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 ...
Did you know that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism"?
I recognize that libertarianism is not a singular philosophy - there are and have been many strains, including "natural rights" libertarians, "consequentialists", anarcho-Captialists, and Objectivists, to name a few. Through most of these strains has run a general distrust of organized religion as an inhibiting force on personal freedom. This is reflected in nearly-uniform libertarian support for drug legalization, gambling, prostitution, as well as in legal abortion.
The only libertarian I've heard in recent times who has not explicitly rejected religious doctrine as a proper basis for morality (as opposed to natural law) has been Ron Paul (specifically in his essay "The War on Religion"). I do agree with much of what he has said in this vein, and wish he would be as concerned with the War on Terror as he is with the War on Religion...but that's another story.
I did commit an atrocious overstatement when I referred to a libertarian belief that "Government by Man has no purpose whatsoever" - that is clearly an exaggeration; it was poorly expressed and I should not have said it. What I meant to say was that "Government has no authority to use preemptive force", meaning that government should never initiate the use of force against foreign enemies until its citizens are attacked.
And that's really where libertarians first lost me, in their tendency toward isolationism. As P.J. O'Rourke noted some years ago, the libertarian idea of national defense seems to be that everyone should have a Minuteman missile up on blocks in their backyard. Now personally, I would love that (it would look really cool between the tool shed and the hot tub), but it is a wee bit impractical. P.J.'s larger point was that even if you believe in limited government, the one single overarching responsibility of national government is to provide for the common defense - you can't go to the mall and blow your salary on DVDs if you're being invaded all the time. Many times that action needs to happen in advance of being attacked, and not simply in reaction to it, and that involves training, and equipping a military force larger than many libertarians might otherwise like.
Yes, I did. I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. Doesn't mean I want to see the party that Reagan created from the pathetic, rotting, shriveling corpse of the Rockefeller Republican party shredded by kids who want dope legalized, or by the Oprahized women who want infanticide legalized, or by the gays who want to not just snuff the party, but along with it, the basic building block of society as well. The "me, me, me" generations from the Boomers on down make better anarchists and libertines than libertarians IMO. (And yes, I'm a Boomer who came to my senses when I grew up.)
What you are arguing for IS Stalinism, my friend.
The whole principle upon which our nation was founded is based around the idea that government exists to PROTECT the rights of individuals..... not to enforce some sort of standard of “good” behavior among it’s citizens.
The latter describes exactly the sort of radical islamic regiemes that we are fighting against today. It also describes exactly the Communist states that we fought against in the Cold War and the Facist states before then.
It’s also a pretty good description of the basis of Socialist Europe today.... which evolved from the Monarchies of Europe past. ALL those governments functioned on the principle that thier function was to try to bring about some sort of social “good” for thier citizens (the same sort of thing social conservatives want). It’s a principle which HABITUALY leads to disaster.
Our system works so well precisely because it is based upon the principle that each individual is the best judge of what is “good” for himself and that government exists to preserve that ability to be ones own judge as much as possible... and to act as referee where one individuals ability to do so affects another.
Note that libertarianism only concerns itself with the proper role of government and the excersize of governmental power in relation to the individual. It does not address or constrain, at all, the role of the non-governmental powers of society or social institutions to influence the behavior of individuals. Thus it doesn’t at all advocate the sort of social licentiousness that you seem to imply it does.
I don’t tell conservatives to throw their votes down third party black holes. That is the Libertarian way and it is a great empowerment of Democrats.
The great meteor shower? :-)
Whether we were libertarian in those days depends on one’s definition, I suppose. Were we a libertarian nation in the classical tradition of the Founding Fathers? For the most part, yes. But we certainly weren’t libertarian in the modern political sense.
For example, I doubt there were homosexual parades through 1823 Philadelphia. I doubt if pornography was mainstream. I don’t believe there were any federal court edicts ordering states to dismantle their sodomy laws. People weren’t rusing to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as being between a man and a woman because libertine judges were on the verge of declaring marriage to be an “evolving paradigm”. Unmarried teens weren’t being instructed that they had sexual rights.
It wasn’t long after 1833 that Alexis de Tocqueville remarked on the high standards of morality in America, and the high degree of chivalry toward women. Burke, you may recall, positively portrayed the American Revolution to the French one, since the latter was dominated by libertine and atheistic thinking.
Those that can do, do!
Those that are lazy and don’t want to try point to everyone else but themselves.
You know what, there is no shame in any work.
No reason to not be more self reliant for yourself and your country’s direction in politics IMO.
Crimes are not committed by groups but by individuals. Such individuals may claim to act with the authority of the group, but unless the group in question in fact has legal authority or responsibility for the actions of its members, only the individual can or should be prosecuted. That's pretty consistent with libertarian philosophy.
To begin with: "religion" is not a monolith. There are many religions, all with differing belief systems, whose members are legally responsible for their own actions.
Now to your examples: Jamestown? I think you meant "Jonestown", but fine - here a maniac and his demented followers killed themselves (in a foreign country, and of their own accord). A terrible thing, but no one has ever suggested that these people were in any way representative of anything resembling a mainstream or even offshoot religion.
Waco? Ask Janet Reno who created that nightmare. She'll lie to you, but it was her Justice Department, not the "cult" that turned a standoff into an inferno. Of course, she also snatched a little boy from his father and sent him back to Cuba, but hey, all in a day's work for the worst AG we ever had. Nixon's AG John Mitchell couldn't hold a candle to her for pure evil. In any event, this was in no way an example of "religion" but of a nutty cultist who apparently violated laws and might have been peacefully apprehended but for the stupidity of the government.
Pedophiles in the clergy? Now here's a better example. But when is this something condoned by any religion? (Islam, maybe, but let's not go there). Did they sometimes ignore it even though it violated not only the law but their own doctrine? - yes. Is it still an individual crime: yes, but so is the act of letting it happen. The "Church" did not turn its back - individuals within the Church did so and as a consequence, convictions have been obtained and restitution paid to the victims. What made it possible to punish the guilty: laws against pedophilia. Can libertarians at least support that?
As for guns: you're making the same argument from false premises, relying on the logic of liberal gun-grabbers. Weapons do not commit crimes by themselves; people do. Weapons may be used for legal, defensive, and constructive purposes or for illegal, offensive and destructive ones. Drugs like crack cocaine are different - they have no legal, defensive or constructive purpose; they just kill and destroy. Banning these drugs no more invites a "slippery slope" than banning individuals from owning thermonuclear devices - no good can ever come of it.
So the more conservative guy was unelectable and you get a choice of a communist failed ex butcher or Arnold.
Maybe YOU can find logic in Arnold over Bustamante, but I and others can.
You'll tell libertarians to throw theirs down a Republican Party black hole.
Only a Republican or Democrat will win a major office.
Sure, vote in the local dog catcher as a Libertarian. For that they are well suited.
You vote Republicans over Democrats in main elections because they are by far the lesser of two evils.
If you want to get a better candidate, you put the full effort into the next Republican primary.
#####What you are arguing for IS Stalinism, my friend#####
How do I even respond to that one? I thought I was Taliban.
rusing = rushing. I hate typos! :-)
I agree with your synopsis. I would add that libertarianism could only possibly work in a completely libertarian society, whereas the U.S. has many socialist aspects. For example, as you pointed out, eliminating taboos against homosexuality has lead to the homosexual agenda being taught to children in schools. That’s because our school system is government-run. And, because there are laws limiting free speech, the liberty of those who criticize “sexual orientation” are trounced now.
Another example of libertarian policy would be open borders where people can migrate to the U.S. without restriction. Well, that doesn’t work well when we have so many government programs doling out free goodies. People move here not to be free, but to receive freebies which taxpayers are forced to fund. Plus, we are involved in war, and open borders allow our enemies to come here freely.
Libertarianism is really a utopian vision. In principle, I believe in it, and my guess is that many conservatives do simply because we believe in the laissez faire form of government. But, in adopting libertarian policies here and there, without adopting the whole package, we only end up upholding the liberties of some people while crushing the liberties of others, just as you pointed out.
And if they know up front we'll support whoever they hand us anyway what incentive do they have to produce a better candidate?
“Since all sin hurts people, I disagree. However, most sins are so minor, common and persistent that they are not worth resources to enforce laws against, and since we are all sinners, and we all don’t want to be hounded by anyone with a grudge or anyone with a badge who is having a bad day, I think Christian and non-Christian will be in agreement on a host of things that should not be outlawed but are still sins to a Christian. When you get to murder (read abortion), prostitution, drugs, and the like, you will find most Christians supporting laws against because they are so destructive, so there is a certain amount of cost/benefit analysis involved. The difference I suppose is that the Christian conservative is less likely than an atheist libertarian to worry that he doesn’t have a right to outlaw some destructive behavior. The Christian has a basis for his view that it is wrong.”
So how then do you reconcile
“You shall have no other gods before Me.”
With
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
Presumably, worshiping a “false god” or maybe even the Devil himself would be a mortal sin to a Christian (i.e. not one of those minor things that wouldn’t be worth the effort to enforce) ...... yet not only is it NOT against the law.... but it is a Constitutionaly enshrined right.
One of our highest laws says that you are free to worship Zeus, Minerva or even Old Scratch himself.
It would seem to me that your basis for how laws should be established would place you in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights.
It’s one of the reasons many libertarians (such as myself) view Social Conservatives with a great deal of trepidation.
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.