Conservatives say that, then undermine it by deciding that when government is controlling what we put in our bodies, who we have sex with, if we decide to gamble with our money, whether a woman can have an abortion it's something they want. When government uses the military to be policeman to the world and make everyone's enemies our own it's good. And finally they decide that those things are more important to them then the economic freedom that you refer to. In the end, conservatives don't do much for freedom, do they?
What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?
- Thread starter Wry Catcher
- Start date
Conservatives say that, then undermine it by deciding that when government is controlling what we put in our bodies, who we have sex with, if we decide to gamble with our money, whether a woman can have an abortion it's something they want. When government uses the military to be policeman to the world and make everyone's enemies our own it's good. And finally they decide that those things are more important to them then the economic freedom that you refer to. In the end, conservatives don't do much for freedom, do they?
candycorn
Diamond Member
Now that I see Santorum rising...it is possibly desperation and disgust at this point.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #443
"In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down."
Um, and where was the definition I provided wrong?
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
Actually Government by the informed consent of the Governed is what we advocate. You act like an informed People have no right to determine any boundaries at all, but it is okay for non elected Judges or Government Agencies to have unlimited power without cause, consent, or due process. They can just make the shit up as they go, no matter how hypocritical, or arbitrary, or self serving, and that is okay with you. It's not okay with me. Grow up. For most things, reason usually wins out in the end, if you don't obstruct the process. We pretty much all want fairness. Totalitarian control to meet your end is not fairness.
You guys are throwing stones without any regard to what happens when the tide changes and you end up on the receiving end.
No, I act like the Constitution is the boundary. I'm libertarian, not anarchist. The Federal government has no say over morality because there is no power granted in it to control morality and there is no power to wage undeclared wars or wars that are for the direct defense of the US. For that reason, I did support killing Obama and attacking Afghanistan. But our endless involvement in the Middle East other then that is completely not a Federal power and nation building in Afghanistan isn't either.
I am intellectually consistent though. While I oppose restrictions on abortion, Roe v. Wade was a complete Constitutional abomination. The Federal government has no power over abortion, either way. You want the Federal government to control morality and wage endless wars and meddle in the rest of the world's affairs, change the Constitution. Don't rationalize it by saying an informed people voted for it. That isn't what the Constitution says.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
The part where you explain why you think such a response does anything but illustrate how you are anything but a child.
Last edited:
Be more specific, receiving end of what?
Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
The federal government doesn't legislate morality; laws restricting abortion, for example, are enacted at the state level. So is recognition or lack thereof, of same-sex marriage. So were sodomy laws before they were struck down. The only morality legislation I can think of that the fed ever did was Prohibition, and since that was enacted by constitutional amendment it was obviously constitutional.
As for the other things, most of the wars we have fought since WWII that were labeled "undeclared" were actually declared. A declaration of war doesn't have to be given that label or include those words; a Congressional authorization for the military to use force against an international foe IS a declaration of war. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, for example, was a declaration of war against North Vietnam. Many small-scale military actions were undeclared, of course, e.g. the Obama administration's recent actions in Libya, but that was also true before World War II. This is a gray area. I don't see how it can be gotten around, insofar as the President as commander-in-chief is authorized to respond to national emergencies.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on all of this insofar as you're saying the government shouldn't take these actions, but I have a problem with the debating tactic of declaring something unconstitutional when it's really not.
The statement was not directed at you. We are more in agreement than disagreement. In regards to Constitutional Authority, the Powers are what they are, by Origin, Court Interpretation, Signed and Ratified Treaty, or Amendment regardless of being Moral or Immoral. Maybe that is one more reason to tread carefully. I do not think we should play World Police either, and where we do help out, there should be compensation and consideration, Mutually beneficial.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Like trade treaties...
I'm going to go with the most flagrantly obvious one. Um...the war on drugs... Clearly Unconstitutional and a massive violation of our privacy. Look at the entire way it's fought and there is zero constitutional authority for what is done in the name of a war that doesn't even work.
I disagree, but I'll admit this part of my argument is a shade of gray. I do believe that Congress should actually declare war, not just authorize spending. But you ignored the major part of my argument that the Federal government only has power to defend the United States and clearly war after war were not doing that. Again, flagrantly unconstitutional. And I did say for that reason that going after Obama and the Taliban were Constitutional. But Iraq and the rest of our presence there and policing the world? No, clearly Unconstitutional.
