Skip to comments.Why the “Issue” of Morality Will Always Matter, and Why it Must Never be Suppressed or Denied
Posted on 02/11/2011 7:35:14 PM PST by TCH
Why the Issue of Morality Will Always Matter... And Why it Must Never be Suppressed or Denied:
I expect the libertarians will never get it... since they possess no objective principles, but only subjective standards... and those can always be lowered. The craven materialistic humanism of those possessed of self-centered egos will not substitute for genuine libertyno matter the "high-sounding words in their mouths."
The moral relativism of the simple-minded has placed America on a fast track to socialism. You see, libertarians are actually closet socialistthey just do not yet comprehend the irony of their atheistic philosophy. As Sir Edmund Burke stated:
"In some people I see great liberty indeed; in many, if not in the most, an oppressive, degrading servitude. But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths. Reflections." (IV. 272).
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite he placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot he free. Their passions forge their fetters." National Assembly (IV. 319).
Their passions forge their fetters. Put another way: Their permissiveness, and disregard for the necessity of a moral character to the nation, ensures that all members of the society shall eventually wear the yoke of fiscal bondage, and bear the heavy chains of tyranny that must follow
In one of the most lucid explanation for the reasoning that supports this assertion, as to why the libertarian model is our greatest enemy (as I have always held it to be), Robert Ritchie, of The American TFP (Tradition, Family and Property) plainly explains the principles involvedand the risk of abandoning them...
TFP to CPAC: Dont Betray Principles http://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Robert-s-Blog.html
Good observations. Burke was, indeed, correct. And as John Adams observed, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Libertarianism does not, and cannot, square with the Founders vision.
But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue?
We lost this country when the 10 Commandments were removed from the town square. Since then we have drifted towards the moral relativism of today. We are ‘ruled’ by man’s whims. Totally and thoroughly corrupt, a society of lies in a downward spiral. This will not end well.
Tragedy of the commons.
Yes, agreed. It is basically Christianity that has allowed freedom to spread all through the West (with occasional setbacks). The Athenians valued it, but could not keep it, because the Athenian Democracy degenerated into a system where the majority voted for their own selfish interests.
If you don’t have moral values and self-discipline, then the state will inevitably step in and do it for you.
As Hobbes pessimistically argued, if you have a system of individualism, with every man fighting for his own selfish interests, then life will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” unless you bring in a king or a dictator to run things. Hobbes, of course, rejected Christianity, so there was no foundation for him to build on.
Conservatives had better have a united front, however temporary on certain issues it may be, if they plan to mount a successful challenge. Insulting potential Libertarian allies is not wise.
That you mention Hobbes is relevant, since libertarians (libertines) tend to reject moral Christianity, or, more accurately, they reject the theology of absolute morality.
They do so, primarily, because moral absolutism deprives the libertine of his/her most cherished object: licentiousness. For they confuse liberty, under the pretense of “non-interference,” with the imagined “rights” of themselves and others to do whatsoever they may please, and without restraint.
The libertines see no harm in abortion—even though that view contradicts their insistence on “non-interference.” They see no problem with drug use, even though the degradation to society is more than sufficient proof—and not by fact of the “War on Drugs,” but rather by fact that society pays a price for its unproductive and detached members. Likewise, the libertine sees no problem with homosexuality and all its facets—even though the resultant statistics of disease, drug abuse, depression, assaults, homicides and suicides all prove the negative impact upon the society in general, and the coarsening of the culture in particular.
While many libertarians will object to that appraisal, the more honest must admit it to be so.
They may prefer to deny themselves actual atheists, yet their philosophy denies transcendent moral absolutes, which is the denial of the absolute author of those tenets, since they could not develop themselves apart from the intelligence that must exist as their first cause. So while the libertarian, may not be a proclaimed atheist, yet nevertheless such an individual is a practical atheist.
“Insulting potential Libertarian allies is not wise.”
Denying the existence and primacy of moral absolutes, so to gain allies—and their 30 pieces of silver, is less so.
