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 ...
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.
You...you...you ingenue!
POST #16 LOLOLOL - YOU NAILED IT!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I said, sometimes they don't compromise with socialists. Sometimes, they just give the socialists everything they want.
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?
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.
russel kirk? any relation to Jim?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, he's the guy who claimed that the Neo-Cons are controlled by the Joooooooos.
No one who understands anything about human nature could possibly believe in either Socialism or Libertarianism. Each is equally laughable.
Great responses, everyone. This thread should be the nail in the coffin for the GOPers desperately blaming the Libertarians for their shortcomings.
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.)
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.)
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.