Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; misterrob; stephenjohnbanker; mkjessup; sickoflibs
SoCons are for limited government.

Translation: socons love Big Government, so long as it does things they like and they are in charge.

through their neglect, the social conditions to develop that would cause people to want bigger government.

Are you saying that more laws are the answer to all of our social ills? Because that's exactly what most "conservative" government programs are--more Government!

Oh, and by the way, use of the Federal government for purposes of social engineering is generally a "progressive" or an authoritarian goal, not a conservative one.

100 posted on 01/15/2010 10:39:52 AM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: rabscuttle385; misterrob; stephenjohnbanker; mkjessup; sickoflibs; ansel12
Translation: socons love Big Government, so long as it does things they like and they are in charge.

So tell us, exactly which "Big Government" programs do you think SoCons support, and provide the evidence for those of us here on FR who are SoCons that we, in fact, support these.

Are you saying that more laws are the answer to all of our social ills? Because that's exactly what most "conservative" government programs are--more Government!

Quite the opposite, in fact. It ought to be pretty apparent to anybody who's paid the least bit of attention to American history over the last century that the times when this country has leaned in a socially libertarian direction are subsequently followed by times when government expands enormously, often in response to the conditions created by the social libertarian atmosphere previously had.

In the 1920s, we saw a period of social liberalisation, what with the Flappers and opium bars and all, which generated the "need" for all kinds of big government nonsense like the start of the "War on Drugs" and so forth. Because people couldn't exercise self-control, the government stepped in and did it for them. The same thing in the late 1960s/early 1970s - social liberalism (which is essentially the heart of libertarian approaches to social issues) generally wrecked the mores of society, creating all kinds of problems - because people once again couldn't exercise self-control - that lead to the "need" for massive government intervention.

Social conservatism is more than just a laundry list of set-piece issues. If that's how you approach it, then it's no wonder you come off sounding like you haven't got a clue. Social conservatism is really just that - conservatism in the social realm. Conservatism, i.e. seeking to keep what works traditionally, with respect to matters of social changes and their impact on society.

In our society, being that it is a subset of the traditional Judeo-Christian Western civilisation, "conservatism" means maintaining the traditional moral system that generally helps to serve to keep people from harming others (i.e. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and which has been the primary motivator in encouraging all sorts of good things like thrift and hard work, respect for innocent life, respect for private property, and the rule of law.

It really isn't surprising to me that at those times when our society has swung towards the socially libertarian side of the pendulum, we have concurrently seen increases in crime, laziness and a desire for welfare, lawlessness, and increasingly capricious understanding of the value of human life, and governmental infringements on property rights. Libertarianism sets the "spirit of the times," and creates the conditions that end up being the seeds of its own destruction.

The converse point is that without the social libertarianism, there would not have been the conditions put into place that would cause people to "need" the big government interventions, etc. There wouldn't be the "need" for more and more prisons, for welfare, for drug laws, etc. etc. Libertarianism, because it wants the freedom and liberty, but eschews the necessary requirement of self-control, generates the very things it rails against.

Oh, and by the way, use of the Federal government for purposes of social engineering is generally a "progressive" or an authoritarian goal, not a conservative one.

So tell us - do you consider laws against abortion that protect innocent life to be "social engineering"? How about opposition to the radical social changes involved with gay "marriage"? Do you consider those to be social engineering?

114 posted on 01/15/2010 11:00:57 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Obama is proof that you can send a fool to college, but you can't make him think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson