Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Each abridgement of liberty has been used to justify further ones. Scholars of political systems have noted this repeatedly. The lesson is not lost on those whose agenda is total power. They perpetually strain to wedge the camel's nose into the tent, and not for the nose's sake.
Many a fine person will concede to you that "liberty is all very well in theory," follow that up with "but," and go on from there to tabulate aspects of life that, in his opinion, the voluntary actions of responsible persons interacting in freedom could never cope with. Oftentimes, free men and free markets have coped with his objections in the recent past, whether he knows it or not. You could point this out to him, provide references and footnotes, and still not overcome his resistance, for it does not depend on the specifics he cited.
His reluctance to embrace freedom is frequently based on fear, the power-monger's best friend.
Fantasist Robert Anton Wilson has written: "The State is based on threat." And so it is. After all, the State, no matter how structured, is a parasitic creature. It seizes our wealth and constrains our freedom, gives vague promises of performance in return, and then as often as not fails to deliver. No self-respecting people would tolerate such an institution if it did not regard the alternatives as worse.
The alternatives are seldom discussed in objective, unemotional terms. Sometimes they are worse, by my assessment, but why should you accept my word for it?
Let it be. The typical American, when he opts for State action over freedom, isn't acting on reasoned conviction, but on fear of a negative result. Sometimes the fear, which is frequently backed by a visceral revulsion, is so strong that no amount of counterevidence can dissolve it, including the abject failure of State action.
We've had a number of recent examples of this. To name only two prominent ones:
In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.
Fear, like pain, can be useful. When it engenders caution, it can prolong life and preserve health. Conservatives in particular appreciate the value of caution. The conservative mindset is innately opposed to radical, destabilizing change, and history has proved such opposition to be wise.
However, a fear that nothing can dispel is a pure detriment to him who suffers it.
Generally, the antidote to fear is knowledge: logically sound arguments grounded in unshakable postulates and well buttressed by practical experience. Once one knows what brings a particular undesirable condition about, one has a chance of changing or averting it. The great challenge is to overcome fears so intense that they preclude a rational examination of the thing feared.
Where mainstream conservatives and libertarians part company is along the disjunction of their fears. The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably. Areas where such a fear applies include drug use, abortion, international trade, immigration, cultural matters, sexual behavior, and public deportment. The libertarian tends to fear the consequences of State involvement more greatly. He argues to the conservative that non-coercive ways of curbing the things he dislikes, ways that are free of statist hazards, should be investigated first, before turning to the police.
I call myself a libertarian, but I can't discount conservative fears in all cases -- especially where the libertarian approach to some social ill involves a major change to established ways. Radical transformations of society don't have a rosy history.
Yet conservatives, too, could be more realistic, and could show more confidence in the ideals they strive to defend. As Thomas Sowell has written in discussing the War On Drugs, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it."
The past two decades, starting roughly with Ronald Reagan's ascent to national prominence, have laid the foundations for an enduring coalition between freedom-oriented libertarian thinkers and virtue-and-stability-oriented conservative thinkers. Each side needs to learn greater confidence in the other, if we are to establish the serious exchange of ideas and reservations, free of invective and dismissive rhetoric, as an ongoing process. Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree.
Hell Tpaine I doubt you ever gave your own mother a kind word.
Irony thy face is Tpaine. LOL
I am NOT a " RINO ". I am also NOT a " neocon "; which you have called me in the past. I am NOT a CINO ( Conservative in name only ); however, YOU are.
As to Jim 's new group,which you now keep touting : 1) it has NO name recognition, outside of this forum and not all that much here ! 2) it has absolutely NO track record ( because it's new ), so claiming any sort of power for it, is absurd . 3) since Jim Robinso has repeatedly come onto this , his very own forum, and claimed that he is supporting President Bush, as well as other GOP candidayes and is working to insure that the president has the majority in both Houses, one can infer , from these statements, of his, as well as from many others, that the constant Bushbashing and the continually nasty trashing of " regular " GOP supporters, by the fringers, are things which you are now purposefully leaving out of the equation., because it doesn't suit your agenda.
The rest of your juvenile and delusional little tirade, is beneath contempt, spurious libel, and doesn't deserve to be answered. So, why did I ? Because lurkers, who don't know any better, need to be told the truth. As for you ? You deserve to be ignored; nothing more. :-)
Exactly. It needs more exposure, thats why I'm 'touting' it. - You're helping here, - so thanks!
2) it has absolutely NO track record ( because it's new ), so claiming any sort of power for it, is absurd.
Wrong. -- The RLC has been part of the Republican Party for 10 years or so, maybe more. In any case, who claimed power? - You're just being absurd.
3) since Jim Robinson has repeatedly come onto this , his very own forum, and claimed that he is supporting President Bush, as well as other GOP candidayes and is working to insure that the president has the majority in both Houses, one can infer , from these statements, of his, as well as from many others, that the constant Bushbashing and the continually nasty trashing of " regular " GOP supporters, by the fringers, are things which you are now purposefully leaving out of the equation., because it doesn't suit your agenda.
My 'agenda' is getting government to obey the constitution. -- The RLC could help that happen. -- Your tired old 'politics as usual' stance is STOPPING that from happening, imo. -- I suspect JR may be coming around to that type of conclusion himself, thus, his support of the RLC and a new forum. You don't like it? -- Tell it to JR.
The federal government routinely violates the 2nd amendment which says that the government cannot regulate private firearm ownership (obviously doesn't apply to people in jail/prison). The federal government routinely violates the first amendment with its passage of copyright legislation that restricts academic publishing rights (even though the first amendment, having been passed after the copyright clause is supreme over the IP clause in the Constitution). Get real, the US Government routinely violates the Constitution. That doesn't mean that it is acceptable.
Willful ignorance is the bread and butter of Libertarianism.
TOP "TEN" CONSERVATIVE LIST based on 2001 Conservative Index scores published in The New American magazine:
US House
1. Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) 95%
2. Rep. Paul (R-TX) (former Libertarian) 92%
3. Rep. Schaefer (R-CO) 90%
4. Rep. Hostettler (R-IN) 88%
5. Rep. Royce (R-CA) 84%
6. Rep. Rohrbacher (R-CA) 83%
7. Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) 81%
8. Rep. Duncan (R-TN) 79%
9. Rep. Barr (R-GA) Rep. Goode (R-VA) (former Democrat) Rep. Pombo (R-CA) all tied for 9th place with a 78% conservative rating.
US Senate
1. Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) 74%
2. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) 72%
3. Sen. Robert Smith (R-NH), Sen. James Inhofe & Sen Voinovich (R-OH) 70%
4. Sen. Strom Thurmond 69% (former Democrat)
5. Sen Phil Gramm (R-TX), Sen. Campbell (R-CO) (both former Democrats) & Sen. Frank Murkowski at 67%
6. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) & Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) at 65%
To provide context, as a general rule conservatives are anyone that has a Conservative Index score around 65% or better. Moderate conservatives fall into the 50-65% range, moderates in the 40s and liberals in the 30s and below so the listing of conservative Senators above is fairly comprehensive while the more numerous House of Reps scores above omits many good conservatives of which there tend to be around 35-40, in this case all of whom are probably Republicans.
Ron Paul almost always scores as the top conservative followed by Dana Rohrabacher and Bob Barr in the House. In the Senate, Bob Smith (a personal hero of mine) usually scores as the top conservative and Don Nickles who is running against Trent Lott for Senate Minority Leader usually scores in the top ten. The Senate conservative numbers were unusually low presumably due to the fact that the GOP supported more liberal "bipartisan" legislation than normal. The other surprising thing is the fact that Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) scored #1 conservative in the house besting even traditional conservative champion, Ron Paul. If I am correct in assuming that this is the same Rep. Tancredo that has been leading the charge against Bush on Bush's indefensible support of open-borders immigration, then we have got a new veritable conservative hero/icon on our hands in the House of Reps!!
39 posted on 4/26/02 2:30 PM Pacific by rightwing2
SOURCE
Bircher bunk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.