SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (673730)3/1/2005 2:36:43 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"...Therefore, I have the right to ignore, reject, fire, discriminate against, withhold all acknowledgment and support of those who...."

Except where you live in a country with laws, and if some of those laws disagree with your presumed 'right' to 'discriminate against' (in employment, say... though I don't believe that those who may have availed themselves of their currently legal right to abortion are specifically a 'protected class' under federal legislation....)

[Absent a federal definition of the starting point for citizenship or legal 'personhood' --- which, to my knowledge has never been legislatively established --- then the constitutional presumption is that such definitions are matters for the States to establish.]

"Such talk of “personhood” is just religion, hocus pocus magic."

Bull. Citizenship must have a legal starting point. What we are talking about here is the ability of a state to apply constitutional rights to citizens. *WHEN* are they 'citizens' then becomes an important legal consideration.

"Between you and me, there is no such thing as “personhood.” I tell you the truth: to me, you aren’t even a person, since you are already dead and bound for hell."

HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll certainly take that bet --- if a bet is what you are making --- since I have no doubts about the hereafter for myself... but LOTS of doubts about the temperature of YOUR destination! LOL!

[I believe you are reading tea leaves in some sort of alternate reality on this one. To my knowledge there is *no* federal law establishing either... in fact, the one piece of relevant federal legislation (the 'Defense of Marriage Act') specificly BANS all federal recognition of non-heterosexual pairings.]

"I did not say the law federalizing sodomite marriage exist, but that there are so-called “conservatives” pushing for and/or accepting it, which essentially makes them leftists."

... Maybe enough to fill a whole K-Mart.... :)

[I never said the two sides were equally matched!]

"Well then it really is worthless here to claim there is an even split between big government and small government conservatives"

Since I never claimed an 'even split' your reply is irrelevant.

[Money is REAL. Deficit spending, fiat currency debasement are REAL, and serve to feed and enable the continuous growth or the bureaucracy and it's intrusiveness.]

"Ever expanding money consumption does enable intrusiveness. I do not gainsay it. What I am saying is that if you pair down government without first eradicating the philosophy that permitted the bloating in the first place, you have accomplished nothing. We must restore the right to real liberty and begin fighting each other over how we can best achieve the maximum freedom. Maximum freedom needs to be our mutual goal, not how best to get free stuff to everybody."

Fine. Suggestions?

[I find that the Libertarian Party, and the many Libertarian commenters upon our current ethos, are some of the FEW who consistently speak out against the continuous growth of the governmental bureaucracies, the fiscal imprudence, and the constant backdrop that the diminution of our individual rights has become in this era of increasing Authoritarianism.]

Of course you do.

[If you know of a political movement that betters their record in these areas, I'd like to hear of it.]

They have no record, Buddy. They are just a bunch of talk and compromises....

(I CAN'T FAIL BUT TO NOTICE THAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH *NOTHING* SUGGESTING ANY SUPERIOR GROUP OR PHILOSOPHY.... :)

[Ah... a CYNIC! :) (Never-the-less, you will have only suppositions and pre-judgements, no hard facts, to establish this sweeping claim of yours... until and unless the Libertarians --- or some other reform grouping --- ever get their day in the sun to have the opportunity to establish the strength of their convictions....)]

"I am watching the party as it is. It can’t even hold to its values while it is free of a beckoning public."

... More unsupported assertions....

[LOL!!!!!!! Surely you aren't arguing that there are no *no* major differences in philosophy of government AT ALL among these three?????????]

"I am absolutely arguing this. I am not looking at the feathers of the chickens, however they may claim to be eagles, and then getting carried away with the superficial differences between them. I am ripping off their feathers and seeing that underneath them, they are nothing but chickens – all of them."

(OK... Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians are "all the same".... SURE THEY ARE :)

[If you ARE making that rather startling and counter-intuitive claim... I'd like to ask you: OK, so WHO ARE THE WHITE HATS, in your view?]

"There are too few to even put a name on them. No movement exists – and likely never will."

Your words speak for themself here....

[No KIDDING! (Aside from a certain bent towards a renewal of social conservatism that is... certainly no fiscal conservatism is in view, no factions clamoring to conserve our constitutional liberties are at the front of the stage....)]

"You really have missed the boat here. But I gotta go. I’ll probably share more on this issue when I get back."

Feel free to illuminate the issues then, at your leasure.... :)

[Except that Hamilton favored a strong central government... even favored a Constitutional Monarchy for America... and Jefferson did not.]

"Don’t mean to sound as if I generally support Hamilton. I don’t. On this issue I am more Jeffersonian than anything. But I see Hamilton’s aim, though I reject his proposed method. I reject today’s aims and methods. That was the point."

(Except for that 'Constitutional Monarchy' part, I guess.... :)

Er... exactly WHAT IS your governmental vision for our society????? Can you put a name to it? A set of principles? A creed?

I will try. Gotta go. But this is a very good question that will require more time than I have at the moment.



To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (673730)3/1/2005 2:56:51 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Eye on CPAC (The Conservative Political Action Conference, the country's "oldest and largest annual gathering of grassroots conservatives".)

techcentralstation.com

Among the 'Fellow Travelers'
By Radley Balko
02/25/2005

My experience at CPAC was a little different than that of my Tech Central co-blogger, Ryan Sager.

As a libertarian who often finds more comfort with the left these days than the right, I went to the conference expecting the worst, particularly given the general contempt the Republican Party has shown for limited government since taking control of the White House and Congress.

And while there was certainly much of the ugliness you'd expect to find among a gathering ideologues (particularly on the issues of gay marriage and immigration) I was surprised to find more fellow travelers among the grassroots bunch that I thought I might.

The first good sign was the significant libertarian presence among the exhibitor booths. Credentialed pro-liberty groups like the Objectivist Center, the Libertarian Party, the Drug Policy Alliance, Bureaucrash, the ACLU, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons were all present at CPAC this year. I spoke with representatives from each of them, most of whom told me this was just their first or second appearance at the conference, a fairly good indication that conservative movementarians are at least open to dialogue on civil liberties issues. Most had generally pleasant experiences over the three days, though the ACLU did meet with a few belligerent objectors.

Openly, CPAC attendees enthusiastically support their elected Republican party leaders. Privately, many concede that they're growing frustrated with the party's penchant for spending, growing government, and its inability to assert itself on anything other than foreign policy. One cultural conservative from Georgia emphasized to me that he's a conservative first, not a Republican, and that he'd leave the Republican party in a heartbeat if there were anywhere else for him to go.

More interestingly, conservative movement fissures seem to be getting most prominent between generations. The younger CPAC attendees I talked to tended to be more tolerant of cultural issues like gay marriage and drug decriminalization than the generations before them.

My conversations were merely anecdotal, of course. But the conservative generational schism has also been reflected in some recent national polling. Many of the young conservatives I spoke with also seemed less interested in infusing religion into public life, though many of them were privately devout, and took their personal faith very seriously.

All of this seems to be consistent with media reports on the beliefs, politics and values systems of millennials and Gen-Yers. It's always risky to overgeneralize, but polling data suggests that the under-30 crowd seems to be more modest, more prudent, and less indulgent than the few generations preceding them (though also troublingly at ease with collectivism and authority). But among the self-described conservatives in this group, there's also a growing tolerance for gays and victimless crime.

If there's still a chance for an alliance between libertarians and limited-government conservatives, I think this is likely where it will happen -- as older, God-and-country conservatives die off, and a tech-savvier, more cosmopolitan conservative generation begins to take the reins.

These kids are still conservatives first, of course. And the issues that separate them from older conservatives aren't the issues that animate their activism. A college student doesn't become a young conservative because he vigorously supports same-sex partner benefits. Rather, he might be a conservative because he's fiercely anti-tax and anti-regulation, but also doesn't see anything wrong with letting gay couples leave their estates to one another after death.

This could explain why there was such vocal opposition to the Log Cabin Republicans' Christopher Baron at CPAC's gay marriage debate, but a pro-gay politician like Rudy Giuliani could win the conference's stroll poll for Election 2008. Put another way, the younger crowd is more tolerant, but on tolerance issues, the older, less tolerant generation is simply louder.

The drug prohibition issue was particularly heartening, mostly because it wasn't an issue at all. While the Drug Policy Alliance and the Libertarian Party both had a decriminalization presence, conservative anti-drug groups like the Drug Free America Foundation were nowhere to be found. DPA's Ethan Nadelmann got a warm reception. His opponent, whose entire rebuttal consisted of tying Nadelmann to George Soros, didn't get much of a response at all.

Led by National Review, conservatives seem to be ready for some significant reform of our drug laws (if only they could get their party to go along).

I left CPAC with quite a bit more optimism than I had when I came. Conservatives haven't completely abandoned limited government; they're just stuck supporting a party that in many significant ways has.

As for with whom libertarians and limited government advocates should ally right now, perhaps a mix of pragmatism and incrementalism is best. We should concentrate our efforts on the big issues, the issues that for better or worse will prove difficult to undo down the road. That means we line up with the right on proposals that promise to institutionalize more liberty -- issues like Social Security privatization, and tax code reform. And we align with the left to oppose Republican proposals that will institutionalize more government intrusion into our lives -- issues like sullying the U.S. Constitution with petty bans on flag burning or gay marriage, or further expansions of the PATRIOT Act.

Neither side deserves the default support of libertarians right now. And there are still a number of issues in which conservatives and libertarians will continue to be at odds. But I left CPAC with at least some hope that the next generation of conservatives may be more skeptical of government intrusion on personal matters than the generation that's currently in power.

Copyright © 2005 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com