This quote -- taken from an article recently posted on the Human Events website -- sums it up perfectly (the emphasis is my own):
Giuliani understood the link between allowing people to urinate on the streets with impunity and New York City’s overall decline. Outside New York, on the Republican campaign trail, he is sure to meet many voters who understand that his positions on abortion and marriage do to our national culture exactly what the street people and pub crawlers did to New York.
"Boortz has a valid point, but in his libertarian approach he overlooks a very salient, important point -- one that is the driving force behind much of the "social conservative" agenda in this country. "
Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.
Put it on the local ballots and let the people decide. We want less government yet we are trying to impose our social agenda on the courts. Gee, the left does the same thing and we condemn them for it.
If Social Conservatives insist on nation-wide laws that govern these issues they will continue to drive small (l) libertarians out of the party.
I believe we should be able to join under the banner of "strict constructionism"...solidly constituional judges...that put these issues back to the states. We also share the desire to beat the jihadis...and close the border. To a lesser degree we share the desire to reduce the overall size of the federal governement...and "fair" trade.
If we cannot agree to form a coalition around these basics we don't belong in the same party and should formally split.
BTTT
Great quote.
And you're right. It points up a hopelessly opaque blind spot in the libertarian perspective. For some inexplicable reason libertarians think that these "personal choices" have no effect whatsoever on anyone but the people who make them.
But in truth they undermine and destroy the very foundation of the house (this nation) that we all live in. Social liberalism is a destructive and deadly corrosive, far more destructive and deadly over the long term than even fiscal liberalism--which is vile enough.
If most people still subscribed and conformed their behaviors to conservative moral principles (a benefit of conservative religious belief), libertarianism might work.
But in this post-modern world where many have repudiated conservative moral principles there is no counter-corrosive to keep the foundation from crumbling. The destruction on a small scale leads to destruction on a broader scale, and we find ourselves living in a hellish society trending to implode and collapse upon itself in a chaotic heap of social libertarian anarchy and fiscal welfare state extravagence.
Correct: Rudy was part of the culture of death - and you don't have to be RELIGIOUS to believe this. I was very disappointed by his support of partial birth abortion, a heinous act done to a preborn baby. I also believe that he became a pro abort to placate the libs in New York City, which shows he did not have core beliefs on the subject.
his position on 'marriage' is plain enough looking at his own history of faith in the covenant of marriage.
I'm not buying Manhattan brand conservatism even if Neil is pushing it.
Rudy's not a libertarian either. No libertarian has the views on guns that Rudy does.