I can’t square conservatism with freedom.

A quick search at Findlaw indicates that there are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words "Declaration of Independence" somewhere in the dicta of that opinion.

Yet, not one single case can be found where the authority for the holding in that case was the Declaration of independence.

There is not a single case that was "specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions." No decision has turned or can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself.

SO NOT USING IT AS LEGAL BASIS

 

No, normal Americans do not cancel people. Normal people do normal things, so I have heard.

 

You did not read what I wrote.

And stop shouting with the bold caps, you sound like you are out on a ledge someplace.

 

It is pretty simple. Conservitism is about having a smaller less powerful government. This is the only way possible to have more freedom. Maybe stop looking at it in the frame of right and left. A right-wing form a of government is fascism. Fascism REQUIRES a large bloated powerful government. look at a left wing form of government, communism. it too requires a vast large powerful government.

The bigger and more powerful government gets the more danger your life is in. Every Genocide was done by a government.

So if you value your life or lives of others or even the planet you have to support a smaller less powerful government because the bigger ones always kill people in the hundreds of millions. they also always do far far far more environmental damage than free people. There are places in the former Soviet Union where you or any living being cant go without dying for thousands of years because a giant government irradiated it with their incompetence.

so it isn't about being right or left on the political compass both right and left extremes equal big government, genocide and absolute environmental catastrophe. so the place to be is in the middle of the compass. a moderate like a liberal or a conservative. These two things are actually closer to one another than they are anything else.

To address your ideas of conservativism. Life in general prefers stability. With regard to tradition, they are traditions for a reason. Though innovations can make things better and we should strive for doing that, things aren't better just because they are innovative. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy but so is appeal to novelty.

Freedom will always be limited to what is socially acceptable. This is true of any political philosophy outside of total chaos. I have seen liberals and more left leaning people protest and really become irate over things they view as socially unacceptable. so that is equally true of every political philosophy outside of abject chaos. this is good setting boundaries for a society is necessary to have a society. We need to disagree on what these are. sometimes the conservatives are out of line, sometimes the liberals are. It is a balance or a stalemate if you will, to gain a more harmonious society where people have the maximum amount of liberty while still maintaining a functional society.

left and right are both authoritarian, it is communism or fascism. you don't want either one of those because the always 100% of the time lead right to death and destruction.

also Democracy is not freedom, it is tyranny. it is the majority being a dictator. What we must do in order to make sure that two wolves and a sheep vote to devour the sheep is establish a base set of rules that cannot be altered without extreme measures. and this rule must apply to everyone equally. at this point you have created a constitution and a republic that thwarted the shortcomings of democracy. preserving this constitution is what conservative (not right wing not republican) is all about. these traditions cannot be removed for what people pretend is new. it really is rather ancient.

 

Some members on both sides want to destroy people. Some misinterpret the intentions of disliked groups. Many don’t understand why the other side does what they do and then fill in the gaps of their knowledge with bias and prejudice.

Human nature is systemic. Much of the ugliness you see on the left you are blind to on the right.

 

I don't have this problem, I'm an anarchist.

Now before you go knocking anarchy you need to consider that "anarchy" literally means "no rulers" the consequence of which is that there are no subjects. No masters, no slaves.

 

Both sides infringe. If you can’t see then you ain’t looking too hard. Those that live by don’t tread on me tend to be oblivious to how they tread on others.

 

What is this "both sides" crap?

Is that in the Declaration of Independence or is that from the U,S. Constitution?

 

Not only am I an anarchist but tonight I must also be clairvoyant, I saw you coming.

So about these "two sides" , Robin123, you got those that are against being ruled over and those that ain't. Correct?

 

I could not have said it better myself. Thanks for the input.

You seem knowledgeable about the subject. Can you recommend some good books on the subjects you addressed?

 

No, but both do it none the less.

 

Political groups have agendas. Both want to set the rules. The problem comes when they can’t agree upon what the rules should be. Both prefer to rule than to be ruled.

 

Try to follow along

You got these two sides, those who want to be ruled over and those who do not want to be ruled over. Correct?

 

I must say thanks for the complement and also express my relief that others think similar things.

our enemy isn't one another. much of our division can be relived by agreeing to disagree and reaching compromise. If we turn to our government and say save us from ourselves, nobody will be happy.

Certainly, please do.

 

Except a prime conservative value is "don't change". The problem is that its a basic tenent of reality that EVERYTHING CHANGES.

 

Not correct.

 

Wrong.

anarchy
noun
an·ar·chy ˈa-nər-kē -ˌnär-

Synonyms of anarchy
1
a
: absence of government
b
: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

 

You likely aren't an anarchist because if you have internet access you likely live in a country that has a structure based on political officials. essentially a top-down structured society permits you the ability to LARP as an anarchist by enforcing rules.

If you lived in a place that was anarchy you likely wouldn't be able to afford to have devices the connect to the internet. If we were to remove rulers others would simply take their place and likely kill you for your property. without an authority to enforce standards there aren't any until enough people group together to then become the rules. nature abhors a vacuum

 

No, like I was saying- some people want to be ruled over and some people do not want to be ruled over.

I don't want to be ruled over. I'll consent to be governed, but not by any man on Earth. By the same principle, I don't want to rule over you either. I don't want your responsibility, and trust me you sure as hell do not want my responsibilities.

 

No. the ones who are against being ruled over as part of a society are expelled from it normally to exist within some other subsociety like prison or whatever other margins are ruled by crime lords and whoever has enough muscle to control others. There is no anarchy within a social species.

You arn't against being ruled over it is other people being ruled over that allows you to pretend to be an anarchist. I am willing to bet if someone kidnapped you chained you up in a basement and starved you and abused you, you would either rule over them yourself or call somebody who could.

 

Nope, not locked up, not me. I'm self governing.

Kidnapped and locked in a basement? Well that does not sound right at all. Do you need your government to defend yourself? As a matter of fact, last time I checked, the Supreme Court determined that your police have no legal obligation to act in your defense or anybody else's defense for that matter. The fact of the matter is that each individual has a responsibility to defend themselves. So you can't honestly equate defending oneself to ruling over somebody else.

 

You most certainly are the former. The latter live very short lives on the margins.

So if i decided i wanted to eat your flesh and i had the ability to overpower you you would like that? someone must rule over people to stop them from doing that. Bringing order to this chaos is precisely why people created society in the first place.

Nobody is an anarchist. that's just something people say to be edgy. the reason why I know this is because at any moment we could have an anarchy. it would be way easier and way cheaper than society. We could do it right now. yet people spend vast amounts of time and effort building a society that has rules over others. this has been the single most important project for humans since Mesopotamia.

So, I dismiss anybody that claims to be an anarchist as LARPing because you are.

 

Overpower me? Why would you want to do a thing like that?

Sounds dangerous.

 

You are one of them three step free-masons ain't you?

You sure talk like one. Making man made rules for other people to follow has been going on a long, long time. But it isn't an important project unless you are some kind of busybody all up in other people's business.

 

It is uncanny how people who declare to me self governing govern themselves excatly the same way as the jurisdiction they are within.

thanks for the laughs.

If i govern myself and determine it to be right, than it is. You don't want to rule over me remember? or do you now want someone to enforce rules over me?

Against what? a single person? possibly three people no. Against something like an invading military yes you do to. That was one of the primary reasons people formed society in the first place.

Okay, so if i manage to get a group of say fifty or so people to come and take your home your children and all of your possessions you either have to defend yourself against me and my group or it is right for us to take what we want.