Conservative means to conserve what we have, and yet be productive, and innovative, all the while replacing what we used.
Hmm, "conserve what we have". So, you're all for the Tory loyalist position? That's where conservatives came from; they wanted to "conserve" the old ways of British rule. And I'm not saying they were entirely wrong for that. I'm all for conserving the relative freedom that Americans had before big government set up house in D.C.
Conservation also brings a sense of morality towards mankind, and yes many get this from religion.
"Conservation" is not what "conservative" means.
I've never heard any conservative talk about "conservation" in this context.
That's a new one on me.
And, as far as a so-called "sense of morality" - one of my biggest problems with conservatives is that they think they can force their relative morality on the world, just like the liberals think they can force their version of relative morality on the world. This illustrates my point (and Shaun's, though I don't presume to speak for him) that there is about a dime's worth of difference between left and right politics. That's all I was pointing out. Neither left nor right grasp the simple fact that you can't have morality or charity through force.
Force is a good tool for self-defense. Force is not a good tool for creating a better world. We have other tools for that, as you alluded to; productivity, innovation, science, creativity, industry, education, charity, free association, . . . all the good things that government mucks up on a daily basis.
Republicans want to take us to their socialist future at 80mph, Democrats want to take us to their socialist future at 100mph. Arguing between left socialism and right socialism is like arguing what kind of hood ornament you would like on the truck that is 20 feet away from running you down in the street.
I hate it when people try to divide this county up into categories, it’s the same as White, Black, Latino, and Asian. We should all just be American.
I'm with you on that. It is politics that makes two people hate each other, who might otherwise be good friends, in the absence of political fighting. If you take away all that wasted energy that goes into political fighting, we would all still be Americans. Conservatives mistakenly equate love of country with love of government.
People become political radicals because they aren't getting their piece of the government pie. When pie is lacking in a free market, no one turns into a bitter radical full of hatred; you can go make your own pie. But, that becomes difficult or impossible when government has monopoly control over everything they broadly define as "commerce".
This country was built by, and still contains free people
As a student of history, I'm here to tell you that just ain't so. The leaders of the Revolutionary War did not fight to be free - they fought so they could have a local government telling them what to do, instead of a government 3,000 miles across the ocean.
I have to agree that most of the farmers and ranchers had no need for any government at all, so you're right about those folks.
The sentiment of the country-folk, put into words by Ben Franklin, was "why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?".
But, and this is a big BUT; the constitution wasn't written by freedom-loving country folks, it was written by some of the biggest property owners, big businessmen, and bankers of the day. And the freedom lovers, who had somewhat of a voice in Thomas Jefferson, lost out to the Federalists who were headed by Alexander Hamilton, a big-government lover who argued for a strong, ever-expanding central government and eventually got it.
if you want your side to count, you better make it one of the big boys, cause the rest can’t do shit. There’s your reality, whether you like it or not.
That has always been the argument of people who want to preserve the status quo. If you study history, you find that quite the opposite is the truth of the matter; Revolutions in thinking are always started by a tiny minority. Progress happens from the bottom up, while the "big boys" are stuck in the mud of their habitual mindset.
Those trying to overthrow the monarchy were told that the odds were against them. But they went ahead and overthrew the monarchy. Those trying to abolish chattel slavery were told that the odds were against them. But they went ahead and abolished slavery.
And, those of us who see the next step in the evolution of human social structure are being told that we can't abolish the idea of big government, because the odds are against us. We should "work within the established system". But, the left / right ball-game is on its way out, because big government is on its way out, whether you like it or not.
We punctured the power of witch doctors, of emperors, of kings, of popes, ... and now we will puncture the power of legislatures.
Best regards,
Rick Doogie
"The history of government intervention is the correcting of the ill effects of earlier interventionism"
- - Ludwig von Mises
No comments:
Post a Comment