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 ...
The first step is recognizing that there is a personal sphere.
No, I said I can’t. And I mean it.
Considering that I don't know which statement of Giuliani's you are referring to, it would be hard for me to answer that.
However, my basic point is essentially the application of the adage that libertarians themselves say, but which they don't put into practice, about being free to do what we want, unless it brings harm to another. I see no contradiction between liberty on the one hand, and restraining people from harming others (i.e. infringing THEIR liberties) on the other. In fact, if we DON'T do so, then we find that we all have less liberty, because some unretrained individuals will always go around bringing harm to others so as to better themselves, which limits the freedom of those whom they harm.
And that's where the part about the stability of the commonwealth as a whole comes into play. Locke and other classical liberal philosophers understood that the commonwealth - the association of individuals together into a mutually consenting (originally at least) association with laws and government - was entered into so as to prevent the excesses and infringements of liberty inherent in the hypothetical state of nature (which we can equate in our terms today with anarchy). We all give up some absolute freedom of action, so as to mutually protect the larger bulk of our liberties. I am no longer free to kill people I don't like, to drive drunk, or to burn down my neighbour's house because he made me mad. Because I live in a commonwealth governed by laws, I have to give up my absolute freedom of action to do those things, even if I want to, otherwise I can be forcibly restrained from doing so, or punished if I go ahead and do them anywise. If this doesn't happen, respect for the laws will break down as other members likewise fall back into the "state of nature" to protect themselves from those who can't abide the laws. In other words, "society itself has a vested interest in preventing individuals from acting in a way which harms other individual members of society, and the stability of our commonwealth as a whole."
And although I have libertarian leanings, I understand that there are limits to freedom.
That seems to be more than most libertarians will be willing to concede. Many libertarians, I believe, seek to return us right back to the "state of nature".
I just do not see where the modern conservative is with regard to liberty. There seem to be no practical limits to government intrusion for conservatives, that everything they disagree with somehow harms someone else; and in that sense conservatives and liberals have merged, and just differ in what will be coerced.
I don't buy this argument. Conservatives generally oppose those things which have been shown to bring actual harm to others. The big argument yesterday was about porn - the harm it brings is that its use, especially the hard-core, violent, sado-masochistic, etc. types, increases the likelihood that some members of our society will act on their impulses due to their addiction, and will be more prone to rape and sexual abuse of children. This is not a theoretical argument, but one supported by decades of scientific study. Several libertarian types yesterday tried to poo-poo it, but they never were able to actually deal with the FACTS of the matter. This example is not conservatives trying to find some nebulous way to imagine that what "they disagree with somehow harms someone else", it is based on solid scientific study about the way the use of porn affects our society. Raped women and murdered children are not a trumped up excuse, they are a reality.
One critique I'd have of libertarians is that they tend to be very dense when it comes to the recognition that our behaviour has consequences which affect other people. They can understand the most overt examples - if I burn down my neighbour's house, then he's homeless and I've infringed his property rights. If I punch my neighbour in the face, this is a bad thing, and obviously has brought harm to him. Libertarians can see examples like that. Yet, they routinely wish to ignore the evidences that their preferred pet activities - drugs, porn, etc. - can also have a negative effect not only on the user, but on others as well.
Sorry, but accusing conservatives of trying to find nebulous reasons to regulate the personal lives of others is not an adequate criticism of social conservatism. Generally, social conservatives seek to regulate or ban activities which bring actual harm to individual members of society, or to our society of individuals as a whole. To use abortion as an example, conservatives believe that unborn children are living human beings, and therefore their termination is murder (i.e. violation of their right to life). It's not "nanny-statism" to oppose abortion, it's a POSITIVE PROTECTION of the right to life (affirmed in our very own Declaration of Independence, remember) of individuals who we don't see as any less members of society, just because they're not outside a womb yet. Being born involves a change of location, not a change in status of personhood.
Which leaves anyone who believes in at least some liberty out in the cold. I do not believe those who sacrificed everything for our freedom would give quarter to either liberals or conservatives in their current form.
Sory, but the Founders were not libertarians, no matter how hard libertarians try to claim them. Our Founders understood that liberty required personal responsibility. Adams even said that our Constitution wouldn't work for any other than a moral and religious people. He wasn't just engaging in "religious triumphalism" there, he was making the argument that unless people voluntarily control their opwn behaviour, they will bring themselves to a point where an outside force (i.e. government) will have to step in to do it for them. True, we wouldn't NEED laws against any number of vices and ills, if people could exhibit the temperance to refrain from those activities which harm others. We have the laws, because the SELF-restraint isn't there. And THAT is where the Founders stood. The Founders wouldn't have any truck with many so-called conservatives today who support government spending and social programmes (i.e. "compassionate conservatism"). But I really, really do not think that the Founders would have had any problem whatsoever with opposing gay marriage, abortion, drugs, or unrestricted pornography.
There must be something we can do... other than just sitting on the fence waiting for a "miracle?"
Ok, you get my point. BTW, I'm not trying to convince you... I know better. It's your post that gives me a chances to expose my point to other social conservatives.
My definition of libertarian (I consider myself one) is that the legitimate role of government in society is to mediate between the conflicting rights of individuals.
“Social Conservatism” seems to view governments role is to act as a vehicle to achieve some supposed “greater good” for society. Unfortunately that’s the exact same view that is held by Liberals (and Communists and Socialists). The only difference between the two is the exact definition of what constitutes the “greater good”. While that distinction may be inmportant, many libertarians view it as a distinction without a difference.
We don’t believe that anyone should be afforded the power to determine what the “greater good” is for another individual. While that may lead to many individuals making poor choices.... in general it is (or at least should be) those individuals who suffer most from those poor choices. The alternative is a system with the potential for far greater harm.....because when the power charged with making the determination of the “greater good” makes a poor choice (or more likely makes a choice that is only GOOD for them) EVERYONE suffers from it.... regardless of what decisions they might personaly have wished to make.
Libertarianism, therefore, does not concern itself with what is “good” or “bad”. It simply concerns itself with determining where one persons rights end and another begins. The determination of “good” or “bad” is left upto individuals.... as are the consequences of that determination.
That’s my take anways. Note, that is the philosophy of libertarianism. It is a philosophy that I generaly support... but in practice things are alot messier...and if you are a rationale individual you have to make some compromises to make things actualy work..... but in that regard it is no different then any other philosophy.... the real world being a messy place and all.
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.
_____________________________________________
I doubt you could find even 10 FReepers that would disagree with you.
_____________________________________________
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.
______________________________________________
I agree and disagree. If libertarians had the votes they would face the problem of the corruption of power also from their elected officials (think vice industries wouldn’t offer some incentives for the libertarians to go too far on freedoms related to the vices?). That said, we (the base) agree on the basic idea that the government should be smaller. It’s the party professionals that don’t agree. We need to get involved in primaries and stop taking whatever the party offers us in the general election.
Agreed, but ultimately the government is the arbiter of what constitutes harm.
Look at the Michael Vick case. You actually have some people suggesting that since dog fighting is a part of the culture of people like Vick, who are we to judge? They are somehow suggesting that in their "culture" no harm is being done. And that government has no business in judging that.
But of course we as a society have decided that indeed harm is being done. But why? What are we basing that on? Where does the morality code that says what Michael Vick is doing is wrong come from? It's got to come from somewhere.
I do something about it, just not though government. Most of my work is through my church and the education of my children, so it's all pretty small potatoes stuff.
But those small potatoes add up!
Nope. Not even.
If your last clause is correct, then the idea is worthless as a matter of political theory in a state in which minority rights are preserved (an idea itself distinctly difficult for the Roman Catholic hierarchy to accept wherever they have been in the majority). The fundamental problems with your statement are that (1) there are many people in society who are not Christians (and hence for whom such an understanding is meaningless), and (2) there are as many interpretations of what a Christian 'ought' to do as there are Christian denominations. It's a statement that any totalitarian would be comfortable with because the totalitarian would believe, as have the Catholic (and other religious) clergy until very recently, that one can properly be compelled to do what one 'ought' with the power of the state. Works fine for those who agree with the prevailing power's "ought" - not so fine for everyone else. In principle, it's no different from the Islamofascists.
But if it were not illegal, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. It’s really not the government’s business what Michael Vick does with his own dogs.
Now you have the NFL, for instance, ceding it’s moral responsibility to the government. If Vick is found guilty, the NFL will take action against him. If Vick is not found guilty, they’ll let him skate. When the government is involved, people give it way more deference than it deserves.
I have no respect for liberals, but unlike libertarians, at least liberals believe in something.
Whose morality is being legislated is the question? As for me and my house, I would rather follow the morality of our Creator (proven correct time and again) than the morality of man (proven defective time and again).
There are those who would say, "Yeah, but look at all the harm caused by religion"..................and I would say, "In every case, it has been when man perverts religion". This is why a government where the people actually have a voice is the best we can do on this earth. Where the people do not have a voice, or when it is suppressed, dictatorships emerge, even religious dictatorships.
God knows best.....man always falls short........the founding fathers knew this simple truth, and modeled our laws, federal, state and local thusly.
lol, you’re right. ill ping tomorrow, we’re maxed out today already. :)
JP II was only talking about providing rights, not about imposing any force. Nowhere did he mention punishing those who didn’t act as they ought.
Glad to know you’ll now quit berating libertarians for not voting the way you’d like.
Mm-hmm, right. 40-year old man, married 17 years to the same woman, raising three children, born-again Christian libertarian checking in. ~~ ksen
Yeah -- 32-year-old, married, raising one child, Christian libertarian checking in also.
Say, andy -- while you blather on about how "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"... could my wife and I be refunded the $7,000 per-year, per-child in Taxes that your All-Holy Government spends to indoctrinate our child in Evolutionism and Homosexual Rights if we enroll him in Publick Edumbifikashun?
You Thieving, Bible-rejecting Statists can go ahead and keep all the rest of the Payroll Taxes, Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, ad nauseam, which you steal from me and my Family to fund your own stunted, State-dependent version of "maturity" (which is to say, an infantile Adult suckling at the Government's Teat, forever) at other people's expense, I don't care any more.
But if my wife and I could just be refunded the $7,000 per-year, per-child in Taxes that your All-Holy Government spends on Publick Edumbifikashun, so that it would be financially easier for us to train up our Child to reject all your unholy Statist abominations -- that would be cool. Keep the rest of my money, I'd settle for that.
Obviously.
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.