Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ohioan
It was not the Libertarians who attacked morality, it was the people whom they opposed.

You make it sound like either libertarians or the others, but that's not true.

The libertarians defend property rights, the socialists do not. When it comes to personal behavior, however, they are more alike than different.

If you were to look only at what some Hollywood socialist said about say, sexual promiscuity, drugs, homosexuality, or what have you ... and then you looked at a libertarian's comment on the same, you wouldn't find any significant difference.

The difference between them is merely that the socialist will try to remove the consequences of bad actions, whereas the libertarian will not. But the actions themselves? Either one will say "go right ahead, and to hell with those who say you shouldn't."

140 posted on 08/02/2002 2:29:06 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb
While I was commending your earlier comment, you were taking a shot at my post from yesterday, #21. Let us look at the subject more closely:

The libertarians defend property rights, the socialists do not. When it comes to personal behavior, however, they are more alike than different.

Libertarians--i.e. the Founding Fathers, and those who defend their vision--most certainly defend property rights. They also defend freedom of association--or non association. Socialists tell people not only what they must do with their property, but with whom they may associate; with whom they must go to school; even what values they are free to express in public discussion (such as the interdiction, now, of prayers in school assemblies and commencements). The traditional American libertarian outlook is totally different than the Socialist, both as to what is moral, and who has the right to define morality.

If you were to look only at what some Hollywood socialist said about say, sexual promiscuity, drugs, homosexuality, or what have you ... and then you looked at a libertarian's comment on the same, you wouldn't find any significant difference.

Now here, you are referring to a small group of "Libertarians," who have adopted the term to offer an alternative political party. However, the items you lump together do not have equal values or importance to all people who vote for that still fragmentary party. (I happen to believe that it would be a very good thing for us Conservative Republicans, if the party were to become more significant; able to exercise leverage to help force the mainstream parties to the Right.)

But what you list here, sexual promiscuity, drugs and homosexuality, are only a very few of the many areas in which modern Socialist leaning Governments try to legislate values. And the issue is hardly one in which most Conservatives are on an opposite tack with even the small group of libertarians, actually active in the new party. On Homosexuality, I will grant you, I part company with the Libertarians. Why? Because Conservative, traditional American Governments always interdicted such behavior. To sanction it is to tear down a long established Conservative position.

Do not mistake, what I am suggesting. Traditional America respected doors, also. And behavior which was not inflicted upon the public, between consenting adults, who respected the sensibilities of their neighbors, ordinarily went unremarked. On the other hand, those who flaunt deviant behavior should be punished--at the least by the stigmatization, discussed repeatedly in this thread.

With regard to drugs and sexual promiscuity, the answers are not so clear. Traditional America relied purely on stigmatization to control sexual behavior and substance abuse. It was only as we came into the 20th Century, that Liberals, Moderates & even some Conservatives, got the Government into trying to deal with the social consequences of these.

Hollywood does not represent a Socialist position in its self-indulgent permissiveness; rather just that, self-indulgent permissiveness. Again, the remedy to Hollywood, is societal condemnation of their lack of character; with outright condemnation, necessary, for the anti-social values they promote in movies. The Southern Baptist attack on Disney should have been echoed by every responsible leader of every socially perceptive organizaton in America. But that has nothing to do with any imagined schism between Conservatives and Libertarians.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

150 posted on 08/02/2002 3:10:32 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson