I can’t square conservatism with freedom.

Interesting. You see "moderation" as the key to democracy while the extremes tend towards authoritarianism. I don't really see moderation as the key factor for democracy. Democracy, or representative government in general, is governance at it's highest difficulty setting. It probably requires an ability to compromise and a common agreement on the rules of the game. As you yourself pointed out in this thread, you want constitutional interpretation to be "subjective" so no one ever really knows the rules of the game.

Not conducive to representative governance.

 

A reminder.

Your OP is really blaming only one group.

 

So we disagree. Take care.

 

Do you argue that republicans are not conservative and Democrats are not progressive? If so I think you may have a point.

 

Incorrect. I clearly stated in the OP that both are authoritarian. I focus primarily on the right because if they could actually live up to their principles I would gladly rejoin the tribe. I have no hope that the left will live up to their ideals and am quickly losing hope that the right ever will either.

 

Can be yep.

 

Conservatism was never based on freedom. Rather, freedom would be the aftermath, not the main goal(that, is supposedly the liberal tenet, but the Liberals do a piss poor job of even that.). Instead, the conservative political theory is that the union(more or less) is fine as it is, and that with a few relative tweaks, things will be pretty okay. This is why conservatives are nominally elected during times of stability. They are expected to keep the stability, not to revamp it.

There is the flaw with this theory though: Society is a constant, not a stagnant. In order to truly conserve the stable society, the government must move lock-in step with society(or have society move lock-in-step with the government. One or the other.). And since neither party has been able to achieve this for quite some time, you're right to be pissed.

Meanwhile, the Liberals have failed to create the conditions for their 'freedom' and their 'progress', as they view both things under the lenses of "first world issues" that have absolutely nothing to do with the greater societal picture. I do for example agree with student loan debts, but the idea that if we raise some super big taxation, that will result in revenues for the US economy or increased wages, is an annoyingly stubborn myth that refuses to die.

Even though countries with huge tax rates, do not see this glorious society.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-taxed-countries

https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php

Look at the rest of the EU, floundering behind us. The solution to our problems economically, do not lie with reviving the policies of the European Union, inside of the United States.

 

I don’t want constitutional interpretation to be subjective, I am just clearly stating that it obviously is. The fact that you use the word “interpretation” in your argument reveals the subjectivity as interpretation is a subjective thing. Interpretation allows for a variety of conclusions. Many claim to have the correct reading but none can prove theirs to be the correct reading to anyone other than those that agree with them. Everyone thinks their interpretation is correct and they can’t all be right. Unless we can reanimate the dead we can not know for sure whether our interpretation of the Constitution is correct or not.

 

Well said. Thanks for the input.

 

Gee why would I think your OP is aimed at the right?



If you start off saying "I can't square conservatism with freedom" than you are seeing the right as the problem. I don't know why you are trying to pretend you didn't write what you clearly wrote.

 

The interpretation part is applying constitutional principles to modern cases and controversies. Such as, "How does the 4th Amendment apply to pen registers?" The interpretation shouldn't be over what the founders meant since as I've already stated, they left plenty of documentation as to what they meant. People who who think the constitution is subjective (the left) think that not because they don't understand what the constitution says, but because they do and they just don't like it.

 

It is aimed at the right, but also says that the left are authoritarian too. The last bit is what you have been ignoring.

 

Who do you see as the arbiter of what the founding fathers said?

 

I would start off with the Federalist Papers, and then the rather voluminous number of letters and essays the founders wrote about the document.

 

If the constitution is not interpretive then neither should be it’s applicable to modern cases and controversies. Seems strange to argue the constitution is not open to interpretation but how it is applies is.

 

That sounds like a ridiculous point. I just can't take that seriously.

 

Who is the arbiter of what the “Federalist Papers, and then the rather voluminous number of letters and essays the founders wrote about the document” says?

 

BS. You just can’t square how the constitution is not interpretive vs your claim that how it is applied is.

 

Sorry but your idea that we can never know what the written word means isn't a serious point.

 

Even if we were to agree that the constitution is not interpretive, it makes no difference if how it is applied is. Interpretation of how it is applied is subjective thus making arguments of the constitution itself not being interpretive moot.

 

Nor have you proven that we can.

 

Wow, you expect me to prove words mean something.



Lol!

 

No. I want you to prove that the words of the founding fathers are not open to interpretation and that there is a living authority that is the inerrant arbiter of what the founding fathers said. We can all read the words. It is the fact that we do not all agree upon what they say that reveals the subjectivity of how we interpret words. Simply believing we have an inerrant understanding of the words does not mean that we do. We tend to read words in convenient ways that align with our views whether they be biased or not.

 

The question was are there states that allow this type of abortion so you named one that it was floated but never passed and another where a doctor went to jail for doing it.

Do you need us to post the definition of the word “allow”?

 

Whenever things are getting worse for freedom over time conservatism seems like a "freedom-orientated" viewpoint.

For instance, conservatism was not called for in 1776, as society was getting more free. By contrast, the early stages of Mao's rule of China were a pretty good time to become conservative.

It's also worth remembering that conservatism is a term that can mean pretty much anything, and its a position nobody actually holds wholesale. It's an idealised position that's useful for conversing and making generalizations. Nobody thinks the status quo is actually perfect and no change whatsoever needs to be implemented.