AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It's not as if we have to guess; we have a pretty good idea of what conservatives stood for at the time. The core point which conservatives rallied behind - where the name "conservative" originates - was opposition to the revolution and the conservation and restoration of a hereditary monarchy as a holy institution.

In this case, what you should be pointing out is that the Founding Fathers' ideas on personal liberty and freedom, and the concept of running a modern nation as a Republic, were not only Liberal but Radical in their time. They were not Conservative or right-wing in any fashion.
Cycloptichorn

The title of this thread is "American Conservatism in 2008 and Beyond." We are therefore discussing what conservatism and liberalism is - in today's context, how it is currently defined, not how it was defined hundreds of years or a thousand years ago somewhere. I think also that the debate over Hitler and Nazism, whether it is leftist or not, I have made it clear on this thread and on other threads that when I point out how leftist Hitler and Nazism was, it is in comparison to today's context of left vs right, and that would be primarily here in America, because that is the predominant context being considered on this forum.

I think also that the debate over Hitler and Nazism, whether it is leftist or not, I have made it clear on this thread and on other threads that when I point out how leftist Hitler and Nazism was, it is in comparison to today's context of left vs right, and that would be primarily here in America, because that is the predominant context being considered on this forum

You can tell immediately that this is a misguided piece of writing. The second sentence is the clue. That's the one in which the author talks about the nature of man and the nature of government.

The rights of individuals', of which the founders spoke, were anchored in divinity. With all due respect, I must disagree, for such reasoning can be rejected by those who would deny such divine authority, whatever their reasons. Basically, individual rights are firmly rooted in the nature of reality and of mankind itself. The world of limited resources we know demands that a man, like all such creatures, must think and make decisions in his own best interest. The fact is that only the individual can so best decide how to make his way in such a reality. Those that deny this deny the very reality in which they are immersed.

Many have become confused about the concept of rights. However, there is only one right and that is an individual’s right to pursue the only life that reality allows him. It is from this that all individual rights spring. Any invented right towards this or that that ‘thing’ that infringes upon an other’s individual's rights is immoral and unethical. (Society or the collective have no rights. These entities are sometime seen as having a right to police or judicially restrain individuals but this community action, law and order if you will, is to protect and not to supplant individual rights.) But even that original right does not guarantee one's life. The essence of the founding American documents that protect individual rights does not protect or guarantee an object whether that is a good job, a chicken in every pot, happiness, or even life itself. Those documents only recognize the individual right of pursuit of such things and not the actual things themselves. This right is found in the action towards and pursuit of and not the actual object itself. It is from this guaranteed and protected action that the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness evolve. Because of the nature of our real world and that of man himself (not living by bread alone) he must be free (liberty) to pursue his best result and to flourish (happiness). *1

“The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.
The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)”
*2

“A social environment is most conducive to their [Men in general] successful survival—but only on certain conditions.
“The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own lifespan; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others. The second great benefit is the division of labor: it enables a man to devote his effort to a particular field of work and to trade with others who specialize in other fields. This form of cooperation allows all men who take part in it to achieve a greater knowledge, skill and productive return on their effort than they could achieve if each had to produce everything he needs, on a desert island or on a self-sustaining farm.
“But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society.” (“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness)
A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature—is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights.
To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival. “ 3*

"1. “[T]he common defense of the members”;

2. “[T]he preservation of the public peace, as well
against internal convulsions as external attacks”;

3. “[T]he regulation of commerce with other nations
and between the States”; and

4. “[T]he superintendence of [America’s] intercourse,
political and commercial, with foreign countries.”

Quick! Who was Rousseau and what did he believe? Who was Hobbes and what did he write about?

It's a lovely strawman James. Not much else.

If I assume that conservatives are Anarchists I can make a lovely argument about how the FFs weren't conservatives. After all an Anarchist's beliefs and the FFs beliefs are like oil and water. They will never mix.

Of course that doesn't begin to approach the reality of conservatives any more than Utopian principles approach the beliefs of liberals.

Majority of Canadians want G20 thugs to be charged under terrorism laws

TORONTO – A massive majority of Canadians and Toronto area residents want the police to charge anarchists who rioted during the G20 Summit to be charged under the provisions of the anti-terrorism laws, according to the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll.

The G20 Summit in Toronto saw the largest mass arrests in Canadian history and the courts are in the midst of dealing with all of the cases, but a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Global Television and NewsTalk 1010 reveals that three quarters (74%) of Canadians and GTA residents (75%) ‘agree’ that ‘members of the violent protest gang Black Bloc should be charged under Canada’s terrorist laws and not the regular criminal code’.

Conversely, one quarter (26%) of Canadians and GTA residents (25%) ‘disagree’ that members of the Black Bloc should be charged under terrorism laws and not the regular criminal code.

I thought at first you considered government an essential evil to be tolerated with no particular leaning to any party but you have political opinions just like the rest of us

You expressed yourself well when you restricted the value of government.

Freedom is given by governments

First fallacy: You correctly state that the title of the thread contains the words, "American conservatism," then you go on to say, "We are therefore discussing what conservatism and liberalism is - in today's context . . ."

Sorry, but if the title does not say something along the lines of liberalism and conservatism contrasted, then we are "therefore" discussing both.

Had you wanted to make a logical statement, you might have said something to the effect that since it is impossible to discuss conservatism without liberalism, we are examining both.

After upbraiding old europe for mentioning the FFs, which you, along with at least one of your fellow travelers, constantly bring up and enshrine as conservative, you tell oe that, we do "not [talk about] how it was defined hundreds of years or a thousand years ago somewhere."

Among the problems with the American right is its failure to regard both the lessons of history and to have a sense of the origins of ideas. So, although you brought up the FFs, old europe's observations are met with umbrage from you.

Immediately after refusing to permit oe from expressing his timely opinion, you drag in your favorite whipping boy, the Nazis, who are from the past!

Second fallacy: This thread clearly seeks not simply how conservatism is defined today but what it will look like in the future.

The outright misrepresentation is in your run-on sentence:

Quote:

I think also that the debate over Hitler and Nazism, whether it is leftist or not, I have made it clear on this thread and on other threads that when I point out how leftist Hitler and Nazism was, it is in comparison to today's context of left vs right, and that would be primarily here in America, because that is the predominant context being considered on this forum

No one but you and perhaps ican are "debating" whether Hitler was on the left because everyone but you who has a moderately acceptable level of education knows that Hitler was on the right.

Besides, you never really "point out," which, in this context, should mean "demonstrate" anything! You make claims! You yourself have said that this is by your definition. You can not impose your idiolect on the masses! Your attempt to do so is at the heart of Nazism but, in a democratic society, you can not do so without proof.

I stopped reading the rest of your post. In fact, as I am not being paid to correct your grammar, syntax and logic, I see no reason to read anything you write. I am on summer vacation!

Political Left-Right Scale

LEFTISM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.[/white]RIGHTISM
communism nazism fascism socialism statism democratism conservatism libertarianism anarchism

Democratism is UNLIMITED government rule by majority.

Conservatism is LIMITED government rule by law.

Libertarianism is MORE LIMITED government rule by law.

Anarchism is ZERO government rule.

The legislature is a dangerous concentration of power and that is why it has checks on it