| |
  
|
||||||||||
Why do some people on here call themselves "conservatives"?
Submitted by atrickpay on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 13:24
Question to you people: So, the problem isn't the left-right-liberal-conservative paradigm? You don't think this movement is about transcending that paradigm? Rather you think that we could fix things up if enough people adhere to the right (ie. conservative) side of the paradigm? |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Good topic
YOU are a great American!
.
interesting you bring this up
the Southern Avenger just made a piece about this conservative/neoconservative topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHr5qdIwb7U
Most people have different understandings of the term
The best discussion I've seen is by the Southern Avenger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjb5DJjIrho
I think one definition of conservative is opposition to change. Under this definition one would believe that we should strictly follow the constitution, as anything else would be 'change'.
Mobile-Friendly U.S. Constitution
This might answer some of
This might answer some of your questions
History of Money and Banking Colonial to WWII
http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf
Some of it is dry and boring, but some is amazing. I kinda skipped over the accounting bits. In particular the history from 1890 through the Federal Reserve in 1914. The shift in politics particularly how the ideological differences kept the two parties battling for nothing while the kept governemt followed the same path of imperialism and cartelization of business. The same playbook seems to be in use.
[Fedor, there is a section about a group that wanted to use the force of government to punish sinners. Old problem, new jerseys]
Justin Raimaondo "Reclaiming the American Right" also traces changes in the Party platforms over time.
Labels are a problem. So I've been trying to decide what is most important or me.
Should goverment interfere with normal domestic and foreign activities?
Should government favor or punish individuals, associations, income groups, businesses or industries based on poitical whim.
Should government act as a manager or referee in the market. (A managed market is not a free market)
The fancy label applied by political scientists and used by politicians is just a label. Sometimes they point at something real and sometimes they are misleading, on purpose or by accident.
I want to conserve such freedoms as we have but I want to be liberal about making changes to protect privacy and personal property, enforce legal contracts and provide a market where any may freely participate or not.
Neither Party has leadership that is working on my goals whatever label they use. They are mostly progressive in that they want to protect their businss friends from competition or better yet to have government force business their way. It amounts to individuals subsidizing what the majority in Congress want for themselves. It's not very Constitutional.
Free includes debt-free!
"Labels are a problem.
So I've been trying to decide what is most important or me."
Why must you label yourself at all? What is wrong with being a "FREE INDIVIDUAL" free to form your own individual platform?
One clue that labels should be avoided-that they are poison-is that they are a shorthand, a laziness. They also constrict people. Why voluntarily constrict yourself? Can you think of any label with which you did not have a single differing opinion? If you cannot then you are a FREE INDIVIDUAL. That is the good news. The bad news is that being a FREE INDIVIDUAL requires more effort. Being a party of one means you must come up with your parties position on any specific issue with your brain alone having the final call. No shortcuts.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
hey gmason, I'm going there
hey gmason, I'm going there in the fall!
Ventura 2012
By going there
I guess you mean George Mason University?
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
yep, just got accepted to the
yep, just got accepted to the law school in Arlington. Needless to say I'll be praying for hyperinflation to take care of those student loans, lol.
Ventura 2012
That is excellent!! The law school has
received a well deserved reputation in recent years. Top Tier. Congrats. That is also a very trendy, hip area currently-translation-housing and restaurants are pricey.
My screen name here is not because of GMU, though in some ways it would be nice to have the youth of a typical '08 grad.
My screen name refers to my, very optimistic, wish at that time to restore the Bill of Rights to what George Mason intended and have the entire Constitution followed currently as at that time. The hope was that would be initiated by a Ron Paul win in 08.
All that being the true and only reason for my screen name, most conjecture as you seem to have, I did earn my
Bachelors there. I enjoyed my time and thought it a tremendous educational value. Some advantages were that, due to the area, many part-time faculty had impressive real world experience-I sought those out to the maximum. Also, when I was there James Buchanan came to the Econ Dept. which already had Walter Williams. I will remain silent on what year I graduated.
I would be happy to buy you the beverage of your choice when you come down?(you are in Baltimore?) to celebrate.
Let me know.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
haha oops! Maybe I'll take
haha oops! Maybe I'll take you up on that offer! I might be down for the open house in late Febuary, but I'm not sure.
Ventura 2012
Please do-Anytime
just give me a heads up in here. Good selection of imbiberies around the law school. One catch to the offer, you must begin rooting for the BBall team immediately. They are very young but have won the last seven straight.
I get up to Bmore regularly-are you in the city?
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
I think most if any are here are likely very new to the DP.
It is similar to the TEA Paty situation in that there is a co-opt attempt going on.
Dr. Paul is not a conservative. He is a classical liberal. What we today call libertarian. Though others who are also libertarian in their views have been taught to think of themselves as under the label "conservative." So when speaking to other Republicans, it is better to claim you are a true conservative than a libertarian, even though today, those things are one and the same. Many Republicans ARE libertarian, they just don't know it. And even those that aren't, do hold dear many principles that are very libertarian in nature. While they may be pro-intervention with respect to foreign policy, and pro-intervention with respect to social issues, they are hands off with respect to monetary and fiscal issues.
The problem isn't the paradigm, it is stupidity and ignorance.
But yes, I am sick and tired of the apparent desire to "work within the Republican Party." That is a proven failed strategy and a waste of energy. And it will only end up in your efforts being co-opted and then sidelined. Trying to work within a structure that is at its core against what you stand for, will only lead to failure.
It baffles me, how so many here speak of not compromising their values and principles, or "selling out" just to get ahead, they decry the Ken Buck ad campaign because he disagrees with what they think is a fundamental tenet of the Liberty movement, and then they promptly turn around and file for office in the Republican party and support other Republican candidates.
News flash: The Republican Party is in direct opposition to the Liberty movement with respect to foreign policy. (amongst other things) If it is wrong to support Ken Buck, why are you in the party that agrees with him?
If you are non-interventionist, you are not a Republican, you are a Libertarian. Stop denying it and start working within the party structure that better suits you or go independent.
The LP can be successful, but not as long as people keep adhering to the "its not possible" and "lesser of two evils" mantra. I find it quite amusing that people will decry American sheep as being duped by the "he can't win" mentality and the "wasted vote syndrome" with respect to individual candidates, and then commit the same fallacy with respect to political parties.
All you need for a successful party is a solid county/parish level organization. The LP is already organized on the state level in all 50 states. (some are little less so than others, but those usually have very little population anyway) What is currently lacking is a full fledged county/parish organization.
Everyone wants to focus on the big high-profile races. Where are the candidates for city council, mayor, dog catcher, etc.?
If we want to be successful, we need to start local. You can't win a large race without organization, and if you have none, forget it. And if you try to work within a party that doesn't support you, your concept that you are within an organized environment is a mirage. They will not be there for you or support you. You'd be better of as an independent or in the LP. At least then, you can be honest with yourself as to why you didn't win, or where you need to improve and work harder next time.
Something I learned a long time ago in Canada
while we, (Marc Emery/Bob Metz and the Freedom Party) attempted to bring the philosophy and spirit of freedom to Canadians at the grass roots, was to 'influence' the parties already established.
Is it difficult at first. Yes. As you can see just by Dr.Paul's 'influence' how those ideas are eventually adopted and soon everyone wants to be on that bandwagon because the vision it entails becomes popular with the people.
I can say now with experience working as deputy chair in my House District BPOU, that little by little as we hold our meetings with those calling themselves 'conservatives', that the message is getting through. We are working together and there are no 'compromises'. We stand where we may. It is in our social outings after meetings that discussions take place. This is where it is happening. We do our finest work during social outings.
oops pressed twice
removed
Isn't Debra Medina County Chairman for the GOP?
Some of us feel that we can work within the GOP without selling out our principles. Or feeling too worried if no one listens to our difficult questions of legitimacy (Constitutionality) and ethics (harming civilian or their property). Dr. Paul sets a great example. But it is not a task everyone is suited to. Go with your strengths.
It's difficult for the GOP to blame the Democrats with an economy that was tanking before the 2006 Democratic Congressional victories. After 4 years of Democratic control it will be hard for Democrats to plausibly deny their ability to make things even worse.
Republicans are generally conservative in their thinking. So they don't change their mind on a whim or becasue their heart is bleeding. But reaching back into history to other notables who stood by their principles and lost the election or were subverted in their honest attempt to get government off our backs can awaken their youthful idealism.
Slim chance? No chance if I leave it to the main medias.
Free includes debt-free!
i have never been, never will
i have never been, never will be a conservative. though i like the idea of a constitutional conservative. if you're a conservative, what do you want to conserve? there's not much i want to conserve.
i fit in with the "liberty" and anarcho-capitalist movements on the subjects of anti-central banking, anti-nation building, anti-police state, anti-drug war.
i fit in with the c4ss anarchists on agorism and free market social order.
i like the progressive anti-war sympathy with the palestineans and tibetans.
i like howard zinn, noam chomsky, ron paul, ralph nader, michael badnarik, g edward griffin.
best to stay independent.
I think the whole language
of labels has been bastardized by the elite, the Bush family drug cartel call themselves conservative. Words have no meaning anymore and it is tragic for the rest of us. Words are used to manipulate us and we have to be extremely careful it seems. Our research of those who wish to lead, will determine do their ACTIONS match their labels.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Absolutely!
Labels are one of the prime tools to slice and dice people into neat divide and conquer bite size portions.
I cringe at the frequent use of libertarian here. Not because I am against what is advertised as being libertarian, I fit that for the most part but I also will not be told what I must think on any particular matter because that is what________think. As was said, I believe not only "conservatives" really have the advertised libertarian view but that most people do-who would give up control of themselves to another?-most just do not consider the question in such terms. Anyway, I cringe because many do so linking themselves to the LP. It is not that LP is bad per se but that any PARTY is collectivist and TDW. One danger of PARTY affiliation is over time it becomes a sub-conscious crutch. Why make the effort to think of ________ on my own when I can just check the parties position.
While I advocate the strategy of taking the GOP from Neo-Cons; I also believe the party concept is a huge key to our current troubles. "Factions" are trouble. Individuals make/keep Individual Freedom.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
Founding Father's solution to factions that are inevitable?
Was to pit them agaisnt each other. Populus vs State. State vs. Republic, Judicial vs Legisltative vs. Executive, House vs. Senate, X Part vs Y Party (Federalists, Old Republicans, Democratic-Republicans, Democrats or Republican.) Federal Courts and Courts of Appeal... Its an amazing system. Not designed to be efficient but designed to promote fairness.
The design is there but it takes individuals who stand for personal responsibility and individual liberty at every turn.
Free includes debt-free!
Agreed!
wholeheartedly
I'm both a conservative and a liberal, depending... heh
Because some people
use the term in the "old way" like Ron Paul does.
Just because the neocons have hijacked the term as part of their own masquerade, doesn't mean that we have to accept their hijacking of it.
Also, the term really doesn't reflect the left/right paradigm, since there are "conservative Democrats" as well as "conservative Republican", and those terms are widely recognized.
Additionally, the term "conservative" in the social sense can mean that there is resistance or opposition to certain "social changes". And being "opposed" to those social changes doesn't neccessarily mean "legislating" against it.
A person can dislike or oppose something without making laws against it.
And he should stop I think
The common meaning of terms change. For ex, So, I don't call myself a liberal today even tho I would have used that term in the 18th and 19th century.
And with conservatism, the majority of people understand it thru the lense of Bush. That's what it means now to most people.
As Lew Rockwell pointed out:
And why would one one want to be identified with that?
"There comes a time in the life of every believer in freedom when he must declare, without any hesitation, to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism." - Lew Rockwell
Well then, perhaps Lew and others
should quit using the "anarchy" term, since it doesn't mean what they say it does, either.
They should pick a lane.
I'm a liberal with a radical streak
And damn proud of it. I see nothing of any value to conserve. Maybe the constitution, maybe, but I think a new one could be even better if it was done right.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I emphatically second your motion sir!
But lets restore it first!
I like that plan
Let's get back to ground zero and see how it looks. I have a feeling we could all be quite happy if we were even remotely close to the vision of the framers.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
As a temperment
Conservatism as a temperament was founded by Edmund Burke. In this sense conservatism is a disposition of having a positive view towards the traditional institutions of society such as church, and a strong appreciation for history and heritage.
Philosophically I am a libertarian but by temperament I am a conservative.
On American independence, Burke wrote:
"I do not know how to wish success to those whose victory is to separate from us a large and noble part of our Empire. Still less do I wish success to injustice, oppression and absurdity"
He was one of the main opponents of the egregious taxation and lack of representation imposed on the U.S. Here is a great excerpt from a speech he made in the English Parliament regarding reconciliation with the U.S.
"...the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen.... They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles. The people are Protestants... a persuasion not only favourable to liberty, but built upon it.... My hold of the colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government,—they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation,—the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have; the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But, until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you."
I am not sure I see the problem
patrick
Don't get me wrong I know what you are getting at. But I see the problem a bit more complex. I don't care what people want to call themselves so long as it results in a smaller government at the end of the day. Ron Paul him self speaks to this as he often has to talk about being a radical republican. I think he likes Taft and cleavland (not sure).
I Don't call myself a conservative, but I think these terms are just stupid. It doesn't matter what either of the two parties call themselves the special interests and the permanent DC power structure will always work towards government growth with market interference.
Its the idea's that matter. If you are going to waste time loby'n and voting I don't care what you call yourself so long as you are working for more freedom and less government. Start with ending the wars, exposing human rights violations by the USA and Israel, and pointing out the absurdity of get out of a debt crisis with more debt.
I didn't forget end the FED...I just think its easier to appeal to things like compassion and common sense economics than trying to explain the evils of central banking to people right off the bat. Media pundits will latch on to it better too...If it bleeds it leads. I just think we can't be antiwar enough, especially since the fed and war work hand in hand.
terms
But language is important is it not? For example, if we want to make clear that our movement is for radical change (ie. to freedom away from the historical norm of tyranny), why would you want to use a term like liberal or conservative that have a well-established meaning? Wouldn't you rather use a term that signifies that this isn't the status quo "business as normal"?
Sure Language is important
Let people use how ever they see fit. I sure as heck use terms that signify I don't endorse the establishment. Some people don't want. Heck alot of people want to be a paleo-conservative. These terms have been twisted for years and the parties never actually produced anything of significance that they stand for, but some people still cling to be part of the team.
But hey before you start looking for the right word, just remember what happened the last time a dude ran for president ranting about change. Which is what you are looking for isn't? The right word for a party to symbolize change. Well, some people don't even know that this isn't the land of the free or that democracy is tryany of the majority or that the banks, defense contractors, or healthcare companies run the show. The still think america symbolizes the opposite and that it should stay that way. Its a crude shock to them to tell them they need to wake up and smell the socialism spewing out of DC.