I realize this sounds backhanded, but I honestly don't mean it that way. At least since you don't support Constitutional limits on things you support, you're trying to be even handed with things you don't. But the better answer is that if you want it and it's not in the Constitution, change the Constitution via the way it was written to be changed, which is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9 or a vote of 535 people.
Maybe mutually beneficial in a direct financial sense, but it still comes with all the downsides as by definition use of military is use of force and we don't need to be the enemy of every bad guy in the world whether we are paid for it or not. We need to stay in our yard. Again I supported going after Bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban who helped them. But the rest of the Middle East? Here's what happens:
1) We are in the middle east for oil. We are not in other regions of the world which are as chaotic w/o oil.
2) We prop up oppressive governments to "stabilize" the situation
3) The bad governments have bad enemies who attack us as well as their government.
4) So we end up in endless armed conflicts in regions we shouldn't be in to begin with.
5) As for the oil? Our economy uses more then could have been secured w/o the military which keeps oil prices artificially low, which means the military is more critical to keep the oil flowing which exacerbates all the above issues.
Being compensated by say Kuwait or Iraq would only change the budget portion of it, not the dynamic.
It is important to distinguish between conservatism and liberalism, i.e. WHO makes the choices for society, and what choices are made.
For example, both liberals and conservatives may decide that they do not want a bar or adult bookstore or strip club across the street from or next door to the elementary school or, at times, at any other place in the community. That is a reasonable choice for reasonable people of whatever ideology. So the local community, via referendum, vote, or whatever means, establishes a social contract based on the majority sense of morality or values re a policy that no bars, adult bookstores, or strip clubs be located near schools. That is a conservative concept of a social contract.
The conservative looks to the people to establish that social contract and the people order the government to enforce it. The people can indeed be on personal moral convictions oppose abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc. If the majority want a community free of those things, the people can vote to ban them and remain entirely conservative. Or the community can decide that such is not a detriment to the community and elect to allow them. Either is a conservative position IF it is the PEOPLE who decide and not an authoritarian government. The Founders knew that if the PEOPLE do not have freedom to order the society they want, then we revert to a monarchal/dictatorship/totalitarian form of government. Further a conservative social policy does not prevent a person from choosing to seek elsewhere what is banned in his/her own community.
The liberal will look to the government to establish the rule whether or not a majority of the people support the policy and sometimes to demand that the rule be applied to all everywhere. That is not social contract but deference to an authoritarian government to order society.
It is not how people define themselves but their attitude about liberty and social contract that determines whether they are liberal or conservative in modern America.
Last edited:
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,420
- 2,180
You conception of the so-called "social contract" boils down to nothing more than mob rule. It makes little difference whether the federal government imposes it or the "local community" imposes it, majority rule is majority rule. It's not a "contract" in any sense of the term.
Democracy isn't freedom. It's mob rule.
You also look to the government to enforce your "rules." The only difference is that you look to the local government rather than the federal government.
No matter how one defines the terms "liberal" and "conservative, the one thing that is perfectly clear is that you're a statist.
When the people's unalienable rights are secured, which was the intent of the Founders, there can be no legal mob rule. So your choice is social contract in which the people themselves are free to organize themselves into the society they want and the government does the bidding of the people, or an authoritarian government who decides what sort of society they may have and gives them no coioce in the matter. If you have a very wise and benevolent king, choice #2 sometimes looks good. If you get a greedy, self serving ruler, however, choice #2 is a very dangerous thing. And in either case, Choice #2 takes away individual liberties from the people.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #458
So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?
Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.
Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.
A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
The problem with the ‘tactic’ is it’s factually wrong. Laws enacted by Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise:
And reaffirmed by the Court:
The Constitution should be amended as little as possible, and amendments should either address non-partisan issues of procedure – such as the 22nd Amendment – or ensure fundamental rights of Americans - such as the 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments.
Cluttering the Constitution with inane, partisan amendments addressing such petty issues as flag burning or balanced budgets, will only cheapen the Founding Document and render it worthless. The constitutionality of such political issues must be addressed by the courts alone per the doctrines of judicial review and the rule of law.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
So It Begins: FL Fraudster Has Naturalized Citizenship Revoked
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Huckabee-Sanders kicked out of restaurant because of views- Started by LeftofLeft
- Replies: 15
-
