AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre, for the record, I agree with your definition of MAC, even though it is not infallible in our fallible world.

I think the principles are essentially reliable. It is us humans who are fallible, however, and will always fall short of the ideal.

Can you name a single politician that exemplifies the definition you have put forward?

There barely is any overlap between libertarians, as the American Heritage Dictionary defines them, and modern American conservatives, as you defines them.

I don't need to question it at all. Modern American Conservatism is a much different animal than liberals want it to be. I won't agree that it includes definitions that MACs reject.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no definition for MAC in the dictionary. The definition you pulled out of the dictionary does not describe MAC. The definition I pulled out of the online dictionary/encyclopedia does pretty well define a MAC.

If you say so ...

Foxfyre wrote:

The thread title is American Conservatism in 2008 and beyond. If you are incapable of sufficient intellectual integrity to acknowledge that you are defining something different than I am defining, then why do you bother to post in this thread?

1) If I'm incapable of sufficient intellectual integrity, why do you care? Just put me on "ignore" and be done with me.

2) "American" and "Conservatism" are well-understood terms. They aren't yours to define.

3) As I already pointed out -- IF I accept your definition that modern american conservatism equals classical liberalism or libertarianism, which the dictionary definition does define, then my problem is that it barely exists among people who call themselves conservative.

a) The war on drugs is inconsistent with classical liberalism because it expands government power and curbs individual liberty. Most people who call themselves conservatives support the war on drugs.

b) Allowing same sex marriage would expand individual rights and make no difference to the size of government. Consistent libertarians are for it, to the extent that they support state-sanctioned marriage at all. On the other hand, most people who call themselves conservatives oppose it -- including you.

c) Legalizing gambling and prostitution would expand individual rights and diminish the government's power to spy on you. Most American conservatives are against it. Including you, I suspect, though I don't actually know.

There barely is any overlap between libertarians, as the American Heritage Dictionary defines them, and modern American conservatives, as you defines them.

Quote:

Can you name a single politician that exemplifies the definition you have put forward?

Good question. I'd like to know that, too.

Those who wrote and ratified the Constitution were all MACs.

I think MACs probably put more importantce on preserving valuable traditional American values which are not an issue for many pure libertarians.

Okay. Please provide any example where any writer or ratifier of the Constitution disagreed with any of the definition I put up there for what a MAC is.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't need to question it at all. Modern American Conservatism is a much different animal than liberals want it to be. I won't agree that it includes definitions that MACs reject.

It matters not to liberal what they want MAC to be Fox, Liberals and Progressives are going to have to deal with the same group of people either way and none of them are the MACs as you desire. The entirety of this conversation is meaningless unless you understand that no matter the infoulable definition you create for MAC, to be a MAC is defined in reality by the actions they take.

If MAC is such a great idea, why aren't there an overwhelming number of MACs in government? You don't seem to want to claim any REAL people, such as the Republicans that clearly identify as conservatives. But why? Don't like the baggage? What are you ashamed of? These are the people you keep voting for...

T
K
O

I ask both you and Ican again: what are the failings of Conservatism? If you cannot honestly answer that question - with examples - then your definitions aren't worth much.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Atricle I.
...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
To pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Modern American Conservatism (MAC)

is consistent with:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism[7] and other forms of Collectivism, which promote a more interventionist role for the state in personal matters of the individual. Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9].
Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.[10][11] In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals[12][13]. Classical liberalism has many aspects in common with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by those who support limited government.[14][15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Included within this broad definition we have also discussed though not necessarily all have yet agreed that MAC includes but is not necessarily limited to the following principles:

1. The Constitution, as understood and intended by those who wrote and ratified it, must be enforced as the best protector of the people’s unalienable, legal, civil, and human rights. No judge or court should be acceptable who would presume to interpret the Constitution differently than those who wrote and ratified it interpreted it.

2. In all matters that do not violate any unalienable, legal, civil, and human right or violate any law necessary for an efficient, free, prosperous, and orderly society, local communities should be able to order and conduct their lives as they please. That includes respect for and honoring traditional values that have served society well. (Ican recently enumerated some of the laws and values that would apply within this concept.)

3. The government should do only those things/functions that are Constitutionally mandated and that cannot be done more efficiently or effectively by the private sector.

4. The government can help coordinate and facilitate necessary relief efforts in major disasters but must be prohibited from using the people’s money to buy their votes.

5. A people who look to the government to provide their basic needs and/or provide prosperity cannot be a free people.

6. How to be compassionate to the poor is best described by Benjamin Franklin: “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."“

7. Property precedes government, and a people cannot be free nor can any government be uncorrupted that presumes to take lawful property from Citizen A and give that property to Citizen B.

One does not accept it because it doesn't fit his definition that he will not provide and because the MAC definition does not suit the writers/ratifiers of the Constitution though he contradicts himself with his reason and says it would be a waste of his time to provide an example. (Meaning he can't do it.)

If you can provide any substance whatsoever for your opinion other than your opinion is what you choose to believe, you might have more credibility Cyclop. When you refuse to provide any example or credible evidence that the definition for MAC is in any way inaccurate or lacking, you simply are trash talking without any substance to back it up.