Back to Constitutional Conservatism

[DominionSeraph]

"A platform of constitutionally limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility"

This is your 18th Century? LOL

It won't work now. The conservative sense that their whiteness entitles them to govern by fiat, thus relieving them of any personal responsibility to be fair or for their beliefs to even begin to be based on fact, means that it's obvious to every non-conservatard that leaving conservatards to roam free isn't a very good idea. They have shown over and over again that they refuse to grow up and that they are incapable of governing themselves in a civilized manner, so the government is needed to baby-sit their behavior.

 

[NoStateofMind]

What's so great about the Constitution? I can't understand this nonsensical "limited government" mythology surrounding it. It always was and still is a piece of shit. I can provide two reasons why:

1. It served as the end-all-be-all legal justification for human chattel slavery for over 70 years in America. And that was no accident or loophole either, as many of the Founding Dads were wealthy landowners who loved them some "free" slave labor.

2. It has done absolutely NOTHING, in practice, to limit the size of government. Never has, never will. In fact, its ambiguous wording and nebulous intent has served to pave the way for our current monstrosity of a lawless, tyrannical government.

Wake the eff up already. There's no such thing as "limited government". Limited government is your classic oxymoron. You can't limit a legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force, which is precisely what government represents. The only entity powerful enough to limit government is another government (hint: competition).

The only result going back to constitutionally limited government will bring is the same result we already got the last time we tried it.

Yet that won't work either.

How long do you think a society like the one you represent (Anarchy) will stand? I'll tell you. Only as long as it takes the first buffoon to have more weapons, money or resource to lord it over another for their own selfish gain. Therefore there has to be a set of agreed upon laws to ensure the liberty of all. Without this adherence to law you end up with those who have more than another with power who will then institute their own set of laws and we have no idea what they will be. At least with the Constitution I know what the laws are and what it represents. Will we end up where we are now if we go back to it? Yes. only a matter of time. The same is true for Anarchy. A government will be set up because mans greed cannot be satisfied.

The difference in our opinions of Government (or lack thereof) is a matter of time. We end up here every time.

 

[NoStateofMind]

It won't work now. The conservative sense that their whiteness entitles them to govern by fiat, thus relieving them of any personal responsibility to be fair or for their beliefs to even begin to be based on fact, means that it's obvious to every non-conservatard that leaving conservatards to roam free isn't a very good idea. They have shown over and over again that they refuse to grow up and that they are incapable of governing themselves in a civilized manner, so the government is needed to baby-sit their behavior.

What a convoluted mess you are.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It won't work now. The conservative sense that their whiteness entitles them to govern by fiat, thus relieving them of any personal responsibility to be fair or for their beliefs to even begin to be based on fact, means that it's obvious to every non-conservatard that leaving conservatards to roam free isn't a very good idea. They have shown over and over again that they refuse to grow up and that they are incapable of governing themselves in a civilized manner, so the government is needed to baby-sit their behavior.

This is the result of their de-assimilation from American culture. They are now the "others" because they have chosen to no longer be American. We pity them for they are lost but have found each other.

 

[NoStateofMind]

exactly, it's either no government, or this.. this is what this level is..

we either rise above it (no government, eutopia) or we stay put...

Anarchy like that of a utopia is a fairytale. A society based on law is the best you can do and that in and of itself is a crap shoot. You have to rely on those enforcing the law to be honest which means it is likely to fail in time. Then we must 'reset' again.

 

[sigurros81]

Link



This is the truth IMO. I honestly don't think we will ever go back to a Constitutional government. We are too far down the road of liberalism for that to change now.

This conservative article is probably the most rationally written one I've read since Romney's defeat. I agree, if the GOP wants to salvage their ideologies, they need to shift their stances a bit away from the crazy shit they tend to go after. I think the Democratic victory is a good indicator that Americans are still pretty astute when it comes to sniffing out crazy.

In the history of mankind, has progress ever been made in the name of conservatism?

 

[Juror No. 8]

How long do you think a society like the one you represent (Anarchy) will stand? I'll tell you. Only as long as it takes the first buffoon to have more weapons, money or resource to lord it over another for their own selfish gain.

Good job, you just described government - buffoons with more weapons than anyone else, which they use to lord over others with.

Therefore there has to be a set of agreed upon laws to ensure the liberty of all.

Yes, and it's called "natural law", and it exists independent of government.

But I'm curious to know why a government is necessary to "ensure liberty" when the very existence of government is dependent on coercive taxes that violate liberty.

Can you explain this contradiction?

Without this adherence to law you end up with those who have more than another with power who will then institute their own set of laws and we have no idea what they will be.

Again, you're describing government without even realizing it. The government says, "We're the government and we get to tax (rob) you! You see, if we don't rob you to protect you from those who will rob you, you will be robbed!".

The government can't possibly protect anyone from being robbed without becoming the robbers themselves. In other words, the government has to violate natural law to impose its own laws ("stealing is against the law... except for us, of course!").

At least with the Constitution I know what the laws are and what it represents.

LOL. Tell me, what do you think the Constitution represents?

Will we end up where we are now if we go back to it? Yes. only a matter of time. The same is true for Anarchy. A government will be set up because mans greed cannot be satisfied.

The proper response to people who want to violate your rights to satisfy their own greedy ambitions is to denounce them, ostracize them, and, if they persist anyway, shoot at them, not call them "government" and accept whatever rules they impose on you, as you do.

The difference in our opinions of Government (or lack thereof) is a matter of time. We end up here every time.

No, people like you end up here every time, while people like me observe and laugh as you run around in circles chasing something (the limited government myth) you'll never achieve. It's akin to a dog chasing its own tail.

 

[dullard]

Their only hope is to be fiscally conservative (something the Republicans gave up 60 years ago) and socially moderate to liberal. That will be fundamentally different from the Democrats and it'll bring in votes without insulting the next group of voters.

Falsely claiming to be fiscally conservative isn't working.

Social conservatism is dead in this country.

Think hard. Why would America vote for the fiscally liberal / social oppression party that the Republicans have become?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Think hard. Why would America vote for the fiscally liberal / social oppression party that the Republicans have become?

Identity politics.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Anarchy like that of a utopia is a fairytale. A society based on law is the best you can do and that in and of itself is a crap shoot. You have to rely on those enforcing the law to be honest which means it is likely to fail in time. Then we must 'reset' again.

So much misinformation to sift through, so little time.

Anarchy (i.e., " no rulers"), isn't a fairytale, it's the way things should be and what rational people should strive for. The real fairytale, limited, or any government at all, is the real fairytale. The world as we know it is living proof. It simply doesn't work. All it leads to is society's biggest human predators getting control of the machinery of government and living at the expense of everyone else.

A society based on law is a society that rejects government, as no man has the right to rule over and live at the expense of any other man. To claim that we must have government is the exact same as claiming we must have rulers.

You even admit that the system has to continually be "reset". This should be your first clue indicating that this system is dysfunctional and inoperable.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Ahh, the "I don't like losing the game so let's not put the toys away but burn them", strategy. (aka, the whiny bitch).

The fiscal problem is relatively easy to solve. The Dems did it before. Cutting the military back to 2001 levels (adjusted for inflation) would be about 1/4 of the current deficit. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts is about another 1/4, then shrinking some other government entities could get most of the remainder taken care of. However, the GOP doesn't want any of that. So yes, let them die.

The Simpson-Bowles plan which was about 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases has gotten far more support on the right than on the left. You can define your team as the good guys all you want, but their positions are not consistent with your own.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Good job, you just described government - buffoons with more weapons than anyone else, which they use to lord over others with.



Yes, and it's called "natural law", and it exists independent of government.

But I'm curious to know why a government is necessary to "ensure liberty" when the very existence of government is dependent on coercive taxes that violate liberty.

Can you explain this contradiction?



Again, you're describing government without even realizing it. The government says, "We're the government and we get to tax (rob) you! You see, if we don't rob you to protect you from those who will rob you, you will be robbed!".

The government can't possibly protect anyone from being robbed without becoming the robbers themselves. In other words, the government has to violate natural law to impose its own laws ("stealing is against the law... except for us, of course!").



LOL. Tell me, what do you think the Constitution represents?



The proper response to people who want to violate your rights to satisfy their own greedy ambitions is to denounce them, ostracize them, and, if they persist anyway, shoot at them, not call them "government" and accept whatever rules they impose on you, as you do.



No, people like you end up here every time, while people like me observe and laugh as you run around in circles chasing something (the limited government myth) you'll never achieve. It's akin to a dog chasing its own tail.

Your silly argument only works if everyone agrees with your false equivalence, that is taxes are theft, or under a dictatorship/monarchy.

It certainly doesnt apply to a representative democracy.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You'd like to believe that you can enjoy those ideas up until the big government uses it authority and force to crack the whip and let you know whose in charge.

Or the monster under my bed eats me at night amirite?

 

[sandorski]

Turning Hard Right hasn't worked. Will turning even harder Right be the solution? I don't think so.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Your silly argument only works if everyone agrees with your false equivalence, that is taxes are theft, or under a dictatorship/monarchy.

What's false about it, specifically? A robber says, "give me your money, or else!". The government says, "give us your money, or else!". If you don't give a robber the money he demands, he's likely to bring harm to you. If you don't give a government the money they demand, they are likely to bring harm to you.

Looks pretty much the same to me.

It certainly doesnt apply to a representative democracy.

Of course it does. Theft is theft. It doesn't matter if it comes in the form of a pickpocket or a government. The definition is still the same.

What else have you got?

 

[DominionSeraph]

So much misinformation to sift through, so little time.

Anarchy (i.e., " no rulers"), isn't a fairytale, it's the way things should be and what rational people should strive for. The real fairytale, limited, or any government at all, is the real fairytale. The world as we know it is living proof. It simply doesn't work. All it leads to is society's biggest human predators getting control of the machinery of government and living at the expense of everyone else.

A society based on law is a society that rejects government, as no man has the right to rule over and live at the expense of any other man. To claim that we must have government is the exact same as claiming we must have rulers.

And just who will enforce all of your "shoulds"?
It is a fairy tale to believe that government will not form. The potential profit of thievery is too great. If I can band together a posse whose strength of violence can net me first choice of women, first choice of the food on your table, and power to force you to labor to build me a home of my choice on the land of my choosing... what makes you think I will not put together such a thing to govern you so?
You will be governed by tyrants unless you put together a force that can defeat them. And that is government as well.

What's false about it, specifically? A robber says, "give me your money, or else!". The government says, "give us your money, or else!". If you don't give a robber the money he demands, he's likely to bring harm to you. If you don't give a government the money they demand, they are likely to bring harm to you.

The difference is that the latter is by consent of the People. The force against tyranny needs to hand out a little motivation to keep everyone on the same page or else the system will collapse as everyone tries to squeeze their payments to net a profit, but that doesn't make it a force of abject tyranny. It is internal housekeeping of a system that represents your interests, not leverage against you from an external source representing someone else.

This is assuming that the mainstream media isn't lying about its existence.

 

[Juror No. 8]

And just who will enforce all of your "shoulds"?

People will. People can and will defend their rights.

It is a fairy tale to believe that government will not form.

Of course thugs will attempt to form legalized extortion rackets. The question is, why should anyone allow them to?

The potential profit of thievery is too great. If I can band together a posse whose strength of violence can net me first choice of women, first choice of the food on your table, and power to force you to labor to build me a home of my choice on the land of my choosing... what makes you think I will not put together such a thing to govern you so?

Because you value your own life too much too risk it on trying to violently lord over others. If you live your life respecting the lives of others and minding your own business, it's likely you'll have a long, peaceful life. People tend to treat you how you treat them. If you live your life trying to rob and exploit everyone you meet, it's likely you'll live a short, violent, and very painful life.

The choice is yours, of course.

You will be governed by tyrants unless you put together a force that can defeat them. And that is government as well.

No, people voluntarily banding together in common defense against a temporary enemy is not a government.

A government is something much different.

The difference is that the latter is by consent of the People.

This is a myth. People don't consent to government so much as they tolerate its existence, because they have little other choice.

Governments don't give two shits whether you consent or not.

The force against tyranny needs to hand out a little motivation to keep everyone on the same page or else the system will collapse as everyone tries to squeeze their payments to net a profit, but that doesn't make it a force of abject tyranny.

Of course it does. If the force against tyranny has to behave tyrannically to be a force against tyranny, there's absolutely no point in it.

If I have to kill you to save your life, did I ever really save it?

It is internal housekeeping of a system that represents your interests, not leverage against you from an external source representing someone else.

The U.S. government DOES NOT represent my interests. I have no interest drug wars, killing brown people, citizen surveillance, a police state, corporate welfare, wealth redistribution, or anything else this Mafia of a government does.

 

[Siddhartha]

To get another 1% of the voters, all the GOP has to do is drop its xenophobia towards brown people and different religions, and stay out of people's bedrooms and personal lives.

Would that be considered moving to the center?

 

[DominionSeraph]

People will. People can and will defend their rights.

To defend yourself against all who would infringe places you in a constant state of war. For all to be in a constant state of war is inefficient.

Of course thugs will attempt to form legalized extortion rackets. The question is, why should anyone allow them to?

You don't seem to understand that there is this thing called "defeat." I didn't say that my posse was going to be asking nicely. If you do not have a government that can defeat us, we will govern you.

Because you value your own life too much too risk it on trying to violently lord over others.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide

If you live your life trying to rob and exploit everyone you meet, it's likely you'll live a short, violent, and very painful life.

Serfs live a short, grueling life. Given the choice, I'd rather be the winner than the loser.

No, people voluntarily banding together in common defense against a temporary enemy is not a government.

You are governing the enemy. You are threatening everyone in your group with the law, "It is illegal to act the enemy of our group."
Next step is to take collections from the group for the common defense.
Step after that is to coerce anyone whose payments aren't covering the benefits received, as otherwise the group disintegrates. In disintegration of the main, sub-groups will form with coercive power over the others. Woohoo, warfare! Tyranny! Because the central government failed.

This is a myth. People don't consent to government so much as they tolerate its existence, because they have little other choice.

Any time you have two people whose spheres of influence overlap, you will have government.

Of course it does. If the force against tyranny has to behave tyrannically to be a force against tyranny, there's absolutely no point in it.

If I have to kill you to save your life, did I ever really save it?

If I have to whip you into giving my army its payment of one cow out of your herd of 20, and my army does its job and stops the army in the neighboring country from coming in, murdering you, and walking off with your cattle, has my whipping for one cow cost you the same as 20 cows plus your life?
If our protection of your property makes it economically viable for you to expand your operation, so now you have 100 cattle, how much worse off are you than you were when you were being killed by your neighbors for your 20?

The U.S. government DOES NOT represent my interests. I have no interest drug wars, killing brown people, citizen surveillance, a police state, corporate welfare, wealth redistribution, or anything else this Mafia of a government does.

So leave.
If you don't like having clean water, safe food, capped monopolies, truth in advertising keeping the market above-board, protected IP making costly innovation worthwhile, open infrastructure, the threat of lawsuits or criminal charges protecting you from others' actions to the point where most won't even be pondering how best to remove you from your worldly possessions when they meet you, and an army to protect you from groups who can abuse you on a systemic level, go somewhere where you are devoid such things.
Try Somalia. I'm sure your "Can't We All Just Love And Respect One Another" system will win everyone right over, white boy.

 

[DominionSeraph]

To get another 1% of the voters, all the GOP has to do is drop its xenophobia towards brown people and different religions, and stay out of people's bedrooms and personal lives.

Next election they'd have 29% of the vote, and the "Xenophobic towards brown people and different religions and right there in your bedroom with you" party would have 20%.

 

[feralkid]

Do we get cool wigs?

I want a cool wig.

More likely to get whigs.

 

[fskimospy]

So much misinformation to sift through, so little time.

Anarchy (i.e., " no rulers"), isn't a fairytale, it's the way things should be and what rational people should strive for. The real fairytale, limited, or any government at all, is the real fairytale. The world as we know it is living proof. It simply doesn't work. All it leads to is society's biggest human predators getting control of the machinery of government and living at the expense of everyone else.

A society based on law is a society that rejects government, as no man has the right to rule over and live at the expense of any other man. To claim that we must have government is the exact same as claiming we must have rulers.

You even admit that the system has to continually be "reset". This should be your first clue indicating that this system is dysfunctional and inoperable.

Yeah, anarchy is so successful that anarchic societies have functionally ceased to exist. The world as we know it is living proof. Anarchy competed in the marketplace of ideas and it lost, over and over again. Don't be mad, it's just the market at work.

Anarchy is simply a circuitous road to despotism. It's only pushed by for fools who have the luxury of never having to actually see their ideas implemented, and therefore will never be held accountable for their awfulness.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Another thread that could have been decent, destroyed by Douchebag Number Eight.

 

[Juror No. 8]

To defend yourself against all who would infringe places you in a constant state of war. For all to be in a constant state of war is inefficient.

You're mistaking vigilance for war. They are not the same. I live in a city with a lot of violent crime. Armed robberies are more common than in most other parts of the country, other than Baltimore, Detroit, and Miami. Because I am aware of this, I am always vigilant, which makes me a lousy target. However, this doesn't mean I am in a constant state of war with armed robbers. It just means that I have my eyes open and am always mentally prepared to defend myself.

You don't seem to understand that there is this thing called "defeat." I didn't say that my posse was going to be asking nicely. If you do not have a government that can defeat us, we will govern you.

Why would I need a government to defeat you? Wouldn't an equivalent posse, or a posse of greater number and strength, provide enough to deterrent to either chase you off or scare you straight?

I acknowledge that there will be violent crime with or without government. My argument is simple, don't ever legalize or legitimize it. And certainly don't ever call it government and allow it to consolidate centralized power.

Serfs live a short, grueling life. Given the choice, I'd rather be the winner than the loser.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you'd choose a life of violent, immoral crime over a life of peaceful interaction if it meant you'd be living a more comfortable life?

You are governing the enemy.

No. A woman who fights off a rapist, for instance, isn't instituting a government over the rapist. She's merely defending herself against his aggression, as she has the right to do.

That's not government.

You are threatening everyone in your group with the law, "It is illegal to act the enemy of our group."

That's a stretch. By telling a man that he is not allowed to enslave me, that I have a right to be free and to live my life for my own purpose, I am not threatening him or governing him. He is free to go about his business as long as respects my rights.

Next step is to take collections from the group for the common defense.

Sure, as long as they are voluntary.

I have no problem with donations, charities, or lotteries.

Step after that is to coerce anyone whose payments aren't covering the benefits received, as otherwise the group disintegrates.

So, in your worldview, people can't form voluntary groups for mutual benefit without coercing each other? That all such groups eventually disintegrate without violent coercion?

Now that's pretty cynical. Needless to say, I don't find it a valid observation.

In disintegration of the main, sub-groups will form with coercive power over the others. Woohoo, warfare! Tyranny! Because the central government failed.

Your premises are faulty.

Any time you have two people whose spheres of influence overlap, you will have government.

The term 'government' has multiple definitions, and you seem to be attempting to use all of them interchangeably with organized government (a legal monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force).

Power and group dynamics between individuals and collectives does not necessarily mean 'government' as I am using the term here.

If I have to whip you into giving my army its payment of one cow out of your herd of 20, and my army does its job and stops the army in the neighboring country from coming in, murdering you, and walking off with your cattle, has my whipping for one cow cost you the same as 20 cows plus your life?

Was the payment agreed to before hand? Was there a mutually agreed upon contract or bargain requiring me to render payment for your services upon completion? Was full, informed disclosure involved?

If the answer is no, then you and your army essentially represent an extortion racket. Am I supposed to be thankful that you only want 5 percent and not more?

If our protection of your property makes it economically viable for you to expand your operation, so now you have 100 cattle, how much worse off are you than you were when you were being killed by your neighbors for your 20?

I'm a victim either way, right? Isn't that what you are saying? I'm either a victim of my neighbors or I'm a victim of your extortion racket. I can either stand on principle against my neighbors, or I can sigh a deal with the devil and legitimize your scam.

I choose the former.

So leave.

If you don't like people like me dissenting with the system as it exists, maybe it's you who should leave.

If you don't like having clean water, safe food...

Yes, clean water and safe food didn't exist until government created it or made its existence possible. Of course.

capped monopolies

Really? Who or what caps the U.S. government monopoly?

truth in advertising keeping the market above-board

I'm not so sure about that. False and/or misleading advertising is a way of life in American commerce.

protected IP making costly innovation worthwhile

I don't believe in IP. Ideas aren't property, and I've never heard of or read a single argument in support of IP that makes any logical sense.

the threat of lawsuits or criminal charges protecting you from others actions to the point where most won't be pondering how best to remove you from your worldly possessions when they meet you

Say what? We live in the land of frivolous lawsuits. We live in the land of criminal charges. There are literally thousands upon thousands of laws on the books. There are so many laws, in fact, that legal experts say that every American has been or is, at one time or another, in violation of those laws and can be arrested for it. The government has set up a system where it has cause to arrest ANYONE it wants to arrest. All they have to do is figure out which legal tripwire you've crossed and they've got you in a position of disadvantage.

By the way, the government removes me of my worldly possession every time it steals money out of my paycheck.

and an army to protect you from groups who can abuse you on a systemic level, go somewhere else.

Really? The U.S. government is a group who can abuse me on a systemic level. When do you think the army might start protecting me?

LOL.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Adopting the core principals, the core foundation of philosophy of individual freedom and less government intrusion in the lives of Americans is going back toward the path of liberty.

The only party i see pushing for that is the Democratic party, both the GOP and the libertians have been arguing against individual freedom.

There is no party that is pushing the classical liberal agenda in the US but if you could get your thumbs out of your arses and allow Jon Huntsman to run then you'd have someone that was actually closer than any other representative has been and that includes Ron "i just want the theocratic state to become a reality" Paul.