55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 10:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
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
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
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

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:12 pm
@Foxfyre,
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
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:15 pm
@Diest TKO,
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
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:21 pm
@Foxfyre,
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
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:24 pm
@Diest TKO,
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
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:29 pm
@Diest TKO,
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
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

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.

But the private sector does not do it. That's the point. They get caught after it's too late and damage is done. Regulation by a agency is going to be more thorough and objective than one done internally. The private sector cannot regulate itself, and won't. It has no reason to. To remove a temptation or conflict of interest, government needs to be involved with industry.

I'd hate to see what the US would be like without the OSHA, NRC or the FDA. Who knows the countless problems we've preempted. Sure they're hurdles, but it's not like the hurdles apply to one company in an industry and not to another in the same industry.

Unfair would be for a company like a McDonalds to bypass the FDA while the others have to deal with the agency. However, since they all do, it's just a necessary and fair part of the business in the interest of the people.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

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?

Yeah, racial profiling for starts.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:42 pm
@Diest TKO,
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
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:43 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

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.

If the conservative principle there is to establish and implement the most effective policies, then there is no reason to be dismissing our well trained experts on the basis of their sexual preference. Who said anythign about social engineering. I'm talking about US citizen's being able to serve in the military and use their skills.

As for the cohesiveness and/or effectiveness as it relates to the military, there is no valid reason to think that this would jeopardies that. Remember, the same arguments were made about blacks, and women serving in the military, let alone the fact that homosexuals already prove that they are every bit as capable to do military jobs as any straight soldier already. Cohesiveness and effectiveness is intact, all that is left is to let well trained people serve their country as they see fit.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

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

How would 1st amendment rights be threatened if churches weren't tax exempt. That doesn't make any sense.

My point is independent of churches though. I'm fine with churches keeping their tax status, and I agree about the type of positive community element they can bring. It's just not unique to churches.

As for the property values, it only affects those it's around, which does not translate to a majority, so careful with your wording.

Money from the many goes to many things that the few benefit from.

I pay my taxes on the infrastructure of the roads I drive on AND the roads I do not. In fact I pay taxes on roads, I'll never drive on and the majority of the maintenance that is done on comes from commercial industry. If I can contribute to a greater infrastructure that doesn't necessarily benefit me, then a company which benefits greatly from the infrastructure can certainly contribute it's part to the pool of money that goes into building the public community center, the city pool, the schools and libraries.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:53 pm
Anyways, I'm up past my bedtime, and I know I can talk about this kind fo thing forever, so I'd better call it a night. I'll check back later.

Peace.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:06 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

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.


Thanks.

However if this really is so
- then we do you and other modern conservatives support the above,
- then why do you and other conservatives not change the party politics?

For instance both Mrs Walter and I think that our party isn't the party of Social-Democratism anymore but just a copy of conservatism.
So Mrs Walter became a party member as well; we both try to make our voice heard.
Mrs Walter usually doesn't support our candidates when they aren't in the line of what she thinks but someone from another party. (I rarely do that.)

A different thing would be to to establish a conservative party according to your definitions of modern conservatism. Then you (and the others) shouldn't have a problem.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 07:15 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:



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.


Rationality is what? Believing exactly the way you do? Just because you think you are rational doesn't make anyone that disagrees irrational. Rationality requires you to be able to argue your position with facts and logic; something that is often lacking on arguments from both sides.

Every one in the US is for property rights. The only question is to what extent can you abuse those rights before you infringe on the rights of others.

Natural rights are different for different people. It is a meaningless phrase to claim you are for "natural rights" unless you define those rights. Once you define those rights it just becomes a discussion of which ones really are natural rather than who supports natural rights. Everyone supports natural rights, they just disagree on what is natural. Conservatives are not conservative because they support natural rights but because they define homosexuality is unnatural instead of natural.

Of course the government has constitutional limitations. One of them being that the President can't go to war without a declaration by Congress. Again, the definition of limitations is the disagreement not the fact that the constitution has limits.

The protection of civil liberties can only occur when you agree on what those civil liberties are. Liberals and Conservatives disagree on the definition of civil liberties, not on the protection of them.

Liberals have no problem with free markets. They have a problem with unfettered markets. Even Adam Smith never proposed no government interference in markets.

Individual freedom from restraint is a meaningless phrase because you don't define restraint or allow for any of the other things you claimed you supported. Government is and always will be a restraint on individual freedom yet it is necessary for any society to survive.


Quote:

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.
Doesn't define anything since everyone can agree with that. Liberals and conservatives just disagree on what is more effectively done by the private sector. Sometimes liberals are wrong and sometimes conservatives are wrong. Conservatives were wrong about the regulation of wall street. Government is required to make markets work.
Quote:

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.
Interesting take on it. Liberals and conservatives disagree on what are the unalienable, civil and constitutional rights of the people. How do you propose to decide which rights are covered and which aren't?
Quote:

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.
Again. Both sides prefer to support changes that improve current conditions. We just disagree on the meaning of improve.
Quote:

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.
And again. The definition of "shared" and "common services " and "beneficial" are not the same for liberals and conservatives.
Quote:

Disclaimer: My definition is not the last word and is subject to introspection, analysis, critique, amendment, or whatever.
My critique is that your statements are nothing more than platitudes that make you feel good, mean nothing, and you can use to attack liberals with instead of recognizing that liberals and conservatives share the same principles, just disagree on how to get there.

Let me ask you Fox, if you are for rationality does that mean everyone that disagrees with you is irrational? Does it mean that liberalism is irrational?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 07:23 am
@Foxfyre,
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 weath.from the public treasury.

Your tenet presumes that is it not beneficial to the whole to dispense charity. I disagree. I think charity is beneficial to a society as a whole. Since it is beneficial then it comes within the legitimate scope of the government as you stated. Are you willing to argue that charity is not beneficial?

Your tenet also presumes that taxing and spending those revenues is not always a redistribution of wealth. Taxation means money is taken from one person and given to another, often for services rendered. That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.

Please provide the rational explanation for your tenet.
Is charity for the poor beneficial to the whole? If it is then why is it not a legitimate government service under your statement?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 07:32 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:


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.
This is the perfect example of the conservative mind set. You argue that conservatives provide full protection of the minority. So, then you support gay marriage as a conservative? Or do you just redefine "minority" to mean what you are willing to protect?
Quote:

Can you think of any example in which it would not?
Gay marriage is the perfect example. You violate your own tenet by not supporting gay marriage. Either you support the "FULL PROTECTION" of the minority or you don't. You claim lofty ideals that in practice are not even close to lofty. You just redefine things so that you can convince yourself you still have those lofty ideals.

As for being rational, lets see how rational your argument is. Is marriage a civil right? If yes, then you must support gay marriage. If no, then government should not recognize any marriage under your less government argument.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 07:41 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
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.
That is an interesting argument Fox. You do realize that decreasing poverty provides stability, increases property values and provides important services for the well being of people. That means welfare becomes a legitimate government service based on your argument for churches getting tax breaks.
Quote:
It also ensures that the government will have no power to infringe on the people's First Amendment Rights.
Silly argument since the tax break is what DOES give government the right to infringe on churches ability to support political candidates.

Quote:
The government has no Constitutional authority to dispense the people's money for the benefit of any individual
That is a statement that quickly fails the rational test. If the government can't dispense it's money for the benefit of any individual then it would seem no one can work for the government. Does the soldier in Iraq get a paycheck? Does he benefit from that paycheck? If so then the government has violated your definition of constitutional authority.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 08:49 am
@Foxfyre,
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???
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 09:24 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

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???


No, the state is not outside society, but the role of the state is what separates the liberal/socialist from the conservative. It could be practical for the people to decide that certain social services should be administered by the State and the people might even vote a tax on themselves to support that.

Example: When I headed a large social agency and also when I worked for the Church, we were constantly approached by transients and others in need. Eventually all the local agencies/churches realized that it was prudent to better coordinate our collective effort to allocate resources to those that truly needed them and weed out those who were just milking the system for what they could get out of it. So, we petitioned the City to set up a central clearing agency and we all agreed to help fund it. People applying for help would be sent there to be screened, usually have a police background run, and have what assistance they received then be on file and available to all. Certain immediate assistance could be provided on the spot, or for more specialized help they would be referred to those agencies that provided that.

Needless to say abuse of the system ground to mostly to a halt and resources were better allocated to the truly needy. For those unwilling to go through the screening process, I ensured that the hungry would not go hungry by offering a voucher that could be traded for any menu item at a nearby neighborhood cafe. (I tracked these for awhile and over a year when more than a hundred vouchers had been handedout, one....that's one.....was cashed.) Vouchers for a few gallons of gasoline to get on down the road were cashed more often.

However, when you have an enormous charity administered in a one-size-fits-all fashion by the Federal government, abuse of the system is a certainty, a huge chunk of the resources will be swallowed up by the bureaucracy, and there is no way to indiviually target resources for specific needs. That is poor stewardship of the people's money and, again, it invariably leads to corruption by those who cannot resist using the people's money to curry the people's favor and the people's vote.

Conservatives are no less compassionate or concerned for the poor than are liberals. They just have a different point of view re what true compassion is and how to demonstrate it.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 10:08:46