Posted on 02/02/2004 8:08:45 PM PST by new cruelty
The Libertarian movement seems to be gaining in popularity in some quarters these days. Its force has been felt in every part of the political spectrum, and it has many hearty admirers in both major political parties. This popularity is strongly felt on the Internet itself, where reckless electronic cowboys blaze completely new frontiers, make up their own rules as they are needed, and, along the way, viciously attack anyone who dares to bring order out of the chaos.
But many Libertarians, or those who hold views compatible with what they believe to be "libertarianism," are naively unaware of the consequences of Libertarian thought on society as a whole, either because they don't know of these consequences, or because they know, but don't care. Let's begin by clearing up a few definitions. Liberty is not doing whatever you want, when you want it. Liberty is having the ability to pursue your dreams within the confines of societal norms, but without undue government interference or outright oppression. Webster's Dictionary says that liberty is the "power to act according to one's natural rights as an individual.", and also, "the freedom from bondage." The confusion arising in Libertarian thought comes from a linkage between the concept of "restraint" with that of "bondage". That's the first of several mistakes Libertarians make in their logic. What happens when people in a society feel that all restraint by a government is a type of "bondage", and take it upon themselves to live a life with no restraints whatsoever? They move beyond the mere concept of liberty, and slip into a concept known as license. Again, Webster's Dictionary gives us a good working definition of license: "authority granted to do any act; an excess of liberty". Usually, this "authority" is granted by no one but the individual, who takes it is a natural right. Now a fine distinction needs to be drawn concerning natural rights and self-conferred rights. It's already been said that liberty is one's natural right as an individual, and that is completely true. WhenThomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable natural rights - among them being liberty - he was certainly correct. However, when it's taken to an EXCESS, and becomes a self-conferred license to commit ANY act, however heinous, demeaning or damaging to society or others, then it has ceased to be a natural right, and has become an excess.
In a free society, if everyone acted only according to one's own wishes, there would be no "society" to speak of, and "freedom" would be simply the absence of any restraint. But notice that Webster recognizes "bondage" as a separate concept from "restraint", since they are two forces, with separate gradations of restraint. The one is simply a check upon excess, and the other is the smothering of all expression. Undue restraints are in fact bondage, but restraint - and it's cousin "self-restraint" - is not bondage. It's also important to note that restraint is important in a democracy, and comes from civic-minded citizens who voluntarily act in this manner for the greater good of the society. In a society without democratic and free foundations, self-restraint isn't necessary, because the State has imposed bondage in its place.
Forbes Magazine publisher Steve Forbes put it another way, citing the libertarian's patron saint, "Freedom is not anarchy, chaos, and mayhem. The freedom to 'let soulless forces operate,' as the great classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises termed it, is actually tyranny in another guise."
It has been known for centuries that self-restraint is the key to the entire concept of liberty in a free society. Plato said, "Excess of liberty, whether it lies in state or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery." It was also clear to America's Founders. Among many references to self-restraint we find in the writings of the Founders is the following from a 1798 address by President John Adams: ''We have no government armed with power capable of controlling human passions, unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''
Put another way by Adams' contemporary, the British philosopher-statesman Sir Edmund Burke, "Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites...Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be 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 be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
With that knowledge of self-restraint, Americans learned early on it our history, liberty thrives and grows at its own pace. It is in fact the cornerstone of Conservative thought. When all people have a respect for society, and act accordingly with that respect, then liberty is a good, since it promotes a stable and orderly society in which true freedom can flourish.
Without that self-restraint, however, people tend towards having less and less regard for society as a whole, and act accordingly out of that disrespect. At this point, the concept misnamed as "liberty" by libertarians becomes an evil, since it promotes violent instability and dis-Integrates society into self-centered, pleasure-seeking units no larger than an individual and responsible to no others. Consequently, liberty withers and legal chains are required to bridle the unbridled urges of a mob.
Alexander Hamilton realized this when he wrote, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint."
Most Libertarians today cannot seem to grasp these basic distinctions between liberty and license, and are in fact not advocates of liberty at all, but of anarchy. Finding their behavior outside of societal norms, and indeed harmful to society overall(and in fact, denying the very existence of "society" or any other entity except the radicalized individual), they urge the destruction of societal norms altogether, primarily the destruction of the government that regulates and oversees these norms. With the government out of the way, they think, liberty will prevail, and they may then engage in strongly anti-societal behavior with LICENSE. This, of course, isn't liberty at all, it's anarchy, and the behavior which derives from it is called licentiousness, which Webster's calls "an absence of moral or legal restraints".
