House of Eratosthenes

The American Dream begins with every American’s right to be healthy, educated, and to live in a safe community and a clean environment. We believe vibrant economy is built with American jobs, well-paid productive workers, innovation, and the entrepreneurial spirit. We believe responsibility, honesty, and compassion are fundamental to a successful nation and that efficient government, effective public investments, and fiscal responsibility serve our citizens best.

We believe protecting personal liberty begins with the right of every citizen to enjoy their full civil liberties with equal access to opportunity and justice[.] We believe in the values of freedom, fairness, and respect. We believe the cornerstone of democracy is honest elections, transparent government and a deep commitment to our nations’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We believe leadership with global cooperation is the best way to secure peace and acting on environmental challenges strengthens our nation and protects the Earth. We believe the power of the United States must be used honestly and wisely.

We believe America’s promise of prosperity, liberty and security belongs to all Americans and that our nation’s strength lies in a shared commitment to these ideals.

Paragraph 2 is so vague as to become complete ineffectual. It does not identify any point of disagreement with any other competing platform, nor does it explain how, exactly, “the right of every citizen to enjoy their full civil liberties with equal access to opportunity and justice” makes it possible to “protect…personal liberty.” I presume I have to watch To Kill A Mockingbird one more time; if that is a control scenario, to which the “netroots” oppose a societal regression, well then I agree we shouldn’t go back to that. Who wouldn’t?

Paragraph 3 is a mish-mash between code words for a world government at the expense of American sovereignty, and…more ineffectual nonsense that doesn’t mean anything.

Paragraph 4 is more pap.

Paragraph 1, to me, is the scary part. Sure it sounds good. We have all these rights! Cool! Except, these rights include things that would cost other people their choices, their money, or both. You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me…of…this:

Article 40
Citizens of the USSR have the right to work…

Article 41
Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure…

Article 42
Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection…

Article 43
Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old age, in sickness, and in the event of complete or partial disability or loss of the breadwinner…

Article 44
Citizens of the USSR have the rights to housing…

Article 45
Citizens of the USSR have the right to education…

Article 46
Citizens of the USSR have the right to enjoy cultural benefits…

I’ve noticed something over the years. And I’m going to keep it to myself.

Hah! Kiddin’…

…no, I’m going to jot it down. Right here. This thing I’ve noticed over the years has to do with what local cultures — not actual nations, per se, but just enclaves in which there is a localized code of expectations for people’s behavior — seem to have a consistent equation with a constant product, said equation consisting of individual obligations and societal obligations. When I say “constant product” what I mean is the more of the former there is, the less there is of the latter, and vice versa.

If every little bad thing that happens is blamed on “society,” people act irresponsibly.

If people are entitled to things unconditionally, they end up, ironically, losing those things. Free speech doesn’t fall into this. Things that cost other people money, seem to. That appears to me to be the defining boundary. If someone else has to pay for these things to which you’re entitled, sooner or later, there’s a big pot of money that is tapped out and then there’s some kind of crisis.

Oh, maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about though…I write from California…which is about to begin its eighth week of not having a constitutionally-required budget signed…

Yeah, delawaredem, by all means feed us some more of that mushbucket o’liberal goodness. It works out so well everywhere it’s been tried.

“We” Americans…….right, got it.
THIS American has a basic grass roots platform. It begins-
“Do unto others…….”

Curious “liberal interpretation” of rights-in America.
- CaptDMO | 08/16/2008 @ 12:17
Why not lay out what you believe are the main goals of conservatism here, and then invite Delaware Liberal to take a look and comment? If you keep bumping the article every so often, after a year or so you might have a pretty comprehensive platform.
- sf4 | 08/16/2008 @ 12:55
Why not lay out what you believe are the main goals of conservatism here, and then invite Delaware Liberal to take a look and comment?

Hmm, that’s a tempting proposition. The two problems I see with it are 1) I can only speak for myself; and 2) my perception of conservatism, really amounts to the goals liberals say they want, coupled with a superior memory re: what effect certain policies have, both good & bad, in human affairs.

I don’t believe people are capable of accepting blame for things, unless they have names. So I wince when people express ideas in passive voice, because in my world that’s ducking responsibility. “It was decided that…” “The thinking was that…” “Society must step up and make sure…” “Our country has blood on its hands.” When it comes to policy, I think if you can’t express it in active voice, with subject noun, verb, object noun, then it isn’t worth expressing.

Ultimately, I don’t think we disagree on goals — not if you let liberals get away with saying what they want, and accepting it at face value without doing any probing. They’d agree with me…increased standard of living. You let me ask some scrutinizing, probing, skeptical questions, and that’ll change. Like, how do increased taxes fit in with an increased standard of living? Or, when you talk about increasing the minimum wage, how come we have to only talk about the teenagers who are allowed to keep their jobs, and thus see the extra fifty cents an hour — how come we can’t talk about the ones who lost their jobs, or weren’t accepted into those jobs in the first place? How does an increased standard of living fit in with…a hundred lumberjacks losing their jobs so the “natural habitat” of some yellow-polkadotted slime-bellied chob-gobblin’ woodpecker-snail doesn’t get disturbed?

So I don’t agree with them, about what their goals are. Their actions all seem to have it in common that they diminish, not enhance, someone’s standard of living. It seems for every left-wing position, there’s always a bad guy. Even curing awful lethal diseases. Hurricanes, and other natural phenomena. There’s always a bad guy. I don’t think they’re pro-people.

I think what really separates them from someone like me, is the notion of human interclass symbiosis — and it is explained more fully here.
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2008 @ 15:13
Problem: “I can only speak for myself.” Sure, *initially*. But presumably you’d invite your readers to suggest additions or modifications. Other blogs might give a link to the idea. You collect all the suggestions/ideas and keep the “document” cogent and readable. After a month or two of lots of input from conservatives, I’m guessing you’ll start converging on a good image of what we believe.

Problem 2: You believe the *goals* of most conservatives are essentially the same as the *proclaimed* goals of leftists, but that leftists just don’t understand that the *means* they advocate to achieve these (alleged) common goals won’t work–and in many cases will result in some degree of disaster.

First, since you’ll be editing this, you’d get to raise the subtleties: Conservatives oppose opening the public coffers and simply *giving* people money for food and housing because it’s been shown time and time again that this produces, in the main, bad (uneducated, crime-ridden, thuggish, gang-joining) citizens. Force the leftists to *defend* the current social welfare system that’s produced such disasters.

You could also force them to declare one way or the other on drilling offshore and ANWR. “Is it right that some other state should produce oil for the gasoline you buy while you insist on banning drilling in your offshore waters so the view from your oceanfront home isn’t “ruined” by seeing the mast of a drilling rig ten miles offshore?”

Of course they may be too smart to debate the points you raise.
- sf4 | 08/18/2008 @ 02:15
Rights are the ability to ‘do’, not ‘be’. There is no right to be healthy. If that right existed, you wouldn’t need national health CARE, you would need national health POLICE – to arrest those that violated your ‘right’. There is no right to be educated, there is a government obligation to provide ACCESS to a general education, but as many college graduates can prove by word and deed, access to education does not equate to educated. There is no right to live in a safe community – unless they believe that anyone or anything that might be ‘unsafe’ would be removed from their environment. Do you think they mean drugs and alcohol?

A right to a clean environment? Does that mean they have the right to go to China, or Russia, or Mexico and demand, hell, force those countries to ‘clean up’? Such imperial hubris!

The only goal we as conservatives should be promoting is the free expression of our rights to DO, with as few limitations as possible allowing others free expression of THEIR rights to do.

do=actions limited only by our imagination, abilities and resources limited only by the extent that those actions do not infringe upon the rights of others.
- tracycoyle | 08/18/2008 @ 10:30

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Netroots Platform”Saturday, August 16th, 2008

“Netroots Platform”
Saturday, August 16th, 2008