Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, they don't, not even number one.YOU are awesome.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.
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.
Results of a vote are a different matter, really, and still result in unhappiness, even if feigned. Democracy was as unpredictable and tyrannical as monarchy, but the best representatives of the people are those who the people vote for, so in limited doses, government by passion was not only allowable, but also fair.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.
Agreed. The principle never changes and IS the cure.YOU are awesome.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.
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.
Central Authority? is this Russia, 1952?Results of a vote are a different matter, really, and still result in unhappiness, even if feigned. Democracy was as unpredictable and tyrannical as monarchy, but the best representatives of the people are those who the people vote for, so in limited doses, government by passion was not only allowable, but also fair.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.
I agree with you. A big difference between liberalism and conservatism is statism and individualism. Like the Tories, who placed their allegiances with the king, Democrats place theirs with a central authority. Another big difference is passion and reason.
Democracy, in it's TRUE form is mob rule/anarchy.Results of a vote are a different matter, really, and still result in unhappiness, even if feigned. Democracy was as unpredictable and tyrannical as monarchy, but the best representatives of the people are those who the people vote for, so in limited doses, government by passion was not only allowable, but also fair.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.
I agree with you. A big difference between liberalism and conservatism is statism and individualism. Like the Tories, who placed their allegiances with the king, Democrats place theirs with a central authority. Another big difference is passion and reason.
Why wouldn't you simply define yourself as a Liberal ? Conservative and Liberal are opposing ideologies? It's sort of an oxymoron.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.
Small Government
Small government has always been an important value of conservatives. The conservative view of small government dates back to the conflict of the Federalist versus the Anti-Federalist. The Federalists, represented by Hamilton, favored a strong central government supported by a nationalized bank that imposed large tariffs on manufacturers. The Republican party, represented by Thomas Jefferson, apposed Hamilton's view of a strong central government and advocated a strict view of the constitution. Jefferson argued that imposing tariffs infringed on an individual's civil liberties. Today, conservatives still believe that government should never get large enough to infringe on an individual's rights.
Free Market
Several values specifically listed by the Republican National Committee reflect the conservative value of free market. Conservatives believe in "individual community support and voluntary giving over taxation and forced redistribution." More specifically the conservative philosophy is to "keep free markets free" and logical business regulations encourage individuals to become successful entrepreneurs.
Enduring Moral Code
Russel Kirk, author of the "conservative mind" lists a strict moral code as the first of the top ten conservative principles. By believing in an enduring moral order, a society can best govern itself. Likewise, the conservative believes that indulging in instant gratifications (such as extramarital sex or illegal drug use) will bring crime and therefore be detrimental to society.
Established Customs
The value of adhering to established customs, conventions and institutions describes the very word "conservative." Conservatives believe that societies with established customs enable us to lead peaceful lives. However, disruptions of these customs can lead to chaos and anarchy. Conservatives can use this view to argue that we should not alter the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples, for example.
Read more: List of Conservative Values | eHow
Why wouldn't you simply define yourself as a Liberal ? Conservative and Liberal are opposing ideologies? It's sort of an oxymoron.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.
I find it interesting that someone didn't agree with limiting hte ability to profit from government service.
We must have a congressman posting here
Why wouldn't you simply define yourself as a Liberal ? Conservative and Liberal are opposing ideologies? It's sort of an oxymoron.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.
yes and no. while i would consider myself to be a conservative, there are many so called liberal policies i believe in. two things, not ever liberal idea has a counter conservative idea. there is a substantial amount of overlap. i also think it is unrealistic to expect that someone would be so partisan as to be aligned with evey single party ideal on either side. i mean we are talking about so many differen catagories spead across, social, financial, civil, foriegn policy, constitutional interpretation.
I find it interesting that someone didn't agree with limiting hte ability to profit from government service.
We must have a congressman posting here
Well it is a given that any liberals reading in would not give a thumbs up to many, if any, of the statements on the list. But the person who objected to that one concept made a reasoned and competent argument that those in public service should not be denied the same kind of retirement available to some in the private sector.
My counter argument is that public service is not the same as the private sector and cannot work exactly the same way because those in the private sector use their own resources to provide whatever benefits to their employees and require no contribution or participation by me in order to do that. And if the private sector employer over obligates himself and goes under, that will have little direct affect on me and my property.
To provide a lifetime retirement to a public sector employee, however, obligates me not only to help pay his/her salary and benefits while employed, but for the rest of his/her life or my life.
I find it interesting that someone didn't agree with limiting hte ability to profit from government service.
We must have a congressman posting here
Well it is a given that any liberals reading in would not give a thumbs up to many, if any, of the statements on the list. But the person who objected to that one concept made a reasoned and competent argument that those in public service should not be denied the same kind of retirement available to some in the private sector.
My counter argument is that public service is not the same as the private sector and cannot work exactly the same way because those in the private sector use their own resources to provide whatever benefits to their employees and require no contribution or participation by me in order to do that. And if the private sector employer over obligates himself and goes under, that will have little direct affect on me and my property.
To provide a lifetime retirement to a public sector employee, however, obligates me not only to help pay his/her salary and benefits while employed, but for the rest of his/her life or my life.
the problem i have with that is people who work in the private sector can not write their own rules or change laws to give themselves a better package. for most in the private sector, retirement is SS oan/or a 401K plan and individual savings. Many employer contributions are tied to profitablility and performance. employees can be terminated for lack of performance. Self employed have to do it all on their own. plus they assume a ton of risk. they don' have a tax payers dollars to bail out their mistakes. conress should be subject to the same laws they impose on the public
Why wouldn't you simply define yourself as a Liberal ? Conservative and Liberal are opposing ideologies? It's sort of an oxymoron.
yes and no. while i would consider myself to be a conservative, there are many so called liberal policies i believe in. two things, not ever liberal idea has a counter conservative idea. there is a substantial amount of overlap. i also think it is unrealistic to expect that someone would be so partisan as to be aligned with evey single party ideal on either side. i mean we are talking about so many differen catagories spead across, social, financial, civil, foriegn policy, constitutional interpretation.
Which is why I specified in the OP that this topic is not about Republicans or Democrats or any other political party platforms or practices. There are components of the GOP party platform, for instance, that at face value look good on paper, but are nowhere to be found in the behavior of most Republicans in Congress. At the same time, one person on this thread, self-described as a liberal, essentially said he supports a flat tax or consumption tax (that would sort of be #6 on the list) which is polar opposite of what most liberals usually say that they would support.
So I think once we set partisan politics aside and focus on the concepts themselves, most liberals and conservatives can find some areas of agreement here and there and even come to believe that their ideological/political opposites aren't evil people complete with horns and tail.
The problem comes in having the dialogue. As was being discussed over on PC's 'liberalism' thread, it is difficult to find liberals who can articulate a rationale for their point of view, but their ammunition is strictly attacking conservatives and conservatism. If you take that away from them they seem to have little or nothing to offer.
I want to be proved wrong about that perception. I hope some more thoughtful intelligent liberals as well as conservatives will chime in here to challenge or agree with one or more of the 10 statements on the list in the OP.
yes and no. while i would consider myself to be a conservative, there are many so called liberal policies i believe in. two things, not ever liberal idea has a counter conservative idea. there is a substantial amount of overlap. i also think it is unrealistic to expect that someone would be so partisan as to be aligned with evey single party ideal on either side. i mean we are talking about so many differen catagories spead across, social, financial, civil, foriegn policy, constitutional interpretation.
Which is why I specified in the OP that this topic is not about Republicans or Democrats or any other political party platforms or practices. There are components of the GOP party platform, for instance, that at face value look good on paper, but are nowhere to be found in the behavior of most Republicans in Congress. At the same time, one person on this thread, self-described as a liberal, essentially said he supports a flat tax or consumption tax (that would sort of be #6 on the list) which is polar opposite of what most liberals usually say that they would support.
So I think once we set partisan politics aside and focus on the concepts themselves, most liberals and conservatives can find some areas of agreement here and there and even come to believe that their ideological/political opposites aren't evil people complete with horns and tail.
The problem comes in having the dialogue. As was being discussed over on PC's 'liberalism' thread, it is difficult to find liberals who can articulate a rationale for their point of view, but their ammunition is strictly attacking conservatives and conservatism. If you take that away from them they seem to have little or nothing to offer.
I want to be proved wrong about that perception. I hope some more thoughtful intelligent liberals as well as conservatives will chime in here to challenge or agree with one or more of the 10 statements on the list in the OP.
that is one of the points i've been discussing on a few other threads. most discussion cease to remain on the facts or issues and always end up being slanted, twisted, turned into some other non issue. before the discusion even begins the line is already drawn in the sand.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for your reply.
That's correct, I agree that it sometimes is a matter of semantics. For instance; I see the Flat tax as equality and fairness. Now many can argue what the tax rate should be, I would prefer that it would be around 10%. I also see a consumption tax to be the same, I think that the details and amount should be clearer. It would make people who are currently not paying taxes, pay taxes.
Not this "modern day Liberal"!
Here's my version of Liberalism:
When it comes to the Bill of Rights, I am like a pro-Second Amendment ACLU type.
When it comes to 'social safety nets', I do support them but I think that the 'help' has to be finite as well as repaid in the amount of 2% from someone's paycheck. I also think that once a person gets a job, they should still get those benefits for a few months, so they can catch up or get ahead. Thus they will hopefully be less likely to have the need to get those benefits again.
We already covered taxation.
I do believe that the States should be "individual laboratories of Democracy", as long as people's Constitutional rights are not infringed (see Jim Crow). Colorado and Washington state are good examples.
Gay marriage; I have no problem with it. I don't see it as a threat to my own heterosexual marriage.
Affirmative Action: I think that we should take steps to eliminate it, because if one has the desire and talent, as well as a work ethic to support the aforementioned, the sky is the limit. If there is any 'Affirmative Action', it should be based on economics and not race, as there are plenty of poor people from every 'race' . Our country has changed and is changing for the better in that regard. My wife is a teacher and when she covers the Civil Rights movement (2nd grade curriculum) the children are totally shocked. I personally think that those topics should be covered when the children are older, so they can have the good positive outlook they have now so they can look forward and not back.
Foreign Policy: I think that we need to be pretty much 'non-interventionist', we should be a Switzerland with the muscle (which we have already) to protect Our nation. We should always have a strong military and weaponry.
Religion:
I'm not in favor of 'school prayer', though I do think it would be good to offer Theology classes in public schools. I don't give a shit if people put a Cross, Menorah, Star & Crescent, etc. on public property during their holidays.
My problem with the current Administration, is that they are much like the prior Administration when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties issues. Not a few Conservatives like Hannity and co. are very interventionist and remember their statement; "If you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?". Now they suddenly are 'civil libertarians'.
I don't like that Obamacare is mandatory and comes with a penalty if you don't have a plan. I would prefer it to be like Medicare and people have to pay a premium if they want to join that large group policy.
