The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Sanguine on July 08, 2019, 09:08:47 pm
-
By CAITLIN OPRYSKO
07/08/2019 10:54 AM EDT
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday unveiled a new Commission on Unalienable Rights, a bipartisan panel he said is aimed at providing him with “an informed review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy.â€
....
While Pompeo was vague in laying out what exactly the panel will do, he praised its members as those he hoped would facilitate "one of the most profound reexaminations of the unalienable rights in the world since the 1948 universal declaration."
...
International groups were split over the group Monday. In a statement cheering Pompeo's formation of the commission, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that the panel would be useful in light of governments like Cuba, China and Iran who the group said "have wormed their way onto 'human rights commissions' in their search for international legitimacy."
...
Amnesty International, meanwhile, accused Pompeo of using the panel to politicize human rights....
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/08/pompeo-panel-unalienable-rights-1400023 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/08/pompeo-panel-unalienable-rights-1400023)
I have no idea what to think of this.
-
I have no idea what to think of this.
Well, at the end of this I do hope that human rights trump the snail darters' rights. Not the case right now.
-
I have no idea what to think of this.
It raises an interesting question that "conservatives" should reflect on carefully. (I use quotation marks because I have concluded after many years that "conservative" is undefined in the United States, essentially no more than shorthand for a specific set of policy beliefs, and "conservatives" have in fact *conserved* very little.)
Personally I believe, fundamentally, that rights come from God, not from government. Neither the US federal government, nor the government of any state, county, or municipality in which I have lived, endow me with my rights. As men we are endowed by *our Creator* with those rights; government either recognizes and respects those rights, or it does not. Some of us in this country still argue that we will *protect* those rights ourselves if necessary, should the government choose not to respect them, and we reserve to ourselves the right to consent, or not, to the dictates of government, and to adjust *government*, not our rights, accordingly.
But if rights come from God, not from government, what obligations do we have to protect the rights of others, equally endowed by God, and how do we determine the limits of those obligations? How do we apply the concept of God-endowed rights along the Southern border of the US, where thousands are queuing up and crossing our border illegally? If rights come from God, not from government, and if American government is truly *of the people*, of *us*, can we argue on any principled basis against an open border? Similarly, can we argue on any principled basis against intervention in foreign "human rights" issues?
I think we *can* argue against an open border, and against foreign interventions in the name of "human rights", but not on a basis of *principle*. Personally I cannot find a way to maintain simultaneously that *my* rights come from God and are therefore unalienable, but the rights of others depend on their citizenship. The only distinction I've been able to draw is not principled, but pragmatic; it is not practically possible in fiscal or cultural terms for the US to open its borders, or to intervene consistently in overseas human rights issues, consequently there can be no obligation to do so. While the rights of others, born elsewhere and in far less blessed circumstances, are endowed by God just as are our own rights, we cannot take on a general obligation to protect the rights of others. We *can* regulate entry into the US, enforce clear requirements for citizenship, and choose to forego intervention in human rights crises overseas, because the contrary is not possible practically.
Perhaps many of you will find my distinction between principle and pragmatism to be academic hair-splitting; perhaps you are correct. I find the retreat to pragmatism to be rather thin gruel myself. But I hope those of us who mean what we say about rights, God, and the US Constitution can still be troubled to think about them carefully.
@roamer_1
-
But if rights come from God, not from government, what obligations do we have to protect the rights of others, equally endowed by God, and how do we determine the limits of those obligations? How do we apply the concept of God-endowed rights along the Southern border of the US, where thousands are queuing up and crossing our border illegally?
Oh goody! MEAT.
On my phone right now, where waxing loquacious is a laborious endeavor...
But I will be back
BKMK
-
Oh goody! MEAT.
On my phone right now, where waxing loquacious is a laborious endeavor...
But I will be back
BKMK
Well whether it's meat done to taste, or too rare or over-done, you'll have to decide. Take your time, I look forward to your thoughts at your convenience.
-
Well whether it's meat done to taste, or too rare or over-done, you'll have to decide. Take your time, I look forward to your thoughts at your convenience.
I like my steaks rare but my thinking well-done. Still working on it.
-
I like my steaks rare but my thinking well-done. Still working on it.
I would appreciate your well-done thoughts as well @Sanguine, and those of any other forum member who might find appetizing the raw steaks I've laid out for the grill.
-
It raises an interesting question that "conservatives" should reflect on carefully. (I use quotation marks because I have concluded after many years that "conservative" is undefined in the United States, essentially no more than shorthand for a specific set of policy beliefs, and "conservatives" have in fact *conserved* very little.)
@HoustonSam
Thank you for the ping...
I find that to be less than true... American Conservatism is well defined. Where the problem lies is in the ever present hyphenation that tries to change it to something else. The issue is not what Conservatism is, but rather, that people don't know the answer, and consider themselves to be conservative in ignorance.
But enough about that... Onward to the good part.
But if rights come from God, not from government, what obligations do we have to protect the rights of others, equally endowed by God, and how do we determine the limits of those obligations? How do we apply the concept of God-endowed rights along the Southern border of the US, where thousands are queuing up and crossing our border illegally? If rights come from God, not from government, and if American government is truly *of the people*, of *us*, can we argue on any principled basis against an open border? Similarly, can we argue on any principled basis against intervention in foreign "human rights" issues?
Of course. That others hold the same unalienable rights is not the question. But rather, the function of this government, and whom it is to serve in protecting those unalienable rights.
That function is so apparent as to be mechanically tied to the words of the contract... Namely, its citizens:
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 [...]
It is beyond the aegis of this government to protect the rights of those outside her borders, and equally those within her borders that are not citizens - Those citizens being the benefactors of the compact, and justly in receipt of the bounties produced therefrom.
It's establishment is defined by jurisdictions.
Its laws are not extended beyond its means.
Nor should they be.
And that, friend, is a position based in principle, not in practicality.
The only remedy beyond those jurisdictions is to enter in - Either by becoming a citizen (Loosely extended to those visiting legally under some visa), or by expansion by way of application and adoption of new lands as a territory or state.
I find it much harder to justify going to war (to include police action, etc) for the purpose of defending human rights, for exactly the same reason - it is outside of the jurisdiction of the contract. That is not to say it cannot be done, but that it cannot be done according to the letter. Which leaves it in the swamp lands of foreign policy, where we might debate all day.
@Sanguine
@Smokin Joe
@Bigun
-
@HoustonSam
Thank you for the ping...
I find that to be less than true... American Conservatism is well defined. Where the problem lies is in the ever present hyphenation that tries to change it to something else. The issue is not what Conservatism is, but rather, that people don't know the answer, and consider themselves to be conservative in ignorance.
But enough about that... Onward to the good part.
Of course. That others hold the same unalienable rights is not the question. But rather, the function of this government, and whom it is to serve in protecting those unalienable rights.
That function is so apparent as to be mechanically tied to the words of the contract... Namely, its citizens:
It is beyond the aegis of this government to protect the rights of those outside her borders, and equally those within her borders that are not citizens - Those citizens being the benefactors of the compact, and justly in receipt of the bounties produced therefrom.
It's establishment is defined by jurisdictions.
Its laws are not extended beyond its means.
Nor should they be.
And that, friend, is a position based in principle, not in practicality.
The only remedy beyond those jurisdictions is to enter in - Either by becoming a citizen (Loosely extended to those visiting legally under some visa), or by expansion by way of application and adoption of new lands as a territory or state.
I find it much harder to justify going to war (to include police action, etc) for the purpose of defending human rights, for exactly the same reason - it is outside of the jurisdiction of the contract. That is not to say it cannot be done, but that it cannot be done according to the letter. Which leaves it in the swamp lands of foreign policy, where we might debate all day.
@Sanguine
@Smokin Joe
@Bigun
Very well put.
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.
Depart from that, and the government loses its legitimacy. For Government to grant those Rights to those who have no regard for our laws, our borders, and the Right of Representation inherent in the power of the vote (and the apportionment of representatives in the House) is to invalidate the compact, for they have undertaken an action which dilutes the power of our Representation in our Republic, which alters the political landscape by giving disproportionate representation to areas which harbor those who are here illegally. For this reason alone, the question of American Citizenship is necessary to any census which affects that representation.
Other nations make their own deals with their own citizens. They have ceded no power to our government, or they would go by its rules, as the rest of our citizens do, so long as those rules are just.
The open borders crowd is in no wise Conservative, regardless of Party affiliation.
Other countries have chosen their forms of government, or permitted such to continue, whether those forms of government protect the unalienable Rights of their people or not. If people wish to flee that, they can apply, and go through the legal means of entering and becoming a citizen of the United States or another country. Otherwise, their recourse is to change the government they currently suffer under, or to endure further the sufferings they endure at present. That choice is theirs.
It is not the job of our government to impose any change, beyond unconditional surrender in martial conflict, on the domestic policy of other governments, barring breach of international compacts, and even then, it is a task to be undertaken only after considerable deliberation and verification of facts.
It is not the job of our government to extend the rights of our citizens to those of other countries, so long as they remain citizens of those countries. Treat any invader as just that: an invader.
-
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.
American Conservatism is well defined. Where the problem lies is in the ever present hyphenation that tries to change it to something else. The issue is not what Conservatism is, but rather, that people don't know the answer, and consider themselves to be conservative in ignorance.
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.
Of course. That others hold the same unalienable rights is not the question
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.
It is beyond the aegis of this government to protect the rights of those outside her borders, and equally those within her borders that are not citizens - Those citizens being the benefactors of the compact, and justly in receipt of the bounties produced therefrom.
It's establishment is defined by jurisdictions.
Its laws are not extended beyond its means.
Nor should they be.
And that, friend, is a position based in principle, not in practicality.
*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?
The only remedy beyond those jurisdictions is to enter in - Either by becoming a citizen (Loosely extended to those visiting legally under some visa), or by expansion by way of application and adoption of new lands as a territory or state.
I find it much harder to justify going to war (to include police action, etc) for the purpose of defending human rights, for exactly the same reason - it is outside of the jurisdiction of the contract. That is not to say it cannot be done, but that it cannot be done according to the letter. Which leaves it in the swamp lands of foreign policy, where we might debate all day.
Subject to my comments above, I agree here.
-
I have no idea what to think of this.
Hopefully the commission will start with concepts like:
...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 of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed....
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367771.msg2005847.html#msg2005847 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367771.msg2005847.html#msg2005847)
Hey @don-o ... Over here...
-
Very well put.
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.
Depart from that, and the government loses its legitimacy. For Government to grant those Rights to those who have no regard for our laws, our borders, and the Right of Representation inherent in the power of the vote (and the apportionment of representatives in the House) is to invalidate the compact, for they have undertaken an action which dilutes the power of our Representation in our Republic, which alters the political landscape by giving disproportionate representation to areas which harbor those who are here illegally. For this reason alone, the question of American Citizenship is necessary to any census which affects that representation.
It is not the job of our government to extend the rights of our citizens to those of other countries, so long as they remain citizens of those countries. Treat any invader as just that: an invader.
I agree with everything you've written here. There is, in my mind, no *principled* reason to extend the benefits of US citizenship, or even US residency, to those whose first encounter with the US was to violate its immigration law. Some argue that there are *pragmatic* reasons to do do - that the cost of enforcement outweighs the cost of benevolent neglect, or that the public coffers will ultimately benefit from the taxes paid by those who enter illegally. I question that arithmetic, and I challenge the idea that rule of law can be measured in dollars.
However my fundamental question is not really about whether immigration law should be enforced, it's about whether immigration law should exist. Again, I believe immigration law should exist, but I can't see a *principled* reason for it given that protection of rights is a large part of government, and rights are endowed equally to all men by God. The only justification I can see for maintaining immigration law is that we cannot *afford* to admit everyone.
To be clear, I am not arguing merely that violation of immigration law is legitimate grounds for deportation or prosecution; I am seeking to justify that the immigration law of the United States can legitimately deny entry or immigration to people who are fully law-abiding, decent, honest, and hard working, and I suggest that the only reason we can take that position is that we simply cannot afford to admit everyone.
I'll ask you here the same question I asked roamer_1 above : if we *could* afford to admit everyone, would we still be justified in denying some?
Perhaps I make a mistake in posing immigration law, a controversial issue, as an example. The larger question I'm raising is what obligation do each of us have when we recognize the God-ordained rights in someone else? Do we take on a positive obligation to secure the benefit of that right for the other person, or merely a negative obligation to refrain from interfering in his own provision of that benefit? Earlier generations of Americans believed the former, and consequently freed slaves who could not free themselves, and gave the franchise to women who could not secure it for themselves. Even today many of us believe we should protect the right to life of the unborn, who are manifestly unable to protect it for themselves. We take the active position regarding the other person's rights in these instances, not the passive one. Applied to the question of immigration, we can still draw the boundary of citizenship around the question; we can maintain that these examples are within this country and do not cross our borders. But *why* is that a legitimate principle of distinction?
I say it is legitimate because we cannot afford otherwise, and if we could afford otherwise, it would not be legitimate.
-
Unghhh....
Make... many... big... words...
Think too... hard.
Head make ow.
Must
coffee
now.
:thud:
-
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.
@HoustonSam
Let me give you my definition and see how that plays.
Conservatism = strict adherence to the Constitution for the United States.
WE the people of the several states empowered the FedGov to do 17 specific things and only those things. Everything they are doing outside the bounds of their charter is not authorized and Conservatives ought to be doing everything possible to curtail all such activities.
-
@HoustonSam
Let me give you my definition and see how that plays.
Conservatism = strict adherence to the Constitution for the United States.
WE the people of the several states empowered the FedGov to do 17 specific things and only those things. Everything they are doing outside the bounds of their charter is not authorized and Conservatives ought to be doing everything possible to curtail all such activities.
I think that definition moves us a long way in the right direction, and I believe firmly in Strict Constructionism and Original Intent. But the Constitution does empower the federal government to tax us. What is our definitional basis, in the Constitution, for advocating lower tax rates?
-
I think that definition moves us a long way in the right direction, and I believe firmly in Strict Constructionism and Original Intent. But the Constitution does empower the federal government to tax us. What is our definitional basis, in the Constitution, for advocating lower tax rates?
Thank you @HoustonSam.
Indeed the Constitution does empower the fedgov to tax us but not in the manner it currently does. My objections are much more about the manner that the amount. The founders had a LOT to say about the proper mode of taxation in the federalist papers and I contend that we should return to the mode they universally endorsed, taxes on articles of consumption only! Which gets us back to your question about tax rates and I'll just go with this:
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Federalist #21
-
I agree with everything you've written here. There is, in my mind, no *principled* reason to extend the benefits of US citizenship, or even US residency, to those whose first encounter with the US was to violate its immigration law. Some argue that there are *pragmatic* reasons to do do - that the cost of enforcement outweighs the cost of benevolent neglect, or that the public coffers will ultimately benefit from the taxes paid by those who enter illegally. I question that arithmetic, and I challenge the idea that rule of law can be measured in dollars.
However my fundamental question is not really about whether immigration law should be enforced, it's about whether immigration law should exist. Again, I believe immigration law should exist, but I can't see a *principled* reason for it given that protection of rights is a large part of government, and rights are endowed equally to all men by God. The only justification I can see for maintaining immigration law is that we cannot *afford* to admit everyone.
To be clear, I am not arguing merely that violation of immigration law is legitimate grounds for deportation or prosecution; I am seeking to justify that the immigration law of the United States can legitimately deny entry or immigration to people who are fully law-abiding, decent, honest, and hard working, and I suggest that the only reason we can take that position is that we simply cannot afford to admit everyone.
I'll ask you here the same question I asked roamer_1 above : if we *could* afford to admit everyone, would we still be justified in denying some?
Perhaps I make a mistake in posing immigration law, a controversial issue, as an example. The larger question I'm raising is what obligation do each of us have when we recognize the God-ordained rights in someone else? Do we take on a positive obligation to secure the benefit of that right for the other person, or merely a negative obligation to refrain from interfering in his own provision of that benefit? Earlier generations of Americans believed the former, and consequently freed slaves who could not free themselves, and gave the franchise to women who could not secure it for themselves. Even today many of us believe we should protect the right to life of the unborn, who are manifestly unable to protect it for themselves. We take the active position regarding the other person's rights in these instances, not the passive one. Applied to the question of immigration, we can still draw the boundary of citizenship around the question; we can maintain that these examples are within this country and do not cross our borders. But *why* is that a legitimate principle of distinction?
I say it is legitimate because we cannot afford otherwise, and if we could afford otherwise, it would not be legitimate.
I've thought about this highlighted portion in the past (especially as a result of talking to libertarians).
I restate the question to myself as: Is there a principled (not practical) justification for the boundary of citizenship?
Though I can not say that I am entirely comfortable with my answer, I have given myself the answer the the boundary of citizenship is justifiable under the natural law property right. That is, extending the property right beyond the individual to the collection of individuals, i.e., citizens of a nation. To protect our property as citizens, we need to establish the boundary of citizenship.
Too simple?
@HoustonSam
-
Great conversation!
So, and on less than one cup of coffee, what I take away at this point is:
1. We, as humans, have unalienable rights bestowed by God.
Q - does that apply to every human or are Americans somehow special? My thought is that, no, Americans are not special, but America is.
2. We not-special Americans got together 243 years ago and tried to "form a more perfect union". In doing so, we, with divine intervention, created a nation, ruled by laws and not people, and based on limited powers.
3. Other people, who are just as not-special as we are, are free to form their own governments with their own rules.
4. We are not required to take in those people whenever they want to come here, based on our laws per above.
5. The government that was created by the people giving up some of their rights to do so, is established for the purpose of doing the things that it has been directed to do so in its formation.
6. To go beyond those things or to fail to do those things is a breach of contract/compact.
-
Thank you @HoustonSam.
Indeed the Constitution does empower the fedgov to tax us but not in the manner it currently does. My objections are much more about the manner that the amount. The founders had a LOT to say about the proper mode of taxation in the federalist papers and I contend that we should return to the mode they universally endorsed, taxes on articles of consumption only which gets us back to your question about tax rates. I'll go with this:
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Federalist #21
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.
-
I've thought about this highlighted portion in the past (especially as a result of talking to libertarians).
I restate the question to myself as: Is there a principled (not practical) justification for the boundary of citizenship?
Though I can not say that I am entirely comfortable with my answer, I have given myself the answer the the boundary of citizenship is justifiable under the natural law property right. That is, extending the property right beyond the individual to the collection of individuals, i.e., citizens of a nation. To protect our property as citizens, we need to establish the boundary of citizenship.
Too simple?
@HoustonSam
Nope! Not at all too simple and I concur.
-
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.
The ONLY answer to that I can come up with @HoustonSam, and I have contemplated that a lot over the years, is that they have resigned themselves to the existence of the Marxist income tax system we currently suffer. Obviously, I am decidedly NOT among those that have done so.
-
Great conversation!
So, and on less than one cup of coffee, what I take away at this point is:
1. We, as humans, have unalienable rights bestowed by God.
Q - does that apply to every human or are Americans somehow special? My thought is that, no, Americans are not special, but America is.
2. We not-special Americans got together 243 years ago and tried to "form a more perfect union". In doing so, we, with divine intervention, created a nation, ruled by laws and not people, and based on limited powers.
3. Other people, who are just as not-special as we are, are free to form their own governments with their own rules.
4. We are not required to take in those people whenever they want to come here, based on our laws per above.
5. The government that was created by the people giving up some of their rights to do so, is established for the purpose of doing the things that it has been directed to do so in its formation.
6. To go beyond those things or to fail to do those things is a breach of contract/compact.
:yowsa: Well said @Sanguine !
-
I've thought about this highlighted portion in the past (especially as a result of talking to libertarians).
I restate the question to myself as: Is there a principled (not practical) justification for the boundary of citizenship?
Though I can not say that I am entirely comfortable with my answer, I have given myself the answer the the boundary of citizenship is justifiable under the natural law property right. That is, extending the property right beyond the individual to the collection of individuals, i.e., citizens of a nation. To protect our property as citizens, we need to establish the boundary of citizenship.
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.
-
Though I can not say that I am entirely comfortable with my answer, I have given myself the answer the the boundary of citizenship is justifiable under the natural law property right. That is, extending the property right beyond the individual to the collection of individuals, i.e., citizens of a nation. To protect our property as citizens, we need to establish the boundary of citizenship.
@HoustonSam
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 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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
Depart from that, and the government loses its legitimacy.
And there's the money shot, and here's why:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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:
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.
*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.
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.
-
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%!
-
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.
-
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!!
-
Nope! Not at all too simple and I concur.
I think there is some merit. Hopefully we can give it some thought.
-
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.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367771.msg2005847.html#msg2005847 (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.
-
BKMK
-
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???
-
BKMK
Me too.
Great discussion here!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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'.
-
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...
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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 (https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-life-and-legacy-russell-kirk) the suggestion.
-
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.
-
@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...
-
@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.
-
----------------------------------
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?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
Whether it's the Republican Party, "Conservatives", or Conservatism, damn little is being conserved.
100% agree with that.
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!
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!
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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".
-
@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.
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
BKMK
-
@HoustonSam
It's good to hear from you again.
-
@GrouchoTex
Thanks. Stay dry this weekend, and be safe. I'll be back here tonight with more thoughts.
-
@GrouchoTex
Thanks. Stay dry this weekend, and be safe. I'll be back here tonight with more thoughts.
You, too.
nws/noaa seems to think were out of the woods (for now).
-
----------------------------------------
Indeed you are, yet wealth prior to capitalism was little more than an ornament!
More tomorrow!
-----------------------------------
Sanguine, continuing:
As an opinion forum, all are entitled, yet history is not an opinion.
Repeating, Man's earliest non-tribal cultures/societies emerged in the Fertile
Crescent some 9,000 years ago, being agrarian in substance and temperament.
They chose Responsibility over Rights, because it was a hallmark of maturity that
bettered everyone. Aristotle asserted that our decisions make us what we become.
In contrast, Rights were largely viewed as an appeal to narrow self-interest.
As a consequence Man developed a strong sense of the spiritual manifested in his
Art be it Architecture, Literature, Music, Portraiture, Sculpture; as history affirms.
Then the Enlightenment dawned by mid-18th century fostered by French neurotics
such as Rousseau and Voltaire, birthing the world we have now.
Material betterment and freedom has replaced Spiritual introspection and
responsibility in the psyche of Man; as Capitalism emerged as an economic force.
We hardly need chronic naval gazing to grasp our problem.
We are in the wilderness because we have lost sight of eternal value and virtue.
Redefining the attitude/behavior of conservatism will do nothing to change that
reality as we know from history exactly what it represents.
-
Thanks @Smokin Joe for the time and thought you've put into this response. Time is the most valuable thing we have, and you've been generous with it.
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.
Certainly. Laws limit the freedom of all of us, usually because of the proclivities of a few of us. I'd say that's a good reason to have as few laws as possible, and it's one of my personal key arguments against "gun control."
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.
Again, my question is why does our temporal, human legislation enable us to impede someone else in joining our country when they attempt to do so legally in order to pursue rights which are endowed to them by eternal, almighty, sovereign *God*? I certainly think our legislation *can* legitimately do that, but it should lead us to serious thought.
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).
Agreed, we can certainly exclude people who enter illegally.
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.
While true enough as a norm, the abortion issue seems to me a clear exception. We advocate more government there, not less, and they advocate no government.
Conservatives want the freedom to be responsible for their lot, where Leftists want the freedom from being responsible for theirs.
And I think that is also quite true for the abortion issue.
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.
I generally agree here. Certainly the "progressives" are driving a reactive, feelings-based conformity that stifles natural liberties. However we are not immune to fallacy ourselves.
-
While true enough as a norm, the abortion issue seems to me a clear exception. We advocate more government there, not less, and they advocate no government.
@HoustonSam
If by that you mean the federal government then put me in the no government camp.
The federal government has no dog in that hunt and never has had one.
-
@HoustonSam
If by that you mean the federal government then put me in the no government camp.
The federal government has no dog in that hunt and never has had one.
That's a good catch @Bigun, and I sure overlooked it. Of course there are plenty of pro-life Conservatives who advocate not just a repeal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion. That doesn't mean you have to align with them.
But let me ask you, if some state repealed its state law against murder, what do you think would be the proper response, if any, of Conservatives in other states?
-
That's a good catch @Bigun, and I sure overlooked it. Of course there are plenty of pro-life Conservatives who advocate not just a repeal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion. That doesn't mean you have to align with them.
But let me ask you, if some state repealed its state law against murder, what do you think would be the proper response, if any, of Conservatives in other states?
@HoustonSam my wife is calling me to dinner but right off the top of my head I would say that puts us back in the territory of the unalienable rights you started with WAY up thread.
-
That's a good catch @Bigun, and I sure overlooked it. Of course there are plenty of pro-life Conservatives who advocate not just a repeal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion. That doesn't mean you have to align with them.
But let me ask you, if some state repealed its state law against murder, what do you think would be the proper response, if any, of Conservatives in other states?
@HoustonSam
@Bigun is right.
The reason abortion is a national issue is because the right to life is enumerated, and unalienable., and therefore to be protected, according to, and by the Constitution.
There is no place in these United states where !YOUR! life is not equally protected, and the life of any hoomin bean should necessarily be likewise.
