You may hear the term "conservative" tossed about -- and if it's in the media, it's likely used as a derogatory term. It's not -- it is simply a way to view life, freedom, government, and America. I was reading over at Lockjaw's Lair (another Ogre in NC) his "What I Believe post." I like the part about government:

I believe in the sovereignty of the individual. I believe that each person should be left to his own choices and the results of those choices. Each person's actions should be considered his own, only answerable to others insofar as they affect the life, liberty, and property of others. To create a false construct called government in order to impede upon the sovereignty of the individual is an evil act.

The government which governs least, governs best. Government should exist to protect the populace and property within its borders from outside nations and powers. Government should protect the basic rights of its citizens from infringement by others. Government should levy taxes only when necessary to do these basic jobs.

As we are a constitutional republic, I believe that our federal and state governments should act within the limitations of the constitutions which define government at both levels. The interpretations of these documents should be based upon the intentions of those who crafted it, and not upon modern re-interpretations that are designed to change its meaning. The Constitution of the United States of America is not a living document, except insofar as there are means available through it to make changes to it.

There's more, please head on over and read it.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:03 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Ogre, That reminds me of one that I did to start off my blog experience. I was actually thinking about posting it again Can you believe April 22, 2006 will make two years?

Posted by: Louisiana Conservative at March 09, 2006 04:47 PM (2pFqv)

2 Two years? Wow. You're an old .... (fill in the blank) now, eh?

Posted by: Ogre at March 09, 2006 05:24 PM (/k+l4)

3 Ogre, my friend... You talk a good game, but do you really mean what you say? For example: Individualism. Sounds good. But how far can you take that? Lin Yutang wrote excellent essays on "the wayward and incalculable individual". Is that what you mean? He prizes that type as the paragon of humanity, unable to be cowed by governments, business leaders, military leaders, and so on. Is that going too far in the individuality department? He contrasts the "wayward and incalculable individual" with the obedient and heteronomic "soldier". Where do you come down now? Soldier or Individual? A soldier, in Yutang's scheme, need not be an actual soldier...but can simply think and behave like one...which is to say that he or she is involved in the giving and/or taking of orders, dressing like everyone else, acting in uniformity with codes, bla bla bla. Told what to do. Not to throw down on soldiers. They are probably necessary. Glad I am not one of them. I am an individual. And many Liberals and Progressives (capitalized or not) share this celebration of the individual, and do not want to give it over to "big causes" like war and such. Many Reps and Cons like to think they are great defenders of individualism, but it seems to break down during wartime. Why is that? Is the vaunted individualism not that important to you guys? Just curious... Hey...hope you are enjoying this amazing weather. Gotta love that global warming! At least the immediate benefits. Dave

Posted by: anonyMoses at March 10, 2006 06:01 PM (Y4z5V)

4 Individualism as a political point of view. In other words, the individual is supreme to the government in all cases. I also view this as a personal choice of individualism. So if someone wants to voluntarily join up with someone else and wear the same clothes, that's not in opposition to my view of individualism, because they CHOSE to do that -- as do all of today's US military. And strangely enough, I didn't even write the word "individualism" once in that post... But in your example of soldier or individual, I see a third option -- personal choice. Each person should be completely free to choose if they want to be a solider. And some could choose to be soldiers in some areas of their life and not in others! And yes, this global warming, after causing those record cold temperatures, is fun.

Posted by: Ogre at March 10, 2006 06:18 PM (/k+l4)

5 Yeah but but but... You are correct, my soul twin and doppelganger! But do you a see a difference between "sovereignty of the individual" and "individualism"? My problem with an individual deciding to become less of an individual, by melding into a group, say, is that they are giving up on their individualism, it seems to me. In which case I should think it didn't mean much in the first place. But granted, I see times when that is exactly what is called for. The native Americans, riding the prairies, would often separate into bands and even individuals...but would coalesce in times of crisis. No problem with that. Makes sense. A group is stronger than an individual. Synergy is real. I think we both share the belief that stronger individuals make for stronger groups, and that we are not so far apart as some knuckleheads might contend. We probably also would agree that, even in a group setting, as in platoons and such, individual conscience is something one may want to hang onto. May have prevent Abu Graibh from getting out of hand, for instance. Hey...I was curious of your assessment of Mister Bush, now that he has been able to work his magic lo these many years. I see you deny his conservatism, but I hope you don't think he is any sort of liberal, for that would be a hard egg to hatch. He, like so many, is a godhopper, but other than that...who knows??? Dave

Posted by: anonyMoses at March 10, 2006 07:24 PM (Y4z5V)

6 Ah, such interesting philosophical questions you present! I'm not sure I do see that difference. I think if the individual has, by choice, joined a group, they can still act and feel as an individual -- perhaps as you mention with an individual moral compass. I don't really see it as too much of a reduction in the individualism, either, because if it were all by free choice, the individual could choose at any time to remove themselves from the group. So, yes, we'd agree that strong individuals can make a stronger group (under certain circumstances). And yes, individual conscience is nearly always valuable -- which is why the UCMJ makes it a crime to commit a crime, even if ordered to by a senior officer. Bush? Well, I'm not sure what to call him, but no, he's not conservative. Maybe he's that "new breed" called a "compassionate conservative" (I really hate that term, as it implies that "regular" conservatives aren't compassionate. He certainly does have his position and he won't be changed once he's really made his mind up. I just don't agree with him all that ofter -- yet moreso than I agree with Kerry, for example... The lesser of two evils? You bet -- but then again, if you're voting for a politician and not a statesmen, you ARE selecting an evil in my view.

Posted by: Ogre at March 10, 2006 07:34 PM (/k+l4)

7 Always nice to discuss things with you. Thanks for clarifying and illuminating. Time to hit the out-of-doors! Enjoy! Dave

Posted by: anonyMoses at March 11, 2006 07:00 PM (N4rL4)

8 Most certainly agreed! I've been outside all day and plan to be there tomorrow as well. Perhaps we'll meet up soon -- only 7 more months until the Ren Fest!

Posted by: Ogre at March 11, 2006 10:03 PM (CyQ4M)

Hide Comments | Add Comment