Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

In a couple of other threads I have participated in recently, the point is made that conservatives and/or libertarians and/or classical liberals believe deeply in the soundness of their particular beliefs and/or ideology, but are lousy at defining what those are. This thread I hope will give us all a chance to explain WHY we hold the beliefs and convictions that we do.

How do you describe modern American conservatism and/or libertarianism (small "L")? It seems that the two terms are often interchangeable with the primary difference being that American conservatives tolerate more government involvement in social issues. True libertarians don't want the federal government involved in social issues other than to protect and defend the people's right to govern themselves as they choose. Probably most of us who identify with one or both fall somewhere in the middle of that.

While I do not necessarily consider my opinions universal among American conservatives and/or libertarians, I describe the terms as mostly a belief in:

--Individual liberty, i.e. the unalienable right of every citizen to live his/her life as he/she chooses, to speak what he/she things, to believe what he/she believes, and aspire to whatever he/she aspires with impunity so long as nobody else's liberties are infringed and so long as no participation or contribution is required of anybody else.

--Social contract, i.e. the people's right to organize themselves and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have with whatever mutual cooperation, laws, rules, regulations they deem appropriate again so long as nobody else's unalienable rights are infringed and no participation or contribution is required of anybody else.

--Small, necessary, effective, efficient, affordable central government that derives its authority from the people, i.e. a government that does only what is necessary to protect our borders and citizens from outside threats, and that enforces only what projects, policy, laws and regulations are necessary to allow the various states to function as one cohesive nation and prevent the various states from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other.

--Respect and defense of borders, language, culture, i.e. appreciation for the uniqueness and exceptionalism for the nation of the United States of America and the principles upon which it was founded.

And in fine tuning, and within the fundamentals already described, I think I share personal convictions with many American conservatives and/or libertarians in a belief in:

--Respect for flag, country, the Constitution, and traditional American values
--Respect for free speech, a free press, and freedom of religious views and practices
--Civil order and keeping of the peace, enforcement of reasonable laws
--Security of our borders and ability to control who will be in the country legally
--Free trade as much as possible and a market driven economy
--Personal responsibility and accountability
--Every citizen has the right to pursue happiness and he/she defines that, but nobody has the right to demand that others provide that for them.
--Every citizen has the right to equal protection under the law
--Every citizen has the right to self defense of his/her person, family, property
--The best government promotes the people providing for the general welfare as the people see necessary and fit rather than dictating what that will be
--Laws should be determined by democratic vote or via the people's lawfully elected representatives and not by unelected bureaucrats and/or the courts.
--The courts should be restricted to interpreting existing law and are not given authority to rewrite the law to suit themselves.

There is more that could be included here, but I think this is a good start.

It is the intention of the OP that this not become yet another thread for trolls to post insults re any person, political party, group, or ideology. But thoughtful criticism with an explanation of WHY a policy or concept is opposed is appropriate.

Example:

All ________ are idiots (or insert insulting adjective of choice). Not helpful.
I don't accept _____as a workable concept or policy because ______. Helpful

So why are you a conservative and/or libertarian and/or classical liberal? What keeps you on that side of the political equation? Can you put it into words objectively so that others can understand?

The poll choices are multiple choice and you can change your vote.

 

I'm a simple man. I just know freedom is a zero sum game: the more power government has, the less power the people have.

Big government of any kind (socialist, communist, fascist, Islamic/sharia, etc.) is evil. The U.S. in the years after 1776 was the most free nation that ever existed on this planet, and we've slowly lost some of that in the 2+ centuries since then.

 

Okay sticking with my suggested guidelines in the OP, WHY and HOW is socialism, communism, fascism, Islam/sharia evil? While I certainly believe aspects of all can be evil, I don't necessarily think those who embrace those forms of government are necessarily evil or that those who live in those systems feel necessarily oppressed, victimized, or are unhappy about it. Some would probably reject the Founders concept of government as they envisioned it in the late 18th Century.

I do believe a government as the Founder envisioned it to be far superior to any of the others because I believe in the fundamental human spirit and instinct that desires liberty as much as it desires security and/or certainty. And I believe that fundamental human spirit released to be what it could become in 1776, and with the belief that a people would govern themselves to their own benefit far more than any government would ever govern them, produced what would become the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most prosperous, most powerful, most benevolent nation on Earth.

I do agree that we have been steadily moving away from the Founder's concepts to embrace more and more authoritarian government, and I believe that should the radical left obtain power, the United States of America as the Founders envisioned it would cease to exist.

 

One point to add with respect to the social contract and the definition of a republic is that Gov't has no ability to make law messing with individual liberty - of its own volition. To make such law requires an appeal to a change to the social contract - and such a change (as per the definition of "republic" requires overwhelming majority consent = NOT 50+1 majority or simple majority mandate - that politician can make law messing with liberty on the basis of getting elected. Overwhelming majority is at least 2/3rd's consent of "we the people".

 

And yet we have passively allowed the government, especially the federal government, whittle away at our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities over the years. If enough people don't wake up and say enough, we will eventually lose them all or at least they won't be protected. The government will have assumed power to have complete authority to dictate what rights we can have on any given day, what speech, thought, belief we are allowed to express, what we can and cannot own, etc. We will be completely at the mercy and/or benevolence of the government for our very existance.

In other words we will no longer be the country that the Founders risked everything they had, including their lives, to give us and will again have become subjects of government that can decide if it will bless or punish us at will.

 

I voted for all but "Defense of our language, borders, culture, and keeping the peace"

I don't believe that government should be defending our language or culture. That's up to the people of the country, not the government. We don't live in the same culture we did when I was in elementary school in the 1970s. I don't expect us to live in the same culture of today in the 2030s. Culture changes, as does language. I don't want us to have language or culture police.

 

Not " no longer be" my friend - we no longer are. We have fallen so far down the slippery slope that we can not longer see the mountain top.

The purpose of the founding principles was to limit Gov't power. For 200 years Gov't has been trying to get that power back (as all Gov't is wont to do) and it has succeeded.

The safeguards put in place to protect individual liberty are either gone - or in the process of being removed.

This nation was founded on what "Give me liberty or Give me Death" - and Franklin "those who would give up individual liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

We are now a nation of citizens on their knees and cowering in corners in fear "begging" to give up individual liberty. This fear OMG - let me tell you it is scary - so bad is this fear that the risk of harm is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking" - such a danger is this threat that you have double the odds of being hit by a meteor.

It is now our "Patriotic Duty" to trade individual liberty for security.

The founders knew well the age old trick of using fear of an external threat to get the citizens to give up liberty and to give Gov't more power.

Stalin knew this trick - trade liberty for security - "Security for the Motherland"
Hitler did the same "Fatherland Security"

Bush lacking the creative ability to come up with a new name "Homeland Security"

Obama came along and changed the name of the Patriot Act - act which makes it our patriotic duty to give up liberty - to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act"

In defense of the NSA spying on US citizens en masse - Obama said "If we want increased security - we have to give a little"

We have no transparency in Gov't. Crimes of Gov't are now rendered "Top Secret" and classified so the people do not find out. Whistleblowers are persecuted - (not talking Snowden or Manning but those who tried to use legitimate channels) and the criminals are protected.

 

I put promotion and defense of a common language in the same category as the constitutional expectation of the central government to promote the general welfare. No the government should not dictate what language people must speak in their homes, in their own places of business, on the street, etc. But a common language is important to the welfare of all and to the benefit of each individual. There are roughly 6900 known languages and dialects spoken on Planet Earth at this time. There is no way we can warn all our citizens of traffic hazards, weather advisories, hazards of all kinds, instructions, directions, etc. in all those languages. Let alone conduct private or government business.

So for a long time now the basic requirements for citizenship have included:

• basic understanding of the English language, including the ability to speak, read, and write simple common words and phrases, and
• a basic knowledge and understanding of our laws, U.S. history, and the U.S. form of government, also known as "civics."

Further at least a basic working knowledge of the language helps new immigrants assimilate far more quickly and efficiently and effectively than if they do not speak or understand the common language.

And I strongly oppose new immigrants coming in and demanding that we change our culture to accommodate them and the culture they came from. If they don't want to be Americans and/or don't like the unique American culture, then don't come here. And if they do come, they should expect to be Americans first.

 

I simply am not willing to believe we have lost it all. At least not yet. I do see how we are in imminent danger, however. But one of the purposes of this thread is for us to instruct each other on how to put out a simple, cohesive, accurate, and important conservative message in this 30-second-sound bite world we have created.

I have to believe that we are in a majority even if a lot of it is silent. With some encouragement, inspiration, and maybe a bit of training, I have to believe we can still make a difference and turn back the Marxist/fascist tide that threatens to overtake us.

 

I disagree totally with language and culture. The government has no legitimate business deciding either of those. That said, all the government signs etc. should be in English, unless there are good reasons not to be (such as tourist areas (national parks, etc. which should have multiple languages). Most of the language decisions should be in the hands of the business people, not government. If I want to advertise in Swahili and nothing else, I should be allowed to. (that said, I shouldn't be surprised if my business fails, but that's liberty for you).

Immigrants are going to change the culture. They should. That's the strength of America. That concept is as American as apple pie (brought over by the Germans), pizza, and tacos. We didn't become a world power because we stuck to British culture.

 

You are entitled to your opinion of course. America did not shift from British culture to something else overnight. But as a result of liberty to be themselves, the immigrants from England, especially when mixed with all the other cultures that came, would evolve into a uniquely American culture. New immigrants should assimilate into the unique American culture and flavor and enrich it with what they bring with them. They should not be able to demand that we change our culture to emulate or even accommodate what they left behind to come here.

 

I honestly don't know what liberties, choices, options and opportunities have been whittled away. The country the Founders risked everything for was an experiment that continues to this day. The country ebbs and flows with the times. Sometimes ahead and sometimes behind, but always trying. The Founders didn't create Eden. There was still slavery, women were chattel and not everyone could vote.
It's gotten better.

 

I agree that there is hope - The problem is that most do not understand what has happened/is happening. 12 years of school and we manage not to teach the founding principles... Just spent a page explaining to someone why the authority of Gov't in this nation does not come from God. 12 years and we do not teach the basics of Philosophy - logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument - and so on. Just the basics of critical thinking.

Without these basic tools - how is average Joe supposed to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on a daily basis from Politicians and the MSM.

You say "marxist/fascist" - but this is only half the picture. The attack on the safeguards is coming from both sides of the fence .. and the Establishment is not just Red and Blue Politicians and bureaucratic elite. The folks pulling the strings are the big money interests.

In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens (not like they were not doing this previously but now it is State Sanctioned ... )

There is big money pouring into controlling your thoughts .... keeping you buying into the necessary illusions and selling you down the road - keeping you as an indentured servant. The budget if our intelligence agencies is 80 Billion/yr (and 50 Billion for Dark projects) = 130 Billion/year - much of which goes to contractors.

That's twice the entire federal spend of Mexico -a nation that is 11th in the world in terms of purchasing power. These people do not work for you .. they work for the Establishment interests.

The military is not out there protecting the homeland - they are out there conducting foreign policy on behalf of big money interests - and trying to justify the over 1 Trillion dollar annual total Military/Defense spend.

Then you have the media .. the MSM - who is owned by these same interests peddling fear and National Enquirer style news - doing what they like so long as they do not question the Establishment narrative of the day or challenge any "necessary illusions".

Keep in mind that at the end of the day- "someone/group" has to run the show. If it were not these folks - it would be someone else.

I call our system the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy fusion monster. At the end of the day extreme socialism and extreme capitalism meet at the far end of the spectrum. In both cases you get a few elite controlling most resources and means of production. We have somehow managed to combine some of the worst elements of both into an ugly monster.

And it is not easy to fight - where would one start ? Don't think that this time it will be like Stalin's Russia or Hitlers Germany.. why would it be.. the powers at be are far more sophisticated but the name of the game is still the same - keep the people from rising up and challenging the Establishment and taking power.

 

Checked all but,

Elected representatives should make all laws affecting the people materially.

This is what IMO, degrades a Free Society.

Sadly, our dependence on this, seems only to grow.

 

Some things have gotten wonderfully better yes. And some things are unimaginably worse. The Founders knew there would be mistakes, missteps, and we would need to back up, change course, adjust, regroup, etc. And they provided a way to amend our Constitution when we needed to do so.

Currently nobody knows for sure how many federal laws, rules, regulations there are, but the best estimates are some 20,000 federal laws and hundreds of thousands of federal regulations that have the effect of law on the books. President Trump is doing what he can to whittle that down but he would need decades to go through everything to determine what is necessary, what is obsolete, what can be eliminated, what needs to be added. And added to that are all the various state and county and local laws, rules, regualtions.

But you can be sure that all that massive load of legal stuff is considerably reducing your personal liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

 

What I intended with that poll option was that if government is going to make laws that affect us materially--what we are allowed to buy, where we are allowed to go, how much of our money the government can take for its purposes, etc., then we should have full say in that either through referendum or through our lawfully elected representatives who should vote yay or nay on everything that affects us that way.

Faceless bureaucrats accountable to nobody and unelected judges should not have any authority to enact regulation or make laws or rulings in that regard.

 

While I freely admit to currently being well medicated, I'm pretty sure I agree.

 

Every law you can conceive of messes with individual liberty in one way the other.

 

Some laws, rules, regulation are necessary. Traffic lights for instance, governed by the full force of the law, dictate when we can legally go and when we can't, which technically infringes on a liberty of sorts, but it is beneficial to all in creating a much more orderly flow of traffic and makes it safer for everybody without seriously infringing on our liberties. I see something like that as promoting the GENERAL (i.e. everybody's) welfare.

A law requiring racial or other kinds of quotas in education, hiring, etc. etc. has mixed value. It prevents certain people from being arbitrarily left out of the equation, but it can also increases injustice and lowers quality when qualified people are shut out to accommodate a less qualified quota.

A law that confiscates property of one citizen who legally earned it and giving that property to somebody who didn't earn it is difficult to condone, but could have some limited social merit.

A regulation that people cannot cut away the brush crowding their homes because it might be habitat for some endangered rat and thereby makes the homeowner AND the rats at higher risk to be burned out in a wildfire is just insanely wrong.

 

Honestly, no I can not be sure (at all) that there is a reduction in liberties, choices, options and opportunities. As an example of liberties, the NRA used to be FOR gun control but now they have gone off the deep end. Choices......ask a woman about those. Options are closing but only because we are becoming (or are now) a class system society. The class system also cuts down on opportunities.
How many federal laws, rules, regulations should a 243 yr. old nation have? Screws fall out all the time, it's an imperfect world. Do some regulations go to far? Sure, but know that there are many that don't go far enough.......all for the sake of liberty. This country is like a prizefighter, they all have a plan until the get hit.
Trump "doing what he can" is, I'm sorry, laugh out loud funny. Some schmuck comes in with an Obama regulation and he ends it. He doesn't think about why or consequences. Obama bad, me good. Reality is not his strong suit.

 

Well you feel what you feel. But I do not want this to become either an Obama bashing or Trump bashing thread. There are dozens and dozens of other threads out there to do that.

I don't support all, but I do support most of President Trump's policies because they're working and yielding good things. And almost every one is something that fits on that list of poll options up there even though I am pretty sure that he isn't operating from any conscious sense of ideology and probably doesn't know whether he is liberal or conservative and doesn't care.

 

Of course some laws are necessary, for any safe and sane society. That does not mean that even those necessary laws do not impinge upon ones freedom of action.

But one should also understand freedom and liberty are not the same. While there are many things I am free to do there are also many things that I will not do because they put others at risk.

 

Odd
You don't want this to become an Obama bashing or Trump bashing post but you don't have a problem at all praising Trump.

Wait......you do know that you just said that racial quotas lower quality. Why would you say that.
Also....by preventing people from being arbitrarily left out is what makes the practice justified.

 

I do not praise President Trump on this thread other than give him props for promoting conservative/libertarian values/policy even though he probably is unaware that promoting conservative/libertarian values is what he is doing. (There is another active thread for appreciating President Trump.)

What I said specifically about racial quotas is and I quote verbatim:

A law requiring racial or other kinds of quotas in education, hiring, etc. etc. has mixed value. It prevents certain people from being arbitrarily left out of the equation, but it can also increase injustice and lowers quality when qualified people are shut out to accommodate a less qualified quota.​

I can say that because it is true. Arbitrarily passing over qualified candidates for no other reason than personal prejudice or bigotry is unjust. It can even lower the quality of the group or workforce.

But when more the qualified, more prepared, more worthy applicant is passed over in favor of taking a less qualified, less prepared, less worthy applicant in order to meet some specified quota, that is just as unjust and it lowers the quality of the group or workforce as well.

Modern American conservatism/libertarianism is honest and realistic even though honesty and realism is very often politically incorrect.

 

Don't you get that you are saying that the people being helped by such a law are not as qualified simply because of who they are. #sad
Read what you said again. Twice you qualified your statement with CAN but then threw that away.