Hi Tom,
I'm not confused about the difference between the Decalaration and the Constitution. I submit that the folks who drafted the constitution still believed in "Life, Liberty and the Pusuit of happiness," and that the constitution was drafted with these ends in mind. It's a common, accepted viewpoint.
True enough, but there is a difference between personal beliefs and codified law. You cannot enforce laws on the basis of
your personal beliefs about someone else's personal beliefs.
Also, the names you dropped are truly great minds. Have you actually read what these guys wrote?
Why don't you ask me before accusing me of "name dropping".
I majored in history, and taught both World History and American History and Government for years. So, I have done a lot of reading on that area.
Regarding the names I mentioned, I have read several books by some, one by some others, and essays and articles by others, along with discussion of their ideas.
As for John Jay, I have only read his part of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton wrote about half of those essays, and Madison wrote most of the others. Jay wrote, I believe, five.
I also agree with you that "conservatives" have adopted the ideas of classical liberalism, and least in the rhetorical sense. The problem I have is not with what conservatives say, but with what they do.
Brent, our government is
designed to make change difficult. When the leftist media blathers about government "gridlock" they are simply describing the government working the way it was designed to do.
However, don't you think a 60% reduction in the wellfare rolls is "doing someting"? After 1992 the Republicans forced Clinton to sign a welfare reform act. He vetoed it twice, but the idea became so popular that he finally signed it, and then immediately apologized to his A/A constituents.
They also defunded the Left by stopping all the contributions that the Democrats were making to Leftist organizations.
Recently, they were finally able to get the late-term abortion ban through the Senate. It took 12 years of steady effort.
There is quite a difference between "nothing" and "everything".
Getting back to the Terri Schiavo thing, I am dissapointed with how the conservative governor and president have conducted themselves.
In the president's case, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, yet he is standing by and letting the courts make these hideous rulings that result in starving a woman to death.
Exactly which of his constitutional powers allows him to interfere in the decisions of state courts?
In the case of the governor, he could simply seize the situation and save the womans life. Should he be held in contemp, he could get a pardon from the president.
So, if Governor Bush sends the state police, acting on his direct orders, to take Mrs. Sciavo out of the hospice or to take some doctor in, and the local police resist, should the state police kill the local police who legally resist them?
If the Pres. pardoned the Gov. for such a thing, he would probably be impeached, since he would be violatiing his oath of office.
Or, should the local Libetarians grab their guns and go shoot it out with the local police?
These actions would be spectacular, extraordinary and on par with the Boston Tea Party as far as they are a defiance of unjust "law." I think that if the president truly believes in the right to life, he needs to exercise bold leadership. Instead, he is demonstrating that although he is fond of the right to life, he defers to the courts if they say to starve the woman. That, in a nutshell, is the problem I have with conservatives. They have abdicated their principles, and their freedom to the government.
As Churchill said, "Politics is the art of the possible".
BTW, when are the Libertarians going to start this kind of heroic actions?
The best question you raise is if there is an "If there isn't any overarching value to appeal to." I maintain that the founders, for the most part, were believers in, or at least sympathetic towards God. Certainly, many of the men who risked their lives in fighting the British were men of deep, sincere faith in God. So, the reason I think murder is wrong is because the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill." Is this a good enough overarching value to appeal to? Have you ever read any of John Jay's supreme court opinions? He has a masterful way of explaining the ideas of freedom and liberty, with relation to the law, which is strikingly different to what modern "conservatives" are saying.
Brent, "thou shalt not kill" is a prohibition of murder, not killing. The Bible prescribes several types of legal homicide. War, capital punishment etc.
The prohibition against murder is based on Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, (ie, you
shall kill in this case), FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HE MADE MAN".
The problem in the Schiavo case is that she is being killed LEGALLY. Not righteously, to be sure, but legally. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being.
We have strayed so far afield from classic liberalism it isn't funny. While I understand your emotional attachment to the conservative movement---or the lessor of two evils---you have to admit that they certainly don't reflect your values as a christian. Perhaps they do in what they say, but in the final analysis, they don't deliver the goods.
No they don't deliver ALL the goods, but if they weren't there we would be in a national meltdown of socialistic insanity.
We would have Grey Davis on steroids running all branches of government.
My libertarian leanings are based on principle. I have no illusions about their success in the political arena, with the exception that their ideas are powerful and are having a big impact. However, ideas and real change are not the same thing. Even so, I can't help but try.
My leanings are based on principle as well. My practice is based on reality.
I remember when I first started the website being told by people, "It'll never work. We tried something like that, it'll never work." I also was told a year ago, when I decided to stop taking insurance in my office, "It'll never work. It just isn't done that way." I have read about the opposition that Patrick Henry and his cohorts had, when he was fomenting rebellion against the throne. They told him, "It'll never work." You get the picture. I'm an idealist. I can't help it, it's just the way i am. I see Libertarian thoughts and ideas as being the ones that give me freedom to practice my faith, send my kids to a school I agree with, keep my own money, keep and bear arms, and generally pursue happiness.
Seems to me that we were doing all those things long before there were any "Libertarians".
I see the other guys as being a hinderance, or in the case of the dems, a serious threat to liberty.
What are you going to do if a pro-choice, big government republican gets the nomination in '08? Are you going to vote for he/she?
(When I say pro-choice, I imply that they will continue to spend your tax dollars to fund abortion, there is a difference between that and what Condi says about it. Arnold is a prime example, so is Rudi.)
Brent
The world is not a perfect place. A Republican half-a-loaf is far better than a Libertarian none.
BTW I never voted for Pete (flip) Wilson.
Blessings,
Thomas Maddux
