Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition

[Foxfyre]

The poll refers to the 10 statements below. Please read those before responding to the poll.

The 10 statements are a suggested description of Modern American Conservatism that is sometimes referred to as 'Classical Liberalism.' It is not a political party or a political platform. It is a concept, a mind set, a description of a belief in principles that many believe provides the greatest opportunity for a society to be the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, and most benevolent that a people can be.

REQUESTED RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION: This thread is an experiment in critical analysis to see if that is possible at USMB. I respectfully request that participants do not personally insult, accuse, or insinuate motives of each other. I respectfully request that no partisan references of any kind be used. Real life illustrations can be used to illustrate the virtues or lack thereof of the following statements.

I do not presume that the 10 statements are all that Classical Liberalism/modern American conservatism is, or that every conservative or every liberal will agree or disagree with these statements.

Dissent is invited. Incivility is not.

THE DISCUSSION: Are any or all of the 10 statements defensible? Why or why not? Which ones are? Which ones are not?

Definition:
Modern American Conservatism, i.e. Classical Liberalism​

As a modern American Conservative, i.e. Classical Liberal, I believe and/or defend the following statements:

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

2. Unalienable rights are whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other person and should be treated as inviolate by governments, groups, and individuals.

3. The ability to control one's own legally and ethically acquired property must be inviolate unless certain necessary requirements and/or restrictions are mutually agreed via social contract.

4. Except to pay reasonable legal restitution, no citizen should ever be forced into involuntary servitude to and/or to provide for another citizen. The federal government should be prohibited from providing any requirement of or benefit to any individual, group, or demographic that is not provided to all.

5. The purpose of the federal government is to provide the common defense, promote the general (meaning rich and poor alike) welfare, secure the rights of the people, and enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to effectively function as one, cohesive nation. Otherwise the federal government should leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they choose and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

6. The federal government should be provided only such resources that are essential for it to provide its specifically enumerated Constitutional powers and responsibilities. Whatever means is used to provide those resources should be applied uniformly at the identical rate for all without respect to socioeconomic criteria or politics.

7. The courts should be restricted to evaluate whether the spirit of duly passed laws have been followed or breached, and must be prohibited from expanding or adding to those laws or writing their own.

8. There should be no artificial limits placed on any individual re what he may legally and ethically accomplish, achieve, acquire, or aspire to be, and it is each person following his/her own dreams and living to his/her fullest potential that makes a people freest, most prosperous, and provides the greatest benefit to all.

9. The President of the United States should make no law or rule that should be the prerogative of Congress and will make no permanent appointments that normally require the consent of Congress.

10. Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed, should pay for their own healthcare and retirement plans out of the salaries they receive while active in government only. The government will provide no benefits once a position is vacated.

 

[Plasmaball]

REQUESTED RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION: This thread is an experiment in critical analysis to see if that is possible at USMB. I respectfully request that participants do not personally insult, accuse, or insinuate motives of each other. I respectfully request that no partisan references of any kind be used. Real life illustrations can be used to illustrate the virtues or lack thereof of the following statements.

pffft lol....we have a forum for that. Go there turd.

Modern American Conservatism that is sometimes referred to as 'Classical Liberalism.

yeah its not. Modern conservatism really isnt this at all anymore. This is like needle in a haystack rare these days.

As a modern American Conservative, i.e. Classical Liberal, I believe and/or defend the following statements:

your not one. We can take the very first example and go look on this website alone and see you are not.

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

You believe that people should be able to say what they want ( and they should) BUT ( and here is the problem) there should be no consequences from the public because of said statements.

See another thing Conservatism tends to believe is personal responsibility. So when we factor in your above opinion with the this other fact. We in fact realize you are not a conservative. Well not in the sense you want people to believe.

I dont need to go into the rest of your garbage, because lets face it, you are a partisan.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, for those who are courteous enough to participate within the broad guidelines of the OP. . . .

One of the difficulties we sometimes encounter is accepting the usage of the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' as they are most often used in America these days is the polar opposite of their dictionary definitions or how they were understood up to the early 20th century. But the terms are commonly used in our dialogue with each other, by the media, by talking heads in various formats, and in the shape of our political existence in this country.

Thomas Sowell has an excellent short essay discussing this here:

Excerpt:

Among the many words that don’t mean what they say, but which too many of us accept as if they did, are those staples of political discussion, “liberals” and “conservatives.”

Most liberals are not liberal and most conservatives are not conservative. We might be better off just calling them X and Y, instead of imagining that we are really describing their philosophies. Moreover, like most confusion, it has consequences. . . .

. . . .We are probably stuck with having to use words like liberal and conservative. But we can at least recognize them as nothing more than political flags of convenience. We need not accept these words literally, as the money of fools.

The Evolution of the Term ?Conservative? | National Review Online

 

[Erand7899]

REQUESTED RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION: This thread is an experiment in critical analysis to see if that is possible at USMB. I respectfully request that participants do not personally insult, accuse, or insinuate motives of each other. I respectfully request that no partisan references of any kind be used. Real life illustrations can be used to illustrate the virtues or lack thereof of the following statements.

pffft lol....we have a forum for that. Go there turd.

Modern American Conservatism that is sometimes referred to as 'Classical Liberalism.

yeah its not. Modern conservatism really isnt this at all anymore. This is like needle in a haystack rare these days.

As a modern American Conservative, i.e. Classical Liberal, I believe and/or defend the following statements:

your not one. We can take the very first example and go look on this website alone and see you are not.

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

You believe that people should be able to say what they want ( and they should) BUT ( and here is the problem) there should be no consequences from the public because of said statements.

See another thing Conservatism tends to believe is personal responsibility. So when we factor in your above opinion with the this other fact. We in fact realize you are not a conservative. Well not in the sense you want people to believe.

I dont need to go into the rest of your garbage, because lets face it, you are a partisan.

The public is not the government. The public is a collection of individuals who also have the right to free speech. The right to free speech includes the right to criticize the speech of others. It does not include the right to shut down speech that one disagrees with.

Consequently, your dumbass rebutal is nonsense.

 

[Erand7899]

I disagreed with item 10, because government employees should have the same rights to compensation as private enterprise employees. The vast majority of federal government employees have no policy making powers, nor do they have any opportunity to feather their nests at the publics expense.

I would support a restriction on elected and appointed public officials. Take away the perks, and maybe these people would choose to go home after a term in office.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagreed with item 10, because government employees should have the same rights to compensation as private enterprise employees. The vast majority of federal government employees have no policy making powers, nor do they have any opportunity to feather their nests at the publics expense.

I would support a restriction on elected and appointed public officials. Take away the perks, and maybe these people would choose to go home after a term in office.

What right to compensation though? They receive their salary which presumably will be sufficient to cover their healthcare and whatever they want to kick into a retirement plan. But once they retire or otherwise leave their position, what principle do you use to justify the taxpayer being on the hook to fund their retirement and healthcare until they die? What a private employer chooses to do for those who work for him is his business and he will be on the hook to pay whatever he wants to pay however or whatever. But he has no ability to require the rest of us to take care of that employee who is fired or quits or retires from their position with his business. The federal government has no money of its own but uses ours. And therein is the difference.

For instance, if you go with #4, the federal government cannot give me a benefit that is not also offered to you. Why should the federal employee be entitled to a benefit provided by the taxpayer that I am not entitled to receive?

 

[Foxfyre]

Over on PoliticalChic's liberalism thread--that I don't believe has received a single favorable review by anybody identifying themselves as 'liberal'--I posed a question to illustrate a conservative point of view.

Somebody had commented that conservatives are only for the rich and greedy because most conservatives do not support increasing taxes on the very rich.

So my question was something to the effect:

Why should the guy who started with little or nothing, but who put in the time, effort, and took the necessary risks to become very wealthy, who provides hundreds of jobs for others, who makes it possible for other businesses to prosper who in turn provide jobs for still others, who donates his money for museum exhibits, new hospital wings, a new science lab for the university, and sponsors Little League teams and buys Girl Scout cookies. . . .

Why should he pay taxes at a higher rate than the guy who works for him who only puts in just enough effort to keep his job and get by?

So far nobody identifying himself/herself as liberal has even acknowledged that this question is asked, much less attempted to answer it.

Will anybody here, liberal or conservative?

Speaking as a modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (small "L"):

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

 

[Erand7899]

I disagreed with item 10, because government employees should have the same rights to compensation as private enterprise employees. The vast majority of federal government employees have no policy making powers, nor do they have any opportunity to feather their nests at the publics expense.

