Okay, pick any one of the principles of Modern American Conservatism posted earlier today and tell me why it does not work.
1. The federal government is for the people, of the people, and by the people as the means by which the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people are protected, an orderly society is maintained, and the life and property of the citizens are defended. The government should do only that which cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.
2. In all matters that do not affect the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people, the majority opinion should prevail. By that means, the shared values of the community will the norm and can prevail as the majority prefers.
3. Change that improves on the current conditions/situation/enviroment etc. should be encouraged and embraced by majority consent; those values that have proved their worth as beneficial to the whole should be preserved by majority consent.
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, pick any one of the principles of Modern American Conservatism posted earlier today and tell me why it does not work.
I'll make an example of this...
Foxfyre wrote:
1. The federal government is for the people, of the people, and by the people as the means by which the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people are protected, an orderly society is maintained, and the life and property of the citizens are defended. The government should do only that which cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.
What I highlighted in purple is NOT unique to conservatism, so it's not as if you can just stick a flag in it and claim it.
What I highlighted in red is the part truly characterized by conservatism. Your first mistake is to bond the two together as one. As for what is failed by this, look at how industries who police themselves behave. There is nothing efficient or effective about it. Oversight and regulation are good things considering a company may not (often does not) report it's own violations.
E.g. - Would you let a chemical company police it's own environmental compliance?
The idea that the private sector can do things like this assumes that the private sector recognizes/agrees/cares about the mandates placed on it and has the sincere desire to self disclose it's own violations at it's own cost. Market's certainly provide competition with each other, but by entrusting public interests into that environment you risk putting people's needs in competition with a private interest. It's a conflict of interest.
T
K
O
T
K
O
4. Shared infrastruture and common services beneficial to the whole are within the legitimate scope of government. Otherwise, within the shared laws of the community, the individual is the best judge of how to use his own property and prosperity toward the pursuit of happiness.
Taking just one tenet from Number 4, for instance, if you like consider this:
Government should not be a dispenser of charity nor engage in redistribution of wealth.from the public treasury.
Foxfyre wrote:2. In all matters that do not affect the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people, the majority opinion should prevail. By that means, the shared values of the community will the norm and can prevail as the majority prefers.
Well then I guess that translates as if the majority opinion does effect the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people then the majority opinion should not prevail.
Majority rules, might as well be might makes right. Instead of evaluating the merits of ideas, we should just do what is the will of the majority? What about the rights of the minority?
Do you actually believe this?
If so, then the conservative stance on the War in Iraq should be that we need to leave post haste. It is the will of the majority, but now that your ideas fall in the minority, I bet somehow that now you want them to be a part of the decision.
T
K
O
Foxfyre wrote:3. Change that improves on the current conditions/situation/enviroment etc. should be encouraged and embraced by majority consent; those values that have proved their worth as beneficial to the whole should be preserved by majority consent.
Then you must be in support of letting homosexuals serve openly in the military since we've lost so many Arab language specialists and computer experts in don't ask don't tell. Also, 75% of Americans believe they should be able to do so (compared to 40% in 1992).
A change that can improve our military intelligence abilities and embraced by a majority consent whose worth is beneficial to the whole.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, pick any one of the principles of Modern American Conservatism posted earlier today and tell me why it does not work.
I'll make an example of this...
Foxfyre wrote:
1. The federal government is for the people, of the people, and by the people as the means by which the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people are protected, an orderly society is maintained, and the life and property of the citizens are defended. The government should do only that which cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.
What I highlighted in purple is NOT unique to conservatism, so it's not as if you can just stick a flag in it and claim it.
What I highlighted in red is the part truly characterized by conservatism. Your first mistake is to bond the two together as one. As for what is failed by this, look at how industries who police themselves behave. There is nothing efficient or effective about it. Oversight and regulation are good things considering a company may not (often does not) report it's own violations.
E.g. - Would you let a chemical company police it's own environmental compliance?
