When it comes down to it, what issues are really worth writing about? I’m would agree that discussing the news of the day, certainly has it’s purpose. However, when topics turn to politics (especially in the blogosphere), I have noticed a trend. People from either side of the political spectrum tend to write and talk in a manner that is best described as ‘insider baseball.’ Basically, most political writers argue under the assumption that you (the reader) already understand their fundamental philosophy or worldview. For most people, I don’t believe this is actually the case. In fact, I think that this assumption usually drives people away from political discussions. (By the way, I am totally guilty of this, and I apologize to anyone I have brow-beaten in the past with this assumption)

Ultimately, with that approach you end up with this:

…or something similar.

Appeal to Heaven is an attempt to take a different tack. My goal with this blog is to provide you, whatever your political leanings, with a resource for understanding a conservative world view. (In my experience, conservative ideas often aren’t totally obvious and take a bit of groundwork to establish.) The point of this blog is not, again -IS NOT- to make you agree. Neither is this blog an attempt to paint anyone who thinks differently as bad, wrong, or evil. There are plenty of places you can go if you want someone’s point of view bashed in your face. This won’t be that place.

In fact, this is the purpose of the comment area. If you share a different view, and at any point feel that your view is being misrepresented, or if my rhetoric becomes too harsh or in-your-face, let me know immediately! After all – Appeal to Heaven is an attempt to combat this very thing: the misrepresentation of conservative views by others.

Finally, you might be thinking – “Dude…barf, why care so much about politics? Isn’t there more to life?”

Could. Not. Agree. More.

This blog is not about which political party you should support, or who you should and should not vote for, or who’s the most patriotic…No! Can all of that.

At the end of the day, this blog is really about the philosophy of Liberty. This is a topic dear to me, that I feel most Americans (and perhaps people in general who have grown up in a free society) take somewhat for granted. Freedom is a precious gift that does not perpetuate itself naturally without effort. As Samuel Adams said:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

This, for me, is what is truly at the heart of conservatism – the preservation and defense of Liberty. And, I would venture to assert that this is truly at the heart of most Americans – whether they consider themselves conservative, liberal, or anything else. The problem, in my view, is that most people have not had a real opportunity to hear the philosophical arguments backing traditional conservative principals.

That is the goal of this site.

And….(hopefully) to convince you that I have not gone completely freaking off-the-rails crazy. HA!

Best Regards to you, the reader,

-adc

The reason both positions on this issue will never reconcile, is because their chief arguments are over completely different questions. Therefore, there exists no common ground in which to ever enter a reasonable discussion on the topic. All discussions on the Abortion issue need to start here with these chief arguments. Here are the two foundational questions that each side is asking:

• Pro-Choice: Does a women have the right to make choices concerning her own body?
• Pro-Life: Is a fetus a living human person?

Because both these questions are usually never discussed together, neither side can make much headway.

The conservative position answers both questions: Yes.

Yes – absolutely a woman has the right to make choices concerning her body. And Yes, most conservatives believe that a fetus is a living human person. Thus – the unalienable rights of the unborn person, necessarily trump the choice of the mother to deny that person life. Plain and Simple. You don’t have to agree with that, but you do need to consider these two questions, and how you answer them together.

Let’s deal with a couple common objections:

Don’t Conservatives just believe this on religious grounds?

At this point most people begin to argue, ‘the belief that a fetus is a person,’ is based purely on religious grounds, and thus – shouldn’t be one that is established by the state (see the 1st Amendment). I would argue that you can actually leave religion out of it. At the very least – let’s say that we, as a society have no possible way to determine whether a fetus is a living person or not. However, we certainly do determine it is a living organism. Therefore, it seems more reasonable  (given the fact that a fetus will naturally and inevitably become a human person), as a society, to err on the side that is not destructive to life.

Will the person have a ‘good quality of life?’

Again:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Only that individual person has the right and power to answer this question. Not society. In life, we raise up those who endure hardship, overcome and conquer it. We cannot be the ones to judge whether an individual will do so – but they must be allowed the free chance to make that choice. I think this recent Ad does a great job making this very point:

The next question is of course, what do we, as a society, do about abortion? Do we criminalize it? If we make it illegal, how do we punish offenders? And what do we do in situations concerning the mother’s health?

These are crucial questions that we must consider (the subject of another post at a later date). But we cannot do this, unless we first face the two foundational issues above.

