Wednesday, March 4, 2009

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.

10 comments:

City Upon The Hill said...

"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?

Steve Newton said...

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.

RSmitty 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...

City Upon The Hill said...

"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.

Nancy Willing 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.

City Upon The Hill said...

"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?