NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Hell, I'm a conservative. I'm for legal pot, legal prostitution, small military, small government, HUGE personal freedom. I fit quite nicely into several definitions of conservatism.
You sound more like a libertarian than a conservative.
Libertarians are a type of conservative, really. Small government would be the natural state a Fiscal Conservative government would evolve into. The Notion of Freedom to the "pursuit of happiness" is written right into our core documents, nothing more conservative and "individualist" than believing the concepts this country was founded on.
No, where does it say Religion shall guide us, no where does it say the outward projection of power is a key function of government(world police). No where does it state that the government owes anyone an income, or job security. It doesn't.
So, a conservative in the sense of the original intent of our founding documents, would be quite similiar to a libertarian, even if the reasons were different.
Many modern day conservatives, I have difficulty in determining what exactly they are trying to conserve or principles they deem worth protecting, overall. As that is the essential meaning of the label. Many I'd suggest belong on some radical branch of the Liberal side of the tree, moreso than the conservative side. I'm not saying they represent main stream liberalism but rather a radical form.
Various defininitions of Liberal:
broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...having political or social views favoring reform and progress tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties The central tenant of liberalism it would seem is that of tolerance and change. Thus the inverse which we tend to say is conservative, would be the resistance to change. Thus a "conservative" that wants to change to something new would be liberal in reality. That is why I say Neo-Cons aren't trully a branch of conservatism because they work towards new interpretations and a new set of rules, while giving up on the old as antiquated.
The problem I have with Liberalism in general is that "Change" is accepted to rapidly and often without proper examination of the consequence, as if "Change" will naturally always be a good change. However, that is not on point.
Me, I'd be happy with eliminating nearly every change that has occured between the first day of our founding, to now, barring, slavery, and womens equality. The rest could be scrapped, and is junk for the most part that impedes individuals. I'm sure there are a few good ideas that I'm overlooking right now, but point is 90% of what the government (federal) is involved in it wasn't at one point, and most of it is not needed.
So, I'd differ in that I'd say libertarianism is a branch of conservatism, in that it is pretty well equivalent to the original condition this country was in when founded as far as the rules are concerned not perfect but closer, of course a few good changes have happened, like I said, ban slavery(which should have never existed it seems as slavery is in contradiction to the Declaration of Independence).
Anyway, besides slavery and women getting dumped on, I see what we had in nearly every other regard being far superior in terms of personal freedom. Technology, IMO, makes up for the rest of the progress, we have now.
At the least it is far superior than what we have today which is MegaCorps protected and payrolled by government, MegaBanks again protected and payrolled by government. Selective enforcement, Race Baiting, Pitting group against group for spots at the federal tit. The inability to own property. The forced disclosure of your complete financial history, or else face jail time. The government claiming your income and selecting what percentage you get to keep. Forced Paying via property tax for schools that teach more than there share of propaganda. Inability to install a toilet in my property without paying the "real" owner a fee, and begging for permission. The inability to select the risk level I desire without being arbitrarily penalized by government (seat belt laws, Mandatory Insurance laws, etc.). It's mostly just a litany of reduced freedom of choice, with rare bright spots of improvement.
Anyway, I think I'm highly conservative, I wonder about some others that say they are conservative.
Anyway, this country is so far from its founding intent it could be Stalins Russia and I don't see any reason to think it is going to stop "evolving" into the nanny state it pretty well is already.
I'd think a better question would be why do Neo-Cons say they are conservative, or why does bush claim to be conservative. Or Bush senior that openly declared the need for a new world order in a speech. As stated, calls for radical change is a liberal concept not conservative. Reducing rights that have been established for decades or centuries is liberal it isn't conservative, in ;the pure since of the word.
Ultimately the problem is so many claim the word Liberal and Conservative that essentially it can mean anything. However, I tend to not much care, as the core meaning of the words are there, and represent the true meaning to me anyway.
No one gets confused when some says they want to conserve water. (Resist Change)
Liberal (Promote Change).
In my view there has been way to much change, coming from both the Liberals and those that say they are "conservative", no one is protecting the fundamental rights, it's all an orgy of change. Patriot Act there is no way that can be interpreted as protecting liberties. Pre-emptive war is not a conservative principle, as that was not the way we functioned according to the original documents.
So, my personal conclusion is there is a great lack of conservatism in this country, the way I see it. There is an ocean swell of Change, coming from both directions, for different reasons, and no one even seems concerned that we were never meant to even allow the government to be involved in such things.
Oh well, many well, disagree, that's fine. However, many of the problems if not most are a result of previous "change" that just got passed right through in the name of doing good, protectionism, or fear. I doubt we'd be having this meltdown without government involvement in Housing for example. I doubt the banks would be so risky if they knew the government would not bail them out. I doubt people would be as adverse to being educated if there were only charities to keep them fed if they couldn't find a job. I doubt the jails would be so packed with "government made criminals" if such things such as drug use was decriminalized. I doubt the terrorist would have attacked us, if we weren't constantly policing the world. Not to say they were right to do so, just to say we would not have been on their minds, and in their faces to give them such an idea.
Anyway, what many see as "improvements" I see as error. But I ramble, the basic reason I see myself as a conservative, is because my goal is to try to perserve what fragments that are left of individual freedoms and that is best outlined in our basic founding principles, plus a few clarifications to prevent abuses like slavery.
|
RE: Maijuana and Capitalism - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread