Liberalism>Conservatism

Pro selects the negative elements of human behavior to be Conservative as in not wanting to change, while showing the good side of humans to be liberals supporting progressive change. This is no surprise considering the effects from our government controlled educational system. Highlighting progressive change, to include the “living constitution,” can only be a good thing having no negative repercussions. To believe this mantra, is simply naive. Pro failed to mention some of the good sides of Conservatism that has been around for a long time. For example, through all civil societies, the Conservative concept of “Thou shalt not kill,” is a good Conservative principle. Since the debut of the traffic “Stop Sign,” it is a good thing that Conservative symbol does not change. Talking about Conservative symbols, our number system and alphabet have been stable for a long time, etc. Pro stated, “Also you [Con] refute that conservatism is the proper of unalienable rights, that is also false.” Pro fails to understand that change itself, is a Conservative property of evolution that has been around before humans. Just after the Big Bang, change was under the influence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a Law that has never changed in this universe. At the macro level, Constructal Law is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, explains how everything that moves or flows, whether animate or inanimate, naturally evolve in ways that facilitates such movement. http://www.amazon.com...Relative to the Constructal Law for the animate, once alive, “Life” has the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of survival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. Positive-feedback for humans, can be summarized to include the emotion of “Happiness,” in addition, survival is a prerequisite for “Happiness.” The primeval working function of life having the freedom in the pursuit of survival, is the foundation to the Natural Selection Process. Unbeknownst to Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function, and he claimed a polished version within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights as in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In other words, and to generalize for all life from a single cell to humans, life’s Unalienable Rights is “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans”). In conclusion life’s Unalienable Rights is part of the Laws of Nature, been here before humans, therefore, it is a Conservative element throughout the symphony of life. Relative to Conservatism, Pro's argument continues the typical negative dance-around on overused talking-points. Pro even covers talking-points related to “gun rights” when he stated, “Take gun rights, Jefferson said many times in multiple newspapers that the 2nd should be overlooked and could be changed every 20 years based on the current times.”Please supply a reference to the above quote. Con did a search and found the “20 years” phrase in the following letter from Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, November 13, 1787 is the quoted sentence:“They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.” www.wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation)According to the footnote on monticello.org about the above quoted sentence states the following, “This sentence has possibly been misquoted as "every generation needs a new revolution.”I would advise Pro, in any debate, when quoting someone, please supply a reference! A quote followed by a reference establishes a link to an unchanging historical event. Such linkage “Conserves” continuity in an argument. According to the following statement in the Declaration of Independence, it would seem Jefferson was more Conservative than some liberal “20 years” cycle: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”Relative to the Second Amendment argument, the US Constitution has the prevision to change or remove the Second Amendment via the Amendment process. Our founding Fathers gave us that process, therefore, we have the infrastructure to make a Second Amendment change. Change not based on “multiple newspaper” articles, but the relationship the voting citizens have with their elected representatives, or at least, that is how it once was. Under today's progressive “living constitution,” it would seem the lobbyist, via crony-corporatism, have the final say. Pro went on to say, “Also you speak of the invisible government or 4th branch. I totally am for the destruction of these agencies and think there is no room for them anywhere anytime and the reason why liberals are not kicking and screaming is because our president is a democrat.” If Pro, and all the other progressives, “Conservatively” embrace the US Constitution, then there will be no “invisible government or 4th branch.” This “invisible government” is the result of the progressive liberal “living constitution,” the legacy of Woodrow Wilson's dynasty (the leading father of modern liberal progressivism). The US Constitution is close to perfection. Its focus was built around the Conservative working function of all life, via Jefferson's polished interpretation of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” no more, no less. Where the states had the freedom to experiment with their “invisible government,” while the people vote with their feet to embrace the best state on the evolution to utopia. To make this work, the US Constitution had checks and balances to discourage the powerbroker's greed, in DC, in the prevention of a centralized oligarch. But thanks to the progressive liberal “living constitution,” a centralized oligarch now plays music for the states to dance to. Con supports change in a Conservative way that moves slowly to test social feedback at the state level. At the federal level, laws and Amendments only happen through Congress, not the President, nor the Courts; that is the way the US Constitution was designed to work. Under the US Constitution, progressive freedom blossoms in 50 independent different states, rather than, from one tyrannical centralized oligarch, relative to some mastermind's perception of progressivism.