“You see, the problem is, Conservatives do not believe that anything good can be accomplished when people come together to get something done.”

The host was basically trying to make the point that, with regard to protecting our environment, everyone must work together. Obviously, this statement is true. One person being careful to turn their lights out, and make sure their refrigerator door is shut, won’t really have much of an impact on the environment as a whole. If any real impact is to be made, then everyone must take part. This is essentially how collectivism is defined: a view which stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective (or group), rather than the importance of separate individuals. (-wiki)

The problem is simply that the statement the host made is a Strawman. I don’t know of anyone that actually believes nothing good can come from people working together. There are many good things that can be achieved when people work together towards a common good.

However, the crucial point the host missed is that Conservatives do not believe individuals should be forced into collectivism by coercion. (It is important to note here that in America, the government is the only authority which has the power to force you to act involuntarily.)

In other words, Conservatives reject collectivism because a person’s individual liberty is necessarily sacrificed by force of government, for the collective. Consider the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

America was founded upon the idea that Government does not create or establish Rights. Rather, Rights are intrinsic to each individual (granted by God) – and that Government is established only to protect (or provide security for) those individual Rights. Power lies primarily in the individual – not the government. Consider the Bill of Rights. Is the Bill of Rights a list of Rights that government gives to individuals? No. It is a list of Rights in which the Government cannot impede.

I’m sure you are thinking of one obvious objection:

But sometimes, isn’t Collectivism required to protect individual Rights?

Had the Air America host accurately represented Conservative’s objection to collectivism by coercion, his next objection may have been, “But in the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming, (a potential threat to everyone), wouldn’t individual rights be better protected in the long run by some form of forced collectivist action now?

Yes…potentially. However, as is usually the case with environmental threats, you would absolutely be sacrificing individual liberty, over something that is a potential threat and hotly debated (The environmental debate is a huge topic I will expand on in a post of it’s own). Anytime this happens – power is transferred from the individual, to the government. One doesn’t have to be a renowned historian to realize that governments do not give back power once they obtain it (thus, ‘checks and balances’).

It is important to point out here that there are many other ways to accomplish group oriented goals, such as environmental protection and conservation, without sacrificing personal liberty through government coercion. The government can, and probably should, encourage behavior that may benefit society – but this doesn’t require action by force.

But Isn’t Individualism Just Selfishness and Greed?

Milton Friedman has a great response to this objection:

The simple question is – what system is better than individuals making choices in their self-interest? The problem is that collectivist systems eliminate personal choice and freedom, in an attempt to create some form of greater virtue. Of course, how is something virtuous, if you are not free to choose it? Not to mention – who among men, has better wisdom to decide what is right for you, other than yourself? (This will be further discussed later in this series when we talk about Socialism, Oligarchy & democratic mob-rule.)

Also – the above misconception has more to do with people not putting individualism in the proper context. The argument for individualism is not one saying that you should disregard others needs and only watch out for yourself. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn’t care about one another. However, conservatives are nearly always claimed to hold this view: “You just don’t care about other people.” This is a misunderstanding.

Again – the conservative argument for individualism revolves around government’s relationship to individuals in society – not your personal relationship with other people. Interdependence between individuals is a very healthy thing for society – but it is only healthy when it is entered freely by personal choice. You are not a free person if the government gets to decide for you, how you should interact with other individuals (beyond the protection of each person’s rights).

So how does all this tie in with Socialism?

Socialism is Government Coerced Collectivism

Socialism is defined as:

Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources

-wikitionary

A couple things should be clarified from this definition: when you read “Support social and economic equality,” this refers to equality of results – Not equality, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (‘…All men are created equal…’) of each individual. Equality of the individual means that each person has completely equal status, rights, and freedoms, simply by being a person.

Socialism aims to make people socially and economically equal. It can only achieve this goal by using government power to deprive the Rights of some, in order to “help” others.

Continue to Part 2 – Why Reject Socialism? (part 2): Private Property, and Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality

For example, most conservatives would agree with the intention of most social programs, such as the minimum wage, or social security. However, the question that a conservative might ask would be, a) does the particular social program achieve its stated goals, and b) does it do this by trampling upon another individual’s liberty?

Milton Friedman discusses many of these misconceptions (still totally relevant today) about capitalism, greed, social security, minimum wage, the free market, etc in the video below: