Skip to main content

I want to drop the Libertarian name and call it the "RSmitty Party"

Because, as Smitty has divined in his departure from the GOP, you can't really trust conservatives with the power of government any more than you can trust their opposite numbers.

From Waldo:

An interesting analysis of why libertarians and conservatives have such a hard time playing well together includes this summation of South Carolina Republicans and their obsession with regulating women's reproductive systems:

The problem isn’t that conservatives are failing to live up to their principles. Instead, the problem is that limited government never has been a social conservative principle. The more influential social conservatives become within the movement, the more obvious this is. As Lindsey put it, ‘The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government.’


As far back as 1959, Friedrich Hayek warned that conservatives could not be trusted to defend liberty. In his essay ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative,’ he suggested that ‘the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.’ He argued that conservatives lacked any principles which would allow them to work with people whose moral values were different to their own.

Comments

"and their obsession with regulating women's reproductive systems"

Why can't you call a spade a spade? Is there something that embarrasses you about the real nature of the subject?
What, City, you want me to change the wording of a quote?
Brian Miller said…
And it isn't just about abortion, as city appears to be trying to take it.

Anti-gay marriage laws, adultery laws, and "covenant marriage" laws are all efforts by social conservative statists to regulate women's reproductive systems as well.

To the average conservative, a woman's uterus is government property to be publicly monitored and regulated at all times -- "for her own good," of course.
Tyler Nixon said…
LOL. Will there be beer??

I would correct one thing - I think you (and Smitty)((and me)) are more aptly disgusted by NEO-conservatives.

Religious fundamentalism, big government expansionism, and global hyper-militarism, for example, are NOT conservative precepts.

I can't join you in buying into the hijacking of conservatism by the likes of Falwell, Kristol, Frum, Bush et al.

Unfortunately I realize it is cheap shorthand used by many these days to scarlet letter conservatism as the Bush big government Republican splinter.

But I don't accept it.
Anonymous said…
OMG, I inspired a headline to a post here!

Take a back seat Tyler, this is my show!

WOOOO!

Oh, and everything Steve said is right. Take that Nixon!
;-)
Tyler Nixon said…
Back seat or back of the bus?

((**crocodile 'conservative' tears**))

As Steve wrote on DP, you'd be welcome in the fold here Smitty.

Then you can write yourself into all the headlines your heart desires!

...I mean, don't make me start the "Day XX of RSmitty's Betrayal" series...
"What, City, you want me to change the wording of a quote?"

It was meant as a comment to the whole pro-abortion side of the libertarian movement.

"To the average conservative, a woman's uterus is government property to be publicly monitored and regulated at all times -- "for her own good," of course."

Ahh.......No?

Life begins at conception, science and logic (and Dr. Ron Paul) tell us that. The impulse to ignore another human being's right to life for our own selfish convenience is libertarianism at its worst.
Brian Miller said…
It was meant as a comment to the whole pro-abortion side of the libertarian movement.

You're illustrating the blatant dishonesty of the uterus federalizers.

My opposition to your nationalization of a woman's reproductive system doesn't make me "pro" anything. It makes me ANTI-statist.

Your statism is not "pro life." It's pro control, and it's not "libertarian."

Your entire argument is no different from a socialist who calls a free marketeer "pro poverty" for opposing HIS statist scheme. Both of you are deliberately obfuscating the issue to extend your own control over others.

Government-power-craving abortion regulation advocates are as "libertarian" as "libertarians" who favor government intervention in foreign countries, the economy, the bedroom, or any other scheme where government doesn't belong.
Anonymous said…
I am presently re-reading David Hackett Fischer's 'Freedom and Liberty' which has a themed concentration on the three major philosophical takes - based loosely on geographical areas of colonial America but also relating to the economic and cultural mores of these regions. Northerers, Mid-Atlantics and Southerners each had distinctly varying perceptions of freedom and liberty.
DHF's book also exhibits these variations on a theme as iconic forms - self expression.
"You're illustrating the blatant dishonesty of the uterus federalizers."

Uterus federalizers? Sir, I have no words...

"Your statism is not "pro life." It's pro control, and it's not "libertarian.""

Statism? If wanting a government that seeks to protect its citizens from murder makes me a communist then hand me a hammer and sickle.

"Your entire argument is no different from a socialist who calls a free marketeer "pro poverty" for opposing HIS statist scheme."

Do you honestly believe that or do you just like to say inflammatory things?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...