Posted on 03/04/2005 5:12:44 AM PST by kjvail
Why ?
Because human nature is not basically good. Because Hobbes had it basically right.
You have an absurd and ahistorical hypothesis. That you can have a 1900 state with a 2005 society.
Let's take an obvious example. Family law. In a society where children were seen and not heard were there child abuse laws ? In a society where "What God hath joined together let no man tear asunder" held sway what need was there for pre-nups or community property or no-fault etc ? In a society where a man who got a woman "in trouble" was expected to "do the right thing" or be ostracized what need was there for child support hearings or DNA tests or palimony hearings, etc ? As cultural norms get weaker the law and the state must get stronger because society has a permanent interest in protecting women and children.
You're not demanding freedom, you're demanding perfection. You can't be satisfied, and anyone who would try to satisfy you is wasting their time. Ping me when you have some realistic expectations of a society you would consider worthy of your participation.
You are not saying anything of any intelligence.
I know the libertarian thinks you can have a 1900 state in a 2005 society. That is ridiculous.
I somehow think that you do not like what he is saying, the gist of his message rubs you the wrong way, and you cannot respond. Therefore you are deliberatly distorting what he says, then call it absurd.
As an observer, I think the points clearly go to the Sham.
Grownups recognize that in the real world there are trade offs.
Big Government vs Big Society.
You're hardly a disinterested observer. And considering you too can't demonstrate any rationale for his assertions, I would say that you are essentially asserting your religious beliefs.
I now know why you can't debate.
You are a product of the fedgov schools and you can only communicate with "picture graphs". Complex thoughts and abstract discussions are beyond you so you resort to high-school Potty talk.
cya
Again you present a choice between two extremes and fail to even address the possibility of anything in between. The founders of this nation, thankfully, were not subject to such tunnel vision.
I have no interest in debating you. My patience quota for the week has been exhasted. That's what happens when you don't suffer fools gladly.
But I sense it is your assertion that you can have a 1900 state with 1977 San Francisco cultural values. And that seems to be what libertarians believe. That is absurd and ahistorical.
The state does as society asks. The state does what society cannot. Strong society = weak state. Weak society = strong state.
I might be able to see the difference if anyone were able to provide a rationale for it. Given the number of times I have asked for one, and the total absence of an explanation, Ockham's Razor leads me to believe that there isn't any.
Really, what's to stop a libertarian society from existing in the absence of a stifling social order? Why are not the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution not sufficient? Or do you consider those values to constitute a stifling social order?
Your patience is gone because you can't suffer yourself gladly?
Another strawman. Your specialty, I see. Where did I make any reference to 1977 San Francisco? Oh, I didn't. You just made it up because you must distort my point of view in order to mask the weaknesses of your own.
Maybe I not understanding what you want.
A rational?
Do we start with why humans socialized in the first place and then move forward through time and history? Or can we assume a starting point somewhere along the way?
The author makes a big deal of confronting moral degeneracy, and assumes that ending the welfare state will accomplish this. This may be true to a degree, as the welfare state is sort of a 'no questions asked' subsidy for the destructive activity which often characterizes the dependents. Private charity is more likely to demand certain behavioral standards for its benefits.
There is a conundrum of conservatism, which is that economic liberty tends to degrade the culture. There is a strong profit motive for titillation, cheap thrills,'pushing the envelope', and a destructive aesthetic of 'cool' over quality. Not to mention the profit motive for exploitation, cheating, etc.
The ultimate check on this is a moral code and self-restraint of individuals in the face of perverse incentives. A cultural environment which discourages bad behavior can also serve this end, but it's somewhat at odds with the 'live and let live' ethos of libertarianism.
Ultimately, I don't think this libertarian offers a compelling answer to the cultural rot that seems to be his primary concern.
The values of the constitution are indeed sufficient if everyone agrees to honor them.
Trouble is, not everyone is created equal.
Libertarians tend to think that everyone else is as self sufficient as you.
That is not true. And therein lies the beginning of the end of minimalist government.
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.