Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition

[Foxfyre]

I would like to focus for a minute on #1 on the list:

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.

In the last year or so there have been so many cases of bruhahas and punitive measures taken against individuals who were simply being themselves at any given time.

Paula Deen
Phil on Duck Dynasty
Ellen Degeneres in a Penney's ad
The CEO of Chic-fil-a
That bakery that didn't want to participate in a gay wedding
And so many others including those currently on the front pages and being discussed at length on message boards. . . .

None of these people were doing anything to anybody. None were requiring any participation or contribution from anybody else in anything. None were in positions where they were teaching kids or otherwise able to impose their views on anybody else. They were simply being themselves and expecting to be allowed to be who and what they are. But there were those who presumed to punish them for just being who and what they are and who would have destroyed their reputations and means of making a living if they could.

My definition of conservatism sees punishing people for nothing more than being who and what they are, when who and what they are has absolutely nothing to do with us and is hurting nobody, as wrong and should be soundly condemned if not made illegal.

Liberty does not require us to appreciate, condone, agree with, or associate with those we find reprehensible. But liberty does not include license to punish people for no other reason than they hold opinions and beliefs that we don't share.

My take on the above is that I agree that people shouldn't be harmed for speaking their mind. I also think that if people don't like what someone says, they also have their First Amendment right to speak out about it and disagree with the person. If people want to boycott the person's show, store, establishment, etc. , they have a right to do it in a lawful manner.
When Reverend Wright made his statements, plenty of conservative republicans were up in arms and looping what he said, day after day on their radio and TV shows. They railed against so-called 'Black Liberation Theology'. When Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., make a statement, conservatives exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out against them. It's not a one way street. That said, I would disagree if the government went after Ms. Deen, The Duck Guy. Sterling, Bundy, for saying what they said. I would feel that their First Amendment rights were being violated.

But WHY were conservatives up in arms over what Rev. Wright said? Had he been just another preacher, he wouldn't have even caused a minor ripple through the conservative community. The reason what he said was important because a man who aspired to President of the United States had sat in his congregation for 20 years, praised him as his mentor, and considered him a close friend. Even had him on his campaign advisory committee. Did this aspiring President endorse or embrace the views preached by Rev. Wright? That is a very valid question and 100% legitimate in the process of vetting a person who would be leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

But what power did any of those other people have? Were they running for office? No. Did they have any ability to compromise our persons or our property or require any participation or contribution from us in any way? No. Did they want any such ability? Were trying to get that ability? No. So why is anything they say or believe or think anybody else's business at all?

I can justify an organized protest or boycott in the case where somebody is engaged in unethical or dangerous practices that is violating the unalienable rights of others. I have participated in such protests and boycotts.

But a person just being who and what he is and not requiring any contribution or participation by anybody else? Somebody who is not violating anybody else's rights in any way? Certainly I might find him disagreeable and choose not to do business with him. But for me to organize a protest or boycott to take away his livelihood and hurt him in any other way is wrong. It is evil. And it should be culturally unacceptable and even illegal to do so.

 

[Pheonixops]

I would like to focus for a minute on #1 on the list:

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.

In the last year or so there have been so many cases of bruhahas and punitive measures taken against individuals who were simply being themselves at any given time.

Paula Deen
Phil on Duck Dynasty
Ellen Degeneres in a Penney's ad
The CEO of Chic-fil-a
That bakery that didn't want to participate in a gay wedding
And so many others including those currently on the front pages and being discussed at length on message boards. . . .

None of these people were doing anything to anybody. None were requiring any participation or contribution from anybody else in anything. None were in positions where they were teaching kids or otherwise able to impose their views on anybody else. They were simply being themselves and expecting to be allowed to be who and what they are. But there were those who presumed to punish them for just being who and what they are and who would have destroyed their reputations and means of making a living if they could.

My definition of conservatism sees punishing people for nothing more than being who and what they are, when who and what they are has absolutely nothing to do with us and is hurting nobody, as wrong and should be soundly condemned if not made illegal.

Liberty does not require us to appreciate, condone, agree with, or associate with those we find reprehensible. But liberty does not include license to punish people for no other reason than they hold opinions and beliefs that we don't share.

My take on the above is that I agree that people shouldn't be harmed for speaking their mind. I also think that if people don't like what someone says, they also have their First Amendment right to speak out about it and disagree with the person. If people want to boycott the person's show, store, establishment, etc. , they have a right to do it in a lawful manner.
When Reverend Wright made his statements, plenty of conservative republicans were up in arms and looping what he said, day after day on their radio and TV shows. They railed against so-called 'Black Liberation Theology'. When Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., make a statement, conservatives exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out against them. It's not a one way street. That said, I would disagree if the government went after Ms. Deen, The Duck Guy. Sterling, Bundy, for saying what they said. I would feel that their First Amendment rights were being violated.

