Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition

[Two Thumbs]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

Modern conservatism only appears heartless when compared to the faux "equality" charade performed by modern liberalism...a charade that would have the Founders dumbfounded.

no it wouldn't.

The Founders knew times like this were coming, where the government has been corrupted and serves it's own interests.

 

[Pheonixops]

Over on PoliticalChic's liberalism thread--that I don't believe has received a single favorable review by anybody identifying themselves as 'liberal'--I posed a question to illustrate a conservative point of view.

Somebody had commented that conservatives are only for the rich and greedy because most conservatives do not support increasing taxes on the very rich.

So my question was something to the effect:

Why should the guy who started with little or nothing, but who put in the time, effort, and took the necessary risks to become very wealthy, who provides hundreds of jobs for others, who makes it possible for other businesses to prosper who in turn provide jobs for still others, who donates his money for museum exhibits, new hospital wings, a new science lab for the university, and sponsors Little League teams and buys Girl Scout cookies. . . .

Why should he pay taxes at a higher rate than the guy who works for him who only puts in just enough effort to keep his job and get by?

So far nobody identifying himself/herself as liberal has even acknowledged that this question is asked, much less attempted to answer it.

Will anybody here, liberal or conservative?

Speaking as a modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (small "L"):

I'm a Liberal and have advocated a flat tax or consumption tax plenty of times. I'm against the boortz/linder version with their "prebates" .

 

[Plasmaball]

REQUESTED RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION: This thread is an experiment in critical analysis to see if that is possible at USMB. I respectfully request that participants do not personally insult, accuse, or insinuate motives of each other. I respectfully request that no partisan references of any kind be used. Real life illustrations can be used to illustrate the virtues or lack thereof of the following statements.

pffft lol....we have a forum for that. Go there turd.



yeah its not. Modern conservatism really isnt this at all anymore. This is like needle in a haystack rare these days.


your not one. We can take the very first example and go look on this website alone and see you are not.

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

You believe that people should be able to say what they want ( and they should) BUT ( and here is the problem) there should be no consequences from the public because of said statements.

See another thing Conservatism tends to believe is personal responsibility. So when we factor in your above opinion with the this other fact. We in fact realize you are not a conservative. Well not in the sense you want people to believe.

I dont need to go into the rest of your garbage, because lets face it, you are a partisan.

The public is not the government. The public is a collection of individuals who also have the right to free speech. The right to free speech includes the right to criticize the speech of others. It does not include the right to shut down speech that one disagrees with.

Consequently, your dumbass rebutal is nonsense.

I never said shut down..I said consequences. ..something you people seem to hate when it's your side.

 

[deltex1]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

Modern conservatism only appears heartless when compared to the faux "equality" charade performed by modern liberalism...a charade that would have the Founders dumbfounded.

no it wouldn't.

The Founders knew times like this were coming, where the government has been corrupted and serves it's own interests.

That's where the militia comes in....anyway I doubt the Founders ever envisioned a government we now have.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Modern American Conservatism, while including many aspects of Classical Liberalism, also includes as many or more aspects of "Classical" Conservatism.

 

[norwegen]

Neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism nor libertarianism are the equivalent of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

The Founders would find the first too heartless in government power,the second too expansive, and the third would be "huh"?

Modern conservatism only appears heartless when compared to the faux "equality" charade performed by modern liberalism...a charade that would have the Founders dumbfounded.

no it wouldn't.

The Founders knew times like this were coming, where the government has been corrupted and serves it's own interests.

Personal aggrandaizement existed in the state governments even before the Revolutionary War. That's one reason James Madison eventually changed his allegience from the Federalists to the Republicans. Greed and rivalry didn't go on holiday in the late 1700s.

That congressmen have voted themselves raises to some four times the income of the average citizen, and granted themselves generous benefits besides, is outlandish and un-American. Not to parse words, Two Thumbs, but the government doesn't serve its own interests at the peoples' expense; the people in government serve themselves at their peers' expense.

When we hear some "crackpot" call a representative or senator a crook, it literally rings of truth in some small sense.

