Neoconservatism the true aberration on the American Right

[SicEmBaylor]

Great great little article.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=758


Neoconservatism, not libertarianism, is the true aberration on the American Right

During a question-and-answer session at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., one man opined, "One thing I've learned here at CPAC is that the 'C' actually doesn't stand for 'libertarianism.' It's not 'L'PAC." When Congressman Ron Paul won the annual straw poll at CPAC, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made a point to tell his listeners that CPAC wasn't conservative this year because a libertarian had won.

Both men are worse than just wrong. They're out of their minds.

Arguably the most popular history of American conservatism, George H. Nash's book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America begins with libertarianism. In the first chapter titled "The Revolt of the Libertarians," Nash states: "For those who believed in the creed of old-fashioned, classical, 19th-century liberal individualism, 1945 was especially lonely, unpromising, and bleak. Free markets, private property, limited government, self reliance, laissez-faire -- it had been a long time since principles like these guided government and persuaded peoples."

Chronicling the intellectuals who tried to rectify this bleakness, Nash begins his history with two men: economists F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Then he explains how these libertarian heroes kick-started the American conservative movement. Few actually used the word "conservatism" in 1945, a term that began to gain popularity when Russell Kirk's book The Conservative Mind was published in 1953 and with the founding of William F. Buckley's National Review in 1955. Nash notes that even Kirk was inspired by both Hayek and Mises, writing to a friend that these men represented a "great school of economists of a much sounder and different mind."

After Hayek and Mises, Nash then cites Albert Jay Nock, publisher of the unabashedly libertarian magazine The Freeman in the 1920s. Writes Nash: "Nock came to exert a significant amount of influence on the postwar Right," yet was so libertarian that "Nock verged on anarchism in his denunciations of the inherently aggrandizing State." Noting the impression Nock made on a young Buckley, Nash explained that "it was Nockian libertarianism, in fact, which exercised the first conservative influence on the future editor of National Review."

Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, says, "Nash's work is one of the very few books that must be read for a full understanding of the conservative movement in America." However, Feulner's Heritage Foundation advertises on Limbaugh's show, where the host is seemingly oblivious to the fact that the American conservative movement could not have existed without libertarianism. Furthermore, pundits like Rush often claim to be "Reagan conservatives." However, they seem to forget that in 1976 said Reagan, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." As you can see, advocating for "limited government" without employing some degree of libertarianism would be logistically impossible.

Which is exactly why so many of today's so-called conservatives are so quick to dismiss it. If there is an interloping ideology on the Right today, it is not libertarianism but neoconservatism, an ideology born not of limited government philosophy but of ex-socialists who migrated Right in reaction to the counterculture of the 1960s. Today, neoncons are devoted to promoting the maintenance and expansion of America's global empire.

Whereas traditional conservatives considered war -- and the massive bureaucracy necessary to wage it -- an occasional, necessary evil, neoconservatives consider perpetual war a good precisely because they believe it is America's mission to export democracy to the rest of the world.

Questioning the cost or wisdom of waging perpetual war is considered unconscionable or even "unpatriotic" to neoconservatives, which is why they are so dismissive of libertarians and others who question foreign policy. Most neoconservatives instinctively realize that their ideology is incompatible with the libertarian's pesky obsession with limited government, giving neocons reason to marginalize, or expel, any libertarian influence that threatens to expose the statist nature of today's mainstream conservative movement.

Considering their new, radical definition, it's easy to see why Rush and other mainstream conservatives don't consider libertarians part of their movement --because they're not. And while it remains to be seen how the irreconcilable differences will play out between limited government libertarians (whose numbers are growing) and big government neoconservatives (whose ideology still dominates), let there be no more ignorance about which philosophy is truly more alien to the historical American conservative movement. And let there be no further delusions about which philosophy was most responsible for creating it.

[OklahomaTuba]

Whereas traditional conservatives considered war -- and the massive bureaucracy necessary to wage it -- an occasional, necessary evil, neoconservatives consider perpetual war a good precisely because they believe it is America's mission to protect itself and its interests.

FIFY.

[Okla-homey]

For the record, the people who coined the term "neo-conservative" and who take pains to distinguish said people from "real" or "legitimate" conservatives are generally the same people who have never held a naked woman in their arms, much less known a woman's love -- except for their mothers, but that doesn't count because their mothers are required to love them.

[NormanPride]

Homey's just mad that he's a progressive conservative. :D

[SicEmBaylor]

For the record, the people who coined the term "neo-conservative" and who take pains to distinguish said people from "real" or "legitimate" conservatives are generally the same people who have never held a naked woman in their arms, much less known a woman's love -- except for their mothers, but that doesn't count because their mothers are required to love them.

Yeah, I'm actually astonished you're that ignorant of modern political ideology. Neoconservatism was coined by, get this, neoconservatives. Neoconseratism traces its political genealogy along a very different tree than traditional conservatism. This isn't really a theory -- it's an academic fact. Hell, I've had lunch with one of the first and most prominent neoconservatives and he himself acknowledged its differences with traditional conservatism.

I mean you can debate all you want the degree to which neoconservatism falls in line with traditional conservatism, but dismissing its existence is just supremely ignorant.

I'd suggest you do some reading and educate yourself a bit more.

[JLEW1818]

I'm radical right, the only govt thing i care for is postal.

even the roads they do suck.

****ing tollways? you cant fix a ****ing pothole for me in dallas?

and i ****ing hate dallas!

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm radical right, the only govt thing i care for is postal.

even the roads they do suck.

****ing tollways? you cant fix a ****ing pothole for me in dallas?

and i ****ing hate dallas!

I'm more radical than you. I don't even like the postal service.

(Present company, Dean, excluded)

[JLEW1818]

me step c11 be staying at your house this year, OU Baylor :D

[SicEmBaylor]

me step c11 be staying at your house this year, OU Baylor :D

That's cool with me, but you'll have a long drive to the stadium. I live in Mississippi now. :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Hey Sic em, have you ever seen that visiting professor at Baylor who explains a semester of calculus in 20 minutes?

[JLEW1818]

what a *****.*

[Leroy Lizard]

Hey Sic em, have you ever seen that visiting professor at Baylor who explains a semester of calculus in 20 minutes?

Is this like Father Guido Sarducci's Five Minute University?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4

[JohnnyMack]

I'm more radical than you. I don't even like the postal service.

(Present company, Dean, excluded)

**** that. I don't even like Dean.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm all for limited government when it comes to our federal government. The feds should have no power not explicitly given to them in the Constitution.

However, I'm all for communities establishing strong codes of behavior if they wish. Park on your lawn? That will be $200. Want to open a tattoo parlor? Not allowed here.

As long as citizens have the right to establish for themselves the way of life they want to experience by popular vote, I'm all for it. (Naturally, they wouldn't be able to violate the Constitution, but anything else goes.)

I don't think that makes me a Libertarian, though.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hey Sic em, have you ever seen that visiting professor at Baylor who explains a semester of calculus in 20 minutes?

No. I've never heard of anything like that. The closest thing to that would be Dr. Packard's famous "Packard Physics" class but he retired years ago.

[yermom]

I'm all for limited government when it comes to our federal government. The feds should have no power not explicitly given to them in the Constitution.

However, I'm all for communities establishing strong codes of behavior if they wish. Park on your lawn? That will be $200. Want to open a tattoo parlor? Not allowed here.

As long as citizens have the right to establish for themselves the way of life they want to experience by popular vote, I'm all for it. (Naturally, they wouldn't be able to violate the Constitution, but anything else goes.)

I don't think that makes me a Libertarian, though.

what's with your hardon about parking on one's lawn?

[delhalew]

Great article. I really like Hunter, and I really wish our current leaders would read Hayek and Mises. Was it Hayek that wrote "economics in one lesson"? Anyway...great book.

[Leroy Lizard]

what's with your hardon about parking on one's lawn?

Don't like it.

I mention it because we just passed an ordinance here recently. It's not $200 per day, more like $35. But it works. And I like it. (The ordinance also doesn't allow you to keep non-running vehicles parked in front of your house. You have about 15 days to fix them.)

We're now working on another ordinance to limit the sound volume emanating from cars. If they played some cool metal, I wouldn't mind. Play rap with the thump thump thump and you will be donating about fifty bucks to repair our roads.

Now if we could just get that anti-pagan thing going. We have a canal nearby we can use to see if ole Beelzebub has his hooks in them.

Just kidding.

But back to the point: What does Libertarianism say about strong local communities having the power to enforce local ideals?

[Okla-homey]

I'd suggest you do some reading and educate yourself a bit more.

Naw. No time. Unlike some people:rolleyes: , I'm too busy earning an honest living and paying about half of said income in local, state and federal taxes. Which means, unlike some people, I'm actually a stakeholder in state and national politics.

[yermom]

you seem to have enough time to post here ;)

http://www.google.com/search?q=neoconservative

[Ike]

Hey Sic em, have you ever seen that visiting professor at Baylor who explains a semester of calculus in 20 minutes?

C'mon, thats not really anything special. You can get first semester calculus, plus a bit, from wikipedia these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus

[yermom]

20 minutes seems like a stretch

i guess if it's not that rigorous... but just deriving/explaining the limit method of differentiation would take 20 minutes it seems

i can still remember Fraggle's mom writing that on the board in HS :eek:

[delhalew]

After this calc hijack, I now understand Homeys post above regarding the love of a woman.

[yermom]

:mad:

[SicEmBaylor]

Between calculus and comparative political theory, I think we all know which is (by far) the most important field of study.

Hint: It's comparative political theory.

[Veritas]

This thread just reminded me to photohack up my new avatar*. :D

*I realize that "Old Right" has a specific connotation, but I didn't want to put Old looked cooler than new.

[Ike]

Between calculus and comparative political theory, I think we all know which is (by far) the most important field of study.

Hint: It's comparative political theory.

well, since it was a politician that invented these here innerwebs, I'll give you that one.

[tommieharris91]

Between calculus and comparative political theory, I think we all know which is (by far) the most important field of study.

Hint: It's comparative political theory.

I think my sarcasm meter needs a tune-up, because I'm taking this post too seriously.

[yermom]

i wasn't going to dignify it with a response :D

[SicEmBaylor]

This thread just reminded me to photohack up my new avatar*. :D

*I realize that "Old Right" has a specific connotation, but I didn't want to put Old looked cooler than new.

That avatar is freaking awesome. Do you mind if I steal it for Facebook?

[delhalew]

Sic'em...seeing as how the neocon voices are greater in number and have bigger audiences, do you see the surge of real conservatism retaking control during the near term political cycle?
I know anytime I try to stress the importance of the destinction, eyes gloss over.
Look at this thread for example.

[SoonerProphet]

The problem is there is no money to be made in shrinking the size and scope of the federal government. What would all the lobbyists, defense contractors, atf/dea agents, and the entire political lubricators do with themselves?

The Old Right has been hacked and cleaved by big government "conservatives" for decades now because they feed out of the same trough as all the lycanthropes in that drained swamp...no offense to wolves the world over.

[SoonerInKCMO]

C'mon, thats not really anything special. You can get first semester calculus, plus a bit, from wikipedia these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus

20 minutes for Calc I is nuthin'. Here's ya a semester of Heat Transfer in less than 20 seconds:

.......................................Heat
:hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: ---------------------------> :hot:

:texan:

[delhalew]

The problem is there is no money to be made in shrinking the size and scope of the federal government. What would all the lobbyists, defense contractors, atf/dea agents, and the entire political lubricators do with themselves?

The Old Right has been hacked and cleaved by big government "conservatives" for decades now because they feed out of the same trough as all the lycanthropes in that drained swamp...no offense to wolves the world over.

There are ways. I just don't like it when I see people getting duped into thinking November can solve all problems. An (R) next to someones name means they want a different growth of gub'ment than (D)'s.
People are getting active and asking questions. That is good...you sure as hell can't rely on media to do it for you.

[TopDawg]

There are ways. I just don't like it when I see people getting duped into thinking November can solve all problems. An (R) next to someones name means they want a different growth of gub'ment than (D)'s.
People are getting active and asking questions. That is good...you sure as hell can't rely on media to do it for you.

The problem is that too many people are relying on the media to tell them what questions to ask. People are getting mad about things that aren't really things. When Fox News was making a big deal out of the czars and the Tea Party was growing, some people took their cameras to a Tea Party gathering and asked them what they were mad about. Lots of people kept bringing up the czars. When they were informed that czars have been around for ages...even under *gasp* Reagan...they were dumbfounded.

You're right, though. It's good when people take the time to get well-informed, ask honest questions of both sides and take a healthy, active role in politics.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic'em...seeing as how the neocon voices are greater in number and have bigger audiences, do you see the surge of real conservatism retaking control during the near term political cycle?
I know anytime I try to stress the importance of the destinction, eyes gloss over.
Look at this thread for example.

Well, that's a difficult question to answer. Will the old-right/paleocon wing become the dominant ideology of conservatism? Probably not. But there is a glimmer of hope. Certain elements of the old-right and libertarianism are starting to gain a lot of traction among the rank-and-file. The growing emphasis on states' rights and opposing Federal infringement on those rights is a very very good trend. There are also some positive signs on the libertarian front...I think more and more people are seeing that futility of the drug war and are pushing back against the innumerable ways in which government limits our individual freedom with no just cause to do so.

The problem is, nobody is connecting the dots with these issues and adequately contrasting them with the neoconservative trend within the movement or government itself. Each of these issues is ideologically "lost" within the context of a much broader movement....the Tea Party for example. The new emphasis on states' rights should be put into its proper context, but unfortunately it's just lumped together as part of the Tea Party movement.

I have mixed feelings about the Tea Party movement. There are certainly a lot of elements about it that I like, and a lot of elements that I hate. I think ultimately you're going to see the movement co-opted by "Conservative Inc." and overly commercialized which will kill it. I've already seen that start to happen and it's unfortunate. The Tea Party has a real opportunity to rekindle a lot of the issues of the old-right and libertarianism, but ultimately it'll fall under the control of the same hacks and *********s that control mainstream conservatism.

[Veritas]

That avatar is freaking awesome. Do you mind if I steal it for Facebook?
Course not. Here's a bigger version:
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/7954/oldright.png

[Jerk]

You need to get off your ***, sicem, and realize that Marxism is the real threat to our way of life right now. Sort that out first and then worry about this other crap.

[SicEmBaylor]

You need to get off your ***, sicem, and realize that Marxism is the real threat to our way of life right now. Sort that out first and then worry about this other crap.

The problem, Jerk, is that the neoconservative movement that has co-opted conservatism was created and established by former, supposedly reformed, Marxists.

Besides, there are plenty of people out there screaming to the heavens about what the liberals and Democrats are doing. My thinking is that we should get our own ideological house in order before attempting to take on those people. So while 99% of the conservative movement keeps its nose in the elephant's *** and follows it as it wonders aimlessly around the ideological spectrum, I'd really like it if someone stood in front of the elephant yelling, "STOP!"

[Veritas]

You need to get off your ***, sicem, and realize that Marxism is the real threat to our way of life right now. Sort that out first and then worry about this other crap.
Marxism has always been a threat; the problem now is that the GOP no longer seems interested in fighting it, instead focusing on keeping teh ghey from not getting married.

[delhalew]

Rather than quote every post, I will just say that Sic'em and I happen to be in total agreement on this.
Also, that avatar is 100% bad@ss.

