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 ...
“You’ve not heard of unenumerated rights, via the 9th amendment?”
So you are trying to contend that driving a motor vehicle is ONE of these?
“Drug users who takes hits at home, however, have a much higher likelihood of going off their own property to harm somebody somewhere else “
Not proven. There is no greater likelihood that users of many illegal drugs will leave thier own property then a driver.... drunk or otherwise. In fact, given the differences between how certain drugs work and alcohol works....the likelihood is probably LESS.
“If every time a person practiced their religion, they actually presented a potential threat of harm to others, I would agree with you. However, there is no basis for making an argument that the practice of “religion”, per se, even carries with it this potential, whereas with drugs, a person is ALWAYS opening his or herself to addiction that can potentially lead to the commission of violent crimes, and with pornography, a person is ALWAYS leaving his or herself open to a addiction which can spin out of control and result in violent sex crimes. There is nothing in “religion” itself which presents this same sort of likelihood, so actualy, there IS a logical difference.”
I would argue that history provides AMPLE evidence to prove you wrong.... to cite but a few examples: The Aztecs, The Muslim expansion of the 7th - 9th century, The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The English Civil War, The Troubles in Northen Ireland, Henrey the VIIIth, the Salem Witch Trials, 9-11.
I could argue, rather convincingly, that the use of many recreational drugs or of pornography had a FAR smaller incidence of harm to others then the practice of religion.
How many people that smoked the occasional joint in college or bought the occasional plaboy even ended up addicts, let alone went out and injured some-one because of it?
Compare that to the number of people that have gone out and killed some-one because they believed God wanted them to do so.
Heck look around the world today. How many people were killed in the last year because of porn? How many were killed because they were “infidels”?
Forget the typos. Here's some wisdom though:
Best wishes for you, the Wife, and the child.
Puroresu,
If you think most libertarians support the “Living Constitution” school then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. There may be some...just like there are some folks who pretend to be conservatives that support Amnesty.
Most of the libertarians I know are “Origionalists” or “Strict Constructionists”. We tend to be very process driven folks...rather then ends justify means folks.... on the other hand, many Social Conservatives have no problem with activist judges...as long as they are ignoring the Constitution in ways that they like.
LOL!
Nice slogan. I don't disagee with the characterization of our culture being generally based on Judeo Christian ethics. My disagreement is over characterizing that as the basis for determining whether a particular piece of legislation is within the legitimate authority of the federal government.
I'm talking about a distilled essence of opium in a form that did not exist until the 1990's. Opium (particularly in the form of heroin) itself did a great deal of damage during the last century, and the attempt to replace it with a purportedly non-addicting substitute (methadone) was a disaster of epic proportions. Crack is another two or three magnitudes above that. If you had to look in the eyes of children consumed by it, and see the wasted souls within, you, like me, would want to blow the brains out of the bastard who first sold it to them.
Criminality and evil do cross paths at points before the act of murder. The theft of a life is evil, but so is that of a soul. That is what I'm talking about here. I don't want pot to be illegal, or hash or Ecstasy. I'm talking about a drug that destroys the lives, hope, families and communities of people who often don't have the means to protect themselves from it. Call it compassionate conservatism, if you will, and sneer if you will, but they deserve a chance too.
Society may properly use the force of government to regulate PUBLIC BEHAVIORS, but that is ALL. What someone does, either alone or with others who are capable of and do give consent, is NOT the business of you, me or government, period. If that PRIVATE activity spills over into some sort of public arena, then and only then may society allow government to step in and put a stop to the public aspects of it... such as not allowing a person to drink on a public street, fornicate where he or she might scare the women, children and horses, or operate machinery after becoming intoxicated, where there is grave danger to others not otherwise involved in whatever activity has been going on. Or discharging a firearm or weapon in public and it’s not an emergency. Otherwise, the only legitimate recourse YOU have is to either live with the situation... as freedom can sometimes get a little messy... or use your powers of moral suasion to convince your neighbors that their behaviors are not good for them... but initiating force, either personally or through government, to get someone outside yourself and your immediate family to act as YOU think is proper is totally anathema to a free society AND the Constitutional Republic we once had in this nation. In a free society, even PROPOSING such “laws” would be good for a tarring and feathering AT THE LEAST.
To many people, such as me, the war on some drugs is a microcosm of the nanny statism that is so anathema to what this nation started out as... and it is the one thing that has done more to undermine the limits on government put in place by the Constitution than anything else I can think of. It has been used by FedGov to stick the nose of the federal camel so far into the tent that we may NEVER get it back out peaceably... I recognize that recreational use of ANY mind-altering substance, including alcohol and nicotine, can be dangerous to the user... but to me the far greater danger to ALL Americans is the unbridled lust for power of the drug warriors and other big-government slugs.
Consider a typical single welfare mother raising multiple children via multiple fathers. Is the behavior that produced the children still a completely "private" matter?
HEAR HEAR
The commie Liberals high jacked the Libertarian Party. I concur with what you say, and I also believe that some liberals are disgruntled with the Demorats. They are looking for a place to go and they are so stupid that they think Libertarian is close to liberal, so it must be for them.
200 pages? That’s some [messed] up [stuff] right there.
Maybe it’s the script to “La Fin Absolue du Monde.”
The behavior is a private matter, AS ARE THE CONSEQUENCES. The taxpayer has no business being tapped to pay for someone else’s problems, ever, period. It is totally and completely the responsibility of the mother and the father(s) to support those kids. The guys had the fun of MAKING the babies, not me. Why in the name of Milton Friedman should I be the one paying the bills?
You would probably find that the Christian right would tend to agree with you in that regard as a general rule- What legislation would you be worried about (by example)?
I've always considered myself libertarian, but I've always voted straight party republican in every election in which I've voted. Unfortunately the republicans don't seem to be a very attractive alternative to those of us who desire to see a smaller federal government and promotion of individual liberty.
I have a confession to make. I had always voted straight down party lines. But in the NJ Senate election between Giant Douche (Bob Menendez) and Turd Sandwich (Tom Kean) last year, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a nanny state quasi conservative who kicked me out of bars and restaraunts because I enjoy a legal product like cigarettes in the name of a social engineering experiment designed to coerce me to quit nicotine.
For the first time in my life, I pulled the lever for some Libertarian candidate who had about as much chance of winning as I did (I should have run, but the DPRNJ is a hopeless train wreck. I could win in my district. Affluent and right wing. But I would just go to Trenton and want to shoot myself after two weeks. Why bother. It's hopeless. People here are just too f'ing stupid).
I prayed that Kean wouldn't lose by 1 vote and make me feel guilty. He was a useful idiot lib candidate running as an R under his dad's name and lost by 76,000,000 votes or something anyway.
The consequences involve innocent children. Are they property then?
Children are hardly property but they are the responsibility OF THE PARENTS to raise, NEVER the responsibility of the taxpayers. If you want to set up a private fund to help these kids, fine. Go for it. I may even help you... as long as you do NOT expect government to rape the taxpayers to help you foot the bills.
I know you can’t be that dense...
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.