Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Monorprise
I would say that social conservative position are essential, particularly so at the State & local level.

I would argue that they are essential Primarily at the federal level e.g. inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The federal government amasses power at the expense of freedom and does so by directly replacing inalienable truth with government truth.

As for “polarization” in modern politics that is inevitable. as the Federation grows larger it invariably also grows more diverse with each new mind with his or her own ideas. Even the existing allotment of Government controls on every issue will find less and less ground of agreement among our people and their States. This is to say nothing of the inexplicable growth in federal power. That is to say Federal attempts to shove us all into its centrality dictated square hole.

Polarizing issues have always been present; however, it was the basics that comprise the limited republican federal government the founders established that were the only things federal government at one time concerned itself with.

NOW; however, the federal government concerns itself with all manner of issues and those pleading for consensus in all things are in essence those promoting government control of all things -an imposed tyrannical top down social order.

Modern politics, my ass! It is 'progressivism', mob rules 'democracy' that subverts the republic and encroaches upon individual freedom that politics for putting it's king in the throne instead of the other's king.

Our goal as conservatives should be to dismantle the throne that progressivism has built on government 'values' RATHER than coronate another RINO who would be king.

15 posted on 04/28/2012 11:22:32 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: DBeers

“”I would say that social conservative position are essential, particularly so at the State & local level.”

I would argue that they are essential Primarily at the federal level e.g. inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The federal government amasses power at the expense of freedom and does so by directly replacing inalienable truth with government truth.”

Although I don’t dispute your assertion about Federal actions I’m not following your thinking regarding the priority of social conservative attention to Washington over States & local government.

Washington has usurped our rights to govern ourselves and has stuck its ugly outsider head into our local and individual business. It has no right to be involved period in local or domesic matters. Social conservatism therefore should not be very much concerned with Washington, importantly nto more concerned with Washington than they are with State & local governments.

It is after all State & local governments that illegitimately make domestic policy and can illegitimately have the “police power”. It is only State & local governments that might illegitimately give Social conservatism(Whatever the local variant is) a form

Washington is too distant from the people to govern and too divided in its population to even form & enforce a coherent social policy that is anything but destructive to rights & liberties.


37 posted on 04/28/2012 8:28:20 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: DBeers


NOW; however, the federal government concerns itself with all manner of issues and those pleading for consensus in all things are in essence those promoting government control of all things -an imposed tyrannical top down social order.”

With this Statement I could not agree more. You hit the nail on the head.

Although I think many of those arguing for compromise don’t even realize what a “compromise” is really demanding of us all. I don’t think the thought itself has even crossed their mind. Its like to them its always been a question of how the Federal government should run the issue not whether it should run it at all.
AKA: What policy we can agree on, not whether or not we should have to agree at all.

We shouldn’t have to agree on how our healthcare is run, we should each run our own healthcare policy according to our own means & desires. The left only want us to “agree” because at the end of the day their game is about redistribution(thief) not justice, not better services.

Simply stealing from one man who carried his weight to pay off anther who did not. That in itself is the greatest of moral evils.


39 posted on 04/28/2012 8:39:31 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: DBeers

“Our goal as conservatives should be to dismantle the throne that progressivism has built on government ‘values’ RATHER than coronate another RINO who would be king.”

I agree again wholeheartedly. But have you ever thought about the implications of turning that thrown against the left. Then using that period where they told themselves that “the throne has gone mad” to really drive in our message about the dangers of centralized Government power to them?

We would be forcing the left to face a basic reality of life. As long as there is diversity in man(A concept they claim to cherish) There must also be as a consequence a proportional need for a diversity in governance.
Indeed the very fact that we are different is the reason why what works best for one group is harmful to anther. For that reason our efficiency and happiness as both a civilization & individuals is undermined by the inherently homogeneous solutions of centralized government.


41 posted on 04/28/2012 8:59:11 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson