I can’t square conservatism with freedom.

Conservatism means keeping things as they were or are. That can mean resisting new rules and regulations that restrict freedom, just as it can mean maintaining rules and regulations that restrict freedom.

 

Why don't you give me an example from the constitution that is subjective and unknowable. Maybe then I would understand what the hell you are trying to say.

 

The entire constitution is subject to interpreted. I never made a claim of unknowable. I claim that believing one’s own reading is the inerrant be all end all reading is not evidence that it is. I claim that our biases make an inerrant reading problematic. I claim that we all read it from our own perspective and that there is much variety in human perspective thus the subjectivity.

As for you being able to understand what I am saying, that is impossible if you think any living person including yourself have an inerrant take on the founding documents. I can recommend some books on psychology that go in-depth on implicit biases and how they negatively impact our ability to be objective if you like.

How can any of us prove that ours is the inerrant reading of words written long before we were born? Easy to claim but problematic to prove.

 

Nah, no problem. It's real easy.

The constitution did not just write itself out of thin air. There is a context to the constitution which can be discerned by reading the DOI. If that won't get the job done there are the Federalist Papers and the founders correspondence with each other.

It's no big mystery why those who would alter the constitution want The Peope ignorant of their history. It's been done for thousands of years- deny a people their history so you can condemn them to repeat it.

 

Why is it that there is so much disagreement as to what the founding documents say if it is so clear cut?

 

Because the far left, which now runs the Democrat Party, is out to take your freedoms and run your life. They want to control you with laws, rules, taxes and government programs. They want to restrict business activities and even technological development. When you put that much power in the hands of a relatively small number of officials, more than a few of them will use it for personal gain.

Aside from abortion, what has the conservative movement done to take away your freedoms? Even with abortion, the issue has been moved to the state level. You will always be able at abort fetuses in the progressive Democrat states.

 

How do you account for the lack of universal agreement on the right as to what the founding documents say?

I am sure if I created a thread asking where have conservatives taken away our freedoms it will return many examples. I can’t use low dose THC in Idaho to control my chronic pain, but I can drink myself silly off of booze! I am sure there are many examples of the right taking away freedoms for any interested in objectively examining the issue. A problem though is that it is not in the best interest of partisans to look too deeply at their own tribe. If they do they will come to see that their tribe is often guilty of doing that which they call out the other tribe for.

 

I hear ya, and am somewhat sympathetic, but, in truth, when it comes to debating, I prefer specifics.

Specifics can be debated in a much more accurate way, but debating generalizations, I don't see the point.

 

You are basing your argument on a false premise that the far left runs the Democratic Party. The far left is a vague and contested term that does not have a clear or consistent definition, but it generally refers to political groups or ideologies that are more radical and anti-capitalist than the mainstream left. The Democratic Party is a diverse and broad coalition of various factions and interests, ranging from moderate to progressive, but not far left. The party’s platform and policies reflect this diversity and balance, and are not dictated by a small or extreme minority.

You are also basing your argument on a false dilemma that the only alternatives are either the far left or the conservative movement. There are many other political positions and perspectives that do not fit into this binary and simplistic framework, such as centrism, liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, etc.

Moreover, you are ignoring the fact that both the far left and the conservative movement have internal divisions and disagreements on various issues and policies.You are making a sweeping generalization that the far left wants to take away freedoms and run people’s lives. This is a straw man fallacy that misrepresents and exaggerates the actual goals and views of the far left, which vary depending on the context and the group. While some far-left groups may advocate for more state intervention or regulation in certain areas, such as health care, education, or environmental protection, they may also oppose state interference or oppression in other areas, such as civil rights, privacy, or foreign policy. Furthermore, some far-left groups may reject state authority altogether and favor more decentralized or direct forms of democracy and self-organization.

You are making another sweeping generalization that the conservative movement has not done anything to take away freedoms, except for abortion. This is a selective and biased presentation of the conservative movement’s record and agenda, which overlooks or downplays many other issues and policies that affect people’s freedoms and rights, such as voting rights, immigration, criminal justice, LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, religious freedom, gun control, etc.

Moreover, you are assuming that abortion is a matter of freedom only for one side (the fetus), and not for the other side (the pregnant person). This is a controversial and contested assumption that does not reflect the complexity and diversity of opinions on this issue.

 

While I agree in spirit, 25 years of political debate has taught me that it is often a waste of time. Every once in a while I comes across someone on the other side of an issue that is as interested in learning as I, but for the most part those I talk with here immediately reject disconfirming evidence. Anyone loyal to a political group that can’t see the rot within their tribe are not the type of people that will see it even if it is pointed out.

Partisans have a vested interest in maintaining strong group affiliation. Because of this there is little incentive for partisans to look too hard at themselves and their tribe. If they do then they will come to see that their in-group does much of the same crap they have criticized the out-group for doing. Human nature is systemic.

Amy Chua is a sociologist and talks about this kind of stuff in her book Political Tribes. She has some videos up on YouTube as well. It is a shame we were not educated on the human mind as kids. If we were I like to think we would not be in the mess we are now.

If you want to see the corruption of the left I suggest create a thread asking the right to point it out. The problem is being open to what the other side has to say, which is all but impossible if one is a partisan. Not saying you are though.

 

I read your posts, and they seem to do is run around in circles. You criticize both sides, and insult both with the derogatory “tribe” label. On balance, you seem to fall more with the left than the right.

Since you are determined to do your own thing, perhaps the libertarians would be you best bet.

The trouble with the left is that they are becoming more and more controlling from the economic perspective. They want the government to create a systems where all outcomes will be equal, except for their leadership and the elites who support them. Their leaders will continue to live in large homes, fly in private jets and enjoy all of the technological advances that modern life has to offer.

In the mean time, “the little people” will have to do with less as “equity” means lower and lower standards of living. The monetary and economic system will break down because the irresponsible spending and excessive increases in the stock of money that the left needs to fund it will wreck the system.

I believe on freedom and opportunity. I believe that hard work should be rewarded. I believe that every child should have the opportunity to get a good education, and that involves more than throwing money at the problem. I am inspired by success stories like that of Doctor Ben Carson, who rose from the ghetto to become a renowned neurosurgeon. Most of us don’t have his talent or perseverance, but a large part of humanity has gifts that can result in a successful life. The trouble is it does not come easily for most. You have to work for it. You have to give up something to get something.

In high school I had up a social life to get good grades in school and move up from the small boring town where I grew up. On balance it was worth it, but not perfect. I blossomed in college and ultimately did well financially. Many would be jealous of me now.

Now, I will go back to my “tribe.” I know that my vision is inadequate, and narrow minded in your opinion.

 

You have to distinguish among conservatives who, like liberals, lefties and rightists, come in many different flavors. I am a constitutional conservative which means I support the Constitution and its tenets, favor a central government doing what only it can do and no more, fully support individual liberty along with law and order, etc. If that means I am all for maintaining the status quo, so be it.

 

The irony here is that people have little power to effect change in their opposition. They only have power to effect change in their own house. But, because they have no interest in acknowledging or even seeing the problems within their own house, their status quo persists.

 

Of course it's a waste of time, and ALL my arguments are delivered mindful of that as context. I do it, I suppose most of us do it for entertainment.

But, within that context, some things are a bigger waste of time in the sense of being totally pointless (meaning that it won't provide any entertainment value), and for me, that would be to debate what I deem are essentially rant words, vague generalities, gripes, etc.

 

So there can be no law, since we can never agree on the meaning of a statute. Is that your point?

 

Tribalism is a social psychology term. What is derogatory about it? If interested in what I mean by the tribe click on the link. It is of a sociologist named Amy Chua that is an expert on political tribalism.


The problem with Libertarians is the same problem I see in republicans and democratic, that being human nature that too easily gets drunk off of power. If they rise to power they will likely be no better that team red or team blue.

As for controlling, both sides are too controlling from my perspective and want to limit freedom to party approved ones.

As for equality, human nature is tribal as opposed to egalitarian. Sure the tribe can have a measure of egalitarianism but it tends to be limited to equalities and freedoms approved of by the tribe. Groups the tribe find threatening are not afforded the same freedom. Human nature is selfish and self-centered where we group together with the like minded and fight for what the tribe says is right and oppose the ideals of opposing tribes.

As for your last statement, all tribes are narrow minded, I would argue that it is our nature to be narrow minded while deluding ourselves into thinking that we are not. Perhaps the single biggest failure of our education system is that we do not teach kids about the psychology of how the mind works.

 

To go deep into conservatism would require more words than most would be interested in reading here. Ask 100 people to make such distinctions and you will get many different perspectives. If I were to do a fair examination of conservatism I would have to write enough words to fill a book or several books.

As for the status quo, I am not arguing that is a bad thing. Whether it is bad or good is a subjective assessment.

 

Of course there is law. Yet it is decided by whoever holds the most power and applied and interpreted in convenient ways.

As for my point, it is not possible for you to understand it as we are starting from different premises. You seems to believe that there are people that can read the founding documents in an inerrant way, meaning devoid of any and all personal bias, prejudice that would corrupt one’s objectivity. Please correct me if I am wrong there. I understand that words tend to be interpreted in convenient way that conform with our most fundamental beliefs and said beliefs are subjective as opposed to universal. In essence we tend to see what we want to see.

I doubt you are interested, but just in case I will post a video of the sociologist Amy Chua that explains how political loyalty biases us.

 

Excellent point. The hazard of messing on an otherwise entertaining political forum blog.

 

I've made note of this multiple times, but I don't watch posted videos on this forum because in my experience they almost never make the point the person who posted thinks it does. Having said that I'm quite familiar with Amy Chua, her books, her interviews and scandals. She's an interesting thinker.

I'm not arguing that there are two kinds of folks, those that can read the constitution and knows what it says, and them that can't. I'm saying in constitutional interpretation, there are multiple philosophies of interpreting the constitution. On the right the two prevailing schools of thought are textualism and originalism. On the left, there is deconstructionism. Only the right is interested in trying to interpret what was actually meant by the text. On the left, it's about getting around the text if it contradicts the flavor of the day.

So I do understand your premise, I just disagree with it.

 

Not sure I agree with your assessment but I thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. Thanks Mike.

 

By the way, can you recommend any good books on the subject? I am an avid reader of nonfiction.

 

The oft mentioned Federalist Papers. I would start with that. Since those essays were written to promote ratification, they do a fairly good job of explaining the benefits of the constitution by those who wrote, or were familiar with those who wrote it.

My personal choice is a text book, "Constitutional Interpretation" by Ducat & Chase. Honestly I don't even know if it's still in print, I still have my copy from college decades ago. It breaks down the most meaningful constitutional court cases, so I occasionally still refer to it when some constitutional issue comes up on this forum!

 

I'm not the guy that you asked, but here is a link to the Library of Congress and The Federalist Papers.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

If you read them you will find that America was built on certain principles.

 

Seems the book is on Amazon, wish it were a Kindle though. None the less I added it to my absurdly long list of nonfiction books to read. Thanks.