Are Community Interests Superior?

[ClayBarham]

This is the key issue in the 2007-2008 campaign in America. Boil down the rhetoric and what you have left is a contest between those who view the interests of community being superior to the interests of the individual. Democrats stick together in their efforts to make the interests of community supreme. Republicans are confused, unable to decide if they still support legitimate self-interest, or side with Democrats.

Here is how it all works. If you look at news reports from Africa, such as Sierra Leone, where people live in abject poverty, experienced with war, mass slaughter, famine, you begin to think in terms of community interests, of making things better for them all. You imagine them living in a clean community, in more modern homes, with good food, sanitary conditions, dressed well, children being bused to new, well-run schools, fathers going to work, mothers standing at the door with a broom in hand waving good bye to their husbands, a good middle-class existence for all of them. You feel it would be nice if they could all enjoy life and live like so many middle-class Americans do.

You think to yourself that, by taking hold of the management of those communities, you could make life so much better for them. You are in charge, and you have all the money and resources at hand to do the job. You pass the laws. You hire and train the police to enforce those laws, and select the judges to operate the courts. You know what the results of all those actions are to be, making you welcomed as a wise and benevolent ruler. You accept the task because you know your vision is right for them.

In doing these things, you are recognized and applauded as a great liberal ruler. You are the kind the world needs in order for peace and happiness to reign. If you can imagine all that, you can better understand what the every-day liberal in America feels about his or her own community. If only he or she ruled, the community would function so much better than it is now. Poverty would be erased. Prejudice would disappear. There would be no doing without. Happiness would be universal.

In America, however, the liberal runs into so many difficulties with the people he or she would manage. They do not all agree on the liberal’s vision for their lives. They are too much embroiled in doing things the way they want them done. This disturbs the progress only the liberal can bring to community. Americans do not suffer as the peoples of Africa needing help, because they have planned, built and managed their own communities the way they want them, and those trying to disturb their lives are not welcomed.

[lily]

Sounds like an interesting game of Sims to me.

[preservanation]

This is the key issue in the 2007-2008 campaign in America. Boil down the rhetoric and what you have left is a contest between those who view the interests of community being superior to the interests of the individual. Democrats stick together in their efforts to make the interests of community supreme. Republicans are confused, unable to decide if they still support legitimate self-interest, or side with Democrats.

Here is how it all works. If you look at news reports from Africa, such as Sierra Leone, where people live in abject poverty, experienced with war, mass slaughter, famine, you begin to think in terms of community interests, of making things better for them all. You imagine them living in a clean community, in more modern homes, with good food, sanitary conditions, dressed well, children being bused to new, well-run schools, fathers going to work, mothers standing at the door with a broom in hand waving good bye to their husbands, a good middle-class existence for all of them. You feel it would be nice if they could all enjoy life and live like so many middle-class Americans do.

You think to yourself that, by taking hold of the management of those communities, you could make life so much better for them. You are in charge, and you have all the money and resources at hand to do the job. You pass the laws. You hire and train the police to enforce those laws, and select the judges to operate the courts. You know what the results of all those actions are to be, making you welcomed as a wise and benevolent ruler. You accept the task because you know your vision is right for them.

In doing these things, you are recognized and applauded as a great liberal ruler. You are the kind the world needs in order for peace and happiness to reign. If you can imagine all that, you can better understand what the every-day liberal in America feels about his or her own community. If only he or she ruled, the community would function so much better than it is now. Poverty would be erased. Prejudice would disappear. There would be no doing without. Happiness would be universal.

In America, however, the liberal runs into so many difficulties with the people he or she would manage. They do not all agree on the liberal’s vision for their lives. They are too much embroiled in doing things the way they want them done. This disturbs the progress only the liberal can bring to community. Americans do not suffer as the peoples of Africa needing help, because they have planned, built and managed their own communities the way they want them, and those trying to disturb their lives are not welcomed.
:clapper::clapper::clapper::clapper:
Zing!
Right on Brother.

[Buck Laser]

It's probably time to point out that Clay's phony dichotomy between community and individual interests are simply his own idiosyncratic creations. Everyone's favorite amendment, the second, states it thus: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." It's really sorta pathetic that Clay manages to overlook all these things when he decides to go off on his individualistic rants.

Just as a point of interest, I think Clay is more informed by Ayn Rand than by American history. Sad.

[ClayBarham]

I can understand your position if you support your party's position, which is that community interests are more important than the interests of the individual. Catch up! They have been saying this. Governor Vilisak said it, Hillary wrote about it (It Takes A Village) and all their programs insinuate it. The Democrats are the party of community interests. If this nation was like Sierra Leone, I would say we need leadership to define the interests of the community, but it is not. America differs from the rest of the world because it is not. Lafayette told Tom Paine that Europe could not handle American style political freedom because for too long the people of Europe have been steeped in a culture that demands a leader at the top. So, I have to assume you are in denial or just trying to hide the fact there are these two different political approaches.

[NortheastCynic]

Well, allow me to interject my unsolicited opinion.

Both parties are communal in nature. Not communal as in 'communist' but communal as in anti-individual. Repubicans believe that 'society' [a nonsensical, mythical construct] must be 'strengthened' by laws that they see as the most effective way to keep the 'moral fiber' intact.

Democrats believe that members of 'society' should be forced to support each other through a tangled web of entitlement programs and taxation.

Neither group values the individual.

Sorry 'bout that.

-NC

[Questerr]

Cynic's right. Communal programs and ideals don't just apply to economics and liberals, they also apply to the moral and cultural goals of conservatives.

[exigent]

Here is how it all works.


I'm truly sorry. After reading what you've been writing lately, I was physically unable to get past this sentence.

[ClayBarham]

The Dems are fully committed to a communalism of sorts, while the Republicans are simply confused as to what they believe. The party started out believing in the individual, so much so they led a war to stop slavery. Most of their political leaders expressed an individualistic approach, all the way up through Reagan. I really am not sure what Bush believes, as the party, under his leadership has moved to the left of its base, a base that still believes in individual freedom and legitimate self-interests as more important than community interests as dictated by the dictator of interests, which I assume is Hillary today. I believe my inability to say, for sure, that the GOP is still the party of liberty, is shared by many Republicans who are looking for a place to roost. I'm sure they are frustrated because they know that leaving the GOP at a time of election means the opposition wins without much of a contest. So, a lot hinges on who passes through the primaries that they can support. As I see it, Huckabee or Newt are the best choices, but their chances are not all that good.

[Truth_and_Power]

Americans do not suffer as the peoples of Africa needing help, because they have planned, built and managed their own communities the way they want them


Without exception, planning and management always trample on someone's individual rights.

[ClayBarham]

T&P
Do you mean, if I plan and manage my own life that I will trample on the individual rights of another? That does not make sense, and that is what I said. Now, if you mean planning and management from the government, the rulers, would be trampling on the individual rights of others, I would agree. So, which is it?

[Truth_and_Power]

Well an individual can't "plan and manage a community" as you say.. I assumed you were talking about the community managing itself. Are you talking about the libertarian fairy tale where a bunch of people do as they please and voila everything just plans itself?

[flaja]

The Dems are fully committed to a communalism of sorts, while the Republicans are simply confused as to what they believe.

Suppose the businessmen who are members of a private country club- Republicans to a man (women and Democrats need not apply) decide to get together and buy a dilapidated shopping center in a slum area of town and have it renovated for use as a public school. How is that not communal action?

You seem to equate rampant individualism with Republicanism and/or conservatism. Since my country club scenario isn’t likely to happen and considering how GWB and Co. kow-tow to the corporate interests you may be right about Republicanism, but you are certainly wrong about conservatism. Historically (beginning with Edmund Burke) conservatives have opposed laissez faire capitalism that allows the strong to take advantage of the weak because conservatives oppose the creation of wide gulfs between the rich and poor because such gulfs encourage social upheaval- something that any legitimate conservative has a deathly fear of. True conservatives are opposed to the dog-eat-dog world that you seem to prefer.

Most of their political leaders expressed an individualistic approach, all the way up through Reagan.

Is this why the GOP has a long history of giving government subsidies to corporate types (land grants to railroads) and welfare to the masses (Homestead laws?

[ClayBarham]

Flaja:
Have we simply erased the history of America's communities and how they grew in the early years? In your country club members building a school, that is the sort of thing that happened all over America. People got together and solved problems and filled needs. That is what is so admirable about America, and what conservatives, at least my kind, applauds. Somehow, I think you have missed the meanings of my posts regarding individual legitimate self-interests being more important than community interests, unless you are calling yourself a conservative as a provocateur.

[flaja]

Flaja:
Have we simply erased the history of America's communities and how they grew in the early years? In your country club members building a school, that is the sort of thing that happened all over America. People got together and solved problems and filled needs. That is what is so admirable about America, and what conservatives, at least my kind, applauds. Somehow, I think you have missed the meanings of my posts regarding individual legitimate self-interests being more important than community interests, unless you are calling yourself a conservative as a provocateur.


Is this why America has had public schools, paid for by taxpayers, since the 17th century? Is this why both the Northwest Ordinance and the Homestead Law set aside government land to generate revenue to support public schools?

However, my point is that there are two types of communal action that can be taken for the public benefit. Communal action is not something that conservatives object to in theory.

If you equate communal action with communism, then conservatives do support communism of a sort. And the example I gave with the country club is really the purest form of communism since according to Marxist theory, the government wouldn’t be involved because the government wouldn’t exist.

[ClayBarham]

If I and my neighbors decide to build and operate an animal shelter, that can be seen as community action. We fund it and run it, to accomplish something we desire, to help lost animals find health and home. This would be an example of something conservatives applaud. Now, if President Hillary tells me, by circular, that I am supposed to give some of my property and income to a national rescue system conceived of, constructed by, and operated by people I do not know, or that I do not approve of their priorities, and most of all, I do not think that kind of thing is their business, I am against it. I believe the things we do as close community members, on our own, to solve a local problem, and are successful doing it, is the right kind of communal action. It is created and funded from those of us who care. If we decide it is needed, and run off to government to start and fund it, forcing the disinterested people to pay in taxes, then that is wrong. See the difference? Again, I suggest you Google Virginia City, Nevada and see how they handled their problem late in 1875, without any intervention from any level of government.

[flaja]

[quote=ClayBarham]
Now, if President Hillary tells me, by circular, that I am supposed to give some of my property and income to a national rescue system conceived of, constructed by, and operated by people I do not know, or that I do not approve of their priorities, and most of all, I do not think that kind of thing is their business, I am against it. I believe the things we do as close community members, on our own, to solve a local problem, and are successful doing it, is the right kind of communal action. It is created and funded from those of us who care.

How would said President Hilary Getolir have such power? The action you envision would come from Congress, a body whose membership you control in part. You will either submit to laws enacted by Congress or either protest them in Court or on election day, or otherwise make yourself an outlaw.

If the laws that Congress enacts are constitutional and serve a worthwhile public purpose by meeting a public need that private efforts either cannot or will not deal with, there is no reason why a conservative would not support it.

Getolir = Grand Exalted Tramp of Little Rock.

[ClayBarham]

Yes, you are correct. Those kinds of actions and earmarks come from Congress, and no where in the Constitution or the intent surrounding this Nation's Founding will you find an authority to do so. They have simply usurped the authority under the General Welfare notion stated in the preamble which was and is not part of the constitution (it was more like an address on the envelope). If such a project were to be had, it should start at local government, where the people who object can get heard and recruit neighbors who feel the same way.

[flaja]

Yes, you are correct. Those kinds of actions and earmarks come from Congress, and no where in the Constitution or the intent surrounding this Nation's Founding will you find an authority to do so. They have simply usurped the authority under the General Welfare notion stated in the preamble which was and is not part of the constitution (it was more like an address on the envelope). If such a project were to be had, it should start at local government, where the people who object can get heard and recruit neighbors who feel the same way.


Creating a national pet shelter system would fall within Congress's power to regulate interstate and international commerce. I may question the need for and wisdom of such an effort, but I don't see where it would be beyond the constitutional powers of Congress.

BTW: How do you determine original intent? Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings? And what do we do when Framers were not all of one mind?

What about Edmund Randolph, who proposed the Virginia Plan at the Convention, then refused to sign the document because he though the central government would have too much power and then ended up supporting ratification before serving in Washington's cabinet? What was Randolph's original intent?

What about Alexander Hamilton? He spoke only briefly at the Convention and then went home because New York's other two delegates always outvoted him. But Hamilton then returned to the Convention after those other delegates had left the Convention themselves. Hamilton played only a little role in writing the Constitution, but he had a major influence on how the Constitution was implemented.

And what about James Madison? Both Hamilton and Madison were authors of the Federalist Papers, but once the government was set up they joined opposing political factions- Hamilton a Federalist in favor of a strong government, Madison an Antifederalist in favor of a limited government.

And then there's George Washington who refused to exercise any presidential leadership (while also usurping the power of the federal courts) by refusing to veto any legislation he did not personally think was unconstitutional no matter how much he personally disagreed with the legislation.

So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates. But, the Journal was not published until 1818 and Madison's notes were not published until 1840. That means the nation did not know what the Framers really wanted the Constitution to mean for the first 50 years of the document's existence.

[ClayBarham]

Hamilton left the constitutional convention after embarrassing himself with a long and meaningless tirade on just about everything. He was an arrogant youth. His contribution to the Federalists Papers were mainly on the history of nations, which were excellent, but I think his intentions even then was for a strong central government. Madison's essays were to the point, and if intent were to be found, it would be there. Intent, however, is best found on the history leading up to the Constitution, of which the Articles and the Northwest Ordinance are important precursors to a Federal Government, and with the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions years after the Constitution was adopted. The primary seat of government was always the County in America, not the state or the Fed. The intent expressed by the founders was to keep government close to the people. As to a Federal Animal Shelter, that would obviously be a wrong-headed move, though I am sure PETA would support it. In no way was I speaking of "community" being government pulling off this kind of thing, but people who are interested in it willing to pay for it themselves, for which we have many examples.

[flaja]

Hamilton left the constitutional convention after embarrassing himself with a long and meaningless tirade on just about everything.

I know about Hamilton’s speech at the Convention. It can hardly be called a tirade.

He was an arrogant youth.

He was at least 30 years old when the average age of the delegates was 42. Along with Hamilton James Madison, Edmund Randolph and Gouvernoir Morris were also just in their 30s. If age means anything, you cannot reject Hamilton while accepting Madison.

Hamilton had also raised an artillery company and lead it in combat as its captain. His skill as a military commander brought him to the attention of General Washington. He then served as Washington’s aid de camp with the rank of lieutenant colonel before again serving as a field commander; he lead the American force that captured redoubt #10 at Yorktown, which compelled the British to surrender. There is no way Alexander Hamilton entered the Constitutional Convention as an arrogant youth.

His contribution to the Federalists Papers were mainly on the history of nations, which were excellent, but I think his intentions even then was for a strong central government.

So you agree that the Founders’ original intent was to establish a strong federal government?

Madison's essays were to the point, and if intent were to be found, it would be there.

Only to be changed once he was serving in the government. Madison didn’t become a leader of the Federalists, but rather the Antifederalists. So for all practical purpose, Madison had no original intent.

Intent, however, is best found on the history leading up to the Constitution, of which the Articles

The Articles of Confederation were an abject failure. The Constitution was written because of the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation.

and the Northwest Ordinance are important precursors to a Federal Government,

The Northwest Ordinances were written into federal law by Congress.

and with the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions years after the Constitution was adopted.

Huh? These resolutions did not have the force of law and they hardly expressed a universally-held opinion and the views expressed in them are diametrically opposed to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The primary seat of government was always the County in America, not the state or the Fed.

Huh?

The intent expressed by the founders was to keep government close to the people.

How does this determine how much power government has?

BTW: You are wrong. The intent of the Constitution was to isolate the government from public opinion since the delegates to the Constitutional Convention abhorred democracy, which they equated with mob rule. They did not want the people to have the power to make rash decisions that could put the country at risk. The only part of the federal government over which the people had direct control (as the Constitution was originally written) is the House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate was not chosen directly by the people. Neither the president nor the federal judiciary are selected directly by the people now. The Constitution was intentionally written so the federal government can do things that the American People do not want- and get away with it.

As to a Federal Animal Shelter, that would obviously be a wrong-headed move, though I am sure PETA would support it. In no way was I speaking of "community" being government pulling off this kind of thing, but people who are interested in it willing to pay for it themselves, for which we have many examples.

I wouldn’t support a federal pet shelter either because it would be unwise. However, I fully understand that “community” can mean both private and public action.

[ClayBarham]

A lot to digest in one sitting, but I can only boil it down to a view that you are a Hamiltonian of sorts. I prefer the antifederalists like Jefferson and Madison, and I think Hamilton showed his penchant for centralized government authority when he rode out with a bunch of troops to put down Shay's rebellion, a strictly State matter. I think Aaron Burr did the nation a favor.

Question: Why do you call yourself a conservative? Your arguments seem to favor the liberals? Would you classify yourself as a Rockefeller Republican?

[flaja]

A lot to digest in one sitting, but I can only boil it down to a view that you are a Hamiltonian of sorts. I prefer the antifederalists like Jefferson and Madison, and I think Hamilton showed his penchant for centralized government authority when he rode out with a bunch of troops to put down Shay's rebellion, a strictly State matter. I think Aaron Burr did the nation a favor.

Have you read this in a book, or are you making up American history as you go along? Alexander Hamilton had nothing to do with leading troops to suppress Shay’s Rebellion. He did, however, accompany President Washington and General Harry Lee on the expedition that was sent out to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion- which was most certainly a federal affair.

Question: Why do you call yourself a conservative? Your arguments seem to favor the liberals? Would you classify yourself as a Rockefeller Republican?

I am a Burkean conservative. I am utterly repelled by the idea of change and social upheaval. I am equally repelled by injustice and the knowledge that the world is a place where the strong can take advantage of the weak.

I am opposed to all abortion that is not absolutely necessary to preserve the life of the mother (this would likely eliminate all current GOP candidates for president as well as most rank and file members of the Republican Party).

I am opposed to all fetal stem cell research.

I do not totally support the practice of using animals to conduct lab tests- especially for health and beauty products.

I support organic food production for economic reasons, and I think we must expand our use of ecologically-sound energy sources for both economic and national security reasons. I am a conservationist, not an environmentalist.

I do not support granting marriage rights to sodomites, neither do I support civil unions for them (again this would likely eliminate all current GOP candidates for president as well as most rank and file members of the Republican Party).

I want lower taxes, but I am not opposed to using tax policy to encourage or discourage certain behaviors.

I do not support government sponsored prayer, Bible readings or religious displays because the prayers, Bible readings and religious displays may not uphold the God that I worship. However, I see nothing wrong with giving private groups access to public places as long as all groups have equal access.

I want lower government spending, but before we start eliminating existing programs we should concentrate on reducing inefficiency and fraud.

I can accept things like Social Security, FDA, OSHA, EPA and unemployment insurance as measures to regulate commerce and some of them are needed, but I do not always accept the way these things are managed by the federal government.

I support a national K-12 public school system as a measure of national security- America cannot be a first rate power if we have a third rate school system; I used to work as a private school teacher so I know from firsthand experience how badly private schools can operate in the absence of government regulation, so I don’t see that private schools are a sufficient alternative to public ones.

[moses2792796]

Oh no we must have our individual rights. Clearly these are more important than the good of society as a whole.

[flaja]

Oh no we must have our individual rights. Clearly these are more important than the good of society as a whole.


Individual rights and societal rights must be balanced. Individual rights must be held in check. Otherwise we risk having an individual become so powerful- socially, economically or politically that he makes himself a dictator over the rest of us.

[moses2792796]

Well we can't have that, it's evil.

[ClayBarham]

Wow, lots of good points, flaja. I agree with most of them, except those that allow central government to run the school system. Then, to appease all the interests, you eliminate the meaty 3R subjects in favor of socially appealing programs to satisfy various ethnic groups and those who speak the loudest. When locals ran their own schools, and paid for them, America was far more literate than now. As to the central government running such alphabet programs, they are incompetent. The fed are incompetent on just about every endeavor, regardless of who is running it. I would feel much better with local home rule on every program, and mainly better when the free market does the job.

[flaja]

Wow, lots of good points, flaja. I agree with most of them, except those that allow central government to run the school system.

I don’t recall saying anything here about education other than mentioning that I am in favor of a national public school system because I see such a school system as a matter of national security. But, this doesn’t mean I want the central government to run this school system. The most I would let the central government do is establish standards (curriculum and teacher qualifications and guaranteeing a minimum level of funding), but I would empower parents to act as a board of directors for whatever school their children are enrolled in.

Then, to appease all the interests, you eliminate the meaty 3R subjects in favor of socially appealing programs to satisfy various ethnic groups and those who speak the loudest.

I know that I haven’t said any of this.

When locals ran their own schools, and paid for them, America was far more literate than now.

You can document this how?

[ClayBarham]

With the recognized incompetency of the Fed, I would never want to see education standards, teacher expertise or text books ever left up to them. I didn't say you would oppose the 3R's, only that a Fed Dept of Eduaction, obviously run by the Dewey-NEA folks, would slip off to justify Dewey and Mann's approach. I lived near Virginia City, Nevada for some years and spent a lot of time in the town studying its history. The school the people built in that city in the mid-1800's was one of the most modern, and they used books like McGuffy and they taught meaty subjects, all of which paid for by people inthe community, even those without children. Education, in the early days of America, was a priority in every community, and literacy nationwide was far better than today, under the NEA. You may chose to disagree that people in early America were capable or interested, but such was the case. Perhaps, if I am wrong and you are right in that education controlled at a great distance from the need and interest, then logic says we should give the UN the task....which means even greater incompetency.

[flaja]

With the recognized incompetency of the Fed, I would never want to see education standards, teacher expertise or text books ever left up to them.

“The Fed”? Do you mean the Federal Reserve System? How is it incompetent?

What I propose is to establish a body that will set the curriculum and teacher standards. This body would consist of 1 member appointed by each member of Congress (535), another 535 members appointed by the President and then each state’s governor would appoint 1 member for every electoral vote his state has. This way the body would represent a wide cross-section of American society so the resulting school system wouldn’t be dominated by any given political, socio-economic or religious faction. Furthermore I would either require this body to make all of its decisions with the concurrence of 2/3 of its members or require Congress to give its approval with a 2/3 vote of each House. Also, I wouldn’t allow this body to create a curriculum that addresses any one theory of origins to the exclusion of any other- essentially meaning that Creationism and Darwinism wouldn’t be addressed.

Once the national standards are in place it would be up to the parents/guardians of the students enrolled in each school would be in charge of buying textbooks and hiring teachers. They would also make decisions regarding religious displays and activities in the school.

I didn't say you would oppose the 3R's, only that a Fed Dept of Eduaction, obviously run by the Dewey-NEA folks, would slip off to justify Dewey and Mann's approach.

Which is why I would set up an independent body to establish the standards and put parents in direct control over managing individual schools.

I lived near Virginia City, Nevada for some years and spent a lot of time in the town studying its history. The school the people built in that city in the mid-1800's was one of the most modern, and they used books like McGuffy and they taught meaty subjects, all of which paid for by people inthe community, even those without children.

Are you aware that the federal Homestead Laws set aside one homestead in each 36 square mile township to generate revenue to support the town’s public school? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find out that this Virginia City school was funded in this way. Chances are it was not entirely a local effort. And even if it were, there would have been a great deal of national standardization for the simple fact that the nation didn’t have many textbook writers so the choice of textbooks was very limited.

Education, in the early days of America, was a priority in every community, and literacy nationwide was far better than today, under the NEA.

Not necessarily true. The first taxpayer-funded schools in America were set up by the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th century, while the South didn’t have any public school system at all until the Reconstruction Era (the states that made up the Confederacy were settled before the Homestead Laws were in effect so they didn’t get any schools this way).

[ClayBarham]

Please do us all a favor and change your affiliation. You are far from being a conservative. You are more the liberal side of things with your view of the importance and effectiveness of far away bureaucracies as well as the so-called "balance" between individual and community interests. Community has no interests other than those given it by its manager or ruler, and the ruler cannot stomach opposition from all kinds of individuals with their own interests. I do not mean to criticize, only to point out that you take positions contrary to those taken by conservatives. At best, you would be a Rockefeller Republican, more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian. Now, where I may be wrong is in identifying myself as conservative, except I have no other place to go except anarchy, something I have no truck with at all. I still cling to the systems established early in our history, where counties were the seats of functioning government, and Democracy worked, where the states and the Fed (government, that is) worked under narrowly defined guidelines. Adding new and different "systems" for the Fed from time to time just takes us deeper into the mess we are in now. Everyone has a better idea.

[flaja]

I do not mean to criticize, only to point out that you take positions contrary to those taken by conservatives.

Taken by conservatives, or by libertarians? By what standard do you define conservatism? What tells you whether something is conservative or not?

At best, you would be a Rockefeller Republican, more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian.

I am no kind of Republican. Ten GOP votes to acquit Clinton saw to that. Furthermore, for all practical purpose Hamilton is the founder of American conservatism, not Jefferson.