[SicEmBaylor]

Rather than quote every post, I will just say that Sic'em and I happen to be in total agreement on this.
Also, that avatar is 100% bad@ss.

Great minds...great minds.

[SicEmBaylor]

Naw. No time. Unlike some people:rolleyes: , I'm too busy earning an honest living and paying about half of said income in local, state and federal taxes. Which means, unlike some people, I'm actually a stakeholder in state and national politics.

Yeah, I've never had to pay any kind of tax. Those sales taxes and the taxes taken out of my paycheck (when I was working) were evidently meaningless. And, actually, they are...

If I have to hire an electrician to come wire my house, that doesn't make me an expert on electricity. It just means I had to pay what I had to pay. It doesn't make me any more qualified to comment on electricity than a guy whose house has already been wired.

[Okla-homey]

The problem, Jerk, is that the neoconservative movement that has co-opted conservatism was created and established by former, supposedly reformed, Marxists.



What difference does that make?

Did your parents take you to church growing up? Remember a guy in the New Testament called Paul? Paul had been the equivalent of Darth Vader under the contemporary Jewish authorities and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians.

Later, he saw the light, literally, and became a "neo-christian" and one of the greatest figures in Christendom.

It's probably more natural and indicative of normal intelligence and emotional stability to be a lib, or even a socialist, when we're young, idealistic, and don't know any better. Its also a sign we have a heart.

Later, when we've been around a while, acquired a few possessions and a family, paid zillion in taxes, and therefore acquired a stake in life, and observed with our own eyes the fallacy of the creation of a permanent underclass by making a vast segment of our population reliant on government payments for their needs, we tend to become less enamored of the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" mentality. Didn't Winston Churchill, another so-called "neo-con" say something like that?

And all of the above is why this "neo-con" v. "paleo-con" distinction is silly.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, I've never had to pay any kind of tax. Those sales taxes and the taxes taken out of my paycheck (when I was working) were evidently meaningless. And, actually, they are...

If I have to hire an electrician to come wire my house, that doesn't make me an expert on electricity. It just means I had to pay what I had to pay. It doesn't make me any more qualified to comment on electricity than a guy whose house has already been wired.

You're not getting it. Until you pay income taxes. You know, taxes levied against you simply because you are a productive member of society who is contributing more to government than you are taking from government, your opinion doesn't really matter.

[delhalew]

What difference does that make?

Did your parents take you to church growing up? Remember a guy in the New Testament called Paul? Paul had been the equivalent of Darth Vader under the contemporary Jewish authorities and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians.

Later, he saw the light, literally, and became a "neo-christian" and one of the greatest figures in Christendom.

It's probably more natural and indicative of normal intelligence and emotional stability to be a lib, or even a socialist, when we're young, idealistic, and don't know any better. Its also a sign we have a heart.

Later, when we've been around a while, acquired a few possessions and a family, paid zillion in taxes, and therefore acquired a stake in life, and observed with our own eyes the fallacy of the creation of a permanent underclass by making a vast segment of our population reliant on government payments for their needs, we tend to become less enamored of the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" mentality. Didn't Winston Churchill, another so-called "neo-con" say something like that?

And all of the above is why this "neo-con" v. "paleo-con" distinction is silly.

This is were I think that you misunderstand Sic'ems point. Its not a problem that they had a change in ideology. The problem lies in words. Misrepresentation. Neo-cons don't call themselves neo-cons. They call themselves conservative. I call them deceptiCONS. Just because you want to grow leviathon at a slower pace, does not a conservative make.
Americans as a whole have lost track of what conservative means, including "conservatives".

[Okla-homey]

This is were I think that you misunderstand Sic'ems point. Its not a problem that they had a change in ideology. The problem lies in words. Misrepresentation. Neo-cons don't call themselves neo-cons. They call themselves conservative. I call them deceptiCONS. Just because you want to grow leviathon at a slower pace, does not a conservative make.
Americans as a whole have lost track of what conservative means, including "conservatives".

If Sic'em had any stones, he'd man-up an act on his bizarre views. But he doesn't, which keeps him out of the federal penitentiary. Which is good, but it denies us some great entertainment.;)

[SicEmBaylor]

If Sic'em had any stones, he'd man-up an act on his bizarre views. But he doesn't, which keeps him out of the federal penitentiary. Which is good, but it denies us some great entertainment.;)

What in the ****, and I do mean what in the **** is that supposed to mean? What bizarre views do I have that are even remotely illegal?

Once again, go **** yourself.

[SicEmBaylor]

You're not getting it. Until you pay income taxes. You know, taxes levied against you simply because you are a productive member of society who is contributing more to government than you are taking from government, your opinion doesn't really matter.

That's fine. Your uneducated opinion on this matter means absolutely nothing to me.

Have a good day and go **** yourself.'

[JohnnyMack]

:pop:

[JohnnyMack]

What difference does that make?

Did your parents take you to church growing up? Remember a guy in the New Testament called Paul? Paul had been the equivalent of Darth Vader under the contemporary Jewish authorities and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians.

Later, he saw the light, literally, and became a "neo-christian" and one of the greatest figures in Christendom.

It's probably more natural and indicative of normal intelligence and emotional stability to be a lib, or even a socialist, when we're young, idealistic, and don't know any better. Its also a sign we have a heart.

Later, when we've been around a while, acquired a few possessions and a family, paid zillion in taxes, and therefore acquired a stake in life, and observed with our own eyes the fallacy of the creation of a permanent underclass by making a vast segment of our population reliant on government payments for their needs, we tend to become less enamored of the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" mentality. Didn't Winston Churchill, another so-called "neo-con" say something like that?

And all of the above is why this "neo-con" v. "paleo-con" distinction is silly.

Saying there's no difference between paleo and neo conservatives is either ignorant or dishonest. And since you're a fancy law school grad, surely you're not that ignorant on this subject. What's next, you gonna tell us there's no distinction between a baptist and a catholic?

[Jerk]

Sic Em - VAT tax is coming soon. It's the only way to keep the pyramid scheme going for a little while longer. Thing is, right now they could raise taxes 100% and it still will not keep us from being Greece or Iceland in 5-7 years. The only way to stave off collapse is to cut spending, but they are not going to do that. Remember when Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k? A VAT tax is going to shove it right up your arse no matter how much you make. Right in the middle of a depression (the only reason we are not in a depression right now is because of the money we are borrowing and spending)

The marxists have got almost half the population on the government tit. What do you think is going to happen when they suck it dry?

The math is never wrong. We are f**ked unless they drastically cut spending. And if they cut spending then the leechf*ks are giong to riot.

We are at the 'snake eat tail' point in our Republic. The only good you can do is tell your friends to prepare. They'll think you're fkn nuts. Like people here think I'm fkn nuts for saying that what we are doing is unsustainable.

Math, buddy. In 10 years, we will be paying 1 trillion a year in interest alone.

Anyone here buying 30 year T notes is a fkn idiot.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What difference does that make?

Did your parents take you to church growing up? Remember a guy in the New Testament called Paul? Paul had been the equivalent of Darth Vader under the contemporary Jewish authorities and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians.

Later, he saw the light, literally, and became a "neo-christian" and one of the greatest figures in Christendom.

It's probably more natural and indicative of normal intelligence and emotional stability to be a lib, or even a socialist, when we're young, idealistic, and don't know any better. Its also a sign we have a heart.

Later, when we've been around a while, acquired a few possessions and a family, paid zillion in taxes, and therefore acquired a stake in life, and observed with our own eyes the fallacy of the creation of a permanent underclass by making a vast segment of our population reliant on government payments for their needs, we tend to become less enamored of the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" mentality. Didn't Winston Churchill, another so-called "neo-con" say something like that?

And all of the above is why this "neo-con" v. "paleo-con" distinction is silly.It's certainly divisive, and helps dilute the fight against the real enemy-the leftists .

[Jerk]

Interesting to note, that, if we had started this socialism experiment BEFORE we became 12 trillion dollars in the hole, that it may have actually lasted for a generation or two. Instead, we kicked in marxism full speed AFTER we became soaked in debt to our ears.

Now our gov't spends 3 bucks for every dollar they take in through tax revenue.

With the M1 money supply the way it is (don't ask me to explain this, I can't), every dollar the FED prints gets about 80 cents worth of "work."

http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/fn.ckzbm_1_.jpg

We are fked. That's all you need to know. There is no savior. You don't even have to go "john Gault." We are way beyond that point. The debt monster will consume everything. Every man for himself.

[Jerk]

Oh yeah, there is a theory (cloward/piven) that you can rebuild the system after it collapses into an egalitarian society.

I think they know not what awaits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

[GKeeper316]

perhaps the republican party should try to move towards the compassionate conservatism that their champion, president reagan, practiced.

wont happen. they are all too busy basking in limbaughs lies and fear-mongering.

[Jerk]

perhaps the republican party should try to move towards the compassionate conservatism that their champion, president reagan, practiced.

wont happen. they are all too busy basking in limbaughs lies and fear-mongering.

Google the term "useful idiot"

edit - I don't want to get too personal here. Either you will figure it out or you won't.

[Okla-homey]

It's certainly divisive, and helps dilute the fight against the real enemy-the leftists .

zackly! spek!

[Okla-homey]

That's fine. Your uneducated opinion on this matter means absolutely nothing to me.

Have a good day and go **** yourself.'

Speaketh he who still lacks a bachelors degree. From anywhere. Ergo: Loser.

[Okla-homey]

Saying there's no difference between paleo and neo conservatives is either ignorant or dishonest. And since you're a fancy law school grad, surely you're not that ignorant on this subject. What's next, you gonna tell us there's no distinction between a baptist and a catholic?

WTF difference does it make when a person saw the light? Honestly?

For the record, there are far fewer differences between a Baptist and a Roman Catholic than a god-denying atheist like yourself could possibly appreciate. No offense intended BTW. FYI, said differences are chiefly the Mariansim of the RC and the "priesthood of the Believer" espoused by us Baptists.

[yermom]

Homey, this isn't like nouveau-riche

it's the new breed of conservative, not a person that is now conservative that used to be something else

[TUSooner]

Use whatever labels you want, far-right neo/conservatives of today give the most hypocritical lip service to small government and principles of individual liberty. They just want a big government that does what they want it to do: wage war to protect their interests and punish fellow citizens they don't like. In their extremest, you can't quite call them anarchists, because they want a government that assert power abroad. But paradoxically, in other respects they seem to hate the federal government as much as Timothy McVeigh did.

They are the best friends the left ever had.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Use whatever labels you want, far-right neo/conservatives of today give the most hypocritical lip service to small government and principles of individual liberty. They just want a big government that does what they want it to do: wage war to protect their interests and punish fellow citizens they don't like. In their extremest, you can't quite call them anarchists, because they want a government that assert power abroad. But paradoxically, in other respects they seem to hate the federal government as much as Timothy McVeigh did.

They are the best friends the left ever had.You been a lefty lawyer too long. "a big government to...punish fellow citizens they don't like". Sounds like the specialty of the left.

[Leroy Lizard]

Use whatever labels you want, far-right neo/conservatives of today give the most hypocritical lip service to small government and principles of individual liberty. They just want a big government that does what they want it to do: wage war to protect their interests and punish fellow citizens they don't like. In their extremest, you can't quite call them anarchists, because they want a government that assert power abroad. But paradoxically, in other respects they seem to hate the federal government as much as Timothy McVeigh did.

They are the best friends the left ever had.

I am beginning to think that the neo-con is just a magical bogey man, like the snipe.

[TUSooner]

I am beginning to think that the neo-con is just a magical bogey man, like the snipe.

If you don't believe such an animal exists, you must have Tuba and I Am Rush's Parrot on your ignore list. ;)

[TUSooner]

You been a lefty lawyer too long. "a big government to...punish fellow citizens they don't like". Sounds like the specialty of the left.

It's the "specialty" of statists on both ends. Take off the blinders once in awhile.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's the "specialty" of statists on both ends. Take off the blinders once in awhile.

How about an example of this "punishing people you don't like"?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How about an example of this "punishing people you don't like"?Yep, Lefty Lawyer, the "they both do it" argument that you guys sady pull all the time, even though you are usually wrong, is...predictably, WRONG AGAIN, AS USUAL.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yep, Lefty Lawyer, the "they both do it" argument that you guys sady pull all the time, even though you are usually wrong, is...predictably, WRONG AGAIN, AS USUAL.

Let me rephrase my question: How about an example of this "punishing people you don't like" that's cogent.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

statists on both ends. Oh, now that's a good one. Conservatives/Constructionists(the Right) are BY DEFINITON, the opposite of Statists. Totalitarianism is a little jewel of the Left. (Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Socialism=Statism)

[Scott D]

Google the term "useful idiot"

edit - I don't want to get too personal here. Either you will figure it out or you won't.

I tried to...it led to this (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/member.php?u=38208) person. ;)

[yermom]

How about an example of this "punishing people you don't like"?

the right likes individual freedoms, as long as you are straight and Christian

the left like individual freedoms as long as you want to buy health insurance and don't want guns

[Leroy Lizard]

the right likes individual freedoms, as long as you are straight and Christian

Oh, I thought you meant "punishing" literally.

Why do I have this feeling that "neo-con" simply means "socially conservative"?

If I have to support gay marriage to be a true conservative then screw that. I'll join the neo-cons. (Although I don't see what is so "neo" about opposing homosexuality among conservatives. Haven't conservatives opposed gay marriage since time began?)

[yermom]

right, small government, unless you need someone to police the cars parked on their lawn

[Leroy Lizard]

right, small government, unless you need someone to police the cars parked on their lawn

I believe in a small FEDERAL government. I have no interest in supporting freaky, drug-induced, liberal ideologies that allow adult video stores to open next to public schools or allow people to engage in public sex. If you want that ****, move to Amsterdam.

The biggest threat to conservatism is the invasion of druggies and "free love" proponents. Sorry, I just don't see that as conservative.

[yermom]

the whole point of the debate is that "conservative" used to mean smaller government and individual freedoms

now "conservative" means morality police

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the who point of the debate is that "conservative" used to mean smaller government and individual freedoms

now "conservative" means morality policeThe former definition is correct. The other is in your mind only, because of existence of those dictatorial, despotic Christians that daily torment the populace, and prevent freedom of expression and worship.

[Leroy Lizard]

the who point of the debate is that "conservative" used to mean smaller government and individual freedoms

now "conservative" means morality police

When did conservatives ever endorse gay marriage and the absence of public decency laws? I am not aware of many conservatives that favor legalizing narcotics either.

If by conservatives you mean nothing more than libertarians, then say so.

[SicEmBaylor]

When did conservatives ever endorse gay marriage and the absence of public decency laws? I am not aware of many conservatives that favor legalizing narcotics either.

If by conservatives you mean nothing more than libertarians, then say so.

Libertarianism IS the heart of conservatism. More on this later...

[Ike]

HLNhPMQnWu4

Not that it has any relation to whatever anyone here is discussing...but dumping John Cleese on a SicEm thread seems appropriate.

[Leroy Lizard]

Libertarianism seems like a rather extreme position to me.

[JohnnyMack]

Oh, I thought you meant "punishing" literally.

Why do I have this feeling that "neo-con" simply means "socially conservative"?

If I have to support gay marriage to be a true conservative then screw that. I'll join the neo-cons. (Although I don't see what is so "neo" about opposing homosexuality among conservatives. Haven't conservatives opposed gay marriage since time began?)

A Conservative believes it isn't the role of the Federal Government to decide who marries who.

You certainly have the right to have a conservative viewpoint in which you don't support gay marriage, but when you use your political party as a conduit to push through your personal agenda what you've done can't be described as Conservative. The DOMA being a perfect example of this.

[TopDawg]

Did your parents take you to church growing up? Remember a guy in the New Testament called Paul? Paul had been the equivalent of Darth Vader under the contemporary Jewish authorities and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians.

Later, he saw the light, literally, and became a "neo-christian" and one of the greatest figures in Christendom.

It's probably more natural and indicative of normal intelligence and emotional stability to be a lib, or even a socialist, when we're young, idealistic, and don't know any better. Its also a sign we have a heart.

Later, when we've been around a while, acquired a few possessions and a family, paid zillion in taxes, and therefore acquired a stake in life, and observed with our own eyes the fallacy of the creation of a permanent underclass by making a vast segment of our population reliant on government payments for their needs, we tend to become less enamored of the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" mentality. Didn't Winston Churchill, another so-called "neo-con" say something like that?

My parents took me to church. That's where I learned about a guy named Jesus who said "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

He also said "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" To me, I thought love your neighbor as yourself meant that you should not care about your stake in life any more than your neighbor's stake in life.

Thankfully, I've had many people since then teach me (more through actions than words) that, although Jesus had heart, he was really just young, idealistic, and didn't know any better.

Funny thing is, he inspired a guy named Peter (a friend of Paul's) to follow him and become one of the founders of the early church. It was that church where they practiced this behavior: "44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

Fortunately we have people like Winston Churchill to set us straight. C'mon, Peter...get real! That's no way to live!

[49r]

HLNhPMQnWu4

Not that it has any relation to whatever anyone here is discussing...but dumping John Cleese on a SicEm thread seems appropriate.

Ha, the last line in that video is dead spot on. "...the rather sad paranoid schizo that you really are."

[delhalew]

If you want to continue getting irresponsable gub'ment growth from both sides of the coin, you can vote for Romney or the deceptiCON de jour.
There is no hope for the Democrat party, but the numbers exist to force the hand of the Republicans. If the nomination goes to an establishment republican it is our duty to make them pay.
This is were Goldwater failed in '68. He folded and we got Nixon and the downward spiral that followed. Reagan tried, but fell short of a change that could be sustained.
Republicans can prepare themselves. Nominate a true conservative or watch the nation be ravaged by progressivism for another 4 years.

[Leroy Lizard]

A Conservative believes it isn't the role of the Federal Government to decide who marries who.

You "true conservatives" need to straighten out your arguments. Does this limited government extend to all levels of government, or just the federal government?

I am all for a limited federal government. I am also for communities being able to pass whatever codes they want as long as the process is democratic and no rights (and I mean true rights) are violated. Do you support that?

[JohnnyMack]

You "true conservatives" need to straighten out your arguments. Does this limited government extend to all levels of government, or just the federal government?

I am all for a limited federal government. I am also for communities being able to pass whatever codes they want as long as the process is democratic and no rights (and I mean true rights) are violated. Do you support that?

Are you serious?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

What in the ****, and I do mean what in the **** is that supposed to mean? What bizarre views do I have that are even remotely illegal?

Once again, go **** yourself.

Actually, I think in Mississippi the carrying out of that last thought would be illegal.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Saying there's no difference between paleo and neo conservatives is either ignorant or dishonest. And since you're a fancy law school grad, surely you're not that ignorant on this subject. What's next, you gonna tell us there's no distinction between a baptist and a catholic?

Catholic = loves to drink anywhere
Baptist = loves to drink in the closet

That's why I'm a Catholic

[Leroy Lizard]

Are you serious?

No, I was just trying to be funny.

Of course I'm serious. WTF did you think?

[JohnnyMack]

No, I was just trying to be funny.

Of course I'm serious. WTF did you think?

Of course that's what I meant you simpleton.

[Leroy Lizard]

Of course that's what I meant you simpleton.

You coffee-shop philosophers are all alike. You speak in grandiose terms, but when it gets to answering questions you come up short.

You're the right-wing equivalent of the Marxists. They also had a bunch of pie-in-the-sky ideas that didn't withstand scrutiny. Like libertarians, they can go on and on and on about the evils of "the system" and how we need a "revolution" to put these ideals in place. And like libertarians, Marxists felt that their way was the natural way and that "the system" corrupted it.

"You're rights end at my nose." Heard it a million times. Sounds great on a bumper sticker. Who wouldn't agree with such a beautiful sentiment? But it has no practical value at all.

Once you describe how it operates in practice, your popular base will vanish. You would be hard pressed to find any communities that live by it.

So, some lady walks up to you and asks if there is anything she can do to stop an adult bookstore from opening in her neighborhood, what are you going to tell her?

[JohnnyMack]

I would like to point out to Yermom that in this past week I've been both a "Lib" and "the right-wing equivalent of the Marxists". This place can still bring it.

[yermom]

oh, i've noticed :D

[Leroy Lizard]

What I don't notice are any answers to my questions.

[TopDawg]

So, some lady walks up to you and asks if there is anything she can do to stop an adult bookstore from opening in her neighborhood, what are you going to tell her?

Presumably, you would tell her "We have to vote on this one. If the vote goes against you, you either have to move or get used to it." Right?

[Leroy Lizard]

Presumably, you would tell her "We have to vote on this one. If the vote goes against you, you either have to move or get used to it." Right?

Well, that's my opinion. But it doesn't look like the libertarians would agree. I haven't been able to coax an answer out of them.

[TopDawg]

So who decides at what level we vote? You say "communities" but how do you define "communities"?

Is it a neighborhood, a district, a town/city, county, etc.?

[Leroy Lizard]

So who decides at what level we vote? You say "communities" but how do you define "communities"?

Is it a neighborhood, a district, a town/city, county, etc.?

It depends on the community's charter. As a town, we can't assign our own speed limit laws because the county has been given that authority. But we have the power to pass laws to enforce (say) zoning laws.

[sooner ngintunr]

Well, that's my opinion. But it doesn't look like the libertarians would agree. I haven't been able to coax an answer out of them.

Of course Libertarians wouldn't agree with "zoning laws" like the ones you are referring to. You really need an answer?

Libertarianism (that word looks funny) as a Govt model in the US would be a complete disaster, and would never be practical in the real world.


I part with the Libertarian Party HUGE when it comes to their environmental policies.

[TopDawg]

It depends on the community's charter. As a town, we can't assign our own speed limit laws because the county has been given that authority. But we have the power to pass laws to enforce (say) zoning laws.

At what level for the zoning laws? Town? Neighborhood?

And what happens when Leroy III and his friends think that the county is over-reaching their bounds by enforcing a speed limit on a town that doesn't want to abide by that law? Shouldn't that community be able to "pass whatever [speed limits] they want as long as the process is democratic and no rights (and I mean true rights) are violated"?

[JLEW1818]

people who break the current law consistently should be sent to Canada

if you reproduce, and can't afford the kids, and continue to have more, u then should be sent to Canada

anybody dependent on the govt, who hasn't served, should be sent to Canada

i would use other words

[Curly Bill]

people who break the current law consistently should be sent to Canada

if you reproduce, and can't afford the kids, and continue to have more, u then should be sent to Canada

anybody dependent on the govt, who hasn't served, should be sent to Canada

i would use other words

Send em to Canada? They might come back that way. Lets just kill em. :D

[JLEW1818]

f it. I'm 22 and don't need the govt's money, or anybody who works hard for their money. i don't need their money. i don't want their money directly

I'm not saying I'm booming with money. But i can support myself.

i just don't understand it, i guess.

ohhh look i have girlfriend who i have had for 4 years in May...... we aint married yet, she is finishing up school.... OMG I'M NOT GOING TO GET HER PREGNANT, B/C WE CAN'T AFFORD IT RIGHT NOW.... THAT IS SOOOOOOOOO RESPONSIBLE OF ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO IT'S ****ING COMMON SENSE DAMMIT.

