Political Principles

[Resha Caner]

Polemics about this candidate or that candidate aside, I'm curious if people can (succinctly) articulate the top 5 principles of their chosen political party, candidate, or view.

 

[redleghunter]

Well I'm sure you have been paying attention to these threads.

This election cycle the drive to vote is mainly a vote against a particular candidate. You can see that by the negatives both major candidates garner.

 

[Winken]

Trump
Pro-Life
Pro-Conservative, pro-life supreme court
Pro-Conservative Federal Judges
Pro-Conservative Federal Prosecutors
Pro-Reducing the number of federal agencies
Pro-Border security
Pro-Restoring states rights
Pro-Restoring local education of our children
Anti-Abortion at any stage of the pregnancy

If I go on I'll probably hit a page margin or whatever; maybe my computer will "tilt."

Hillary
Just change Pro to Anti, except where Anti appears. Change it to Pro.

God help us if born-again Believers can't see the difference.

 

[Resha Caner]

Pro-Life
Pro-Conservative, pro-life supreme court
Pro-Conservative Federal Judges
Pro-Conservative Federal Prosecutors
Pro-Reducing the number of federal agencies
Pro-Border security
Pro-Restoring states rights
Pro-Restoring local education of our children
Anti-Abortion at any stage of the pregnancy

I really only see about 4 principles in that list, and I'm not sure what "conservative" really means apart from the other 3. Further, I need to ask, if someone supports states' rights, do they then consider abortion a state or national issue?

 

[SolomonVII]

Like Trump, Obama was pro-Russia and pro-strongman, as his support for the ayatollahs over the the green revolutionairies revealed early on.
Of course, pressing the reset button never made the Russians or the Middle East in general pro-American, so his reset policy was pretty much a bust.
Who really knows what Hillary's foreign policy will be? She is neither honest enough to give a clear answer, nor principled enough to hold a position that will not change with the winds, and whatever political advantage there may be in it for her own personal power or for the financial gain of the Clinton foundation.
She is not really a policy person, and neither is Trump for that matter.

 

[Resha Caner]

She is not really a policy person, and neither is Trump for that matter.

OK. As I said, I'm not looking for polemics. If not them, who do you support and what are their principles? Not bashing where others have failed, but what principles can you get behind? And are those principles just your view? A party view? A particular candidate's view?

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmm. OK. I'll kick it off. Comment on the following:

The primary purpose of government is to protect the property of its citizens.

 

[Speedwell]

Hmm. OK. I'll kick it off. Comment on the following:

The primary purpose of government is to protect the property of its citizens.

The primary purpose of our present government is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

 

[Resha Caner]

The primary purpose of our present government is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Good point. So you think those still hold?

 

[Winken]

Good point. So you think those still hold?

Not under the executive orders, policies and procedures, of a Democrat administration. The Democratic thrust is to formulate those in a Socialist regime. Relentless pursuit of control is at the forefront, including control through executive orders and federal agencies. Obama has worked tirelessly to bring that about. With Hillary, it will be more of the same. A good example is Russia.

The Republican position is provided in part in my Post #3. "Conservative" means to reign in the federalization of everything. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, in a free society, is the cherished goal. We elect public servants, not leaders.

 

[Speedwell]

Good point. So you think those still hold?

They still hold--as goals which we sometimes fail to achieve.

 

[Resha Caner]

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, in a free society, is the cherished goal. We elect public servants, not leaders.

I can see how "pro life" fits as a guiding principle for government, but what you say above is closer to what I had in mind for the OP. I don't know how you would relate the two - whether they are equal or one stands above the other, but I will ask why this is a "cherished goal".

 

[Resha Caner]

They still hold--as goals which we sometimes fail to achieve.

Sure. I never expected examples of perfect execution. I take it then, that these are goals you agree with. Or are there others you would add as more important?

My next question is basically, "Why?" Why are these the key principles?

 

[Winken]

I can see how "pro life" fits as a guiding principle for government, but what you say above is closer to what I had in mind for the OP. I don't know how you would relate the two - whether they are equal or one stands above the other, but I will ask why this is a "cherished goal".

The appointment of a Supreme Court, conservative, which follows the convictions of a conservative president, will be a huge step in the elimination of abortion on demand.

 

[Kersh]

Hmm. OK. I'll kick it off. Comment on the following:

The primary purpose of government is to protect the property of its citizens.

I would add life and liberty to the things that government is to protect. Other than that I agree. Other than those steps which are necessary to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizenry, the government should get out of the way and let its citizens live their own lives. This also means, in my opinion, that the government should stay uninvolved in the affairs of the various organizations and institutions (such as charities, religious institutions, corporations, etc) that its citizens set up, so long as these organizations and institutions do not unfairly or unreasonably interfere with the the life, liberty, and property of other persons or institutions.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would add life and liberty to the things that government is to protect. Other than that I agree.

I'll push back a little just to see where the conversation goes. Some words sound good on the surface but are hard to implement. So, I will say "life" falls under property - specifically the idea that a person owns their own body. Further, liberty only extends so far as one is able to purchase what one wants, and hence, again, comes back to property. Therefore, I would say protection of property is sufficient.

I expect you can see many implications in that. For example, how is the labor of this government protection to be purchased? And is government only obligated to provide protection so long as someone agrees to sell their labor for that purpose? IOW, if no one agreed to do the protecting, is it OK to leave the job undone, or should the government force some into that role?

 

[Kersh]

I'll push back a little just to see where the conversation goes. Some words sound good on the surface but are hard to implement. So, I will say "life" falls under property - specifically the idea that a person owns their own body. Further, liberty only extends so far as one is able to purchase what one wants, and hence, again, comes back to property. Therefore, I would say protection of property is sufficient.

I expect you can see many implications in that. For example, how is the labor of this government protection to be purchased? And is government only obligated to provide protection so long as someone agrees to sell their labor for that purpose? IOW, if no one agreed to do the protecting, is it OK to leave the job undone, or should the government force some into that role?

I would disagree with the premise that life = property. I would go further and say that the right to property stems from the right to life, not vice versa. It is not the property value of the sum of my parts that makes my life worthy of protection; there is a value in life itself that transcends property.

Liberty is not merely about commercial enterprise. For example, if I choose to pray quietly in public and I'm arrested for it, the government is not impinging on any property right of mine.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would disagree with the premise that life = property. I would go further and say that the right to property stems from the right to life, not vice versa. It is not the property value of the sum of my parts that makes my life worthy of protection; there is a value in life itself that transcends property.

I would agree with you that life is in a special class all its own, and we can codify that by placing a high price on it. But principles can't hang on nothing, and I don't yet see what you're standing on, so my position remains unchanged. I'm not saying you've got nothing to stand on. I just don't see it.

A man meets a tiger in the jungle. They both have life. What will cause them both to accept that?

Liberty is not merely about commercial enterprise. For example, if I choose to pray quietly in public and I'm arrested for it, the government is not impinging on any property right of mine.

Actually, they are. What constitutes a space as a public space and gives you a right to use that space? Do you expect to have the same rights praying in the National Mall in D.C., Thumamah National Park in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Amboseli National Park in Kenya?

 

[SolomonVII]

The appointment of a Supreme Court, conservative, which follows the convictions of a conservative president, will be a huge step in the elimination of abortion on demand.

Significant strides have been made against the abortion culture even in the time of Obama as the focus of the abortion debate has shifted from the federal level to the state level, where it is the governors and state legislatures who have found new strategies to limit the destructiveness of abortion.
This has not escaped the notice of federal politicians, such as the very pro-abortion Hillary Clinton (or even Obama for that matter). We can expect therefore that electing Democratic politicians will result in the appoitnment of activist judges on the federal level who will do everything to offer legal interpretations that will deligitimize the states from continuing in their fight against unlimited abortion on demand.

That is just what Democrats do.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Everyone is valuable, human dignity can't be taken away, it's priceless and based on God's work of creation.

A society's values are shown by how it treats its weaker members.

Human value is greater than market value.

Family is the society's basic unit and a healthy society starts with healthy homes.

We have individual and collective responsibility, not just for ourelves but also for our neighbours and the rest of God's creation.