The Philosophy of a True Conservative, Today

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

1) The more control the gov't has, the less freedom you have.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Not generically true. Power accumulates with or without government.

Somalis do not have more freedom than Americans.

No Adak. Freedom isn't JUST about being free from government interference.

Freedom also means the freedom to be in control of one's body, it means freedom to eat food and breathe air that isn't contaminated or unsafe, freedom is having teachers to educate our children and firemen to put out fires and policemen to help protect us. Freedom is the ability to choose our rulers and vote on laws. It's being able to worship (or not) as you choose, to marry who you love, and having recourse against chicanery. Freedom is a certain level of trust and minimal fear during the course of your daily life.

Try being a second class individual in a country without these sorts of freedoms...then maybe you'll appreciate the freedom that government gives us.

And yes, I have.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

No Adak. Freedom isn't JUST about being free from government interference.
. . . .
Try being a second class individual in a country without these sorts of freedoms...then maybe you'll appreciate the freedom that government gives us. . . .

@Stormieweather & Happy Monkey:
This is a political philosophy discussion. It's about the interaction of a stable gov't, with the people in it.

It can't begin to cover a situation like they have in Somalia, or emergency responders, etc.

@Juniper, yes. My idea of Conservatism (True Conservatism), is to go back to the gov't described in the Constitution - not all this current gov't, with an agency for everything under the sun.

Libertarians and I agree on this: gov't has become FAR too intrusive, in our daily lives, and we've become FAR too used to having it that way.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

@Stormieweather & Happy Monkey:
This is a political philosophy discussion. It's about the interaction of a stable gov't, with the people in it.

It can't begin to cover a situation like they have in Somalia, or emergency responders, etc.

So less government control = more freedom, unless we're talking about the things government does that you approve of?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So less government control = more freedom, unless we're talking about the things government does that you approve of?

Yes, that is true. Less government equals more for you. In your wallet, in your freedom.

It's not whether I approve of it, or not. It's whether it's appropriate for a function of federal gov't, as stated in the Constitution.

For example, controlling our borders is a function left to the federal gov't. That is perfectly and undeniably true. So hiring border patrol and immigrant enforcement agents, is perfectly acceptable to me.

Hiring an EPA enforcer to prevent me from using my clean burning car, or running my clean diesel truck, is NOT OK, because the EPA's regulations were never passed as a law, by our representatives, AND the action of the EPA has gone FAR beyond any scientific rationale. Basically, the EPA has adopted regulations into law, that bypass our lawmakers, and totally exclude us from representation, in their decisions. We have no vote on their regulations.

With the stroke of a pen, they can say that every puddle of water, is now a "standing body of water" (meant to describe lakes and such), and make driving a truck through a puddle, now require an environmental study, first! In other words, they can wipe out any forestry or rural jobs, that they want to.

THIS is taxation, without representation, and THAT phrase sounds VERY familiar to an American.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

THIS is taxation, without representation, and THAT phrase sounds VERY familiar to an American.

fair cop. How many senate/house votes do you propose to extend to DC?


No, wait. They're mostly black democrats. God forbid THEY get a say in THEIR government.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

It's not whether I approve of it, or not. It's whether it's appropriate for a function of federal gov't, as stated in the Constitution.

And then you give some things you approve and disapprove of, ignoring the fact that INS do exactly the same thing that EPA does. They are enacted by the government, given a portfolio, and empowered to create and enforce regulations pursuant to that portfolio.

THIS is taxation, without representation, and THAT phrase sounds VERY familiar to an American.

No, taxation without representation is something I deal with in DC, and any attempts at gaining representation are blocked by Republicans.

(And BTW, I, too, am a computer programmer.)

[Cyber Wolf]

Exactly how much intrusion is acceptable?

Federal agencies are established for a reason. The process of planning one, getting Congress to establish it, getting physical assets then a workforce in place isn't a quick or easy thing to do. Granted, they may overreach sometimes, but is the original reason they were formed no longer an issue?