In the past few years, the most vigorous defense of pornography, drug use, and allowing sleaze on the airwaves has come from Libertarians. Not even Democrats in the 1970's heyday would defend these things as much now. Libertarians also seem to have a much higher level of atheism and hostility to faith in their ranks than they once did.
Libertarianism ain't what it used to be.
Libertarianism never was what it used to be. It is a way station for intellectual young people to conservatism. You read “Atlas Shrugged” and for a few years you are a libertarian until you know a victim of the so called “victimless crimes” or try to figure out how to defend a nation within strict libertarian guidelines against a determined totalitarian enemy, and presto, a conservative is born.
Who gave us the election in ‘04? The Lindseys of the world apparently have very short memories.
I reviewed this book for a Catholic News Service (forget the specific name of the group), and you are exactly right. Lindsey is quite hostile to religious people in this book, claiming they “set back” intellectual life in the 20th century. In several places, his theory is just off. He does seem to realize, however, that the very forms of social control needed to succeed in an entrepreneurial society-—self-discipline, faith, optimism, structure-—are those generally weakened by Libertarian practices, and he really doesn’t have an answer for that.
The Religious Right tends toward governmental intervention in the lives of individuals which kind of makes them big government, morally conservatives.
It should surprise no one that these two groups are always butting heads.
The libertarians also seem to be butting heads with a larger and larger percentage of conservatives.
Some of that seems to be because the libertarians are becoming increasingly liberal on moral issues, but some also seems to be due to a larger percentage of conservatives being more accepting of government interference in people's lives.
Or maybe it just seems that way. After all I seem to always remember things being better in the past than they probably really were.
I wrote something intelligent but then had second thoughts about adding to a discussion on self-flagellation. I’ll just get some popcorn!
Today's Libertarians are in bed with the left. Most of the small "l" ones remaining in the Republican party are in bed with the Republicans for Choice and the Log Cabin Republicans, working diligently to take down the party of Reagan and elect Democrats so they can have "their" tiny, little permanent minority party returned to their control. Read some of the stuff written by Eisenhower's progeny. The real political enemy is not the Democrats, but the conservatives like Reagan who stole "their" party.
There it is!
“That’s libertarians for you - Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves”. (Kim Stanley Robinson)
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.
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.
True, it's a generational shift. Maybe it has to do with rising affluence.
You can see the same thing among conservatives, though, in the shift from Goldwaterite "rugged individualism" to "compassionate conservatism" or "national greatness conservatism."
Libertarians may have the uglier, more self-indulgent part of the trend, and conservatives the more socially concerned, other-regarding part, but it looks to me like the wealthier and more urban society gets the harder it is for people to hold on to that independent individualist Goldwater grit.
“Libertarianism ain’t what it used to be.”
Libertarian Marxism shows 850,000 web sites in a google search.
Libertarianism has been infiltrated by the left. Some of the “libertarian” sites are hilarious with Marxist propaganda.
Racism can be traced to that branch of the democratic party known as the Dixiecrats. Dems like to believe that it's a southern thing, but the back-handed racism of the northeast liberals just goes to show that it is without a doubt a Democrat disease.
As for sexism, there ARE differences between the sexes and what liberals call sexism is more like common sense. THEY ought to be ashamed of their androgny, GLBT-whatever nonsense and their relentless attacks on faith-centered two-parent(Husband and Wife) families.
As for prudery, Bring It Back! The post-Christian, pornograpy-crazed let's-let-our-prepubescent-daughters-dress-like-prostitutes Amerika has GOT to go.
Well, as a friend of mine used to say; “Two thing in the middle of the road, a dead skunk and a “Libertarian”. I think I understand it now.
Yeah... Like smokin' dope.
Most libertarians I have known wanted to be free to do whatever they wanted, but usually were responsible about it to keep from getting in trouble.
If the culture war is lost then the country is lost. People won’t fight and die for a libertine culture. All one has to do is look at Europe and see how the rise of social liberalism has been accompanied by the rise of the all-encompassing nanny state, passivity in the face of terrorism, and a willingness to concede the continent to Islam as long as the lavish welfare & retirement benefits last long enough for the current generation to live comfortably until they die.
If libertarians are correct, and we can be socially liberal but otherwise conservative, then why do socially liberal places such as San Francisco, Vermont, and Massachusetts become so socialistic and anti-military? Why is a shift to the left on (for example) abortion or homosexuality never accompanied by a rightward drift on economic issues or national defense?
It’s no coincidence that the Great Society, the anti-American radicalization of the ‘Rat party, and the libertine sexual revolution all arose at around the same time in the sixties. They’re all intertwined.
What? I can hardly believe such a thing ...