Author Topic: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'  (Read 5041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #50 on: July 10, 2019, 08:32:59 am »
Thanks @roamer_1 and @Smokin Joe.  You have both replied in your customary concise, effective, well-constructed manner, and I appreciate the time and thought reflected in each of your posts.  I will respond separately in order more easily to manage quotes from your posts.

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.

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.  *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?

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.  We long ago ceased being a bulwark protecting the verities, and became a mere speed bump on the progressives' road to re-defining fundamental truth.  Given the immediacy of the re-definition of sex taking place around us, we aren't even much of a speed bump - more like an expansion joint.

Perhaps that assumption merits further thought.  Is it possible that God has endowed Americans with rights He withheld from others?  At least logically we should consider it, and if we could convince ourselves of it then the problem I am posing might quickly be dissolved.

Proceeding from the belief that our rights *are* endowed by God, it behooves us to consider what we can know of His character.  Free men can differ on that question, personally I consult what I understand to be His revealed, written word.  If one's theology is Calvinistic, that God in His sovereignty will save whom He will save, one could also conclude in His sovereignty He might endow with rights whom He will endow.  I have never been able to square that Calvinistic belief with John 3:16 or 2 Peter 3:9, so I reject it, and I would therefore reject the idea that He would endow rights in this temporal, fallen, material world to some but not to others.

Having considered the possibility and, I hope, rejected it on a sound basis, let us agree that God endows *all* men with unalienable rights; we Americans enjoy no special status before Him.

*Why* should the law not extend beyond the means?  Have we not agreed that all men are endowed equally by God, and are not governments ordained by God, as stated in Romans 13:1?  *Why* are some men's rights to be protected by our government, which we still believe is of the people, by the people, for the people, while other men's rights are to be excluded?

The statement I've bolded is in fact a *pragmatic* statement, not a principled one.  That the statement is pragmatic does not make it bad or untrustworthy, it simply means it's rooted in our recognition of material limitation, not our fundamental beliefs about morality or rights or government.  If, in some science-fiction future, the United States actually enjoyed unlimited resources and unlimited space, if we actually had no material limitation, could we still justify controlling our borders?  Could we still argue that the God-endowed rights of those born in Honduras or Iraq or Somalia are simply their own issue to sort out, and no concern of ours?

Subject to my comments above, I agree here.
In order to address a single principle of Conservatism, at least within the ordinary bounds of what we would consider a moral people, it is this:

That Government governs best which governs least.

Why? because among a moral people little is needed in the form of persuading each other to recognize and respect the rights of others, and the business of government can be turned toward defending the boundaries within which the government is established.

As to the matter of Rights, all men are endowed by their Creator with those Rights, all are Created equal in the eyes of The Almighty.

Being created that way is no guarantee of future status, nor of the health of those Rights.
Rights can exist, in fact, do exist, whether they are infringed upon or not. The Jews of Europe had a Right to live, the Nazis didn't revoke that, they only refused to acknowledge and honor that Right, and, in so doing slaughtered millions.

We are given those Rights by Our Creator, what we do with them is ultimately up to us, noting that the rights of ll are in peril if the rights of any of us are ignored.

In our Constitution, and in the Bill of Rights, the attempt was made to identify some salient Rights and protect them from potential abuses by the very Government designed to protect them. There is even a clause which acknowledges that not all the Rights thus enjoyed or protected are listed, and that not listing them does not deny their existence. After all, the inevitable result of the accumulation of power is the abuse of that power, by one faction or another in favor of itself, and to the detriment of another faction's rights.
 
The Founders were acutely aware of the result of such 'second class citizen' status, and suffered indignities under that system until finally revolting to establish a government which would respect their Rights. Such was not perfect, the qualifications to be in the club were stringent, and only expanded to cover more of the population later, but initially were skewed to include those with the means of production and exclude those most likely to vote themselves the fruits of others' labors, while laboring little themselves. It is an irony that those who often labored the most intensely were denied status, initially, but that changed to better reflect the individual productivity and those rights were better acknowledged as the government evolved.

It had to start somewhere, and the beginning wasn't perfect.

As far as other nations go, though, sure, those people have the same God-Given (unalienable) rights as American citizens do at birth, but they cannot use our government to invoke those Rights within the domain of their government, and not even within our domain beyond limits.
That onus to protect their Rights, especially in their homeland, falls upon their governments, which they have chosen to live under or continue to live under (they have not changed them).

To return to the test of the Declaration...

Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Generally, we don't deny that Right, and when requested, we have acted to support some actions taken by citizens of other countries to remove oppressive governments, or to oppose the invasion of their own by outside forces antithetical to the Rights of their citizens.
That is indeed a treacly situation; those boundaries are seldom as clear cut nor well established as oversimplification in the press might indicate, if the press is accurate at all.

For example, the NYT convinced the US State Department that Castro and his cronies were setting up a Democracy in Cuba, eventually resulting in JFK calling off the air strikes which might have made the Bay of Pigs invasion (counter revolution) a success, and without which it was doomed to fail. Simply put, such accounts must be vetted.
Insiders at the CIA later verified that they had in fact tried to steer the Administration toward action and away from letting Castro get better established, knowing full well that the new Government would be Communist, but were not heeded, with the eventual result being the Missile Crisis, the blockade, and for Cubans, decades of subjugation under a vicious communist regime that still persists (albeit with better press), risking all to escape, or death.
Speculation exists that investment losses on the Island by American Investors (I'm being nice, here) resulted in the death of that President, although that may well be just another conspiracy theory. I have little doubt substantial investments and anticipated profits were forfeit as a result of the Communist takeover, and the Government there has colored geopolitics in the region since, but I digress.

In the instance of Grenada, we, with the approval of other States which had signed a mutual compact, came to the defense of an existing government beset by  'revolutionaries', using the presence of American students (Citizens) as a partial pretense. That operation was successful.

Anyhow, it is not our Right as a nation to unilaterally impose our way of life on other nations' peoples, that way of life is their choice, and any intervention by request of those people or their governments must be taken only after due diligence and careful consideration. It is not the job of our government to do so, except to safeguard our own borders.

Just as our citizens are expected to abide by the rules of foreign powers within their jurisdictions, we should completely expect those citizens of other countries to abide by our rules when in ours, but even that does not confer the Rights of American citizenship upon non-citizens present in our jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, Conservatism, which was once well defined has been mutated in the eyes of the press, politicians, and much of the populace by the most damaging of all things: during the Clinton Year, in retaliation, it became 'cool' to be a "Conservative", listen to Country Music, and Rush Limbaugh, and no longer suffered the image rendered by the press of militaristic Doctor Strangelove types, but the folks next door. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, not saber rattling and cold war geopolitics and brinksmanship.  Sure that was a matter of image, but with that came the dogpile of populist thought which led the the emergence of the true exceptional Conservative, who is conservative, except ___________(fill in the blank).
That led to the hyphenation of conservatism, as people retained leftist policies while shopping the smorgasbord of conservative philosophy a-la-carte, picking an entree here, a desert there, and a prefix to designate their selection and calling that 'conservative'. It isn't, really, just an agreement on some special interest or topic which makes the adoptive philosophy work for the individual, but doesn't embrace the more wholesome and integrated philosophy which has moral, fiscal, social, military (defensive), and other aspects which interrelate to form a coherent pattern of thought. It benefits nothing to have the first three of those if you aren't going to defend it. It won't work to try to have a moral society well defended if there is no money. Without the self regulating nature of a moral society, having money and the means to defend it lacks character necessary to guarantee the very rights which establish the society. Without the structural framework of a culture which upholds all those values, they are scattered bricks, not a fortress. So all are needed to make the Conservative society work, all based on the Rights of the individual, the absence of unnecessary meddling by the State, agreed upon laws and precepts which form the social glue which allows those things to be applied equally, and equality of opportunity, not an assumption that there will be any equality of results: there are no guarantees, you are as free to fail as you are to succeed.

I'll quit here. There is always another thought, but I have rattled this keyboard enough for a bit. 
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

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 #51 on: July 10, 2019, 01:56:42 pm »
@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.

Not going to argue with anything you said @roamer_1 but I still contend that when we get off in the weeds like that we lose the audience very quickly.  Just my opinion.  Nothing more.
"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 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 #52 on: July 10, 2019, 02:01:57 pm »
Quote
For example, the NYT convinced the US State Department that Castro and his cronies were setting up a Democracy in Cuba, eventually resulting in JFK calling off the air strikes which might have made the Bay of Pigs invasion (counter revolution) a success, and without which it was doomed to fail. 

Not wishing to take this thread off-topic, I will only say that it is my considered, and well studied, opinion that the United States Department of State has been the number one enemy within for the last 100 years or so @Smokin Joe.
"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 Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2019, 08:02:12 pm »
For those seeking a single unifying Principle of Conservatism, suggest
they try a study Russell Kirk did for the Heritage Foundation in 1993.
Kirk articulated 10, from the Ancients to Edmund Burke.
Then there is Plato, arguably the wisest Man who ever walked the Earth.
In his "Republic" he assesses Nature and Natural Law in depth; the
bedrock of Conservatism.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 08:04:10 pm by Absalom »

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2019, 08:06:42 pm »
@HoustonSam

I would think that we are on the right track here.
One of the major tenets of American Conservatism, in my view, is private property rights.
This concept was virtually unheard of before the founding of our country.
Is this right one of the "unalienable rights?".
Perhaps, if you could stretch this idea of "among them , life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as one of those among them that is not being named, although that is a stretch.
Yet, this would require us to form a "more perfect union" to protect our property rights, along with those mentioned as unalienable, with our consent, of course.
It would be the only way we could protect ourselves against tyrants, or the next screaming horde, our the angry neighbor, from overtaking us and removing those rights.


 


Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2019, 08:07:54 pm »
For those seeking a single unifying Principle of Conservatism, suggest
they try a study Russell Kirk did for the Heritage Foundation in 1993.
Kirk articulated 10, from the Ancients to Edmund Burke.
Then there is Plato, arguably the wisest Man who ever walked the Earth.
In his "Republic" he assesses Nature and Natural Law in depth; the
bedrock of Conservatism.

Thank you for

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-life-and-legacy-russell-kirk the suggestion. 
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2019, 08:12:27 pm »
Is this right one of the "unalienable rights?".
Perhaps, if you could stretch this idea of "among them , life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as one of those among them that is not being named, although that is a stretch.

@GrouchoTex

As a general rule, traditionally, ' pursuit of happiness ' is considered to be property rights, and more or less, the ability to pursue wealth or goods.

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2019, 08:19:15 pm »
@GrouchoTex

As a general rule, traditionally, ' pursuit of happiness ' is considered to be property rights, and more or less, the ability to pursue wealth or goods.

I suppose that word "happiness" could take on a lot of different meanings now, more than it did then, which may be why we are less unified as to what conservatism is than we were before.
Just a thought...

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2019, 08:37:26 pm »
@HoustonSam
I would think that we are on the right track here.
One of the major tenets of American Conservatism, in my view, is private property rights.
This concept was virtually unheard of before the founding of our country.
Is this right one of the "unalienable rights?".
Perhaps, if you could stretch this idea of "among them , life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as one of those among them that is not being named, although that is a stretch.
Yet, this would require us to form a "more perfect union" to protect our property rights, along with those mentioned as unalienable, with our consent, of course.
It would be the only way we could protect ourselves against tyrants, or the next screaming horde, our the angry neighbor, from overtaking us and removing those rights.
----------------------------------
An observation/reflection.
Henry Maine, a British Historian identified Property Rights as a core of
principled conservatism but not its essence and the reason is simple.
The Cradle of Civilization was the Fertile Crescent some 7000 years
ago, as it produced our earliest cities.
From that time till the Enlightenment, Man lived an agrarian existence
where property/possessions were never paramount in his life.
The Enlightenment changed all that by fostering the notion of material
betterment as a highly desirable aspiration for Man and along w/that
sea change in attitude, Capitalism emerged as an economic system.
Both of these were the catalysts for the world we have today.
In a follow up post, I will ventilate my opinion as to the consequences of this.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2019, 08:47:30 pm »
----------------------------------
An observation/reflection.
Henry Maine, a British Historian identified Property Rights as a core of
principled conservatism but not its essence and the reason is simple.
The Cradle of Civilization was the Fertile Crescent some 7000 years
ago, as it produced our earliest cities.
From that time till the Enlightenment, Man lived an agrarian existence
where property/possessions were never paramount in his life.
The Enlightenment changed all that by fostering the notion of material
betterment as a highly desirable aspiration for Man and along w/that
sea change in attitude, Capitalism emerged
as an economic system.
Both of these were the catalysts for the world we have today.
In a follow up post, I will ventilate my opinion as to the consequences of this.

 Absalom, I disagree in that Vikings were very interested in accumulating wealth, and did so with great success.  There are other civilizations that did so also.  Maybe I'm missing your point?

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 #60 on: July 10, 2019, 10:57:09 pm »
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.

@IsailedawayfromFR

I join you in recognizing God as the source and author of all we have, whether political freedom or eternal life.  However, the US is a pluralistic society regarding anyone's faith or chosen lack thereof.  Good or bad, it is simply unsustainable to argue for specific legal outcomes from the basis of religious faith.

We can, and I think we should, argue for legal outcomes which are consistent with religious faith, but those arguments have to be grounded in something other than our faith; if we cannot ground those arguments outside our faith, we can't expect other citizens, of other faiths, or of no faith, to be swayed by them.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 01:35:29 am by HoustonSam »
James 1:20

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 #61 on: July 10, 2019, 11:24:32 pm »
@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.

@roamer_1

In this time and place, the FedGov, and perhaps American government at all levels, is too large and too powerful.  I join with anyone who calls for a radical reduction in the scope, impact, and power of government, and I recognize clearly that such a call is far more likely to emanate from one who "identifies" as "Conservative" than from one who does not.

But in some times and places, government might be too small or too weak.  Does that mean there can be no Conservatives in those places?  Did the Founders not gather in Philadelphia in 1787 in large part because they recognized the Articles of Confederation government was too weak?  They carefully circumscribed the powers of the Federal government, but without question they gave it more power than their national government previously had.  Do we, as self-identified "Conservatives", not venerate them nonetheless?

My point is that "starving the beast" might be necessary to American Conservatism today, but is not necessarily vital to Conservatism generally.  There has to be more to it than that, because *no* government, or even no *federal government*, is not the right answer.  Understanding that we can limit government from different angles, and each angle is legitimate and correct, is insufficient to explain who we claim to be.

An effective Conservative philosophy will clarify both errors - too *much* government and too *little* government - even though today we might not have to worry about the latter.
James 1:20

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 #62 on: July 10, 2019, 11:40:27 pm »
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.

Whether it's the Republican Party, "Conservatives", or Conservatism, damn little is being conserved.

American culture today can't even recognize the most fundamental biological distinction of the human condition - man or woman.  We lost the verities long ago, now we're in Clown World.  The *fact* of *failure* is inarguable, passing the buck for it misses the point.  If Republicans failed but Conservatism didn't, then Conservatives failed by picking the wrong horse.

My belief is that we can place a new bet on the right horse, on *ourselves*, by getting our thinking straight.  How much government is right, what do we expect it to do, and how are those beliefs justified?  In the long run we'll have to conduct our own "long march through the institutions", because the rank and file no longer understands what it means to justify a belief.  Sadly, the problem we face is far worse than defending the US Constitution - we actually have to re-construct epistemology.
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 #63 on: July 10, 2019, 11:59:13 pm »
Whether it's the Republican Party, "Conservatives", or Conservatism, damn little is being conserved.

100% agree with that.

Quote
American culture today can't even recognize the most fundamental biological distinction of the human condition - man or woman.  We lost the verities long ago, now we're in Clown World.  The *fact* of *failure* is inarguable, passing the buck for it misses the point.  If Republicans failed but Conservatism didn't, then Conservatives failed by picking the wrong horse.

I put that down to sheer laziness!  Blindly voting for someone just because he has an R behind his name won't get it done!

Quote
My belief is that we can place a new bet on the right horse, on *ourselves*, by getting our thinking straight.  How much government is right, what do we expect it to do, and how are those beliefs justified?  In the long run we'll have to conduct our own "long march through the institutions", because the rank and file no longer understands what it means to justify a belief.

And most of us are far too long in the tooth to see THAT project through!

Quote
Sadly, the problem we face is far worse than defending the US Constitution - we actually have to re-construct epistemology.

Here I will differ somewhat.  I believe there are many millions among us who do know the truth but have no idea as to how to reinstil it in the political realm.  What is lacking is REAL, committed leadership.
"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 #64 on: July 11, 2019, 12:04:39 am »
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.

I disagree @roamer_1.  My reading of Burke was many years ago, but I recall him being quite clear that the aggregation of men (my term, not his), not men as atoms, was vitally important.  You might reply that American Conservatism is different, unrelated to the reflections of an 18th century English Whig on the French Revolution, and I would be forced to agree; but we would both then have an argument with Russell Kirk.  Hence my insistence that we achieve a meaningful definition.

Quote
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.

An excellent point, and again relevant to my insistence on a definition.  What do Conservatives expect the government to do?  We *don't* expect it to re-define social institutions that long pre-date any government.

But actually that is an argument for limited government, not an argument against the legality of homosexual marriage.

Quote
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.

I find no error in any of these points.  But they argue against Federal authority, and then against the Full Faith and Credit Clause, not against homosexual marriage.  They simply use homosexual marriage as a specific case.

Quote
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.

I would support the US Congress explicitly stripping from the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary any consideration of marriage law, per Article III, Section 2.  One can reasonably argue that step would be redundant, but sometimes we must repeat ourselves.  Of course such an action now would have to be considered retroactive to deal with Obergefell, which would be far more difficult.
James 1:20

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 #65 on: July 11, 2019, 12:21:23 am »
In order to address a single principle of Conservatism, at least within the ordinary bounds of what we would consider a moral people, it is this:

That Government governs best which governs least.

Why? because among a moral people little is needed in the form of persuading each other to recognize and respect the rights of others, and the business of government can be turned toward defending the boundaries within which the government is established.

 @Smokin Joe I agree with the aphorism, but not the rationale.  James Madison suggested that if men were angels, no government would be necessary.  And yet Lucifer rebelled, and with him one third of the angels.

Do we, as self-identified Conservatives, and more importantly as Christians, seriously argue that the United States is populated by a moral people?  I don't.  So I'm not sure that Madison's idea really applies, and I would ground the aphorism in some rationale other than a pervasive morality.

Quote
As far as other nations go, though, sure, those people have the same God-Given (unalienable) rights as American citizens do at birth, but they cannot use our government to invoke those Rights within the domain of their government, and not even within our domain beyond limits.
That onus to protect their Rights, especially in their homeland, falls upon their governments, which they have chosen to live under or continue to live under (they have not changed them).

The question I raised up thread is whether *we* can use the idea of citizenship against *their* God-endowed rights precisely when they have left their countries, come to our threshold, and asked to be admitted.

