What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Foxfyre]

Yet the self defined conservatives have not answered the basic question.

Well, as I said, that's because they caannot - no one can.

Would you care to reply and list a half dozen or more principles you hold which make you a conservative?

That's a different question.

I'll give you four:

-Great personal freedom = Great personal responsibility
You can choose to do what you want, but in doing so you also choose to accept the consequences for your action. You don't get to choose to make whatever decisions you want then expect others to forgive you for whatever damage you nay have caused or bail you out from the costs incurred. This applies to all aspects of life, from the point where you start making dscisions for yourself to the point where you stop.

-You, aand no one else, are responsible for you.
Your life is what you make of it. If you want to eat, buy food. If you want to be warm, buy clothes and a place to live. If you want to be safe, acquire the means to protect yourself. No one owes you these things and no one shold ever be put in a position of being forced to give them to you.

Related to above...

-You have no right to impose your morality on others
You may think it is wrong to let people starve, et al, but you have no right to force that morality on me - especially if you're the sort of person who will whine and cry should anyone ever try to do the same to you.

Similarly related...

-Government exists to protect the rgihts of the people, not provide them with the means to ecercise those rights.
This is the natural extension of the points noted above applied to the role of government. Following this principle will allievate any and all issues regarding debt/deficit/spending/revenue/taxes.

Sorry, I didn't respond until now. I appreciate your actual effort to list principles which have lead you to characterize yourself as a conservative, that you are one of the few (only?) able to do so is commendable.

Of course I agree in theory with your first principle; yet, in the real world I can think of a number of reasons why someone cannot act in the manner prescribed and must rely on an outside source, sometimes for their very survival.

I believe we all have accepted the social contract, either by affirmation or by default. By calling the police or EMT's one tacitly accepts the fact that no man is an island unto himself. We all have needs, many of us have the wit, wisdom and wherewithal to make it on our own. Others through fortune of birth, illness or accident do not.

Some bring misfortune upon themselves. I'm sure we both accept that as true. The cost, for example, to society of drug or alcohol abuse and addiction is enormous. Do we as a society allow such maladies to fester and grow or do we try to interdict?

Do we let the aged, infirm, disabled or children suffer? Or do we as a society decide to share our good fortune with those who are less fortunate?

I understand the Libertarian ideals and how one might find them to be the answer in the abstract. But in the real world, not so much. I see myself as pragmatic and reject the dogma of organized religion and political purity.

Sorry for the delay and once again thank you for your response.

Again focusing on what American Conservatism in the 21st Century is:

No, "we" don't allow the aged, infirm, disabled, and children "suffer" needlessly and the Conservative will more often accept personal responsibility to help hands on or through voluntary charitable organizations. At the state or local level, the Conservative will likely approve bond issues that fund a government agency to provide certain services such as a senior center that offers a hot lunch for a dollar or two along with other services or a city van to transport folks to doctors' appointments etc. Conservatives approve of social services that would remove a child from a neglectful or abusive situation or regulate a nursing home to ensure that helpless patients are not neglected or abused.

For free people, compassion is a necessary but voluntary choice.

For charity to be voluntary is essential if we are to be a free people. No matter how seemingly noble the reason, once government has power to take whatever it wants of what you have, you are not a free person nor do you own anything. And you have also built automatic corruption into the system both into government and in the recipients of government 'benevolence".

 

[Nic_Driver]

As I said....
You have no right to impose your morality on others
You may think it is wrong to let old/poor people starve, et al,...

This is it, in a nutshell.

It is wrong to let old/poor people starve.

 

[Dr.Drock]

As I said....
You have no right to impose your morality on others
You may think it is wrong to let old/poor people starve, et al,...

This is it, in a nutshell.

It is wrong to let old/poor people starve.

Exactly, so we should be able to donate OUR money to efficienct charities rather than force our money to be taken from us and given to an inefficienct gov't and put faith in the morals of politicians and bureacrats.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe we all have accepted the social contract, either by affirmation or by default. By calling the police or EMT's one tacitly accepts the fact that no man is an island unto himself. We all have needs, many of us have the wit, wisdom and wherewithal to make it on our own. Others through fortune of birth, illness or accident do not.

Wrong. How did I accept the so-called "social contract," by being born? How do you accept a contract "by default?" I doubt you'll find any judge in America that agrees with that novel legal proposition. The "social contract" is a con invented to brainwash people into believing that they have agreed to the taxes and regulations the government imposes on them. I have never agreed to any such thing, and given the chance I never would. No one else has either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, as I said, that's because they caannot - no one can.


That's a different question.

I'll give you four:

-Great personal freedom = Great personal responsibility
You can choose to do what you want, but in doing so you also choose to accept the consequences for your action. You don't get to choose to make whatever decisions you want then expect others to forgive you for whatever damage you nay have caused or bail you out from the costs incurred. This applies to all aspects of life, from the point where you start making dscisions for yourself to the point where you stop.

-You, aand no one else, are responsible for you.
Your life is what you make of it. If you want to eat, buy food. If you want to be warm, buy clothes and a place to live. If you want to be safe, acquire the means to protect yourself. No one owes you these things and no one shold ever be put in a position of being forced to give them to you.

Related to above...

-You have no right to impose your morality on others
You may think it is wrong to let people starve, et al, but you have no right to force that morality on me - especially if you're the sort of person who will whine and cry should anyone ever try to do the same to you.

Similarly related...

-Government exists to protect the rgihts of the people, not provide them with the means to ecercise those rights.
This is the natural extension of the points noted above applied to the role of government. Following this principle will allievate any and all issues regarding debt/deficit/spending/revenue/taxes.

Of course I agree in theory with your first principle; yet, in the real world I can think of a number of reasons why someone cannot act in the manner prescribed and must rely on an outside source, sometimes for their very survival.

Not sure how this applies to my first principle, which discusses direct, personal responsibility for one's own actions.



Ok... and? See principle #3 and #4.



if you screw up, you get yourself out of it. if you suffer, you suffer.
You are responsible for you.

Do we let the aged, infirm, disabled or children suffer? Or do we as a society decide to share our good fortune with those who are less fortunate?

As I said....
You have no right to impose your morality on others
You may think it is wrong to let old/poor people starve, et al,...

I understand the Libertarian ideals and how one might find them to be the answer in the abstract. But in the real world, not so much.

On the contrary -- the 'solutions' developed from the principles are perfectly applicable to the real world; you simply refuse to accept those solutions due to your sense of morality and would rather force others to act according to your version of morality rather than let the unfortunate slip to the wayside.

Imposing ones' morality on others is among the most egregious acts one can commit.

Interesting, isn't that what you are doing, trying to convince me of the righteousness of your moral ideology?

I credit you with explaining what you believe and why; I simply disagree. The principles you outlined would lead to some very troubling outcomes for our nation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I said....
You have no right to impose your morality on others
You may think it is wrong to let old/poor people starve, et al,...

This is it, in a nutshell.
It is wrong to let old/poor people starve.

To repeat myself:

...you would force others to act according to your version of morality rather than let the unfortunate slip to the wayside.

Imposing ones' morality on others is among the most egregious acts one can commit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lol it's you're naive hunny bunny. If you're going to attack someone's mental capacity be able to use the proper words, like any 3rd grade elementary student would be expected to.

But no it would be you that's naive. Bernie Madoff doesn't control the tax rate, your government heroes do. Less taxes and less government spending=more money in your pocket=more money you can save, and even the worst, biggest rip off of savings account will give you more than social security does.

The ONLY argument the lovers of social security can use is that government is better with your money than you are, which is as pathetic as it gets.

Millions of Americans receive their Soc. Sec. checks each month and have for years. How much did Madoff's investors receive?

Keep in mind we the people can change the federal government every two years; no one was able to vet Bernie and have him removed from 'office' nor the CEO's of the too big to fail who managed to lose billions of dollars of money placed in their trust.

It's unfortunate that the OWS has been co opted by petty criminals and extreme leftists, almost as unfortunate as the conservative movement has been co opted by far right extremists. Luckily the real protesters of OWS have recognized extremism isn't tolerated by mainstream Americans and distanced themselves from the radicals. OWS is cleaning house and refining their message.

Too bad real conservatives haven't the balls to do so.

Why quote someone's response when you don't reply to anything I say?

Yes the SS checks keep coming, the point is any SAVINGS account (not investment acconut) would provide a far better return than social security does. Social Security is nothing more than robbing people by scheming them with propaganda.

Put more money in people's pockets by gettin rid of SS and providing them with a tax cut and they can use those funds to make more money in a savings account than SS could ever provide. How ANYONE could view that as a bad thing is shocking.

It's another instance of how partisan politics conquers everything, even common sense.

SS payements do not end, if one lives past their savings accounts how will they survive?

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe we all have accepted the social contract, either by affirmation or by default. By calling the police or EMT's one tacitly accepts the fact that no man is an island unto himself. We all have needs, many of us have the wit, wisdom and wherewithal to make it on our own. Others through fortune of birth, illness or accident do not.

Wrong. How did I accept to the so-called "social contract," by being born? How do you accept a contract "by default?" I doubt you'll find any judge in America that agrees with that novel legal proposition. The "social contract" is a con invented to brainwash people into believing that they have agreed to the taxes and regulations the government imposes on them. I have never agreed to any such thing, and given the chance I never would. No one else has either.

A gentle correction. That which the government imposes on us without our consent is not social contract.

Social contract is how we the people CHOOSE to organize ourselves for a more orderly and cohesive society for the mutual benefit of all. The Police and Fire Depts. (as well as utilities, sewer system, shared roads etc.) are decided as beneficial shared services by the community who will vote to fund them. Those who subsequently move into or are born into that community will then benefit from those services; however if he or she does not wish to participate he or she has full right to move out of that community and seek one in which everybody provides their own security and fire protection etc.

The social contract is the ordinances and regulation that is seen by the whole community as necessary to maintain order and protect the rights of all. It is what services the people themselves determine to share and fund as beneficial to all rather than each person providing such services for himself/herself. And again, it is the prerogative of those who do not wish to participate to remove themselves from the community and live elsewhere. That is what freedom looks like.

Obviously, if the law or service is ordered by the Federal government, there is no place for anybody to go other than leave the country. Freedom is squashed. That is not social contract.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course I agree in theory with your first principle; yet, in the real world I can think of a number of reasons why someone cannot act in the manner prescribed and must rely on an outside source, sometimes for their very survival.

Not sure how this applies to my first principle, which discusses direct, personal responsibility for one's own actions.



Ok... and? See principle #3 and #4.



if you screw up, you get yourself out of it. if you suffer, you suffer.
You are responsible for you.



As I said....
You have no right to impose your morality on others
You may think it is wrong to let old/poor people starve, et al,...

I understand the Libertarian ideals and how one might find them to be the answer in the abstract. But in the real world, not so much.

On the contrary -- the 'solutions' developed from the principles are perfectly applicable to the real world; you simply refuse to accept those solutions due to your sense of morality and would rather force others to act according to your version of morality rather than let the unfortunate slip to the wayside.

Imposing ones' morality on others is among the most egregious acts one can commit.

Interesting, isn't that what you are doing, trying to convince me of the righteousness of your moral ideology?

Even if I were doing so, trying to convice you that one moral position is superior to another is light years away from forcing you to adhere to one of those moral positions.

Aside from that, your response neither negates my points nor defends yours.

The principles you outlined would lead to some very troubling outcomes for our nation.

Who are you to force others to adhere to your version of morality?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Millions of Americans receive their Soc. Sec. checks each month and have for years. How much did Madoff's investors receive?

Keep in mind we the people can change the federal government every two years; no one was able to vet Bernie and have him removed from 'office' nor the CEO's of the too big to fail who managed to lose billions of dollars of money placed in their trust.

It's unfortunate that the OWS has been co opted by petty criminals and extreme leftists, almost as unfortunate as the conservative movement has been co opted by far right extremists. Luckily the real protesters of OWS have recognized extremism isn't tolerated by mainstream Americans and distanced themselves from the radicals. OWS is cleaning house and refining their message.

Too bad real conservatives haven't the balls to do so.

Why quote someone's response when you don't reply to anything I say?

Yes the SS checks keep coming, the point is any SAVINGS account (not investment acconut) would provide a far better return than social security does. Social Security is nothing more than robbing people by scheming them with propaganda.

Put more money in people's pockets by gettin rid of SS and providing them with a tax cut and they can use those funds to make more money in a savings account than SS could ever provide. How ANYONE could view that as a bad thing is shocking.

It's another instance of how partisan politics conquers everything, even common sense.

SS payements do not end, if one lives past their savings accounts how will they survive?

Again, your argument is gov't knows what better than you do how you should invest your money.

That's my whole point, that I disagree with that premise.

I have more faith in americans, and their ability to save than I have faith in gov't and their ability to save. So I'd rather have more money in americans hands, where you prefer it be in gov'ts hands to decide what to do with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe we all have accepted the social contract, either by affirmation or by default. By calling the police or EMT's one tacitly accepts the fact that no man is an island unto himself. We all have needs, many of us have the wit, wisdom and wherewithal to make it on our own. Others through fortune of birth, illness or accident do not.

Wrong. How did I accept to the so-called "social contract," by being born? How do you accept a contract "by default?" I doubt you'll find any judge in America that agrees with that novel legal proposition. The "social contract" is a con invented to brainwash people into believing that they have agreed to the taxes and regulations the government imposes on them. I have never agreed to any such thing, and given the chance I never would. No one else has either.

A gentle correction. That which the government imposes on us without our cionsent is not social contract.

"Social Contract", in context, is a menaingless term used to convince those that know no better that they have a legally enforceable moral responsibility to help those less fortunate. There is no sound basis for this argument as the discharge of all moral responsibilites is voluntary.

 

[PrometheusBound]

1. My Daddy's rich, which makes me better than you. Or:
2. I hate my Daddy for not becoming rich and spoiling me. Maybe if I support everything the rich do, they will adopt me. I will be accepted into the Country Club, where they will pat me on the head and say, "Nice boy! We forgive you for not being born rich."

 

[M14 Shooter]

SS payements do not end

Given that SS benefits can be changed, even eliminated, at any time, there's no way you can say that with any certainty.

If one lives past their savings accounts how will they survive?

People are responsible for themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. My Daddy's rich, which makes me better than you. Or:
2. I hate my Daddy for not becoming rich and spoiling me. Maybe if I support everything the rich do, they will adopt me. I will be accepted into the Country Club, where they will pat me on the head and say, "Nice boy! We forgive you for not being born rich."

Thank you for lowering the level of dicussion by at least two orders of magnitude.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe we all have accepted the social contract, either by affirmation or by default. By calling the police or EMT's one tacitly accepts the fact that no man is an island unto himself. We all have needs, many of us have the wit, wisdom and wherewithal to make it on our own. Others through fortune of birth, illness or accident do not.

Wrong. How did I accept to the so-called "social contract," by being born? How do you accept a contract "by default?" I doubt you'll find any judge in America that agrees with that novel legal proposition. The "social contract" is a con invented to brainwash people into believing that they have agreed to the taxes and regulations the government imposes on them. I have never agreed to any such thing, and given the chance I never would. No one else has either.

A gentle correction. That which the government imposes on us without our consent is not social contract.

Social contract is how we the people CHOOSE to organize ourselves for a more orderly and cohesive society for the mutual benefit of all. The Police and Fire Depts. (as well as utilities, sewer system, shared roads etc.) are decided as beneficial shared services by the community who will vote to fund them. Those who subsequently move into or are born into that community will then benefit from those services; however if he or she does not wish to participate he or she has full right to move out of that community and seek one in which everybody provides their own security and fire protection etc.

Wrong. that isn't the so-called "social contract" either. It's no more voluntary than agreeing to pay Guido the leg breaker is "insurance" money because you setup a business in his "turf." I don't consent to anything simply because I purchase a piece of property in a given local. Third parties who weren't involved in the transaction have no authority to impose anything on me. They certainly don't have my "consent."

The social contract is the ordinances and regulation that is seen by the whole community as necessary to maintain order and protect the rights of all. It is what services the people themselves determine to share and fund as beneficial to all rather than each person providing such services for himself/herself. And again, it is the prerogative of those who do not wish to participate to remove themselves from the community and live elsewhere. That is what freedom looks like.

No, that isn't what freedom looks like. Telling "the community" to go to hell when they attempt to impose their "services" on you is what freedom looks like

Obviously, if the law or service is ordered by the Federal government, there is no place for anybody to go other than leave the country. Freedom is squashed. That is not social contract.

Sure there is. They can go to Mexico or Canada. Your line of reasoning is indistinguishable from those claiming the federal income tax is a product of the "social contract."

There is no "social contract," period. It's a myth and a scam.

 

[bripat9643]

Get this, everyone: Wry Catcher sends my a private message asking me to "please go away."

The poor baby just can stand the heat!

 

[bripat9643]

SS payements do not end, if one lives past their savings accounts how will they survive?

Apparently, if they are your parents, they won't live very long.

 

[PrometheusBound]

1. My Daddy's rich, which makes me better than you. Or:
2. I hate my Daddy for not becoming rich and spoiling me. Maybe if I support everything the rich do, they will adopt me. I will be accepted into the Country Club, where they will pat me on the head and say, "Nice boy! We forgive you for not being born rich."

Thank you for lowering the level of dicussion by at least two orders of magnitude.

The ranting of the bluebloods and brownnoses is too loud. I toned it down so we could hear what they are really saying.

 

[bripat9643]

Interesting, isn't that what you are doing, trying to convince me of the righteousness of your moral ideology?

I credit you with explaining what you believe and why; I simply disagree. The principles you outlined would lead to some very troubling outcomes for our nation.

What "troubling outcomes," a balanced budget, a prosperous society?

Yes, personal responsibility sure is "troubling."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting, isn't that what you are doing, trying to convince me of the righteousness of your moral ideology?

I credit you with explaining what you believe and why; I simply disagree. The principles you outlined would lead to some very troubling outcomes for our nation.

What "troubling outcomes," a balanced budget, a prosperous society?

One where people take responsibility for themsleves and do not have someone elses' morality shoved down their throats?
Gee, that would suck.