Yawn.
Posted on 03/04/2005 5:12:44 AM PST by kjvail
Just what the Left wants, I guess you are just right on that. It's why the Left encourages irresponsible behavior and why they say nothing is anybody's fault. At least if you are irresponsible, they say it's not your fault - if you are trying to uphold American tradition, everything is your fault.
Responsibility needs to be taught. Without it, a libertarian society will not succeed.
I forget who said what about all this, but the synopsis is this:
a representative republic will not succeed where the society does not have strong moral fabric.
I think it was Madison or one of those guys.
Why should you need to do anything about 'sneaky folk'? If they're breaking a law, you arrest and prosecute. If not, go about your business and ignore them.
Sixgun justice is no justice at all. Human beings established the state because they did not wish to live under feud, vendetta, warlord anarchy, or the bullying of the mobbed up. Adults established the state because there is no worse tyranny than that of a teenage boy with a gun in a lawless world.
With thinking like yours, no wonder libertarianism is and will always be a common sense-deficient fringe.
Yawn.
What was your screen name before you got booted last time?
In order to restore social and moral norms, we are going to need something a lot stronger than the Patriot Act.
I for one would be against it. Give me a party that (unlike some republicans) stays OUT of my personal business and a party that (unlike the democrats) stay OUT of my wallet and I'd vote for them.
Don't even mention the losertarians, that party has some good ideas but no party that refuses to protect our borders deserves anyones' vote. At least not from a legal citizen.
As I explained above, in olden time when a man got a girl in trouble he either married her or was disgraced or answered to the swords of her kinsmen. Now he has to pay child support because we no longer have shotgun weddings.
Ahh, now I know what is driving your thinking. You are so afraid of guns that you refuse to consider the role of self-defense in maintaining an orderly, peaceful society.
Self-defense is not "sixgun justice". It is an inalienable human right. I am not and never have proposed the lawless society you fear, nor would I favor such a society. Anyone who pursued vigilante justice would be punished for crimes they committed.
You need to educate yourself in the values that founded this great nation of ours. They can work and they do work.
Tyranny - social or governmental - is NOT a requirement of human society.
But all of this said, I think that Pat has at least said what the writer is saying; that what is being peddled in Washington, today, as Conservatism, most certainly is not.
The writer, on the other hand, is entirely right in pointing out that true American Conservatism is very Libertarian. He would do better, I think, not to call it "radical," however, as that is a big turn off. And there is nothing radical in demanding that we return to the wise Republic of the Founding Fathers--who provided us with the only legal basis for a Federal Government. It is not radical to demand that our elected leaders observe their oaths of office, for a prime example. As for Medicare? It is not radical to demand that they end a program that is neither Constitutional, nor economically sustainable. The radicals are those who insist on increasing the ambit.
Finally, I would suggest that the writer would not find any of the destructive, Statist false "Conservatism," at my Conservative web site. Some of us have not compromised and never intend to.
All that said, thank you for publishing a challenging article.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
No moral fiber?
Eat rye bread
So what's the bar to requiring a man to support a child he fathers? Why do we need the entire apparatus of a big government/society to make such a simple rule?
Without civilized behavior, the citizenry becomes a bread and circuses mob. And Caesars come from there.
Do you have a clue how hard it is even with big government to enforce child support rulings ? There is nothing in the least simple about it !
As I asked, what's the bar to it? Why does requiring a person to support his/her children also require government education and mohair subsidies?
Putting government in charge of civilization is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.
And civilization is safer with MTV in charge ?
Only a society structured around deferred gratification, respect for authority, rigid social conventions, etc could render big government unnecessary. And the logic of capitalism is to create a Viacom which tells our daughters to dress like Britney Spears.
The sexual revolution was pure consumer capitalism. Always looking for the better deal. Trading in your old model for a flashy new status symbol. Moving up. Trading up. Sex is just business. Nothing personal. No hard feelings. Didn't "trade" become a euphemism for sex ?
So the very logic of consumer capitalism is to destroy the values that would make a libertarian society possible.
Of course they are. However, please provide the names of some actual conservatives that hold office and do not adhere to the principles of the New Deal or countless other social programs.
Conservatism in the US today bears zero resemblance to what the article alleges is conservative.
Of course it doesn't because what passes for conservatism today in this nation of states is not conservative
I suppose that cognitive dissonance must have cognitive before dissonance can take place. I don't detect much of the cognitive factor in this piece.
What was your old screen name?
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.