Quote
Unfortunately, Conservatism, which was once well defined has been mutated in the eyes of the press, politicians, and much of the populace by the most damaging of all things: during the Clinton Year, in retaliation, it became 'cool' to be a "Conservative", listen to Country Music, and Rush Limbaugh, and no longer suffered the image rendered by the press of militaristic Doctor Strangelove types, but the folks next door. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, not saber rattling and cold war geopolitics and brinksmanship.  Sure that was a matter of image, but with that came the dogpile of populist thought which led the the emergence of the true exceptional Conservative, who is conservative, except ___________(fill in the blank).
That led to the hyphenation of conservatism, as people retained leftist policies while shopping the smorgasbord of conservative philosophy a-la-carte, picking an entree here, a desert there, and a prefix to designate their selection and calling that 'conservative'. It isn't, really, just an agreement on some special interest or topic which makes the adoptive philosophy work for the individual, but doesn't embrace the more wholesome and integrated philosophy which has moral, fiscal, social, military (defensive), and other aspects which interrelate to form a coherent pattern of thought. It benefits nothing to have the first three of those if you aren't going to defend it. It won't work to try to have a moral society well defended if there is no money. Without the self regulating nature of a moral society, having money and the means to defend it lacks character necessary to guarantee the very rights which establish the society. Without the structural framework of a culture which upholds all those values, they are scattered bricks, not a fortress. So all are needed to make the Conservative society work, all based on the Rights of the individual, the absence of unnecessary meddling by the State, agreed upon laws and precepts which form the social glue which allows those things to be applied equally, and equality of opportunity, not an assumption that there will be any equality of results: there are no guarantees, you are as free to fail as you are to succeed.

I agree with everything you've said here.  But so far no one has told me what ties it all together.  And if we can't tie it all together, we can't blame people for treating it like a cafeteria line.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 12:48:49 am by HoustonSam »
James 1:20

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 #66 on: July 11, 2019, 12:29:30 am »
@HoustonSam

I would think that we are on the right track here.
One of the major tenets of American Conservatism, in my view, is private property rights.


Yeah @GrouchoTex I was thinking about property rights when I wrote my long comment last night, and in fact I invoked property rights, somewhat obliquely, as a reason that some rights should be considered "alienable" - a man can't do things on my property without my consent to his being there, which he can freely do elsewhere.  I think @roamer_1 has it right a bit farther down thread from your post that I'm quoting here - property rights are a specific example of the right to pursue happiness.

Because property rights are not only of fundamental importance, but also central to current controversies like wedding cakes for homosexuals, any attempt to clarify our thinking would have to put those rights up high on the list.

Great call out, thanks.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 12:36:12 am by HoustonSam »
James 1:20

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 #67 on: July 11, 2019, 12:39:35 am »
Here I will differ somewhat.  I believe there are many millions among us who do know the truth but have no idea as to how to reinstil it in the political realm.  What is lacking is REAL, committed leadership.

I might be over-stating my case.  Wouldn't be the first time.  But whether I've overstated or not, it's a *big* hill to climb, one I think *we* can't climb without Divine inspiration and providence.
James 1:20

Offline EdJames

  • Certified Trump Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,791
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2019, 12:48:32 am »
Whether it's the Republican Party, "Conservatives", or Conservatism, damn little is being conserved.

American culture today can't even recognize the most fundamental biological distinction of the human condition - man or woman.  We lost the verities long ago, now we're in Clown World.  The *fact* of *failure* is inarguable, passing the buck for it misses the point.  If Republicans failed but Conservatism didn't, then Conservatives failed by picking the wrong horse.

My belief is that we can place a new bet on the right horse, on *ourselves*, by getting our thinking straight.  How much government is right, what do we expect it to do, and how are those beliefs justified?  In the long run we'll have to conduct our own "long march through the institutions", because the rank and file no longer understands what it means to justify a belief.  Sadly, the problem we face is far worse than defending the US Constitution - we actually have to re-construct epistemology.

Hear, hear!

You've pointed out the root of what needs to be done.

Arguing "politics" at this point is like arguing which of the dead carcasses is more rotten.

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2019, 02:55:39 am »
Absalom, I disagree in that Vikings were very interested in accumulating wealth, and did so with great success.  There are other civilizations that did so also.  Maybe I'm missing your point?
----------------------------------------
Indeed you are, yet wealth prior to capitalism was little more than an ornament!
More tomorrow!
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 05:39:29 pm by Absalom »

Online bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,511
  • Gender: Male
  • One day Closer
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2019, 03:18:49 am »
Do no harm.

The harm principle.

 "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
She asked me name my foe then. I said the need within some men to fight and kill their brothers without thought of Love or God. Ken Hensley

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2019, 07:09:25 am »
@Smokin Joe I agree with the aphorism, but not the rationale.  James Madison suggested that if men were angels, no government would be necessary.  And yet Lucifer rebelled, and with him one third of the angels.

Do we, as self-identified Conservatives, and more importantly as Christians, seriously argue that the United States is populated by a moral people?  I don't.  So I'm not sure that Madison's idea really applies, and I would ground the aphorism in some rationale other than a pervasive morality.
Is the United States populated by a moral people? Well, yes and no. Some are and some aren't, and we are not even sure of the proportions. We have only the babblings and polls of an immoral or amoral Media to indicate one way or another. Part of the problem (obviously) is that the group who are leading the country in all branches are of questionable morals.
However, it has been shown repeatedly, and across a broad spectrum of actions, that laws do not stop people from breaking the basic laws against murder, theft, and corruption, long before those laws intrude into the basic Rights of the law abiding and moral folks out there. Passing laws which intrude on the Civil Rights of Americans which will have little or no effect on the problems they are claimed to alleviate, but worse, have a deleterious effect on the Rights of those who abide by the laws, has only the effect of depriving innocent people of their Rights. That's when the line is crossed, when Government ceases proteting the Rights of its Citizens and starts abridging or infringing on them.

Quote
The question I raised up thread is whether *we* can use the idea of citizenship against *their* God-endowed rights precisely when they have left their countries, come to our threshold, and asked to be admitted.


This is a country, and in order to make it sovereign, we need to maintain our borders and our Citizens' Rights.
 
Do we have an obligation to protect the Rights of citizens of other countries?
If so, where does that obligation begin, and to what degree do we extend such protection, by what means?
To do so would cross the line, so to speak, by not respecting the Right the people of another country have to choose what powers they will grant (or deny) their government if we interfere in their domestic affairs. 

If someone comes to our doorstep, to ask to come here, become part of this nation by seeking citizenship, that's one thing.
We have an established process for that. We can, through legislation or Executive order establish who, how many, and under what circumstances we will permit them to enter our country.

Someone who crashes the gates has already shown contempt for our sovereignty, for our laws and way of life. By their mere presence they have broken our laws (prima facie).

While we might extend the rights of the accused to those who are accused of other crimes within our borders, the situation is different, in that when they broke that particular law (against entering illegally), they were in more than one jurisdiction, in the act of crossing a boundary. Do we, can we, treat that particular crime the same as other crimes? Do we extend right to counsel and a jury trial to all who seek to enter surreptitiously?
Or is this (especially as shown by the wave assaults on the border of the past few years) something we should treat as a matter of national security, and does it become the purview of military tribunals or another special court just for this particular infraction?
It is still the job, if you will, of their native country, the nation of which they are citizens to protect their Rights.
If that Government is not doing its job, they should change that government.

If they wish to enter here and become Americans, that is a different path spelled out by law.
They could petition the Government of the United States to change its policies and let in more people from elsewhere, but we have empowered our government to look out for our interests, and that should be out Government's job.
Providing for the common defense was integral to the original compact between the People and the United States Government, and basic to protecting the Rights of Americans. Preserving the essential elements of our culture are paramount to retaining the form of government we were intended to have.

Quote
I agree with everything you've said here.  But so far no one has told me what ties it all together.  And if we can't tie it all together, we can't blame people for treating it like a cafeteria line.
In each of the various factions of Conservatism, the fundamental common ground is that we don't want the Government unnecessarily telling us what to do (or not do) in each of those pet purviews. While we do want to legislate a basic morality, against theft, murder, rape, and various other crimes, there is a libertarian aspect well entrenched that, wants to severely limit the degree of that legislation, and there are varying degrees of regulation which people find appropriate. As a rule, Conservatives find that level best if kept low, at levels which only regulate actions which cause others harm (including, more vacuously, harm to the society as a whole), while those who are not Conservative generally find higher levels of constraint desirable, up to and including totalitarian rule, provided (Of course) that those constraints do not apply to them, especially if they find them onerous.
Conservatives want the freedom to be responsible for their lot, where Leftists want the freedom from being responsible for theirs.

I think overall, though, Conservatives are more optimists, seeking opportunity to build and develop, while Leftists tend to be anything but optimistic, focusing on the worst aspects of our society, while pimping them wholesale, while demanding that others give up any means or liberty they have which might enable them to engage in behaviour the leftists claim to fear and desire to prevent. That is here the moral dividing line really cuts through. Usually, there is a definite increase in the level of hypocrisy among those calling for everyone (else) to be restrained, but among leftists that level of constraint is based on fear of what one might do, rather than on what one has been shown to have done.

A conservative might fine you for walking across that newly planted grass, while a leftist would cut your legs off to prevent it.

Among Conservatives, even the hyphenated ones, comes an abiding respect, not only for the source of our Rights, but for those Rights themselves, whether they are ours or the Rights of another.

Liberals pay lip service to Rights, but only theirs, and not to the degree where they see their actions undertaken under the auspices of, or interpretations of, those rights infringing on the Rights of others if that is in conflict with their personal desires.

Which brings us back to the raw nature of both philosophies. One is based on reason, untwisted, however inconvenient that might be, however heartless it may seem at the surface on occasion, because what doesn't feel good now has profound positive effects in the future.

Leftists seek that which feels good, an emotional basis for decision making, which while it may feel good now, often has unintended, unforeseen, profound, long-term deleterious effects.

For example, the Conservative might not borrow money for a weekend drunk, anticipating the double barrelled misery of being in debt and being hung over afterward, whereas the Leftist would abandon such caution for the immediate effects, and likely blame the lender later for the misery to come.

Those effects, as we are seeing (or will) may not be just limited to the individual, but the headaches and miseries attached to letting genies out of bottles (or whatever), may affect the entire culture down the road. Thus, changes are not to be made flippantly, especially in systems which have worked, but assessment of those systems, their Constitutional validity, their effectiveness, should not be shrouded in the carefully crafted, statistically laden, bureaucratic gobbledygook of agencies which seek, first and foremost, only to extend their existence.  Many which go far beyond Original Intent should be eliminated.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #72 on: July 11, 2019, 07:10:06 am »
Do no harm.

The harm principle.

 "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
Eloquent in its simplicity! Fred, you summed that up nicely!
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2019, 01:12:17 pm »
I join you in recognizing God as the source and author of all we have, whether political freedom or eternal life.  However, the US is a pluralistic society regarding anyone's faith or chosen lack thereof.  Good or bad, it is simply unsustainable to argue for specific legal outcomes from the basis of religious faith.

We can, and I think we should, argue for legal outcomes which are consistent with religious faith, but those arguments have to be grounded in something other than our faith; if we cannot ground those arguments outside our faith, we can't expect other citizens, of other faiths, or of no faith, to be swayed by them.
I believe you answered your own question in that this country was unquestionably established based upon Judeo-Christian principles of faith and is what you refer to as 'grounded' by such.  As the Founders so clearly defined, we are not just a nation but a nation founded upon that heritage.

It is by that authority we created this country, so to diminish it by entailing equal appreciation of other than that credo is incongruous to our establishment.

It is a similar concept as saying all other countries are similar to America.  They are not.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

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 #74 on: July 11, 2019, 06:24:33 pm »
BKMK
James 1:20