Posted on 04/18/2008 4:27:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Actually no, we mean government. The free market is where the individual operates, the system(government) is what puts restrictions on the free market.
By your definition of conservatism, Jews in Nazi Germany were at fault for not finding innovative workarounds to the gas chambers.
Only with your faulty assumption of what 'system' meant. What is interesting is that out of probably the hundreds of times I've posted a comment like that, you are the only person ever to assume or read into 'system' as being the free market instead of government. Maybe this is a little Rorschach test for you?
I think someone else has a better comment about this than I do:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and (hand) the victory to your enemies.- Ayn Rand
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
..and there's the rub.. You probably should ponder for a while who is in charge of your future and who you are putting your faith in. (Ping Kevin, from a conversation we were having earlier- perfect example..)
I can understand that a Bircher and Paul cultist would be offended by the article.
Jew, don't see the relevance, are you an Orthodox Jew?
You certainly seem to follow Paul enough to have him on your Google News Alerts and to monitor that stupid ronpaulforums site.
I use RSS feeds for all my news alerts. I don’t need to do a thing. They just pop up in a program called Arise. In a minute or two, I can have fifty or so articles on the ten or eleven keywords, including every candidate, illegal immigration, and various business related alerts. As I’ve mentioned before, the Paul articles just seem to draw more attention and ‘conversation’...but you know this..
I can't even pick out the object or the verb in this sentence.
Your original post:
“I think the fundamental issue with him I have is that he stands (claims to) for Conservative ideas, not ideals. He isn’t starting a revolution of ideals, but of a mismash of ideas, all are creating followers of government solutions. The fundamental ideal of Conservatism is the power of the individual to achieve his full potential in spite of the system. Paul is always preaching about all the problems that are holding you back because of the system and preaching system solutions. This isn’t Conservative ideals, this is another person saying offering government solutions. “
Then you wrote:
““The fundamental ideal of Conservatism is the power of the individual to achieve his full potential in spite of the system””
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect God-given liberties, including life, liberty and property. That’s the Christian position and the foundation of American constitutional law. My guess is that most conservatives would agree with this position. Ron Paul’s platform is to return government to its lawful role.
“Actually no, we mean government. The free market is where the individual operates, the system(government) is what puts restrictions on the free market.”
Maybe in this forum, but your “fundamental ideal of conservatism” doesn’t have anything to do with political conservatism.
“Only with your faulty assumption of what ‘system’ meant. What is interesting is that out of probably the hundreds of times I’ve posted a comment like that, you are the only person ever to assume or read into ‘system’ as being the free market instead of government.”
You define ‘system’ as government, not me. By your definition of conservatism, Jews in Nazi Germany were at fault for not finding innovative workarounds to Hitler’s (ie. the government’s) final solution.
“..and there’s the rub.. You probably should ponder for a while who is in charge of your future and who you are putting your faith in. (Ping Kevin, from a conversation we were having earlier- perfect example..)”
Without protection of life, liberty and property under the rule of law, practically speaking it doesn’t really matter what any individual or family does. Conservatism isn’t anarchism; we can restore the rule of law the peaceful way or ponder the inevitable alternatives as government induced hyperinflation, unemployment and depression sets in.
The real political Munchausen by Proxy consists of attacking the Republic’s foundations in order to save the Republic!
Interesting comments, but I’m neither an Ayn Rand devotee, nor an anarchist, nor a party-line guy.
ping
If you wish it so hard, you could actually give a rational reason not based on slander and half-truths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.