Fundamentals of conservatism

[Aus22]

Dawkinrocks, Although I agree with some of you comments may I point out that statement "That most Socialist or Labor parties in the West"was founded by Catholics was made by me who are neither Conservative or American. I know the Australian Labor Party was founded By Catholic. Many Catholic left during the Anti Communist hysteria of the 1950s. But many remained.

I am not saying that Atheists were not active in the Labor party and formed some Socialist parties in the East. I think the danger of Conservatism that it clings to the past.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr Who, et al,

These are certainly important concepts and fundamental to America. But there is something else.


(COMMENT)

There is a growing need in America for a new breed of politician, a person of integrity, and good moral character. A person that understands that when they are elected to represent their constituents to Washington, that they set aside their personal beliefs and becomes one that serves the interests of the people that elected them to office.

So many times an elected official goes to Washington thinking that they are there to exercise their personal agenda, for the furtherance of their influence and power. This is the cornerstone to the problem of gridlock in Washington. They are not acting in the best interest of the constituency that elected them, but in the name of something else.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think these are the attributes that people most hoped to see in Obama the first time around. I think this is waht tea partiers wanted also.

yes a candidate that makes claims to be this will be very popular. Could it be that so few politicians claim to be this because so few are?

 

[Dr.Who]

Your list is the same as my Beliefs except Limited Government . And I am not a Conservative but a Socialists.

Then let me be clear that all of the rights I mentioned were individual rights. And all of these rights are necessarily subverted to the state in socialism which begins, by definition, as being opposed to individual property rights.

Once cannot be both a supporter of individual property rights and at the same time be a supporter of the contradictory view of government called socialism.

If any of you believe that the reason stealing is wrong is because people have a right to keep what they earn with their own labors then if you are to be at all consistent then you must oppose socialism for the same reason.

 

[Hobo1]

What do you think are the most important and positive?

I would brainstrorm and say:

limited gov
life, lib, and pursuit of happiness (including property rights)
free speech
freedom of religion
rule of law

I understand what you are driving at, but they are pretty abstract for someone who is really trying to understand conservatism.

For example, instead of limited government, I would say a government that provides security against foreign aggressors, provide only necessary regulations that control the excesses of capitalism, provide a safety net of protections for people unable to care for themselves, provide essential services/projects that are too large for the States to provide on their own. Money required to run the essential services listed above shall be collected in each year through a simple progressive tax so as to never run a debt or have extra money.

This is a little clearer think.

 

[GenSeneca]

The US is a cess pit and the GOP is a bunch of rich white nazis who manipulate idiots to write illiterate crap like ''Most Socialist or Labor Parties in the western world are form by Catholic''

Aus22 is a socialist, just like you.

 

[Aus22]

Then let me be clear that all of the rights I mentioned were individual rights. And all of these rights are necessarily subverted to the state in socialism which begins, by definition, as being opposed to individual property rights.

Once cannot be both a supporter of individual property rights and at the same time be a supporter of the contradictory view of government called socialism.

If any of you believe that the reason stealing is wrong is because people have a right to keep what they earn with their own labors then if you are to be at all consistent then you must oppose socialism for the same reason.

In the Original statement it said protect rights including property rights. Socialism does protect some property rights. In countries control by Socialist not Communist you have a right to your house and reasonable property. In fact as most countries that have socialist or labor governments are democrative no property can be seized without compensation.

 

[PLC1]

It's the three R's:

the Right to make individual choices,
taking Responsibility for those choices, and
living with the Results of those choices.

Right, Responsibility, and Results, the three R's

The purpose of government is outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Governments are instituted among men for the purpose of preserving our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[dogtowner]

In the Original statement it said protect rights including property rights. Socialism does protect some property rights. In countries control by Socialist not Communist you have a right to your house and reasonable property. In fact as most countries that have socialist or labor governments are democrative no property can be seized without compensation.

SOME property rights
REASONABLE property
and government determined compensation

this is not protection mate, can you really not see this ? this is barely illusion as anyone can see through it for what it is.

 

[dogtowner]

It's the three R's:

the Right to make individual choices,
taking Responsibility for those choices, and
living with the Results of those choices.

Right, Responsibility, and Results, the three R's

The purpose of government is outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Governments are instituted among men for the purpose of preserving our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

well ours used to be that way but few others even come close.

 

[PLC1]

In the Original statement it said protect rights including property rights. Socialism does protect some property rights. In countries control by Socialist not Communist you have a right to your house and reasonable property. In fact as most countries that have socialist or labor governments are democrative no property can be seized without compensation.

Property can be seized in the USA despite what it says in the Constitution. All the government has to do is accuse the owner of dealing drugs. No proof or evidence of any sort is required.

And now, you can be locked up if you're accused of terrorism. Again, no due process of law required, just the say so of the authorities.

 

[Hobo1]

Do you mean the government confiscating illegal drugs - that's not taking property. Yes, if you are accused of being a terrorist, you will be held in jail awaiting trail. In times of war, this right has been violated - which I feel was wrong.

 

[PLC1]

Do you mean the government confiscating illegal drugs - that's not taking property. Yes, if you are accused of being a terrorist, you will be held in jail awaiting trail. In times of war, this right has been violated - which I feel was wrong.

No, I'm referring to asset forfeiture laws.

Note the use of the word "alleged". Nothing has to be proven. The victim of the theft does not have to be convicted, nor even arrested or indicted. All it takes is an allegation by authorities. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

And I'm referring to the National Defense Authorization Act.

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism.

Note the use of the word "suspected", which is a synonym for "alleged". No trial necessary, just an accusation.

Again, blatantly unconstitutional.

As long as we allow big, authoritarian government to ignore the Constitution and take life, liberty, and property without due process, all of our freedoms are in jeopardy.

 

[Dr.Who]

I understand what you are driving at, but they are pretty abstract for someone who is really trying to understand conservatism.

For example, instead of limited government, I would say a government that provides security against foreign aggressors, provide only necessary regulations that control the excesses of capitalism, provide a safety net of protections for people unable to care for themselves, provide essential services/projects that are too large for the States to provide on their own. Money required to run the essential services listed above shall be collected in each year through a simple progressive tax so as to never run a debt or have extra money.

This is a little clearer think.

Clearer but mistaken. wrong because no regulations are needed to control the imaginary excesses of capitalism, no government safety net is needed when a private one is much better, projects too large for the states are provided for in the constitution and no others need to be added ( they would just be abused), progressive taxes are evil, you will never be able to trust a large gov to tax in such a way as to never run a debt or have extra money.

instead lets just stick to what the constitution says limited gov is.

 

[Dr.Who]

In the Original statement it said protect rights including property rights. Socialism does protect some property rights. In countries control by Socialist not Communist you have a right to your house and reasonable property. In fact as most countries that have socialist or labor governments are democrative no property can be seized without compensation.

Granting the government the general power to control property but having that gov provide some paper guarantee that one or two property rights will be protected is not really what is meant by protecting property rights. That is not really protecting property rights - that is lip service.

I good example of protecting property rights would be to start with the assumptions that every single thing a man works for is his first and foremost and that it can only be taken away for a just cause with due process and for a compelling reason.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's the three R's:

the Right to make individual choices,
taking Responsibility for those choices, and
living with the Results of those choices.

Right, Responsibility, and Results, the three R's

The purpose of government is outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Governments are instituted among men for the purpose of preserving our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is this what you believe?