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

Skip to comments.

Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries
David O. McKay Library, Brigham Young University ^ | 11-09-06 | Russell Kirk

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: antilibertarianism; conservatism; libertarianizethegop; principles; sourgrapes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last
To: Keltik
I can only conclude that Kirk has some sort of odd bug up his butt on this issue -- he's generally simply too smart to come up with notions so stupid.

Conservatives are on the same side as Nazis (who believe in the transcendent moral order of blood and soil) and Communists (who believe in the transcendent moral order of historical inevitability)? Nonsense.

41 posted on 11/09/2006 2:07:58 PM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
And frankly, this Libertarian is damn tired of being called names.

You...you...you ingenue!

42 posted on 11/09/2006 2:09:33 PM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

POST #16 LOLOLOL - YOU NAILED IT!!!


43 posted on 11/09/2006 2:10:38 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: microgood
The libertarian takes the state for the great oppressor. But the conservative finds that the state is ordained of God.

I don't think George Washington would have found those two ideas mutually exclusive. Yes, government is ordained of God, but yes, government is dangerous and should be limited and held accountable.

These were Republican ideas once.

44 posted on 11/09/2006 2:11:56 PM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kewlhand`tek
damn republicans are just looking for whipping boys because they couldnt get thier base out when truth is many liberatarians voted R including myself

Same here. I'm a small-L Libertarian, pro-life. I voted straight Rs (except for US Senate I voted for the conservative Independent, the Pubbie was a liberal anyway) even though Republicans don't deserve it.

Republicans lose elections because of Republicans. They're too scared to stand up to the Dims and MSM. That's precisely why they're called the Stupid Party. They have all the winning issues on their sides but would rather give campaign funds to RINOs like Chafee. Notice that most of the Dim winners ran on a moderate-conservative agenda. Conservatism still won last night, it's just that the Pubbies didn't.

45 posted on 11/09/2006 2:14:01 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Keltik
Conservatives have no intention of compromising with socialists;

Well they have done a pretty damn good job of it, for not intending to.

Record spending.
Record deficits.
Millions of new Federal Employees.
Large new federal agencies.
Giant entitlement programs.
Refusing to act on closing the border to maintain appearances of political correctness.

This sure looks like a giant, give-away-the-farm, compromise to me.

46 posted on 11/09/2006 2:17:26 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
The really funny thing is when they argue (either implicitly or openly) that the Republicans lose because the Libertarians had the effrontery to run a candidate.

Well, OK, let's stipulate that the Republicans would win more often if the Libertarians didn't run candidates. They would also win more often if the Democrats didn't run candidates, and to ask for the former is as absurd as to ask for the latter.

To paraphrase somebody or other, the Republicans' job is to win in the political climate they have, not the political climate they wish they had.

47 posted on 11/09/2006 2:18:44 PM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

As I said, sometimes they don't compromise with socialists. Sometimes, they just give the socialists everything they want.


48 posted on 11/09/2006 2:19:36 PM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Keltik
"A line of division exists between believers in some sort of transcendent moral order and utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct."

This is an interesting way to put it. Most if not all libertarians believe that people should be free to choose, but must bear the consequences of their choices. But libertarians and some conservatives have different views about how consequences should be assessed, and under what circumstances the consequences are likely to be most salient.

Suppose there's an individual who smokes a lot of dope and otherwise engages in a lot of unelevating behavior. As a consequence, he has an erratic employment record, is a poor tenant, and is otherwise a major burden on other members of society who are foolish enough to trust him.

In one kind of society, his unelevating behavior is directly punishable by law via, say, a "War on Drugs." The resources of the state are brought to bear to try to prevent our malingerer from getting access to the raw material for his socially costly behavior. In the other, he is free to get his, um, medicine from anyone who is willing to sell it to him. But his fellow citizens are perfectly free to refuse to associate with him for any reason, unencumbered by anti-discrimination laws, fair-housing laws, or any other sorts of laws that limit how they may hire or rent. They can make him take a drug test on a weekly basis if they are so inclined; they can refuse to give him the time of day when he applies for a job or to rent an apartment simply because they don't like the way he looks.

In which society are the consequences, transcendent or otherwise, for the conduct of which all conservatives and many, maybe most libertarians certainly disapprove likely to be greater?

49 posted on 11/09/2006 2:22:00 PM PST by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Keltik; steve-b

So in answer to Steve's entirely cogent point, you post . . . wait for it . . . a quotation from the guy who wrote the article that's engendering this discussion, a quotation that has zero to do with the point Steve did actually make.

Makes perfect sense.

Mr. Kirk's writing has the gamey smell of someone who's paid by the syllable.


50 posted on 11/09/2006 2:23:12 PM PST by Xenalyte (Viva Espa?a!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Keltik

russel kirk? any relation to Jim?


51 posted on 11/09/2006 2:25:18 PM PST by Ceebass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keltik

I don't know what's more frightening about this thread -- that a very vocal minority (majority?!) of so-called "conservatives" seems to be rejecting the need for moral order, or that virtually none of the responders know who Russell Kirk was.


52 posted on 11/09/2006 2:26:57 PM PST by Keltik ("The goal should not be diversity -- the goal must be Quality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
And Bush is already compromising some more with the Pelosi-led Democrats.

There's going to be an add-on to the Medicare Rx boondoggle

Amnesty for all illegals here

Higher minimum-wage

Weaker foreign policy (i.e. more subservience to the UN)

The good news is that this election purged some of the RINOs and wanna-be presidential chumps out of the picture.

53 posted on 11/09/2006 2:31:25 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Keltik

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but I suspect that most of the folks responding to you know perfectly well who Russell Kirk is, and would demonstrate as much if they were responding to a worthy debate opponent rather than amusing themselves with a troll.


54 posted on 11/09/2006 2:32:49 PM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Keltik
"Libertarianism is an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating...

A line of division exists between believers in some sort of transcendent moral order and utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct."

-- Russell Kirk


Yeah, keep drinking the kool-aid. Use to think that the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party was the exclusive holder of the march-in-ideological-lockstep-with-us-or-we'll-get-hysterical-and-try-to-shame-you franchise. Around here however it looks like the are opening a branch on the other end of the aisle.
55 posted on 11/09/2006 2:33:13 PM PST by Buzwardo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keltik
virtually none of the responders know who Russell Kirk was.

Yeah, he's the guy who claimed that the Neo-Cons are controlled by the Joooooooos.

56 posted on 11/09/2006 2:33:52 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Keltik

No one who understands anything about human nature could possibly believe in either Socialism or Libertarianism. Each is equally laughable.


57 posted on 11/09/2006 2:34:07 PM PST by Thom Pain (8/14/2006 Israel made a HUGH mistake! On Nov 7th we did worse!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Great responses, everyone. This thread should be the nail in the coffin for the GOPers desperately blaming the Libertarians for their shortcomings.


58 posted on 11/09/2006 2:34:50 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Keltik

It's so frightening, you're reduced to talking to yourself.

(But please don't let that stop you from enlightening us intellectual Philistines. I'm eager to hear how my no-power party somehow had enough power to toss an election.)


59 posted on 11/09/2006 2:37:16 PM PST by Xenalyte (Viva Espa?a!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
then wondering why we don't want to hang with y'all.

I know why I don't typically hang with Libertarians, and I don't wonder why they don't want to hang with me. They hold too strongly to beliefs I disagree with too strongly. (The legalization of drugs comes to mind.)

60 posted on 11/09/2006 2:37:42 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last

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.

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