Squabbling in the trenches while ignoring and being overrun by a common enemy ensures defeat for both you and your Libertarian FRiends.
That makes sense...Sarah Palin cannot be bought, that’s one reason she is the object of mindless hatred!
While your analogy may work perfectly well in the terrestrial realm, our battle here is temporary and shall pass away like the wind. The soul, however, is eternal.
There will be no “putting steel downrange” to “effectively” defend your soul from the eternal foe, if one makes an enemy of God, by compromising His Law for the sake of pleasing men.
That is difference between your thinking and my own.
Do you not understand that earthly pragmatism will not purchase for you a good reward in eternity?
I would yet take to the side of one just man, no matter how the remote the odds of temporal victory, rather than take the field with a battalion of corrupt men. And this I would do, not because I care nothing for earthly victories, for I am still human; but, rather, because I judge of more worth that victory which lies beyond this life.
“Squabbling in the trenches while ignoring and being overrun by a common enemy ensures defeat for both you and your Libertarian FRiends. “
I think the argument being made is that the Libertarians are not in fact in the trenches with “us.” (conservatives)
It's a way of life here at Holier-Than-Thou FR. The country might go down the shitter because socons won't stoop to working with libertarians on smaller government, but by Gawd, they'll be the upright moral ones when it all implodes. Conservatives patented the circular firing squad, you know.
The only One “Holier-Than-Thou” is Jesus Christ. If one knows him, he also knows they are no better than anyone else, ergo, humility and the fear of God. It is Christ who set the example of morality: his life, death an resurrection defined it.
May I ask which denomination of Christianity you belong to? Because, frankly you're coming off as a big a-hole judging others' faith based on the level of government involvement they believe in.
You wonder why your faction of conservatism is losing more and more ground as time goes on and more reasonable voices such as Sara Palin's are gaining ground.
What are you even talking about?
And that's my point, join forces for the temporary terrestrial battle and get back on the eternal one after Mordor-on-the-Potomac has been defeated.
Saving souls will be a lot easier under a Constitutionally restored America than under the boot of Socialist/Marxist Libtardians with their State-sponsored/mandated immorality.
I agree with your sentiments, but for shorthand, I usually describe conservatism as strict adherence to the Constitution.
A little longer form is the three legged stool view, with the legs being social issues, foreign policy, and fiscal conservatism.
You might want to re-examine that remark. My reasoning is on target...
“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.” Edmund Burke
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” Alexis de Tocqueville
“The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well nigh as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad.” Theodore Roosevelt
The failings of the libertarian philosophy summarized thus:
Libertarianism has to do with maximum individual freedom, without restraint or limitation. The libertarian principle is thus antithetical to the concept of morality. This is not to say that individual libertarians are not moral people; but they are moral people only insofar as they are acting inconsistently with libertarianism. They are good folks because they are bad libertarians.
Edmund Burke understood quite that liberty not license, but true liberty was connected to moral order, to the linking of people together by the bonds of custom, tradition, religion, fellow-feeling and virtue. Absent those qualities, individuals are incapable of governing themselves and the state must rise to provide order and security for the populace.
Burke’s point is that morality embraced by the individual but also reflected in the public institutions and laws of a given culture must have a role in the public square, otherwise tyranny will lurk at the door until an opening arises. Libertarianism makes this situation more likely, not less. Rather than being a guard against tyranny, libertarianism makes the collapse of freedom more likely, not less, by replacing liberty with license and eroding the connections between people that are essential for both personal and private morality.
In this, libertarianism shows forth its origins as an ideological movement, grounded not in the preservation of rights and duties traditionally understood, but rather the dogmatic erosion of civic community and social order necessary for the concepts of rights and duties to exist within the interactions of human beings with each other.
The entire idea of libertarianism is self-refuting. Again, this is not to say that individual libertarians are incapable of virtue or devoid of moral conduct. It is to say that insofar as they are virtuous and moral, it is because they are not really libertarians.