 

[norwegen]

Modern conservatism only appears heartless when compared to the faux "equality" charade performed by modern liberalism...a charade that would have the Founders dumbfounded.

no it wouldn't.

The Founders knew times like this were coming, where the government has been corrupted and serves it's own interests.

That's where the militia comes in....anyway I doubt the Founders ever envisioned a government we now have.

They certainly didn't envison a democracy, though from some Founding Era quotes, some of them might have predicted it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Over on PoliticalChic's liberalism thread--that I don't believe has received a single favorable review by anybody identifying themselves as 'liberal'--I posed a question to illustrate a conservative point of view.

Somebody had commented that conservatives are only for the rich and greedy because most conservatives do not support increasing taxes on the very rich.

So my question was something to the effect:

Why should the guy who started with little or nothing, but who put in the time, effort, and took the necessary risks to become very wealthy, who provides hundreds of jobs for others, who makes it possible for other businesses to prosper who in turn provide jobs for still others, who donates his money for museum exhibits, new hospital wings, a new science lab for the university, and sponsors Little League teams and buys Girl Scout cookies. . . .

Why should he pay taxes at a higher rate than the guy who works for him who only puts in just enough effort to keep his job and get by?

So far nobody identifying himself/herself as liberal has even acknowledged that this question is asked, much less attempted to answer it.

Will anybody here, liberal or conservative?

Speaking as a modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (small "L"):

I'm a Liberal and have advocated a flat tax or consumption tax plenty of times. I'm against the boortz/linder version with their "prebates" .

So you see yourself as a liberal, but, as the terms are used in modern day America, you strongly embrace a very conservative principle of 100% equality in the tax code without respect for political or socioeconomic graphics.

Which goes to show that very few of us are 100% 'conservative' or 'liberal' as those terms are commonly used in America these days, but we all will at times embrace values that are normally not associated with the ideology we claim. The modern day American liberal, for instance, will almost always support a progressive tax, supports taxing the rich even more, supports allowing the less fortunate from paying nothing, etc.

And further, those of us who do support a flat tax and see the value in all having equally proportional 'skin in the game' will often be accused, by liberals, of hard heartedness, having no concern for or hating the poor, of favoring the rich, and other foolish characterizations. It is almost impossible to have a dialogue as to why the flat tax is a concept that not only is 100% fair, but also beneficial to society as a whole, including the poorest Americans.

Oh and P, thank you for answering that question. I have been asking it for days and days now, and you are the first self-professed liberal who has had the integrity to address it. You get a huge gold star.

 

[Foxfyre]

no it wouldn't.

The Founders knew times like this were coming, where the government has been corrupted and serves it's own interests.

That's where the militia comes in....anyway I doubt the Founders ever envisioned a government we now have.

They certainly didn't envison a democracy, though from some Founding Era quotes, some of them might have predicted it.

That depends on how you look at it I think. While the Founders, pretty much to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and moral people, they put individual liberty at the forefront of every single principle written into the Constitution. Thus the federal government was to have no say over what the morals or social practices of the people would be so long as they did not impose them on or violate the rights of others.

But, the social contract itself, is an agreement and free people simply are not going to agree on everything. And sometimes the only way to arrive at a decision about something is via majority vote, i.e. a democratic process. So the Founders were not opposed to democracy. They were only opposed to two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

 

[Foxfyre]

Modern American Conservatism, while including many aspects of Classical Liberalism, also includes as many or more aspects of "Classical" Conservatism.

Before I can decide whether to argue with you or agree with you, could you elaborate or expand a bit on what you mean by this?

 

[Foxfyre]

Modern conservatism only appears heartless when compared to the faux "equality" charade performed by modern liberalism...a charade that would have the Founders dumbfounded.

no it wouldn't.

The Founders knew times like this were coming, where the government has been corrupted and serves it's own interests.

That's where the militia comes in....anyway I doubt the Founders ever envisioned a government we now have.

The Founders would be horrified and grieving over the government we now have. I can imagine that they would be thinking revolution as the only means to restore the individual liberties that government has been eroding now in EVERY administration since the T R Roosevelt administration.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

no it wouldn't.

The Founders knew times like this were coming, where the government has been corrupted and serves it's own interests.

That's where the militia comes in....anyway I doubt the Founders ever envisioned a government we now have.

The Founders would be horrified and grieving over the government we now have. I can imagine that they would be thinking revolution as the only means to restore the individual liberties that government has been eroding now in EVERY administration since the T R Roosevelt administration.

The Founders crated a government that suited their needs at the time. They expected us to do the same. What would horrify them is that we are still trying to us what worked for them, something only stupid people would do.

 

[norwegen]

That's where the militia comes in....anyway I doubt the Founders ever envisioned a government we now have.

They certainly didn't envison a democracy, though from some Founding Era quotes, some of them might have predicted it.

That depends on how you look at it I think. While the Founders, pretty much to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and moral people, they put individual liberty at the forefront of every single principle written into the Constitution. Thus the federal government was to have no say over what the morals or social practices of the people would be so long as they did not impose them on or violate the rights of others.

But, the social contract itself, is an agreement and free people simply are not going to agree on everything. And sometimes the only way to arrive at a decision about something is via majority vote, i.e. a democratic process. So the Founders were not opposed to democracy. They were only opposed to two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The founders knew history, most recently the erosion of liberties in England just decades after the Glorious Revolution. They realized that the great masses have an irrational faith in and dependence on the creations of their own civil societies, i.e., on their governments. And they knew just how quickly a government can tyrannize, as they were witnessing across the Atlantic.

Certainly virtue is a necessary pillar of republicanism, but virtue comes and goes, and was not a reliable mainstay even in our constitution-making days. As reason was better suited to governing than passions were, democracy was confined to the lower chamber of the legislature. Any other semblance of democracy was at the discretion of the state and local governments. Town halls, for example, were very popular in colonial America and in the country's youth.

You're right; free people simply are not going to agree on everything. But democracy doesn't change that. In a democracy, some people still lose. The social contract is what it is. If everyone wants his voice heard and to be happy with the results of it, we would not need a social contract; we would need 300 million contracts.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else. I agree, the only problem is the religious right is against this

2. Unalienable rights are whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other person and should be treated as inviolate by governments, groups, and individuals. the less the government controls, the better the country is

3. The ability to control one's own legally and ethically acquired property must be inviolate unless certain necessary requirements and/or restrictions are mutually agreed via social contract. property rights should be sacred. History shows people care far more for what is theirs than what is ours.

4. Except to pay reasonable legal restitution, no citizen should ever be forced into involuntary servitude to and/or to provide for another citizen. The federal government should be prohibited from providing any requirement of or benefit to any individual, group, or demographic that is not provided to all. remove victimology from the government and it shrinks by 1/2, making life better for every one

5. The purpose of the federal government is to provide the common defense, promote the general (meaning rich and poor alike) welfare, secure the rights of the people, and enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to effectively function as one, cohesive nation. Otherwise the federal government should leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they choose and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have. liberals cannot abide 50 different rules for one thing, they must control all at the Fed level

6. The federal government should be provided only such resources that are essential for it to provide its specifically enumerated Constitutional powers and responsibilities. Whatever means is used to provide those resources should be applied uniformly at the identical rate for all without respect to socioeconomic criteria or politics. vast debt devalues the dollar and makes life harder on the poor

7. The courts should be restricted to evaluate whether the spirit of duly passed laws have been followed or breached, and must be prohibited from expanding or adding to those laws or writing their own. true, but every scotus judge is a partisan, so it's almost useless

8. There should be no artificial limits placed on any individual re what he may legally and ethically accomplish, achieve, acquire, or aspire to be, and it is each person following his/her own dreams and living to his/her fullest potential that makes a people freest, most prosperous, and provides the greatest benefit to all. dems need victims to push their agenda, so this will draw some rage.

