Posted on 02/07/2002 8:02:41 AM PST by watsonfellow
In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.
And I do not mean indifference (less pro life threads etc) but an outright hostility at pro life and other social conservative causes.
Am I alone in thinking this?
In particular, notice the responses to the thread concerning the recent request by social conservative groups to the FCC to reign in Fox's racey primetime programs.
I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists and libertarians, and if so, perhaps it would be better for social conservatives to find their own site.
Now, if you have a problem with the FCC existing at all, that is a different matter. Argue that the federal government doesn’t have a right to create agencies such as the FCC that regulate public broadcasts. But the hyperbole used here is depressing, especially since conservatives seem to pride themselves on their use of logic.
I, too, have a hard time with much of libertarian philosophy. The whole “don’t look if you don’t want to see it” attitude is troublesome in many respects. So after we have killed our television, turned off our radio, stopped subscribing to the newspaper, stopped sending our children to public schools and ceased leaving the house, what then are we supposed to do? I suppose becoming a sect similar to the Amish is an option…
I would argue that Social Conservatives who choose to use the legal power of agencies such as the FCC are engaging in “conservatively correct” behavior. One of the purposes of the FCC (whether they serve this purpose is in contention), is to restrict indecent programming. We are not asking for more or stiffer regulations. We ask that they enforce the ones they currently have.
We don’t have many other choices. We cannot completely withdraw from society, which it seems liberals and libertarians prefer that we do. We have tried the free market approach, and it has failed miserably. We have abstained from trying a governmental approach due to Constitutionalist beliefs, only to watch Socialists merrily run roughshod over our every interest. Just like you cannot prove a negative, you cannot protest activity through inaction.
Thank you. Short, pointless and incoherent.
Just like America's industrial base and the Panama Canal.
I'm pro-life, BTW - as are many libertarians despite the smear campaigns that have tried to indicate otherwise.A perfectly solid case against abortion can be made without any reference to moral or relgious grounds, on individualistic principles alone.
I'd ban it except to save the life or permanent physical health of the mother after fetal brain activity begins.
-Eric
btw, Ole Sparky, you have a great day yourself.
I'm not trying to reshape the conservative movement into anything. I'm not a conservative, nor do I pretend to be. I am a moral absolutist, and I subscribe to the only morally justifiable political absolute. The moral absolute of inalienable rights. I consider inalienable rights to be the highest political ideal, and recognize them as inviolable by the state or by individuals. That's what makes me a libertarian.
If libertarians win this battle, the conservative movement may just be dead.
The conservative movement as a consistent and viable force for liberty is already dead. It committed suicide with the gun called "big-government socialism" quite some time ago.
The Democrats would love to run against an opposition that wants to legalize drugs.
And since the democrats would "love to run against an opposition that wants to eliminate socialism", you promptly make excuses for your own support of it, and go about the business of handing out my money like it's candy.
It is that failure of principle which is destroying conservatism..... Not some libertarian boogeyman.
So I did. Hmmm.
If you happen to have a picture of the two of them, you will find an email address for me on my profile page...
I have actual tears of mirth running down my cheeks!
Propaganda? That's funny.
I see it has the law of the land and not unconstitutional. Many people have never seen it before and thereby, don't understand its meaning and intent. It has absolutely nothing to do with Stalin and his henchmens actions to limit the human and civil rights of the Soviet people and control every possible activity they want to engage in. That's unless you find the totalitarian aims of the communist governemnt of the USSR, to be somehow similiar in nature to America's constitutional Republic. I don't see any connection.
BTW, I wasn't trying to be showy. I was being very genuine in my remarks.
BTW, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you...
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.