Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Monday, January 2, 2012

Defining Ourselves Into A Corner

Just exactly WTH is a "Conservative" or a "Liberal" as we understand it these days?

I mean,  at it's most basic, being conservative used to mean doing something or approaching things "By The Book".  Adhering closely to established rules and methods.

Conversely, to be "liberal" simply meant that one saw said rules, etc  more as "guidelines", flexible and malleable as one wanted to hold to them.

Of course, to confuse things even more, we can toss in "progressive" and "traditional" as well.

Now really, people of either "conservative" or "liberal" bents could also be "progressive" or " traditional" at the same time.

Because again, in simple terms, to be "progressive" means that one is always open to expansion and change going forward.  While "traditionals" tend to hold back and view change as something to be cautious of.

Nowadays, many people simply lump "progressive liberal" and " traditional conservative" as like terms.  That isn't always the case though.   Many people who refer to themselves as "conservative" are also very progressive at the same time.  The modern republican party reps are great examples of that.  Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive conservative way back in his day, so it's nothing new.

Using these very simple definitions of the terms,   I am very "conservative" in regard to the U.S. Constitution.  It is what it is and don't screw with it unless absolutely necessary.

At the same time,  I am somewhat liberal in terms of how it, the Constitution is in regards to how it is enforced.   I believe that while the laws and rights are what they are, it requires a case by case examination to be truly a "just" society.  Taking all things into consideration instead of this nitwitted notion of "zero tolerance".

I am traditional and not progressive at all in terms of  I don't think there needs to be many, if any, new laws made.  Instead, there are many that need to be removed and then new ones brought in only if there is an overwhelming need for them.  Not just this idea of "If only one (fill in the blank) is saved with this law..."  Oh heck no.  Talk to me if we're talking about saving hundreds, better yet, thousands by doing the new thing, not just one or two.

Don't tell me it's not fair, life isn't fair, deal with it.  No one promised that it ever would be fair, no one has the right to expect it to be fair.  Get over it, move on, next case.

The more folks try to manipulate these definitions, make them more complex, the more you can be sure they are just trying to make themselves feel or look  better about their position.

No comments:

Post a Comment