I recall a story about Maggy Thatcher, where some Tory politician was explaining why they needed a "third way" approach, and Maggy picked up a copy of Road to Serfdom, held it up, and stated "This is what we believe".

I eagerly await for a libertarian to point out to me the successfully society organized around a libertarian political system.

Libertine ideology is the basis for all modern western ideologies.

Seperation of church and state is a libertine idea. The idea that their should be no tiers is society is a libertine. The idea that state doesnt own your property is libertine. The first second fourth fifth ninth and tenth amendments pretty much define libertine ideology at its finest.

the Libertine personality trait aint what I am talking about.

I don't disagree with your assertions, culture is important.

I guess where we might disagree is in the application of central planning, and control.  The problem with central planning and control is that all it is, is other people.  Even with the best of intentions, unintended consequences and distortions occur.  Besides, where does one man derive the right to control another?  (That's probably a separate discussion)

In my opinion free markets work best.  There is a strange order to their apparent chaos.  While they are messy, sometimes ugly, in the long run the right ideas tend to prevail.  A good business, product, service, or idea, succeeds on it's own merits if voluntary exchange is unfettered.  I believe the same is true for social structure.  

I believe the problems we have today are not the result of voluntaryism and individual freedom, or free markets,  they are the product of centralized control.   I think the erosion of what you call traditional American values have been directly caused by the application of government's central authority.   Authority which has been applied at different times and for different reasons, but always with the best of intentions.

I think individual freedom works.  I think it would ultimately result in a strengthening of many of the "traditional values" that you want.  Not because these values are imposed by government's central authority, but because they work.  

Gallup polls are meaningless and heavily weighted towards the urban population centers..  Referendums were passed, as were laws that were drafted and voted on by the representatives of the people.   Representative Democracy is better than tyrannical edicts that reflect a  "poll"  According to the Constitution, it should be up to the States to make that determination.

You are trying to make this an issue of Republicans attempting to impose their morality on people, when it is in fact a case of people opposed to this ruling being in favor of States Rights, the Constitution, representative democracy, and the 10th Amendment. The topic is a straw man, because the OP is attempting to coopt Hayek's definition of 1950's Austrian or English "Conservatives" and apply it to contemporary America Conservatives.  It is the very definition of "Straw Man."




Do you believe that supporting "Marriage Equality" is the morally correct thing to do?   Do you believe that it was correct for the Federal Government to impose "Marriage Equality" on the States, against their will?

If so... congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

When I read the "everyone to do their own thing, man" line, I couldn't help but hear it in my head spoken in the voice of Tommy Chong.    I am definitely no Tommy Chong!  I'm about as straight-laced as they get!

I too recognize the ugly present realities, but find that (for myself) I have to remain the perpetual optimist that someday people will overcome them.  When I think otherwise, I find it makes me depressed...  

The ugliest reality as I see it is that many generations have grown up in a world where government is the body that answers all of these issues for them and sets rules in place to guide how things work.  It seems to not be intuitive to many to think that answers to these could come from somewhere other than government, given that upbringing.  As government continues to grow, the new normal for each generation is a government that answers more and more and sets more and more rules as a result.  Individuals therefore have less and less responsibility or necessity to consider for themselves what is best for them and make decisions accordingly because those decisions are made for them.  But governments are just made up of people and we are all prone to making mistakes.  If I make a mistake in setting my own course, it is me who is harmed.  But, when legislators make mistakes in setting the course for all of us, it may be all of us that are harmed.  In another way, if we have less and less need or reason to think about what is best for ourselves and how to achieve it because someone else is making those decisions for us, I fear that we are becoming dumber as a people.

no

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The last of the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment, seems pretty clear to me.  

I agree 100%.    I believe that is the proper, Conservative position.

I think most of us here agree on this. I don't think Dan Cooper is pushing for centralized control.

However, some issues include complicated baggage. The left, starting with the Income Tax created a system where marriage was very much the government's business. Gays want the same recognition for their marriage, and they pushed for a court based decision which short circuits local and state government and imposes gay marriage as a civil right, allowing local government and small business to be forced to cater to gay marriage.

The ideal libertarian approach of decoupling marriage and government is not a solution in any timeframe that the gays would accept. The democratic approach of allowing states to determine the answer via legislation was not what gays wanted either, as it would allow protections for churches and small buisness to be added in.

