Not to me.
I consider the right wing those who use government to keep themselves in power in business along with the saps they dupe into joining their cause.
I admire true conservatives.
Those are not "right-wingers." They're simply unscrupulous businessmen. They're liberal Democrats, more than likely, but some of them may be the kind of Republican that funds RINOs like Kasich and Jeb Bush.
You still haven't explained what you mean when you use the term "right wing."
I think I have tried.
You keep telling me they are not "far right".
I say they are.
Let's drop these terms.
You've identified those you think are RINOS.
I guess we could start classifying others....and then figure out why they get classified that way.
But I am more concerned about those who believe they are following conservatives and are duped into defending these greedy unscrupulous businessmen.
What conservative has been making a concerted effort to free up small businesses ?
I can think of several off hand. I quite a few that has been trying to do just that.
But, the left says "if you deregulate, it will be the 2008 crash all over again!"
And that's a hard charge to defend against no matter how false it inherently is.
I think the big problem is that you seem to be confusing right-wing ideology, with a party. Republican is a political party. Right-wing is an ideology. An individual may identify himself as being something, but that doesn't mean what he identifies himself to be, is actually what he is.
For example.... I can buy a membership card to the national vegetarian association. Does that mean I'm a vegetarian? Well, I eat meat, and have steak dinners. Am I vegetarian? No, I mean yes, because I have a Vegan card.
Right? I have the card, therefore I'm a Vegan.... and I eat meat every day.
What's my point?
They are RINOs? No, Republican is a party. Republican is not an ideology.
Now it's true that *generally* Republicans are right-wing. But just because you run as a republican, doesn't mean you are right-wing. And just you are Republican, doesn't mean anything. Republican is a party, not an ideology.
Are there some Republicans that are left-wing? Absolutely.
Being Republican doesn't make you Right-wing. If you support subsidies and tax and spend, and protectionism, and government give-aways, then you are still Republican, but you are not right-wing.
So when you say far-right that supports those things..... You are saying a contradiction. The one is incompatible with the other.
It's like saying "There are Vegetarians that eat meat. I eat meat, and am a member of the Vegan society".... No.... these are mutually exclusives statements.
I'll go with most of this...with the exception that I would say that right wing is not conservative.
And I think you mean conservative is an ideology.
If we meet there and agree, we have no argument.
But even conservatives get fooled.
I recently had this conversation with a young associate of mine at work. He is very ideological and conservative. I could tell he didn't like me bad mouthing big business.
About two months later he admitted he had thought long and hard about it and had come to the conclusion that I was correct.
Then we have to determine what one means by "right-wing" huh?
The traditional view of the political spectrum, is bonkers. It doesn't make sense. It's not logical. How one can try and define political views that are entirely similar, like socialist and national socialist, and claim they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, is beyond fruity.
I subscribe to the alternative view of the political spectrum, which is based on the level of governmental control.
At the far left, is 100% total government control over every aspect of life. That would be the Communist, Moaist, Stalinist, Nazi, and so on.
On the ultra-right, we have zero government. Anarchy.
So when you say the far right supports government regulations that keep small business out...... That in and of itself, is a contradiction. If they support more government control, for whatever purpose, then they are not by definition, far right.
And again.... I still don't see what horrible things 'big business' has done. You keep saying "they are stabbing us in the back", but I do not see how having an airport, or buying land, is stabbing anyone.
Founders were "classical
libertarians" (Yeah, I read what's on there) huh? LMAOROG
The guys who were the MOST radical liberals of the day? Sure Bubs
The guys who changed the Articles of Confederation to the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION?
Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain
it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
Closely related to
mercantilism,
it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
- protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
- government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
- a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.
It is a
capitalist economic school based on the
Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of
capitalism was intended to allow the
United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe.
The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.
American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
Both Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith, that great Conservative champion, found it impossible to accept that great wealth should be passed on from parent to child. Because of this they stood firm on a redistribution of wealth in the form of an inheritance tax.
A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural. Thomas Jefferson
There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death. Adam Smith
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
The intellectual underpinnings for independence were provided by the English pamphleteer Thomas Paine. His Common Sense pro-independence pamphlet was anonymously published on January 10, 1776 and became an immediate success
Thomas Paine:
“For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his cotemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them.”
"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. A
ll accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
"It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then,
society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund (
SS ANYONE?); for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it."
Benjamin Franklin:
"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of:
But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
Edmund Burke and the American Revolution
(CONSIDERED THE FOUNDER OF CONSERVATISM, HE WAS A TORRY)
On American independence, Burke wrote: "I do not know how to wish success to those whose Victory is to separate from us a large and noble part of our Empire. Still less do I wish success to injustice, oppression and absurdity".
