OK, I am back and life can get back to normal. I apologize for taking so long to answer. Let me roll up the old sleeves and begin with reading what has passed so far.

My goodness! Things certainly flamed up there for a while. It would seem we have a bit of an emotional investment on both sides.

And it is a little complicated with Skeptic's comments as well. I don't want to cut him out so I have included his comments here as well. Let's see what we can do.

ME: conservatism is not restricted to the USA
MAV: American conservativism is.
ME: There are conservative movements all over the world
MAV: We don't care about all those other non-American conservatives. They all want to conserve some lesser and likely evil form of government.

This exchange is a problem for me. If you are going to equate the liberal movements with world movements then we also have to do the same with the conservative movements. We want to compare apples and apples.

Then there is your comment about conserving some "lesser and likely evil form of government". This comment is not only disturbing but scary. Do conservatives honestly think that our Government is the absolute highest form of government on the planet? I agree it is the best right now but time is passing, technology is improving, and humans are dynamic creatures. It may be possible to improve what we have. The Constitution is a living document, capable of improvement and adjustment.

The other scary part of your comment is that you seem to equate "other" governments with "evil" governments. I'm sure our British, Canadian, Irish, French, Japanese, etc., brothers and sisters will not agree with this assessment. This comment seems to indicate either a desire for isolation or an arrogance that is sorely out of place in the modern world.

ME: and they all seem to have the same goals, i.e., limitation of personal freedom;
MAV: We have NO desire to limit freedom.
SKEPTIC: Depends on your views on certain issues. Abortion, gay rights, mandatory school prayers being the "hot" topic, of course. But the conservatives propose a variety of regulations and laws that fall under the heading of "legislating morality". Liberals, of course, make similar attempts. Both philosophies seem to have bought into the idea that power flows down. Not up. A sort of social/political supply side theory.

I have to agree with Skeptic on this one. At the same time I recognize that we are fairly safe as long as we keep a balance of liberals and conservatives in the Government.

ME: acquisition of material wealth; a distrust of the media;
MAV: Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency. You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing.
SKEPTIC: Yes, it is. The degree is the issue. Do you want more as a pragmatic issue of living or more for the sake of more? Under the idea of the welfare state, the government controls the amount of "more" there is. How do you control the "more" in a quasi-capitalistic economy without a body with counterbalancing power.
SKEPTIC: How about uncritical trust of the media?

About the acquisition of material wealth: The difference seems to be on focus. The conservatives I know seem to make it the prime focus of their lives, sometimes to the exclusion of their personal happiness and their family relationships. The liberals I know tend to be happy making enough to meet expenses and put a little aside. Of course this is not all encompassing but is based on personal experience.

About distrusting the media: It IS a bad thing. We live in an era where it is too easy to hide things and make plans that could hurt some people. Our eyes are the media. Sometimes they do their jobs poorly and sometimes they do the job right. However they do the job, when they make people sit up and take notice that is good. We can fume and sputter about their being unfair or melodramatic but if it makes people write to their representatives or start movements that will change the way things are then they have done their jobs.

ME: a basic disinterest in the welfare of poor people
MAV: That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts.
SKEPTIC: First, define 'poor'. Are we talking about inadequate food (as in MDA) or not being able to afford imported caviar. Are we talking about inadequate housing or having to do a time share rather than buy a condo at the beach? I think your statement qualifies as sophistry (which is my job) tinged with classism. You assume they don't expect more of themselves. Some don't. A general rule? I'd like to see proof of that. There's also an implication that poor is a choice. Again, it may be. When the cost of living has risen 25% faster than wages, the argument is somewhat strained.

Generally Conservatives have been particularly lacking in empathy as regards the poor. There are a variety of reasons why people are poor. Jobs in some areas are few and far between. Racism exists and eliminates some opportunities. Success, even minor success, requires certain elements not necessarily available to all people including initiative, intelligence, and interest. One of my tenants rents an apartment using state aid. He could not get by on his own natural intelligence, not because he lacks it but because his personal and medical problems are overwhelming. This isn't something he could handle by himself and his parents are not in a position to help him. Would you turn him out into the street?

SKEPTIC: A society that does not put the welfare of its members (as in basic needs) ahead of institutional interests would seem to be morally deficient from a religious standpoint, ethically so from a philosophical one and engaging in inherently destabilizing behavior from a pragmatic stand-point

I certainly have to agree with him on that point. A society has to have heart as well as might (either military or economic).

ME: and a love of the military
MAV: Well, that's in the Constitution.
SKEPTIC: Love of the military is in the Constitution? Missed that, somehow

I don't understand your point. The Constitution says nothing about revering the military. It just makes provision for the protection of our way of life.

ME: 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
MAV: 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.

I need to consider this longer. On the surface it seems logical but there are problems that could overwhelm such a simple approach.

ME: 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
MAV: 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.
SKEPTIC: Is that a systemic or a programatic failure? Let's remember that a part of the administrative overhead is done to please various special interest groups. For example, if a program requires that funding not be used for pro-choice teaching programs, then the agency will have to prove such. (Trust is something Congress leaves to God and others). So you hire five people, create 50 forms and generate a report. The alternative is to be accused of violating the will of Congress. (An accusation that requires no proof at all). Do the programs fail because of inherent flaws (in that they are delivered by the government) or because we need to change how they are delivered. Under the faith based initiative, what will the requirements be? If, as proposed, a lot of the requirements and regulations are done away with, then how do I know my tax dollars are being used appropriately? A drug treatment program that relies on Scientology's auditing process is not something I want funded unless I have some assurance that it works. All of which means more bureaucracy, more paperwork and more reports.
Kendall: MAV, you must be aware that we pay much less in taxes than any other industrialized nation on earth. Now, explain to me how you would run the country without taxes. Dubbya keeps chirping his mindless mantra.."I trust the people, it's your money, it doesn't belong to Washington, etc. well, damn it man, it's our money, yes, it is also our social security, our military, our education our highways etc. who the hell is going to pay for all the services we demand without taxes?

I don't want to get into what Kendall and Skeptic are saying except that they have good points and I agree with them. I am more interested in knowing why you think these programs are failures. You cannot depend on the media, whom you already distrust. Consider that the media will only report the bad news. If a program helps thousands of people and one person abuses it then that one instance will get all the camera time. We hear of welfare Cadillacs but that isn't the norm, it is representative of the rare abuser getting all the attention.

ME: 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?
MAV: 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.
Skeptic: The argument that competition creates innovation is specious. While it may create innovation, that seems a secondary goal, not a requirement. Let's remember that the purpose of business is to generate a profit. By whatever means generates the most profit. Microsoft has been accused of many things. Innovation isn't one of them. They succeeded through buying up ideas or copying other, truly innovative, products and doing a better job of marketing. Using techniques of sometimes questionable legality. In this, the did what a capitalism demands. Made a profit. Innovative was what PARC did. Or what any of thousands of government funded research projects have done over the years.

I agree that competition in the creation of widgets will foster innovation and lower the price. But that is because anyone could start a widget company and drive the market leader to work harder. How much competition will you actually see to do what our social programs do? These will be single huge corporations formed to specifically fleece the taxpayer and provide the same barely marginal services the clients are already getting. Once again I speak from experience.

Skeptic: The assumption that business will do anything more than work to create a profit seems to be a fundamental stumbling block. It's a fairly self serving process. What is the countervailing force that says "look beyond profits to social, environmental or quality issues". It's all well and good to argue about people voting with their dollars. What about when they aren't given a choice? What about when the customers who do "vote with their dollars" live 3000 miles away from the factory that's polluting the river that run's in back of your house? How do you use your dollars to vote against that?
ME: 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
MAV: I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable.
Skeptic: Nor do I. How do you limit the size of business without a strong government?

Unfortunately the only entity that will be able to handle a privatized social program is a big entity. Mom&Pop Inc. cannot do it but MegaCorp Inc. sure can. And they can run circles around anyone who wants to keep an eye on how well they are doing.

ME: 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
MAV: To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it?
Skeptic: The "Borland Amendment" was a law passed in 1982, not an amendment to the Constitution. The whole Iran/Contra affair had all the morality (and legality even before Borland) of a three card monte scam. Even I expect better from the government.

And because it was a law of the land the President and his staff were as answerable to it as Joe Citizen walking down the street. Reagan and his crew boldly broke the law and walked free with Bush Sr. covering up their tracks. With that history conservatives have no room to complain about Clinton.

From the Preamble to the Constitution:
ME: "…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
MAV: Aaaaaaa HA!!!!!!!
MAV: Words mean things and you just blew by a VERY IMPORTANT WORD!!!
MAV: Notice how I agreed when you said provide for the common defence......I agreed. The government "provides" or pays for it.
MAV: When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"!
SKEPTIC: Promote also means to establish or organize. As in promote an event, enterprise or endeavor. The argument is on how far to go in the interpretation of the word "welfare". As Hamilton in Federalist 85, and Madison in Federalist 41 implies, the intent was to create a document that could adjust and change with the times.
MAV: 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.
SKEPTIC: Welfare: also means Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being - (from the American Heritage)
SKEPTIC: And "free income" is somewhat misleading. Certain social programs would seem to contribute to the general welfare. Being homeless and hungry would seem not too do too much for anyones state of well being.

That was quite an exchange. On the subject of PROMOTING how does a government "promote" something? You suggest that our founding fathers thought the US should just advocate or talk up the idea without taking any action. I cannot see how that would do anyone any good. Even our forefathers could not have thought that would be a useful exercise.

I agree that the drafters of the Constitution took pains to create a Government that was not intended to be too intrusive but that was because they had to persuade the very fractious states to ratify the damned thing. But as I said above, the Constitution is a living document. The Drafters understood that times and conditions change and the basic law of the land has to be updated from time to time.

ME: "…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
SKEPTIC: Brett, you said I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us
SKEPTIC: I agree (sort of) with Mav. The original argument is that all rights, all power, belongs to individuals. That they join (formally or informally) and agree to certain limitations on their rights for perceived mutual benefits. The Constitution being a good example of a formal agreement.
SKEPTIC: The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to grant those rights enumerated but to make sure the government understood that it had no authority (or at least limited authority) to interfere with them. Capped by the 10th amendment which added that just because a right wasn't listed earlier, doesn't mean the federal government can control it.

Now that I think about it I remember this discussion in my old college classes (so long ago!) and you and MAV are correct. However you are correct only insofar as the source of the rights and liberties. I grant you no further than that.

MAV: No, blessings are from God in their own words.
Skeptic: Which words. In the Constitution? Besides, it's a Phrase "Blessings of Liberty", not generic "blessings". The "blessings of liberty" was what the Revolutionary war was (popularly) about.

It's interesting to note which words were capitalized by the drafters. This was not done at random. Re-read the preamble again. (This was taken from the website for the National Archives and Records Administration.)

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

The capitalization is important, it meant something to them. It emphasizes certain words and makes them stand out. Thus they believed in Union, Justice, Tranquillity, Welfare, the Blessings of Liberty, and Posterity. They were the People of the United States and they were establishing the Constitution.

So I disagree about them meaning that the blessing were from God. These blessings they were securing for themselves for themselves and us.

This is getting complicated and the long posts are difficult to read. Perhaps we should limit ourselves to one or two points at a time.