But WHY were conservatives up in arms over what Rev. Wright said? Had he been just another preacher, he wouldn't have even caused a minor ripple through the conservative community. The reason what he said was important because a man who aspired to President of the United States had sat in his congregation for 20 years, praised him as his mentor, and considered him a close friend. Even had him on his campaign advisory committee. Did this aspiring President endorse or embrace the views preached by Rev. Wright? That is a very valid question and 100% legitimate in the process of vetting a person who would be leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

But what power did any of those other people have? Were they running for office? No. Did they have any ability to compromise our persons or our property or require any participation or contribution from us in any way? No. Did they want any such ability? Were trying to get that ability? No. So why is anything they say or believe or think anybody else's business at all?

I can justify an organized protest or boycott in the case where somebody is engaged in unethical or dangerous practices that is violating the unalienable rights of others. I have participated in such protests and boycotts.

But a person just being who and what he is and not requiring any contribution or participation by anybody else? Somebody who is not violating anybody else's rights in any way? Certainly I might find him disagreeable and choose not to do business with him. But for me to organize a protest or boycott to take away his livelihood and hurt him in any other way is wrong. It is evil. And it should be culturally unacceptable and even illegal to do so.

Sharpton and Jackson, do send ripples through the conservatives, they have spoken out against what they have said plenty of times.

Why should people mind their business when the statements were made public?

Can you justify the fact that people have a right to protest, boycott, or demonstrate against people they disagree with, as long as they do it in a lawful manner?

By not doing business with the person because of their views if you otherwise would have used their business is hurting their livelihood. I'm not a big 'protest type', it's not my style, but I do agree that people have the First Amendment right to do so. I did feel that Paula Deen got a raw deal because it was part of a court deposition, I think a few of the others (Roberts) made public statements.

Though I disagree with the One Milion Moms, I do feel that they had a First Amendment right to call for a boycott against J.C Penny.

I don't think people should have to 'shut up' if they disagree with a stance or statement that someone has or makes. In my opinion, that's Freedom. It's also part of Our basic First Amendment rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

My take on the above is that I agree that people shouldn't be harmed for speaking their mind. I also think that if people don't like what someone says, they also have their First Amendment right to speak out about it and disagree with the person. If people want to boycott the person's show, store, establishment, etc. , they have a right to do it in a lawful manner.
When Reverend Wright made his statements, plenty of conservative republicans were up in arms and looping what he said, day after day on their radio and TV shows. They railed against so-called 'Black Liberation Theology'. When Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., make a statement, conservatives exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out against them. It's not a one way street. That said, I would disagree if the government went after Ms. Deen, The Duck Guy. Sterling, Bundy, for saying what they said. I would feel that their First Amendment rights were being violated.

But WHY were conservatives up in arms over what Rev. Wright said? Had he been just another preacher, he wouldn't have even caused a minor ripple through the conservative community. The reason what he said was important because a man who aspired to President of the United States had sat in his congregation for 20 years, praised him as his mentor, and considered him a close friend. Even had him on his campaign advisory committee. Did this aspiring President endorse or embrace the views preached by Rev. Wright? That is a very valid question and 100% legitimate in the process of vetting a person who would be leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

But what power did any of those other people have? Were they running for office? No. Did they have any ability to compromise our persons or our property or require any participation or contribution from us in any way? No. Did they want any such ability? Were trying to get that ability? No. So why is anything they say or believe or think anybody else's business at all?

I can justify an organized protest or boycott in the case where somebody is engaged in unethical or dangerous practices that is violating the unalienable rights of others. I have participated in such protests and boycotts.

But a person just being who and what he is and not requiring any contribution or participation by anybody else? Somebody who is not violating anybody else's rights in any way? Certainly I might find him disagreeable and choose not to do business with him. But for me to organize a protest or boycott to take away his livelihood and hurt him in any other way is wrong. It is evil. And it should be culturally unacceptable and even illegal to do so.

Sharpton and Jackson, do send ripples through the conservatives, they have spoken out against what they have said plenty of times.

Why should people mind their business when the statements were made public?

Can you justify the fact that people have a right to protest, boycott, or demonstrate against people they disagree with, as long as they do it in a lawful manner?

By not doing business with the person because of their views if you otherwise would have used their business is hurting their livelihood. I'm not a big 'protest type', it's not my style, but I do agree that people have the First Amendment right to do so. I did feel that Paula Deen got a raw deal because it was part of a court deposition, I think a few of the others (Roberts) made public statements.

Though I disagree with the One Milion Moms, I do feel that they had a First Amendment right to call for a boycott against J.C Penny.

I don't think people should have to 'shut up' if they disagree with a stance or statement that someone has or makes. In my opinion, that's Freedom. It's also part of Our basic First Amendment rights.

I do NOT believe One Million Moms, an organization that I can defend in many of their views, had a First Amendment right to organize a boycott against J.C. Penney. J.C. Penney wasn't doing anything to anybody. They weren't requiring contribution or participation by anybody. Nor was Ellen DeGeneres who was the focus of the boycott.

When mob rule can dictate to a business who they can and cannot hire, what the owners or managers of that business can and cannot say or think or believe, then there are no rights. If the business owner must be politically correct or this mob or that mob will punish them, hurt them economically, and/or shut them down if possible, then there are no property rights. There is no free speech.

It is illegal to organize a mob to hurt or shut down a business to satisfy the vindictive nature of a politician or for the benefit of another business. The effect on the attacked person/business is the same if a mob does it to punish somebody for being politically incorrect. And that too should be illegal.

Speaking our own mind that somebody else was out of line or wrong or off base is one thing. But organizing a protest or boycott to silence that person is something very different.

 

[Pheonixops]

But WHY were conservatives up in arms over what Rev. Wright said? Had he been just another preacher, he wouldn't have even caused a minor ripple through the conservative community. The reason what he said was important because a man who aspired to President of the United States had sat in his congregation for 20 years, praised him as his mentor, and considered him a close friend. Even had him on his campaign advisory committee. Did this aspiring President endorse or embrace the views preached by Rev. Wright? That is a very valid question and 100% legitimate in the process of vetting a person who would be leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

But what power did any of those other people have? Were they running for office? No. Did they have any ability to compromise our persons or our property or require any participation or contribution from us in any way? No. Did they want any such ability? Were trying to get that ability? No. So why is anything they say or believe or think anybody else's business at all?

I can justify an organized protest or boycott in the case where somebody is engaged in unethical or dangerous practices that is violating the unalienable rights of others. I have participated in such protests and boycotts.

But a person just being who and what he is and not requiring any contribution or participation by anybody else? Somebody who is not violating anybody else's rights in any way? Certainly I might find him disagreeable and choose not to do business with him. But for me to organize a protest or boycott to take away his livelihood and hurt him in any other way is wrong. It is evil. And it should be culturally unacceptable and even illegal to do so.

Sharpton and Jackson, do send ripples through the conservatives, they have spoken out against what they have said plenty of times.

Why should people mind their business when the statements were made public?

Can you justify the fact that people have a right to protest, boycott, or demonstrate against people they disagree with, as long as they do it in a lawful manner?

By not doing business with the person because of their views if you otherwise would have used their business is hurting their livelihood. I'm not a big 'protest type', it's not my style, but I do agree that people have the First Amendment right to do so. I did feel that Paula Deen got a raw deal because it was part of a court deposition, I think a few of the others (Roberts) made public statements.

Though I disagree with the One Milion Moms, I do feel that they had a First Amendment right to call for a boycott against J.C Penny.

I don't think people should have to 'shut up' if they disagree with a stance or statement that someone has or makes. In my opinion, that's Freedom. It's also part of Our basic First Amendment rights.

I do NOT believe One Million Moms, an organization that I can defend in many of their views, had a First Amendment right to organize a boycott against J.C. Penney. J.C. Penney wasn't doing anything to anybody. They weren't requiring contribution or participation by anybody. Nor was Ellen DeGeneres who was the focus of the boycott.

When mob rule can dictate to a business who they can and cannot hire, what the owners or managers of that business can and cannot say or think or believe, then there are no rights. If the business owner must be politically correct or this mob or that mob will punish them, hurt them economically, and/or shut them down if possible, then there are no property rights. There is no free speech.

It is illegal to organize a mob to hurt or shut down a business to satisfy the vindictive nature of a politician or for the benefit of another business. The effect on the attacked person/business is the same if a mob does it to punish somebody for being politically incorrect. And that too should be illegal.

Speaking our own mind that somebody else was out of line or wrong or off base is one thing. But organizing a protest or boycott to silence that person is something very different.

LOL, here I am defending the right of the conservative group to protest and boycott J.C. Penny and you are condemning that conservative group for doing so! Isn't that supposed to be bass ackwards?

Can this be an example of the difference between a conservative approach to a subject and a liberal approach to a subject?

What if a business owner stated that he was a holocaust denier, hated America, and stated his admiration for Hitler, do you think that people should have the right to boycott and protest against his business, show, etc.?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You have certainly put down all the important themes of classical liberalism.

I would only object to the first and the seventh.

As for the first, I'd strike the word ability, and have it read: Liberty is the inherently inalienable and politically unabridgible right of religious/ideological belief, the right of free expression and the right of free movement ultimately predicated on the sanctity of human life and the inviolable prerogatives of free-association and private property. Hence, one is free to do as one thinks best as long as one doesn't violate the life, the liberty or the property of others., for that is where one's liberty ends and that of others begins.

As for the seventh, I'd add that it is the judicial branch's duty to also strike down any law duly passed by the legislative branch that breaches the boundaries of the latter's explicitly limited powers in the social contract, especially with regard to the inherently inalienable and politically unabridgible rights of man. Not withstanding, the people via the legislative branch reserve the right to curtail the judicial branch's jurisdiction.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

The religious right?!

The only political faction/ideology in this country hostile to the imperatives of liberty is that of the leftists, Marxists, statists or progressives among us. Last time I checked history, the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, i.e., the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Perhaps you haven't read the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Montesquieu, Sydney and Locke: you know, the major works of natural law, the development of the sociopolitical theory adopted by the Founders.

Are you sure you know the difference between civil liberties and civil rights/protections?

Are you sure you know the difference between genuine liberty, and license and perversion?

Are you sure that liberty can be maintained within the parameters of a just and stable social contract if the sanctity of human life and the prerogatives of free-association and private property are breached?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sharpton and Jackson, do send ripples through the conservatives, they have spoken out against what they have said plenty of times.

Why should people mind their business when the statements were made public?

Can you justify the fact that people have a right to protest, boycott, or demonstrate against people they disagree with, as long as they do it in a lawful manner?

By not doing business with the person because of their views if you otherwise would have used their business is hurting their livelihood. I'm not a big 'protest type', it's not my style, but I do agree that people have the First Amendment right to do so. I did feel that Paula Deen got a raw deal because it was part of a court deposition, I think a few of the others (Roberts) made public statements.

Though I disagree with the One Milion Moms, I do feel that they had a First Amendment right to call for a boycott against J.C Penny.

I don't think people should have to 'shut up' if they disagree with a stance or statement that someone has or makes. In my opinion, that's Freedom. It's also part of Our basic First Amendment rights.

I do NOT believe One Million Moms, an organization that I can defend in many of their views, had a First Amendment right to organize a boycott against J.C. Penney. J.C. Penney wasn't doing anything to anybody. They weren't requiring contribution or participation by anybody. Nor was Ellen DeGeneres who was the focus of the boycott.

When mob rule can dictate to a business who they can and cannot hire, what the owners or managers of that business can and cannot say or think or believe, then there are no rights. If the business owner must be politically correct or this mob or that mob will punish them, hurt them economically, and/or shut them down if possible, then there are no property rights. There is no free speech.

It is illegal to organize a mob to hurt or shut down a business to satisfy the vindictive nature of a politician or for the benefit of another business. The effect on the attacked person/business is the same if a mob does it to punish somebody for being politically incorrect. And that too should be illegal.

Speaking our own mind that somebody else was out of line or wrong or off base is one thing. But organizing a protest or boycott to silence that person is something very different.

LOL, here I am defending the right of the conservative group to protest and boycott J.C. Penny and you are condemning that conservative group for doing so! Isn't that supposed to be bass ackwards?

Can this be an example of the difference between a conservative approach to a subject and a liberal approach to a subject?

What if a business owner stated that he was a holocaust denier, hated America, and stated his admiration for Hitler, do you think that people should have the right to boycott and protest against his business, show, etc.?

It is only 'bass ackwards' if one is guided by partisan loyalties. I am not. But if one is guided by principle, that principle applies no matter which side of the political or ideological divide is involved.

And it was decades ago, but the one who really explained that to me so that I could grasp and articulate it as my own belief was William Raspberry, now retired, but who wrote with one of the most amazing liberal minds of anybody I have ever read. And he is about as liberal as they come, but was amazing because he was informed by principle rather than partisan values.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You have certainly put down all the important themes of classical liberalism.

I would only object to the first and the seventh.

As for the first, I'd strike the word ability, and have it read: Liberty is the inherently inalienable and politically unabridgible right of religious/ideological belief, the right of free expression and the right of free movement ultimately predicated on the sanctity of human life and the inviolable prerogatives of free-association and private property. Hence, one is free to do as one thinks best as long as one doesn't violate the life, the liberty or the property of others., for that is where one's liberty ends and that of others begins.

As for the seventh, I'd add that it is the judicial branch's duty to also strike down any law duly passed by the legislative branch that breaches the boundaries of the latter's explicitly limited powers in the social contract, especially with regard to the inherently inalienable and politically unabridgible rights of man. Not withstanding, the people via the legislative branch reserve the right to curtail the judicial branch's jurisdiction.

Excellent points certainly worthy of serious consideration and discussion. Thank you.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition

Pity Americans are hostile to the only viable ‘ism,’ pragmatism.

It is utterly ridiculous that intelligent, rational people should be compelled to blindly adhere to a given political/economic dogma, when the pragmatic approach is always best.

Rather than slavishly abiding by sanctioned political/economic doctrine and dogma, instead pursue a political and economic course predicated on facts, evidence, and what’s most likely to be successful.

What we most often find is that the best ideas are those which take from all political and economic disciplines.

No single ‘ism’ has a monopoly on the truth, reactionary conservatism in particular.

we'd have to remove the $$$ from politics to get anything like a gov't that works for the vast majority of Americans. Something modern-day conservatives are adamantly against I might add.

I agree,

we'd have to remove the $$$ from politics to get anything like a gov't that works for the vast majority of Americans. Something modern-day liberals are adamantly against I might add.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I agree,

we'd have to remove the $$$ from politics to get anything like a gov't that works for the vast majority of Americans. Something modern-day liberals are adamantly against I might add.

And you'd be entirely incorrect...

 

[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.

The religious right?!

The only political faction/ideology in this country hostile to the imperatives of liberty is that of the leftists, Marxists, statists or progressives among us. Last time I checked history, the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, i.e., the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Perhaps you haven't read the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Montesquieu, Sydney and Locke: you know, the major works of natural law, the development of the sociopolitical theory adopted by the Founders.

Are you sure you know the difference between civil liberties and civil rights/protections?

Are you sure you know the difference between genuine liberty, and license and perversion?

Are you sure that liberty can be maintained within the parameters of a just and stable social contract if the sanctity of human life and the prerogatives of free-association and private property are breached?

yea, telling someone they can't marry a person b/c it goes against your definition of marriage is a breach of our privacy and property, and therefore abhorrent to the principles of freedom.

You either choose freedom, warts and all, or you don't.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I agree,

we'd have to remove the $$$ from politics to get anything like a gov't that works for the vast majority of Americans. Something modern-day liberals are adamantly against I might add.

And you'd be entirely incorrect...

liar

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I agree,

we'd have to remove the $$$ from politics to get anything like a gov't that works for the vast majority of Americans. Something modern-day liberals are adamantly against I might add.

And you'd be entirely incorrect...

liar

Nope. The love of money is the root of evil, and bad politics.

 

[Two Thumbs]

And you'd be entirely incorrect...

liar

Nope. The love of money is the root of evil, and bad politics.

then you actually agree with my original post

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The religious right?!

The only political faction/ideology in this country hostile to the imperatives of liberty is that of the leftists, Marxists, statists or progressives among us. Last time I checked history, the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, i.e., the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Perhaps you haven't read the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Montesquieu, Sydney and Locke: you know, the major works of natural law, the development of the sociopolitical theory adopted by the Founders.

Are you sure you know the difference between civil liberties and civil rights/protections?

Are you sure you know the difference between genuine liberty, and license and perversion?

Are you sure that liberty can be maintained within the parameters of a just and stable social contract if the sanctity of human life and the prerogatives of free-association and private property are breached?

yea, telling someone they can't marry a person b/c it goes against your definition of marriage is a breach of our privacy and property, and therefore abhorrent to the principles of freedom.

You either choose freedom, warts and all, or you don't.

I definitely do not want this thread to dissolve into yet still another discussion on gay marriage. So let's focus on the concept.

What is marriage? Why do we have a definition of marriage? What is the purpose of the laws that regulate legally recognized marriage in all 50 states? Do those laws make any sense for same sex marriages? What has been the traditional purpose of marriage throughout all of recorded history? And is there room in the social contract to respect the values of those who believe traditional marriage is beneficial for all of society, whether gay or straight, and we should ALL, gay and straight, should encourage, reinforce, and support it? And if the majority see a value in not changing the definition of traditional marriage, how do we provide the necessary protections and benefits for gay couples and others who need to form family groups but for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry under the existing marriage laws? And if we decide to accommodate everybody under the same laws, how do we preserve what is important and commendable for everybody?

THAT is how a society should go about making decisions about these things--it should not ever be one side saying you will change everything you believe in, including definitions, to accommodate our side and your side be damned.

 

[Londoner]

Is the OP suggesting that classical liberalism and conservatism are the same thing? They have divergent social philosophies, and they are not in 100% agreement on economic matters. OP is encouraged to read Hayek's critique of conservatism. Reagan blended these two movements, resulting in some intellectual confusion amongst Republicans. Not sure what it going on in this thread, but the OP is to be commended for trying to keep it civil.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the OP suggesting that classical liberalism and conservatism are the same thing? They have divergent social philosophies, and they are not in 100% agreement on economic matters. OP is encouraged to read Hayek's critique of conservatism. Reagan blended these two movements, resulting in some intellectual confusion amongst Republicans. Not sure what it going on in this thread, but the OP is to be commended for trying to keep it civil.

Please again look at the definition of modern day American conservatism in the OP. The term is used there as it is most generally understood and used today, in 2014, and yes, as it is understood today, modern day American conservatism is interchangeable with classical liberalism aka libertarianism (little "L").

Hayek, who of course is required reading for anybody seriously studying economics, formed his socioeconomic convictions early in the 20th Century and was heavily influenced by such great thinkers and experts as Tocqueville and von Mises. He wrote his
The Road to Serfdom as a commentary on the trend toward fascism that was arising in Europe at that time. He saw fascism--then considered a 'conservative' ideology--as a capitalist path to socialism which he had ideologically rejected. So Hayek was writing from a dictionary/encyclopedia definition of conservatism that more closely resembles the modern-day American liberal than it does the modern day American conservative.

Again quoting Thomas Sowell:

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

I agree with Sowell. The words as defined in the dictionary do not represent the concepts as they are commonly understood and used in today's vernacular. But I am using the terms as they are commonly understood and used in today's vernacular to describe modern day American socioeconomic and political ideology.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The religious right?!

The only political faction/ideology in this country hostile to the imperatives of liberty is that of the leftists, Marxists, statists or progressives among us. Last time I checked history, the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, i.e., the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Perhaps you haven't read the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Montesquieu, Sydney and Locke: you know, the major works of natural law, the development of the sociopolitical theory adopted by the Founders.

Are you sure you know the difference between civil liberties and civil rights/protections?

Are you sure you know the difference between genuine liberty, and license and perversion?

Are you sure that liberty can be maintained within the parameters of a just and stable social contract if the sanctity of human life and the prerogatives of free-association and private property are breached?

yea, telling someone they can't marry a person b/c it goes against your definition of marriage is a breach of our privacy and property, and therefore abhorrent to the principles of freedom.

You either choose freedom, warts and all, or you don't.

LOL! No. The statist's suppression of/impositions on the free exercise of the Christian's fundamental liberties are not freedom. These things are tyranny, and the Christian is not obliged to choose/tolerate these warts at all.

Got empathy? Are you blind? What is this bias of yours that causes you to lose sight of the distinction between civil liberties and civil rights when it comes to the Christian's plight in the face of an increasingly pagan nation where collectivistic statism is on the rise?

There's nothing stopping a homosexual marrying whomever he pleases. You're not talking about the freedom to marry. You're talking about the government's official approbation/recognition of homosexual marriage and the government's imposition of it on the public and private sector.

Hello!
______________________________________

So, you're not talking about inherent inalienable rights/unabridgible civil liberties at all. You're talking about civil rights/protections enforced by government against the free exercise of the former, based on sexual behavior that is obviously not compatible with the physiological/biological imperatives of nature or the natural law of classical liberalism.

Right?

So when government grants its official approbation for homosexual marriage, it necessarily imposes the acceptance of if in the public schools, for example, doesn't it? It necessary promotes/advances the notion of its legal and moral rightness and acceptability. And that now impacts the inherent inalienable rights/unabridgible civil liberties of others.

Right?

So you don't believe that fundamental liberties take precedence over the "rights" enforced by government that would suppress the former, and you don't really care if the government violates the fundamental rights of Christians in the public schools as pagans shove their morality on the children of Christians or when the government forces Christians to accommodate pagan behavior against the Christian's prerogatives of free-association and property in the private sector?

Right?

And you don’t care that Christians don't really care what homosexuals do as long as the latter don't violate their rights.

Right?

And you don't care that Christians have argued that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether?

Right?

And you don't care that Christians are at the forefront of the fight for educational freedom, universal school choice for this very reason, among others?

Right?

And you don't care that statists (leftists, Marxists, progressives) are bent on using the government to suppress the free exercise of fundamental liberties, impose conformity and acceptance of paganism, materialism, secular humanism and the like, and, therefore, oppose getting the government out of the business of marriage or giving up their control of the schools?

Social Engineering.

The Christian is just supposed to roll over, surrender his fundamental liberties in the face of this tyranny?

Right?

So you're accusing the Christian of what exactly? For exerting defensive political force in the face of the statist's initial force against the Christian's prerogatives of free-association and private property? Against his parental consent and authority in the schools?

Why do you blame the Christian for the dilemma instigated by statists?

You're really not a very reliable defender of the fundamental liberties of classical liberalism or natural law at all, are you?

 

[Foxfyre]

The religious right?!

The only political faction/ideology in this country hostile to the imperatives of liberty is that of the leftists, Marxists, statists or progressives among us. Last time I checked history, the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, i.e., the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Perhaps you haven't read the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Montesquieu, Sydney and Locke: you know, the major works of natural law, the development of the sociopolitical theory adopted by the Founders.

Are you sure you know the difference between civil liberties and civil rights/protections?

Are you sure you know the difference between genuine liberty, and license and perversion?

Are you sure that liberty can be maintained within the parameters of a just and stable social contract if the sanctity of human life and the prerogatives of free-association and private property are breached?

yea, telling someone they can't marry a person b/c it goes against your definition of marriage is a breach of our privacy and property, and therefore abhorrent to the principles of freedom.

You either choose freedom, warts and all, or you don't.

LOL! No. The statist's suppression of/impositions on the free exercise of the Christian's fundamental liberties are not freedom. These things are tyranny, and the Christian is not obliged to choose/tolerate these warts at all.

Got empathy? Are you blind? What is this bias of yours that causes you to lose sight of the distinction between civil liberties and civil rights when it comes to the Christian's plight in the face of an increasingly pagan nation where collectivistic statism is on the rise?

There's nothing stopping a homosexual marrying whomever he pleases. You're not talking about the freedom to marry. You're talking about the government's official approbation/recognition of homosexual marriage and the government's imposition of it on the public and private sector.

Hello!
______________________________________

So, you're not talking about inherent inalienable rights/unabridgible civil liberties at all. You're talking about civil rights/protections enforced by government against the free exercise of the former, based on sexual behavior that is obviously not compatible with the physiological/biological imperatives of nature or the natural law of classical liberalism.

Right?

So when government grants its official approbation for homosexual marriage, it necessarily imposes the acceptance of if in the public schools, for example, doesn't it? It necessary promotes/advances the notion of its legal and moral rightness and acceptability. And that now impacts the inherent inalienable rights/unabridgible civil liberties of others.

Right?

So you don't believe that fundamental liberties take precedence over the "rights" enforced by government that would suppress the former, and you don't really care if the government violates the fundamental rights of Christians in the public schools as pagans shove their morality on the children of Christians or when the government forces Christians to accommodate pagan behavior against the Christian's prerogatives of free-association and property in the private sector?

Right?

And you don’t care that Christians don't really care what homosexuals do as long as the latter don't violate their rights.

Right?

And you don't care that Christians have argued that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether?

Right?

And you don't care that Christians are at the forefront of the fight for educational freedom, universal school choice for this very reason, among others?

Right?

And you don't care that statists (leftists, Marxists, progressives) are bent on using the government to suppress the free exercise of fundamental liberties, impose conformity and acceptance of paganism, materialism, secular humanism and the like, and, therefore, oppose getting the government out of the business of marriage or giving up their control of the schools?

Social Engineering.

The Christian is just supposed to roll over, surrender his fundamental liberties in the face of this tyranny?

Right?

So you're accusing the Christian of what exactly? For exerting defensive political force in the face of the statist's initial force against the Christian's prerogatives of free-association and private property? Against his parental consent and authority in the schools?

Why do you blame the Christian for the dilemma instigated by statists?

You're really not a very reliable defender of the fundamental liberties of classical liberalism or natural law at all, are you?

Okay, let's focus on the concepts, not each other.

Actually, based on my recollections of Two Thumbs posts on various topics over recent years, I am pretty sure he supports the classical liberal position fairly well across the board. In that post I took him as expressing one place he doesn't agree with conservatism is on the issue of gay marriage. In my response to him I tried to present what I believe the classical liberal (modern conservative) point of view really is about that. He may or may not agree with me about that, and that is okay.

The true modern day conservative, aka classical liberal, doesn't give a flying fig who marries who so long as the marriage is between consenting people who are at or beyond the age of consent.

But because our culture values children and we, as a people, are pretty much in agreement that children, who are denied many rights afforded to adults, are rightfully entitled to certain protections. The marriage laws in all 50 states are specifically designed to protect any children that result from husband and wife having sex. With very few exceptions, they serve essentially no other reasonable purpose.

So the issue should always have been how to provide important/necessary benefits to family units for whatever reason do not wish to or cannot marry under existing marriage law. In my opinion that can be done without changing a definition that has endured for all of recorded history.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

yea, telling someone they can't marry a person b/c it goes against your definition of marriage is a breach of our privacy and property, and therefore abhorrent to the principles of freedom.

You either choose freedom, warts and all, or you don't.

LOL! No. The statist's suppression of/impositions on the free exercise of the Christian's fundamental liberties are not freedom. These things are tyranny, and the Christian is not obliged to choose/tolerate these warts at all.

Got empathy? Are you blind? What is this bias of yours that causes you to lose sight of the distinction between civil liberties and civil rights when it comes to the Christian's plight in the face of an increasingly pagan nation where collectivistic statism is on the rise?

There's nothing stopping a homosexual marrying whomever he pleases. You're not talking about the freedom to marry. You're talking about the government's official approbation/recognition of homosexual marriage and the government's imposition of it on the public and private sector.

Hello!
______________________________________

So, you're not talking about inherent inalienable rights/unabridgible civil liberties at all. You're talking about civil rights/protections enforced by government against the free exercise of the former, based on sexual behavior that is obviously not compatible with the physiological/biological imperatives of nature or the natural law of classical liberalism.

Right?

So when government grants its official approbation for homosexual marriage, it necessarily imposes the acceptance of if in the public schools, for example, doesn't it? It necessary promotes/advances the notion of its legal and moral rightness and acceptability. And that now impacts the inherent inalienable rights/unabridgible civil liberties of others.

Right?

So you don't believe that fundamental liberties take precedence over the "rights" enforced by government that would suppress the former, and you don't really care if the government violates the fundamental rights of Christians in the public schools as pagans shove their morality on the children of Christians or when the government forces Christians to accommodate pagan behavior against the Christian's prerogatives of free-association and property in the private sector?

Right?

And you don’t care that Christians don't really care what homosexuals do as long as the latter don't violate their rights.

Right?

And you don't care that Christians have argued that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether?

Right?

And you don't care that Christians are at the forefront of the fight for educational freedom, universal school choice for this very reason, among others?

Right?

And you don't care that statists (leftists, Marxists, progressives) are bent on using the government to suppress the free exercise of fundamental liberties, impose conformity and acceptance of paganism, materialism, secular humanism and the like, and, therefore, oppose getting the government out of the business of marriage or giving up their control of the schools?

Social Engineering.

The Christian is just supposed to roll over, surrender his fundamental liberties in the face of this tyranny?

Right?

So you're accusing the Christian of what exactly? For exerting defensive political force in the face of the statist's initial force against the Christian's prerogatives of free-association and private property? Against his parental consent and authority in the schools?

Why do you blame the Christian for the dilemma instigated by statists?

You're really not a very reliable defender of the fundamental liberties of classical liberalism or natural law at all, are you?

Okay, let's focus on the concepts, not each other.

Actually, based on my recollections of Two Thumbs posts on various topics over recent years, I am pretty sure he supports the classical liberal position fairly well across the board. In that post I took him as expressing one place he doesn't agree with conservatism is on the issue of gay marriage. In my response to him I tried to present what I believe the classical liberal (modern conservative) point of view really is about that. He may or may not agree with me about that, and that is okay.

The true modern day conservative, aka classical liberal, doesn't give a flying fig who marries who so long as the marriage is between consenting people who are at or beyond the age of consent.

But because our culture values children and we, as a people, are pretty much in agreement that children, who are denied many rights afforded to adults, are rightfully entitled to certain protections. The marriage laws in all 50 states are specifically designed to protect any children that result from husband and wife having sex. With very few exceptions, they serve essentially no other reasonable purpose.

So the issue should always have been how to provide important/necessary benefits to family units for whatever reason do not wish to or cannot marry under existing marriage law. In my opinion that can be done without changing a definition that has endured for all of recorded history.

Fox, the issue in this case goes to the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. The difference between, as you put it, someone being free to be all they can be with impunity, as long as they don't violate the fundamental rights of others. A free people are not obliged to accommodate the life choices of others . . . or else there is no liberty. For me, the specific examples are irrelevant, merely illustrative of the pertinent distinction.