GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
David Brody commented just a couple days ago on Fred Thompson and the fact he may just steal the National Coalitions from Romney. But today he has another piece and makes a point, one I have been making all along: Romney is the candidate to fight the culture war.
Why? Because let’s do a quick check of the other candidates. Is there one top-tier candidate that is consistently and pro-actively talking about the culture war in this country? Go down the list. Not one of them is doing it. Sure, they make mention of an issue or two once in a while, but there really hasn’t been a concerted effort to come up with any speech that tackles the moral issues that conservative Christians care about.
Brody then links to this YouTube which is something I don’t think you will hear another candidate offer:
Romney really is the only candidate that will argue for all three legs of the stool- not just economy and defense. He is the only one arguing for a platform that includes Strong Economy, Strong Defense and Strong Families. Like it or not, families are the backbone of our society.
Another quote from Romney a few years old is a favorite of mine, and if Romney wins will undoubtedly be a quotable:
America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home.
This is a true statement. We let our families collapse, we will be a weak nation. Frankly it’s only Romney who is willing to beat this drum. There isn’t much use for tax cuts and health care if we have let the family disintegrate.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
–”Like it or not, families are the backbone of our society.”
It’s sad that on a blog highlighting republican candidates we need to add “like it or not” to that seemingly obvious phrase. Sadder still is that there is only one candidate that is strong on the position.
Family values is a slam dunk issue that brings out the base of the Republican party and has the potential to cross over and bring out many Democrats. It makes Gov. Romney a stronger candidate to deal with in the general than most people give credit.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home.”
Oh wow. I used that as an example of a really cheesy quote of Romney’s to bash him to my grandma. She found it pretty cheesy, too.
What exactly is the “collapse” of the family, and how on Earth would a government be able to do anything to stop it?
(Answer: Overturn Roe v. Wade!)
July 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
And hey Jason! –
When we argued this before, you gave me a link to a Romney speech where he said tax cuts and forcing people to buy health care strengthened families! So what’s the deal with this!?:
“There isn’t much use for tax cuts and health care if we have let the family disintegrate.”
!?
So which is it? (Answer: Ban gay marriage!)
July 9th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Oh wow. I used that as an example of a really cheesy quote of Romney’s to bash him to my grandma. She found it pretty cheesy, too.
Being that I don’t know your grandma, that means very little to me.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
When we argued this before, you gave me a link to a Romney speech where he said tax cuts and forcing people to buy health care strengthened families! So what’s the deal with this!?:
Great distortion.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
It’s sad that on a blog highlighting republican candidates we need to add “like it or not� to that seemingly obvious phrase.
Unfortunately there are people here who feel your immoral to say families are important. You know the whole “good evil” thing.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Ah yes, families are the backbone of our society.
So when gay people, indeed a fair chunk of the gay movement, wishes to emerge from the frenzied irresponsible era that (inevitably) came with the birth of freedoms won in the gay rights movement, and they wish to evolve / mature into a mindset that encourages responsible values, like long-term committment, then we should do everything that we can to prevent that.
Because of course, if gay people act responsibly, and channel their human instincts of love and affection into long-term relationships, and we recognize those relationships, then all of our own relationships will be fundamentally undermined.
I must admit, I really detest this man, and this way of thinking.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Tano,
Who is keeping them from committing to each other.
And don’t worry. most here detest the Democrat way of thinking.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
TLG (#3),
Every time I can remember the healthcare debate on this site, people who don’t like Romney’s reforms go dead quiet when asked if it’s a conservative principle to let financially stable free-loaders bill their health care to the taxpayers and the insured.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Jason,
I agree. That was not a knock on you but that most people posting here needed that addition. Many here are willing to sell out core Republican values to do what they think will win elections. The problem is that running away from things like family values actually hurts the party come election time. We need to embrace the strengths of our party, explain them loudly and clearly to the American people and gain converts to the Right while winning along the way.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Troy:
I agree with your statement there in #1. I’d also like to add that there are a lot of liberal posters on this board (in case you have not noticed). Few of these posters are honest & tell you straight out that they are liberal, many others will pose as conservatives bloggers. Everyone can decide for themselves.
Romney is right on with that statement regarding families. What is sad is that too few other “conservatives” are making similar statements regarding families and their contributions to the strength of our nation.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Whose to say gay people are not apart of families? Do they not have mothers & fathers, brothers & sisters & so fourth?
I guess there will always be those who have issues with families since full rights of marriage are not liberally bestowed upon any and all alternative lifestyles.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
It’s a sign of hypersensitivity when the phrase “collapse of families” provokes rants from gay movement advocates.
The prevalence of divorce and the out-of-wedlock birth rate are impoverishing a generation of Americans.
So why do the gay movement advocates react so mindlessly when someone points out our weakening families?
Seems like they care more about their supposed “rights” than the health and welfare of a generation of children.
With all the important issues facing America it’s a testament to our silliness that we waste time even considering the tiny but loud counter-culture’s demands.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
murphy, clearly you’ve ignored everything I’ve ever written on this site.
I’m a little sick of going over this (maybe I should leave it in a log somewhere to copy-paste especially for you?), but the ideal would be to simply leave health care to the market. Mitt Romney didn’t say that his health care plan was some last resort to offset socialized medicine — he said it was a fabulous plan. Some Democrats — Richardson, for example — have fallen in love with the plan. It is not a “free-market based” plan because the free market isn’t about the government prioritizing what people buy.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
And econ grad stud needs to put away his Bible and talk to a real, live person with homosexual attractions before he starts rattling off about how we’re some “counterculture” that “weakens the family.”
Can you please tell me how my being sexually attracted to men hurts “the health and welfare of a generation of children?” I’m simply not getting the connection here. What have gay people ever done to harm the welfare of a generation of children? Do you simply not want them exposed to homosexuality? If that’s the issue, please say so, but otherwise, stop making facetious links. Blame gays for everything! Divorce? Blame the gays, not people who can’t pick a partner correctly! Out-of-wedlock births? Blame the gays, not the people who chose to have sex when they weren’t ready! Weak family structures? Blame the gays!
It’s not a counter-culture. Being gay isn’t a culture anymore than being straight is a culture, it’s — Oh wait — Before I go on:
Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice, econ grad stud?
July 9th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
What is the collapse of the family? Your serious? When we aborting 20% of our nation’s pregnancies, when Gay and Lesbians are being allowed to marry like straight couples (when gay relationships cannot produce children), when we have divorce rates near 50%, when marriage is seen as being more about the pleasure and happiness of adults rather then the creation and raising of children, when it is perfectly acceptable to be a “babby-daddy” rather than a father, and when our culture is focused heavily on promiscuous sex, illegal drugs, and violence (And not the kind in War movies), that is the break down of not only the family, but also the values that the family is based upon. To have a strong country, you need strong families. It is a proven fact that children (and with them, society as a whole) do better when they are raised in traditional families.
Back on the issue of Romney and Social Conservatives, he is going to find their favor. Look at Romney, married for thirty years, five children, five children-in-law, grandchildren, he doesn’t drink, he doesn’t swear, he is church-going, and is the kind of person who you could tell your children “you want to be like him”. On theological issues, Romney and Social Conservatives may be miles apart, but on values, and the importance of the family, they are as close as they could be.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
“Our culture is focused heavily on promiscuous sex, illegal drugs, and violence…that is the breakdown…” So what do you propose? What is Mitt Romney proposing? And how the hell is that the fault of gays?
And as far as gays not being able to produce children — so marriage is about childrearing? Then why don’t we see you so-cons up in arms about straight couples who are incapable of reproducing getting married?
I cannot believe you compared two people wanting to get married simply for the sake of their own happiness to a culture focused on illegal drug use.
But we have it on record: It’s not good enough for this man that marriage could bring people happiness. Marriage has to be altruistic, sacrificial, and — I’m sure he meant this too — Biblically based. Two people, in order to get married, have to pass the tests that people like ACT Blog set out for them. Their own happiness isn’t a good enough reason for him.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy, A true free market healthcare system would refuse health care to people who don’t have health insurance or money to pay. Since letting people die who don’t have health insurance isn’t very popular, it’s very unlikely for that to go through. Since paying for people who don’t have health insurance IS socialized medicine, Romney’s plan is closer to a free market system than what we currently have.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
How is Mitt Romney blaming the breakdown of family on gays?
July 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
No, a truly free market health care system would find some way for everyone who wanted health care to be able to get health care. If we switched over to a laissez-faire capitalist health care system, prices wouldn’t remain as they are (we have a strongly mixed economy health care system right now, and anyone claiming it’s fantastic is out of their mind) — they’d go down and we’d see rapid advancements. How can we know this? Because of what’s happened with absolutely everything else that has simply been left to the market!
And a free market system does not exclude charities and other reduced cost services, either. It’s what happens in *every other sector of the economy.* Notice that we don’t see anyone in dire need of anything that the government hasn’t tried to regulate.
And besides — in Romney’s plan, how do people who can’t afford health insurance get it? Who foots the bill for them? They have to get it or be penalized, right? So what happens to them?
July 9th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
TLG, I’m not concerned with homosexuality (except in helping individuals who want to leave the lifestyle).
I’d prefer the gay movement be ignored as we have more important issues to deal with. It’s incredibly arrogant to assume the tiny gay movement’s desires deserve attention.
I’d prefer to focus on the decline of the family which has little to do with the homosexual part of the counter-culture. The decline of the family actually affects all of us (as opposed to the narrow gay agenda).
It’s a real red herring to throw the homosexual agenda into a discussion about the decline of the American family. It’s worrying since millions of children will be hurt by the lack of family stability. A 300 year long lack of gay marriage hasn’t effected America yet.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
bjalder — No, no — I didn’t mean to imply that Romney was doing it outright, but that others on this site were. Anyone saying that banning gay marriage can help mend the family or that gay people getting married causes out-of-wedlock births, abortions, and divorce is simple hatred toward something they do not understand. They’re desperately flailing to find a rationalization for their own miserable failed agenda. God forbid the individual could ever take responsibility for his own actions.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I agree that we should leave gay people alone, econ grad stud, but unfortunately, it’s your so-con movement that’s so bizarrely fixated on the gay movement. You won elections off of it, suppress economic and defense issues because of it, encourage hatred and bigotry because of it — all at the expense of other people who never chose to be as they were.
“The Homosexual Agenda” — As opposed to the heterosexual agenda? I think I’m going to start calling you so-cons’ ideas “The White Heterosexual Christian Agenda.” Is homosexuality an ideology? Last time I checked, it was a sexual attraction, but I guess I could be wrong.
Can you please explain how homosexuality — which is not a chosen trait — is part of a “counter-culture”? I guess by your definition, being black is part of the “counter-culture,” too, or being Jewish, or — hell! — being Mormon!
July 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Should people who can afford healthcare but choose not to pay for it because they know they can get free healthcare by just showing up be allowed to do so? That’s the real question. Personally I don’t want to pay for some jerk that shows up to get free healthcare when he can afford insurance. That undermines the free market system and punishes those who act responsibly.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I think one of the reasons many people view homosexuality as part of a counter-culture is the actions of some (certainly not all, perhaps a loud minority) to “flaunt” their sexuality.
Also, I think there is a view that homosexual marriage is part of a slippery slope that has cheapened the value of marriage, along with high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock children.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
You didn’t answer my question. What about people who really aren’t in a position to buy health insurance? What happens to them? Should we punish them by forcing them to spend their money on health care when it could be better spent elsewhere? (Or does Mitt Romney know best how to spend individuals’ money?)
And to answer your question: No. But don’t punish others who aren’t ripping the taxpayers off.
What about college students? Poor families? What happens to them? They’re hardly in a position to be buying health insurance! I’m a little worried about this, as I’ll be going into college in 2008, and the last thing I’ll want to have to be concerned about is buying *health insurance* for myself!
July 9th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
#25 — Yes, it’s a loud minority. Don’t punish normal homosexuals and bisexuals just because a few idiots want to flaunt their sexuality.
And as for the second part — Oh, so homosexuals’ love is “cheap”? The love between homosexuals is comparable to divorce and having a child out of wedlock. That’s just fantastic. And you wonder why people call so-cons bigots.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
TLG, why are you confusing the issue by bringing in race or ethnicity?
Sexual activity is behavior. That _makes_ it a choice. I can choose to have sexual relations with women (or men) besides my wife. I don’t because it’s immoral (besides I love my wife). I do this even though men are hardwired for adultery. Some people may have a predisposition to theft (kleptomaniacs). We don’t excuse either offense.
If biology trumps traditional morality than you have no right to stop psychopaths from murder. There is no rational reason why one animal (a human) shouldn’t be able to kill another if that’s all we are. Murder simply becomes an evolutionary process to cull the weak.
Such a view robs society of any reasons to support virtue (virtue becomes choice just as valid as vice). Conflicts between groups (terrorists and Americans) become amoral situations with no objective basis to favor one or the other.
No moral principles can be supported a priori.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
TLG,
Just curious, on which topics are you Libertarian? I’ve been reading a lot of your posts and I’ve seen Liberal, Socialist & Marxist but no Libertarian yet.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
First, Troy, because he’s just being silly and is clearly rather uneducated; then I’ll get to econ grad stud –
Troy, I’ve been speaking this entire thread about my socially liberal and economically conservative positions. This is what the experts like to call “normal libertarian opinion.”
Socialism and Marxism are economic and philosophical terms. They don’t mean “ultra-far-left.” They refer to those who would like to see a centrally planned, government-run economy.
I’m a radical conservative on economic and defense issues and a radical leftist on social issues. I’m someone who wants no government interference whatsoever on any issue, period, except to bar the use of force against individuals. This covers the necessities: the court system, the police force, etc — via voluntary taxation. If people are unwilling to pay, they’re undeserving of having a free country.
My ideology means: No Social Security, no Medicare, no public education, no abortion laws, no marriage laws, no gun laws, no nothing. “Live and let live.” Individuals would be free to live their own lives. Yes, that’s “utopian,” and it will never happen. But I’ll support the candidates who are closest to the vision of no government interference (that can win).
July 9th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
An overview of where I stand:
Economics: Voluntary taxation, no regulations on the economy except against misrepresentations and force: strictly laissez-faire.
Social issues: Legalize all drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, polygamy, etc; get religion out of the public square, because we aim for truth, not tradition.
Defense: Leave other nations alone, but if we’re attacked, bomb the hell out of them until they get the point.
So there you have it. The basic principle is: *INITIATING FORCE IS WRONG* … the end.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
As for econ grad stud — Sexual activity is behavior, of course, but you would by no stretch of the imagination say that you “chose” to be straight. There are desires that are natural; that you didn’t choose one way or another. You don’t choose to have homosexual feelings anymore than you choose to have black skin. Most homosexuals tried to purge their desires out of them in one way or another (always unsuccessfully, of course).
I see that you compared homosexuality to theft. More hatred and bigotry, but, more importantly it’s also missing the point: Theft is the initiation of force. You’re taking something that isn’t yours. Gay marriage is a mutually voluntary contract between two individuals. Theft involves one party not being able to consent.
This isn’t an argument of biology, it’s an argument of philosophy: Gay marriage should be permitted because there is no force involved. With murder, theft, etc., there is. The rational reasoning behind this is that no man can objectively claim to hold any claim to another person’s body — only his own, since he controls and uses it.
It’s all about whether actions are forced or voluntary. As I was telling Troy, that’s how I determine my positions on issues.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
To expound upon what I said — I was referring to biology to disprove the notion that homosexuality is a counter-culture or ideology (comparing it to being black), not to try to show that gay marriage should be legal.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
TLG,
Thank you for taking the time to look up what a Libertarian is. I’m sure that it was educational for you. However, you fail to explain how your personal ideology matches Libertarianism. You have been pushing for gay marriage but suggest that there should be no marriage laws.
As for my being clearly rather uneducated. My Bachelors Degrees in Political Science and Mechanical Technology aside, I love the way you go over the top with vitriol with almost every post. It’s fun to read but for your own health and safety I would suggest that you get up, walk around outside, take a few deep breaths and enjoy the beautiful world that we live in.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Oh wait! — Now I see! — You misunderstood what I meant! Yeah, OK — I wasn’t referring to biology as a rationale for legalizing gay marriage (now I see what you meant with the theft example), but to show that it wasn’t a counter-culture. My rationale for opposing the banning of gay marriage is that there’s no force involved. Gay marriage is mutually voluntary, and theft and murder are not.
There we go — take it from there.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Why should I oppose initiation of force?
Because it makes us uncomfortable?
So what.
Because it’s a majority view?
So was slavery.
Because individuals have intrinsic worth?
Why?
Any morality not based on tradition comes down to “these are my values because these are my values”. There’s no a priori support for opposing initiation of force.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Troy, I *oppose the banning* of gay marriage; however, I believe that as long as governments are endorsing marriage, they shouldn’t be favoring one group over another.
Ideally, I’d say that government should be out of marriage altogether.
That degree didn’t help you much in explaining my “Marxist” and “socialist” view of economics!
July 9th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
econ grad stud — You’re making it more complicated than it needs to be.
You should oppose the initiation of force because there is no objective rationale for it. I’m not saying that anyone has any intrinsic worth or that force “makes us uncomfortable.” I’m certainly not saying it’s a majority view! — Did you take a look at my political positions?! — but I am saying that you have no objective claim to use force upon another person, therefore, you cannot morally do it.
And inasmuch as you are a Christian, I find it humorous that you’re demanding proof for anything.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
And Troy — more than anything, I’m an Objectivist. Most Objectivists actually detest the libertarian label, but I find it useful for purposes of categorization. I fit in far better with, say, Neal Boortz and Thomas Sowell than I do with someone like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Arianna Huffington, or Michael Moore. So, I consider myself a libertarian. Also, it is a matter of priorities: Economic issues are far more important to me than social issues. I’d rather see abortion, gay marriage and gambling banned than see socialized medicine and higher taxation.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
We have no objective rationale for a lot of the things we do. Do libertarians demand that individuals must have a rational reason for every act they do?
Besides obviously people have an objective rationale for initiation of force. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. If thieves didn’t have a reason to steal (personal gain) they wouldn’t do it.
TLG, you’re appearing utterly ridiculous trying to support a philosophy as if it were objective truth. Not much different than people that try to argue for theism (which I don’t).
July 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Maybe libertarianism fails because it can’t be summed up on a bumper sticker like “Vote against abortion or God will send you to Hell!” (As you’ve implied; you said that you don’t want to face God having voted for Giuliani.)
I don’t need anybody to give me an objective rationale for anything, as long as it isn’t hurting me or anyone else. I would condemn them, say that they were wasting their lives, etc., but I wouldn’t ever try to stop them as free individuals.
“Besides obviously people have an objective rationale for initiation of force. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. If thieves didn’t have a reason to steal (personal gain) they wouldn’t do it.”
This is not an objective rationale; they have not proven that they have a right to the other person’s goods. It is a rationale, but not an objective one.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
You don’t try to argue for theism? Why not? Don’t you base your entire political mindset — nay, your entire worldview — around it? One would think that something as monumentally important as religion would have a pretty good logical reason behind it.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
So what’s your definition of objective?
July 9th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
TLG,–That degree didn’t help you much in explaining my “Marxistâ€? and “socialistâ€? view of economics!
You’re right. I am would have a really hard time explaining your views. I was asking for you to do that. It also makes me wonder if your dictionary account of Libertarianism is a catch all for all political decisions or if there are situations that you would break with traditional Libertarianism? Most people I know who can think for themselves (like yourself I’m sure) don’t strictly follow one ideology straight down the line. Thats why we have Primaries.
Please, don’t take my posts to be sassy, angry or vitriolic. They are just honest questions from a curious guy.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
My definition of objective, econ grad stud, is something that can be proven. You cannot prove that you have a claim to anyone else’s actions, body, etc. Anyone who violates this principle by initiating force has lost his claim to this principle; ie, a robber.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Troy, you said that you saw liberalism, Marxism, and socialism from me, but nothing libertarian (or conservative, I assume).
You said that I had Marxist opinions. I wanted to know what exactly those were. I think you were using Marxism to mean “ultra far-left,” which it doesn’t. It refers to a school of economics and philosophy.
I break with hardline libertarians on immigration and the War on Terror. That’s ’bout it.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Conservatism and Liberalism also refers to a school of economics and philosophy.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
ThatLiberalGuy:
Having the urge / inclination to this that or the other should never be justification for such behavior. As a man, I may have the urge to procreate with as many females as I can. Does that excuse the behavior? Hell no! Most men say they are biologically programmed to do so. Are we humans or animals?
July 9th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
This is getting sort of cute.
cwpete — Should the government ban that? I don’t think it’s right, and neither do you. It genuinely could hurt some people. So should the government ban excessive procreation? If so, what shall be the boundaries?
Apparently I’m a liberal now, since I don’t believe in God and I don’t despise gay people.
Troy — No, conservatism and liberalism and not schools of economics. They are schools of political philosophy, yes, but are much more general. Marxism, like nihilism, existentialism, Objectivism, etc; refers to something less broad.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
You can’t prove that you have a claim to what’s in your possession. In the animal kingdom the strongest possess what they want. As humans are an animal you’ve got to prove why governments should be created to stop this and thereby limit evolution’s culling of the weak?
No positive statements (or proscriptive statements) can be proven without unprovable assumptions.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
So what we’ve gathered here today:
- Homosexuals’ love is cheap
- Homosexuality can be compared to theft
- Homosexuals are like animals by giving into their sexual urges (but not heterosexuals!)
- Homosexuality can be linked to divorce and births out of wedlock
- I’m a liberal
Love it!
July 9th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I can prove that I have a claim to what’s in my position by tracing it back. OK, right next to me I have a copy of “How Capitalism Saved America.” I paid for it at Borders (a private enterprise), which voluntarily sold me the book for a price the store set, with money I made by working for someone that I chose to work for for a wage I agreed to work for and the company agreed to pay me. The book was produced with goods the company refined and made into the book, so it had the right to sell the book to Borders at the price it chose.
The land the companies were on in the first place were nobody’s (and up for grabs) in the first place, and came to be what they are through trade-offs, blah, blah, etc.
See? As long as everything was mutually voluntary, there’s nothing immoral about it.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Rather “See?
As long as…about it.”
Wasn’t trying to use that as proof for my morality, haha; rather, to show that I had a claim to the book.
It was all mutually voluntary.
And now, to do my daily mile jog! Be back in 15.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
TLG, there’s no provable reason why mutual voluntary exchange is more moral than use of force. As an animal I have the right to what I can take. There’s no reason for me not to take your book except for my moral principles (which are informed by my Christianity and by custom and enforced by government edict).
Or you could claim that subjugating me might be good for the species as you’d be culling a weaker member. Try to find some actual provable reason why theft is wrong. You can’t seem to realize you’re using tautologies to support your veneer of logical morality.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
“No, a truly free market health care system would find some way for everyone who wanted health care to be able to get health care.”
That is patently ridiculous.
“Finding some way for everone” to have health care requires that one identify a social problem, and try to manipulate the system so as to solve that problem.
This is exactly what a laizze-faire system is fundamentally opposed to. No “social engineering”. Let the market system work by its own invisible hand.
Health care costs money. In a free market system, those who dont have sufficient money wont get health care.
The fact that TLG tries to obscure this obvious fact makes it seem clear that he really is not, on a moral level, completely at peace with the consequences of the ideology he so proudly proclaims.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Tano has a point. In a laissez faire philosophy the market is considered exquisitely moral (efficient). The inefficiency and market failures we see in the real world are ignored. While liberals recognize these inefficiencies and think bureaucratic control is the answer, thinking conservatives should recognize these inefficiencies and realize their are market friendly answers.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
EGS,
Huh? I appreciate you trying to mark out the differences between liberals, conservatives and libertarians.
I agree that libertarians ignore social problems, because their ideology is one that, by definition, has no ratinale for solving the problem. How better to maintain ones belief in the ideology than to ignore any problems it creates, or fails to solve.
But your distincition between liberals and conservatives doesnt make much sense to me.
As I see it, from watching politics for a long time, is that the standard conservative position is pretty much the same as the libertarian position - deny or ignore the existence of problems. Of course, the skewing of conservatism toward the wealthy only reinforces this - wealthy people often are immune to the problems that the rest of us have.
And liberals are not in love with bureacracy. We are not afraid of it, but the goal is to solve the problem. As a liberal, I have NO problem whatsoever with non-bureaucratic solutions.
If conservatives really were sensitive to social problems, but only wanted to avoid bureaucratic solutions, then we would have had a lot of grand convergences on solutions long ago.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I lied — I did over a mile. I’m back now.
econ grad stud — We have never *seen* a laissez-faire capitalist society in our modern times. We are a mixed economy, currently, with very heavy-handed government intervention. We have seen that products that do not suffer market intervention are made available to virtually everyone — food, for instance, and those who have a hard time getting food with the money they earn can easily find assistance in the private sector, as well — and flourish under laissez-faire conditions.
There have never been inefficiencies caused by a free market system. Ever. The fact that there is profit to be made by filling a niche won’t allow it to happen. However, without an incentive, we see lackluster service — as evidenced in the public school system! If that were a business, it would be bankrupt by now. The enigma of government: if something fails, give it more money!
July 9th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
There’s a qualifier in my statement “thinking conservatives”.
You can look at a lot of Republicans at the state level that come up with grand convergence solutions. On the federal level these GOP figures are more rare.
Partly it’s a desire to give happy-talk to the base to hold unity between groups that have little in common.
The same dynamic exists in the Democratic Party just as it will in any party that has to accommodate nearly half the political spectrum.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I do not deny or ignore problems, Tano, but I reject the notion that it’s my fault that someone doesn’t have health care or that it’s my responsibility to pay for someone else’s.
Your politics say, in essence, that it is my *obligation* to help pay for someone else’s retirement, health care, and education, instead of my *option.*
That’s the difference.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
TLG, that’s factually inaccurate. During the 1800’s Banks were unregulated and failed regularly devastating the economy. This was solved by the FDIC. No bank runs or cascading failures have occurred as did every decade before.
Most economists accept market failures because they’ve been proven. Even Milton Friedman accepts market failures (although he opposes government attempts to fix them).
A perfect market can only occur where there is perfect information (or at least a group that has perfect information). This requirement is rarely met resulting in some degree of inefficiency in all markets.
I’m going to stop discussing this with you as it’s part of your faith and reality won’t be considered.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
TLG,
Its not really your obligation. You have the right to go live in a cave somewhere and be free from all taxation and other social responsibilities. There are obligations that attach to choosing to make your life in the social millieu though - but making that choice is not obliged.
There are quite rational reasons for society to decide to maintain all of its members at certain levels of health and prosperity. It is highly advantageous to the smooth operation of our economy. Public education, to take just one example, has probably had the greatest postitive effect on our nations economic development and level of prosperity than any oterh factor. Educating people to levels they might not be able to afford themselves yields workers and consumers that you, if you were a businessman, could then utilize to your economic advantage - to a far greater extent than if those kids grew up to be unhealthy and dumb.
There are countless ways in which you benefit, even if indirectly, from the social policies that we pay for with our taxes. If you choose to live amongst us, and reap those benefits, then yes, you are obliged to pay for them.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Fine, I was wrong (see, I can admit I was wrong, unlike anyone else on this board).
But the best solution would be for banks to reform. There’s really no incentive to keep repeating something that fails miserably.
There couldn’t possibly be an inefficiency in production unless there was a lack of raw materials with which to make them, though. Demand will virtually always be met for all products in some form.
Uh, phone call — be back.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Yes, Tano, way to play games: what I meant, and you agreed with, was that you believe I have an obligation to help pay for the education of random strangers in our society. I would not want to contribute to public education because I find it to be a farce that doesn’t cater to the individual. Why would I want to contribute to something I disagree with the status of? (Your/the government’s answer: Who cares! Pay up or face jail time!)
Public education serves some people very poorly. Too many people are going to college as it is, and for many people, public education is very much a waste of time. The mandatory curriculum does nothing to help them with what they’ll be doing. Some students are quite obviously not going to be going to a liberal arts college, so they’d be better suited to taking classes like Consumer Math, Basic Writing/Reading, Common Communications, etc — but instead, they are forced to take classes like Chemistry, Algebra II, and American Literature. What on Earth could the point possibly be?
July 9th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Also — if you think you’ve come up with a great rationale for paying your taxes, fine, pay ‘em. But don’t tell me that your rationale is good enough for me. I’m a pro-choice kind of person. You’re a take-money-from-people-at-gunpoint kind of person. If you think you benefit from public education, go ahead and uphold it; hell, be altruistic if you want. But don’t tell me what’s good enough for me and my money.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
TLg,
I’m not playing any games here. Yes, I’ll state it plainly (though I thought I already did). You have an obligation to help pay for the education of the next generation. I understand that this makes no sense in a totally ego-centric version of libertarianism, but thats your problem, not anyone elses. Human beings are a social species - been so since before we even were human. Our political systems - ALL political systems, must deal with the phenomenon of the community, the society, and the interface of the individual with that society.
You may think that you are staking out some pure individualistic position, but you are not. You choose to live in society. A society which has built an enormous infrastructure, a bubble one could say, around you. A physical infrastructure, a legal one, a human one (in the sense of providing education and health care etc.). You go about your life, making your living within this artificial environment and seem to pretend that you are somehow on your own, doing it all your self.
I take your attitude to be one of the ultimate free-loader. You want all the benefits of living in an advanced civilized society, with none of the responsibilities.
If you want to stick with your ideology, then get yourself off to your cave and leave the rest of us alone. We will be glad to reciprocate.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
“Human beings are a social species.” So once again, we have a liberal looking at human beings not as individuals — a modern, advanced, enlightened view — capable of making their own decisions, with distinct psychological variations, but as a full species; a collective — a very primal view of things.
Community, to be effective, cannot be engineered or forced, especially by a government. What is it but a mirage, a facade, if government is the one making community for us? We must seek out our own communities if there are to be meaningful.
I’m not “doing it all myself,” but the effects are mutually voluntary, for the most part. This goes back to the “invisible hand” theory of Adam Smith.
There are no “responsibilities” unless I possess some kind of objective fault or obligation to someone. Can you give me an objective reason as to why I should help pay for my neighbor’s child’s education, even if I dislike my neighbor, disagree with his principles, disagree with the government-run school’s aims, etc?
Why do you think that you have the right to force me to pay for something with which I disagree?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
And this whole “cave” thing is an attack on the individual and the introvert. I’m not one for socializing and building large communities around me. I like small, restrained atmospheres where I have a lot of breathing room. I don’t like to surround myself with a lot of people and “things,” and I would appreciate it if others would let me tend to my own devices. I’m a little more selective about what I choose to engage myself with than you, obviously, and like to see what I pay for line up with what I believe in.
“If you don’t think it’s your moral obligation to pay for failed public school systems that have a curriculum that you disagree with, then you’re obviously some jerk who needs to go live in a cave!”
July 9th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
TLG,
I look at myself, and others, as individuals. And I also see the society that we live in. It is not either or - it is both. People who deny individuality are totalitarians. People who deny our social nature and equally extremist. There seems to be a very virulent pathology in people’s thought - to always try to reduce complex situations to one cause, or pne phenomenon. We are individuals, and we live in society. You cant deny either and hope to make much sense of this world.
Community can most certainly be effective if it is forced. How can you possibly claim otherwise, except as some logical deduction from an abstract, and totally unrealistic theory? ALL communities that have ever existed have been “forced” - at least at the level that you seem to be complaining about.
You deny believeing that you “do it all yourself”, but your whole philosphy seems predicated on that. The “effects” are not mutually voluntary at all. You (or people like you, or me) probably went to a public school which was built on land taken by eminent domain, funded through mandatory taxation. You have been defended all your life by policemen, firemen, soldiers who have also been funded by mandatory taxation. You probably live in a pleasant neighborhood whose pleasantness is enforced through zoning rules, and a host of behavioral constraints built into the law, enforced against the will of many who wish to operate differently, and by enforcers paid by mandatory taxation. You conduct business in an environemnt where rules of basic fairness and honesty are enforced, by force if necessary, and by people paid through taxation. Every aspect of your public life - including especially the parts you probably find most satisfying, are regulated and enforced in non-voluntary ways, paid for by non-voluntary taxation. You seem to be living in a total fantasy world in your head, with no relation to the real world around you.
The “objective” reason that you must pay for your neighbor’s child’s education is because you live in a society, and the society has gathered together, in a democratic context, and decided that we all must pitch in to pay for the ducation of the next generation. That is part of the price of admission for living with other human beings in a society.
Just I like I have to pay for all manner of obscenties that our society has collectivly decided to engage in. We all have the right to speak our minds to insure that the things we pay for are well run or well thought out. We can also argue that we shouldnt be doing these things. But when the society decides that we should, then the thing gets done, and even those of us who disagreed are obliged (yes, that word) to go along.
Or go off to the cave.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I stopped reading this thread at around post 50, so forgive me if these concerns have been addressed but…
TLG,
Why should an individual be required to demonstrate an “objective rationale” as you put it, to initiate an action? The only rational truly rational way for an individual, divorced from society and its obligations, to behave, is to maximize his or her own utility. Theft often increases the thieve’s utility. And it’s certainly thought to increase their utility (or otherwise, they wouldn’t bother being thieves). Your theory, which bars the initiation of force only, and is apparently meant to be some sort of moral code as well, has no answer for this dilemma. In fact, it seems to miss the question entirely.
There are perfectly rational reasons to oppose the initiation of force. You can, I suppose, take the Hobbes route and suggest that individuals (even those who in daily actions are likely to benefit from initiating force) band together because the state of nature is constructed in such a way that even the strongest can find no security (security being the overriding goal), because they can always be overcome by many weaker individuals acting in concert. In essence, that everyone has an interest in preventing the sort of lawlessness that occurs in a state of nature.
But, it strikes me that this type of philosophy is hardly helpful from a libertarian perspective. It fails utterly in presenting a reliable guide for the types of actions individuals should take once the laws have been established. If I have an interest in order, and therefore would support the sort of governing authority that would promote order (protect my person, my property, etc), then surely that interest extends only so far as a lack of order is a danger. It’d be unclear why a libertarian would oppose, for instance, a perfectly executed, low pro-file murder, where the authorities did their due diligence to find and identify the killer. In such a scenario they certainly couldn’t worry about societal breakdown, of the kind that might ultimately endanger their own livelihoods. Morally, crimes like these ought to be permissible under a doctrine that opposes initiating force, under the guise of “order and stability”.
And it wouldn’t be terribly persuasive for the libertarian to argue that such a murder ought to be opposed because it’s likely to more murders. A domino effect if you will. In the first place, as I noted, it’s low-profile. In the second place, a well functioning society is not going to be particularly responsive to individual actions.
Anyone who’s taken any economics is aware of the “prisoner’s dilemma”. Society functions like a prisoner’s dilemma, but with millions of prisoners, each of whom has different interests, capacities, and utility calculations. There are huge segments of the population that wouldn’t commit murder, even divorced from both morality and a general fear of societal breakdown. Because, for them, with the particular skill-sets they possess, the risks of being apprehended outweigh the rewards. So the risks that an individual crime is going to lead to any sort of domino effect, even in the long run, are extraordinarily minimal.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts I have in response to the “initiation of force” business. I have alot more, but this post is already getting long, so I’ll leave at that for now.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
In times past there were actual caves (or wildernesses for groups of non-conformists). I wonder what the threat is from a lack of escape for folks who just can’t tolerate our society?
It seems like the lack of a safety valve will make the social bonds that should unite us that much looser.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
he doesn’t drink, he doesn’t swear, he is church-going, and is the kind of person who you could tell your children “you want to be like him�.
If somebody smokes? Good lord.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:35 am
I’ve already addressed virtually everything Tano and Matt just wrote, but –
Matt, the thief thing is indeed addressed by what I believe, and indeed, I already accounted for it in Post 41.
I’m not going to bother replying to Tano’s post in detail, as I’ve already covered everything, but to sum, we can say that I believe that ordering others around is a bad thing, and he thinks it’s okay as long as a majority approves of it. Whether “society” (which is nothing but a collection of individuals, anyway) approves or not, it doesn’t make an action any more or less moral. Even if everyone in the country wanted me to pay taxes toward something I disapproved of, it still wouldn’t be my moral obligation to pay the taxes or their moral right to make me pay them. There’s simply no objective claim. You keep putting Objective in quotes, Tano, because you know that your reasoning here is not objective, but utterly arbitrary, much like the society you envision.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:16 am
TLG,
I put “objectivity” in quotes, because there is no such thing as objectivity. All there are, are foolish people who think their subjective opinion qualifies as objectivity.
Your claims of what is, and isn’t moral is nothing but statements of your opinion. You can claim all you want that taxation is not moral, but all you are saying is that you dont like to pay taxes. There isn’t anything deeper than that, no matter how deeply you feel it.
Moral systems are private matters, and they really are not relevant here. You participate in society, you pay some taxes. It is not a question of morality, but one of social contract. Once again, you can absent yourself from society and avoid paying your fair share to support it. Or you can live amongst us, and pay for the priveledge.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:21 am
Let me put it a slightly different way. No one is demanding of you that you assume unto yourself a moral obligation to pay taxes. The obligation is legal. Do it, or we punish you and /or take it from you. We dont particularly care whether this accords with your private, subjective, moral sense. Thats your business. Your interactions with the society at large are legally based, not morality based.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Warning, this is a 37 pages document about the impact homosexuality has on the families. This document is essentially a summary of all researches done on the sexual orientation. You only need to read a few pages to get the idea the importance of protecting families.
http://www.defendmarriage.com/DOCs/FamilyIssuesGuide_SexualOrientation_2003_10_15.doc
July 10th, 2007 at 8:42 am
TLG, so Catholic Adoption Agency in Massachuettes being closed down has nothing to do with same-sex marriages? So, the priest in Sweden being jailed has nothing to do with same-sex marriages? So, passing the same-sex marriage in Canada has nothing to do with homosexuality education in public school system? So, increased sucidal rate, sex-related violence rate, and wedlocks, and decreased marriages in Netherland has nothing to do with same-sex marriages?
July 10th, 2007 at 8:48 am
I thought you are a libertarian, supporting our ability to speak out against what goes against our beliefs. I thought you as a libertarian are in favor of more parental control over our education system. I thought you as a liberatarian are in favor of corporations operating their business in any way they want to. Your homosexual buddies who are in movements certainly did not want the same thing as you. My homosexual buddies certainly do not agree with those in the movements. They too have the same concern as I, that our rights are being eroded when the same-sex marriage movements get what they want.
Now, I must point out that the government SHOULD HAVE NO INTEREST in marriage itself, other than to ensure that its society is being maintained. In other words, marriages are about children! It has nothing to do with sex itself. Now, before you jump, yes, our MEDIA has made it so. And our weakened laws have made it so. But it goes way beyond that. Just read the d*** report!
July 10th, 2007 at 10:37 am
In 1960, 5% of births in America were out of wedlock. Today, that number is between 35-40%. How’s that for positive proof that the American Family is suffering from collapse. Vote for Romney!
July 10th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy, When you said the free market should be left to handle health insurance, I’m surprised nobody brought up this point: what if someone is diagnosed with cancer or another disease that could potentially cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to cure? What kind of free market private insurance is going to want to insure that person? None. Of the people that get diagnosed with such a disease, how many of them could pay for all the treatments on their own? Probably very few. Thus, a pure free market system would show no compassion in such situations and we would basically leave them for dead.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Good points Emtee.
And it is going to get much worse. What will happen when, in a decade or so, all of us have our complete genome sequences as part of our medical record?
Insurance companies will, obviously, do as they always do. Minimize their exposure. They will refuse to cover those who are genetically fated to disease. The current system, much less some “free market” system, is unsustainable.