9. The President of the United States should make no law or rule that should be the prerogative of Congress and will make no permanent appointments that normally require the consent of Congress. yea, the Pres doesn't get to go it alone, those are the actions of a tyrant

10. Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed, should pay for their own healthcare and retirement plans out of the salaries they receive while active in government only. The government will provide no benefits once a position is vacated. mmm, depends on the pay and if they retire. pols and appointees can piss off, but employees should have the chance to retire. The only problem is there's so many.

Re your responses to:

#1 While there are teensy elements of the religious right who do not embrace that concept, they are in such a tiny minority that they are hardly worth considering. And when that minority does demand that those who do not embrace their beliefs be required to conform to those beliefs, they are not embracing modern American conservative values but are rather engaged in the methods and totalitarian mindset of many in the modern day American left.

The only morality that should be imposed on the people via government enforcement are those that would prevent government or any person from violating the individual liberties of another. Therefore we might refer to the Biblical injunction of "thou shalt not murder", but the principle behind it is that 'thou shalt not infringe the rights of another to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

#2 Not sure your answer was entirely responsive to the concept, but I agree with it.

#3 We are in agreement.

#4 Again not sure your answer was completely responsive to the concept, but I agree that cultural trends in victimology have been detrimental to both the 'victims' and those forced into servitude to them.

#5 This one I think I know where you're coming from, but I think your response was maybe too all encompassing and perhaps a bit too inflammatory to be really useful. Maybe you could rephrase it into examples of what you meant by that statement?

#6 Yes, over spending is one serious aspect of it, but also government intrusion into aspects of American life that the government was never intended to be involved in.

#7 We cannot give up on the principle because people are conditioned to be partisan.

#8 Again I'm not exactly sure your comment was responsive to the concept. But perhaps if you explained further. . . .

#9 Yes. That's pretty much where I was coming from.

#10 I don't have any problem with people in the federal government retiring. But those who work for government should put away a portion of their salaries and finance their own retirement as most other Americans do. To saddle the general public with the responsibility to finance their retirement is to open the door to massive corruption and unsustainable entitlement.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's where the militia comes in....anyway I doubt the Founders ever envisioned a government we now have.

The Founders would be horrified and grieving over the government we now have. I can imagine that they would be thinking revolution as the only means to restore the individual liberties that government has been eroding now in EVERY administration since the T R Roosevelt administration.

The Founders crated a government that suited their needs at the time. They expected us to do the same. What would horrify them is that we are still trying to us what worked for them, something only stupid people would do.

I haven't been discussing how life has changed for Americans over the last 200+ years. I want this thread to focus on principles and concepts. Do you think the principles and concepts listed in the OP have changed so that they aren't worth valuing any more? How? Can you elaborate?

 

[The T]

The poll refers to the 10 statements below. Please read those before responding to the poll.

The 10 statements are a suggested description of Modern American Conservatism that is sometimes referred to as 'Classical Liberalism.' It is not a political party or a political platform. It is a concept, a mind set, a description of a belief in principles that many believe provides the greatest opportunity for a society to be the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, and most benevolent that a people can be.

REQUESTED RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION: This thread is an experiment in critical analysis to see if that is possible at USMB. I respectfully request that participants do not personally insult, accuse, or insinuate motives of each other. I respectfully request that no partisan references of any kind be used. Real life illustrations can be used to illustrate the virtues or lack thereof of the following statements.

I do not presume that the 10 statements are all that Classical Liberalism/modern American conservatism is, or that every conservative or every liberal will agree or disagree with these statements.

Dissent is invited. Incivility is not.

THE DISCUSSION: Are any or all of the 10 statements defensible? Why or why not? Which ones are? Which ones are not?

Definition:
Modern American Conservatism, i.e. Classical Liberalism​

As a modern American Conservative, i.e. Classical Liberal, I believe and/or defend the following statements:

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

2. Unalienable rights are whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other person and should be treated as inviolate by governments, groups, and individuals.

3. The ability to control one's own legally and ethically acquired property must be inviolate unless certain necessary requirements and/or restrictions are mutually agreed via social contract.

4. Except to pay reasonable legal restitution, no citizen should ever be forced into involuntary servitude to and/or to provide for another citizen. The federal government should be prohibited from providing any requirement of or benefit to any individual, group, or demographic that is not provided to all.

