Things that make you go hmmm....

[Montauk6]

Why do we seldom, if ever, hear about "classical conservatives"? Ever notice how conservatives always draw on the "classical liberal tradition"? This is, of course, their way of rationalizing the fact that none of the Founders or any of the rebels against the crown could, then, or at any time be called "conservatives." What the hell would they have been trying to CONSERVE at THAT point? In fact, what move forward in this country's history can be attributed to anyone calling themselves at the period of said move forward "conservative"?

No, really, I'm curious about this...


(potential flame bait) If the ownership of guns is a sacred, inalienable right for all Americans, why are they not provided by the manufacturers free of charge?


Why do we seldom hear the term "socialized legal system"? Or why don't we hear it to the extent that we hear "socialized medicine"? Is it possible that America values representation by counsel in court regardless of whether the client can afford it over treatment for illness?


If government is to be made so small that you can drown it in like a baby kitten, who's going to protect the fetuses and insure prayer in schools? Vigilantes?


If, as Objectivists, laissez fairies, and invisible-hand holders have argued, any involvement of government in the marketplace amounts to socialism or statism; what part of Article I, Section 8's "regulate commerce" clause should I NOT interpret as the Framers' intent to establish a, again by the aforementioned's definition, the US as a "socialist" or "statist" government?


hmmmm...

[Time for change]

1. I like many of your points -- especially in the first paragraph

I believe that most of the US values liberal values substantially more than conservative values, but since our MSM repeatedly attacks "liberals", they think that people like us are bad people.

Regarding your point about "socialism", probably all of the industrialized countries in the world today run on a mix of capitalism and socialism. So, what's wrong with that? That's what the good majority of people in all Democracies want. No electorate would accept a system of pure capitalism.

But I don't think that your point about guns is serious.

[Montauk6]

2. The gun point is indeed serious

What good is a so-called fundamental, inalienable right to keep and bear arms if, let's say, I can't afford the price of a gun and bullets?

I'm not ARGUING for mass gun handouts a la condoms (though I wouldn't be surprised if there were those in support of such a thing), I'm just posing a question that seems begged by the "out of my cold dead hands" crew.

[Time for change]

3. I don't know this for a fact, but

I'd be very surprised if the most adament 2nd ammendment enthusiasts believed that guns should be handed out to people for free.

I don't know. Maybe if I understood better where they're coming from I'd be in a better position to say something constructive about this.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Capitalism, baby

You're not entitled to ANYTHING if you don't have the money for it. The profit motive is more sacred than life itself, and that's not just snotty wordplay.

The only true sin in capitalism is not having any capital.

People who go along with all this don't want ANYTHING to be free; it's a crime against all that's holy.

[leftofthedial]

4. hmmmmmm

hmmmmmm