I posted at 12:15 and Mousethief continued the thread moments later. I guess I'll repost my answer to MAV here.

By the way Alex, thanks for doing that. I noticed it when I looked at the number of posts and decided I should go ahead make a continuation thread myself.
********************************
Subject: RE: BS: Bush--A little credit please? From: Naemanson Date: 16-Apr-01 - 12:15 PM

Well this pretty much ate up that lunch break.

MAV wrote: "As far as we (American conservatives)are concerned, fascist, Marxist, Stalinist, whatever, all authoritarianism is the domain of the left."

We don't seem to be communicating. The post you referred me to is mine and while I do see the phrase "American conservatives" in it the movements you cited (fascist, Marxist, Stalinist) in that same sentence are European in origin. That is why I had to take the tack I did.

Besides, conservatism is not restricted to the USA. There are conservative movements all over the world and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom; acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media; a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people; and a love of the military.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. The authority to conduct foreign policy does not abstract him from his responsibility to conform to the will of the people. Remember, he works for us. It didn't help that Bush Sr. collaborated in the original scandal and then engineered the cover up by pardoning the players. Those conservatives with heartburn about Clinton's pardons need to remember this one.

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

"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.

"…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.

"…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.

"…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.

"…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.

"…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. You and I may be at odds over a mere matter of semantics. I think the idea of the people giving permission to the Government to govern them is a principle of the Libertarians isn't it? I'd like to know more about it before I go any further on this part of the discussion.

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

Brett