****ing worthless *** scum in America... and u idiots that vote with that party just make me ****ing sick

yall take your illegals and the welfare and go your way.

[JohnnyMack]

You coffee-shop philosophers are all alike. You speak in grandiose terms, but when it gets to answering questions you come up short.

You're the right-wing equivalent of the Marxists. They also had a bunch of pie-in-the-sky ideas that didn't withstand scrutiny. Like libertarians, they can go on and on and on about the evils of "the system" and how we need a "revolution" to put these ideals in place. And like libertarians, Marxists felt that their way was the natural way and that "the system" corrupted it.

"You're rights end at my nose." Heard it a million times. Sounds great on a bumper sticker. Who wouldn't agree with such a beautiful sentiment? But it has no practical value at all.

Once you describe how it operates in practice, your popular base will vanish. You would be hard pressed to find any communities that live by it.

So, some lady walks up to you and asks if there is anything she can do to stop an adult bookstore from opening in her neighborhood, what are you going to tell her?

I guess I would tell her to contact her local elected represenative and discuss her issue with that person.

And exactly why is it again you think I'm a Libertarian? Because I think neo-cons are dip****s? Guess what, I think most people who align themselves in such a radical fashion are dip****s. The John Cleese clip is the best post in this whole thread.

[JLEW1818]

:D i drunk

[Leroy Lizard]

At what level for the zoning laws? Town? Neighborhood?

If you're asking about my location, zoning laws are established by the city.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Such laws have been around for eons. Hardly novel.


And what happens when Leroy III and his friends think that the county is over-reaching their bounds by enforcing a speed limit on a town that doesn't want to abide by that law? Shouldn't that community be able to "pass whatever [speed limits] they want as long as the process is democratic and no rights (and I mean true rights) are violated"?

No, because speed limits are a matter of public safety and the state police has guidelines that even the county has to follow. For example, in some states a town cannot have speed limits set where a certain percentage of cars would violate the law under normal conditions. (This is true in California.)

The abuse occurs when a town sets in motion speed traps to snare people from out of town. Since outsiders are affected, it isn't solely left up to locals to set speed limits. (A town in Texas got nailed for doing this. The law in Texas is that a town cannot haul in any more than a certain percentage of its total revenue in traffic violations.)

But I still have a say in the matter because I can vote in state elections. However, others in the state can vote on the same laws because they are affected as well.

Of course, this varies from state to state.

[Leroy Lizard]

I guess I would tell her to contact her local elected represenative and discuss her issue with that person.

So you would have no problem with a town voting in laws like we did (parking on one's own lawn)?

[Leroy Lizard]

Send em to Canada? They might come back that way. Lets just kill em. :D

Will Canada take them? I know that a lot of countries (most?) won't let you in on a visa unless you bring goodies with you. (In other words, they're not as stupid as the U.S.)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I like neo-cons with big hooters.

[JohnnyMack]

So you would have no problem with a town voting in laws like we did (parking on one's own lawn)?

Why the hell would I give a wet fart what a local municipality does?

[TopDawg]

If you're asking about my location, zoning laws are established by the city.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Such laws have been around for eons. Hardly novel.

No, because speed limits are a matter of public safety and the state police has guidelines that even the county has to follow. For example, in some states a town cannot have speed limits set where a certain percentage of cars would violate the law under normal conditions. (This is true in California.)

The abuse occurs when a town sets in motion speed traps to snare people from out of town. Since outsiders are affected, it isn't solely left up to locals to set speed limits. (A town in Texas got nailed for doing this. The law in Texas is that a town cannot haul in any more than a certain percentage of its total revenue in traffic violations.)

But I still have a say in the matter because I can vote in state elections. However, others in the state can vote on the same laws because they are affected as well.

Of course, this varies from state to state.

I'm not asking you how it IS, I'm asking you how it should be. You talked about your philosophy...


I am also for communities being able to pass whatever codes they want as long as the process is democratic and no rights (and I mean true rights) are violated.

but how does it work in practice?

You say you're okay with the state saying "this is how it's going to be for everybody in this state" because you can vote in state elections. Well, why aren't you okay with the feds saying "this is how it's going to be for everyone in this nation" even though you get a vote there too?

So, the question remains: in your philosophy, what defines a community and what do they get to vote on? It seems like you've already put limits on "whatever codes they want" so where do those limits begin and end?

[TopDawg]

:D i drunk

move to Canada

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not asking you how it IS, I'm asking you how it should be. You talked about your philosophy...

My personal philosophy agrees with how it is. So they are essentially equivalent.


You say you're okay with the state saying "this is how it's going to be for everybody in this state" because you can vote in state elections. Well, why aren't you okay with the feds saying "this is how it's going to be for everyone in this nation" even though you get a vote there too?

Because I'm a state's rightist. I believe in a limited FEDERAL government because of the Constitution.

Think of it this way: Remember what I said about a community only being able to pass laws that fall within its own charter? I am firm believer in adhering to this principle. The charter for the federal government is the U.S. Constitution. I oppose attempts by the federal government to step outside its bounds just because it thinks it needs to fix a problem.

This is why I hate Obamacare.


So, the question remains: in your philosophy, what defines a community and what do they get to vote on? You've already put limits on "whatever codes they want" so where do those limits begin and end?

I was referring to mostly community codes, not laws.

You're rather splitting hairs here. The big picture is whether citizens have the right to limit other people's freedoms. I say they do. Whether they do it at the town, county, or state level is beside the point.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why the hell would I give a wet fart what a local municipality does?

So you don't have a problem with a town passing (say) local codes banning tattoo parlors.

Now, I'm saying you would vote for such a ban. But you would support a town's right to pass such a law.

Okay, we agree.

[GKeeper316]

I oppose attempts by the federal government to step outside its bounds just because it thinks it needs to fix a problem.


and then we run into the all encompassing article 1 section 8. all powers necessary and proper... that is so ****ing ambiguous and should be removed through amendment.

its like the catch all when you get hired at a new job and you sign the little form that spells out your job duties, and they have that "all other duties as needed" at the bottom.

[Leroy Lizard]

and then we run into the all encompassing article 1 section 8. all powers necessary and proper... that is so ****ing ambiguous and should be removed through amendment.

Heh. You omitted some key detail there.


its like the catch all when you get hired at a new job and you sign the little form that spells out your job duties, and they have that "all other duties as needed" at the bottom.

A company can claim all kinds of rights and make you sign the document. That doesn't necessarily give the company those powers. Any lawyer will tell you that.

For example, employees sign non-competing agreements so that, if they ever leave, they agree not to compete with their former employer. In many states, those agreements aren't worth spit, even though the employee agreed to it.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'll sign paperwork saying I won't screw my employer when they sign one saying they won't screw me...


...and we KNOW that ain't gonna happen!

[Leroy Lizard]

I'll sign paperwork saying I won't screw my employer when they sign one saying they won't screw me...


...and we KNOW that ain't gonna happen!

Well, you'll sign the paperwork if you want the job. It's just good to know that you can sign a document and not have to abide by its contents if they are unreasonable.

I've signed the non-competitive agreements before. I know they can't do anything to me if I decide to compete anyway.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Thanks for the advice.

Good thing I read that before I wadded up this paperwork and threw it in my prospective employer's face.

Nuggets of wisdom.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Same here...I just think it would be funny to actually tell an employer something like "yeah, I'll sign it, but only if you sign this list of responsibilities I expect YOU to follow".

