What was your old screen name before you got the boot last time? Roscoe? Is that you? Kevvie boy? is that you?
Posted on 03/04/2005 5:12:44 AM PST by kjvail
But you haven't managed to say anything at all except grunts and droppings.
Maybe in my future posts to you I'll try to use simpler words.
Maybe in your future posts you will not include my name. Your BS is a steaming pile like I told you earlier.
What was your old screen name?
I apologize.
It seems that some libertarians operate on a somewhat primitive lizard brain level.
Government bad !! Two flicks of tongue.
Free market good !! Two flicks of tongue.
I apologize if the thought that you can't have a small government in a thoroughly depraved libertarian culture of drug use, gay marriage, and pornography is more than you can handle.
So how would you describe you political philosophy? Neo-Sovietism? Authoritarian Socialism? Perhaps National Socialism? Whatever you are you are no conservative.
Precisely. What is conservative about Viacom teaching your daughter to dress like Britney Spears ? What is conservative about its open sympathy for the sodomite cause ? MTV has done more for sodomite rights than any politician ever did.
During the 60's this was called the Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism. That mass media advertising inevitably destroyed the "Poor Richard's Almanac", 1750 Scottish Presbyterian values that had nurtured capitalism in the first place. Consumer capitalism devours the moral consensus that a libertarian society would need.
I don't like the popular culture Viacom has created. That does not mean I don't like capitalism.
In a culture awash in immediate gratification values people can't trust each other so they need Big Government as a referee. That's reality.
You want a small government, restore Victorian culture.
Do you prefer the morals of Fox and Viacom ? Has it dawned on you that but for the FCC we would have had prime time nudity on Fox and MTV by now ? After the "wardrobe malfunction" last year it was only through "big government" that outraged viewers could draw a line.
I've put up with more than enough of your strawmen. I think this is a done and shut discussion, anything productive has long been said and now you're just wasting my time.
What was your old screen name before you got the boot last time? Roscoe? Is that you? Kevvie boy? is that you?
Over a century society has moved away from what once was. We've gone too far. But I doubt we're going to go all the way back in the other direction. The more comfortable and secure people are, the more some will be inclined to break with social norms. So the closer you get to the older ways, the more likely it is that the next generation will move in the opposite direction -- towards looser morals and a greater role for government.
When the shoe pinches, you take care of it. When it doesn't you don't bother with it. In politics most people are only interested in getting the shoe to stop pinching, and don't keep up with public affairs once the shoe fits them well enough.
I'd say that conservatives and libertarians begin at opposite ends. Their goals may be very similar, but conservatives begin with what is and ask how they could preserve what's good about it and improve things, while libertarians with what could be, and ask how they can realize the dream. So of course they'll disagree. It's the difference between realism and idealism or utopianism, between taking people and the world as it is right now, and recreating them from the drawing board.
Precisely.
It is society that creates the state, not the other way around. The rejection of Victorian rules means that society asks the state to expand correspondingly to set the norms that used to be set by religion, family, and the "gentleman code". Each collapsing cultural norm creates new laws (How much obscenity law was there before "Deep Throat" ? It was simple before then. Shut it down. In the days when the "gentleman's agreement" that was the Hayes Code held sway in Hollywood was it necessary for actresses to have "no-nudity" clauses in their contracts or for there to be a rating system ?). The idea of the author is that if you destroy the social safety net completely and totally you will have a world in which it is dangerous to defy authority or step out of line. His goal is to restore Victorian levels of conformism and respect for authority.
But modern people do not want to go back to a 1900 state if it means being stuck all your life in a miserable marriage or having fear of gossip and scandal run your life. Women in particular (and it always struck me that the reason women have no use for libertarianism is because to women, thoughtomator's "sixgun justice" kind of world is a world where it is open season on a woman alone. In a "sixgun justice" kind of world, get mobbed up or get raped.) will always choose big government over patriarchy and the comeback of corset, chaperonne, duenna, and arranged marriage.
Don't ping me, you troll. I have no interest in wasting an instant more on your distortions and fabricated dilemnas.
The author would be wise to first consult a dictionary or two, before proclaiming what a true conservative is. Had he done so, he could have at least been able to accurately say what a conservative is not. A true conservative is not a libertarian.
Well put. But it may be worth noting that the far left is so all divided (always has been), that it makes the disorganized right look like a military regiment. Being such, it can be argued that their are no far left positions, their are only the more moderate left wing positions.
Regardless of the reason it has such support (even if only temporary), it is that support that makes the GOP a conservative party. I suggest dictionary for determining what is or is not, conservative.
This is one of the hardest replies to disagree with. While I do not agree with the above sentence, I must say that your criticism of Libertarianism is well put, and worthy of being read and understood by every libertarian and everyone considering the LP as their party of choice. Very thought provoking reply.
Agreed. but keep in mind that while libertarians can as individuals have a strong part in reducing as well as eliminating cultural rot. But as libertarians, they cannot even optionally help in such reduction or elimination, as libertarianism has nothing direct to say about 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.