Despite libertarians wishing it away, society exists, and if the libertarian philosophy is left to its own devices, we would evolve into a licentious, lawless society. The problem with that is a licentious society - in which all restraint and societal norms are banished to the dust heaps of history - cannot be a free or even a democratic society, in any sense of those words. It can only be a society in anarchy and decay and the resulting bondage to the slavery that comes from rampant, radically self-centered and destructive debauchery will engulf and destroy all that we have fought to build over the centuries. Hardly a goal for which Conservatives should be striving, and it brings to mind that great Conservative Margaret Thatcher, who said, "Freedom is the creature of law or it is a wild beast."
Libertarianism thus leads from the nice-sounding destruction of "government restraints" into a tyranny led by those who wish to "liberate" all people from all norms of decency, morality, duty and societal order. Libertarians, therefore, become the unwitting vanguards of the radical Marxist agenda of dismantling that order and replacing it with a permissive one. Like Burke, who said, "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," I also cannot stand idly by and allow libertarian permissiveness such as this take hold in our society. Nor may it lay claim to the name "conservative," while true Conservatives still have breath to defend it against such a slander.
We cannot allow a decent society to be sacrificed on the altar of personal licentiousness - where liberals and many others worship and find comfort. The temple must be cleansed of this false "liberty" and its sycophants. I don't want to live in a "libertarian" society any more than I want to live in a society based upon absolute bondage imposed by an all-powerful government. Conservatives must seek - and actively work for - a rational middle ground in which liberty is ensured within the framework of republican ideals, traditional societal norms and self-restraint. That's the only kind of society Tom Jefferson would venture to call "Libertarian."
Such as????? If you let your kids watch ABC, CBS, or NBC between 6am to 10pm, you're supposed to have some expectation that this kind of thing isn't what's shown. Where was the "R" rating ahead of time? I can see you condemning those who might buy cable and MTV then complaining about what MTV showed their kids.
Laugh away, enjoy your cage that is the FCC rule. Object all you like, but in the meantime, don't twist what I said. I made the burqa comment due to people like you. I want nothing of the likes of you. If you want to object, knock yourself out. But please don't tell me or any other's what we can and cannot consume on any level. That decision is reserved for me and my property.
I won't allow short sighted folks like you to enable further gov't rule; it will come back down the line to hurt me in the end.
Pollution seeps everywhere. I have been perfectly fine with sleaze on cable, pay channels, etc. because everyone knows what they are getting. Well, the result is that it has seeped into prime time, and then into the superbowl. They KNEW there would be kids watching. They knew there would be families watching, they knew they'd have a record audience for their crap.
It has to stop somewhere! I can throw out my tv, but my kids are still going to know what's going on when they walk out of my house. Kids out in the world will still be way too sexualized and cynical.
If I locked my children in the house and never let them out you'd be criticizing me then, too. So, what am I supposed to do?
That's past tense stuff --- Bob Dole broke that barrier over a decade ago.
It's about presenting the image that it's okay for a boy to rip off the blouse of a girl.
And finally, it's about why people feel it necessary to make in-your-face statements like that half-time show during the most-watched event in the television year, when there are so many other outlets during the rest of the year to show such images.
It's about why people can't seem to accept the fact that other people want some segment of entertainment to not be infiltrated by such images, and why can't they just leave it alone for the rest of us and stick to the other 99% of the venues that have been corrupted.
-PJ
I don't believe you are fighting this alone for one minute Dianna. You may not believe this, but I think Jackson was one hell of a dumbass for doing what she did. Timberlake needs a good smacking around, up one side and down the other.
But alas, What I do not want is teh Gov't trying to telling me (or you) what is right and wrong. That unsettles me to no end. I have young kids as well. They did not see any of the tirades. I made sure of that. And good on ya for fighting the good fight. Bottom line, I see this whole thing as nothing more than more Gov't intrusivness right around the corner. Recall it's our gov't saying that God should not be allowed in our schools etc..Laws did that. Are you happy with the outcome? I'm not.
I understand that, my point is that the raunch, the trash, was there before the finale and therefore the televison - one hopes - would've already been turned off. Heck, the television should've been turned off as soon as one heard that it was an MTV production with people like Janet Jackson in it. Don't try to argue that this was some big surprise and - my goodness, if I had only got a warning I would've turned off the tv.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not protecting what they did. They should all be condemned and fined, but if you let your kids play on the railroad tracks and they get run over, the fault doesn't lie only with the brakeman.
127.0.0.1 johnmorris886
you get the idea..
That too. In a way I can't complain --- my kids didn't see it --- they were actually looking forward to watching the game and the half time show --- thinking that half time shows were much of the fun. A few minutes into the half time, they became bored and wandered off until the game began again. Timberlake and Jackson both are just that desperate to be something --- to get their faces on the cover of something, but I think this will be about it for them. They're both pretty much pop music history.
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.