Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Am I a conservative?

Short answer- no.

I'm a liberal. But I'm a different kind of liberal. The old, gun toting, voting, liberty based kind.

(My personal view shouldn't influence you in acting on any of my advice and commentary on gettting involved with politics. If you are any sort of basically decent person, disagreeing with me and being active in politics is a far better case, IMO, than disagreeing with me and NOT being active in politics. Go Do Stuff!)

David Koeller writes thus:

In the entry from Wikipedia, you have this:

"Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe, and the United States."

It's worth taking the time here to look through the whole entry. While I find Wikipedia to be slanted in terms of presentation of ideas, it's not a bad read by any means. (For example, the right to defence isn't ever mentioned in Wikipedia.)

The entry from Stanford is also essential reading.

What you see going on here is a shift, in effect a socialist shift- from classical liberalism to new liberalism.

I am not, by any stretch, a socialist.

Yet- I support a healthcare system- not the one we're getting!

How do you square this?

Well, one aspect lies in the role of government, another is technological, and a third is in the idea of what things should be profit based.

For the conservative Republican and the modern "capital L" Libertarian, everything should be permitted to be profit based. All actions, all activities.

Let's look at that some. When our nation was founded, strict limits were placed on corporations- including limited "lives", a necessity of performing a socially beneficial service, and owners & managers were responsible (directly!) for criminal acts.

There's more, of course- looking here and here would be useful.

I don't believe medical corporations should exist in any sense except the most harsh governance under our original charters. Profit from illness is a dangerous thing.

I'm quite happy with the government giving money to universities and university/military/religious hospitals to further improvements in medical technology!

I'm also- while not any sort of catholic or protestant Christian- perfectly happy with religious hospitals.

We are a technologically advanced enough civilization to provide a reasonable amount of healthcare to the entire population at a very low cost in actual resources.

Further, I would class what is going on with private corporations and government funded medical insurance/care as profiteering.

I agree- to an extent- with the classic liberal freedom of markets. I do see a place for governance in the enforcement of freedom. Because diligence and enforcement is required.

In terms of personal liberty- I am absolute. This is why I dislike "California style" direct democracy, where the actions of a majority can restrict the guaranteed rights of a political or social minority.

We were not designed as a direct democracy, and I find the tendencies in that direction quite as disturbing as the progressive tendencies towards a French styled system of professional politicians graduating from the École nationale d'administratio.

I, of course, hold firearms rights dear. This seems like a "conservative" trait- but most conservative groups I'm familiar with only support the rights of the people they care about or approve of.

I'm not much for the "personal defense against muggers" talk- I live in an area where personal defense mostly means keeping coyotes out of the livestock and the regretful job of having to take down an aggressive wild dog now and then.

I am a bit far from town and would feel really idiotic if my family got hurt because I didn't have a firearm, but it's not the forefront of my thinking.

National defense and societal defense are. This is one you either get, or you don't get. No point in trying to explain- but we've been saved as a nation from *actual* invasion, invasion plans, and the possibility of invasion on several occasions due to an armed citizenry.

My ideal of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all persons, all races, all creeds- without let or hindrance, paperwork nor registration. Oh, limiting access to weapons of mass destruction (reasonably defined as something on the order of a 20 pound bomb and items more destructive) - sure. Limiting access to violent felons for a period of years, sure. But that's about it.

And I am, very much, a classical liberal. Which has not a jot of socialism involved.

No comments:

Post a Comment