What a poorly-researched piece. Socialism and conservatism are highly opposed to one another; of course a "socialist conservativism" or some similar such nonsense is incoherent. That's why it's at best a fringe.
Conservatism in the US today bears zero resemblance to what the article alleges is conservative.
That's ridiculous.
The author sure spent a lot of time trying to define the undefinable. Conservative is a broad term.
Yup. Sounds mostly right. I guess that makes me some type of archaiocon. ;^)
Doh, no wonder, this guy is is to libertarian as Pat Buchanan is to conservative. In other words, fringe and of questionable sanity.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/
So many words; so little coherence.
"true conservatives can only be radical libertarians"
__________________________________________
If these clowns had their way, The Soviet Empire would be the dominant power in the world today
bump
We have a Bingo!!
Dear kjvail,
Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
Can't say I agree with it all, but it's from an interesting perspective.
And it seems to come out pretty close to my own views of Buchananism.
Are you going to ping the Crown Crew?
sitetest
bump
What a windbag.
Anyone who can put "rogue states" and "global terrorism" in quotation marks to imply that they are constructs of the conservative imagination is completely denying reality.
It is so typical of anti-war types to simply ignore our right and obligation to have felt FEAR on that day, and proceed to defend ourselves.
There is no recognition that the natural order in education means that the state has nothing to do with it. Education is entirely a family matter and ought to be produced and distributed in cooperative arrangements within the framework of the market economy.
It's a confident claim, but one which would be difficult to substantiate. Since modern humans appeared, the social group has almost always been larger than the isolated, single family, and the social group has always had an interest in educating its young members in the ways of the group. The author is either wrong about what the 'natural order' is with respect to education, or else is using the words 'natural order' in an idiosyncratic way.
The compulsory old age insurance system in particular, by which retirees (the old) are subsidized from taxes imposed on current income earners (the young), has systematically weakened the natural intergenerational bond between parents, grandparents, and children. The old need no longer rely on the assistance of their children if they have made no provision for their own old age; and the young (with typically less accumulated wealth) must support the old (with typically more accumulated wealth) rather than the other way around, as is typical within families.
Consequently, not only do people want to have fewer children—and indeed, birthrates have fallen in half since the onset of modern social security (welfare) policies—but also the respect which the young traditionally accorded to their elders is diminished, and all indicators of family disintegration and malfunctioning, such as rates of divorce, illegitimacy, child abuse, parent abuse, spouse abuse, single parenting, singledom, alternative lifestyles, and abortion, have increased.
Nails it.
BRILLIANT, SIMPLY BRILLIANT!!
He doesn't like Buchanan.
He lambasts Buchanan, almost, from the get go.
Can't say as I blame him but he spends an awful lot of time on a man that conservatives have already turned from.
He doesn't like the, "Leviathan state".
Well, that's good. Some government is needed but as the saying goes, "That which governs least governs best".
He's a libertarian.
That's not all bad, as long as it's a small 'l' and not a large 'L' libertarian.
I would put myself into a conservative, small 'l' libertarian category.
As for having to become a radical to be a conservative.....
To change, almost, anything in the govt nowadays you have to be somewhat of a radical.
Just don't take it too far.
Loss of authority = non-caring parents = disrespect
Sexual libertinism = social disintegration = illegitimacy
Social nationalism = entitlements = government control
Liberalism = talk the talk = “the people’s rights” = litigate = then sit down
Conservatism = duty = responsibility = non government control
Through Political Correctness all truth is censored and history is re-written; this breeds moral and cultural decline and degeneration. Tinkering with the Republic’s duty, the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence is the work of the Socialist; maintaining the Republic and all it stands for is the work of the Conservative; the latter does the heavy lifting to keep our nation free from other ideologues who don’t want the responsibility of maintaining a Republic...Duty, Honor, Country.
Loss of authority = non-caring parents = disrespect
Sexual libertinism = social disintegration = illegitimacy
Social nationalism = entitlements = government control
Liberalism = talk the talk = “the people’s rights” = litigate = then sit down
Conservatism = duty = responsibility = non government control
Through Political Correctness all truth is censored and history is re-written; this breeds moral and cultural decline and degeneration. Tinkering with the Republic’s duty, the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence is the work of the Socialist; maintaining the Republic and all it stands for is the work of the Conservative; the latter does the heavy lifting to keep our nation free from other ideologues who don’t want the responsibility of maintaining a Republic...Duty, Honor, Country.
Why do I somehow not trust a piece written about "correct" socialist conservatism written by a German? Didn't they try that once? Oh yeah.... back in the forties.....