What we end up with is greater federal control of local business and government. Gay marriage is about centralized control. But many remain convinced it is about liberty . . .

in red

EDIT: I'm too dumb to fromat this, you can see where red is supposed to be

Oh, I think we actually agree on desired end results.  It's how we get there where you and I probably disagree.  Staying on the topic of marriage, why isn't this left to the people?  Why is it a concern for government?  I mean it deals with a voluntary relationship.

We didn't have a problem with this before the supreme court's ruling.  People were free to cohabitate in America, they could call their relationship anything they like, and they could conduct that relationship anyway they choose.  Up to and including a formal contractual agreement.  Hell, many companies were already voluntarily providing "same sex" couples with the same benefits as married couples.

Using government in an effort to legitimize behaviors is the problem, it is the slippery slope.  

The root of the problem with "marriage" is that we let government in.  We allowed for our absurd tax structure to address marriage, we created social safety-nets and then gave married people unique benefits to share in those safety-nets.  It would have been better for us to focus on eliminating these artificial constructs, instead of focusing on marriage, and ultimately redefining it.  

I would have rather seen our tax system overhauled and simplified,  I would have rather eliminated the social safety-nets, and collectivist policies.  But we didn't.

We decided that government should be involved in marriage, and so it is.  What happened is a logical result of allowing government to become too big and too powerful.  That is the libertarian position.  

The real issue at hand, I believe, is the 14th amendment. As later amendments take precedence, the reading of the 10th has to be modified as such, as the 14th is a mechanism to incorporate the BoR against the states(which originally did not apply against them).

As the 14th is a mechanism for incorporation, and the 9th states that unenumerated rights exist subject to the same protection as the enumerated rights, it basically provides a mechanism to incorporate any number of written or unwritten rights against the state's infringement. Considering that marriage has been recognized as one of those unenumerated rights since 1888, and we have the recognition of 'privacy' as a right used in both Roe(for abortion) and Lawrence(for homosexuality) it's really unsurprising to me this ruling turned out like it did.

Given the 14th is being used as such, the only real solid alternative is a clarification amendment. The problem with that is it goes too far, we lose Heller and Mcdonald.

Lol wat?

#drugwar
#imperialism
#taxes
#patriotact
#contractwithamerica
#govgetsbigger
#epa
#QEinfinity

It's the proper conservatives position on the Federal Government and marriage. The larger picture however is that marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't be touched by government in any way, form or level.

But the root problem are the artificial constructs we've created.

Because we grant unique rights to marriage, it's an issue.  Take away social safety-nets, government mandated benefit programs, and an absurdly complex tax systems, , and marriage isn't a concern for government.  Beyond a contractual agreement it shouldn't be a concern of our legal system.  I don't care how my neighbors live their life, or what happiness they pursue IF it neither breaks my bones or picks my pocket.  

as you have noted, marriage grew into an absurdly complicated legal construct. It was possible to build a legal fascimile of it to cover most(but not all)eventualities, but that was complicated and expensive compared to just going and getting a license, which was an option available only to heterosexual couples. So I'm totally not surprised at the recent ruling.

As for all the other BS wrapped up in marriage, I agree with you. But I do think that, even if we get rid of all the rest, there will still be a need for an objective third party to recognize the existence of certain pair bonds, regardless of the gender of the involved parties.

I like how they latch onto a meaningless word (conservative) so they can ignore what Hayak was saying which is lack of integrity to principals.
Exactly like a "liberal" would do.

The majority of People in the majority of States voted directly for, or had their representatives vote for Laws that defined Marriage.

 I prefer the actual will of the people as reflected in their votes, referendums and in keeping with their State Constitutions.

You prefer agenda-driven Gallup polls that support your position.  

There's no twisting of logic here.  Just straight up, undeniable facts.

It's a conservative position, and I agree with it.    A libertarian position would transcend the Constitution and favor individual liberty over Federalism and States rights and the 10th Amendment.

Sure I can agree with that. "Marriage" can be up to the individual  churches to define how they want, and the government can simply recognize that two people have paired off formally. The problem with government not recognizing this at all is there's still going to be common issues couples are going to have to deal with(property, inheritance and medical decisions just to name a few) that a streamlined single document can cover better than patching something together.

Agree

You're conflating "Conservative" with "Republican Party" and they aren't the same thing.

And that last one is all Obama's

If everyone wanted that, we wouldn't have democrats and republicans getting elected.

Fact is, most people don't want that.

They DO want taxes, they just want taxes to be spent on stuff they support and not on stuff they don't.

They DO want more government and regulation, they just want it to use force to make others do or don't do the things they want or don't want done.

Government doesn't exist to protect you from itself; it exists so you can force your will on others.

"Conservative" is not a meaningless word.

No one can ignore what "Hayak" was saying; he was saying "Hayak baba Hayak."

It's a stone groove...





Liberals hate school principals?   Aren't they in the teachers' union?

Successfully society?



Libertarians? More dangerous.


So, again....





The level of bombastic, proud retardation on this site is a thing of beauty. It's comedy gold.

I like you, and I'll be subscribing to your newsletter.

yeah, you're right, and they defined marriage to INCLUDE same sex marriage, not the other way around.  sorry




EDIT: that makes 13 states that are affected by the SCOTUS ruling by not already defining marriage to include same sex.  13.  In other words GTFO with your nonsense about majorities and what you think I prefer

in this context it most certainly is

communist, 100% taxation, utopia!
democrat, 80%, making progress
republican, 50%, yeah thats freedom baby!
libertarian, 20%, almost there
anarchist, 0%, thats what im talking about

The will of the people in those states was overturned by an all powerful Federal Government, and you applaud that, pointing to Gallup polls.    You celebrate this and applaud a powerful federal government.  You can deny it, but it doesn't matter.

Polls mean nothing.   In states that favored Gay marriage according to polls, Same sex marriage laws passed via referendum.

Your use of the word "context" is ironic.

If you apply context, you will know what "Conservative" means.

wat?

I used gallup to refute the idea that most people are opposed to same sex marriage, because it was the most expedient.  You don;t like gallup, ok fine, I posted the map that showed only 13 states hadn't already permitted same sex marriage based on the direct will of the people or based on the states supreme courts interpreting their state laws/constitution.

I honestly can't tell if we are agreeing at this point or if you are legally retarded or if you simply really hate Gallup.  If it's the latter, sorry, it was just expedient, no need to read into my use of it when there are plenty of other sources that refute the "vocal minority" garbage just the same.


EDIT: or are you just defending those 13 states?  Again, this has nothing to do with states rights.  When the Fed gets out of the marriage business, THEN I'll agree with you, but until then that's not relevant to the issue

Oh, absolutely.

The ultimate goal is to maximize individual liberty.  The Constitution is a piece of paper with words on it which attempts to protect individual liberty.  That doesn't mean I can't agree with the ideas contained in that document.  But ultimately the attempt to protect individual freedom is this ONLY worthy goal of that document, and federalism.

What other other value is there, collectivism?

It has everything to do with the rights of the states and the people in those states.  The ONLY reason that number was 13, was because activist judges overturned those States' Constitutional Amendments which passed overwhelmingly via the popular vote.  From 1998 to 2012, more than 30 States had held referendums on adding amendments to their State Constitutions, banning same sex marriage.  That's 2/3 of the states, and each one passed with a clear majority.

Gallup doesn't mean a damned thing.  The will of the people to govern THEMSELVES via referendums on amendments paints a clear picture.

You obviously prefer the Leftist activist judges and Federal power over the States.

I agree, but we must be wary of Leftist judges who deliver us "liberty" via judicial fiat.  That axe cuts both ways.

So Bush did not do QE1 then?

The idea that the 14th Amendment mandates that marriage be redefined into meaninglessness by separating it from the concept of conjugality is absolutely ludicrous and has no basis in the language or underlying legislative intent and understanding.  It would have been universally laughed at by the legislators.  The 14th Amendment does a lot less than what people attribute to it, and it would have failed the ratification process if that had not been the case.  People forget that the language used (privileges and immunities, equal protection, due process) was a restating of legal terms of art which go back to the 18th century at minimum.  They are terms with definite and limited meaning.  The privileges and immunities clause is in the original constitution; it was basically tweaked by the 14th Amendment; there was a common understanding regarding what that entailed, and the list was pretty limited; the term of art predates the constitution.  The due process clause comes from the common law centuries ago and is a part of the 5th Amendment.  Basically, the due process clause of the 5th Amendment was incorporated, making it applicable to the States.  What the clause meant was limited and had been common knowledge for centuries.  The equal protection clause was of more recent vintage, but nevertheless had limited meaning, i.e. that a State couldn't, all other things being equal, deny protections to life, liberty, and property to some people while employing them in favour of others.  So a State could not choose to investigate and prosecute murderers of whites, but not of blacks, or refuse to enforce the obligation of contracts for the wealthy while doing so for the poor, and so forth (one could actually make an anti-abortion argument based on the original understanding of the clause, since the unborn are clearly being denied equal protection of the laws with regard to protections against murder).  One might say this also mandates what SCOTUS did, but it does not.  Marriage is inherently a conjugal institution, and to deny the protections from a class of those who enter into it where such exist in law while applying them to others would be unconstitutional.  But to say that some couples qualify and some do not for a licence and that status of marriage is entirely different.  Since the 14th Amendment thusly does not modify the constitution regarding this issue, the tenth amendment reigns, and even before it the principles of the law were implied in the original constitution, since it is a traditional legal principle that powers not granted are not held, and that powers not ceded to a created higher authority are retained.

It's pretty clear to me that most of the respondents have not read the essay in its entirety, and that fewer comprehended it or have an understanding of the context in which it was written.  I just reread it (I have two books containing the essay, What is Conservatism?, ed. Frank S. Meyer, which is a collection of essays by Rightists, and The Constitution of Liberty by F.A. von Hayek), in order to refresh my mind.  

Basically, the essay is a giant strawman.  Contrary to what some here are saying, it is mostly directed to the English-speaking peoples, very much including Americans, and it even says so in the essay regarding both points.  He is claiming that his definition is applicable not just on the Continent, but also in the English-speaking countries, the U.S. inclusive, also contrary to many posters here.  Yes, the type of conservative he describes does exist (he is talking about temperamental conservatives, mostly traditionalist types, although he briefly alludes to more progressive conservatives, especially those in Britain, such as Harold MacMillan; a modern American example is neoconservatism, which seeks to conserve the older progressive state against efforts to dismantle it from the Right and efforts to revolutionize it from the far Left).  But the conservative movement of the time, on both sides of the pond, could no longer be described thusly.  While it did contain such conservatives, among the leading and driving elements they were very much a minority.  He momentarily concedes this with respect to Americans, but then continues on with his strawman, acting as if when people were speaking of conservatives, temperamental conservatism was the norm to which they referred.  He also seems to argue against the idea that one can be both conservative and liberal, although he briefly contradicts himself on that point; he should have known better, as he had friends who could be classified as such.

It should also be noted that, again, contrary to many posters here, the definitions of conservatism and liberalism are NOT substantially different here and in Europe.  Throughout the West, and even to some extent outside of it. the meanings are similar.  People here think otherwise probably as a result of the confusion caused by general acceptance of the fausse idee Claire first promulgated by an Italian Leftist to try to explain away the criticisms of the then-novel idea that the Fascists and National Socialists were of the Right which stated that "extremes always meet."  The reality is quite at odds with that conception, despite the widespread acceptance of the latter.

Another misconception is that the classical liberals became conservatives.  Most became Leftists.  Some continued on, clinging onto the liberal label (such as Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Ortega y Gaset) or calling themselves conservatives or libertarians, but most did not.  Conservative liberalism of the post-war era is mostly a revival of older forms of liberalism predating classical liberalism, and evolutions therefrom.  The basis for the case for liberty tends to be rather different, sometimes highly different, from that of the more Englightenment-based classical liberals (and that Enlightenment basis is why so many Continental liberals became nationalists and adopted other revolutionary ideas and also became anti-ecclesiastical, a fact he deplores, but the basis of which he would likely deny, based on this essay and other writings of his).

He is right in saying that many of the people who have labeled themselves conservatives in America are true liberals.  The same, however, was also at the time true in Britain and the Continent.  How he can ignore this while explaining at the same time how that came to be is baffling.  And while they were liberals (as are those today who hold those views), they were also mostly conservative in temperament.  The high traditions of the West, to include the liberalism that developed out of it, is largely what they seek to conserve.  There isn't opposition to change so long as it is evolutionary and has deep roots in the traditions and experiences of Western civilization.  Revolutionary change is opposed, along with continued evolutions based on revolutionary principles.  What the conservative liberal here and in Europe seeks is orderly, organic change and growth, improving upon the best Western civilization has to offer, ultimately leading to an orderly and moral society and civilization that is so while in a state of liberty and which has taken steps to prolong that status and protect it as much as possible from foreign and domestic threats, including democracy (Hayek is wrong in his essay to criticize those who oppose democracy, or to try to make it seem like it is just a principle of the temperamental principles he excoriates; his confidence in the institution is misplaced, as was clearly evident by the time he wrote the essay; he wrongly sees it as just a simple opposition to change and evolution).  To quote the American conservative Frank S. Meyer, "Freedom in virtue is the goal of our endeavor."  Without applying temperamental conservatism to the liberal principle and character, one runs the risk of becoming revolutionary or foolhardy in the pursuit of change, and of being susceptible to clear but false ideas which end up being damaging to the liberal cause, something Hayek fails to acknowledge (it is what caused the collapse of the classical liberal movement, which he very well should have known).  And sans such application, one runs the risk of losing sight of the fact that liberty is the highest political end, not an end unto itself; the ultimate end of man's existence is something much higher and transcendental, and only by sticking to our traditions, of which Christianity is a huge part, do we ensure we keep that in sight, and it thus informs the evolutionary changes in society and what ordered liberty entails.

What you ignore are the other States that were forced to redefine marriage by State or lower Federal courts, contrary to their State Constitutions or the U.S. Constitution.  Not much more than a dozen States chose to radically redefine marriage by plebiscite or through their legislatures, by legislation or State constitutional amendment.  Over 30 States and some colonies were affected by court rulings, not 13.

I do disagree with Cincinnatus's placing the democratic principle so highly; 99% could support radically redefining marriage and it would still be wrong and worthy of opposition.  But certainly the will of the legislators, whether or not they constitute or represent the people, of the several States is what should reign according to the principles of our FEDERAL republic, one which does not address the matter in the national constitution, keeping it federal.  Rule of law should prevail, not the lawlessness of the courts.

Abortion: So you think majoritarianism should reign when it comes to laws against murder against persons or a class of persons?  How is that a liberal position?  The right to life is the most vital right there is, and the state should protect it, even against the will of the people.  If the majority thought murder against white males was acceptable (like what can be seen in parts of Africa), would it be fine to allow murders of that sort because to do otherwise would involve the imposition of morals on others? What poppycock!  There is nothing illiberal about prohibiting abortion outside of saving the life of the mother, and when it comes to the laws, all reflect a moral system of some sort or another, and its imposition over those who would disagree or act contrary to that morality.  It is unavoidable.  The only alternative is total anarchy.  And it should be noted that not all libertarians, including some of the movement's intellectual leaders, support legalized abortion.

Drugs: They are in fact, in most cases, an evil that has no redeeming qualities.  It is not inherently improper or illiberal to have such laws, but it is something that can easily be debated in either direction, as well as the details of any particular policy; it really comes down to the level of harm caused inherently by the drug use and the facilitation thereof..  The War on Drugs is another story, as it involves a violation of genuine rights and liberties in pursuit of the end, and the cost to liberty and society is greater than the reward.  But conservatives do not universally support it; this conservative certainly does not.

Marriage: It is debatable, and with regards to most States, refutable, that a majority support radically redefining marriage, and really, it is irrelevant.  The state involvement in the institution is meant to protect it an its fruits, which is essential to a proper society, which is ultimately something which necessarily undergirds a free one.  If two people do not have a relationship which meets the definition as it has largely stood through millennia and is reflected in the laws, they are not entitled to hold the status or be granted the protections clearly meant for something of a very different nature for particular reasons having to do with that nature.  This is not an offence against liberty.  No one's rights were violated by this.  People were still free to practice homosexuality, rightly or wrongly.  The Republican position was basically passive, and only became active when the other side forced the issue through lawless courts (and lawlessness is harmful to liberty, not supportive of it, in the preponderance of cases, to include this one).  As has been stated, it was the "gay marriage" proponents imposing their views on everyone else, even in States where they were solidly and clearly in the minority, and they did so by perverting the law in a way which actually allows the government to intrude further on liberty through centralization and cooperation with other perversions of the constitution.