Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Needs Free Will...
NPR ^

Posted on 08/05/2005 7:58:01 PM PDT by SeanEBoy

“This whole idea of personal autonomy, while I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view, some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone. Be able to do whatever they want to do; government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low. We shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom and we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should be able to do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone; that there is no is no such society, that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”—Rick Santorum, 04 August 2005, Morning Edition on NPR (emphasis added)


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS:
...When we have Rick Santorum

So God gives man free will, but Senator Santorum--or any good conservative, by his definition--wants it taken away.

You cannot legislate morality.

I would like to know from which Clause of the enumerated powers Mr. Santorum is deriving his authority to legislate the activities in people's bedrooms.

If Roe v. Wade was extra-constitutional, than so is each and every attempt by the Senate to put any curbs on abortion.

I thought conservatives used to think that government was the problem. Reagan must be dead after all.

1 posted on 08/05/2005 7:58:01 PM PDT by SeanEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy
individuals can’t go it alone

radical individualism

Santorum = liberal
2 posted on 08/05/2005 8:00:48 PM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
"The human race divides neatly into people who want to control the actions of others and people who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Santorum has chosen his side.

3 posted on 08/05/2005 8:04:52 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("Democracy...will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy
There is a balance that has to be maintained between individual freedom and out-of-control individualism. The lines are not always clear on these issues. That is why logical judgments have to be made, and that means taking cultural risks sometimes. So not everyone will always be happy. So welcome to the real world.
4 posted on 08/05/2005 8:08:07 PM PDT by Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver (Senate Republicans' Motto: Quit while you're ahead.|| Democrats' Motto: Going nowhere fast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
"The human race divides neatly into people who want to control the actions of others and people who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein

I think that's an oversimplification of Law and Society.

5 posted on 08/05/2005 8:10:02 PM PDT by Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver (Senate Republicans' Motto: Quit while you're ahead.|| Democrats' Motto: Going nowhere fast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy
You cannot legislate morality.

Murder, robbery, rape is legislative morality.

6 posted on 08/05/2005 8:10:32 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver
>> out-of-control individualism

That's for me, baby.

7 posted on 08/05/2005 8:14:09 PM PDT by T'wit (If any liberals get to Heaven, they'll lecture God on what's wrong with it and reform it all to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver
So you trust the federal government to make these logical judgments? I don't. And I don't know where it says that they have the authority or right to do anything of the sort.

We gave them limited powers, and none of those extend to the bedroom.

Granted, so long as there is no harm to another person or their property and everyone has attained the age of majority. But even these rules can only be defined, imposed and enforced by the state or local governments.

If the Supremes are over-stepping their bounds, so is Mr. Santorum.

8 posted on 08/05/2005 8:16:47 PM PDT by SeanEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy

I agree with Santorum. If people want to call me a liberal or whatever, fine.

I think a lot of people on this forum confuse libertarianism with conservatism. Libertarianism is actually classic liberalism. So if anyone is a liberal (I guess in the best possible sense), it would be the libertarians. It's not conservative at all.

Santorum is here expressing the view that we live in a society. That's the conservative view. We are not just individuals here to look out for ourselves only.

The notion that "God gives man free will" is being confused with "all choices made with free will are equally valid and of benefit in a society".

There has never been a time in this country when morality hasn't been legislated. NEVER. It is NOT conservative to say that laws and morality are separate. If this is not a moral people, then it will cease to be a functioning republic in due time. Laws are a reflection of that.

I know many here won't agree, but this country has never been about prostitution and sodomy, and there have always been laws against those things in most parts of the country. You may disagree with that, but DON'T pretend that your view is the "conservative" view. What values are you trying to conserve? Conservatism is about conserving what is right and valuable in society, for the sake of society itself. Because the government impinges on that at nearly every turn, conservatives are naturally wary of government. But they aren't averse to moral law altogether.

What kind of society is it, with prostitutes and addicts on every corner, and no one allowed to say "boo"? Might be your vision of freedom, but this libertarian utopia is NOT a conservative vision. Santorum is right about that.

Lastly, on Roe v. Wade. It's not just extra-constitutional because there is no "right to abortion" in the constitution, it is wrong because there IS a God-given "right to life". Congress SHOULD be able to make laws regarding abortion, because there is a right to life no matter what state you live in. It IS the business of government when children are being slaughtered. That's one of the few things government is supposed to be good for.


9 posted on 08/05/2005 8:19:56 PM PDT by DameAutour (I'm uniquely one of us and one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy

"You cannot legislate morality."

Sorry, but our laws are nothing more than a codification of morality.


10 posted on 08/05/2005 8:20:25 PM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
These are crimes that affect another person or his property. We punish these as crimes--on the local and state level, not federal--not as sins. I personally don't care if a rapist makes peace with God for his sin, even though as a Catholic I'm supposed to. But I do want him in prison.
11 posted on 08/05/2005 8:20:32 PM PDT by SeanEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy
So you trust the federal government to make these logical judgments? I don't.

Conservatives trust "We the People" (i.e. a moral society), since "We the People" ARE supposed to be the government.

12 posted on 08/05/2005 8:20:56 PM PDT by DameAutour (I'm uniquely one of us and one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DameAutour
"We the People" ARE supposed to be the government.

That's one of the biggest problems these days: it's supposed to be, but isn't anymore.

13 posted on 08/05/2005 8:34:54 PM PDT by lainie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DameAutour
...but this country has never been about prostitution and sodomy, and there have always been laws against those things in most parts of the country

But they've always been around, and the rules have never been too strictly enforced. Whether in New York City or a small town in the mid-west I don't think anyone has ever had to look too hard to find a hooker.

I never said that any choice made with free-will is honkey-dorey, but if you're not hurting anyone else or his property, I don't care what you do.

And Congress has no authority to enforce any law outside of its jurisdiction. That's why "Laci and Connor's Law" is so ridiculous. Killing a pregnant women carries an extra penalty for the fetus. Fine. But only on federal property. So Mr. Santorum and his pals can restrict abortion, but only on federal property.

The Senate does not have the authority or ability to enforce God's Law.

14 posted on 08/05/2005 8:43:43 PM PDT by SeanEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DameAutour
...but this country has never been about prostitution and sodomy, and there have always been laws against those things in most parts of the country

But they've always been around, and the rules have never been too strictly enforced. Whether in New York City or a small town in the mid-west I don't think anyone has ever had to look too hard to find a hooker.

I never said that any choice made with free-will is honkey-dorey, but if you're not hurting anyone else or his property, I don't care what you do.

And Congress has no authority to enforce any law outside of its jurisdiction. That's why "Laci and Connor's Law" is so ridiculous. Killing a pregnant women carries an extra penalty for the fetus. Fine. But only on federal property. So Mr. Santorum and his pals can restrict abortion, but only on federal property.

The Senate does not have the authority or ability to enforce God's Law.

15 posted on 08/05/2005 8:44:34 PM PDT by SeanEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy

Santorum is a borderline RINO


16 posted on 08/05/2005 8:45:49 PM PDT by Vision (When Hillary Says She's Going To Put The Military On Our Borders...She Becomes Our Next President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DameAutour
Conservatives trust "We the People" (i.e. a moral society), since "We the People" ARE supposed to be the government.

That is exactly the American Liberal rationale for supporting the changes wrought by FDR in the American State through the New Deal.

The delusion that the People can do no wrong is fatal to a Constitutional republic, imho, and leads only to socialism.

17 posted on 08/05/2005 8:49:08 PM PDT by headsonpikes ("The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy

You cannot identify conservative thought until you are able to separate your own personal values system from that of a moral society's. It may not matter to you if people aren't physically harming others or the property of others, but it mattered a great deal to the Founders and it matters to conservatives what KIND of people make up a society.

Crack being sold in pharmacies and prostitutes soliciting outside of schools (neither of which cause physical harm or harm property) harm SOCIETY itself. Once society starts declaring that sodomy is a RIGHT, it has strayed off a moral course and is headed towards destruction.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Quincy Adams

"Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. These wants should be provided for, [including] the want of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." Edmund Burke, father of conservatism


18 posted on 08/05/2005 8:55:24 PM PDT by DameAutour (I'm uniquely one of us and one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
The delusion that the People can do no wrong is fatal to a Constitutional republic, imho, and leads only to socialism.

What leads to socialism is when the People start getting the ability to vote themselves money from the public coffers, as Ben Franklin warned. But the People wanting to live in a moral and religious society, and wanting the laws to reflect morality, these are natural, necessary and right.

19 posted on 08/05/2005 8:58:05 PM PDT by DameAutour (I'm uniquely one of us and one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DameAutour
There are far more dangerous and lethal drugs sold by pharmacies all the time. If crack were controlled as well as these drugs--and decriminalized--it probably wouldn't be as dangerous or harmful to society.

Now, prostitution in legal in Nevada, and while I've never been there, I'm pretty sure there are no cat houses next to the local elementary school. Again, this is where local control governs, and probably does it well.

My entire point is my separating my own value system from that of society's. I just want to separate yours and Santorum's too.

Society can't declare sodomy a right. But neither can the state declare it unlawful. There is no "compelling interest." Just because something is a sin, doesn't mean it's a crime.

20 posted on 08/05/2005 9:08:08 PM PDT by SeanEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeanEBoy

I do know what it is like to live in an area where drug use and prostitution was rampant, where there were needles and pipes outside the schools, where you couldn't stroll in the local park without running into prostitutes.

A lot of this was cut down by vigilant community and police action. One can walk through the park now, and those entrepreneurial groups of young people congregated on the corner have all but disappeared.

You think society would be better off if nothing could actually be done about such things. I think society would be worse off, I've SEEN what can happen to communities where morality is lax.

What you propose would make vice more prevalent, not less prevalent. It is not conservative at all to say that a society with more crackheads, more dope addicts, and rampant immorality would be better.

You are trying to impose your values system on society. Your values system posits that the only kinds of harm are those that are physical or harm property. This is not a value that society currently holds, and it is not a value that this society has EVER held. Thus, you are advocating a change in societal values. That is the opposite of conservatism.


21 posted on 08/05/2005 9:15:38 PM PDT by DameAutour (I'm uniquely one of us and one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DameAutour
You lived in an area of no (or lax) enforcement. I went to school in North Philly which is pretty terrible due to, among many other things, drug abuse. These are examples of criminal behavior going un-punished

I'm not a pure libertarian and I'm not saying there should be no drug laws, but we've got lots and lots of drug laws now, and we've spent countless billions trying to tell people that doing drugs is really bad for them. To what end?

Again, these are all local issues, though. When you're community worked together, things improved. No federal grant or bloviating, self-rightous, pork-addicted interloper can make that happen. Only your community could.

22 posted on 08/05/2005 9:45:31 PM PDT by SeanEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver
Aphorisms by their very nature are oversimplifications. This does not always change the truth of the aphorism.

Heinlein was basically a Libertarian and, while not a complete libertairan myself, I tend to agree with most of their theses.

Some have posted that "you can not legislate morals" and then diverge from morals to mores. That which is socially acceptable can not be legislated, but basic morality, right vs wrong, can and must be legislated.

23 posted on 08/07/2005 9:04:51 AM PDT by AntiBurr ("Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam " with apologies to Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson