There are some things we take for granted as facts, unassailable in nature. There is no argument, no reason to doubt, via measured phenomenon over large spans of time. I’ll call them ‘Standards’—facts we rely upon to be accepted, without variance. We would have trouble communicating with each other, if we could not agree to these premises. Two plus two ALWAYS equals four, even with Common Core math—regardless of how you arrived at it, the correct answer is four. Water freezes at 32F, and boils at 212F (at sea level). There are many such items, usually expressed in numbers.
Principles are similar to Standards, except they are concepts of thought and action, not hard facts. They are our ‘rules that shall not be negotiated’. Many are common-place but not close to universal, like: murder, under most circumstances, is a crime. Taking of another person’s property without permission is theft, and is wrong. Purposely causing harm and pain to defenseless people, under almost all circumstances, is wrong. And so on. Some Principles are present only within a geographic region, others actually define countries. Comparing laws and economic freedoms from country to country yields vastly different answers.
I think Conservative thought employs a few political Principles, but even then, there are variances. The ‘most but not all’ methodologies. These include: universal equality under the law; private property rights; small Federal government; as low taxes as feasible; reliance and support of a strong military; birth begins at or near conception; the US Constitution says what it says; and so on. But I know several Pro-Choice Conservatives, some Conservatives that believe the US military is vastly too large, etc. So Conservatives do not act in lock-step at all, contrary to media belief. Reagan’s ‘Big Tent’ analysis is possibly truer now than ever. Heck, you can get a fairly spirited argument going just between Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives. That we even have Fiscal Conservatives who are Social Liberals is proof enough of the variety of positions.
My ideology as a Constitutional Conservative, with an interest in Economics, is based mostly on Principles, with some data Standards thrown in to support the Principles. I don’t expect universal agreement, but here is ‘the world according to the author’ (but no one lives there):
- The US Constitution is the framework of the United States legal, political, and judicial systems. It should be taken as literally as possible. When new information becomes available, the Amendment process is the method of change—not a judicial opinion. We have corrected obvious errors regarding slavery, women’s rights, and minority rights. If more Amendments (such as Congressional term limits, legal balanced budgets, etc.) are needed, get writing. But don’t ignore the text as written, and don’t stretch written clauses to mean what they obviously did not.
- The rule of law should apply equally to all, regardless of income, political status, minority status, or virtually ANYTHING. If found guilty of breaking laws, sentencing should be fair and consistent, not favoring or hammering this or that group. Yes, leniency should be available, especially for serious mitigating circumstances. But what we have now is so inconsistent as to be completely undependable.
- Income Taxes are the existing rule of law, since 1913. But the progressive, confiscatory nature in some cases, and complete waiving of them in others, is ridiculous. A solid argument can be made for a flat tax percentage on ALL income levels, with few or no deductions. Why our tax structure should favor one behavior over another (home ownership vs renting, child dependents vs no dependence, married vs single, self-employed vs other, etc.) is nonsense. It should not be a social steering mechanism, but a fair and equitable way to fund government (what we spend it all on is too big an argument for this post).
- Freedom should be the default setting. As long as those freedoms do not encroach on other’s freedoms. I part ways with MANY Conservatives here. I do NOT care what your sexual nature is, in any flavor. Just keep that ‘education’ away from malleable children. And don’t expect your particular flavor to grant you extra rights others do not have—while you should be free from discrimination, especially from government, you are not in a protected class. I feel the same way about ‘illegal’ drugs: adults should be the ruling body of their own bodies. Now, public health and safety laws are there for a reason, and are quite valid. But you be you, in your home. If it trashes your family, that was YOUR choice, not mine.
- Some would include a strong military here. And I understand why: without a strong military, our desires of how we operate are no longer important, as whomever conquers us sets that dynamic. Interwoven in this point is the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense. Both allow for the peaceful co-existence of the weak and the strong, without the strong overpowering the weak.
- Most Conservatives believe in unlimited self-determination. That how far you go in life should be limited only by how far your effort, intelligence, perseverance, education, and luck will take you. We should all have an equal opportunity to succeed (within our family structures–wealthy always have and always will have advantages the less wealthy do not enjoy). A part of this philosophy is the freedom to fail. There are no guarantees on how you finish–sometimes, things do not work out. That is a necessary part of freedom.
- You are responsible for you (and your immediate family, in most cases). It is not anyone else’s responsibility to satisfy your needs or wants. Our society is such that we have, in most places, agreed as a community, to provide those services that individuals usually do not have the ability to create: police and fire protection, common roads, local legal and judicial systems, primary education, etc. And as a society, we have collectively decided that those that are mentally and physically handicapped, along with the very young and the very old, will be cared for at society’s expense. This has been agreed to, over the years, as a suitable usage of tax dollars. Stretch that safety net to include healthy, able, but lazy, and you offend a large swath of the population, this author included.
- Feel free to add your own ideas to this list.
Excellent point! I’ve been a fan of the Fair Tax since hearing of it years ago via Neal Boortz. My next article will address the various ins-and-outs of personal income tax vs consumption tax. Thanks for the idea! 🙂
I agree with almost everything you say, except the flat tax. Charging the same % to everyone unfairly burdens those least able to pay. Introduced in Houston, TX by a businessman prior to 2005, the Fair Tax Act is the best tax plan ever devised by man. Taxing only new products and only once per product, it is a consumption tax paid at the cash register and inescapable. No worry about those who fail to pay taxes. It is a consumption tax that allows each individual to choose how much tax they pay. To prevent the tax from causing the poor hardship, it gives every head of household a prebate check each month for the taxes that would be paid up to the normal spending level for necessities up to the poverty level. So no one pays taxes on poverty level spending. All else is voluntary spending. This plan would negate any use for the IRS and take away the burden of keeping records for tax purposes. The savings to corporations in business expense should allow them to lower the price on goods so that the public sees no price change from adding the taxes to the price of new goods and services. States would collect the taxes from retail establishments, keep their share and forward the rest to the federal government. The reason is has not been enacted is greed among those who benefit from playing the hide the pea game in politics and tax benefits.