Marriage Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Timshel

New member
Get a divorce. At least the libertarians should want one. Social conservatives bring nothing to the table, while are held liable for their failings.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/07/conservatives-in-disguise.html

Conservatives, at one time shared some common values with libertarians—I'm not sure that is true any longer. But one of the funny things about the conservative movement is that they have had to rely on libertarians to do their thinking for them. Since the Bible says bugger-all about markets, spontaneous order, individual rights, etc., conservatives have to find others who actually think about such things. So they borrow and steal ideas from libertarians on a regular basis. When they want to sound like intellectual advocates of freedom they will quote Milton Friedman, FA Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand and other authors of a more libertarian bent.

Conservatism itself is intellectually sterile and so they have had to take what libertarians have been writing. Left to their own devices they produce the likes of Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, intellectual midgets who think sneer and smear is a form of intellectual argumentation.

First Things laments the intellectual wasteland that is modern conservatism and admit that libertarians "hold an outsized influence" on the "right-leaning intellectual elite." They write: "Disagree? Quick: Think of a prominent economist on the right that isn't a libertarian or that is an outspoken social conservative." If by "on the right" they mean supporting a free, depoliticized market, then they are pretty much right. Conservatives aren't intellectuals. Economics is an intellectual pursuit. Conservatives are faith-driven, economics is reality-bound. They steal from libertarians because religion is intellectual sterile when it comes to matters like economics.

I once tried to read all the major defenses of religion and capitalism. Poor Ed Optiz spent more time quoting Mises than Jesus—and for good reason. I found individual Christians trying to defend free markets but using secular sources for their arguments. They can't rely on their theology for this, they must rely on secular sources.

The reality is that NO major free market economist that I can think of, was a professed orthodox Christian. They were mostly secular, atheists or deists, often non-practicing Jews. First Things find this disturbing and thinks that these libertarians were involved in some plot to infiltrate conservatives. They say: "By shifting the terminology—call themselves conservative while supporting libertarian ideas—they will eventually reshape the conservative movement into their own image." Milton Friedman said he was a classical liberal, or a modern libertarian, not a conservative. I've heard him say it and emphasis his actual views. FA Hayek wrote an excellent essay attacking the foundations of conservatism in Why I Am Not a Conservative. Mises wrote an entire book on his political philosophy called Liberalism.

This is hardly deceptive infiltration by libertarians into the dung heap of conservatism. Conservatives, in their attempt to pay lip-service to free markets, borrowed intellectual arguments on markets from libertarians because they are unable to produce their own.
 
Dixie should enjoy this. Personally, I'm not a fan of divorce. Then again, I advocate relatively few of the socially conservative beliefs that I hold, and I'm not out to force my Catholicism on Americans.
 
Ge If by "on the right" they mean supporting a free, depoliticized market, then they are pretty much right.
Globalization is highly political. It posits that NATION or national loyalty are invalid constructs. Globalized fools like yourself posit that any loyalty besides the loyalty to your employer is some devious thought pattern.

Conservatives aren't intellectuals. Economics is an intellectual pursuit.

Efficiency is a morally neutral value. the framework we put it in gives it's moral flavor. The framework you put it in (none) renders it a vehicle of evil and degradation.
 
Stringy, you and other seculars seem to have an almost 'militant' attitude toward those who have a strong religious faith. Perhaps it is because you are envious of those who have a personal connection to something foundational, which you can't seem to muster faith in? This frustration causes you to lash out with insulting rhetoric, in a futile attempt to destroy the religious faith, or shame the person into doubting their faith. It's really a shameful tactic, and one that is quite contradictory to the professed principles of libertarianism itself. The idea of personal liberty seems to only apply to secular non-believers of religion, while those who worship a God are denied this consideration, as you attempt to strip their political vocal chords. Libertarians think the government should allow the individual to do whatever they wish, as long as it doesn't cause harm to someone else... but this standard doesn't apply to those with religious faith. It doesn't matter that something causes no harm, and actually fosters some good, if it is based on a religious perspective or philosophy, it must be rejected on that basis alone.

In this thread, the argument over Gay Marriage is being presented by libertarian seculars, and we can see, absurdity knows no bounds. Opposition to it, is automatically categorized as a "religious" viewpoint, regardless of the non-religious points made. Since there can be a connection made to a religious teaching, it nullifies (in their mind) the argument in opposition to Gay Marriage. The basis for this, is the 1st amendment, which essentially says people have the right to their religious viewpoint, and government does not have the right to deny them their viewpoint, or establish a universal religion. The leap of logic is made by connecting a possible religious viewpoint with the establishment of a religion. It doesn't matter that arguments have been made which do not rely on religious belief, since religious belief is strongly opposed to gay marriage, the opposition must be rejected. This standard doesn't seem to apply to other issues where religious morality plays a role, like laws against murder and theft. In fact, murder and theft, (both found in the 10 Commandments), are not considered "religious dogma" at all, while rejection of gay marriage is viewed as "religious dogma" even though no reference to gay marriage was ever made in the Bible or by Jesus Christ. The seculars argue it amounts to imposing Christian religion on society, even though some Christian churches perform gay marriages and condone homosexuality.

The arguments against opposition to gay marriage are flimsy at best, but when you consider the libertarian philosophy of individual liberty, you have to wonder how they can even make such an argument. It seems quite contradictory to argue that a certain segment of the population doesn't even deserve the fundamental freedom of speech, outlined in the 1st amendment. If we can not legitimately express our viewpoints, religious or otherwise, when shaping our laws and governing society, then how can we truly be "free?" Secular Libertarians would have you believe religious people do not have the right to express their religiously-based viewpoints, but I can find nowhere in the Constitution which stipulates this criteria, and it flies in the face of Libertarianism itself.

We are ALL entitled to a voice and opinion, on gay marriage or any other issue confronting our society, and whether we happen to base that opinion on a particular or personal religious belief, is no one's business but our own. It certainly isn't a reason to deny the person their Constitutional right to participate in the political process. Our Founding Fathers were smart men, they painstakingly poured through phrases and meanings of words before settling on what is now our Constitution. Had they intended for NO religious viewpoints ever being codified into any law, and religious influence being denied a seat at the table of political debate, they would have most appropriately used the word "Atheist" to describe what kind of nation we are. They didn't use the word.
 
Stringy, you :blah:.

No one is denying you speech rights. You are simply not allowed to limit the rights of others in making their personal choices. Doing so most certainly does harm.

Why would I be envious of someone making the same intellectual errors that I once did?

"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error." TJ
 
Same intellectual errors. I agree with your political arguments Stringy, but just know that you are wrong about God. I laugh at your predicament. See, Dixie, its that easy - just don't give a damn about the heathen pagans.
 
Back
Top