I'm a Conservative Ask Me Anything.

1) Although Libertarians use some tenets from Classical Liberalism - so does Republicanism as do Democrates.

To then claim "You used the term Classical Liberalism " so you are a Libertarian is logical fallacy. Non Sequitur - it does not follow that because Libertarians use tenets from Classical Liberalism that all people using that term are Libertarians.

This is the second time I have explained this to you. If I have to do it a third time I am relegating you to the "too dense to waste my time on bin" Smarten up. ( you seem fairly intelligent in general so quit acting otherwise)

I said:

You said:

1) given you have yet to show I was wrong - this is obtuse and disingenuous.
2) Then your explanation as to why you think I was wring does not even address the claims I made.

Correct - it also outlines the principles on which "any" Gov't can be abolished.

The purpose of the of term "Creator" - a intentionally vague term - was not to give God (Christian or otherwise) authority of any kind. The purpose was not to give some God (or religious text) authority of any kind in relation to law.

The purpose of (rights endowed by the Creator) was to put individual rights and freedom ( life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. So this passage does not give Gov't power to make any law. The purpose was to take power an authority away. The purpose was to restrict the authority of Gov't.

Individual rights and freedoms end where the nose of another begins. This also where Gov't authority begins (protection from harm). Protection from direct harm (murder, rape theft) and so on ... is the legitimate purview of Gov't as per the "Social Contract" - contract between "we the people" and Gov't by which Gov't gets its authority. This is not an "actual signed contract". It is a construct that is embedded in our system of Gov't. Gov't by consent of the people.

Authority of Gov't comes from "We the People" as opposed to "Divine Right/God" as was the case in the past.

Consent by the Governed is all about keeping the Gov'ts dirty paws off of the rights outlined in the DOI and the Constitution.
The DOI is about limiting the power and authority of Gov't. Gov't is a necessary evil so we must have it to maintain civil society but the powers of Gov't were to be extremely limited. "Limited to what ?" - "Only acts which are injurious to others"

1) Define intolerable oppression as per the founders.
2) The reason I have not gotten into the evidence much is because this is pointless without having some kind of understanding of the concept of "legitimacy of Authority" and the limits on the power of Gov't.

I will shed some light on this after answering your next comment.

You make broad "defacto" claims but give no support for those claims. The first thing that comes up on Google gives a fairly good basic description of the relationship between the DOI and the Constitution.

This topic get's "deep" and has been the subject of considerable debate over the last 200 years. Here is a paper on this very topic detaining various elements of that debate entitled "Does the Federal Constitution incorporate the DOI". https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10678552.pdf

So for you to just dismiss the DOI out of hand - claiming "Huge Gaping Holes" without further comment on what those holes are, is both fallacy (Assuming the Premise) and lacks any evidence of academic rigor.

One of the problems the founders had was in relation to Slavery as the DOI appears to give rights to slaves. They worked around this but, to call this a "Gaping Hole" is a misrepresentation x 2. If anything, history has removed this objection as slavery is no longer legal.

This has gotten long so I am going stop here prior to getting into more on the question of the limits to Gov't power/authority and whether or not it can be said that the current Gov't is over-stepping its legitimate authority.

 

perceive?

Are you saying there's not AT LEAST as much hate from the left?

Just look at the post election behavior from the last 3 elections if you want glaring evidence that the left represents hate far more than the right does.

 

The DoL actually provided two purposes. First was a universal ideology to justify the existence of government and second was to provide a rational argument for dissolution of the authority of the British government over the American colonies.

The DoL was actually a condensed version of the First Principles of Government used to create the Constitution.

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

All except the "final First Principle" was condensed into just two lines by Jefferson.

The final First Principle followed with the caveat that only the people of the nation have the right and the duty to overthrown a despotic regime.

http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/

This section does establish that no nation has the right or duty to overthrown a foreign government based upon the tyranny of that government over it's own people. For example in 2001 the US had no right or duty to overthrow the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Only the Afghani people had that right and duty. The US also lacked any right or duty to go to war against Afghanistan, violating it's national sovereignty, because members of al Qaeda were inside of Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack the United States while it did have authority for the enforcement of criminal law. The US had no authority to impose criminal law on anyone inside of Afghanistan because that was outside of the jurisdiction of the United State.

Neither the DoL or the First Principles refer to God. Both refer to the "Creator' instead and this was for the same reason that John Locke included Biblical references that did nothing as far as establishing the natural rights of the person that are based upon the Laws of Nature for survival of a species. Both Locke and Jefferson were pragmatically addressing the "audience" that was overwhelmingly Protestant Christians when, in fact, the only evidence there is of a creator is nature.

Both true but if our government abandoned the Constitution then the Right of Revolution exists. It's for this reason that members of the US military to take an oath to defend the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

This is different when compared to the UK that doesn't have an actual Constitution but instead uses statutory law to establish (or revoke) the right of the people. In the UK the military swears an oath to the Queen.

Once again true but only applicable so long as our government complies with the Constitution and the laws of the land. , and

The only thing that didn't make it was the right of the people to revolt against the tyranny of government that cannot exist under the Constitution. Because the Constitution assumes compliance the inclusion of provisions allowing the right of revolution was unnecessary and moot.

What has been the bane of the Constitution has been that those in control of the social, economic, and political institutions since the founding of the United States have refused to follow both the intent and explicit provisions of the Constitution. The founders such as Jefferson, responsible for the DoL and Madison with Hamilton that were the primary architects of the Constitution were well aware of who controlled the social, economic and political institutions and knew that they would not adopt the ideology. Those in power were the "first conservatives" where their goal was to retain any of the laws and practices from England that benefited them and the obvious one was White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male Supremacy. This alone ensured the "prediction" of Mather Byles, a British loyalists, that was famous for asking, "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

The "conservatives" that supported the American Revolution did not do so because they supported the Ideology it was based upon. They did so to remove the power of the King replacing that power with their own. The Southern plantations were virtually identical to titled lands where the only difference was that formal titles were abolished and replaced with the informal title of Master. They still had absolute ownership of the land, the resources and even the people under them while paying tribute (taxes) for that power.

Conservative also retained other English laws and traditions such as "ownership of property" as opposed to the "right of possession" of property. Ownership of property provides the statutory possession with or without the actual right of possession being established.

Conservatism has existed in the United States since it was founded and it's always fought against the ideology upon which the nation was founded.

 

That's not a failure of the free market, that's a failure of expectations - on your part.

 

Chevy cars and Ford trucks.

 

"The jobs were outsourced to 3rd World countries" is a myth propagated by political parties. Predominately only manufacturing work can be relocated to another country and manufacturing jobs have been a small percentage of the workforce for decades. Overwhelmingly the manufacturing jobs are replaced by automation because of the cost effectiveness (cost/benefit analysis) of automation. Worldwide the per capita number of manufacturing jobs has declined by roughly 40% with because of automation. Productivity increases while labor decrease.

 

This is actually quite humorous because it actually related to two United Technology plants in Indiana and a workforce of 2,100 employees where the manufacturing operations were being relocated to Mexico. One plant still moved all of the work displacing 700 employees. Carrier was the other plant and the work for all but 800 employees was moved to Mexico. Of the 800 remaining 300 jobs were never going to Mexico and only 500 were "saved" but only temporarily because CEO of United Technologies mentioned that UT was taking the $9 million they'd receive in tax concessions, throw in another $6 million of there money, and automate the remaining work so most of the remaining 500 jobs would disappear as well.

Basically 2100 jobs, 300 of which were going no where and the balance of 1800 are virtually all going to disappear at a cost to government of $9 million. Nice job Trump. Trump didn't save anything in the end but did manage to give UT $9 million to help get rid of part of the jobs.

 

I'm sayin the PeeWee Herman Defense is bullshirt

 

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights (use Article V), what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?

 

Freedom of the Press......

The natural unalienable/inalienable right is the Right of Thought. "Freedoms" are the natural unalienable/inalienable Right of Liberty. The Right of Liberty provides the "Freedom to Exercise" (a natural unalienable/inalienable right).

This is why John Locke, in the Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter II "Of the State of Nature" stated, "Though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license."

The Right of Liberty does not allow individuals to do whatever they please just because it doesn't directly harm another person or persons. The Right of Liberty is very restricted because it only allows a person to exercise their natural unalienable/inalienable rights.

Republicans and most Libertarians are not advocates of Liberty but instead are advocates for License that only limits the person's actions based upon statutory (man-made) laws while ignoring natural law. For example Republicans promote the statutory authorization (License) for pollution when no one has the Right (of Liberty) to pollute based upon natural law.

 

Do you apply your religious (I am making the assumption you are religious. If I am wrong, my apologies) rules to others? And if you do, how does that allow people true freedom if they are only allowed to behave in a manner that conforms to your religion?

Also, if this has already been asked, I apologize.

 

I am not religious. I am agnostic. And it's all good bro.

 

Very good! Important distinction.

I prefer the original term "un-a-lien-able", as in cannot be taken by law. In this way the material world that life depends on is protected.

Commerce has rights to property, but if they cannot contain toxins completely to their property they have no right to compromise the unalienble rights of others to have naturally pure vital elements.

Of course each of us in meeting our needs each day compromises vital elements, but mostly because of the methods of commodification that have been allowed to dominate because commerce paid taxes. One great purpose of free speech is to enable education and understanding of how to commodity ourselves independently to reduce impacts on the unalienable right to naturally pure air and water.

The unalienable right to share information, develop informed opinion in unity to preserve unalienable rights and the constitutional mechanisms of law that protect those rights are of the most prime. That enables the unity required to prevail over government wrongly aligned with commerce for material gain which includes compromise to other rights protected.

That right can be termed the PURPOSE of free speech. Without it, perhaps no rights can be protected.

 

I wonder do Conservatives take into account automation and robots in the workforce when they advocate "you work or you die"?

 

Excellent post, thank you.

Only part that I am going to quibble with is the claim that the Constitution was intended solely to entrench the power of white males.

In essence the Founding Fathers placed a time limit on slavery of just 20 years before an amendment could be passed abolishing it. Refer to Article 5 where this is explicitly stated.

From this is clear that a compromise was reached on slavery and that the Founding Fathers anticipated that slavery would be abolished in the future.

That is a clear understanding that the Constitution was not meant to be "set in stone" but that it was intended to be amended to deal with future changes in society.

The principle of protecting individual rights was not "set in stone" either in that those individual rights only applied to white males. Instead it was anticipated that individual rights would be expanded to include others in the future which is exactly what has happened.

The point that the DoI makes is that ONLY when a government becomes "destructive towards rights" is it justifiable to "abolish" said government.

Nothing that has been posted in this thread to date even comes close to meeting that standard as far as the current government of We the People.

Since the civil war every instance where there has been a legislative infringement of individual rights it has been overturned by the courts. Sometimes this process has taken longer than others but the overall trend has always been to uphold and extend individual rights.

One last point is that white male power is declining in this nation largely because of demographics and not because of the extension of individual rights.

 

Nope!

White color jobs have also been outsourced. Accounting, programming and medical services like interpreting xrays are provided at a lower cost than hiring Americans.

 

A question that is never answered by the right because they don't have any.

 

So you know it goes both ways, you're just a hypocrite about it. I already knew all that.

 

Let's assume these numbers are correct.
What if the person in question does not have the skills to acquire and hold a job worth $17/hr?
What if the skill set of said person is only worth $8.25/hr?
Why should a private company pay a person more than their skills are worth?
How is a private company responsible for ensuring have enough to live on?

 

So you support same-sex marriage and the right of a woman to control what happens to her body?

 

You really haven't defined your personal brand of conservatism.

How do you feel about the runaway military budget and the fact that it is adding a tremendous amount to the deficit and therefore the debt?

 

Fallacy: Begging the question

 

Then how are you "conservative" per say? Does it apply more to spending? State rights? Where do you stand on issues such as LGBT rights, equal pay, healthcare, family paid leave, abortion, etc.?

Again, sorry if all this has been asked.

 

Which is an private extension of the PURPOSE of free speech, or it is supposed to be. Look what happened when I gave a copy of a federal lawsuit to a local reporter. Seventeen reporters and editors fired, resigned and gagged.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

And it was simply about getting effective mental health care.

It failed Lincoln, which is why we had an unconstitutional civil war and no one knows what he was referring to when he said, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court".

Now that private corporate media is working with the infiltration of government that inspired the civil war, the constitution will not stand unless we, the people, unify around that which enables the unity required to effectively alter or abolish then use the law to enforce the constitution.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

So, do you agree and accept that the framers intended for freedom of speech to serve the PURPOSE of enabling needed unity?