AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

Would you be in favor of every state doing their own thing instead of all doing the same nationally? So for example if they want to practice gay marriage and let in illegal aliens in other states, they can?

Although this was addressed to okie I, personally, see no problem with this scenario whatsoever. This is simply Madison's vision of states rights wherein he labeled the states as "Laboratories of Democracy". Why not, for example, let those in CA supply free university educations to its residents? Why not let its state and local government allow wonderfully liberal pension benefits? Why not let them, if they so choose, to become a sanctuary state for illegal aliens? Why not let them elect or appoint judges that, essentially, tell a majority of their voting public they have no legal standing in deciding the definition of marriage?

But, by the same token Ohio or, say, Montana can sit back and see how all those initiatives work out without being forced to participate if their initial judgments council them not to blindly follow CA residents. Additionally, no state shall be required to contribute to the financial well being of another, either directly or through the general revenues of the federal government. In short no moral hazard allowed.

The same sex marriage thing would be decided as each state wants and if all the states want to get together and allow reciprocation on that, driving licenses, or doctor or Pharmacist licensing they may do so. No Federal government is needed. Additionally, citizens of all states would be aware of each state's regulations and laws and could vote with both their feet and pocket books as to which state may be better for them.

The Declaration mentions the pursuit of happiness for each individual as his right and the Constitution codifies what the government is responsible for and how it may accomplish those limited ends. These documents do not give any special rights to individual specific goals or objects of desire. No government or government entity has any rights. The Constitution permits certain actions by government in fulfilling its responsibilities and only in that context. Those actions are subject to review by the governed.

Individuals are all different with different views of happiness and as long as they do not trespass on the rights of others they must be permitted to do what they feel is correct in supporting themselves, their family, and to flourish. It's really quite simple. The hard part is to stick with these principles when they seem to conflict with our own desires. However, where is the morality in principles that only apply to some of us?

The following question makes the assumption that any political contribution in the context of free speech allows clarity RE the source promoting a particular issue or individual.

Question (to all): Would you deny Unions, corporations, or any group of like minded citizens to gather and donate any amount of money or time to a particular candidate, or voice their collective opinion about a political view? If so, why?

That's not going to be possible. For one the conservative states are going to pay for the military protection of the utopian states.

The funny part about this is that nearly all the wealth of America is produced by the so-called Blue states - NY, CA, WA. You don't seem to understand that Liberal states PAY for Conservative states in this country, in terms of Federal dollars returned in services for each paid out. Not only that, but a vast amount of technological innovation comes from these same states - we CREATE the wealth in America.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The funny part about this is that nearly all the wealth of America is produced by the so-called Blue states - NY, CA, WA. You don't seem to understand that Liberal states PAY for Conservative states in this country, in terms of Federal dollars returned in services for each paid out. Not only that, but a vast amount of technological innovation comes from these same states - we CREATE the wealth in America.

Correlation does not imply causation. It's not at all funny once you understand that the causation goes the other way. Prolonged adolescence takes hold in affluent populations. It's always economically and socially destructive.

It doesn't address the fact that technological innovation and wealth flow FROM blue states TO red states.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It doesn't address the fact that technological innovation and wealth flow FROM blue states TO red states.

You are right. In terms of indirect economic effects wealthy states that become governmentalized are always going to be a net benefit to less wealthy liberal states.

That's not going to be possible. For one the conservative states are going to pay for the military protection of the utopian states.

EmperorNero wrote:

You are right. In terms of indirect economic effects wealthy states that become governmentalized are always going to be a net benefit to less wealthy liberal states.

Remember your original proposition?

Quote:

That's not going to be possible. For one the conservative states are going to pay for the military protection of the utopian states.

You can't pay for military protection; you can't pay for ANYTHING. Without the support of so-called 'blue states,' Red States would not be financially viable.

under the modern definition, not your incorrect usage of the term

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

You are right. In terms of indirect economic effects wealthy states that become governmentalized are always going to be a net benefit to less wealthy liberal states.

Remember your original proposition?

Quote:

That's not going to be possible. For one the conservative states are going to pay for the military protection of the utopian states.

You can't pay for military protection; you can't pay for ANYTHING. Without the support of so-called 'blue states,' Red States would not be financially viable.

That's sort off like the parents get cancer, and you tell the children "face it, without cancer you couldn't feed yourself".

Yes, obviously the ones who bring home the money are the ones with cancer. But cancer does not cause that families wealth. And the family would be just as rich or richer if they didn't have cancer.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

under the modern definition, not your incorrect usage of the term

What modern definition? Where is it defined? There is no modern definition.

without the American Left, this country wouldn't work financially, because we bring in a gigantic amount of the revenues.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

without the American Left, this country wouldn't work financially, because we bring in a gigantic amount of the revenues.

Correlation does not imply causation. Those people would produce just as much, or more, if they weren't statists.

I don't care whether it's correlation, causation or whatever.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't care whether it's correlation, causation or whatever.

If you don't care about correlation or causation, you should burn something, because pollution causes industry.

Right wing states support themselves. Left wing states require right wing states to help support them. That is the way it is, and that is the way it has been in both the 20th and 21st centuries. Furthermore, the left wing requires the support of the right wing in order to survive. Why else does the left wing continually take increasing amounts of right wing wealth via taxation? Would they do that if they thought they did not need it? Of course not!

This non-sequitur has nothing to do with the original topic of conversation at all.

okie, think of it more as a theoretical possibility than a policy suggestion within the bounds of the American constitution. (Not that we follow the constitution any more.) Couldn't I get you support the notion that ideally no laws should be imposed universally?
I know it means giving up on some government objectives that are dear to you, and the representative from the left that I was asking the same question earlier was apparently not willing to give up totalitarian income redistribution. If conservatives are willing to do that, they could present themselves as the good guys instead of a different brand of statist.

So border security would simply be the responsibility of the states. And if some states want to let in illegal drug smugglers then the states bordering it will simply secure it's borders with that state.
It's not like the federal government actually is securing the borders. So what is there to lose? Right now Arizona is fighting for being permitted to secure their own borders!

As for gay marriage, what I'm proposing is precisely for the purpose of some states not being pressured into doing what the others do. If they legalize marriage to minors in San Francisco, would that mean that when such a couple moves to Oklahoma, it would have to be recognized? Of course not. I see no problem with a patchwork of marriage laws that are inconsistently recognized in different places.
Some states could simply abolish government involvement in marriage, those who choose to have government marriage can define it either way they like; man-woman, same sex, polygamy, minors, etc.
On this issue too, the current status isn't too great for conservatives. Regardless of all states having voted against it, gay marriage is being forced through the activist courts. So continuing the current path the other side gets it both ways, they get to maintain marriage as a government privilege and they get to redefine your marriage.

"I think all states need to be on the same page" is precisely the kind of totalitarianism that I abhor in the modern left. Let other people do their own thing!
I can understand why the modern left is totalitarian, that way they gradually get what they want. But conservatives have no incentive to insist on the totalitarian machine. If they didn't, the left would be the only ones defending big government with it's wars and patriot act.

You want to starve those Americans who lost their jobs