Author Topic: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'  (Read 5064 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2019, 02:12:18 pm »
I think there is a good case to be made for your position.  But American Conservatives in fact argue for lower individual tax rates.  Why?  American Conservatism as Strict Constitutionality cannot explain why American Conservatives argue for lower individual tax rates.

American Conservatism as Strict Constitutionality is for requiring limited government.  Limiting taxes is limiting government.  At least in concept without regards for unlimited printing of "money".
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2019, 02:17:55 pm »
American Conservatism as Strict Constitutionality is for requiring limited government.  Limiting taxes is limiting government.  At least in concept without regards for unlimited printing of "money".

Excellent point, and certainly true.  But if limited government is the single principle, why are we not Libertarians?  Why do we argue that marriage should be regulated as one man/one woman?  That's more government, not less.

Again, I think there are very good reasons for our argument on marriage.  But I don't think those reasons fall into a "limited government" philosophy.
James 1:20

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2019, 02:26:02 pm »
Excellent point, and certainly true.  But if limited government is the single principle, why are we not Libertarians?  Why do we argue that marriage should be regulated as one man/one woman?  That's more government, not less.

Again, I think there are very good reasons for our argument on marriage.  But I don't think those reasons fall into a "limited government" philosophy.

I agree.  Limited government is not the one and only principle for conservativism.  It is more complex and covers more topics.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2019, 02:28:51 pm »
Our government was empowered by us (Citizens of the several, United States) for the purpose of protecting the rights of The People, meaning the citizens who would cede those powers to OUR government for the express purpose of protecting OUR Rights. That permission establishes the compact, for OUR people, of OUR people, and by OUR people.

That's it in a nutshell, @Smokin Joe


Quote
Depart from that, and the government loses its legitimacy.

And there's the money shot, and here's why:

Quote
For Government to grant those Rights

I don't know if you misspoke, but in fact, that statement is very accurate.
We must remember that government does not grant rights.
And to venture beyond her aegis and jurisdiction is to do that exactly.

The compact assembled is limited to what it is *for*, namely the establishment of the United States of America. It can do no other.
 

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2019, 02:34:03 pm »
I agree.  Limited government is not the one and only principle for conservativism.  It is more complex and covers more topics.

Thanks @thackney, of course I agree.

Perhaps my quest for the Single Conservative Principle is Quixotic.  But my overall belief is that failures in general thinking lead to failures in specific thinking, and American Conservatives have, in my opinion, failed in a number of specifics.  My hypothesis, which I cannot really test, is that improved general thinking might have led to some different outcomes.
James 1:20

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2019, 02:38:31 pm »
Thanks @thackney, of course I agree.

Perhaps my quest for the Single Conservative Principle is Quixotic.  But my overall belief is that failures in general thinking lead to failures in specific thinking, and American Conservatives have, in my opinion, failed in a number of specifics.  My hypothesis, which I cannot really test, is that improved general thinking might have led to some different outcomes.

Hence my "strict adherence to the Constitution doctrine" and I decidedly do not mean as interpreted by nine unelected judges. I mean according to the plain English language words as written.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 02:40:47 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2019, 02:57:39 pm »
Thanks @thackney, of course I agree.

Perhaps my quest for the Single Conservative Principle is Quixotic.

I believe it is not that simple.  Even God had to use at least two:  Matthew 22:36-40

Quote
  But my overall belief is that failures in general thinking lead to failures in specific thinking, and American Conservatives have, in my opinion, failed in a number of specifics.  My hypothesis, which I cannot really test, is that improved general thinking might have led to some different outcomes.

I can agree with that.  Might even have led to improvements.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2019, 03:28:41 pm »
While I agree with much you've both stated, about results, I don't think either of you has closed the gap I've posed in reasoning.  If I'm correct, this is not a difference that should separate us, rather one that should call us to further collaborative thinking, as iron sharpens iron.


Absolutely, and good morning @HoustonSam .

For the sake of clarity, I will reply to your post in two missives. this first addresses Conservatism, and the rest will follow in another post. In this case, while I strive, I am seldom considered a proponent of brevity, and in my style, I am afraid my post would be so long as to be unreadable... In a word, two tomes are better than one.

