Posted on 02/14/2012 1:10:24 PM PST by WPaCon
The sad passing of Whitney Houston has brought many mentions in the press about her battle with cocaine addiction. It is, also sadly, not a new story; many celebrities have soared to the heights of popularity, only to have their lives end tragically and entwined with drugs. Stories of stars such as Ms. Houston frequently include abuse of both illegal and legal drugs, although, as with Michael Jackson, even the legal drugs are abused in amounts common citizens could not obtain. That said, these two stars, and many others, were exercising their liberties in consuming the drugs -- they were not killed by forced administration of the drugs.
The circumstances of Ms. Houston's demise has me pondering a conversation I had recently with a fellow libertarian, regarding the relative importance of social versus economic freedom. This acquaintance (heavily influenced, in my opinion, by working for more than twenty years at a public university) feels that social freedoms, such as homosexual marriage, drug legalization, personal privacy, etc., are more important to pursue than economic freedoms, such as lower taxes, less burdensome regulation, etc. Therefore, three years ago he voted for Obama (with nose held), while I voted for McCain (similarly, with nose held).
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
1) The author is liberal on social issues--he cites abortion and gay marriage as social freedoms. That's backwards. In contrast, conservatives are for real rights when it comes to social issues--such as the right to being born.
2) It looks at politics as being about social vs. economic issues. There's more to politics and conservatism than those two issue groups. National security conservatism, which is the other part of the three-legged stool of conservatism, is neglected. So are 2nd Amendment issues, immigration issues, and others.
3) I disagree that economic issues are more important. The beautiful part of conservatism, however, is that social conservatism, economic conservatism, national defense conservatism, and so on reinforce each other and combine to make a coherent conservative platform. There is no, or at least should not be any, conflict between conservative positions.
Yes!!! All three together make sense.
No free market economy can exist if their is an immoral populace. Virtue is necessary for all free Republics—proven by Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy—and stated by Aristotle and all the Founders.
Either you are for God-given Rights—which is the basis of Just Law—Rights which are aligned to Natural Law. Laws proposing “homosexual” marriage is the promotion of evil acts of sodomy—it is the promotion of evil—and as such, is not Just Law.
It is not compatible to ignore “social” issues in an economy. You can NEVER separate ECONOMICS from the people—and if they are moral or immoral is crucial, as our Founders stated. More immoral=more tyranny=less freedom.
To not be a social conservative-—it is impossible to be a fiscal conservative. Can’t separate the two things. People can not be separated from their moral aspect and remain human. Without people, you have no economy.
What would you call them? You do not have to be a liberal or even "liberal on social issues" to term those as social freedoms. That's precisely what they are.
If you wish government to control them or to limit them, you are calling for an abrogation -- justified in your mind -- of a citizen's freedom. That is not a controversial statement. Just a fact.
He is absolutely correct in my opinion. Man must work to survive. He must work to prosper. Without economic freedom to work at what he wishes and to consume what is in his family's best interests as he sees them, he is a slave.
Without economic freedom, we can only beg our overlords to kindly grant us the rest.
I call abortion a crime. Gay marriage doesn't exist. There are no such things as rights to or freedoms of choice (abortion) or gay marriage. Some governments may disagree and say that those rights exist, but they would be wrong. A right or freedom that deals with social issues is the right to life. That right, like all others, should not be abrogated by government. Actions that are crimes are not rights or freedoms. Government is not abrogating any freedom or right to murder. It simply and correctly recognizes murder as a crime.
He is absolutely correct in my opinion.
I disagree. The relative importance of issues depends on time and place. If I'm a Greek citizen, I'm more concerned about economic issues than national security issues. If I'm a British citizen in 1939, I'm more concerned about national security issues than economic issues.
National Defense Conservatism makes sense, if it truly is about national defense, and not about insidious arguments in support of every possible defense appropriation, every possible foreign adventure, and every possible excuse to curb our 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights.
There are excuses being made in the name of national defense that are designed to curb our 2nd Amendment rights?
But they will. Because you and I have already been labeled as potential terrorists because of our strong constitutional beliefs.
And we can't let terrorists have guns, can we?
They would most certainly be wrong, but, nonetheless, the right would exist. I was following the author's premise that government has allowed certain social "freedoms." I don't agree with those freedoms either, but we cannot just deny that Americans are free to abort babies or marry someone else of the same sex (in some states.)
The relative importance of issues depends on time and place.
That's a good point, but the article dealt only with social and economic freedoms. My comment was limited to those.
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.