Posted on 03/03/2010 7:14:12 AM PST by massmike
This is not about the libertarian freak-show that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has become. (“See the bearded lady pushing gays in the military and fighting the war on terrorism the way the French fought World War II.”)
Nor is it meant to be an indictment of Congressman Ron Paul — who is to serious political debate what Comedy Central is to philosophical inquiry.
Neither is it about Grover Norquist’s attempts to make the conservative movement jihad-friendly. Norquist — who sits on the board of the American Conservative Union, CPAC’s parent organization — is the godfather of the Islamic Free Market Institute, a past CPAC co-sponsor. (Do they cut your taxes before or after they cut off your head?)
Rather, the foregoing serve to illustrate widespread ignorance and illusion regarding a word — and it is a word whose correct understanding is essential to America’s survival — conservative.
(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...
That's fine, if you want to be a historical illiterate in the service of libertarianism, go right ahead.
Since, well, Patrick Henry of all people voiced essentially the same point I've made.
I agree - but that cuts to the issue. If the government isn't the arbiter of morals - and it's not - then what is? We ourselves, each one individually, regardless of the effect it has on other members of the commonwealth? That's not self-government, either. But now, we're crossing that uncomfortable line whereby people might be held to eternal moral standards that exist regardless of any government...
This a a very good article (especially the first half), that does a great job explaining the difference between Conservatism and Libertarianism.
I especially like this passage:
“A conservative isn’t a libertarian. A conservative values freedom (individual liberty); a libertarian worships it. A libertarian recognizes no political value other than freedom. A libertarian is a utopian of the right. The left’s utopia is a government that’s all-inclusive. The libertarian’s is a government that’s non-existent — or nearly so. The left believes people are angels corrupted by capitalism. The libertarian believes people are angels corrupted by the state. The conservative believes humanity is flawed — hence, corruptible.”
I think he goes a bit too far on the faith aspect. While I am a devout Christian, I believe an agnostic or atheist can be a conservative, so long as they agree with certain core Christian values. Still, this an excellent article.
>>>As for gay marriage, govt caused this problem, when it took unto itself MARRIAGE itself.<<<
This is absolutely untrue. Marriage predated government. Governments, almost without exception, have recognized that marriage (between a man and a woman, of course) was the normal, natural course of existence for humans, and that it was highly beneficial to the individuals and to society. As a result, it saw fit to officially recognize the fact that a married couple is a unit, that should be treated as a single entity for certain purposes.
For the most part, government merely registers marriages, (in much the same way it registers corporations) and makes some minimal efforts to ensure that individuals seeking marriage are meet some very basic eligibility requirements (not already married, of age, not close relatives, etc.).
Homosexuals might co-habitate and on some level might even “love” one another, but they cannot form the natural union, and basis of the family unit and of socitey, known as marriage. Therefore, there is no practical reason for recognition of such false “unions”.
Patrick Henry governed what again? It is really quite easy to stand on hard principles when living your private life, but when you are attempting to put together rules to govern others lives it is very hard. Without the freedom to sin, there is no need to self govern. The freedom is what causes the need for self government, not the barriers put up artificially.
Why should govt need to recognize any marriage? Why do I need govt sanction to live my life the way I see fit? Marriage will survive without govt, it is easily destroyed by it.
He seems on point for the most part, but one thing, one very important thing, I did not see anywhere in his write up, is the mention of Progressives.
We can talk all day long about democrats, republicans, liberals and conservatives. But until one opens their eyes and see’s it’s the Progressives that are ruining this country and call them for what they are, nothing will change. IMO
>>>Why should govt need to recognize any marriage? Why do I need govt sanction to live my life the way I see fit? Marriage will survive without govt, it is easily destroyed by it.<<<
A married couple an entity beyond the two individuals and therefore it is only logical that it be treated as such in certain situations. The government’s primary (and almost exclusive) function in marriage is to certify the existence of this unit for certain legal purposes. IOW, it prevents people from falsely claiming that they are a married couple, and gives married couples evidence that the union exists.
Do you oppose the government registering corporations?
For all his faults, Ron Paul is closer to being a genuine conservative than most of his critics are.
Agreed
The problem with this question is that there isn't an acceptable answer to this question OTHER than we ourselves individually. Not without giving some other entity WAY too much power to impose morality, or tyranny, depending on how you look at it, over the population.
I think a large part of the problem is that with the advent of all the social programs and government 'benefits' that are handed out, this has gone to create a collectivist mindset even in conservatives who would otherwise tend to be more individualist.
If we remove the moral hazard of damaging social programs, the morality of the individual will follow.
To be honest, I don't think much more of the argument that people aren't capable of governing their own morality than I do of the envirotard progressives who are out there trying to ban my barbecue grill.
What an idiotic article...yawn
Self-government involves voluntary restraint of our own desires so that we can function within the commonwealth in a way that facilitates civil society among us all. Or at least that's the way John Locke would have defined it. Libertarians, on the other hand, want to take us back to Locke and Hobbes' "state of nature" in which there is no commonwealth.
Right. Libertarianism is anarchy. BS.
You want a simpler and more accurate explanation for what happened at CPAC? Well here it is.
CPAC has long been the main stomping ground of conservative college student activists. In recent years it's become even more so, with a full half of the audience or higher being in that 18-25 demographic. College age conservatives tend to have a substantially stronger small-l libertarian streak than the rest of the conservative electorate. For better or for worse:
- They don't really care one way or another about the gay movement, and don't really think of it as a political threat
- They don't see marijuana as marking the downfall of Western Civilization
- They associate most social conservatism with "sunday school," which is that boring thing their parents used to make them go to when they were living at home.
- They aren't too keen on religious conservative crusades against alcohol and other "moral vices" either, seeing as they typically partake in them
- In fact, they probably see those socially conservative "moral vice" policies as evidence of an intrusive big government preventing them from freely partaking in the consumption of alcohol
- Those of them who are gung ho about the war in Iraq have already signed up in the military, and the rest are generally indifferent
- They're generally healthy and at an age where they think they're invincible, so they don't really get riled up about medicare or health insurance either...except when they're asked to pay for somebody else's.
- They are usually new to the working world, have just discovered that they have to pay income taxes
- They've also just discovered that part of their paycheck is confiscated for a social security system that they will never see or benefit from
- And they're generally drawn to idealistic political causes over pragmatist ones
All of those factors combine together to make a candidate like Ron Paul sound very appealing, so they vote for him over a bible thumper like Palin, a stuffy old career politician like McCain, or a slick but empty suit like Romney. Give it a few years and most of them will grow out of it. But a giant Ron Paul conspiracy to take over the GOP it is not.
Your line shows the real divide in the Republican party. We have RINO's, and we have Progressives, and then we have Libertarians, all of which will eventually destroy the very fabric of our society.
Well said Titus. Wish I had something to add, but you summed up my feelings in four paragraphs.
I thought it was a good article. Has this place been overrun by the Ronulans?
Each man was doing what was right in his own eyes.
May not be familiar to you, but what happened after that statement, was a repudiation of your position.
Some very good points in this discussion! Thank you all!
No they don't, but they will, or we are doomed.
What does that mean?
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.