The idea that the private sector can do things like this assumes that the private sector recognizes/agrees/cares about the mandates placed on it and has the sincere desire to self disclose it's own violations at it's own cost. Market's certainly provide competition with each other, but by entrusting public interests into that environment you risk putting people's needs in competition with a private interest. It's a conflict of interest.
T
K
O
T
K
O
Something does not have to be unique to conservatism in order to be a principle of conservatism. But explain further how the statement in any way precludes necessary regulation? How other than by laws and regulation do you protect the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people which is the proper function of government?
The government can certain do that without interjecting itself into the chemical industry which certainly can be managed far more effectively and efficiently by the private sector.
You see the two statements do go hand in hand. There is a legitimate function of government, but that function does not include the part that should be left to the private sector to do.
When that principle is a firm foundation within society, the government will not become too large, too intrusive, or a burden on the people.
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:2. In all matters that do not affect the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people, the majority opinion should prevail. By that means, the shared values of the community will the norm and can prevail as the majority prefers.
Well then I guess that translates as if the majority opinion does effect the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people then the majority opinion should not prevail.
Majority rules, might as well be might makes right. Instead of evaluating the merits of ideas, we should just do what is the will of the majority? What about the rights of the minority?
Do you actually believe this?
If so, then the conservative stance on the War in Iraq should be that we need to leave post haste. It is the will of the majority, but now that your ideas fall in the minority, I bet somehow that now you want them to be a part of the decision.
T
K
O
Constitutional authority for the military/national defense is a constitutional function of government and not something that should be decided by majority vote. The national defense cannot be accomplished more effectively and efficiently by the private sector. The Conservative stance is that the lawfully elected leaders of the country charged with that responsibility should operate within the statutory requirements government that. Those that do not should be voted out of office and replaced. Whatever one's opinion of the war in Iraq, it was done lawfully with all prescribed procedures followed.
And yes majority rule, either via elected representatives or by public referendum absolutely should rule in an orderly society, BUT it cannot violate the unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional right of any individual. That most conservative concept provides full protection for the minority.
Can you think of any example in which it would not?
Foxfyre wrote:4. Shared infrastruture and common services beneficial to the whole are within the legitimate scope of government. Otherwise, within the shared laws of the community, the individual is the best judge of how to use his own property and prosperity toward the pursuit of happiness.
Taking just one tenet from Number 4, for instance, if you like consider this:
Government should not be a dispenser of charity nor engage in redistribution of wealth.from the public treasury.
So then it's not in a government's interest to REWARD groups like churches a tax exempt status.
It never seems to be called "wealth distribution" when money goes from lower classes to higher classes. With systems that do that in place, those at the top receiving the wealth redistribution seem to think that something is being taken away if they receive less of something they didn't even diserve in the first place.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:3. Change that improves on the current conditions/situation/enviroment etc. should be encouraged and embraced by majority consent; those values that have proved their worth as beneficial to the whole should be preserved by majority consent.
Then you must be in support of letting homosexuals serve openly in the military since we've lost so many Arab language specialists and computer experts in don't ask don't tell. Also, 75% of Americans believe they should be able to do so (compared to 40% in 1992).
A change that can improve our military intelligence abilities and embraced by a majority consent whose worth is beneficial to the whole.
T
K
O
Again National Defense and national security, including the military, is within the Constitutional authority of the government. The Conservative principle there is to establish and implement the most effective policies to do the job and accomplished the best possible results. That is best left to the experts. Also, the military is no place for social engineering experiments that weaken cohesiveness and/or effectiveness of the military.
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:4. Shared infrastruture and common services beneficial to the whole are within the legitimate scope of government. Otherwise, within the shared laws of the community, the individual is the best judge of how to use his own property and prosperity toward the pursuit of happiness.
Taking just one tenet from Number 4, for instance, if you like consider this:
Government should not be a dispenser of charity nor engage in redistribution of wealth.from the public treasury.
So then it's not in a government's interest to REWARD groups like churches a tax exempt status.
It never seems to be called "wealth distribution" when money goes from lower classes to higher classes. With systems that do that in place, those at the top receiving the wealth redistribution seem to think that something is being taken away if they receive less of something they didn't even diserve in the first place.
T
K
O
But it IS in the interest of promoting the common welfare to provide churches tax exempt status because the churches do provide stability, increased property values, and important services for the well being of the people. It also ensures that the government will have no power to infringe on the people's First Amendment Rights.
The government has no Constitutional authority to dispense the people's money for the benefit of any individual. In a free society, people should be free to prepare themselves to prosper and then work to prosper as they have ability and ambition but always within the confines of the laws protecting the rights of others. No matter in which direction on the economic scale the money flows, there is no moral justification for the Government or Robin Hood or Mickey Mouse to forcibly take money lawfully acquired by Citizen A and give it to Citizen B who did nothing to merit it.
The Conservative principle involved is that he who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul, and therefore government charity will inevitably become mired in greed, graft, and corruption on an increasingly large and spreading scale. The government can certainly facilitate and help coordinate or manage large scale relief efforts, but it should always be with voluntary contributions from the people.
There can be justification for taxation to build a sewer system or public roads or install street lights that will be used by and will benefit all the people.
A moral society takes care of the truly helpless
But for this one, please repeat after me:
Modern American Conservatism is not synonymous with George W. Bush.
Modern American Conservatism is not synonymous with John S. McCain
Modern American Conservatism is not synonymous with the Republican Party.
Way back early in the thread, I defined modern conservatism as pretty much classical liberalism as illustrated in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, among others. Is is essentially a doctrine of individual freedom and limited government based on a core principle of rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint.
And that would allow for all of your list:
1. The federal government is for the people, of the people, and by the people as the means by which the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people are protected, an orderly society is maintained, and the life and property of the citizens are defended. The government should do only that which cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.
2. In all matters that do not affect the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people, the majority opinion should prevail. By that means, the shared values of the community will the norm and can prevail as the majority prefers.
3. Change that improves on the current conditions/situation/enviroment etc. should be encouraged and embraced by majority consent; those values that have proved their worth as beneficial to the whole should be preserved by majority consent.
4. Shared infrastruture and common services beneficial to the whole are within the legitimate scope of government. Otherwise, within the shared laws of the community, the individual is the best judge of how to use his own property and prosperity toward the pursuit of happiness.
Disclaimer: My definition is not the last word and is subject to introspection, analysis, critique, amendment, or whatever.
4. Shared infrastruture and common services beneficial to the whole are within the legitimate scope of government. Otherwise, within the shared laws of the community, the individual is the best judge of how to use his own property and prosperity toward the pursuit of happiness.
Taking just one tenet from Number 4, for instance, if you like consider this:
Government should not be a dispenser of charity nor engage in redistribution of weath.from the public treasury.
Constitutional authority for the military/national defense is a constitutional function of government and not something that should be decided by majority vote. The national defense cannot be accomplished more effectively and efficiently by the private sector. The Conservative stance is that the lawfully elected leaders of the country charged with that responsibility should operate within the statutory requirements government that. Those that do not should be voted out of office and replaced. Whatever one's opinion of the war in Iraq, it was done lawfully with all prescribed procedures followed.
And yes majority rule, either via elected representatives or by public referendum absolutely should rule in an orderly society, BUT it cannot violate the unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional right of any individual. That most conservative concept provides full protection for the minority.
Can you think of any example in which it would not?
But it IS in the interest of promoting the common welfare to provide churches tax exempt status because the churches do provide stability, increased property values, and important services for the well being of the people.
It also ensures that the government will have no power to infringe on the people's First Amendment Rights.
The government has no Constitutional authority to dispense the people's money for the benefit of any individual
A moral society takes care of the truly helpless
Foxfyre wrote:A moral society takes care of the truly helpless
Correct. And that's exactly the reason why the state is involved - or do you consider the state to be outside society???