# Conservatism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2003, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659 "2003-09-05T03:59:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/101 "2003-09-06T05:44:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > **Allright. I think we’ve done enough of the LUC now and we’ ve introduced the twin concepts of Personal Responsibility and self-reliance.** I was wondering when we would get around to this. I would like to repeat the questions I asked last night, before all the talk of rickety barns and pricker bushes: [ul] [li]You say conservatives believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility, but in my experience, it only applies to individuals and not to corporate entities that use their power and wealth to influence government for advantage and consideration, and to shield them from responsibility. Do you hold corporations to the same standard of self-reliance and responsibility as you do individuals?[/li] [li]Define the responsibilities you think government has to protecting the powerless from the powerful in your evolved society. Or are you a social Darwinist, with the strong exploiting the weak with impunity? I really can’t tell.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/102 "2003-09-06T06:32:41Z")
**elucidator** : give me a day. Really. It’s a freakin’ essay, if you want the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/103 "2003-09-06T10:08:24Z")
Sure. E-mail me. Just interested, if its a big hassle, shine it on. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/104 "2003-09-06T13:29:10Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* \*\* [li]You say conservatives believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility, but in my experience, it only applies to individuals and not to corporate entities that use their power and wealth to influence government for advantage and consideration, and to shield them from responsibility. Do you hold corporations to the same standard of self-reliance and responsibility as you do individuals?[/li][/quote] No. Corporations aren’t really people. > [@](#): > > \*\*[li]Define the responsibilities you think government has to protecting the powerless from the powerful in your evolved society. Or are you a social Darwinist, with the strong exploiting the weak with impunity? I really can’t tell.[/li][/list] \*\* I thought I covered this directly in my Titanic post of last night. It’s not “my evolved society” it’s that we’re an evolving society. The necessary role of government is to protect the rights and freedoms of its individual members. If it falls under that category than the government has to do it. (Sorry I took so long, but I was kind of saving your first reply) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/105 "2003-09-06T14:53:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > **No. Corporations aren’t really people.** And this is why I find the conservative philosophy so disgusting. This is why we liberals see conservatives as selfish, greedy two-faced liars. You allow soulless bastards to hide behind the corporate fig leaf without responsibility for their actions. They are free to pollute, exploit, defraud and otherwise rape the citizenry, because you want to reduce government regulation and repeal the laws that reign them in. Responsibility for ones’ actions is an ethic which must be applied to individuals and corporations equally, or it has no meaning. This is why we need more government regulation of industry, not less; the profit motive in your free market brings out the very worst in our corporate citizens, who are willing so sacrifice my health and my security in the single-minded pursuit of profit. Thank you for finally exposing conservatives for what they are; we have seen the enemy and it is you. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/106 "2003-09-06T15:52:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\*And this is why I find the conservative philosophy so disgusting. This is why we liberals see conservatives as selfish, greedy two-faced liars. You allow soulless bastards to hide behind the corporate fig leaf without responsibility for their actions. They are free to pollute, exploit, defraud and otherwise rape the citizenry, because you want to reduce government regulation and repeal the laws that reign them in. Responsibility for ones’ actions is an ethic which must be applied to individuals and corporations equally, or it has no meaning. This is why we need more government regulation of industry, not less; the profit motive in your free market brings out the very worst in our corporate citizens, who are willing so sacrifice my health and my security in the single-minded pursuit of profit. Thank you for finally exposing conservatives for what they are; we have seen the enemy and it is you. \*\* Do you really get all that from “Corporations are not people?” Do liberals thing Exxon is a guy? You’ve jumped the gun and flown way off the handle in your urge to show your hatred of cosnervatives. I have news for. I don’t believe that shit. What you have made is a false and simpleminded stance. The problem is the opposite of what you think it is. The problems you describe of corporate irresponsibility, of CEOs hiding behind the corporate face, have, in part, occured because corporations **are** treated under law to a large degree as individuals. As a conservative I believe the concept of a corporate entity that exists as it’s own type of individual is a ludicrous statement. Corporations are not people. The confusion comes because under law, and for convenience a corporation has abilities and powers similar to an individual. It is not a collective entity, though. It cannot be treated as a person. If GE dumps toxic waste into the gulf, how do you punish Ge as a person? You can’t. If you fine GE a billion dollars for the crime you