Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:25:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
715 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I have one tiny point of confusion... I had always heard Jefferson, et. al.,
> referred to as a "classical liberal" rather than a "radical conservative". I
> suspect your use of the term is getting at the same idea(1), but am curious
> as to whether it's something you saw used elsewhere, or what the provenance
> of the term
I made it up myself.
::rant mode set at 11::
My point would be that the traditional, and especially current, uses of the
words "radical," "conservative," "liberal," and etc. are so abused as to no
longer make any sense at all. They have lost all connection to what might
have once originally been meant by the use of these terms.
I see myself as a "radical conservative" because I want to see things return
to the system of law and government laid out in the Constitution. By
today's standard of what is meant by "conservative" (i.e. probably
Republican) I am probably radical in most of my views. I am not finding
much of a home within the democratic party either. Basically, I belong to
the party of "none of the above." I sometimes tell people that I am SO
conservative that I am radical and that my ideas are outside the bounds of
current political discourse -- which I think is true.
I am bent on upholding our original Constitutional republic in a way that I
think makes most republicans and democrats quake in their boots -- all those
guys and gals REALLY want is to lick the boots of corporations and sell out
our political heritage out from under us in the name of globalization (the
U.N.) and a monetary system that is more easily tracked (Federal Reserve
Notes, or whatever is coming next) -- all the while stuffing gold into their
pockets. So I am conservative inasmuch as I want to preserve what is for me
our ancient common law heritage as seen through the eyes of our nation's
ideological heroes Jefferson, Madison, (to a far lesser extent) Hamilton,
etc. Conservative as in: "favoring traditional views and values; tending to
oppose change." I oppose stupid and pointless Amendments to the
Constitution like those concerning taxation (The Supreme Court has ruled
that the 16th Amendment has essentially no force in law) and prohibition
(drug laws being something I personally believe to be outside the purview of
the correct purposes of our government -- I mean, I will not tell George
Washington NOT to smoke hemp if he will look the other way as regards my
personal habits also!). I applaud changes consistent with some of the
original intent of the Constitution like the 14th and 15th Amendments (stuff
that was debated by didn't get in for other political reasons, like keeping
the south a part of the proposed union). Slow and useful change is good.
Hurried and stopgap change is bad.
I maintain a dystopic view of the United States as a North American game
preserve where we, the people, are controlled by our government, rather than
it serving our needs as individuals. I reject the notion that our government
has any delegated purpose to safeguard the interests of fictitious persons
and deathless corporate entities. The sole purpose of our Constitutional
government is to maintain the civil and substantive property rights of it's
citizenry -- it's natural born persons. That's about it. That means: no
standing armies, no welfare, no public school, etc. But it also means
regulating trade with foreign powers and amongst the states, it also means
minting money under the U.S. government (fine gold and silver please!), and
it means settling disputes between persons, states, and persons and states.
Stuff like that...stuff like we ain't got!
What we have is admiralty and equity, what we should have is common law.
That's a huge gap, and I'd really like to take it back to something that
makes sense for the people rather than for the corporations.
I know you Rand fans like to think of corporations as your friends somehow,
but just remember that Ann always neoclassically figured her corporations as
being owned by strong, willful, individual men who held the engine of the
world in their powerful, private, and naturally born hands -- and not as
deathless entities like AOL Time-Warner, or whatever...I think it's a big
difference.
John Galt did not make an IPO.
:: rant mode off::
-- Hop-Frog
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
face -- for ever" -- George Orwell, 1984.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Cool. Some snippage has occured during the posting process. (...) Indeed. We're stuck because we can't make up new words and the old ones are polluted. At least if you put modifiers on people ask what you mean (some of the time) instead of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> WELL SAID, froggy friend. I have one tiny point of confusion... I had always heard Jefferson, et. al., referred to as a "classical liberal" rather than a "radical conservative". I suspect (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