And I will preface my remarks with the proposal that your argument with regard to Conservatism deserves its own thread = With any luck it would garner enough views and replies to really pound it out... But for the moment, my reply:

Quote
I agree fully that people claim to be conservatives, but then argue for some distortion of it, or demonstrate that they are nothing of the sort even as they extol it.

But I still do not know a *definition* of American Conservatism. 

That is, in effect, a complicated thing. not in its essence, but in its aspect.

To begin with a knee-jerk compilation, I would have to fall back upon the political aspect, which is the one most argued here.

But then there is a philosophical aspect I might call 'The American Way' - A way of life that is grounded in Americana. That is far harder to quantify, because, like the accents and colloquialisms of this broad land, it changes some depending if you are talking rural or blue collar, Maine or Montana...

And there is an academic aspect that endeavors to steer American Conservatism down the paths of classical and/or ancient Conservatism.

So to whittle it down to a singular definition is hardly possible - But then, I would argue the same of any philosophy.

Quote
*Not* a list of example positions nor a taxonomy of distinct-but-mutually-supportive schools of thought, but a *single* principle that unifies low taxes, sanctity of unborn life, traditional marriage, RKBA, etc.  Is the principle a moral one?  The "progressives" believe their own morality, what distinguishes ours?  Is the principle spiritual?  What does that have to do with low taxes?  Is the principle fiscal?  How does that justify pro-life?  Is the principle about individuality?  Then on what grounds do we argue against the distortion of sex and gender and the legality of homosexual marriage?

If there is a singular definition in modernity, it would have to be found in Goldwater libertarianism, and perepherally, the factions built around it (Constitutional conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and defense/foreign policy conservatism... I would argue that Goldwater was needfully expanded by Reagan to include yet another faction, that being the Christian Right. While civil libertarians (Goldwater) tend to be Christian, modern liberal advances against the moral fiber (abortion, feminism, no fault divorce) raised a hue and cry, which formed the start of the political entity called social conservatism... and Reagan was kind enough to offer them a seat at the Conservative table.

Why Conservatism in this sense is so ephemeral, is because it is factional - Each of the factions conserve their own immovable truths - I would submit that Reagan taught us that each of the factions need the others, and that there can be no Conservatism that does not include them all. And I will happily argue that as a philosophy.

Your disparate examples are because you are picking principles from various factions - and all very valid in their kinds... Where they unify is in Reagan Conservatism.

Quote
I suspect the failure to articulate a single unifying principle is a large part of the reason that American Conservatism has, in my opinion, failed. 

No, Conservatism has not failed. Which principle things, which truths have proven to be false?

Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition.
Until conservatives realize the danger of concatenating Conservatism with the Republican party, there will continue to be no  opposition.


Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2019, 03:41:50 pm »
Absolutely, and good morning @HoustonSam .

For the sake of clarity, I will reply to your post in two missives. this first addresses Conservatism, and the rest will follow in another post. In this case, while I strive, I am seldom considered a proponent of brevity, and in my style, I am afraid my post would be so long as to be unreadable... In a word, two tomes are better than one.

And I will preface my remarks with the proposal that your argument with regard to Conservatism deserves its own thread = With any luck it would garner enough views and replies to really pound it out... But for the moment, my reply:

That is, in effect, a complicated thing. not in its essence, but in its aspect.

To begin with a knee-jerk compilation, I would have to fall back upon the political aspect, which is the one most argued here.

But then there is a philosophical aspect I might call 'The American Way' - A way of life that is grounded in Americana. That is far harder to quantify, because, like the accents and colloquialisms of this broad land, it changes some depending if you are talking rural or blue collar, Maine or Montana...

And there is an academic aspect that endeavors to steer American Conservatism down the paths of classical and/or ancient Conservatism.

So to whittle it down to a singular definition is hardly possible - But then, I would argue the same of any philosophy.

If there is a singular definition in modernity, it would have to be found in Goldwater libertarianism, and perepherally, the factions built around it (Constitutional conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and defense/foreign policy conservatism... I would argue that Goldwater was needfully expanded by Reagan to include yet another faction, that being the Christian Right. While civil libertarians (Goldwater) tend to be Christian, modern liberal advances against the moral fiber (abortion, feminism, no fault divorce) raised a hue and cry, which formed the start of the political entity called social conservatism... and Reagan was kind enough to offer them a seat at the Conservative table.

Why Conservatism in this sense is so ephemeral, is because it is factional - Each of the factions conserve their own immovable truths - I would submit that Reagan taught us that each of the factions need the others, and that there can be no Conservatism that does not include them all. And I will happily argue that as a philosophy.

Your disparate examples are because you are picking principles from various factions - and all very valid in their kinds... Where they unify is in Reagan Conservatism.

No, Conservatism has not failed. Which principle things, which truths have proven to be false?

Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition.
Until conservatives realize the danger of concatenating Conservatism with the Republican party, there will continue to be no  opposition.

With ALL due respect @roamer_1, I believe that you are making something really simple needlessly complex.  Maybe it's just me. But on this point "Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition." I agree with you 1000%!
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 03:50:55 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2019, 03:45:16 pm »
No, Conservatism has not failed. Which principle things, which truths have proven to be false?

Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition.
Until conservatives realize the danger of concatenating Conservatism with the Republican party, there will continue to be no  opposition.

I'll catch up with you in detail later @roamer_1.  For now, I don't argue that the verities have been disproven; they are in fact verities, whether recognized or not.  I argue that *Conservatism*, a philosophy advocated and practiced by men, has failed precisely because the verities are no longer recognized as such.

I agree with you, liberalism is winning.  It controls the academy, reigns supreme in the media, and determines social policy in government and HR policy in private commerce.  And I hold that those outcomes are failures of Conservatism.
James 1:20

Offline EdJames

  • Certified Trump Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,791
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2019, 03:59:13 pm »
Thanks @EdJames, that is a great addition to the thoughts here.  I need to reflect on it a bit more however.

One one extreme I can certainly see that citizenship is necessary to individual property rights - if there were no political entities, if all men (or all families) were completely independent units with no affiliation among themselves, only the property of the strongest would be secure, and then only so long as weaker men did not temporarily ally themselves against the stronger.  I suppose that's inherent in the nature of the Social Contract - we associate ourselves together in order to gain the benefits of law, not least of which is the security of property.

What about the other extreme?  I'm certainly not an advocate of One World Government, but if it existed, if we were not 7 billion completely independent atoms, or 200(?) nations, but in fact *all* citizens of *one* entity, would that idea of citizenship be necessary to property rights?  I suppose our current understanding of citizenship is as much exclusive as inclusive, but if we did have One World Government it would be purely inclusive; there would be only one Social Contract.  Still, I suppose that single social Contract would be necessary to the security of property.

So I guess it's the contract, more than the idea of citizenship, that seems to me necessary to the security of property.  Since we don't have One World Government, but many different Social Contracts, the citizenship idea is necessary to associate a given individual with a given Social Contract.

I certainly don't find your idea too simple.  It merits significant additional thought.

Thanks!

I am interested in reading the thoughts of yourself and others on this topic.

Thanks for taking the time to bring such a discussion to the thread!!

Offline EdJames

  • Certified Trump Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,791
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2019, 04:00:23 pm »
Nope!  Not at all too simple and I concur.

I think there is some merit.  Hopefully we can give it some thought.

Offline EdJames

  • Certified Trump Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,791
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2019, 04:02:04 pm »
I think this is the right track.  Start with smaller group, say a gated community.  They own the communal property and have the right to control access.  This concept scales up allowing for more public access with larger communities.

Thanks for the input, good thought about working upward from a smaller group.  I don't know that we need to go beyond a nation at the upper end of the scale.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,280
  • FR Class of '98
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2019, 09:16:51 pm »
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367771.msg2005847.html#msg2005847

Hey @don-o ... Over here...
@roamer_1
Appreciate the ping and will at least try to read  the thread. As time passes, I feel less inclined for the polemics. I am interested in looking at the history that forged our present, as well as at the erosion of the virtues, as quaint as such a notion may be.

Offline AllThatJazzZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,306
  • Gender: Female
  • Adopt your next pet, preferably a senior.
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2019, 10:08:12 pm »
BKMK


A government big enough to give you everything you want
is a government big enough to take away everything you have.


Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2019, 11:08:43 pm »
Reflective commentary.
Conservatism, a body of permanent truths, influences the attitudes,
behaviors, impulses and sentiments of human nature, a constant.
It is correctly divorced from economics, political ideology and religion.
The Natural Law, born w/Mankind and uncovered through logic and
reason, was it's catalyst.
One of its principles resonates, namely the notion of Prescription, whereby we
moderns are mere dwarfs who only see as far as we do because we stand on
the massive shoulders of the Giants of Antiquity who made the Present possible.
Sadly most moderns, filled w/ignorant conceit, neither accept nor understand this.
Further, we blather far too much about rights while hardly ever about responsibilities,
another trait of moderns.
As for our immigration fandango, in 1648 the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the
Thirty Years War; created the concept of Sovereign Right which articulated that
the lawful citizens of the nation/state w/clearly defined borders and they alone;
decide who may/may not live in and/or visit their land.
Wonder how many of the assholery who infest DC ever heard of the concept???


« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 03:20:13 am by Absalom »

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2019, 11:16:09 pm »
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2019, 12:28:57 am »
Perhaps my quest for the Single Conservative Principle is Quixotic.  But my overall belief is that failures in general thinking lead to failures in specific thinking, and American Conservatives have, in my opinion, failed in a number of specifics.  My hypothesis, which I cannot really test, is that improved general thinking might have led to some different outcomes.

Having indicted Conservatism for failing due to lack of a cohesive definition, I have probably obligated myself to make some constructive suggestion, if not a suggested Single Conservative Principle, then at least suggested thinking that might lead in that direction.

An effective political theory should provide some means of identifying how much government is too much, and how little government is too little.  The balance point has to be individual rights, in the first instance those rights described as "unalienable", which term began my thinking on this thread about this time last night.  Teetering on that "unalienable" fulcrum, how can we recognize those limits on government, too much on the one hand, and too little on the other?

First I argue that "unalienable" is synonymous with absolute, subject to regulation or limitation by no person or entity, except by due process justified beyond reasonable doubt.  I frequently remark the distinction between *government* abridging, for example Freedom of Speech, and a private entity abridging Freedom of Speech.  Private entities have fairly broad authorities to abridge Freedom of Speech in some circumstances, for example that of an employee on company time.  As important as it is, I do not find Freedom of Speech to be unalienable because it can be limited.  Similar circumstances can be identified for many other Freedoms we routinely recognize as vital; they are not absolute, so I hold they are not "unalienable."

Then what rights are "unalienable"?  Precisely those identified as such by Jefferson in the original political document - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  No person and no government can restrict, regulate, or limit the enjoyment of these rights other than by due process beyond a reasonable doubt.  And note, he said "....among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  In his thinking, at least, there can be others.  Surely all will quickly agree that the right of one man to pursue happiness does not extend to denying another man life or liberty; the unalienable rights naturally balance themselves among individuals.  And I will repeat what has often been said by others - the right to *pursue* happiness implies no right to *be* happy.

On this foundation I hope it is non-controversial to suggest that a society in which one man's unalienable rights are not protected from the predations of another man, is a society which has too little government, and that a society in which government can deny a man's unalienable rights without due process beyond a reasonable doubt, is a society which has too much government.  Murder, extortion, and kidnapping are all impermissible; once the demands of due process beyond a reasonable doubt are met, capital punishment, forfeiture, and imprisonment are permissible.

But these unalienable, limiting boundary conditions are inadequate for approaching a meaningful unifying Conservative principle.  What about the much larger set of rights, or freedoms, which remain vital to our liberty but are not unalienable?  Speech, Free Association, Commerce, Religion?  As a generality we recognize that private entities can assert property rights which limit the individual's freedom, in a particular time or place, to pursue those rights, and government can put some limits on those rights without due process beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. without a trial.  No one is free to practice any of those freedoms on my property without my consent, and government is duly authorized to prevent the proverbial "fire in a crowded theater", disperse riots, prevent commerce in controlled substances, and disallow ritual human sacrifice.  A society which fails to protect my property rights, or which allows me to inhibit these free rights of others away from my property, is a society with too little government; a society which positively regulates how I use my property without harm to others, or that regulates how individualss engage in these freedoms without harm to others, is a society with too much government.

So I come to the concept of harm to others.  I suspect most will agree to the norm that a man is free to do what he wants so long as he brings no harm to others.  We can easily justify criminal law on this basis, and in theory, if not in practice, we can justify government's regulatory authority here as well.  Further, I'll argue that the principle of no harm to others is the basis of government's authority to regulate non-unalienable (alienable?) rights without trial.  But critical to my argument is the recognition that harm can be done to another individual, or done to society as a whole, and American Conservatives have failed at making the latter case clear.

I offer as an example the arguments regarding legal marriage of homosexuals.  Conservatives argue against legal marriage of homosexuals either from positions of faith or of personal disgust, but neither are acceptable bases of civil law in a pluralistic society.  We have failed to protect a traditional definition of marriage because we have failed to advocate an argument which falls within the parameters of American law.  In my opinion an effective argument against the legality of homosexual marriage describes *in practical terms*, not terms of religion or personal preference, the consequences of that legality in a broader legal context.  Marriage has been treated legally as a *kind of* relationship which can produce children.  Close blood relatives may not marry because the children born to such a union are far more likely to experience severe physical and mental health issues.   It has long been recognized that some marriages will not produce children, perhaps due to infertility of married adults who are of child-bearing age, or because one or the other party to the marriage has previously undergone medical procedures which prevent fertility, or because a marriage unites a man and woman who are beyond child-bearing age.  But those marriages have always been regulated the same way as marriages which in fact can produce children - close blood relatives may not marry whether or not their union in fact can produce children.

Now comes Justice Kennedy, who has decided that marriage is a relationship which grants civil dignity to people's romantic emotions, and homosexual romantic emotions are just as entitled to civil dignity as heterosexual romantic emotions.  Until Obergefell, marriage *law* took no account of people's emotions, but it did take account of the likelihood of their blood relationship, because marriage was a *kind of* relationship which by definition can produce children.  Well now it's not.  Now it's a relationship which dignifies emotions, specifically the emotions surrounding a union which *cannot* produce children.  On what basis now can a homosexual couple who are closely related be denied legal marriage?  Are their romantic emotions not entitled to dignity?  What possible harm can come from their marriage, since they *cannot* produce children?  They can adopt, and the fact of their blood relationship will have no impact on the child's health.  Why should they suffer the indignity of a legal requirement which is of precisely zero relevance to the dignity of their emotions?  Their sex didn't matter for that dignity, why should their blood relationship?  For that matter, why should an older heterosexual couple, of close blood relationship but beyond child bearing age, or a younger related couple at least one of whom is infertile, suffer the same legal indignity?  And yet we all recognize that the prohibition against marriage of related people cannot be repealed because we cannot sanction natural-born children of those unions.  So the argument that won the day, being based on emotion and changing the very nature of marriage, will inevitably collide with a requirement that we cannot repeal.  The only way to maintain the requirement where it is relevant, and to dignify emotions where it is not, is to maintain different requirements for marriage, depending on whether or not a couple's union can produce children.  But that means unequal treatment before the law, which is not allowed.

The case against the legality of homosexual marriage is *not* that it violates anyone's faith, or that it violates tradition, or that we find it disgusting.  The long litany of arguments routinely offered by American Conservatives failed, because none of them are relevant parameters of American law.  The case against legal homosexual marriage is that it harms society as a whole because it makes marriage law contradictory and thus unsustainable.

I hope this lengthy digression makes clear what I find to be one of the key failures of our movement - we have not made clear that an individual acting freely, in ways that do no harm to the individuals around him, can still harm society as a whole, and that latter harm must be recognized and regulated, if not completely prevented.

So now back to a principle : too little government exists when individuals are allowed to impede the unalienable rights of others, or the "alienable" rights of others beyond the individuals' own property; too much government exists when government impedes the unalienable rights of individuals without due process beyond a reasonable doubt, or when it impedes the rights of individuals who are practicing "alienable" rights without harm to others or to society as a whole.

Just as logic requires premises to have meaning, theory requires facts to be actionable.  My thinking requires far more development, around a definition of human life and a definition of harm specifically.  But I hope the liberties I've taken with forum space, and with the reading time of forum members, are justified by the suggestion that failing to clarify harm to society as a whole outside of faith or personal preference is a key failure of American Conservatism.

Many thanks to any who have endured this far.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 12:35:51 am by HoustonSam »
James 1:20

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2019, 01:28:46 am »
Not getting into the verbosity of seemingly sound, reasoned thinking from all sides, the only comment I will give is, other than a quote from the Declaration of Independence, there is a lack of God being contained in the dialogue.

He is the only reason we have rights, and our forefathers knew this distinctly.  Yes, his authority is how rights are established and, although we will likely never know what exactly his endowed rights might be, those men 243 years ago did as good as I believe they could to enumerate what they thought they might be.

Those who choose to read his own book might be able to discern further.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2019, 02:17:26 am »
Having indicted Conservatism for failing due to lack of a cohesive definition, I have probably obligated myself to make some constructive suggestion, if not a suggested Single Conservative Principle, then at least suggested thinking that might lead in that direction.

An effective political theory should provide some means of identifying how much government is too much, and how little government is too little.  The balance point has to be individual rights, in the first instance those rights described as "unalienable", which term began my thinking on this thread about this time last night.  Teetering on that "unalienable" fulcrum, how can we recognize those limits on government, too much on the one hand, and too little on the other?

First I argue that "unalienable" is synonymous with absolute, subject to regulation or limitation by no person or entity, except by due process justified beyond reasonable doubt.  I frequently remark the distinction between *government* abridging, for example Freedom of Speech, and a private entity abridging Freedom of Speech.  Private entities have fairly broad authorities to abridge Freedom of Speech in some circumstances, for example that of an employee on company time.  As important as it is, I do not find Freedom of Speech to be unalienable because it can be limited.  Similar circumstances can be identified for many other Freedoms we routinely recognize as vital; they are not absolute, so I hold they are not "unalienable."

Then what rights are "unalienable"?  Precisely those identified as such by Jefferson in the original political document - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  No person and no government can restrict, regulate, or limit the enjoyment of these rights other than by due process beyond a reasonable doubt.  And note, he said "....among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  In his thinking, at least, there can be others.  Surely all will quickly agree that the right of one man to pursue happiness does not extend to denying another man life or liberty; the unalienable rights naturally balance themselves among individuals.  And I will repeat what has often been said by others - the right to *pursue* happiness implies no right to *be* happy.

On this foundation I hope it is non-controversial to suggest that a society in which one man's unalienable rights are not protected from the predations of another man, is a society which has too little government, and that a society in which government can deny a man's unalienable rights without due process beyond a reasonable doubt, is a society which has too much government.  Murder, extortion, and kidnapping are all impermissible; once the demands of due process beyond a reasonable doubt are met, capital punishment, forfeiture, and imprisonment are permissible.

But these unalienable, limiting boundary conditions are inadequate for approaching a meaningful unifying Conservative principle.  What about the much larger set of rights, or freedoms, which remain vital to our liberty but are not unalienable?  Speech, Free Association, Commerce, Religion?  As a generality we recognize that private entities can assert property rights which limit the individual's freedom, in a particular time or place, to pursue those rights, and government can put some limits on those rights without due process beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. without a trial.  No one is free to practice any of those freedoms on my property without my consent, and government is duly authorized to prevent the proverbial "fire in a crowded theater", disperse riots, prevent commerce in controlled substances, and disallow ritual human sacrifice.  A society which fails to protect my property rights, or which allows me to inhibit these free rights of others away from my property, is a society with too little government; a society which positively regulates how I use my property without harm to others, or that regulates how individualss engage in these freedoms without harm to others, is a society with too much government.

So I come to the concept of harm to others.  I suspect most will agree to the norm that a man is free to do what he wants so long as he brings no harm to others.  We can easily justify criminal law on this basis, and in theory, if not in practice, we can justify government's regulatory authority here as well.  Further, I'll argue that the principle of no harm to others is the basis of government's authority to regulate non-unalienable (alienable?) rights without trial.  But critical to my argument is the recognition that harm can be done to another individual, or done to society as a whole, and American Conservatives have failed at making the latter case clear.

I offer as an example the arguments regarding legal marriage of homosexuals.  Conservatives argue against legal marriage of homosexuals either from positions of faith or of personal disgust, but neither are acceptable bases of civil law in a pluralistic society.  We have failed to protect a traditional definition of marriage because we have failed to advocate an argument which falls within the parameters of American law.  In my opinion an effective argument against the legality of homosexual marriage describes *in practical terms*, not terms of religion or personal preference, the consequences of that legality in a broader legal context.  Marriage has been treated legally as a *kind of* relationship which can produce children.  Close blood relatives may not marry because the children born to such a union are far more likely to experience severe physical and mental health issues.   It has long been recognized that some marriages will not produce children, perhaps due to infertility of married adults who are of child-bearing age, or because one or the other party to the marriage has previously undergone medical procedures which prevent fertility, or because a marriage unites a man and woman who are beyond child-bearing age.  But those marriages have always been regulated the same way as marriages which in fact can produce children - close blood relatives may not marry whether or not their union in fact can produce children.

Now comes Justice Kennedy, who has decided that marriage is a relationship which grants civil dignity to people's romantic emotions, and homosexual romantic emotions are just as entitled to civil dignity as heterosexual romantic emotions.  Until Obergefell, marriage *law* took no account of people's emotions, but it did take account of the likelihood of their blood relationship, because marriage was a *kind of* relationship which by definition can produce children.  Well now it's not.  Now it's a relationship which dignifies emotions, specifically the emotions surrounding a union which *cannot* produce children.  On what basis now can a homosexual couple who are closely related be denied legal marriage?  Are their romantic emotions not entitled to dignity?  What possible harm can come from their marriage, since they *cannot* produce children?  They can adopt, and the fact of their blood relationship will have no impact on the child's health.  Why should they suffer the indignity of a legal requirement which is of precisely zero relevance to the dignity of their emotions?  Their sex didn't matter for that dignity, why should their blood relationship?  For that matter, why should an older heterosexual couple, of close blood relationship but beyond child bearing age, or a younger related couple at least one of whom is infertile, suffer the same legal indignity?  And yet we all recognize that the prohibition against marriage of related people cannot be repealed because we cannot sanction natural-born children of those unions.  So the argument that won the day, being based on emotion and changing the very nature of marriage, will inevitably collide with a requirement that we cannot repeal.  The only way to maintain the requirement where it is relevant, and to dignify emotions where it is not, is to maintain different requirements for marriage, depending on whether or not a couple's union can produce children.  But that means unequal treatment before the law, which is not allowed.

The case against the legality of homosexual marriage is *not* that it violates anyone's faith, or that it violates tradition, or that we find it disgusting.  The long litany of arguments routinely offered by American Conservatives failed, because none of them are relevant parameters of American law.  The case against legal homosexual marriage is that it harms society as a whole because it makes marriage law contradictory and thus unsustainable.

I hope this lengthy digression makes clear what I find to be one of the key failures of our movement - we have not made clear that an individual acting freely, in ways that do no harm to the individuals around him, can still harm society as a whole, and that latter harm must be recognized and regulated, if not completely prevented.

So now back to a principle : too little government exists when individuals are allowed to impede the unalienable rights of others, or the "alienable" rights of others beyond the individuals' own property; too much government exists when government impedes the unalienable rights of individuals without due process beyond a reasonable doubt, or when it impedes the rights of individuals who are practicing "alienable" rights without harm to others or to society as a whole.

Just as logic requires premises to have meaning, theory requires facts to be actionable.  My thinking requires far more development, around a definition of human life and a definition of harm specifically.  But I hope the liberties I've taken with forum space, and with the reading time of forum members, are justified by the suggestion that failing to clarify harm to society as a whole outside of faith or personal preference is a key failure of American Conservatism.

Many thanks to any who have endured this far.

Wow @HoustonSam !  Lots of thoughtful commentary there and I sorely wish I had the time to prepare an equally cogent response but since I don't, I'll just leave with this at least for tonight.

I sincerely believe that if we simply kept the following words from our first president at the forefront of our minds things would get a LOT better very quickly.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

                                            George Washington
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 02:18:50 am by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2019, 02:29:48 am »
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

                                            George Washington

A very effective, and much more concise, amendment to my own thinking - *when* we err (not *if*), let it be on the side of too little government, not too much.  The individual is much more capable of protecting his rights against the depradations of *one* of us than of *all* of us.
James 1:20

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2019, 02:32:46 am »
A very effective, and much more concise, amendment to my own thinking - *when* we err (not *if*), let it be on the side of too little government, not too much.  The individual is much more capable of protecting his rights against the depradations of *one* of us than of *all* of us.

Exactly so!  Good night my friend!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2019, 06:29:05 am »
With ALL due respect @roamer_1, I believe that you are making something really simple needlessly complex. 

@Bigun
No, it is complex. As an example:

I have debated people whose whole defense of conservatism was founded in fiscal conservatism - having no cause in anything but fiscal matters. And they are not wrong. Their impetus is found in the premise that if one controls the money - starving the beast, as it were - one can control the government.

Then there are folks true to Goldwater in their quest to control the government by beating it back into the box of federalism and originalist construction wrt the Constitution. And they are not wrong. Their impetus is that by the lion's share, what the fed controls is none of their damn business... Thus attempting to control the beast by stripping it of undeserved power....

Then there are those who propose to remove the federal sway over morality - That moral rot caused by federal imposition of secularism is the cause of all of our problems... And they are not wrong. Their impetus is to repair the moral character and restore honor to our institutions, and thereby control the beast.

All of these positions ARE conservative. All of them are right. Each one is a representation of a conservative faction standing upon their respective principles. And all of those principle things are true.
In that, they cannot be at crossed purposes - truth is one thing in the end - but the difference in emphasis has caused endless strife.


Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2019, 06:51:18 am »
And I hold that those outcomes are failures of Conservatism.

I think, @HoustonSam , you are confusing Conservatism and the Republican party.

Republicans don't mean it, and never have.
It has been nothing but lip service for fifty years... Liberalism has walked right on in, and the Republicans held the door.


Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2019, 08:30:13 am »
But critical to my argument is the recognition that harm can be done to another individual, or done to society as a whole, and American Conservatives have failed at making the latter case clear.

That is because Conservatives do not see 'society as a whole' as being a valid object. Or rather perhaps, something controlled from the ground up rather than from the top down. America is defined by the sum total of its parts.

Quote
I offer as an example the arguments regarding legal marriage of homosexuals.  Conservatives argue against legal marriage of homosexuals either from positions of faith or of personal disgust, but neither are acceptable bases of civil law in a pluralistic society

Well, no. The first cause against homosexual marriage is that it is none of the federal damn government's business to define marriage differently than has been the case literally since the dawn of man.

The necessary part of that is the fed imposing - nation wide - that is not right, on its face.

Auxiliary to that is the notion that the fed, by way of the judiciary, is imposing religion (secularism).

The second cause against it is similar: Damage to reciprocity - Before the federal imposition, the liberal states were imposing homosexual marriage nationwide via reciprocity. Homos, legally married in New York or Massachusetts move to Wyoming or Oklahoma, causing a crisis - Making conservative states honor contracts by reciprocity.

Both of these methods are an imposition by coercion, and are not valid in the spirit of federalism, usurping the sovereignty of the various states.

Only then, once the structural damage has been addressed, might one wander into the actual damage done by moral  turpitude, local to the states respectively themselves. That is to say, that while the real damage is a moral argument, the fix is not to impose a federal solution, but rather, to remove from the fed the impediments that have been erected which prevent a solution local to the states so the state can address the moral dilemma.

That is as close as conservatism can get to your 'society as a whole'.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 08:34:24 am by roamer_1 »