Hey Brett,

Good post, I'll try to make only the salient points.

conservatism is not restricted to the USA

American conservativism is.

There are conservative movements all over the world

We don't care about all those other non-American conservatives. They all want to conserve some lesser and likely evil form of government.

and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom;

We have NO desire to limit freedom.

acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media;

Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency. You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing.

a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people

That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts.

and a love of the military

Well, that's in the Constitution.

You say you are a libertarian flavored conservative. What I know of the libertarian ideals is limited to the interview and call in program with Maine's libertarian candidate last year. What I heard made me believe that things could be much worse than a conservative government. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to how we would run a huge, rich country like this under libertarian principles and keep from having disease and starvation in the streets

Easy, we have so many layers of bleeping government (50 states and thousands of cities) follow the Constitution like it's written and let them be in charge of everything NOT SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED to the federal government.

You are concerned that the "status quo at the moment is borderline socialism with the government attempting to become the health care industry, power producing industry, retirement security industry, education industry (mission accomplished)etc." This strikes me as another instance of either misunderstanding the goals of these programs or a disregard of history. As I said before, the social history of the US during the second half of the 19th Century and during the Great depression has shown what happens to the people when the Government takes a hands-off approach. Another example is what happened in England during the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure you don't want to see that happen again

Never mind the goals, look at what they have become, mammoth tax consuming failures. I don't believe that those events would happen again nor if they were to, that government could do anything to stop it.

So what is the solution to such a dilemma. You don't want the Government to handle things and there isn't anyone else with the resources to do it. What do we do? People need health care, they need to eat, we all need energy at affordable prices, and we all need an education.

Health care comes from the private sector, food comes from the private sector, college education partially comes from the private sector and so does some primary education.

One proposal has been to privatize. I guess the theory is that the bureaucracy is expensive, wasteful, and slow. I can't argue that.

Good!

But a private industry has two things that never seems to be considered. They have their own overhead expenses and they need to make a profit. I have no problem with making a profit but I believe the overhead and profit could equal the government waste. If there will be no change why change things?

You used the word "could". We don't know if we don't try. One thing the government DOES NOT HAVE and that is competition. Competition creates inovation and helps companies offer better product at a lower price.

And, believe it or not, private industry has their own bureaucracy and we would have to deal with. Who has not had to ask for something from a large company? When they want to be paid it is easy to contact a responsible representative. If you need them to do something for you it can be frustrating and difficult in the extreme. Trust me, I have worked with some of the largest construction firms in the US and they are sometimes as bad as the US Government that I work for

I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable.

Concerning Iran-Contra, the U.S. Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1984 specifically outlawing the funding of the so-called Contras by any government agency. While the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy he also has to obey the law of the land and the Boland Amendment was made part of that law

To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it?

Oh, and two can play the game of quoting and interpreting lines from famous documents. Here is the Preamble to the Constitution:

Yes, please continue.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Let's take a look at what it says The Constitution is to do

"…form a more perfect Union…" After The Revolution there were many instances of conflict between the states, each asserting their states rights. The Constitution was intended to end those conflicts

Ok.

"…establish Justice…" Pretty self explanatory except that it was not intended to usurp the justice system within each state. It was intended to provide a framework for justice between the states

Yup.

"…insure domestic Tranquility…" Once again there was a matter of conflict between the states. In one or two instance it nearly came to blows and in one instance, Shay's Rebellion, there were deaths and a true fear of warfare

That's all fine.

"…provide for the common defence…" Also self explanatory. We need an army and a navy to defend ALL of the states. The militias continued unaffected

True enough.

"…promote the general Welfare…" This could be the one on which you and I differ the most. The word welfare is defined as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. To my mind that pretty much requires the US Government to become the center of the social programs so hated by conservatives

Aaaaaaa HA!!!!!!!

Words mean things and you just blew by a VERY IMPORTANT WORD!!!

Notice how I agreed when you said provide for the common defence......I agreed. The government "provides" or pays for it.

When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"!

The second word is "WELFARE", which means one's state of being or comfort both physical and mental. It never did mean a free income, that was referred to as welfare assistance, even currently.

"…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…" And this is the "granting" phrase. As I said before, I had nothing to do with the creation of this document or this nation. I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us

No, blessings are from God in their own words.

You and I may be at odds over a mere matter of semantics.

They said what they meant and meant what they said. They were very literate men and had a much better command of the English language than our current populace does.

I think the idea of the people giving permission to the Government to govern them is a principle of the Libertarians isn't it?

No. It's a principle of the founders. (Unless they were Libertarians) The people were here without and before government and then they created it. (the chicken or the egg).

I'd like to know more about it before I go any further on this part of the discussion.

Good. If you apply the few points I made, it will change the meaning of much of your perceived notions.

Believe me, the people give their consent to be governed. That part IS democracy.

I think that pretty much covers it. I find this discussion stimulating and enjoyable. Thanks for meeting me in a like mind.

Well, good. Me too. This is how I like to do it. But if you were afraid of me attacking you (which you needn't have been) Look the hell out now!

What I have said will likely be in for serious rebuttal, ridicule and discreditation.

But, oh well. I can take it.

Thanks friend, see you soon

mav out