A couple of my fave Jefferson quotes:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

– Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17,

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

~Thomas Jefferson~

So far, Brian, you’ve argued for neutering both the Supreme Court and the first amendment. You appear to embrace a more authoritarian stance, and I’m assuming that you consider yourself a Conservative.

As to being a conservative, I put myself in the camp of conserving traditional values. I’m not against change per se, but believe that changes to society need to be thoughtfully evaluated. This is quite often not how change occurs.
I’m also for small government, believe in the Constitution as written and believe in limited responsibilities of government.

As to neutering the Supreme Court, you should re-read my posts. I didn’t advocate testing Article III, Section 2. I can understand how someone could be frustrated enough to consider it though.
I favored the “gang of 14″ compromise that didn’t test the “nuclear option” by the way.
So my question to you is, is there any limit to the power of the Supreme Court? Is their any hidden “right” the court might find that you would consider to have exceeded the Court’s authority? And what is the recourse if that occurred?

I have not neutered the First Amendment, just reminded you that the issues at hand during the adoption of the Bill of Rights had to do with the favoring of one religious denomination over another.

I would not favor a law making this a Christian nation, since it would demean the gospel, considering the morals of the country. But I certainly would favor an acknowledgement that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

So, technically, fascism couldn’t come from true Conservatives or the right as it was once defined.

And it still can’t. Whatever conservatives may be guilty of, it won’t be facism.

Also, I don’t know how authoritarian I am, but I do believe in the rule of law. My kids, on the other hand, probably considered me authoritarian.

I agree, Mike.

Authoritarism is obviously my concern.

While I have qualms about touting Huey Long as a visionary, the Founders definately were.

Some of my favorite quotes:

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” (12/2/1829) — JAMES MADISON

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” (1778) — THOMAS JEFFERSON

“Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation [of power] first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.” (1821) — THOMAS JEFFERSON

” The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” (Tribune, London) – JAMES MADISON

Mike: You make the case about the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is 5 wolves and 4 sheep voting on the dinner menu. Thank the Founders that we live in a representative republic as opposed to said democracy. All the more reason to protect the electoral college.

Ozzie, I said “some of us on the right” believe in limited government. I would not include President Bush in that categorization. He’s definitely a big government conservative. That has been one of my two main areas of unhappiness towards him.

Thomas Jefferson said that all governments eventually turn to tyranny. When you only look at “the left” for the warning signs, you’re missing half the picture.

I don’t look only at the left. I said that fascism almost always tends to rise from the left. I think I also said it *can* arise from anywhere across the political spectrum. I’d add that the most egregious parts of the Patriot Act were expunged relatively early on, within a few years. In particular I’m speaking of the “gag order” provision that gutted the First Amendment. As this librarian, at the time in 2002, commented:

Under normal criminal procedure, the target of the warrant must be someone suspected of criminal conduct. The Patriot Act allows the FBI to search any records it believes may contain information relating to a foreign intelligence investigation, including records of people who are not suspected of any crime, much less terrorism. The Patriot Act also gags any bookseller or librarian, forbidding them to reveal that they have received a court order.

What’s this? Forbidding them, or me, from revealing that I’ve received a court order? That is as un-American an idea as any I’ve ever heard. Frankly, on that provision, the Bush Administration can simply go to hell. And certainly it was one of the earliest – and worst – ideas in the Patriot Act to be discarded.

Fascism has so many definitions as to have none at all. You could even make the claim that all democratic government is fascist, since by having a law passed that applies to all, though not all voted in favor of it, you have created an oppressed class. But to accept that is to say that all of civilization is fascist, and only anarchism is free of fascism. That’s clearly a worthless definition. So I don’t know how fascism can be best defined.

I’m talking about authoritarian Repulicans, MC, who I see as a different breed than libertarian-minded Republicans.

I try to steer away from lumping people in Left vs Right/ Democrat vs Republican stereotypes, as such wide-characterizations don’t ring true to me.

“I don’t see that flavor of dissent on the Left. I could be wrong, but I don’t see it.” -mc

The authoritarian left is very scary, I agree.

Anyone who prefers ideology over truth is bothersome, like the “pro-choice people who are actually “pro-abortion,” and the gender feminists who can’t see that, for the most part, men and women are not the same. They’re the ones who insist that all women think and behave according to their own dictates and actually criticize women for not having abortions. (As someone who’s been on the receiving end of their bile, it’s frightening).

I unwittingly become a poster child for the culture wars years ago, and noticed that ideologues on both the authoirtarian right and left put ideology first and empathy and human decency last.

As for this “Republican” going along with bad ideas because they are offered by another Republican, nothing could be further from the truth. Notice how 30% of the Repub. base sat home for the last Congressional election. That was because rank and file Rs were beyond pissed about their supposed representatives voting like liberals. Most Republicans are libertarian-leaning in one respect or another and vote accordingly.

I don’t see that flavor of dissent on the Left. I could be wrong, but I don’t see it.

Not the ones I saw being interviewed, MC. It was creepy.

“Your other points about the Patriot Act and wiretaps and dissent are opinions from some people about what COULD happen under law. . ” – Mc

Well, it’s not as if i’m citing opinions from Pete from Bud’s bar…The Bill of Rights is being shot full of loopholes, and some (including those who served in Nixon and Reagan admisntrations) are taking note

I’m just saying it’s wise to be vigilent.

But Democrats only see threats from Republicans and Republicans only see threats from Democrats, and because of this, few step back to view the bigger picture: that the laws are being changed to undermine the Bill of Rights, and, as this continues, the U.S. could cease being a Reoublic and become a police state.

If Democrats are in power, that will be fine with the authoritarian left. If Reopubicans are in power, that wil be fine with the authoritarian right.

I don’t care who’s in power: It will never be OK with me.

Yes. That’s my point, Danny. About being vigilent. Always. And not assuming that the opposing political party is the only one that will put the screws to regular citizens.

Authoritarians on the left tend to fall in line with Democratic party and believe all sorts of myths that are simply not true. They will overlook draconian legislation from their leaders, provided that their leaders have a (D) after their names.

Authoritarians on the right fall in line with the Republican party, believing myths that are simply not true. They will overlook draconian legislation from their leaders, provided that their leaders have an (R) after their names.

Left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians don’t fall in line, however, and, from where I sit, prefer Truth over deceit, and want liberty and justice for all.

I see that fading away. And I find it alarming.

“And, please don’t cite talk-show host Michael Savage as a “conservative”. He’s a pot-stirring crank in serious need of medication, as well…not much different from the Air America crowd.” – Danny

I agree with you. Once again, I think they appeal to authoritarian right and the authoritarian left respectively, and are not concered with truth, liberty or justice whatsoever.

“The only truly fascist tendencies that I see today come from the Left, which has its roots in the French Revolution. The term “right-wing” refers to the seating arrangements in the Chamber of Deputies in post-Revolutionary France. The French revolutionaries sat on the “Left”, everyone else (ranging from monarchists to republicans) sat on the “Right”. – Danny

This is where we disagree…

When people on the so-called right think I’m a lefty and people on the so-called left think I’m a Donna Reed throwback, something is amiss. I dont fit into the mold because the mold is broken.

I stumbled across the “policitical compass” years ago, and it made sense to me. Since then, i’ve been mindful of the authoritarian vs libertarian mindsets behind peoples’ views. Authoritarians on the left (the Air American crowd) startle me, as do those on the right (the Michael Savage contingent).

But anyway, from the opening paragraph:

“The old one-dimensional categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today’s complex political landscape.”

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The “kids” in Seattle were self-described anarchists. There is nothing wrong with that. But they also were prepared to kidnap delegates while throwing bombs at police and crowds. You cannot, legally, own pipe bombs without notifying the proper federal authority. You may not own a machine gun w/out a class III firearms license.

Your other points about the Patriot Act and wiretaps and dissent are opinions from some people about what COULD happen under law. Well, under current law, a slew of abuses COULD happen and sometimes do. Does that mean we need to start running red lights to protest the tyranny and fascism of traffic control?

Do you lock your doors at night? Why? If necessary, would you call the police who would bring lethal firearms to your home, order you to stay in your home, and investigate your home and surrounding grounds for evidence of a burglar?

Would you own firearms to protect yourself and your family? If so, why?

Do you own any insurance? If so, is it because you know by experirence that sometimes bad things happen and being prepared is both prudent and logical?

Whether you agree or not, we are at war. Iran has been at war with us since 1979, and the Islamic world has been at war with non-Muslims since the 7th century when Muhammed formed his army in Medina. 9/11/2001 was nothing more than the wake up call to the West that 9/11/1683 was not the end of the Islamic jihad, but just one battle.

On another note: Is there anything funnier than organized anarchists?

Anonymous anarchist 1: OK, you drive and I’ll get the bombs and rope.
Anonymous anarchist 2: Don’t tell me what to do, I’m an anarchist!