have committed a meaningless act. Who have you hurt? Just the stockholders, really, and perhaps some low level employees who get cut. What did they do wrong? The person you want to punish is the person responsible. The person that made the decision to dump the waste. The people who let him do it with overt, or tacit agreement, whatever. Those are the people who should be punished. If Ge is an organization that you treat as a person, you can’t punish these people. You can only punish the GE entity. If Ge is not a person, than GE the entity should be immune from illegal actions done under its name. The workers and the shareholder are innocent and unpunished. If GE is not a person than we are free to hold the people who committed the crime **personally responsible** for their actions. Hopefully this is clear, but I’ll say it again. The ability for people to hide behind a corporate face and commit crimes and illegal action, in large part derives from the way corporations are partially treated as “persons.” Trust me on this. If you want to actually hold the people responsible who do illegal things, than you will agree with that Corporations should **not** be treated as people. Once they are people, they are shields. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/107 "2003-09-06T16:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\ ***Shodan** : A strong military as it is understood by conservatives is most certainly NOT enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution lays very heavy emphasis on relying on the militia as organized by Congress and supervised by the States - otherwise known as the National Guard in our day - as our first line of defense. It has a number of obstacles in the way of a permanent standing army, and the original intent of giving the President the title of Commander In Chief wasn’t so that he could send the Army hopscotching around the world. It wasn’t even envisioned that he would have an army at his disposal in times of peace. The title would only come into play if an army was raised and used, or in the event of nationalizing the militia in a time of emergency and using them for defense. > Therefore, the position of strictly interpreting the Constitution and being for a strong military as defined in modern conservatism are directly at odds with each other. \*\* Nonsense. The preamble to the Constitution explicitly states that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "[provide for the common defense.](http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html). And Section 2, Clause 1 states “Section. 2. Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…” The Constitution sets up a limited government, but one of the functions of that government is the military. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/108 "2003-09-06T16:33:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Scylla_ > \*\*The ability for people to hide behind a corporate face and commit crimes and illegal action, in large part derives from the way corporations are partially treated as “persons.” > > Trust me on this. If you want to actually hold the people responsible who do illegal things, than you will agree with that Corporations should not be treated as people. > \*\* And, as usual, you completely missed my point, **Scylla**. Do you, or do you not believe there should be less regulation of industry? If there is less regulation, there are fewer laws under which to prosecute the **individuals** responsible for pollution, exploitation, safety violations, etc. When I say _hold corporations responsible to he same standard of self-reliance and responsibility as individuals_, I was talking about the conservative habit of increasing regulations on personal behavior, while scrapping regulations that force corporations to be good citizens. It is this two-faced philosophy I object to. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/109 "2003-09-06T16:34:23Z")
I’ll give you the short version of my contention, **Shodan** , later on. I’ve gotta figure out a way to edit it down to something reasonable for a post. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/110 "2003-09-06T17:06:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\*And, as usual, you completely missed my point, **Scylla**. I have been polite with you, and I have tried to answer your questions in good faith. To make it short, I don’t need your shit. If I missed your point, it was because you failed to communicate it satisfactorily. Be nice, or be gone. > [@](#): > > Do you, or do you not believe there should be less regulation of industry? If there is less regulation, there are fewer laws under which to prosecute the **individuals** responsible for pollution, exploitation, safety violations, etc. Again, this should be perfectly clear. I’ve said it outright several times. I gave a humongous example. You want a sound bite? OK. Regulations on industry should be kept to an absolute minimum. > [@](#): > > \*\*When I say _hold corporations responsible to he same standard of self-reliance and responsibility as individuals_, I was talking about the conservative habit of increasing regulations on personal behavior, while scrapping regulations that force corporations to be good citizens. It is this two-faced philosophy I object to. \*\* Than you should be a conservative. There is no such thing as a corporate good citizen. Corporations are not people. They cannot be citizens. They can be neither good nor bad. It is not two-faced, because there actually only is one-face. That is the face of individuals. I’ll say it again, and be kind enough to apologize for not saying it clearly. Corporations are not people. The idea that they are is pure is fallacy. The fallacy is an easy one to make because corporations and individuals share many similarities. It is a fallacy nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/111 "2003-09-06T17:30:27Z")
OK, fair enough. A corporation is not a person, so a corporation that acts in contradiction to the common good is a criminal conspiracy. For our purposes, that will do just about as well. Clearly, then, the minimum acceptable level of regulation would be that which forbids any prospect that such conspiracy would be profitable. OK dokey, we’re on the right track here. As recent history clearly demonstrates, that level of regulation and inspection is not present. Hence, considerably more regulation is called for. I accept your reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/112 "2003-09-06T17:48:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > **Regulations on industry should be kept to an absolute minimum.** I agree with you. I just have a higher standard of industry responsibility that you do. You seem hung up on the legal difference between a corporation and an individual. **I am not arguing that point**. I am arguing that industries should be held to a standard of responsibility in their policies and practices that promote the public good. When the policies and practices of a given corporation within an industry violate the public good, there should be laws on the books under which the **individuals** responsible for those policies and practices can be prosecuted. Unfortunately, conservatives (perhaps some more zealous than you) continually seek to weaken regulations on clean air, clean water, safe work environments and fair business practices in the pursuit of profits for the stockholders. I do not trust the individuals responsible for corporate policy to make decisions supporting the public good over their own selfish desire to increase profits. This is why I want more regulation of industry; based on past performance, industry has shown it lacks the integrity to police itself. Perhaps this just reflects a lack of morals in society at large; corporations cannot be greater than the individuals of which they are comprised. And this is what I meant by corporate responsibility; perhaps I meant _industry responsibility_, and if that was what caused my failure to communicate my point satisfactorily, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/113 "2003-09-06T18:10:56Z")
I’m okay with the regulation of industry being kept to the bare minimum necessary. As it stands, though, this statement is basically empty, until one provides an explication of what is necessary. Here are the areas where I, myself, think the market will fail absent regulation, and which are therefore necessary to regulate. 1. Other things being equal, in any transaction, the party which enters negotiations with more resources will have an advantage over the party with fewer, and will therefore be able to swing a better deal than would be possible based purely on the merits of the parties in question. Now for any particular transaction, this isn’t a big deal, but over time it entails that under strict laissez-faire capitalism that wealth will become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, and merit will become irrelevant to market transactions - economic coercion will rule the day. This needs to be avoided if we want a society that’s remotely pleasant. Part of the answer is something already mentioned - breaking up monopolies. But another essential part is doing something to balance to some degree the most common group of imbalanced negotiations - that between employers and employees. To this end, regulation with regards to minimum acceptable conditions with respect to health and safety are in order, as are regulations enabling labour to bargain collectively should they wish to. 2. Free markets have no solution to the problem of the tragedy of the commons. A quick look at the state of fish stocks provides overwhelming evidence that we cannot rely on the enlightened long-term self-interest of the relevant parties to solve this issue. Regulating areas which have this structure is necessary to safeguard the long-term common good. 3. Free markets suck at passing certain sorts of costs on to producers - most notably, environmental costs. Most costs of pollution are borne by area citizens, and often the full cost won’t be borne for years. This encourages companies to pay little heed to their negative impact on the environment. We therefore need to impose regulations which force companies to pay the full cost of their environmental impact. The best structure for these regulations is, of course, completely up for debate. Their necessity, however, I find very difficult to dispute. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/114 "2003-09-06T18:46:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*As recent history clearly demonstrates, that level of regulation and inspection is not present. Hence, considerably more regulation is called for. > > I accept your reasoning. \*\* Cool. You’re very close. You missed one thing. Remember the codicile that regulation is inherently bad? What we actually need are better regulations. More regulations does not necessarily make for a better control. In fact, the contrary is true. And, in fact, what we really need, IMO is better enforcement. I beleive that Enron et al, do not necessarily demonstrate a failure of law, they demonstrate a failure of enforcement. I would offer sincerely that this failure in enforcement is in large part due to a tradittionally conservative sentiment. That sentiment is “laissez faire.” CEOs seemed to share the same fallacy that Fear Itself brought up. That behind the facade of the corporate “person” they were immune. Fortunately, they are mistaken. Do we need more regulations to deal with this? No. Do we need better enforcement? As a general rule, yes? As usual, I beleive the best path is personal responsibility. Lock up the guys that did it. Take away everything they have (but don’t punish the shareholders or the workers.