It is not so much the protection of life as it is the sanction of death - There are only two ways your life can be legally taken from you - by Just Cause (war) or by Due Process (by criminal trial).
That's it. Under which of those does abortion find it's place, by which the government at any level can sanction it?
-
@Bigun is right.
Good evening @roamer_1, it's a pleasure to see you here tonight.
@Bigun argued in 80 above that he believes in *no federal* laws against abortion. Bigun, would you leave it up to states to preserve the legality of abortion should Roe be overturned?
While this will likely hijack the thread, it is an example of the concept of unalienable rights and how those rights determine our relationship as individuals with government, particularly in a federal system.
-
Good evening @roamer_1, it's a pleasure to see you here tonight.
@Bigun argued in 80 above that he believes in *no federal* laws against abortion. Bigun, would you leave it up to states to preserve the legality of abortion should Roe be overturned?
While this will likely hijack the thread, it is an example of the concept of unalienable rights and how those rights determine our relationship as individuals with government, particularly in a federal system.
@HoustonSam
I believe that the states are where the question belongs if it is a question at all, because at base, I agree with @ roamer_1 on this 100%. If the right to life is not unalienable nothing is.
-
-----------------------------------
Sanguine, continuing:
As an opinion forum, all are entitled, yet history is not an opinion.
Repeating, Man's earliest non-tribal cultures/societies emerged in the Fertile
Crescent some 9,000 years ago, being agrarian in substance and temperament.
They chose Responsibility over Rights, because it was a hallmark of maturity that
bettered everyone. Aristotle asserted that our decisions make us what we become.
In contrast, Rights were largely viewed as an appeal to narrow self-interest.
As a consequence Man developed a strong sense of the spiritual manifested in his
Art be it Architecture, Literature, Music, Portraiture, Sculpture; as history affirms.
Then the Enlightenment dawned by mid-18th century fostered by French neurotics
such as Rousseau and Voltaire, birthing the world we have now, where Material
betterment and freedom has replaced Spiritual introspection and responsibility
in the psyche of Man; since Capitalism emerged as an economic force.
We hardly need chronic naval gazing to grasp our problem.
We are in the wilderness because we have lost sight of eternal value and virtue.
Redefining the attitude/behavior of conservatism will do nothing to change that
reality as we know from history exactly what it represents.
History is an opinion. Written by the victors. Capitalism was an ingenious invention, coupled with the industrial revolution, that turned serfs/slaves into masters of their own destiny. So much so I sold my soul to the company store.
We can parse it. All you want. Right to life. Property. Happpppinessss.
Education is the key here. The open availability to access information.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a magnificent document. As western Europeans killed, maimed, and destroyed from coast to coast with those "unalienable rights".
This may be somewhat of a thread hijack. There is a large group of people saying they are going to raid Area 51 to find aliens.
You want to find aliens go to our southern border. Take your guns. Aliens by the millions.
I don't know what the ones in the spacecraft want. But the ones from down south are coming for your gold.
-
History is an opinion. Written by the victors. Capitalism was an ingenious invention, coupled with the industrial revolution, that turned serfs/slaves into masters of their own destiny. So much so I sold my soul to the company store.
We can parse it. All you want. Right to life. Property. Happpppinessss.
Education is the key here. The open availability to access information.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a magnificent document. As western Europeans killed, maimed, and destroyed from coast to coast with those "unalienable rights".
Very well said @bigheadfred. True education vs the indoctrination that is increasingly passing for it these days.
-
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.
I've had to think about this a lot @IsailedawayfromFR. I am particularly struck by your argument that we diminish our own tradition when we respect another's. First of all, I simply don't believe that's true. It would not diminish my Christian faith to put on a hat to enter a synagogue, or take off my shoes to enter a mosque. Now granted I would not join in rites or rituals of worship in either place, so maybe that's what you mean by "equal appreciation."
So the larger issue might be what sort of "appreciation", if any, does our government owe to our founding Judeo-Christian tradition, and does it owe some lesser appreciation, if any, for other traditions? I'm sure we both agree that someone can be a Moslem or Buddhist or Hindu or atheist and still be an American, and that every American should be treated equally by the law. So whatever appreciation the government might owe to the founding tradition cannot manifest itself as treating law-abiding citizens differently from one another.
In fact I would argue that the whole idea of individual liberty and equality before the law arose distinctly within the Judeo-Christian tradition; the New Testament expression of those ideas is found very clearly in the third chapter of Galatians. By vigilantly insisting on those principles we respect that tradition, by practicing them casually or paying them mere lip service we disrespect it.
And not only equality before the law, but the starting point of this thread, unalienable rights, and necessarily with those rights an understanding of the relationship of citizen to government, I think comes distinctly from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Citizens have rights, government has authority; the former should keep the latter in check. Just as the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, so governments and philosophies are the tools and servants of men, not their masters. From that part of the Judeo-Christian tradition I have to believe that you posed the issue backward - the question is not whether we might diminish our philosophy or government, but whether our philosophy or government might diminish us.
When government does pay some symbolic respect to the Judeo-Christian tradition, for example with a Ten Commandments monument outside a courthouse or a Cross memorial on public land, people say they are offended by that. Does it matter that people are offended by that? Again, citizens have rights, government has authority. As individual citizens we certainly have the right to offend, and no one has the right to live free of being offended. But here the question is whether government has the authority to offend its citizens. Can government, the servant, legitimately offend tax-paying, law abiding citizens, the masters? People are always going to claim to be offended by something, so as a practical matter I don't think we can require government, even as our servant, to give absolutely no offense to anyone. There has to be some practical approach to distinguishing legitimate offense from self-righteousness and self-indulgence. But if we're going to argue for limited government because that preserves individual liberty, which is itself our Judeo-Christian inheritance, we ought to be careful here.
Are there some tangible, specific ways that government might demonstrate its debt to Judeo-Christian culture? I bet you and I agree it's absurd for the Federal Courts to forbid monuments to the Ten Commandments outside courthouses. That's a specific way that I think our government could respect and uphold the Judeo-Christian heritage. And I would argue that those monuments could be created at government expense, so long as that total expense were a small proportion of an overall budget. Some will screw themselves into high dudgeon over the idea, but "snowflakism" is *not* part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
But this is a slippery slope. I was happy to see recently that a court in Maryland ruled that a memorial Cross could remain on public property. But that Cross doesn't fit into the "Judeo" part of our founding tradition. So this can get pretty tricky pretty fast. And obviously, what if tax-paying, law abiding citizens who come from a different faith tradition want to see some of their tax dollars paying respect to their faith? What if a group of Somalis in Minneapolis wanted to raise some sort of Moslem monument in a public park? Should they be able to? And at whose expense? Honestly I don't think it would bother me to see monuments to other faiths on public land, but my personal sensitivities are not the basis of public policy here. And again it's a slippery slope. "Pastafarians" practice a farce faith where they wear collanders on their heads and worship "the flying spaghetti monster"; I want no such monuments on public land where I pay any share of the taxes. So the best way I can distinguish that is to say that our Judeo-Christian heritage includes sincere respect for sincere faiths, but does not compel us to participate in farce.
My bottom line is that I would like to see greater open acknowledgement of the philosophical debt everyone in this country owes to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Expressing that debt through the actions of government is going to be difficult; not impossible, but fraught with peril. And while the philosophical principles we inherit from the Judeo-Christian tradition obviously are powerful and legitimate bases for specific laws, the Scriptures themselves cannot be.
-
Good evening @roamer_1, it's a pleasure to see you here tonight.
@Bigun argued in 80 above that he believes in *no federal* laws against abortion. Bigun, would you leave it up to states to preserve the legality of abortion should Roe be overturned?
While this will likely hijack the thread, it is an example of the concept of unalienable rights and how those rights determine our relationship as individuals with government, particularly in a federal system.
@HoustonSam
That's a pretty weird question as it turns out, because prior to around WWII, the feds didn't do much in due process... The rights secured by the Constitution filtered down into state constitutions, as approved by the fed upon admittance. So @Bigun is more right than wrong.
The question at the federal level should only be as to whether the state (constitution) is standing at fault with the US Constitution.
But now, with the fed having granted itself LEO powers, I guess it figures it can enforce them too, blurring a line that used to be there... The high court is no longer used as it should be... Which to me is a separation of powers issue.
How to resolve that first would be difficult... But by rights, enforcement (due process) should be in the bailiwick of the states respectively.
However, the question itself is a Constitutional issue. I would prefer the SCOTUS had ruled the Constitutional issue correctly, which would be an order to the states involved to enforce their own Constitution correctly. A formality, I suppose, but proper.
-
@HoustonSam .
Good post.
The government doesn't have any rights. The government doesn't have any authority. Only the people do.
And I disagree that the unalienable rights issue is distinctly Judeo-Christian. Being a major factor, yes.
-
@HoustonSam
That's a pretty weird question as it turns out, because prior to around WWII, the feds didn't do much in due process... The rights secured by the Constitution filtered down into state constitutions, as approved by the fed upon admittance. So @Bigun is more right than wrong.
The question at the federal level should only be as to whether the state (constitution) is standing at fault with the US Constitution.
But now, with the fed having granted itself LEO powers, I guess it figures it can enforce them too, blurring a line that used to be there... The high court is no longer used as it should be... Which to me is a separation of powers issue.
How to resolve that first would be difficult... But by rights, enforcement (due process) should be in the bailiwick of the states respectively.
However, the question itself is a Constitutional issue. I would prefer the SCOTUS had ruled the Constitutional issue correctly, which would be an order to the states involved to enforce their own Constitution correctly. A formality, I suppose, but proper.
I had not thought of that approach. Leave it as an Article IV "Republican form of government" issue, and say no more.
But I can't line that up with what you said above in 83 :
It is not so much the protection of life as it is the sanction of death - There are only two ways your life can be legally taken from you - by Just Cause (war) or by Due Process (by criminal trial).
That's it. Under which of those does abortion find it's place, by which the government at any level can sanction it?
What am I missing?
-
@HoustonSam .
Good post.
The government doesn't have any rights. The government doesn't have any authority. Only the people do.
And I disagree that the unalienable rights issue is distinctly Judeo-Christian. Being a major factor, yes.
Thanks @bigheadfred. I am open to further education on the origins of unalienable rights.
-
I had not thought of that approach. Leave it as an Article IV "Republican form of government" issue, and say no more.
But I can't line that up with what you said above in 83 :
What am I missing?
The definition of what Constitutes Human Life.
-
Thanks @bigheadfred. I am open to further education on the origins of unalienable rights.
Perhaps the origin lies not in the unalienable part, but that a person had any rights at all. The Code of Urukagina for a start.
-
Perhaps the origin lies not in the unalienable part, but that a person had any rights at all. The Code of Urukagina for a start.
Hat tip; I was completely ignorant. Seems like Urukagina was not *a* start, but *the* start.
Thanks for the information.
-
Hat tip; I was completely ignorant. Seems like Urukagina was not *a* start, but *the* start.
Thanks for the information.
The real key here is that, for the most part, it is about Reforms.
-
I had not thought of that approach. Leave it as an Article IV "Republican form of government" issue, and say no more.
But I can't line that up with what you said above in 83 :
What am I missing?
I am sorry @HoustonSam , perhaps I was not concise.
All there is, properly, is an Article IV issue, in the sense that @Bigun eluded to - It is, as I said, a 'sanctioning death' issue, rather than a protection of life issue, since protection of life goes without saying, as an enumerated right.
There are only two legal means of relieving someone of their right to life... Just cause and due process.
It is obviously not a matter of just cause, or war, as it were, so that eliminates the entire war process, to include military courts, and etc, as a matter of course.
Since it is not a war issue, it must be a due process issue, which is, or at least was, within the state's bailiwick, for general purposes. The question from the federal courts for the state would be, "How do you sanction abortion within your state law as a due process issue, which is the only apparent means at your disposal?"
And since there is no answer to that, there must be a violation of the state's declared constitution, the basis of its laws, which must be remedied. And the federal court has the power to instruct the state to perform that remedy, to come into line with the Constitution and specifically Article IV.
The only remedy would be to stop sanctioning those deaths, IOW, remove law and licensing for the abortion process.
-
@HoustonSam @IsailedawayfromFR
If you go to a Muslim country to live they will make it perfectly clear to you that the basis of their law is the Koran. That does not require you to change your religion. ( If you want to become a citizen the story is quite different ) It only requires that you respect the law in that land.
I am unalterably convinced that the basis of OUR law is indeed te Bible and see no reason why we shouldn't acknowledge that and require those who come here to do so as well.
Doesn't require that anyone have a religion or change any they might have nor does it "establish" a state religion.
BTW: I am enjoying this thread immensely!
-
The only remedy would be to stop sanctioning those deaths, IOW, remove law and licensing for the abortion process.
Ah, so your sense is that Article IV naturally and inevitably causes the states to prohibit abortion. Interesting. And I appreciate the lesson in Constitutional mechanics.
Most people believe there are exceptional cases which *do* merit the legal availability of abortion. My personal opinion would limit those cases severely, only to a situation where a woman's life was jeopardized by a pregnancy. Assuming that you envision any circumstances which might merit the legal availability of abortion, would you see that those circumstances should be determined through due process, or simply through medical judgment? Stated perhaps more clearly, given that life can only be taken by due process or just cause, and abortion cannot be the latter, if a woman's life were jeopardized by a pregnancy should due process be required to procure an abortion? Would approval by both Doctors *and* Lawyers be required, or only Doctors?
-
@HoustonSam @IsailedawayfromFR
Doesn't require that anyone have a religion or change any they might have nor does it "establish" a state religion.
Then what does it mean? Could it mean, for example, that homosexual behavior is outlawed because it is condemned in the books of Leviticus and Romans, but you don't have to be a Jew or a Christian to live here?
I've never lived outside the US so I honestly don't know how this sort of thing is managed elsewhere.
-
But this is a slippery slope. I was happy to see recently that a court in Maryland ruled that a memorial Cross could remain on public property. But that Cross doesn't fit into the "Judeo" part of our founding tradition. So this can get pretty tricky pretty fast.
@HoustonSam
This was a terrific post - But your conclusion is in error.
Law is necessarily a reflection of ethics.
the Judeo-Christian Ethic - not religion now - the ethical norms generated by that religion, are the prism through which all of our laws, to include our matchless constitution, are viewed.
Another ethic - say, Secular Humanism, is by its nature a different prism.
The Judeo-Christian Ethic, our sense of right and wrong, has served us well since before we were a nation, and is highly tolerant... Muhammad has been here from the very start (free Moors), living in peace underneath that very ethic. The same with Sikhs, and Chinese Ancestor worship, Buddhists and etc, though they came later. But all were content to live within a just system of laws as generated through the prism of the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
We were not a pluralistic society. We were a tolerant Christian society.
And the prism we are looking through now, is nothing like it. And that is our doom.
-
@HoustonSam
This was a terrific post - But your conclusion is in error.
Law is necessarily a reflection of ethics.
the Judeo-Christian Ethic - not religion now - the ethical norms generated by that religion, are the prism through which all of our laws, to include our matchless constitution, are viewed.
Another ethic - say, Secular Humanism, is by its nature a different prism.
The Judeo-Christian Ethic, our sense of right and wrong, has served us well since before we were a nation, and is highly tolerant... Muhammad has been here from the very start (free Moors), living in peace underneath that very ethic. The same with Sikhs, and Chinese Ancestor worship, Buddhists and etc, though they came later. But all were content to live within a just system of laws as generated through the prism of the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
We were not a pluralistic society. We were a tolerant Christian society.
And the prism we are looking through now, is nothing like it. And that is our doom.
@HoustonSam
@roamer_1 says what I was trying to say above but much better!
-
Then what does it mean? Could it mean, for example, that homosexual behavior is outlawed because it is condemned in the books of Leviticus and Romans, but you don't have to be a Jew or a Christian to live here?
I've never lived outside the US so I honestly don't know how this sort of thing is managed elsewhere.
I have but in a company (ARAMCO) compound. We were allowed wide latitude in the things we did inside that compound but when we ventured out side it was an entirely different matter and you simply did not do certain things.
-
Stated perhaps more clearly, given that life can only be taken by due process or just cause, and abortion cannot be the latter, if a woman's life were jeopardized by a pregnancy should due process be required to procure an abortion? Would approval by both Doctors *and* Lawyers be required, or only Doctors?
@HoustonSam
No... Life of the mother, properly applied, would be within a doctor's capacity. An ectopic pregnancy as an instance - obviously it makes sense to abort the child and save the mother, as without that decision, the only outcome is the death of both.
But neither is he immune. He may have to stand and defend his decisions, as with any case of malpractice... So he had best be sure.
So yes, there can be room for exceptions.
-
History is an opinion. Written by the victors. Capitalism was an ingenious invention, coupled with the industrial revolution, that turned serfs/slaves into masters of their own destiny. So much so I sold my soul to the company store.
We can parse it. All you want. Right to life. Property. Happpppinessss.
Education is the key here. The open availability to access information.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a magnificent document. As western Europeans killed, maimed, and destroyed from coast to coast with those "unalienable rights".
This may be somewhat of a thread hijack. There is a large group of people saying they are going to raid Area 51 to find aliens.
You want to find aliens go to our southern border. Take your guns. Aliens by the millions.
I don't know what the ones in the spacecraft want. But the ones from down south are coming for your gold.
-------------------------------
* History is a record of the past which defines its very essence!
* Capitalism is an economic system, period; its worth is an opinion.
* Serfdom, warts and all, was also an economic system exchanging
labor for the protection/security of the Lord. We moderns label it a job.
* Mankind for some 9,000 years was self-educated if he chose to be,
w/o academic credentials; the poor things.
* the US Constitution is another historic document, including the
Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, the Gita; among dozens.
Books are in the library!!!
-
@roamer_1 says what I was trying to say above but much better!
:beer:
-
@HoustonSam
This was a terrific post - But your conclusion is in error.
Law is necessarily a reflection of ethics.
the Judeo-Christian Ethic - not religion now - the ethical norms generated by that religion, are the prism through which all of our laws, to include our matchless constitution, are viewed.
Another ethic - say, Secular Humanism, is by its nature a different prism.
The Judeo-Christian Ethic, our sense of right and wrong, has served us well since before we were a nation, and is highly tolerant... Muhammad has been here from the very start (free Moors), living in peace underneath that very ethic. The same with Sikhs, and Chinese Ancestor worship, Buddhists and etc, though they came later. But all were content to live within a just system of laws as generated through the prism of the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
We were not a pluralistic society. We were a tolerant Christian society.
And the prism we are looking through now, is nothing like it. And that is our doom.
Many thanks @roamer_1 for your kind assessment of my efforts.
Although I generally prefer definitions to examples, I am forced to ask for the latter. In practical terms, if we were still looking today through the prism of a tolerant Christian society, not a pluralistic one, what would be different? I'm not challenging you, I'm sure some things *would* be different. But I need your help in understanding clearly the practical impact of that distinction.
Would we have monuments to the Ten Commandments outside all the courthouses?
Would homosexual behavior be illegal, or regulated?
Would we have prayer in public schools?
Would divorce be less common?
Would "blue" laws be more widely practiced?
Would church membership and regular participation be more common?
How would our day to day civic experience actually be different?
-
Many thanks @roamer_1 for your kind assessment of my efforts.
Although I generally prefer definitions to examples, I am forced to ask for the latter. In practical terms, if we were still looking today through the prism of a tolerant Christian society, not a pluralistic one, what would be different? I'm not challenging you, I'm sure some things *would* be different. But I need your help in understanding clearly the practical impact of that distinction.
Would we have monuments to the Ten Commandments outside all the courthouses?
Would homosexual behavior be illegal, or regulated?
Would we have prayer in public schools?
Would divorce be less common?
Would "blue" laws be more widely practiced?
Would church membership and regular participation be more common?
How would our day to day civic experience actually be different?
Ah, @HoustonSam ... I can give you no examples so your inquiry will remain unanswered in the specifics.
I am a firm federalist and I thoroughly believe that government belongs as close to the people as possible.
So there is no sure thing. But rather, if the federal impediments were removed, states and localities would be free to enact what they will - within the boundaries of law.
For all of your questions, the answer would largely be dependent upon what the people want in their state or county.
As it should be.
-
Good night everyone!
I am heading for the crib. I spent way too much time coding night before last, and I am still feeling the effects.
I will see y'all tomorrow.
This is a fantastic thread.
:beer: :seeya:
-
Would we have monuments to the Ten Commandments outside all the courthouses?
Would homosexual behavior be illegal, or regulated?
Would we have prayer in public schools?
Would divorce be less common?
Would "blue" laws be more widely practiced?
Would church membership and regular participation be more common?
All I can say with certainty @HoustonSam is that in my lifetime (70+ years at this point) I have witnessed the withering away of all the things you mention and more. I am quite sure that none of it happened by accident.
-
Ah, @HoustonSam ... I can give you no examples so your inquiry will remain unanswered in the specifics.
I am a firm federalist and I thoroughly believe that government belongs as close to the people as possible.
So there is no sure thing. But rather, if the federal impediments were removed, states and localities would be free to enact what they will - within the boundaries of law.
For all of your questions, the answer would largely be dependent upon what the people want in their state or county.
As it should be.
Thanks @roamer_1 , that is a clear and helpful response. I join you in lamenting the growth of conforming, centralized political power from DC, and its equally malignant cultural sibling emanating from the nation's media centers, both imposing a secular "progressive" philosophy of emotion, narcissism, solipsism, and indulgence, at the expense of local preference and ordered liberty under God. Were they properly constrained there would be opportunity, but not promise, of some locations experiencing renaissance and revival.
Still, we would be left with fundamental questions about what, if anything, actually binds us together. The US Constitution, as much as we should revere it, is but a mechanism, not a sentiment or a faith or a shared identity.
-
That's a good catch @Bigun, and I sure overlooked it. Of course there are plenty of pro-life Conservatives who advocate not just a repeal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion. That doesn't mean you have to align with them.
But let me ask you, if some state repealed its state law against murder, what do you think would be the proper response, if any, of Conservatives in other states?
That's where I will jump in on the abortion issue.
That difference being whether that 'lump of tissue', with all we know is a human life, or is it just a few stray cells.
We certainly have no compunction about removing clumps of cells, whether that be removing malignant or benign tumors, warts, even extra fat or just to change the shape of our bodies (as a culture). However, those clumps of cells lack one thing which an embryo does have: the ability to develop into a human being easily recognized as such by other human beings. That embryo does not have the genetic match with the mother, just some shared genetics: it has a unique human DNA, and is a unique human.
Prior to implantation in the uterine wall, though, it is just a fertilized egg, running and developing by virtue of its onboard systems, insufficient to take it to maturity in a placental mammal. Once implanted in the uterine wall, once the placenta starts to develop, the game is changed. Now, at whatever stage of development we wish to define as "life", that embryo has/will become a human being unless outside forces or medical issues intervene to stop that development.
If we are to safeguard the lives of those least able to defend their own, then the only question becomes one of at what point in that development do we consider human life to be human life?
Genetically, the embryo is the same as the fetus which is the same as the baby which is the same as the adult.
There can be no denial that that unique human is the same at all stages of its development in genetic terms.
That takes us, backtracking to the simple enough conclusion that that life begins at conception, at the combination of gametes to produce that unique DNA.
To set that aside for a moment, let us consider that, of the mammals, it is rare to find a mother who will not die in combat to protect her young. That isn't saying that if food is scarce, or disease taxes the health of the mother, that spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) do not occur, but the bears don't line up at the ranger station to get D&Cs.
It seems unnatural that (some) humans would willingly destroy their own offspring in the womb, not because they could not survive themselves, but for motives which often are nothing more than inconvenience or the pursuit of lucre or status. Promiscuity, of course, might have women and men using one another for sexual gratification when they might never otherwise consider being paired with that person, and certainly not for the purpose of producing or raising offspring, even though there exist several methods of preventing conception, something which certainly simplifies the equation.
And it seems strange that humans, who normally value above all else the lives of children, would so callously slaughter some 60,000,000 of their own (in the USA alone) since Roe, provided, of course, that we recognize those individuals uniquely defined by their DNA to be "lives".
While accounts vary, with proponents of abortion and those with an interest in keeping the process unfettered claiming there are no physical or mental health problems associated with the procedure for the woman, there are others who claim otherwise, who cite serious increases in mental health issues and even links to an increase in risk of developing breast cancer from "none" (Planned Parenthood) to 5X more likely ( A.E. Laing et al., “Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience,†Journal of the National Medical Association 85, no. 12 (1993): 931-939) Chinese studies placed the increase of risk of breast cancer at as much as 20X.
We often refer to a miscarriage (at any point in development) as "losing the baby", not as dumping a lump of tissue, or losing a clump of cells.
When we quit playing word games, we find that yes, there was a human being who failed to survive its prenatal development.
If a natural thing, that may be because of health problems with the developing baby or the mother, or both, but that is natural. The body hormonally shuts down the stem cell development that was occurring in the breast in anticipation of lactation, and things return pretty much to normal. If done by clinical means, that shutdown is not performed the same way, hormonal balances are different, and that may produce an increase in risk of breast cancer.
If there was another 'medical procedure' that carried increased risk of cancer, of psychological issues, and, if successful, ended in the termination of at least one human life, would we sanction it? Or would we prohibit it, for the good of our society, both now and down the road.
Then there is the question of how one rationally justifies the sanctioning of the taking of a human life in the absence of any guilt, of any crime, of anything worse than being inconvenient or a souvenir of a night with someone they might rather forget. How do we justify that the only arguably innocent one is condemned to die for the irresponsibility or even crimes of others?
Taking that life cannot be justified within our framework of Rights or jurisprudence except by deciding to define a prenatal infant as something other than a human life, something we inherently and instinctively know to not be true.
Otherwise, all that need to be done to justify killing off any group, based on age, eye or skin color, genetics, or ANY other factor is to declare those in the category desired to be fair game for elimination as something less than human.
We have seen where that slippery slope leads and it hasn't been so long ago, yet by so doing, by defining the unborn as less than human, the number of lives taken exceeds the body counts of even the most heinous of totalitarians of the 20th century. Here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
-
Some more discussion
What Are Human Rights?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/what_are_human_rights.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/what_are_human_rights.html)
-
Some more discussion
What Are Human Rights?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/what_are_human_rights.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/what_are_human_rights.html)
Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR. Based on a couple of quick reads of the link, it looks like the so-called "experts" *don't* agree on what rights are, or where they come from, or whether everyone has the same rights. I'll concede it can be difficult to sort out in a particular situation whether one man's rights should prevail over another's, but I didn't realize that the leading lights of One World Tolerance and Diversity are this confused.
I think all of us here would probably agree that rights come from God and that everyone has the same rights. However it might be very difficult for us to agree on a definition of "right" or even a list of examples, and it is likely even more difficult to sort out which right of one individual should take precedence over which right of some other individual, or over an authority of government, in a given situation.
I'll boldly take a stab at a definition here : a "right" is the social recognition that an individual or group should not be impeded.
Social recognition? What does that mean? I say it's a social recognition because it isn't feasible for individuals to declare unilaterally their own rights. Whether or not something is a right is not for us to decide, neither unilaterally for ourselves nor by consensus for others, since rights come from God; but we must achieve a consensus recognition of a right, a shared philosophical, social, political agreement that something is a right, in order to treat it properly as a right. Achieving that shared consensus recognition is the hard part. I don't think God endows us with rights today that he did not endow to earlier generations before us; the question is whether our recognition of His endowment is becoming more trustworthy or more deluded.
One question raised in the article is whether or not rights might vary from one culture to another. My opinion is that the recognition of a right might vary from one culture to another, because the expectations men have of themselves, their families, and their institutions do differ across cultures; but the fact of a right will not vary from one culture to another because all men are equal before God. And I note @IsailedawayfromFR that this leads directly back to your appeal for respect for the distinct Judeo-Christian culture which was the intellectual and social foundation of the country. We should not refrain from asserting, even through government and law, that our ability to discern rights is perhaps *the* key distinction of our culture, and people all over the world regularly demonstrate their assent by immigrating here, within or without the very law that encodes our, yes superior, recognition of rights.
Individual or group? What is the importance of the individual, or the group, in this proposed definition? Do only individuals have rights, or do groups have rights? Again, when we recognize that different cultures pay greater or lesser respect to individuality, the interaction between individual and group certainly is very important, particularly in the ability to *recognize* a right. But for our discussion here the important application is probably the individual in comparison to government. Government is the entity we all live with which is authorized to use force against us - our employers, churches, or families cannot - so how we as individuals interact with government is the critical scenario for understanding rights. I say intentionally that government is authorized to use force against us - individuals have rights, government has authority. When a right is recognized as such, it functions as a check on government authority.
Many of us on this board remain staunch believers in the federal system created in 1787. I maintain my belief in that system, although I think it's practically on its last legs; still, a federal system sheds additional light on this question of individuals, groups, and government. There used to be a position in this country which favored "States Rights." Although my own ancestors brought the term into disrepute because of the context in which they asserted it, I'll argue that a right which is abused does not therefore cease to exist. In the case of the federal system, a State does have rights which should check the authority of the Federal Government. So while the application of rights to individuals is, I think, the most fundamental case and the best case for creating a definition, it's not the only meaningful application of these concepts. The key point I think is that a right *functions as* a check on authority; while I believe it *is* an endowment of God to individuals, a group of those individuals might have some aggregate of the rights of the individuals themselves. However different groups have different natures - the high school chess club is a group, and the state of Texas is a group. The latter is authorized to use force against its citizens, the former obviously not. How does that change whether the individual rights of the members accrue to the group? Of course that's an extreme case, but extremes help us define.
Should not be impeded. This part certainly gets difficult, and comes down to specific cases. Impeded by whom, and for what purpose? Again thinking about individuals and government, an individual might be impeded by some other individual or group of individuals, or by government. Remember that government alone is authorized to use force, and will also interact with the second individual or group which would propose to impede the first individual.
What authority does government have to impede an individual? I think it's basically the authority to prevent harm. If an individual acts in a way that causes harm, government has the authority to impede that behavior. Sometimes government can impede before the behavior, sometimes it punishes after the behavior, but I'm calling both "impede."
Can individuals legitimately impede other individuals? It seems to me there are three scenarios where an individual, or group of individuals, might impede another individual or group - where a contract exists providing that authority, where property or property rights are being protected, and where life is at stake. I don't find the first scenario particularly relevant to my thinking and I think the second is normally pretty clear. However recent cases argued extensively on this forum depend on how we interpret these specific scenarios. The third case is self-defense or perhaps defense of one's family or some other person in an urgent situation. I think it's clear that the person taking another's life in this circumstance is doing so in order to protect the unalienable life and liberty of others.
Whether or not something should be protected from impediment will usually be a matter of specific circumstances, but can we find some limiting cases? Is there an absolute, inviolate *right* that can never be impeded, by anyone for any reason?
I think there is one such truly absolute right, and that is the right to think. Not to say what we think, and not to act on what we think, but to think. No individual and no government, no earthly power, has the authority to regulate thought. We answer for our thoughts to Almighty God alone. I would place this as the "greater than unalienable" right.
Next would be the unalienable rights, and I have suggested up-thread those rights can only be impeded by government through due process, and cannot be impeded by individuals or groups of individuals other than for self-defense when lives are threatened.
Then would come the "alienable" rights, which can be impeded by individuals to protect property, and impeded by government with no requirement of due process. These "alienable" rights would be where the vast majority of problematic cases would reside. While they can't be listed or considered here, I think a concept of harm is necessary to guide clear thinking, and I don't have that thinking in place yet. There can be no right to live free of being offended; harm should not include limitations on speech or on routine and expected use of one's property which are materially irrelevant.
I have beaten this thread up with several very lengthy posts. I hope anyone reading them will have gained some helpful ideas.
-
Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR. Based on a couple of quick reads of the link, it looks like the so-called "experts" *don't* agree on what rights are, or where they come from, or whether everyone has the same rights. I'll concede it can be difficult to sort out in a particular situation whether one man's rights should prevail over another's, but I didn't realize that the leading lights of One World Tolerance and Diversity are this confused.
I think all of us here would probably agree that rights come from God and that everyone has the same rights. However it might be very difficult for us to agree on a definition of "right" or even a list of examples, and it is likely even more difficult to sort out which right of one individual should take precedence over which right of some other individual, or over an authority of government, in a given situation.
I'll boldly take a stab at a definition here : a "right" is the social recognition that an individual or group should not be impeded.
Social recognition? What does that mean? I say it's a social recognition because it isn't feasible for individuals to declare unilaterally their own rights. Whether or not something is a right is not for us to decide, neither unilaterally for ourselves nor by consensus for others, since rights come from God; but we must achieve a consensus recognition of a right, a shared philosophical, social, political agreement that something is a right, in order to treat it properly as a right. Achieving that shared consensus recognition is the hard part. I don't think God endows us with rights today that he did not endow to earlier generations before us; the question is whether our recognition of His endowment is becoming more trustworthy or more deluded.
One question raised in the article is whether or not rights might vary from one culture to another. My opinion is that the recognition of a right might vary from one culture to another, because the expectations men have of themselves, their families, and their institutions do differ across cultures; but the fact of a right will not vary from one culture to another because all men are equal before God. And I note @IsailedawayfromFR that this leads directly back to your appeal for respect for the distinct Judeo-Christian culture which was the intellectual and social foundation of the country. We should not refrain from asserting, even through government and law, that our ability to discern rights is perhaps *the* key distinction of our culture, and people all over the world regularly demonstrate their assent by immigrating here, within or without the very law that encodes our, yes superior, recognition of rights.
Individual or group? What is the importance of the individual, or the group, in this proposed definition? Do only individuals have rights, or do groups have rights? Again, when we recognize that different cultures pay greater or lesser respect to individuality, the interaction between individual and group certainly is very important, particularly in the ability to *recognize* a right. But for our discussion here the important application is probably the individual in comparison to government. Government is the entity we all live with which is authorized to use force against us - our employers, churches, or families cannot - so how we as individuals interact with government is the critical scenario for understanding rights. I say intentionally that government is authorized to use force against us - individuals have rights, government has authority. When a right is recognized as such, it functions as a check on government authority.
Many of us on this board remain staunch believers in the federal system created in 1787. I maintain my belief in that system, although I think it's practically on its last legs; still, a federal system sheds additional light on this question of individuals, groups, and government. There used to be a position in this country which favored "States Rights." Although my own ancestors brought the term into disrepute because of the context in which they asserted it, I'll argue that a right which is abused does not therefore cease to exist. In the case of the federal system, a State does have rights which should check the authority of the Federal Government. So while the application of rights to individuals is, I think, the most fundamental case and the best case for creating a definition, it's not the only meaningful application of these concepts. The key point I think is that a right *functions as* a check on authority; while I believe it *is* an endowment of God to individuals, a group of those individuals might have some aggregate of the rights of the individuals themselves. However different groups have different natures - the high school chess club is a group, and the state of Texas is a group. The latter is authorized to use force against its citizens, the former obviously not. How does that change whether the individual rights of the members accrue to the group? Of course that's an extreme case, but extremes help us define.
Should not be impeded. This part certainly gets difficult, and comes down to specific cases. Impeded by whom, and for what purpose? Again thinking about individuals and government, an individual might be impeded by some other individual or group of individuals, or by government. Remember that government alone is authorized to use force, and will also interact with the second individual or group which would propose to impede the first individual.
What authority does government have to impede an individual? I think it's basically the authority to prevent harm. If an individual acts in a way that causes harm, government has the authority to impede that behavior. Sometimes government can impede before the behavior, sometimes it punishes after the behavior, but I'm calling both "impede."
Can individuals legitimately impede other individuals? It seems to me there are three scenarios where an individual, or group of individuals, might impede another individual or group - where a contract exists providing that authority, where property or property rights are being protected, and where life is at stake. I don't find the first scenario particularly relevant to my thinking and I think the second is normally pretty clear. However recent cases argued extensively on this forum depend on how we interpret these specific scenarios. The third case is self-defense or perhaps defense of one's family or some other person in an urgent situation. I think it's clear that the person taking another's life in this circumstance is doing so in order to protect the unalienable life and liberty of others.
Whether or not something should be protected from impediment will usually be a matter of specific circumstances, but can we find some limiting cases? Is there an absolute, inviolate *right* that can never be impeded, by anyone for any reason?
I think there is one such truly absolute right, and that is the right to think. Not to say what we think, and not to act on what we think, but to think. No individual and no government, no earthly power, has the authority to regulate thought. We answer for our thoughts to Almighty God alone. I would place this as the "greater than unalienable" right.
Next would be the unalienable rights, and I have suggested up-thread those rights can only be impeded by government through due process, and cannot be impeded by individuals or groups of individuals other than for self-defense when lives are threatened.
Then would come the "alienable" rights, which can be impeded by individuals to protect property, and impeded by government with no requirement of due process. These "alienable" rights would be where the vast majority of problematic cases would reside. While they can't be listed or considered here, I think a concept of harm is necessary to guide clear thinking, and I don't have that thinking in place yet. There can be no right to live free of being offended; harm should not include limitations on speech or on routine and expected use of one's property which are materially irrelevant.
I have beaten this thread up with several very lengthy posts. I hope anyone reading them will have gained some helpful ideas.
Thanks, @HoustonSam . You serve this forum well as you bring forth reasoning well thought out and versed, much better than most of our forum participants, including me. The bonus for me it matches pretty well my own conservative thinking.
The only issue I see with the final discussion you have on "greater than unalienable, unalienable and alienable" is that thinking is first and foremost.
I am somewhat bothered by that idea as how would someone incapable of thought like a fetus in the womb or someone in a coma or for that matter someone asleep be able to exercise that right?
I understand what your excellent elucidation is attempting to capture; however, I would offer since the examples I mentioned cannot have that right by necessity, I would not wish to lower those beings from being any less possessing rights than any of us.
-
The only issue I see with the final discussion you have on "greater than unalienable, unalienable and alienable" is that thinking is first and foremost.
I am somewhat bothered by that idea as how would someone incapable of thought like a fetus in the womb or someone in a coma or for that matter someone asleep be able to exercise that right?
I understand what your excellent elucidation is attempting to capture; however, I would offer since the examples I mentioned cannot have that right by necessity, I would not wish to lower those beings from being any less possessing rights than any of us.
Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR , that is an excellent observation, and the thinking I've laid out does not do justice to that observation, probably because I'm thinking more about how the rights of individuals check the authority of *government*, rather than how the rights of individuals check the desires of *other individuals*. Both scenarios are necessary. When we consider the right to life of someone who is incapable of thinking or perceiving, that person's life is usually in the hands of some other individual, not in the hands of government; government doesn't *decide* to seek an abortion, or to "pull the plug." So to get this individual-and-individual part of the theory correct, the individual's ability to think or perceive is less important than some shared understanding of what the individual *is*.
So obviously this brings us to some consensus understanding of human life, a consensus which unfortunately eludes our society today. I'm with the position @Smokin Joe laid out up-thread - distinct human DNA makes a distinct human, not "viability." To apply my overall thinking to this question, I look forward to the time that there is enough of a shared recognition about the right of a being with distinct human DNA to exist that government will prevent another individual from violating that being's unalienable right to life.
I find it odd that the "progressives", so quick to assert a moral monopoly by equating everything to slavery, justify abortion by trying to argue that the fetus is something less than human, when the defenders of slavery said the same thing about the slaves. In fact, the next time a "progressive" tries to stifle an argument against the legality of homosexual marriage by arguing "that's what people said about inter-racial marriage", I'd like immediately to put them on the defensive about the less-than-human-status they accord to the fetus by arguing back "that's what the slave owners said about the slaves."
-
@HoustonSam
I guess one thing which might define a Right, is the sense of Wrong when it is violated.
If someone's stuff is stolen, they feel wronged.
If someone is convicted of something with little or no evidence, without the opportunity to defend themselves, they have been wronged.
If someone is deprived of the means to defend themselves, or, for that matter, any property for no reason, they will have been wronged.
If someone (or a group) invade your home, and by force, eject you and/or your family, or force the occupants thereof to suffer their invasive presence with neither invitation nor welcome, they have been wronged.
If someone is required (by force if necessary) to pay for government, but denied a say in how that government operates, they have been wronged.
The basic wrongs, or at least a few of them, are to be found in "The Charges Against the King" in The Declaration.
For someone's life to be forfeit for the actions or crimes of another, is for them to be wronged...
and even more fundamentally, for someone to harm or kill a child is a wrong which shrieks it's nature almost universally.
We freely acknowledge the opposite of those situations, to be a gift from our Creator, but even more, something which we should possess, and something which our Government we have selected should work to enhance or simply leave alone.
How then can any Government based on those Rights be so wrong when it comes to the one issue we have oft sidetracked into on this thread? Only through the devious persuasion of so many that it is only" a lump of tissue" (as are we all) that is being removed and destroyed, and not a human life.
If we examine the eugenic roots of evils perpetrated in the 20th Century, we find that fundamental to the enslavement or extermination of massive numbers of people, was the redefinition of those people as "not-people": Subhuman--something less than what was considered in that context to be human, and thus fair game. Defining humans thus in utero, if disabled, developmentally or otherwise, or via some genetic marker, bloodline, or belief, has ever been handy in slaughter, and in inciting others to take part in that action.
Fundamentally, it is wrong to deny their humanity before God, and use that denial to deprive them of their Rights.
It is only when people perform (or are assumed to perform) acts which mark them as people who, in our society, behave below the standards our culture has established as 'human' that we tend to use that behaviour as a reason to deprive those individuals of their full interaction with, freedom among, and even life among, other people.
But even then, in the instances where we have punished those who violated the Rights of others, only in select instances do we deprive them of the most fundamental Right of all, that we have possessed ad humans from The Garden: the right to choose whether we would live according to the will of our Creator or not, a choice He gave all of His Creation.
As for the existence of Rights for those unable to communicate their beliefs, desires, etc., by virtue of injury, disease, state of consciousness, or development, does that make a person any less human? Being a member of a species, in this case Homo Sapiens is defined by genetics, by DNA, not by whether they are awake, alert, or comunicative enough to answer the question.