I would support a restriction on elected and appointed public officials. Take away the perks, and maybe these people would choose to go home after a term in office.

What right to compensation though? They receive their salary which presumably will be sufficient to cover their healthcare and whatever they want to kick into a retirement plan. But once they retire or otherwise leave their position, what principle do you use to justify the taxpayer being on the hook to fund their retirement and healthcare until they die? What a private employer chooses to do for those who work for him is his business and he will be on the hook to pay whatever he wants to pay however or whatever. But he has no ability to require the rest of us to take care of that employee who is fired or quits or retires from their position with his business. The federal government has no money of its own but uses ours. And therein is the difference.

For instance, if you go with #4, the federal government cannot give me a benefit that is not also offered to you. Why should the federal employee be entitled to a benefit provided by the taxpayer that I am not entitled to receive?

First and foremost, government retirement is not free, and neither is health care coverage. The federal government is the largest employer in the United States, and operates in competition with large internaional corporations.

Since the 1940's it has been a tradition in the United States that large corporations subsidize retirement and health care for employees. The United States government, as a large employer has the same obligation to its employees.

Retirement is defered wages, and is not welfare of any sort.

 

[Erand7899]

A lesser known fact is that federal employees are unable to negotiate wages or benefits, and they are unable to strike, by federal law. They are pretty much at the mercy of the congress for pay and benefits.

Most state and local government employees are not restricted by law, and therefore, they are able to extort excess pay and benefits from politicians through campaign contributions and the threat of strikes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagreed with item 10, because government employees should have the same rights to compensation as private enterprise employees. The vast majority of federal government employees have no policy making powers, nor do they have any opportunity to feather their nests at the publics expense.

I would support a restriction on elected and appointed public officials. Take away the perks, and maybe these people would choose to go home after a term in office.

What right to compensation though? They receive their salary which presumably will be sufficient to cover their healthcare and whatever they want to kick into a retirement plan. But once they retire or otherwise leave their position, what principle do you use to justify the taxpayer being on the hook to fund their retirement and healthcare until they die? What a private employer chooses to do for those who work for him is his business and he will be on the hook to pay whatever he wants to pay however or whatever. But he has no ability to require the rest of us to take care of that employee who is fired or quits or retires from their position with his business. The federal government has no money of its own but uses ours. And therein is the difference.

For instance, if you go with #4, the federal government cannot give me a benefit that is not also offered to you. Why should the federal employee be entitled to a benefit provided by the taxpayer that I am not entitled to receive?

First and foremost, government retirement is not free, and neither is health care coverage. The federal government is the largest employer in the United States, and operates in competition with large internaional corporations.

Since the 1940's it has been a tradition in the United States that large corporations subsidize retirement and health care for employees. The United States government, as a large employer has the same obligation to its employees.

Retirement is defered wages, and is not welfare of any sort.

But why? Large corporations spend their own money, not my money, to provide benefits to their employees. They can provide whatever benefits they want, but they have no power or ability of any kind to force me to provide benefits to anybody. And any business owner also has the prerogative to provide ongoing benefits to their employees after they leave, or not. Most do not.

So by what moral imperative or authority do you justify the federal government to obligate me to provide ongoing lifetime benefits to an employee retiring from the IRS or Social Security Administration or Department of Agriculture or whatever? And if that employee receives tax payer funded retirement, why should I not receive tax payer funded retirement?

 

[Foxfyre]

A lesser known fact is that federal employees are unable to negotiate wages or benefits, and they are unable to strike, by federal law. They are pretty much at the mercy of the congress for pay and benefits.

Most state and local government employees are not restricted by law, and therefore, they are able to extort excess pay and benefits from politicians through campaign contributions and the threat of strikes.

They are not required to work for the federal government, however, and do so entirely of their own volition. And the federal government technically is supposed to be working for me. I don't allow my employees to dictate to me what their pay and benefits will be. I certainly wouldn't let another business dictate to me what I am required to provide my employees in wages and benefits. And I sure as hell was in no position to dictate to any of my former employers what they were required to pay me in wages and benefits.

So if a person chooses to accept a federal job, by what moral imperative should that employee be able to require me to support them for the rest of their lives?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

you actually think the Founders have no grasp of property rights?

 

[Foxfyre]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

you actually think the Founders have no grasp of property rights?

The Founders, all classical liberals to a man, not only embraced the first three concepts on the list, but founded the whole of the Constitution on those principles.

What I meant re giving up some property rights via social contract would be in voting to support a local fire department or shared water/sewer system, etc. or agreeing to zoning laws that would protect everybody's property values, etc. But modern American conservatism/classical liberalism would make such things for the owners to decide and agree on, and not for the federal government to dictate.

 

[Two Thumbs]

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else. I agree, the only problem is the religious right is against this

2. Unalienable rights are whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other person and should be treated as inviolate by governments, groups, and individuals. the less the government controls, the better the country is

3. The ability to control one's own legally and ethically acquired property must be inviolate unless certain necessary requirements and/or restrictions are mutually agreed via social contract. property rights should be sacred. History shows people care far more for what is theirs than what is ours.

4. Except to pay reasonable legal restitution, no citizen should ever be forced into involuntary servitude to and/or to provide for another citizen. The federal government should be prohibited from providing any requirement of or benefit to any individual, group, or demographic that is not provided to all. remove victimology from the government and it shrinks by 1/2, making life better for every one

5. The purpose of the federal government is to provide the common defense, promote the general (meaning rich and poor alike) welfare, secure the rights of the people, and enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to effectively function as one, cohesive nation. Otherwise the federal government should leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they choose and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have. liberals cannot abide 50 different rules for one thing, they must control all at the Fed level

6. The federal government should be provided only such resources that are essential for it to provide its specifically enumerated Constitutional powers and responsibilities. Whatever means is used to provide those resources should be applied uniformly at the identical rate for all without respect to socioeconomic criteria or politics. vast debt devalues the dollar and makes life harder on the poor

7. The courts should be restricted to evaluate whether the spirit of duly passed laws have been followed or breached, and must be prohibited from expanding or adding to those laws or writing their own. true, but every scotus judge is a partisan, so it's almost useless

8. There should be no artificial limits placed on any individual re what he may legally and ethically accomplish, achieve, acquire, or aspire to be, and it is each person following his/her own dreams and living to his/her fullest potential that makes a people freest, most prosperous, and provides the greatest benefit to all. dems need victims to push their agenda, so this will draw some rage.

9. The President of the United States should make no law or rule that should be the prerogative of Congress and will make no permanent appointments that normally require the consent of Congress. yea, the Pres doesn't get to go it alone, those are the actions of a tyrant

10. Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed, should pay for their own healthcare and retirement plans out of the salaries they receive while active in government only. The government will provide no benefits once a position is vacated. mmm, depends on the pay and if they retire. pols and appointees can piss off, but employees should have the chance to retire. The only problem is there's so many.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

you actually think the Founders have no grasp of property rights?

The Founders, all classical liberals to a man, not only embraced the first three concepts on the list, but founded the whole of the Constitution on those principles.

What I meant re giving up some property rights via social contract would be in voting to support a local fire department or shared water/sewer system, etc. or agreeing to zoning laws that would protect everybody's property values, etc. But modern American conservatism/classical liberalism would make such things for the owners to decide and agree on, and not for the federal government to dictate.

the Founders could see the Fed offering to buy land at many places to build a damn, what they wouldn't do is offer money in a take it or we sink your home cuz we are going to build that damn b/c we need to create jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

you actually think the Founders have no grasp of property rights?

The Founders, all classical liberals to a man, not only embraced the first three concepts on the list, but founded the whole of the Constitution on those principles.

What I meant re giving up some property rights via social contract would be in voting to support a local fire department or shared water/sewer system, etc. or agreeing to zoning laws that would protect everybody's property values, etc. But modern American conservatism/classical liberalism would make such things for the owners to decide and agree on, and not for the federal government to dictate.

the Founders could see the Fed offering to buy land at many places to build a damn, what they wouldn't do is offer money in a take it or we sink your home cuz we are going to build that damn b/c we need to create jobs.

Yes. The Founders' concept of the 'general welfare' was to serve all the people and not themselves. And if there is no realistic expectation that the dam will serve all the people and promote the general (meaning everybody's) welfare, then there is no justification for building it at all. The Founders did not for a minute think the role of the federal government was to create jobs. Certainly they saw it as thoroughly immoral and corrupt to take money from Citizen A in order to provide a job for Citizen B. The role of federal government is to create a structure of regulation, protections, and incentives that will enable the private sector to create good paying, permanent jobs that will stimulate a real, sustainable economy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Founders, all classical liberals to a man, not only embraced the first three concepts on the list, but founded the whole of the Constitution on those principles.

