The problem with Conservatism

[gaffo]

I will say that Henry and i share the same concept of our Constitution!

like all Libertarians, that it in effect AFFIRMS the Rights of Men (and women of course - lol), not NOT GRANTS them.

so rights are not privalages granted by our Gov, but our rights we have with or without our gov granting or affirming then.

we had the same rights in 1788 as we did in 1789 when my Constitution was written.

..........

this is a political philosophy via Locke/Bacon/etc and which we (american inherited) from the Brits.

the Brits and the Ausies, and Kiwis (and now Western europe and Japan????? - maybe??? not sure here) have too.

Henry understands the the Constitution in a very real way as also written to protect the minority from the majority, the bill of rights can be viewed in the way, as well as in the concept of limiting govermental power WRT to individual persons (4, 5 amendments).

Support the 3rd amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW!

................

not sure where Henry stands on Jury Power (a right that predate my Constitution by 800 yrs - inherited by the Nords via England via King Canute) - it resides (along with the right to revolution (New Hamphire contitutions affirms this right also BTW) with my 9th Amendment implicitly.

the right to association (to call anyone your friend) and to marriage are other ancient rights affirmed implicitly via my 9th amendent to my Bill of Rights.

in fact the supreme court case of 1967 - where Virginia State Law made it illegal for a white man to marry a black woman - was argured using the "right to marry" via the implied right via the federal Bill of Rights 9th amendment. the only time that amendment was used in a court case AFAIK.

of course the case of Loving vs Virginia was ruled against the state of Virginia (103 yrs later than it should have been - but oh well).

[gaffo]

OH. BTW Trial by Combat is legal under American Law. NY State Supreme Court Justice affirmed its legality only 3 yrs ago.

Britain made it illegal in 1821 via her Parlament, but since the US succeeded from Britain in 1789, when it was legal in throughout the UK, its still legal in the US.

TBC is not dueling, the latter was never legal.

just to clarify.

[gaffo]

https://fija.org

[henry quirk]

me me me me me me!!!!! raising hand here!

Liberal Libertarian - registered Independent since 1992, formerly registered Democrat.

Henry's like that, too. I don't suspect him of running a greedy multinational with sweat shops in India. I get the sense his reasons for conservatism have a heck of a lot to do with his desire to be left alone to do things for himself, as a private individual. I would guess he doesn't even object to things like charity or social help programs, provided that participation in them is not mandated by the government, but optional for the individual who wants them.

Am I conservative?

Is this...

1: The Individual owns himself.

2: The Individual has an inviolate right to his life, his liberty, and his property.

3: The Individual's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, if he willingly, knowingly, and without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property.

...conservative?

[henry quirk]

me me me me me me!!!!! raising hand here!

Liberal Libertarian - registered Independent since 1992, formerly registered Democrat.

Henry's like that, too. I don't suspect him of running a greedy multinational with sweat shops in India. I get the sense his reasons for conservatism have a heck of a lot to do with his desire to be left alone to do things for himself, as a private individual. I would guess he doesn't even object to things like charity or social help programs, provided that participation in them is not mandated by the government, but optional for the individual who wants them.

Yes i'm willing to affirm Henry as a fellow Libertarian (but barely - i see an Athoritarian streek in him more suited to Rebuglicon party of today - he did/does affirm King cheeto benneto and no Libertarian worth a shit would affirm dictatorial tendancies - conservative or liberal bent).

but, ya he is on the opposite extreme of the Libertarian mindset of me. he conservative me liberal.

unlike him i affirm the role of gov in some social programs (in fact i like old Bernie and hope he is he dem nominee (OMG!!!!! a soclaimist!!!!!!!! - i've seen Global corps ruining american middle class for the 1-percenters - middle class gets smaller and smaller and smaller since 1973 - you can work your fingers to the bone - no matter you lose money to the top 1-percenters).

He fear "big gov" while global big corps are govs and are robbing and stealing and henry is silent! well i see several big gov's and they are all global corps - bought out our gov decades ago "corporate capture" - so unlike Henry, i no longer fear "big gov" i fear the many big gov's the global corps!.

i affirm the little guy, gov retaken by the people for the people, and the breakup of the global corps down to the sizes they were in the 1970s when the middle class was twice the size it is today.

that means i affirm paying taxes for social services via the gov that is not corporate captured, i affirm small SMALL business, inalianble rights of all persons (including children (who are property legally - sadly - and the insane - who have less rights they should).

I am VERY Conservative! WRT The Rule of Law, and my Constitution (and why i know Trump is am illegal thug worthy of impeachment). I FULLY affirm the concept of original intent of my Constitution (in a 75/25 ratio to the latter "living document" concept which i do affirm in some instances).

Where Henry and i diverge is (and where All Libertarians are on my side) is WRt to Authority, WE ARE NOT AUTHORITARIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO President should be a fucking KING!!!!!!!!!!! EVER!!!!!!!!!!

peace to ya.

he did/does affirm King cheeto benneto

Trump is an instrument for dismantling and disabling a burdensome government.

There's no affirmation; there's only use.

[Immanuel Can]

...conservative?

Nowhere near "Leftie," whatever else you may be.

[henry quirk]

...conservative?

Nowhere near "Leftie," whatever else you may be.

Well, I call myself a natural rights libertarian. Certainly, I have more in common with conservatives than progressives.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I call myself a natural rights libertarian. Certainly, I have more in common with conservatives than progressives.

If you think the Constitution matters, or natural rights need to be protected, then you're on the conservative side, for sure...but the wilder Progressivists would probably like everybody to think that makes you a member of that big, phony construct called "the alt-Right."

But that's their issue, not yours. And they're just nuts.

[henry quirk]

Well, I call myself a natural rights libertarian. Certainly, I have more in common with conservatives than progressives.

If you think the Constitution matters, or natural rights need to be protected, then you're on the conservative side, for sure...but the wilder Progressivists would probably like everybody to think that makes you a member of that big, phony construct called "the alt-Right."

But that's their issue, not yours. And they're just nuts.

Or, as gaffo sez, affirmed.

[Skepdick]

If you think the Constitution matters, or natural rights need to be protected, then you're on the conservative side, for sure...but the wilder Progressivists would probably like everybody to think that makes you a member of that big, phony construct called "the alt-Right."

But that's their issue, not yours. And they're just nuts.

Oh, ye simpleton! The left-right is a phony construct in its own right. Both "sides" are guilty of eroding natural rights - one side erodes positive rights (freedom to... poses, have access, pursue etc. ), the other side erodes negative rights (freedom from... harm, injustice, inequality etc.). Human Rights (as defined) contradict each other so The Constitution is but a matter of (mis)interpretation.

Crispin Sartwell coined the term "Principle of Hierarchical Coincidence" to bring attention to this fact.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... us/373139/

[Scott Mayers]

The nature of the 'left' of any politics in general is about preferring the power of people over the power of those who declare a 'right' to power by some belief in 'ownership'. It is that simple.

Not nearly.

For "the people" are not some monolithic unity. Leftists might want to believe that, but that's why they can't figure out how Trump got elected. No, people are different. They're individuals. The Left seeks to reduce them to members of the mob, and then direct them to its social-experimental projects.

Additionally, private property is a basic human right. It sits with life and liberty, in terms of legitimacy. John Locke showed this. To deny someone the right to "own" things is to deny him or her the right to manage and arrange the world in a way that suits him or her. That's a denial of the basic human right to determine how his or her world is to be shaped and affected by his or her choices. It's a denial of autonomy. It's a violation of basic humanity.

Private property is anything about what one asserts is one's own. The minimal 'right' in the world that is agreed upon universally is to one's OWN 'right' to life and equal freedom to at least SOME part of the Earth. The concept of "one's OWN" is the first major division in politics. The extremes are
(1) No one owns anything or everyone owns everything. [Pure Communism]
(2) Someone owns everything. [Pure Capitalism]

Neither are capable of occurring without POWER to assure who owns. And so the next division related to these is how 'we' can assure this by those who declare what is their own by these extremes:
(1) Power of the People [Pure Democratic]
(2) Power of an Individual [Pure Totalitarian]

Both extremes again cannot occur or is highly unlikely to occur. [If you lived on an island of your own isolated from any other part of the world, you would be BOTH the 'people' and the only 'individual', communist and capitalist, dictator and democratic, all at once.

Nature does not guarantee us to 'own' and is so a created construct of our 'own mind'. As such, the only means of asserting some 'right' has to be about how one can do so by some FORCE. "Civilization" is a human idea that created this concept by some kind of MANAGEMENT system we call 'government'. Whether this management system is just of some powerful bully able to get their way over what they declare as their own is also not relevant to Nature. As such, a dictatorship of someone able to control all things is as Natural as one negotiated by any number of people.

Our parents or guardians are our first such 'government' and is not something we have a choice over when entering life. "Human rights" are only meaningfully agreed to among all people by some degree of democratic acceptance by those parent/ancestors who permit this for us.

IF you think that a system of management should assure ANY degree of 'ownership'as some right this has to be backed 100% by the humans and would require they all have the identical ownership privileges. That is, we have to be born to the identical 'ownership' VALUE that any other person inherits as a member of the human race and to this planet.

So your statement that we have some 'human right to PRIVATE property is odd given this can only BE our literal bodies if you took a unanimous vote.

[This is ignoring for now how some may think it fair to prevent things like abortion of another, one to choose to commit suicide, or to whatever one chooses to behave where it doesn't impose upon others (classical liberal rule). "Private" property means nothing if the mob, here meaning ALL OTHER HUMANS, could forcefully take it away OR if could use enought FORCE against ALL OTHER PEOPLE to get their way.]

The 'demos' (people) are never in absolute agreement. Yet, if what you say is to be taken to its extreme, anyone who initially asserts some force and can maintain it, is ALL that one could guarantee as their 'own'.

So...

The power of the 'right' is by might or force in some way that is NOT essential to be about people.

Not at all. This is a massive misunderstanding. Today, the centre right stands for individual rights and freedoms. There could be nothing more people-centred than that. And the extreme Right, or so-called "Alt-Right" actually has almost no power today. But it suits the extreme Left, which is quite large, to have a viable enemy -- so they magnify the "achievements" of the extreme Right in order to justify their power grabs.

If you compare extremes, you can't cheat by pointing to the 'left extreme' but trivialize the 'right extreme'.
If you compare POWER of those who OWN versus those who don't (beyond one's own body), those who own PROPERTY in a world where ALL property is declared 'owned' by someone, then those who own private property are defaulted to a 'human right to private property' but all others are SLAVES. The fact that Capitalist ideology (not necessarily absolutely extreme versions) believe in NO limits to some right to 'own', then there are no brakes to prevent the Totalitarian controls by those merely LUCKY to be born with this power.

Since it is the PEOPLE who define any management system to rule by some standard of laws by any standard of fairness, then it certainly could NOT be the Capitalist extremes who should be granted some power without them having ANTI-HUMAN powers, such as guns and power to build walls, that enforce the means to one's claim to "ownership". Ownership is thus a PRIVELEGE that the very humans collectively permit only.

Can you not see that those who believe in some human right to own are the ones who demand the 'right' regardless of how the supposed people had granted anyone ANY meaning to what it right. You slap the whole of the human population in the face if you also assert that they are a 'mob' who are devious. If they are devious as you think regardless, than you have no 'right' for setting yourself above or apart from the majority, let alone the whole.

The point here is that the people define what is 'right' and any government that grants it would have to be BY THE PEOPLE or one is just held by FORCE through things like guns and defensive structures, etc. The 'conservative' by political meaning here is usually 'right-wing' because they HAVE some degree of major OWNERSHIP and believe they have some right to this POWER that can only be maintained BY force external to human intervention. This is why they tend to defend a literal 'god' who is supposedly grants them the 'right' when the masses disagree. A declared 'right' to conserve power if it is NOT by the 'mob', can only be about one's accidental fortune to either some intervention by a god or to whatever means of WEAPON CONTROLS they have to hold off that 'mob'. Since a God is not present, then the only power succeeded by those fortunate to have are by whatever means of power they can maintain over others by their own selfish wants (their 'WILL').


I'll close this post to make it easier to discuss without getting other related issues mixed.

[Scott Mayers]

Can I ask what you think of this? That is, do you agree that the first major distinction of 'left' to 'right' relate to POWER

Well, I disagree with that immediately. It is the Left that takes the Nietzschean view that all human striving aims at "the will to power." I don't believe that for a second...neither do a great number of people on the Right. But I know the non-centrists Leftists sure believe it. They buy into that idea, and the idea that, as Marx said, "all history is the history of class struggle."

So the Left focuses on the power of classes. That's not a right-wing view, except among the extreme loonies, such as racial purists. (Ironically, racial purists have more in common with the Left than the right, in that they also believe the world is made up of classes that are oppressed or dominant, and that the story of history is how they struggle for power.)

"The Will to Power" is what became "will power" by the positive thinking crowds who believe that ANYONE can get what they want if they actually wanted it and that if one cannot get it .....like the poor, it is merely because they somehow just didn't 'want' it bad enough. This is a right-wing thinkers mentality because it believes they have some intrinsic 'right' by some force of Nature to KEEP their present positions as though they EARNED it by their magical 'willpower'. If you think the poor are just the owners of their own demise, for instance, like the 'mobs' of those on the left you believe are unrightfully using their powers to abuse. These people don't have the non-human powers, like weapons or some presumed legitimate claims of power by present laws against them or by Nature or some God that the conservatives conveniently argues for why they think Nature is rightfully on their side.

Those are the ones defining it today by class, race, and ethnicity.

No, actually.

It's the far Leftists who are utterly convinced that race, culture, gender, ethnicity, and a bunch of other such things are hard facts, and individualism is unimportant by comparison.

The right-wing believes in a right to own AND to whom to pass on this 'own' to their families (which are their 'race', 'class' and 'ethnicity') uniquely in ignorance of others. The fact that good inheritance happens to favor one's own genetic links when beneficial but get passed on to the populus of non-familiar relations as a debt when non-beneficial, cause a concentration of power to particular genetic and cultural identity of those things they 'own'. This is ONLY a conservative concept since it is conserving what one person owns in life onto another by a biased and non-negotiated terms of the other people in this world. This is NOT a normal left-wing idea EXCEPT when the left gets taken control over by the PLURAL consevatives among them who are using the nature of the 'democratic' side to overthrow their rival, but similar selfish thinkers.

This is the problem of the LEFT today but not regarding the philosophy itself. It is CO-OPTED for the very fact that people OF ethnic, sexual, or racial purity still exists in many groups who are not inheriting AS A CLASS. While the individuals are what matters along with the numbers, the democratic side gets commanded by those who are USING THE TACTICS of the right who use genetic-inheritance as a power to KEEP what they have.

I also do not like this on the left. What needs to happen is to divorce the genetic heritage class as the means to fight that the conservatives use to pass on their own fortunes to and pass on the debts to all the others. The IMPOVERISHED CLASS, for instance, though is not biased to one's race, ethnicity, or sex without beliefs about HERITAGE (== Genetic INHERITANCE) given there was NO racism, sexism, ethnocentricities existing, gets defined BY race, sex, and ethnicity by many individuals regardless of whether you are inheriting the benefits or the vices. That is, these individuals ON the 'democratic' side are doing what people on the right do by default when they believe in passing on inheritance. The weak individuals get ignored BY the right other than as slave workers and can only be strengthened if they have a FAMILY-related means to bond so as to empower themselves.

The cultural identity associations that form on the left then utilize this in the same self-serving way that ones on the right believes is the appropriate way to behave: favoring ones own FAMILY at the ignorance of outsiders. This is a feedback property of the greed of those who ARE on the conservative side that force the left side to use the SAME tactics.

I think you actually embrace your heritage in that you defend a right to inherit benefits but pass on the debts to society at large. If you think, for instance, that the corporate idea of limited liability is justified for actual people owning them, you believe in a right ONLY to lose what you invest in but get privileged ONLY to profit. If the company fails, you go bankrupt by killing the imaginary 'person' of the corporation, then pass this debt onto the masses while you conserve your benefits as share holders.

Again, I'll now stop at this to keep the post shorter.

[Scott Mayers]

Note that the poor 'white' or 'male' who are defaulted to be associated with the culture of the 'right' are also LEFT out where they might have favored more liberal left-wing ideals. Since the left is being dominated BY the same conservative groups utlizing cultural identity for strength over the conservatives, those white males who are impoverished lack any supports except by what is ABSENT of complete isolation that coincides with what they are STEREOTYPED as. This makes many of them feel forced to either not vote OR to vote for the side that isn't so fucking angry at them as a class.

Since most will just opt out, what is left of those white and male disenfrancized on the right will be EMBRACED by the extreme intolerant white supremacist organs there. That is, they are recruited by their weaknesses and by those who actually DO believe in the strong cultural division that we see only on the conservative side. Those running those groups are the ones who believe without apology in puritanical heritage beliefs that include a belief in inheritance without limits, and the 'right' to use FORCE to assure they get their will achieved.

[Immanuel Can]

The minimal 'right' in the world that is agreed upon universally is to one's OWN 'right' to life and equal freedom to at least SOME part of the Earth.

That's "property."

Nature does not guarantee us to 'own'

"Nature" is a meaningless anthropomorphism, and as such, is not even capable of guaranteeing us anything. Not life, not liberty, and not property. But God does.

"Human rights" are only meaningfully agreed to among all people by some degree of democratic acceptance by those parent/ancestors who permit this for us.

Then there is no such thing. For they are only "anchored" in the whims of the people who are alive at a particular time, and can change on a moment's notice. And that means we can never legitimately appeal against a government for them to give us any "rights," since the government itself determines what rights we are allowed to have at a given time.

IF you think that a system of management should assure ANY degree of 'ownership'as some right this has to be backed 100% by the humans and would require they all have the identical ownership privileges. That is, we have to be born to the identical 'ownership' VALUE that any other person inherits as a member of the human race and to this planet.

There's no principle of equality manifest anywhere in nature. You won't ever find nature doling out things evenly.

And if Nature is all there is, then there is no objective value to any life, human or otherwise. There is, at most, temporary and dispensable utility for some, and not for others, and this limited utility would exist only in projects not guaranteed to be right in the first place.

No wonder the Left dispatches with human rights as soon as it takes power. Look at Soviet Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea...etc. Where is the value of the individual human in these regimes? It only exists if the individual serves the regime's purposes; otherwise, the individual is utterly worthless, or even pernicious, so far as these regimes are concerned.

[Immanuel Can]

Note that the poor 'white' or 'male' who are defaulted to be associated with the culture of the 'right' are also LEFT out where they might have favored more liberal left-wing ideals.

Actually, I observe the opposite. I observe that poor conservatives are often quite proud and self-reliant people, and visible minorities that are conservative are often faring much better than those that are dependents of the Left, and constant subjects of Leftist social experiments, as in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, and so on. The Left has been running those cities for decades now; and they contain the most awful misery among minorities.