Posted on 11/09/2006 1:18:32 PM PST by Keltik
[Final two pharagraphs]
So in the nature of things conservatives and libertarians can conclude no friendly pact. Conservatives have no intention of compromising with socialists; but even such an alliance, ridiculous though it would be, is more nearly conceivable than the coalition of conservatives and libertarians. The socialists at least declare the existence of some sort of moral order; the libertarians are quite bottomless.
It is of high importance, indeed, that American conservatives dissociate themselves altogether from the little sour remnant called libertarians. In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging. It is not merely that cooperation with a tiny chirping sect would be valueless politically; more, such an association would tend to discredit the conservatives, giving aid and comfort to the collective adversaries of ordered freedom. When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis-but not until then. Meanwhile, I venture to predict, the more intelligent and conscientious persons within the libertarian remnant will tend to settle for politics as the art of the possible, so shifting into the conservative camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at emp.byui.edu ...
Libertarians can't stand making alliances with anyone who isn't ideologically pure.
Egalitarian happy talk about a classless society is fantastical. It only turns the elites into contortion artists denying their privileged place in society, thus discouraging them from exercising their privileges responsibly. See, for example, Paris Hilton.
As for convention, I forget precisely how it fit into Kirk's system and what he had in mind.
Not to read too much into your words about "aspects of a just society," but I do remember that Kirk's aim was for not merely a just society but also a good society, of which justice is but one part. Some conventions cannot be easily justified(heh) upon concerns for justice alone, though such conventions may foster the truly good life. They are basic for a healthy culture.
I brought up the oxymoron of "prudent ideology" earlier. I think the phrases "a just culture" or a "culture of justice" are similarly awkward and nonsensical.
Destroying cultural conventions in the name of justice can rob us as a society of those tiny shared things which bind us together. When it is no longer accepted practice for, say, a man to open a door for a woman, out of some concern for abstract equality, we have lost a small treasure we once held in common. Though these seem like marginal losses, recall that value is often created--or destroyed--on the margins.
Someone send this article to Neil Boortz.
My take on it is thus, we have evolved our form of government to stage 7. 40% of the population voting sure shows apathy. They're led to believe there is no difference between the parties (some criticism due) but when the dems pass nationalized health care and basic income guarantee the 'wagon pullers' will retire. I am planning mine now.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith.
From faith to great courage.
From courage to liberty.
From liberty to abundance.
From abundance to complacency.
From complacency to selfishness.
From selfishness to apathy.
From apathy to dependency.
And from dependency back again into bondage.
The were libertarian revolutionaries against an authoritarian government.
Under an authoritarian government, conservatives would be statists.
People didn't know that they had to travel from Point A to Point B, sometimes at high speed and/or with heavy cargoes?
In some cases, demand had to be stimulated by undermining what was previously a satisfactory status quo.
This is a standard ultra-left denunciation of Eeeeevil Corporations, and (especially in combination with the previous comment) drips with contempt for the intelligence of ordinary people.
Second, the spread of the automobile was enabled by massive government spending on highways and roads.(and probably oil subsidies too.)
To the extent that this is a problem, it is not a fault of the automobile per se, any more than (for example) agricultural subsidies are a fault of food per se.
In urban areas, living "organic" neighborhoods were bulldozed to pave the way for rootless commuters and interstate commerce.
This is another bit of contempt for the masses who obstinately refuse to live as you would prefer them to live.
What you don't understand is that a forced "moral order" is a false moral order. Your moral order splits hairs between alcohol and other mood altering drugs. It punishes some sexual impropriety (commercial sex), but leaves large swaths of sexual impropriety untouched (unmarried sex between consenting adults). You guys go for the low hanging fruit and claim moral victory. By splitting these hairs all over the place, you incorprate unjust laws into the criminal code (ie. one can get drunk every night at home and never be arrested vs. the mere possession of pot (not its usage) is punishable = unequal treatment before the law = injustice).
When you build injustice into the law, you create dis-order, as those that you seek to punish understand they are being punished unjustly. Many Chrisitans seem to have re-interpreted the saying of being your brothers keeper into being their jailers.
Hu-yuck!
Puerile in the extreme. Government exists to preserve citizen's rights. The real thing that angers conservatives against libertarians is their different definitions of crime. Libertarians limit it to theft in all its forms and violent criminal acts. The conservative definition of crime is "whatever we want it to be", so people's personal moral failings (aka vice) have been criminalized for some time with the support of conservatives. Conservatives no longer make the distinction personal vice and true criminality. In essence, conservatives have criminalized the human condition. I'm sure that is what Jesus would want.
When you compare the current political structure to an "original intent" construction, it gets to be arguable what's "conservative" and what's "reactionary".
You might have to count me among the reactionaries.
For the most part, I agree with you about the loss to society when we turn away from traditions that are the foundation of a culture. But I do believe there is a natural evolution or tendency towards non-fundamental change that is inevitable and healthy in a culture. If this were not the case, we'd still have slavery or women would still lack the right to vote. As for talk of a 'classless' society, I would agree with you that such a thing is neither possible nor even desirable, but class mobility is a necessity, in my opinion, in a society dependent on Natural Law and Judeo-Christian ethics. If I understand Kirk correctly, his view on Class was more along the lines that those lines were drawn more along hereditary lines...which is NOT what this country stands for.
"The Social Right can't stand making alliances with anyone who isn't ideologically pure.:
Wrong, as Liberaltarians usually are. There is no Social Right or Religious Right Party siphoning off votes in critical elections, throwing things to the Demonrat Socialist Party. Nice try. Ease up on your drugs so you can think straight.
Unlike Liberaltarians, conservative are not utopian idealists. They are realists who realize that alliances have to be made with distasteful people.
"The Founding Fathers were conservatives, not libertarians.
Therein lies a paradox that produces no end of misunderstanding and friction in these debates.
The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries. A conservative revolutionary is a blatant contradiction in terms."
The paradox is easily resolved, because the Founding Fathers were not revolutionaries in any conventional sense, like the French or Russian Revolutionaries. The only revolution theirs really resembles might be the English Glorious Revolution, which was also a limited and conservative one. The Founders wanted to restore and preserve the liberties which had been won through centuries of struggle by the English, which were threatened by the increasing centralization threatened by British imperialism. They were conservatives in that regard.
The colonies already had local representative government, religious liberty, and many other features which might have required revolution in other countries. Other things which are not desirable in a free society, such as slavery, were left untouched by the Founders. Their only "revolutionary" action was in throwing off the yolk of an imperial power which had left them to their own devices for much of their history, and was trying to tighten control in the late 18th century.
I might agree with that assessment if they had established another monarchy. You can say it wasn't a conventional revolution, and for that time you would be right. There was nothing "conventional" about it. It was a revolution unlike any in their recent history - even in that it was revolutionary for the time.
I don't get your point. The British monarchy had not exerted much control over the colonies. They had been left to develop self-government through an evolutionary process over a period of a century and a half. When the King and Parliament tried to tighten up and exert more control, the Americans revolted. Thus the "American Revolution" was conservative. It was not a case of a people who had been under a powerful absolute monarchy, as in France, suddenly overthrowing that system and trying to fabricating a new one from scratch, and tearing apart traditional all traditional authority, including that of the Church, as in France and Russia. Those were real "revolutions."
What do you expect when the GOP has become just as liberal as the Dims? The Libertarian Party was borne out of frustration of Nixon's wage and price controls. Ditto for the Conservative Party of New York State, when the Rockefellers took over the state GOP in the early 1970s.
And whenever Libertarians try to work within the GOP they get the shaft from the party bigwigs.
I'll bet 9 out of 10 Libertarians oppose legalizing the hard drugs such as meth or cocaine, and even marijuana shouldn't be legalized fully, just the penalties reduced.
If this is truly your yard-stick for what should or shouldn't be legal, then we should legalize murder since the policy against murder doesn't seem to be working.
Ah, the classic apples-and-oranges comparison. As Libertarians support the repeal of draconian drug laws they'll also demand that abusers pay for their own treatment instead of taxpayers. Which solution do you prefer, the kick-down-the-door failure of a WOD or letting Darwin work its magic?
If the Founders were "conservatives", how would you categorize those who chose to remain loyal subjects of the Crown?
Libertarians frown on drug usage but it's none of your business if people want to ruin their lives
pro abortion
pro secularization to the point of eliminating all mention of God in public
Wrong again
anti-standing army
Anti-UN globalism you mean
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.