Fair Taxation

What could be more conservative than that? o_0

Straining the Gnat

It is shocking to me that so many that condemn "degrading" sexual behaviors simultaneously harbor a desire for dominance-based society that could only be described as sexual. In the animal kingdom sexuality is based upon the diffusion of DNA, and the actions of the victorious male lion to tear the cubs of a conquered male to shreds in order to procreate with the slain male's mate are simply part of the animal sexual experience. So to in a sexualized society--so based on the hierarchy of the dominant force over degraded submission--the various violent excesses, the material fetishism, the desire for peer affirmation are all part of the sexual experience as well. The great animal instinct to promote ones DNA at the expense the hallmark of such a society, and is at the heart of the great bulk of human degradation. As such it is plain to me that such a society is based wholly on sexual degradation:

The need to show dominance over one's meek or unorthodox fellows is sexual degradation


The perversion of justice is sexual degradation


The fetishism of conspicuous consumption is sexual degradation


The ravages of military belligerence are sexual degradation


Quiet submission to a global policy of genocide is sexual degradation


Having explored this, I must conclude that it is better for the individual to confine one's desires, kinks and quirks to the privacy of one's domestic solitude, rather than expressing them through one's many societal interactions.

Fair Taxation

What could be more conservative than that? o_0

Individualist Economics vs. Collectivist Economics

There is an continuous debate over whether an economic system based on individual merit is favorable, or one in which collective ownership commands and controls society. The first is what we describe as a "Free Market" in which collective ownership of means of production (and special recognition in the form of limited liability) is limited to absolute necessity. Such limitation is described by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations as follows:

"To establish a joint stock company... for any undertaking merely because such a company might be capable of managing it successfully; or to exempt a particular set of dealers from some of the general laws which take place with regard to all their neighbours, merely because they might be capableof thriving if they had such an exemption, would certainly not be reasonable. To render such an establishment perfectly reasonable, with the circumstance of being reducible to strict rule and method, two other circumstances ought to concur. First it ought to appear with the clearest evidence, that the undertaking is of the greater and more general utility than the greater part of common trades. and secondly that it requires a greater capital than can easily be collected into a private copartnery."

Sadly, rather than adhere to such limitations on government interference in markets, we instead took the road to collectivism, as described as follows by Karl Marx in his Capital Vol. 3

"Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, simply that in the one case the opposition is abolished in a negative way, and in the other in a positive way."

So long as the means of production and of providing services becomes increasingly collectively owned by the workers through 401k accounts and other passive investment schemes, it seems that the best way to protect the fruits of individual labor and the wealth of the nation is to render such a system more democratic.

Conservative Justices Hate Our Republic

"I hope we shall... crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to George Logan)


Upon reviewing the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I can only conclude that so-called "conservative" justices are very much against a Government Of, By, and For the People--and very much in favor of a Government of, by, and for special interests.

BUSH43 appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, BUSH41 appointee Clarence Thomas as well as REAGAN appointees Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy united in judicial activism against any remaining distinction between individual and corporate rights, admitting that only the appearance of republican government was necessary to "conservatives"

Anthony Kennedy remarked:

"That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."

Well I'm here to tell you as long as their is a populace foolish enough to even consider a "Republican" for the office of presidency, LOSE FAITH! Because for now you've already lost your republic!

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporatio.html

On First Principles

"We may look up to Armies for our Defence, but Virtue is our best Security...Virtues & vices which are properly called political; 'Corruption, Dishonesty to one's Country, Luxury and Extravagance tend to the Ruin of States.' The opposite Virtues tend to their Establishment" -- Samuel Adams; letter to James Warren

The original intent of American Republicanism was that of separating from European imperialism, not merely in allegiance, but in principal as well. Discarded were the feudal principals as described by Thomas Jefferson:

"...to constrain the brute force of the people, they deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus barely to sustain a scanty and miserable life. And these earnings they apply to maintain their privileged orders in splendor and idleness, to fascinate the eyes of the people, and excite in them an humble adoration and submission, as to an order of superior beings"

in place of this most un-American function of government, a new order was aspired to, according to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" for such political equality as Samuel Adams would defend so:

"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all? Away, then, with those absurd systems which to gratify the pride of a few debase the greater part of our species below the order of men."

In that factions were apt to develope between various classes and interests, the primary author of our Constitutional document--James Madison--explained that:

"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."

Of course a government mitigated by popular sentiments was to require a general dispersion of knowledge, that individuals and society as a whole were able to--to a greater degee--self-govern. Madison expresses this necessity so:


"why should it be necessary... to distinguish the Society into classes according to their property? ...it is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity... Without such Institutions, the more costly of which can scarcely be provided by individual means, none but the few whose wealth enables them to support their sons abroad can give them the fullest education; and in proportion as this is done, the influence is monopolized which superior information every where possesses. At cheaper & nearer seats of Learning parents with slender incomes may place their sons in a course of education putting them on a level with the sons of the Richest. Whilst those who are without property, or with but little, must be peculiarly interested in a System which unites with the more Learned Institutions, a provision for diffusing through the entire Society the education needed for the common purposes of life"

The Right of Exclusion

this post has moved to: http://rightsofman1789.blogspot.com/2009/12/right-of-exclusion.html