What I meant re giving up some property rights via social contract would be in voting to support a local fire department or shared water/sewer system, etc. or agreeing to zoning laws that would protect everybody's property values, etc. But modern American conservatism/classical liberalism would make such things for the owners to decide and agree on, and not for the federal government to dictate.

the Founders could see the Fed offering to buy land at many places to build a damn, what they wouldn't do is offer money in a take it or we sink your home cuz we are going to build that damn b/c we need to create jobs.

Yes. The Founders' concept of the 'general welfare' was to serve all the people and not themselves. And if there is no realistic expectation that the dam will serve all the people and promote the general (meaning everybody's) welfare, then there is no justification for building it at all. The Founders did not for a minute think the role of the federal government was to create jobs. Certainly they saw it as thoroughly immoral and corrupt to take money from Citizen A in order to provide a job for Citizen B. The role of federal government is to create a structure of regulation, protections, and incentives that will enable the private sector to create good paying, permanent jobs that will stimulate a real, sustainable economy.

they also knew the Fed would become corrupt, as all governments do, that's why we have, and must keep, the 2nd

 

[Pheonixops]

The poll refers to the 10 statements below. Please read those before responding to the poll.

The 10 statements are a suggested description of Modern American Conservatism that is sometimes referred to as 'Classical Liberalism.' It is not a political party or a political platform. It is a concept, a mind set, a description of a belief in principles that many believe provides the greatest opportunity for a society to be the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, and most benevolent that a people can be.

REQUESTED RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION: This thread is an experiment in critical analysis to see if that is possible at USMB. I respectfully request that participants do not personally insult, accuse, or insinuate motives of each other. I respectfully request that no partisan references of any kind be used. Real life illustrations can be used to illustrate the virtues or lack thereof of the following statements.

I do not presume that the 10 statements are all that Classical Liberalism/modern American conservatism is, or that every conservative or every liberal will agree or disagree with these statements.

Dissent is invited. Incivility is not.

THE DISCUSSION: Are any or all of the 10 statements defensible? Why or why not? Which ones are? Which ones are not?

Definition:
Modern American Conservatism, i.e. Classical Liberalism​

As a modern American Conservative, i.e. Classical Liberal, I believe and/or defend the following statements:

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

2. Unalienable rights are whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other person and should be treated as inviolate by governments, groups, and individuals.

3. The ability to control one's own legally and ethically acquired property must be inviolate unless certain necessary requirements and/or restrictions are mutually agreed via social contract.

4. Except to pay reasonable legal restitution, no citizen should ever be forced into involuntary servitude to and/or to provide for another citizen. The federal government should be prohibited from providing any requirement of or benefit to any individual, group, or demographic that is not provided to all.

5. The purpose of the federal government is to provide the common defense, promote the general (meaning rich and poor alike) welfare, secure the rights of the people, and enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to effectively function as one, cohesive nation. Otherwise the federal government should leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they choose and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

6. The federal government should be provided only such resources that are essential for it to provide its specifically enumerated Constitutional powers and responsibilities. Whatever means is used to provide those resources should be applied uniformly at the identical rate for all without respect to socioeconomic criteria or politics.

7. The courts should be restricted to evaluate whether the spirit of duly passed laws have been followed or breached, and must be prohibited from expanding or adding to those laws or writing their own.

8. There should be no artificial limits placed on any individual re what he may legally and ethically accomplish, achieve, acquire, or aspire to be, and it is each person following his/her own dreams and living to his/her fullest potential that makes a people freest, most prosperous, and provides the greatest benefit to all.

9. The President of the United States should make no law or rule that should be the prerogative of Congress and will make no permanent appointments that normally require the consent of Congress.

10. Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed, should pay for their own healthcare and retirement plans out of the salaries they receive while active in government only. The government will provide no benefits once a position is vacated.

Why wouldn't you simply define yourself as a Liberal ? Conservative and Liberal are opposing ideologies? It's sort of an oxymoron.

 

[deltex1]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

Modern conservatism only appears heartless when compared to the faux "equality" charade performed by modern liberalism...a charade that would have the Founders dumbfounded.