Libertarians to Conservatives: Drop Dead

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.

If Libertarians in theory were conservative and they were to throw their vote away on third parties who haven’t a chance in hell of winning an election, then they are indeed helping Democrats by not voting for the Republicans... If they were ever conservative.

Here are the problems with this premise -

they were to throw their vote away on third parties who haven’t a chance in hell of winning an election

The suggestion that a citizen exercising his or her RIGHT to vote, can be described as "throwing their vote away" is akin to stating that it is pointless to vote and that the only voice a citizen has to show approval or disapproval of a candidate is pointless.

This line of reasoning is borderline unAmerican.

Furthermore, they are indeed helping Democrats by not voting for the Republicans... If they were ever conservative.

Suggesting that only the republican party can represent the positions of conservative independents is equally incorrect. One might only look back at the 6 years of gop control of the US government to see just how successful that approach was.

The correct answer to the "who is right" question, is - "neither" both positions are wrong. Voting for the candidate a citizen believes in, regardless of "electability" is the basic expression of individual liberty.

IMO Independents are mostly all liberals. They might like to hang out with conservatives and talk tough, but they seem to mostly vote like hippies or welfare recipients.

Interesting opinion, just how do hippies and welfare recipients vote? - and how do you know?

#####Our Constitution is a libertarian document#####

Well. as I said, it depends on one’s definition of libertarianism. It was designed to limit federal power, for example. That could be called libertarian, but it could also be called classical liberalism. It wasn’t libertarian in the modern sense, meaning repeal of sodomy laws or nude dance clubs held to be protected by the 1st Amendment from local regulation.

#####Are you saying that libertarians are homosexuals?#####

Uh, no. I’m saying that the idea that homosexuals have a right to parade down the street wearing g-strings and waving plastic penises around wasn’t supported by our Founding Fathers.

#####They did have sexual rights back then#####

So it was commonplace circa 1817 for government to provide 14 year olds with sexual instruction without parental knowledge or consent, and to keep parents in the dark about this because minor teens had “sexual rights”? What planet did this occur on, because it sure didn’t happen in the United States.

#####It was after the doomsday hysteria of 1833 that swept the nation#####

Ooookay, so if de Tocqueville had come to America before 1833, he’d have found a bunch of secular humanists having orgies?

#####And the former was dominated by libertarian and Deist thinking#####

Depends on your definition of libertarian, as I’ve already said. Some Founders were Deist, others weren’t. Madison thought our Constitution unfit for a population that lacked morality. History has shown him to be right.

#####Your view of early America seems to be derived from 1940s Hollywood movies#####

Sure.

The huge preponderance of voters in the early years of the republic were Christians. They insisted on the Bill of Rights including freedom of religion. Protestant dissenters escaped persecution in Europe from Catholics and state churches, Catholics in Maryland looked around and said yah, in a majority Protestant nation, we’d like freedom of religion please. Jews agreed wholeheartedly

I addressed this in an earlier post as well, where I said: I agree, of course, that we should not outlaw all sin. From a strict perspective, outlawing all sin would require us to outlaw thoughts. In fact, I think it would be against Christian principles to do so regarding many sins, regardless of the cost/benefit involved. Christianity is not a religion of the sword, in which external compliance and forced submission is the goal, it’s an internal change, a personal relationship with Christ that is important. The “heart” not the body. That cannot be forced; it depends on God, not man.

Your trepidation is misplaced. In fact, without Christians in politics you would not have the heritage of liberty at all. Natural rights stem from a belief that God grants the inalienable rights that we enjoy.

Good post Mel. This is going to take a while to read the whole thing.

To the FReepers in attendance and the millions watching around the world on Pay Per View…Ladies and Gentleman...

LLLLLLLets Get Ready to RRRumblllllllle!!!!

1,500,000,000 rounds of posts, arguments, insults, cheesy graphics, name calling, and ad hominem personal attacks that pass as debate for the FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

"Introducing first, to my right, fighting out of the red corner, wearing their Sunday best with a gold crucifix...weighing in at 810 and 1/4 pounds...the social conservatives, the religious right, the champions of family values...from the Southern States...The Evangelicals!" (wild applause)

"And in the blue corner, wearing an off the rack suit, Goldwater ’64 lapel pin and a belt 2 sizes too small...weighing in at 141 pounds soaking wet...the fiscal conservatives, the last champions of limited government...from the Western States...The Libertarians!" (wild applause)

Chapter 1: Live From the Reagan Building

The winner of the bout gets to take on the Neo-Cons for the undisputed GOP Heavyweight Championship of the World!

I don’t see the straw man arguement at all. His analogy seems good - religion like drugs (or pornography, gambling or substitute most any of the “vice” crimes that social conservatives love to rail against) can result in a great deal of harm to innocent 3rd parties. However, not every (or even most) individual application of it results in significant harm... not even to the individual choosing to practice it. We don’t make one illegal, why should we make the other? Again in both cases we CAN punish the actual ACT’s which do cause harm to others rather then the ACTs which simply promote conditions which MAY or MAY NOT drive individuals to commit harmfull acts to others.

Thus we can punnish the act of shooting some-one for drug money without punnishing the act of taking drugs just as we can punnish the act of shooting reporters and U.S. congress men or poinsoning children (Jonestown) without punishing the act which facilitated them - religious worship.

If you don’t like his particular examples, history is rife with examples of harm percipitated by religion. Let’s see. off the top of my head: 9-11, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, The English Civil War, the reign of Henery VIII th, The Programs against Jews in medievil Europe, The Childrens Crusade, The trails against the Knights Templar, The Muslim Conquests of the 7th-9th centuries, need I really go on?

The stone cold facts are that in major elections, either a Democrat or Republican can win.

When we get Libertarians talking there “whatever” and trying to convert others here and elsewhere to throw their vote away to an absolute loser, they are taking it away from the electable candidate that is most conservative.

The ONLY time to go postal for major changes is during a primary when you can go for the most conservative politician for Republican. That is the ONLY place where the action is for Conservatives in main elections.

There is no electable third party candidates in major elections for top spots.
It is self defeating to go self righteous and stubborn during the main elections. As of late, the vote has been close and with Libertarians throwing their votes away and suggesting others do so, they are acting like against for the liberal progressive Democrat party.

Believe my WG, I feel the same frustration and pain as you in not getting everything we want in candidates up and down the line.
Living in California, you know how screwed I have been because so many people here are government employees or beholden to unions and there is such a strong built in automatic Democrat vote.

Primaries is where you go for it.
If you can’t get it done in the primaries, you vote the Republican that won over the Democrat in. Doing anything else in the main election is screwing the chances of the most conservative electable candidate.

I get your frustration though, we’ve all dealt with it.

“Your trepidation is misplaced. In fact, without Christians in politics you would not have the heritage of liberty at all. Natural rights stem from a belief that God grants the inalienable rights that we enjoy.”

Greg,

I’ve got no problem with Christians being in politics. I’ve got a problem with making politics a vehicle FOR Christianity....which is what alot of social conservatives seem bent on doing.

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to recognize that the Laws of God and the Laws of Man were entirely seperate spheres.... and new full well the dangers of trying to conflate the two.

The Founding Fathers certainly didn’t want Christian doctrine to be legislated, but they had no problem with leaving matters such as sodomy, abortion, pornography, and public nudity to the local or state governments and the voters.

The idea that such things are wrong and destructive is not unique to Christianity or to a particular denomination.

Bill Moyers has been ranting a lot against the Religious Right lately. To hear him speak, you’d think Thomas Jefferson would have supported a federal judicial edict protecting minor girls from having to inform their parents prior to a taxpayer financed abortion. The truth is, matters such as these were left to the states, localities, and voters for most of American history, with conservatism prevailing, and it never led to a theocracy or a Taliban state.

Too conflated?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

I will say that you do not realize the danger to your own purposes in kicking the struts of your culture away. Without Christianity the West’s alternative culture is state supremecy and socialism. Look up Gramsci and see what the cultural marxists objectives and methods are . . . in truth, it is the secularists that endanger freedom, even those that are on the right, because they are the “useful fools” the left. You do not realize what the cultural fight is even about and where the danger lies if you have been bamboozled into fearing Christians in politics.

Drugs do not commit crimes by themselves; people do.

No - people on drugs commit crimes, destroy their lives and the lives of those around them. The drug trade destroys families, neighborhoods, and communities not merely because of its illegality but because of its effects on the human mind and spirit. There is absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever, no reason, no excuse, and no purpose for drugs like crack. That's none - as in "zero" - and that is a rare thing.

In my mind, there are very few objects or substances in our world that rise (sink) to this level, so as to justify making them illegal. Now, many people would describe that last statement as a "libertarian" position, and I think it is. What it isn't is "absolutist" in the sense that one might believe if the Government can ban "A", it can ban "B" and then "C" and then "D"...etc. No, it cannot; not in this case, and not in any other. A single, vital condition (our Constitution) would be sufficient alone to break the "chain of inevitability", more about which below.

You want to justify legislating on perceived threat. That is exactly how dictatorships arise.

That might just be an overstatement. If drugs are banned... what? The Nazis are coming? You've got to make a more convincing argument than that, Radioman. As a rule, "slippery slope" arguments almost never work. The reason they don't is because they always depend on a theory of inevitability in which mechanisms of connection are presumed to exist regardless of relative condition, value and potential, as well as the incentives and disincentives for human action upon them. In other words: the entire framework of free will and written law is presumed powerless against the cascade of historical inevitability. Marx made an argument like that once, too. Didn't work out too well for him, as I recall.

it was intended that such control be forever excluded from the powers exercised by the federal government, and to the extent that it is exercised it be the exclusive domain of the States.

I'm sorry, but I am at a disadvantage- I have not read Joseph Story (something I will rectify). I have, however read extensively in the time frame involved, including works from many of our founders.

The main thrust of what would now be called "freedom of religion" was largely derived from a wholly Christian people hoping to allow for tolerance in the face of what they had personally experienced- Namely the English necessity by force of law that one must worship God as an Anglican, and the European convention that one must worship God as a Catholic.

It is quite clear that freedom of religion was to allow for Protestantism in it's many sects and forms and that the Creator mentioned in the DoI was in fact Jehovah. The foundational documents and letters expect the reader to be familiar with Christian thought and thereby imply the God of the Christians when God is mentioned.

At the time, each branch of Christianity was often defined as a separate strain- A religion in it's own right. It is my supposition that these various sects were what the government was to look upon in a secular way, that no specific "brand" could be endorsed.

That we were tolerant of other religions, or the lack thereof, was a distinction without a difference as long as everyone concerned accepted that in tenor and by it's framework this country was Christian by nature. It is when socialist forces demanded secularism that the troubles began.

It is that secularism that has begun the destruction of this country- Leading inexorably to relative morality, pluralism, and etcetera.

IOW, as I said before, it is absurd to believe that one can maintain a truly secular government as recent history attests. At best, one could hope for tolerance, with that tolerance being acceptable only if all adhere to the common ethical norm.

The argument is not calculated to render the secular state an impossibility, the secular state is an impossibility by it's nature without the establishment of some ethical sense acceptable to or enforced upon it's citizens.

Unfortunately, the moment an ethical sense is established, that philosophy is arguably and immediately a religion in it's own right, thus ending the supposed secularism.

Ergo, since the establishment clause clearly prevents the state from imposing a religion (or by extension, a philosophy), and since a secular state is impossible, one must suppose that the state's ethical sense must be derived from the status quo of that day- The more loosely defined Judeo-Christian ethic.

In regard to the rest of your statement, while I am all for as much power as possible being as close to the people as possible, it seems unwieldy for the federal government to enforce "freedom of religion" if the authority and regulation thereof is given to the state.

Since the right is given at a constitutional level, I would expect the authority thereof to reside at the federal level.

-Bruce

It wasn’t libertarian in the modern sense, meaning repeal of sodomy laws or nude dance clubs held to be protected by the 1st Amendment from local regulation.

Libertarians recognize the Law Of Unintended Consequences, exactly the same as in the old sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too...again, old sense. The only way to get rid of those perverts that you despise is to appoint an Emperor...Like Hitler or Mussolini. Libertarians would rather put up with the perverts than give up liberty.

I’m saying that the idea that homosexuals have a right to parade down the street wearing g-strings and waving plastic penises around wasn’t supported by our Founding Fathers.
Lol!!
No, they wouldn't have supported it but they would have left that decision up to you. If you want plastic penis waving old men wearing g-strings parading down your street...enjoy!

So it was commonplace circa 1817 for government to provide 14 year olds with sexual instruction without parental knowledge or consent, and to keep parents in the dark about this because minor teens had “sexual rights”?

Of course not. Schools belonged to the community back then. The parents were involved in the kid's education. The parents hired the teachers. They taught reading, writing and arithmetic.

Sexual rights?
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Kids had the rights their parents gave them. If they wanted more rights they had to move out on their own, and many did.

Ooookay, so if de Tocqueville had come to America before 1833, he’d have found a bunch of secular humanists having orgies?

He would have found a bunch of people who were more concerned about survival than religion or philosophy. There's many rumors of Franklin's orgies but, if true, I doubt that Alex would have wanted to attend.

Some Founders were Deist, others weren’t. Madison thought our Constitution unfit for a population that lacked morality.
All Deists believe the same.

History has shown him to be right
History clearly shows the moral decline caused by disrespect for common law. That disrespect is caused by the erosion of liberty and that liberty has been eroded because government does not obey its own laws.
.

“I will say that you do not realize the danger to your own purposes in kicking the struts of your culture away.”

Who’s talking about kicking the struts of culture way? Libertarianism isn’t about the role of culture, it’s about the role of government. I’m not talking about eliminating religion from the sphere of public discourse. I am talking about removing it from the sphere of government enforcement (i.e. the Law, i.e. brute force).

It’a very weak religion or ideology that relies upon government enforcment to underpin it anyway. Religions and ideologies if they have any REAL value should be able to stand on thier own in the marketplace of free ideas. If the notion that a particular vice/sin is bad and aught not to be done is worthwhile then you should be able to CONVINCE people not to engage in it...... you shouldn’t need the government standing behind you leveling a gun at peoples heads to back up that idea.... and if you do, then either your idea has no real value...or you really need to work on your skill at expressing it.

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.