into slaves who will never escape the life and are prone to violence from those very "protectors"... The laws actually create more victims of violent crime than is ever necessary.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Federal Reserve: It was created by collusion between the government and private banking interests--Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and the Rothschilds. It enables government to raise money through the printing press instead of taxes. Not surprisingly, we got into a senseless european war a scant 4 years after it's creation (along with the income tax), and meddling by the Fed also caused the Great Depression, as well as the mini-depression of the 70's. It greatly exaggerates the boom/bust business cycle, and robs people of purchasing power via inflation, which is a regressive tax. That's why sound money (gold or silver) was supported by unions, farmers, and churches in the last century.

We care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetalism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetalism, and let England have bimetalism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. -WJB