5. The purpose of the federal government is to provide the common defense, promote the general (meaning rich and poor alike) welfare, secure the rights of the people, and enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to effectively function as one, cohesive nation. Otherwise the federal government should leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they choose and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

6. The federal government should be provided only such resources that are essential for it to provide its specifically enumerated Constitutional powers and responsibilities. Whatever means is used to provide those resources should be applied uniformly at the identical rate for all without respect to socioeconomic criteria or politics.

7. The courts should be restricted to evaluate whether the spirit of duly passed laws have been followed or breached, and must be prohibited from expanding or adding to those laws or writing their own.

8. There should be no artificial limits placed on any individual re what he may legally and ethically accomplish, achieve, acquire, or aspire to be, and it is each person following his/her own dreams and living to his/her fullest potential that makes a people freest, most prosperous, and provides the greatest benefit to all.

9. The President of the United States should make no law or rule that should be the prerogative of Congress and will make no permanent appointments that normally require the consent of Congress.

10. Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed, should pay for their own healthcare and retirement plans out of the salaries they receive while active in government only. The government will provide no benefits once a position is vacated.

YOU are awesome.

 

[The T]

The Founders would be horrified and grieving over the government we now have. I can imagine that they would be thinking revolution as the only means to restore the individual liberties that government has been eroding now in EVERY administration since the T R Roosevelt administration.

The Founders crated a government that suited their needs at the time. They expected us to do the same. What would horrify them is that we are still trying to us what worked for them, something only stupid people would do.

I haven't been discussing how life has changed for Americans over the last 200+ years. I want this thread to focus on principles and concepts. Do you think the principles and concepts listed in the OP have changed so that they aren't worth valuing any more? How? Can you elaborate?

Juxtapose this with the plethora of times I have been told by many on the left on these boards that WE want to go back to slavery times...ad nauseum...and that WE need to get with the times of societial CHANGE.

My retort to them is that just because times change, does that mean that principle takes a back seat just because many lose their way? Just shut up and go with the flow?

*I* think NOT.

Brilliant thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

They certainly didn't envison a democracy, though from some Founding Era quotes, some of them might have predicted it.

That depends on how you look at it I think. While the Founders, pretty much to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and moral people, they put individual liberty at the forefront of every single principle written into the Constitution. Thus the federal government was to have no say over what the morals or social practices of the people would be so long as they did not impose them on or violate the rights of others.

But, the social contract itself, is an agreement and free people simply are not going to agree on everything. And sometimes the only way to arrive at a decision about something is via majority vote, i.e. a democratic process. So the Founders were not opposed to democracy. They were only opposed to two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The founders knew history, most recently the erosion of liberties in England just decades after the Glorious Revolution. They realized that the great masses have an irrational faith in and dependence on the creations of their own civil societies, i.e., on their governments. And they knew just how quickly a government can tyrannize, as they were witnessing across the Atlantic.

Certainly virtue is a necessary pillar of republicanism, but virtue comes and goes, and was not a reliable mainstay even in our constitution-making days. As reason was better suited to governing than passions were, democracy was confined to the lower chamber of the legislature. Any other semblance of democracy was at the discretion of the state and local governments. Town halls, for example, were very popular in colonial America and in the country's youth.

You're right; free people simply are not going to agree on everything. But democracy doesn't change that. In a democracy, some people still lose. The social contract is what it is. If everyone wants his voice heard and to be happy with the results of it, we would not need a social contract; we would need 300 million contracts.

It is true that in a democracy, it will be rare that everybody gets what he/she WANTS purely because everybody isn't going to agree. Whether it is a church board voting on what color carpet to put down in the sanctuary or whether it is a local community voting on whether to issue bonds to build a new library or the people of a state voting for an amendment to the constitution, there will be those who vote yea and those who vote nay, and one or the other of those groups will get what they want. The others will not.

But it does not necessarily follow that everybody who doesn't get what he/she wants will be the loser.

The nay votes in that church congregation may find the new carpet much more pleasing than they expected. The nay votes in that community may realize they really enjoy that new library. The nay votes in that state may come to understand the value in that amendment.

Or. . . .it may turn out that the unintended consequences of the winning vote are not pleasing or beneficial or a happy thing for most. In which case it should be back to the drawing board and re-do the social contract.

Modern day American conservatism knows the people will sometimes get it wrong, but liberty requires the ability to be wrong as well as right. Modern day American conservatism is also able to see, evaluate, and admit the unintended consequences as well as the testable or obvious positive results of social policy and emphasis and trust a free people to eventually get it right.

They have no such trust in a permanent political class in government however.

Modern day American liberalism mostly puts their trust in government. Modern day American conservatism mostly puts their trust in themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

The poll refers to the 10 statements below. Please read those before responding to the poll.

The 10 statements are a suggested description of Modern American Conservatism that is sometimes referred to as 'Classical Liberalism.' It is not a political party or a political platform. It is a concept, a mind set, a description of a belief in principles that many believe provides the greatest opportunity for a society to be the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, and most benevolent that a people can be.

REQUESTED RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION: This thread is an experiment in critical analysis to see if that is possible at USMB. I respectfully request that participants do not personally insult, accuse, or insinuate motives of each other. I respectfully request that no partisan references of any kind be used. Real life illustrations can be used to illustrate the virtues or lack thereof of the following statements.

I do not presume that the 10 statements are all that Classical Liberalism/modern American conservatism is, or that every conservative or every liberal will agree or disagree with these statements.

Dissent is invited. Incivility is not.

THE DISCUSSION: Are any or all of the 10 statements defensible? Why or why not? Which ones are? Which ones are not?

Definition:
Modern American Conservatism, i.e. Classical Liberalism​

As a modern American Conservative, i.e. Classical Liberal, I believe and/or defend the following statements:

1. Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

2. Unalienable rights are whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other person and should be treated as inviolate by governments, groups, and individuals.

3. The ability to control one's own legally and ethically acquired property must be inviolate unless certain necessary requirements and/or restrictions are mutually agreed via social contract.

4. Except to pay reasonable legal restitution, no citizen should ever be forced into involuntary servitude to and/or to provide for another citizen. The federal government should be prohibited from providing any requirement of or benefit to any individual, group, or demographic that is not provided to all.

5. The purpose of the federal government is to provide the common defense, promote the general (meaning rich and poor alike) welfare, secure the rights of the people, and enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to effectively function as one, cohesive nation. Otherwise the federal government should leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they choose and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

6. The federal government should be provided only such resources that are essential for it to provide its specifically enumerated Constitutional powers and responsibilities. Whatever means is used to provide those resources should be applied uniformly at the identical rate for all without respect to socioeconomic criteria or politics.

7. The courts should be restricted to evaluate whether the spirit of duly passed laws have been followed or breached, and must be prohibited from expanding or adding to those laws or writing their own.

8. There should be no artificial limits placed on any individual re what he may legally and ethically accomplish, achieve, acquire, or aspire to be, and it is each person following his/her own dreams and living to his/her fullest potential that makes a people freest, most prosperous, and provides the greatest benefit to all.

9. The President of the United States should make no law or rule that should be the prerogative of Congress and will make no permanent appointments that normally require the consent of Congress.

10. Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed, should pay for their own healthcare and retirement plans out of the salaries they receive while active in government only. The government will provide no benefits once a position is vacated.

YOU are awesome.

LOL. Immodestly taking a bow.

Seriously, regarding your second comment up there, I agree. Society does change. Its needs change. The dynamics change. The problems change. The issues change. But the principles themselves do not change. And in my opinion, because I am a modern day American conservative, those principles work in all circumstances.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you think the principles and concepts listed in the OP have changed so that they aren't worth valuing any more? How? Can you elaborate?

Strawman, like most of your descriptions which ignore reality, as in Rights and Responsibilities. Your Freedom comes from your Society, your Government. You don't get one without the other two. It's a balancing game that you see only one side of. That is where you, and most others here, go wrong right from the start.