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/115 "2003-09-06T19:31:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\*I agree with you. I just have a higher standard of industry responsibility that you do. \*\* Ok. And, I don’t mean to give you a hard time. But, how can an industry be responsible? Additionally, I haven’t talked about what level of responsibility I place. You may be surprised at how I place the bar. At least let me place the bar before you say it’s too low. > [@](#): > > You seem hung up on the legal difference between a corporation and an individual. Yes, and again not to give you a hard time, but it keeps looking to me like you are confusing the two. > [@](#): > > **I am not arguing that point**. I am arguing that industries should be held to a standard of responsibility in their policies and practices that promote the public good. Again, you are arguing the point. You keep personifying non-persons. An industry isn’t a person any more than a corporation is. They are things. Tools. I have trouble responding to what you are saying because of this. It is as if you are saying “We need to hold hammers to a higher standard of responsibility so they don’t hit thumbs.” It’s not the hammer’s fault, is it? This all boils down to personal responsibility. You accused me of of being two-faced earlier for wanting to be lighter on corporations and tougher on individuals. YES! > [@](#): > > When the policies and practices of a given corporation within an industry violate the public good, there should be laws on the books under which the **individuals** responsible for those policies and practices can be prosecuted. How do we define the public good? By who’s terms? By nature, I think we need to keep the codification of the public good pretty basic and straightforward and clear. But I agree with you. Generally. I consider the violation of public good to be defined as restricting the rights and freedoms of the citizens. That’s what the goal of these laws should be. Largely, I think it is this way. Frankly, I think we have all kinds of good laws in place. We got lots and lots. What we need is some MO-FO enforcement! > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, conservatives (perhaps some more zealous than you) continually seek to weaken regulations on clean air, clean water, safe work environments and fair business practices in the pursuit of profits for the stockholders. I do not trust the individuals responsible for corporate policy to make decisions supporting the public good over their own selfish desire to increase profits. Well, yeah. You must be missing what I said in the long post. I don’t trust individuals to act against their best interests either. I don’t expect them too. I don’t want them too. I have an ideal in my head for what regulations should be. I think right now, as a rule we have this humongously complex tangled and obfuscated web of laws that few can understand. Powerful people working through corporations can violate the principles behind these laws with impunity, because their lawyers are smart enough to weave a path through them that makes the unethical legal. And unfortunately, our government officials are incompetant or corrupt enough to let them. Now you say we need more rules and regulations (since when did "more rules and regulations become the liberal revolutionary battle cry?) I say why bother? You think more will help? I say tear down all this useless shit, and redefine the laws. Scylla’s laws of business would be like the Fist of God combined with the immutability of the laws of physics. They would be few, simple, well-defined, inclusive and breaking them would bring down the wrath of heavens upon the poor fool foolish enough to try. Now you may say this is a fantasy. That it’s unrealistic. It’s not. The rules and regulations are technical. That’s not what a rule should be. Interestingly enough some self-regulatory agencies are changing their rules into ethical codes of conduct that carry the force of law. Example, the much maligned and evil stockbrokers of the world are getting new and improved short compliance manuals. These are not infinite rules about what they can and can’t do. What they are are the ethical codes of conduct that have always existed being enforced **as law** Here’s one: A broker dealer has the fiduciary responsibility to act in his clients’ best interests. You have no idea the sea change that represents. The SEC and NASD **is** coming down like the proverbial fist of God, and that’s their battle cry. They are not technical rule violations or the little stuff like they used to. They are sending a clear message “every thing you do or don’t do better pass that test.” To me, it is a wonderful thing. Gimme more of that stuff. Tear down the crap and fluff, and enforce the ethics of conduct. > [@](#): > > This is why I want more regulation of industry; based on past performance, industry has shown it lacks the integrity to police itself. Ahhhh, Yes and no. Industry doesn’t have integrity. It’s not a person. Isn’t silly to expect industry to have integrity? But I think a blanket condemnation of regulatory agencies is incorrect. There are people in SRAs who do very good jobs. > [@](#): > > Perhaps this just reflects a lack of morals in society at large; corporations cannot be greater than the individuals of which they are comprised. And Presto! You are now a conservative. I think that is a fundamentally profound and excellent point. > [@](#): > > \*\*And this is what I meant by corporate responsibility; perhaps I meant _industry responsibility_, and if that was what caused my failure to communicate my point satisfactorily, I apologize. \*\* No problem. Again though and industry can’t have responsibility. Only the individuals. That really is the whole tamale behind the conservative cries of “Personal responsibilty!” That’s why as a rule, we don’t like industry regulation. Philosophically, it’s not a copout. I’m not surprised that so many people think it is though. Being Conservative does not mean you are not an asshole, a hypocrite, or a liar, or a greedy uncaring bastard. There are lots of people out there under the banner of conservative thought who simply favor deregulation so they can better rape the world. I don’t think that’s an indictment of conservatism. Some people suck. There is no shortage of evil rotten liberals either. But as a conservative I favor maximizing personal responsibility as the best and surest path. Highly technical and complex rules and regulations provide a framework under which responsibility can be set aside. I want a simple direct route to the responsible individuals. I don’t a complex artifice of laws that they can slip through. I want to make the individual take personal responsibility. You know, less rules = more responsibility. It’s like the Captain of a ship. He has broad powers of discretion but a clear responsibility. I don’t want a Captain to have an enormous complex set of rules that he can follow like a robot and as long as follows them like a robot, nothing’s his fault. Does this make sense to you? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/116 "2003-09-06T19:35:40Z")
Gorsnak: I agree largely with what you said. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/117 "2003-09-06T21:16:48Z")
Hmm. One question/thought for **Scylla** : Reading this thread, I would assume that you believe that the Log Cabin Republicans are not self-conflicted, to put it kindly, in any way, because there is nothing (inherently) conservative about anti-homosexual legislation? If so, how WOULD you characterize said legislation, politically? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/118 "2003-09-06T21:22:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Gorsnak: > > I agree largely with what you said. Well, that’s not very conservative of you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/119 "2003-09-06T21:28:11Z")
Not quite a fair question, **Leaper**. Friend **Scylla** is treating us to a high-tone discussion of political philosophy. The craven and abject lust for power displayed by any given political party is not perzactly germane. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659/120 "2003-09-06T21:36:18Z")
**Shodan** : Ok, first links. To the Constitution: [http://www.usconstitution.net/](http://www.usconstitution.net/) To the Federalist Papers: [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers.html](http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers.html) The first quote, which you can consider the theme of everything else I’ll be writing on this subject, comes from Federalist No. 8, Hamilton: “It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.” Looking at the Constitution, the following clauses occur one after the other, in Section 8, the section that enumerates the powers of Congress: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; I remember seeing that and wondering what the possible significance could be of that automatic sunset provision for an Army. Highly peculiar. Until you realize that it exactly matches the term of a Congressman. Looking at Federalist 26 we find this: > [@](#): > > The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. Why, you ask? Well, as it turns out, the writers of the Constitution had a mortal fear of standing armies at the disposal of the Executive authority. From Federalist 26, again, we find this: > [@](#): > > In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant. As incident to the undefined power of making war, an acknowledged prerogative of the crown, Charles II. had, by his own authority, kept on foot in time of peace a body of 5,000 regular troops. And this number James II. increased to 30,000; who were paid out of his civil list. At the revolution, _to abolish the exercise of so **dangerous** an authority_, it became an article of the Bill of Rights then framed, that ``the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, UNLESS WITH THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT, was against law.’’ …From the same source, the people of America may be said to have derived an hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace. In other words, the intent of the sunset provision was to prevent permanent standing armies. Continuing to the President’s authority as Commander in Chief, Hamilton sets the context of this power and defines its limits in Federalist 69: > [@](#): > > The President is to be the ``commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME OF ADJOURNMENT, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.’’ In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. _ **It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.** _ In short, a President without the power to tax, without the power to declare war on his own, and without a permanent standing army, will have no power to wage war on his own. Automatically, under this structure, there is no need for a War Powers Act because the idea that the Executive could willy-nilly engage in hostilities whenever he felt like it would be a manifest absurdity. Today the appropriation level for Defense is largely set by Presidential policy, the Congress frequently wants more money rather than less because Defense has become a subsidy program for large areas of the nation that are otherwise economically inert, and the sunset provision might as well be repealed for all the effect it has. This was never the intent of the Framers. Quoting from Federalist 26 one last time: “They [the Congress] are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, _ **if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”** _ Remember, those words were written by a man who was an enthusiastic proponent of a strong central government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism/199659.md?page=7)