Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.
I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.
Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at phibetacons.nationalreview.com ...
I’ve looked at it quite enough thank you. It’s illogical at best, confusing rights and duties. Nope, none of that for me. I much prefer Jefferson, as quoted above. And yes there is a difference between freedom and wisdom. The two are not always equivalent.
Well said penowa, well said.
It bears repeating..
"You seem to have "Conservatives" confused with Republicans. Conservatives have NEVER controlled either House of Congress in my lifetime."
Presumably you agree government should outlaw theft and murder -- despite the fact that they involve personal behavior, morals, and are in fact part of the ten commandments (and thus are "religious" laws).
If Libertarians are concerned that Republicans want to butt into areas that should be private, they should just wait until the Democrats nationalize health-care. Once the government is responsible for all medical expenses, they will start trying to control unhealthy behaviors in order to minimize those expenses.
Think about the seat belt argument. Seat belts should be required, so the argument goes, because an unbelted occupant is more likely to be injured or killed, which drives up the cost of the universally required insurance.
Apply that same argument to universal health care, and you have the justification for eliminating smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods, sloth, sexual promiscuity, and just about any other behavior you could name.
The disconnect between limited government and limited interference has been disrupted. However, the link between expansive government and government intrusion into the private sphere is as strong as it has always been.
Your example is in error because it moves from something limited to one’s self, to something owned by another. As to likely potential harm to another, that standard is way overbroad in my opinion. YMMV.
It’s illogical at best, confusing rights and duties.
__________________________________________________
How so?
“That’s libertarians for you - Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves”. (Kim Stanley Robinson)
I think you need to define your meaning of "morality" and "personal behavior" here. (ATB)
I think Andy has a point. I was referring to the attempt to control individual behavior that is properly part of the personal sphere. It does not include the obvious morality-based "you can't hurt, kill or rob anyone else" type laws.
Wow, as a Christian and a libertarian, (or what used to be a libertarian), I actually agree with you. Good post.
Behavioral consequences are largely theoretical to a person who has thus far been spared the necessity of having to deal with them. It is only with the cumulative experience of maintaining mature relationships, employment, raising children, and managing a household budget that the big light bulb tends to go on, illuminating truths hidden to many, if not most younger people.
Mm-hmm, right.
40-year old man, married 17 years to the same woman, raising three children, born-again Christian libertarian checking in.
Just in case you weren't aware that we exist. I find that libertarianism is the political philosophy most compatible with my Christian faith.
If you cant’ see it then I can’t explain it to you.
I'm sure you would qualify that with "as long is it harms nobody else." But define "harm." Some believe in zero-sum, where one's success takes away from another, and thus "harms" that person. And that's what libertarianism breaks down. Just what constitutes "harm" to others.
Once while discussing an upcoming election with a couple of friends who are completely liberal democrats, I commented that I was an independent and was planning on voting for a "third party" candidate.
Both became quite agitated and shouted that by voting for a third party candidate I was going to be helping the republican candidate..........
Now I hear from you that a vote for an independent candidate benefits the democrats...........
you can't both be right..............right?
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
_____________________________________
To be less challenging and more direct, engage the idea on its own terms. If we are slaves to sin then true freedom is exactly as John Paul stated it.
If you don't notice it, I guess you weren't "harmed".
If you cant’ see it then I can’t explain it to you.
_________________________________
Yes you can, see my other post. I’m not playing games. I just think you are not engaging the idea within Christian terms and understanding, which are the only terms which apply if the statement is to be understood.
Some people are wrong. These people in particular.
That is not to say "Republicans" are neccesarily the same thing as "conservatives" as evidenced by the pork barrel spending of the recent Republican congresses. You would be hard pressed, I fear, to find many on FR who appreciated that (paticularly any who would admit it).
What both sides in that discussion failed to realize is the culture war is not "over" precisely because the is as much a "market" in moral values as there is in computer chips. Moral codes are proposed by various faiths and foundations and adopted by different groups of adherents. In the long run, the winners are decided by free competition.
For this process to work as it should, we must be eternally vigilant against allowing any of these groups to use government to club the others into submission.
If Republicans want libertarian support, then they maybe ought to do things that libertarians like and Republicans like too. Maybe try reducing the size, budget, and regulatory reach of the federal government. Oh, I forgot, Republicans really don’t want to cut government. They just want to reward different folks than the Democrats do. Sorry. My bad.
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.