[Leroy Lizard]

Same here...I just think it would be funny to actually tell an employer something like "yeah, I'll sign it, but only if you sign this list of responsibilities I expect YOU to follow".

If you can get them to sign it, you probably should have asked for more money.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Good point!

[TopDawg]

Because I'm a state's rightist. I believe in a limited FEDERAL government because of the Constitution.

But why are you a state's rightist? You say you're okay with the state saying "this is how it's going to be for everybody in this state" because you can vote in state elections. Well, why aren't you okay with the feds saying "this is how it's going to be for everyone in this nation" even though you get a vote there too? Why do you choose to put the dividing line there?


Think of it this way: Remember what I said about a community only being able to pass laws that fall within its own charter? I am firm believer in adhering to this principle. The charter for the federal government is the U.S. Constitution. I oppose attempts by the federal government to step outside its bounds just because it thinks it needs to fix a problem.

This gets back to the original discussion about neo-conservatives and conservatives. I'm grossly over-simplifying it, but it's sort of as if the point is that Conservatives hold fast to that belief while Neo-conservatives only hold fast to that belief when Democrats are in office.


I was referring to mostly community codes, not laws.

You're rather splitting hairs here. The big picture is whether citizens have the right to limit other people's freedoms. I say they do. Whether they do it at the town, county, or state level is beside the point.

Well, this was just getting at the point you made about taking a theory and putting it into practice. When you put it into practice, hairs are going to be split. When a broad word like "community" is part of your philosophy, I think it's reasonable to ask how you would define it and what powers those communities would have. Your philosophy has a caveat because you openly say that citizens should have the ability to limit the rights of other citizens, BUT, only certain citizens. So where do you draw the line and why do you choose to draw the line there?

[Leroy Lizard]

But why are you a state's rightist? You say you're okay with the state saying "this is how it's going to be for everybody in this state" because you can vote in state elections. Well, why aren't you okay with the feds saying "this is how it's going to be for everyone in this nation" even though you get a vote there too? Why do you choose to put the dividing line there?

I think I answered that question: The Constitution puts the dividing line in there, not me.


This gets back to the original discussion about neo-conservatives and conservatives. I'm grossly over-simplifying it, but it's sort of as if the point is that Conservatives hold fast to that belief while Neo-conservatives only hold fast to that belief when Democrats are in office.

I'm not aware of any legislation that I wanted the feds to enact that was not specifically granted to them, no matter who was in office.


Well, this was just getting at the point you made about taking a theory and putting it into practice. When you put it into practice, hairs are going to be split. When a broad word like "community" is part of your philosophy, I think it's reasonable to ask how you would define it and what powers those communities would have. Your philosophy has a caveat because you openly say that citizens should have the ability to limit the rights of other citizens, BUT, only certain citizens.

What do you mean "only certain citizens"? When did I say that?


So where do you draw the line and why do you choose to draw the line there?

Again, I answered that question: Each community has a charter that defines their power.

For example, a number of us wanted to pass the no-parking-on-lawn law. We couldn't just decide among ourselves to make the law; we had to place it on a local city-wide ballot because the city is chartered with that power.

The state has the right to define content standards for public school instruction, for example. (Scratch that: the feds are taking that away).

[TopDawg]

What do you mean "only certain citizens"? When did I say that?

It's built into your philosophy. You say that citizens should be able to limit the rights of other citizens, but you're implying that citizens in Kansas shouldn't have any say in limiting the rights of citizens in Nebraska (by way of the federal government). And citizens in Austin, TX should be able to limit some of the rights of citizens in Pampa, TX, (by way of the state government) but only some of those rights. The other rights are left to the citizens of Pampa to take away as they please (by way of local government). Right?

I guess I'm not seeing your point on why it's okay for a state government to be able to act on behalf of everybody in the state but not the federal government to be able to act on behalf of everybody in the nation. Yeah, I get your point about that being the way it is because of your understanding of the existing charters, but that doesn't say anything about how you think it should be.

I'm honestly trying to see how your philosophy works. How would you handle these situations? Let's say that a new state is formed. There are no existing charters within that state. In the first scenario, the charter is written so that the state controls all public education decisions. But the citizens of a city within that state don't like the decisions the state has made. How should they respond? Should they try to get a vote to change the state's charter so that those decisions can be made on a local level or should they just be okay with being in the minority?

Let's say that in this same state, the charter is formed the other way. The charter allows public schooling decisions to be made at the city level, but most of the people in the state are unhappy with the way those local governments are handling it. Should the citizens try to get a vote to change the state's charter so that those decisions can be made at the state level, or should they just be okay with having views that don't jive with the existing charter?

In other words, at what level do you think public schooling decisions should be made? Which citizens should have a voice in the public schooling of other citizens?

[yermom]

my question is, how does "conservative" change definitions on a local scale?

[TopDawg]

my question is, how does "conservative" change definitions on a local scale?

That's kinda where I thought this discussion (between me and Leroy) was headed...but it's kinda gone on a detour.

If someone is a "city's rightist" does that make them more conservative than someone who is a "state's rightist"? And can someone be a state's rightist and still be more liberal than someone who wants a stronger federal government if, for instance, the state's rightist wants a very, very strong state government? What's a better measure of "conservative"? How big you think the government (city, state and/or federal) should be or at what level (city, state or federal) you think the decisions should be made.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's built into your philosophy. You say that citizens should be able to limit the rights of other citizens, but you're implying that citizens in Kansas shouldn't have any say in limiting the rights of citizens in Nebraska (by way of the federal government). And citizens in Austin, TX should be able to limit some of the rights of citizens in Pampa, TX, (by way of the state government) but only some of those rights. The other rights are left to the citizens of Pampa to take away as they please (by way of local government). Right?

I guess I'm not seeing your point on why it's okay for a state government to be able to act on behalf of everybody in the state but not the federal government to be able to act on behalf of everybody in the nation. Yeah, I get your point about that being the way it is because of your understanding of the existing charters, but that doesn't say anything about how you think it should be.

First of all, we should speak in term of freedoms, not rights.

The higher the power is centralized, the less control the people have over it. For example, if I want a certain change in a federal bill, I have very little chance of doing so. However, it isn't that difficult to get a local code change if I can gather up a few like-minded people.

So for citizens to truly be able to have a voice, they need strong local government. In my view, the more local the government the better, with the exceptions that I mentioned before.

It all comes down to one thing: Do you want a strong voice in your community? Strong central governments don't give you that.


I'm honestly trying to see how your philosophy works. How would you handle these situations? Let's say that a new state is formed. There are no existing charters within that state. In the first scenario, the charter is written so that the state controls all public education decisions. But the citizens of a city within that state don't like the decisions the state has made. How should they respond?

They can't. Once a strong central authority has grabbed power for itself it is nearly impossible to get it back. This is why Obamacare is a scary proposition, because if it turns out to be a dud (which I think it will) we are stuck with it. Once a central authority has decided to assume certain powers for itself, the game is over.

A big problem with strong central governments is apathy. As a citizen of a certain community, you may not want a certain law passed by the federal government. But the citizens of other community's are unlikely to care about your problems. Again, you lose voice.


Let's say that in this same state, the charter is formed the other way. The charter allows public schooling decisions to be made at the city level, but most of the people in the state are unhappy with the way those local governments are handling it. Should the citizens try to get a vote to change the state's charter so that those decisions can be made at the state level, or should they just be okay with having views that don't jive with the existing charter?

Once a higher authority grabs power, it is nearly impossible to take it back. So they're kinda' screwed.


In other words, at what level do you think public schooling decisions should be made? Which citizens should have a voice in the public schooling of other citizens?

At the lowest level possible as long as the decisions don't adversely affect those on the outside or violate civil rights.

This is not a libertarian position, by the way. Libertarians want weak government at all levels.

[Leroy Lizard]

my question is, how does "conservative" change definitions on a local scale?

I think that is the question we are discussing.

[yermom]

so you are making up your own definition now?

[Leroy Lizard]

First of all, we should speak in term of freedoms, not rights.

The higher the power is centralized, the less control the people have over it. For example, if I want a certain change in a federal bill, I have very little chance of doing so. However, it isn't that difficult to get a local code change if I can gather up a few like-minded people.

If you want a perfect example of this in action, consider Obamacare. The majority of the population opposed it, but no matter. Again, lack of voice.

[Leroy Lizard]

so you are making up your own definition now?

I'm offering my own opinion, if that is what you're asking.

[TopDawg]

This is not a libertarian position, by the way. Libertarians want weak government at all levels.

No, absolutely. I never thought you were headed that way. And I totally get what you're saying about the strength of your voice on a local level as opposed to a central gov't level. I think I just thought you were saying something that you really weren't. My bad. I was confused at first because it seemed like you were insinuating that JM was a libertarian, but I wasn't getting that so I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

So anyway, let me ask you this question. A strong central government isn't really a violation of your philosophy as stated:


I am also for communities being able to pass whatever codes they want as long as the process is democratic and no rights (and I mean true rights) are violated.

as much as it's something you just don't want. Right? You've defined communities in at least two ways (state, city) and it can certainly be defined in at least one more way (nation) so your philosophy, as stated, allows for Americans being able to pass whatever codes they want for America as long as the process is democratic and no "true" rights are violated. Right? Again, I understand if it's something you don't want and I understand why you don't want it...but it fits in with your philosophy, doesn't it?

[TopDawg]

If you want a perfect example of this in action, consider Obamacare. The majority of the population opposed it, but no matter. Again, lack of voice.

Or Bush's bailouts, right?

[Leroy Lizard]

Or Bush's bailouts, right?

That probably too. This problem isn't confined to one party.

[Leroy Lizard]

So anyway, let me ask you this question. A strong central government isn't really a violation of your philosophy as stated:

Yes, it is. I have explained this many times.


as much as it's something you just don't want. Right? You've defined communities in at least two ways (state, city) and it can certainly be defined in at least one more way (nation) so your philosophy, as stated, allows for Americans being able to pass whatever codes they want for America as long as the process is democratic and no "true" rights are violated. Right? Again, I understand if it's something you don't want and I understand why you don't want it...but it fits in with your philosophy, doesn't it?

You keep forgetting a major factor: a level of government should remain confined to within its own charter.

You can't just give the federal government the same powers as a local government by logical extension. For that matter, we are all part of a global community, but I have no right to pass laws that directly affect Russians.

[TopDawg]

You keep forgetting a major factor: a level of government should remain confined to within its own charter.

When I say "a strong central government" I'm not talking about the American central government. I'm well aware of the rules that govern how things work for us, and your views on how our central government should be limited because of the charter, but that's different. So let me rephrase the question...

As long as it doesn't violate its charter, a strong central government isn't really a violation of your philosophy as stated as much as it's something you just don't want. Right?

Now maybe you feel that, in America, a strong central government would--by definition--violate its charter. But that's not what I'm asking.

[Leroy Lizard]

When I say "a strong central government" I'm not talking about the American central government. I'm well aware of the rules that govern how things work for us, and your views on how our central government should be limited because of the charter, but that's different. So let me rephrase the question...

As long as it doesn't violate its charter, a strong central government isn't really a violation of your philosophy as stated as much as it's something you just don't want. Right?

In terms of the right to limit individual freedoms, yes. If the federal government has the legitimate power to take away an individual freedom, then it can as long as it acts democratically and does not deny individual rights.

Exceptions? Wartime I suppose. National emergencies, maybe. (And no, lack of health care is not a national emergency.)


Now maybe you feel that, in America, a strong central government would--by definition--violate its charter.

Well, it's not just how I feel. The Founding Fathers limited the power of the central government through the Constitution, so it isn't just one man's opinion.

[GKeeper316]

If you want a perfect example of this in action, consider Obamacare. The majority of the population opposed it, but no matter. Again, lack of voice.

wtf are you talking about?

every single american had a voice. its called elections. the people that were elected into thier respective offices voted, democratically, to make health care reform into law.

just because a buncha idiots listed to fox news tell them how it was socialism (a gross untruth) and that it would cost them tons of money (even after every single study has shown that it will ultimately save us money), then decided to gather around their dont tread on me flags and bitch about stuff they had actually done little to no research on, doesnt mean its a lack of voice.

[Harry Beanbag]

wtf are you talking about?

every single american had a voice. its called elections. the people that were elected into thier respective offices voted, democratically, to make health care reform into law.

just because a buncha idiots listed to fox news tell them how it was socialism (a gross untruth) and that it would cost them tons of money (even after every single study has shown that it will ultimately save us money), then decided to gather around their dont tread on me flags and bitch about stuff they had actually done little to no research on, doesnt mean its a lack of voice.


The rest of your silly diatribe aside, if the majority of Americans opposed it yet the representatives they elected to speak for them in Washington voted for it, is the people's voice really being heard?

[yermom]

the majority of Americans wanted Al Gore to be President too

[Harry Beanbag]

the majority of Americans wanted Al Gore to be President too

Electoral College, I know you've heard of it.

[Leroy Lizard]

wtf are you talking about?

every single american had a voice. its called elections. the people that were elected into thier respective offices voted, democratically, to make health care reform into law.

You need to read my posts. I said that as the top power centralizes authority, the ability of the people to make change weakens. I have a far easier time influencing local elections than I do Congress. That is what I meant by "lack of voice."

Sure, I could be one of 200,000,000 votes in a matter being decided by Congress, with almost no chance to take a podium of any significance. At the local level, I can be one of 10,000 and a reasonable chance of being heard by the local city council.

This is why I favor strong local governments and a limited federal government: more power to oppose Marxist ideology from springing up in my community.

[Leroy Lizard]

The rest of your silly diatribe aside, if the majority of Americans opposed it yet the representatives they elected to speak for them in Washington voted for it, is the people's voice really being heard?

No, because you tell the American people what they want to hear, then you do whatever the Hell you want once you get in. The people will complain, but who cares? It isn't about what the people want; it's about what you want. And even if it is something you don't want, there will be somebody there to bribe you into changing your mind.

Then, after you have screwed them over you announce you will not be seeking reelection. ;)

[yermom]

Electoral College, I know you've heard of it.

Congress, i know you've heard of it ;)

[TopDawg]

In terms of the right to limit individual freedoms, yes. If the federal government has the legitimate power to take away an individual freedom, then it can as long as it acts democratically and does not deny individual rights.

Exceptions? Wartime I suppose. National emergencies, maybe. (And no, lack of health care is not a national emergency.)



Well, it's not just how I feel. The Founding Fathers limited the power of the central government through the Constitution, so it isn't just one man's opinion.

I think we're seeing closely enough to eye-to-eye that I'll let this be with the observation that although the Founding Fathers did limit the power of the central government, they also gave us an amendable charter so that those powers could grow if need be. Reasonable minds can disagree on when exactly "need be," but it does mean that growth isn't by nature unconstitutional.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think we're seeing closely enough to eye-to-eye that I'll let this be with the observation that although the Founding Fathers did limit the power of the central government, they also gave us an amendable charter so that those powers could grow if need be..

The key word here is AMENDable. Yes, we can amend the Constitution if it really needs changing. The requirements are stringent.

However, politicians have found a way to insert their own mechanisms for skirting this issue. One, use money as a weapon to make sure that they will have to be implemented whether the Constitution allows it or not. Another is to place people on the Supreme Court who will ensure that your ideas pass scrutiny. The matter is no longer "is a law Constitutional," but rather "can the Constitution be mangled in such a way that the law can be rationalized."