Do to the debates in the polygamy thread, I figured it was about time that we had a all out debate on the basic ideals of our respective schools of thought, I personally don't care who joins (of course I'd be disappointed if Linus didn't show up) but its about time we had this debate.

We can discus any issue, and debate it on the intellectual merits. Questions can be asked and answered at whim on whatever issue, but please don't repeat the same question to the same person.

We will start with 3 basic questions, then move onto 3 more basic questions, and finally 4 more basic questions before we open the discussion to debating certain points. We will begin by our respected sides, writing down their basic "core" beliefs on the basics of the first 3 political questions. I'll begin....

Name: Rocky Reagan
Political Philosophy: Burkean Conservative/ Fusionist sometimes called "Reganite".

Q: Where do our rights as Americans (or whatever nation you are from) come from?
Burekan Conservative Answer: Our rights come from a variety of sources, but the two major are Natural (otherwise known as god-givin) and Inherited. We have very few God given rights, as humans, but they are simple the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. These are the very few, and indeed only God given rights that we as men have. Any nation or government that doesn't recognize these rights we would label a "tyranny". Thats it though, the rest of our rights are inherited. Point in take, our Constitution. Our Constitution is the product of centuries of accumulated knowledge, passed down threw out hundreds of generations. Information cherished and defended, in ancient Churches and thought of from the Senate Forum in Rome, to the school of Plato. The four biggest cultures that we draw our knowledge from can be described in 5 cities. Jerusalem, Philadelphia, London, Rome, and Athens. From the Rockingham Whigs, to Cicero, to Aristotle, to Abraham. These histories and cultures set the intellectual frame work, of our great nation. To ignore this fact is folly and extremely arrogant, for we are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants. Since then of course we have picked up other accumulated knowledge from passing generations, the founders themselves left a HUGE amount of papers, and philosophy on government, to debate and discus, The Age of Jackson, Lincoln and the Civil War, the Progressive Era, the Imperialist era, the World Wars era, and everything in between has affected our rights and duties but Ultimately, our rights still our based on the Jewish struggle and legends in the old testament, the brilliance of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other Greeks, the forum of the republic and its defenders personified in Cato (elder and younger), Cicero, and Titus Labienus, later the Popes, and the history of the Catholic church and its intellectual giants, and Martin Luther, London would then enter the fray with Locke, Hume,Smith, Burke, other Rockingham Whigs, and of course then the minds of the early Colonies, from John Winthrop, to the fiery speeches of Jonathan Edwards, to the Renaissance man Benjamin Franklin. These minds that created the accumulated wisdom of the ages, where studied and debated by our founders and ultimately had a incredible influence upon them. Yes indeed it is this great history and what has come after it, that has affected and created our rights, and our republic. For one generation to destroy this chain by some declaration of something truly UN- realistic on the bases of some metaphysical abstraction would be the biggest injustice any man or generation could put on its children. In the words of Patrick Henry Q: What is the place of the Constitution in Government?
Burkean Conservative Answer: The Constitution, is our highest and most sacred government document of our republic. It is the final product of centuries of intellectual thinking, and it sets the ground work to restrain the unnecessary evil that is government. It is set up as Edmund Burke said

Simply replace the word empire with republic, and for Conservatives Burke's words still ring true today. No man alone, nor one single idea could write our Constitution, the Conservative understands this and recognizes that it is a document that is firmly rooted in our heritage. The document pushes forward highly held idea's that where created, not out of some think tank or from some metaphysical abstraction, but from blood, sweet, debate and centuries of trail and error. From the ages, it rings true that we have inherited a ordered and morally just liberty. Not a liberty to do whatever we want or "what feels good", but a liberty that opens up the hearts and minds of free thinking men, to purse their dreams and raise and defend their families. True ordered liberty, brings out the best in mankind, and we trust the individual, but we also understand that it is the Church and the family that best curves his appetites. His God given property rights are recognized, in order to allow him to through his own hard work and mind own some land and goods on which to raise his family. It is not only Natural rights, that are recognized for indeed the right to bare arms is recognized, in order for man to be able to protect himself, his property, his family, and his country. That state is limited constantly threw out the document, such as its inability to force a individual to house soldiers. Indeed it is as Henry said again,

This doesn't mean of course that we have the right to do whatever we want. Indeed we also have responsibilities, as citizens of the republic that must be recognized. One is the ability for congress to make the laws, and we must obey them, we can not rebel because we don't approve of how much we are being taxed this year compared to three years ago. Neither can we complain even if a state decided to sponsors its own religion, indeed during the founding many states, had their own state churches. Also in the past when the horn of Mars is blowing, the government has had to set up a draft in order to defend the nation. Now how can we stop these laws if we disagree with them? Well the first is voting, by using the ballot instead of the bullet, we have been allowed the opportunity to send a Representative who believes in our ideals to the capital. This sets up competition of ideas in which the best usually surface to the top over time. We also have the right to political speech, to debate and change the minds of our fellow citizens, in order to get them politically motivated, Then there is the right to peacefully protest, and assemble if nothing else works, but these two are more means instead of ends, they are tools to use in order to get attention to change the mind of our citizens, and Representatives so they vote the way we desire. This keeps the republic running, and keeps it legitimate, because the free market of ideas is allowed to work.

Q: The Declaration of Independence, what good is it today?
Burkean Conservative Answer: The Declaration of Independence although, not a government document that affects the laws of the nation, it is a historical document that sets up some basic early ideas of the young republic. It recognizes our basic natural rights (Life, Liberty and this time pursuit of Happiness because Jefferson didn't want to get into the whole slavery debate since many slave owners considered their slaves "property") as well as makes the case against King George the III. Its heavily rooted, in Jefferson's own train of thought, but is discouraging on some levels, because it does have one or to of Rousseau's ideals in it, whos ideas later of course proved devastating towards the French, and lead the ground work for the rise of Napoleon. Ultimately though it is a fine masterpiece, and wonderful work which recognizes our ultimate authority being God, and that no government has the right, to destroy the rights the God has given us.

Well their are the first 3 questions. It is now YOUR turn to reply, and bring up your ideas, in a few days I will bring up 3 more questions and after that 4 and then the open debate happens on any answer given, or how your philosophy would apply to a more specific notion (like immigration). You can get involved at any moment and jump in after answering all 10 questions and the open debate has started. Good luck to all who decided to participate.

__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

Well, I think that all of our rights come from God, but that since nature is imperfect we cannot always distribute all rights equally. For example, there is no question in my mind that material compensation should, ideally, be proportional to effort. Over time, though, I have come to realize that any effort to make it so inevitably leads to a decrease in the compensation of all. This is where the core of all of my ethical decisions, including those in politics, originates. I first acknowledge that injustice will exist. I then consider whether an act, in and of itself, is the best possible act in a specific situation, weighing its merits and its demerits. I insist upon this deontology because consequentialism is self-negating. John Stuart Mill's rule utilitarianism has the essential flaw that if all actions were judged by their consequences rather than their intrinsic worth, such a rule would cause net harm to society. By intrinsic worth I refer to intent, and I think that intent is based on mutual sympathy, which all animal species have, but which, so far as scientists know, only humans are able to analyze. To be honest, I have never read a book of philosophy in my life. I have however, studied philosophy, especially as it applies to politics, in Encyclopedia Britannica and on the Internet. The most basic influence on my ideas is clearly from Kant and his maxim:

“So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never as only a means.”

I also hold to Kant's idea of a good will as being the basis of ethics, but I think in more Humean terms about the origins of that will. At the same time, I think that God gave us the mutual sympathy that Hume observed. I do not hold strictly to Kant's famous categorical imperative, however. I am a deontological intuitionist. I am not an intuitionist by the older definition of opposing moral sense theory, which I actually support, but rather by the definition of thinking that "good" and "right", as in the theories of Sir David Ross, are indefinable terms beyond themselves. I reconcile that with stating that ethics are based on sympathy by writing that the preceding clause is a tautology. One cannot define ethics without referring to sympathy. The idea of sympathy is contained in the idea of ethics. Ultimately, they are one and neither is definable beyond the terms "good" and "right", with the former referring to motives and the latter referring to actions. These are more theories of Sir David Ross. This is from Encyclopedia Britannica:

... in the 20th century by the British philosopher W.D. Ross, who held that numerous “prima facie duties,” rather than a single formal principle for deriving them, are themselves immediately self-evident. Ross distinguished these prima facie duties (such as promise keeping, reparation, gratitude, and justice) from actual duties, for “any possible act has many sides to it which are relevant to its rightness or wrongness”; and these facets have to be weighed before “forming a judgment on the totality of its nature” as an actual obligation in the given circumstances.

Hence, in any situation, including those that are political, I add to Kant's ideas those of Ross. I weigh what the best possible intent is in a given situation, relying on my conscience, which I must take to be guided by God, and act upon that intent (when I do not sin, that is). As for the Constitution, I hold to strict constructionism not on Burkean grounds but on the grounds that attempts to change its application are more likely to result in ill intent than in good intent. I would say the same of the Declaration of Independence.
Therefore, while I hold to constitutionalism as the basis of government, I meld together the theories of Burke with a distinctly Hobbesian understanding of a government's purpose. I apply Hobbes' theories about government to those of Burke on constitutions to say that the United States Constitution is the necessary "Leviathan" of our age and nation. Hobbes, however, underestimated the corruptibility of the aristocratic class, so I hold that the Constitution must have authority with reference only to itself, without any intermediate authority. Ultimately, an ethically sound Constitution is the only defense against the corrupted power of "the few or the many", as Burke stated it. I do not view our Constitutional rights as being inherited from tradition, however. This may be true historically, but ethically, I think that a Constitution is a social contract that exists apart from the past or the future, an idea of mine that is influenced by the Stoic concept of natural law, but tempered by Hobbes' assessment of human nature. Once judged ethically right in the process of forming a government, such a Constitution acts not as a preserver of tradition, but rather as a restriction on evil.

A consensus among the masses. God is irrelevant.

The Constitution is a safety valve intended to prevent mob rule. Changing the Constitution requires consensus on a massive level, ensuring that it is not changed on a whim.

I do not know enough of the specifics to form an opinion on this yet. However I no longer consider it relevant to modern America. The Constitution was far more important.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I will summarize every argument likely to appear on this thread from everyone so that we can save time:
My ideology's better than your ideology
My ideology's better, I kno-o-o-ow

Yeah, I know. I type out of key. Everyone's a critic.

Actually, S-S, I hate to say this, but your core political philosophy seems more like Rousseau's "general will" than like any form of conservatism. You're right, JavaBlack, that is what we're doing.

Isn't it time it's legalized?

Seriously people. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.

__________________
Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean

I use the term "neo-con" only because that is what other people call me. Paleoconservatives dont consider neo-cons to be real conservatives.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Am I, by inference, a paleoconservative (post-metamorphosis, that is)?

Q: What is the place of the Constitution in Government?

Your answer actually pretty much defines constitution. Anything else really wouldnt be a constitution.

Concerning rights, rights were an idea invented solely by John Locke about 300 years ago. His entire argument was based on (1) reason by looking at our state of nature and (2) G-d. The idea of rights is simply another form of justice. Concerning a concesus of the masses, the idea of rights give them the right to have a concesus. Before rights, the masses couldnt have a concesus, bucause it was rights that gave them ability. Furthermore, a concesus does not work because as soon as 1 guy says that no one has rights, then what do you do? Then if that guy becomes king what do you do? He has the power and doesnt believe that anyone has rights, that justice is simply the rule of the strong over the weak. G-d is very rellevant because without G-d that actual original argument behind rights, that created rights, finds itself very difficult to stand up. Especially since the the idea of justice as being strong over the weak is so natural.

So, whats interesting is that if you go up to any random person on the street and ask them about rights, they will all say that everyone has rights, but they wont be able to tell you why. Everyone simply takes it for granted. The entire of idea of rights is completely formed from Locke's argument. In fact, the declaration of indepednece is Lockean text, as opposed to European gov. which are Rousseaon, thats why they are more socialist than us.

Actually, constitutions were invented in the ancient world very much to restrain the people. Aristotle argued that the constitution should balance the needs of the rich few with the many poor, something I very much agree with.

Everyone needs restraining.

About Burke's comment. He still doesnt explain why people have the rights to "life, liberty, and property." He just says that we have them. If an argument cant be formed for why we have these rights then we obviously cant form a government according to their justice.

Most Paleoconservatives would be uncomfortable to your open-borders views and your authoritarianism.

You probably do fit the ideology of an existing party. Just not a major party.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?