Liberalism>Conservatism

” Con interprets the symbol “>” as the following: Liberalism “greater than” Conservatism and this is Pro’s position. Pro's short overview of Liberalism covered a historical range from the founding of the US to modern day. However, Pro failed to mentioned the difference between Liberalism from the philosophers of France Bacon and John Locke (reflected in the US founding), compared to modern day Progressive Liberalism, which evolved during the Progressive Era over the time period of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Con will make reference to this Progressive Liberal evolution while covering Conservatism. Conservatism, includes neo-conservatism (emphasis on a robust national security), paleo-conservatism (emphasis on preserving the culture), social conservatism (emphasis on faith and values), libertarianism (emphasis on individualism having small limited government), and compassionate conservatism (conservatism with lipstick and a heart). Conservatism is also found throughout nature. For example, during the Enlightenment Era, the concept of Liberty started to blossom. France Bacon, the father of empiricism (aka the scientific method), inspired John Locke to develop the social contract theory leading to concept of “Life, Liberty, and Property,” which inspired Thomas Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;” finally those Unalienable Rights were found to be an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, and therefore part of the physical Laws of Nature and not man-made. . http://www.amazon.com... Over a period of 400 years our knowledge of liberty Conservatively evolved to today's current understanding, coming full circle starting with Bacon's empiricism to today's understanding relative to the physical Laws of Nature. One of the nine Properties of the Laws in Nature is defined as: “Stable;” aka Conservative. In science, our knowledge of a physical Law in Nature slowly evolves by the freedom of research and new discoveries in related Laws through the Property of “Symmetries. ” . http://en.wikipedia.org...Since humanity is a product of Nature, attention to the symmetry of cultural norms relative to the first 7 Properties of the Laws of Nature is crucial in understanding our connection to the order found in nature. There are striking similarities how cultural norms follow these Properties by replacing the phrase “Physical laws” with “norms,” and replace “universe” with “culture. ” Progressive Liberals like Conservatives, and most humans, embrace a “Stable:” culture, values, individual freedom, and a security to protect such stability. Who in their right mind would embrace social chaos? So what is the difference between Progressive Liberals and Conservatives? Conservatism is not an ideology, but found in all civil societies, where cultural norms are the “Stable” element within a society, where one will find the most “Stable” societies are the ones whose governance support a slow moral social evolution as a function of the individual's freedom. Societies that depart from this are unstable. . https://www.hawaii.edu...http://wikibin.org... On the subject of governance, the value of Conservatism is crucial. The US Constitutional configuration of government, is based on a physical Law in Nature known as life's Unalienable Rights (a Conservative stake in the ground, Amendments 5 and 9). The US government objective was to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less. This small limited “strong central government” had power over the states, to execute this objective. The state governments did all the rest, competing with each other for the best and brightest to move and enrich their state (Amendment 10). The Tenth Amendment along with second part of Article V, convinced most of the anti-federalist concerning the Conservative structure of the Constitution. . http://avalon.law.yale.edu...This form of governance sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to operate within the awesome machinery of nature. Having the mission to embrace and protect everyone's Unalienable Rights, the US started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight, because they are inherently Conservative. Slavery and woman's standing in society were deeply rooted in the culture, including the norms of the ruling-class, for they too reflect the culture of the day. Our founding Fathers knew Unalienable Rights will remove cultural ills, as a result, slavery, the treatment of woman, and today's treatment of gays, etc, in time during the Conservative evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights and the design of Congress, representing the people, and the only branch to make law correcting such cultural ills. Life's Unalienable Rights are the evolution engine of life (Takac). These Rights are also the engine for social evolution, if, and only if, the configuration of governance supports such natural engine at the social level. The US Founding Fathers develop a configuration of government supporting evolution before Darwin came on the stage. Eighty some years later, Darwin's work eventually came to light, where scholars in political science throughout the world at the turn of the last century, adopted a perverted view of evolution known as Social Darwinism. Our founding Fathers viewed the foundation of the rule of law to be stable (Conservative) within a Newtonian context making the structure of our Constitution difficult to change via the Amendment process. During the dynasty of the former President Woodrow Wilson (a leading father of modern liberal progressivism) was a promoter of the Social Darwinism ideology, advocating little resistance to constitutional structural change. Wilson stated the following from his book: . http://books.google.com.... “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. ” Wilson, in his book, also took issue with the individual's Unalienable Rights, where he went on to say:“No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle. ”Clearly, Wilson rejected the foundation of the US Constitution and started a slow cancer known as the “living constitution,” and this cancer is starting to metastasize. Today's Congress represents the lobbyist more than the people, while the President has a “pen and a phone” to make law, and also, the administration branch (a fourth branch not part of the US Constitution's three branches) is made up of hundreds of departments (IRS, Education, NSA, EPA, etc. ). These departments employ hundreds of thousands of government employees, who are not elected, writing regulations having the same power as law, to control, monitor us, etc. Today, the people are essentially out of the loop, except on Election Day, and look what choices we have. It should be no surprise why the US government controlled educational system promote “living constitutional” concepts. The “living constitution” benefits the uncontrolled growth of government, while reducing the freedom of the people. Such move towards tyranny adds more control and political incarceration by this “strong central government,” while taking freedom from the states. . http://www.amazon.com...http://blogs.loc.gov...The indoctrination of progressivism, through our government schools, is a spark of genius from generations of powerbrokers to embrace the progressive ideology, while demeaning Conservatism--the natural Property for the preservation of our Constitutional structure. Unbeknownst to many Progressive Liberals, innocent and unaware of the subtle power of progressive indoctrination controlling their political vantage point, as illustrated by Pro's view on Conservatism; is evidence by such social progressive entrapment, embracing the progressive crusade with the clear objective by demeaning Conservatism to advance a tyrannical government. This is stuff you don't learn in our government schools. Con's position is, without the Conservative property throughout nature, from the unchanging Laws of Nature to the limited stable man-made laws, there will be no life, no Liberalism. Therefore Conservatism > Liberalism.