November 01, 2006

 

My view on the debate below...

From: Jared Goruk
Reply-To:
cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: October 24, 2006 11:20:59 PM
>>(Social) Liberals want the government to be your Mommy.
>>(Social) Conservatives want government to be your Daddy.
>>Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult.

Best definition so far. Both ultra-liberals and social conservatives tend to lean strongly towards statism. This is bad. While there are many a valid argument out there warning of the pitfalls of SSM (the polygamy issue being the most prominent, but certainly not the strongest), you simply cannot deny the right to homosexuals on purely libertarian grounds. Still, libertarianism in its purest form is anarchy, which also is bad. What I find is that society must strike a working balance between tradition, common sense, and freedom, and something that tends to distinguish self-proclaimed social libertarians from self-proclaimed social liberals (and really those are just words that have many different connotations to many different people) is where exactly this line should be drawn. As a free-market libertarian conservative, I understand that traditional values are not a bad thing. Indeed, their promotion and acceptance can help to create a generally freer and safer society. At the same time, the argument does not hold that SSM will screw up society, when society is already screwed up to begin with. We can see many examples of social problems that have been wrought upon us at least in part from society deviating from traditional values, but in general, a more free will-oriented society generates more wealth, more prosperity, more innovation, and this works to offset many of those problems.

So-Cons need to understand that they have to be more willing to make compromises. As so-cons tend to become more reactionary to social change, it only seems to provide more fuel to the Leftist fire, and things end up changing even faster and farther than anyone had wanted. If North American conservatism continues to allow itself to run by religious ideologues, more people (especially of our freedom-to-be-yourself immersed generation) are going to be drawn towards social liberals and (worse) the socialists that they spoon with. Social libertarians (in my books) value freedom above all else, but understand that gradual evolution and stabilty are always preferable to revolution and the "brave new world." If social liberals say "condoms" and so-cons say "abstinence" social libertarians naturally offer both (at the same time). And it is a social libertarian who is best able to acknowledge that taxpayer-funded, partial-birth, and third-trimester abortions are bad, however, interfering with women's personal rights is also wrong. Until ALL so-cons are willing to make that compromise, abandon the "all abortions are bad" rhetoric, and argue strictly for that case, there will be government sponsored abortions-on-demand for all eternity. And if abortion is wrong then let women (and women only) make that determination, (why the frig is the anti-abortion movement 70% male? Like Chris Rock once said, "I wouldn't want some woman making decisions about, like, my balls or something.") A social libertarian would be more likely to see value in that compromise (to balance competing interests and rights), while a social liberal likely wouldn't. If anything, social libertarians and social moderates are synonyms.

Social libertarians are also best distinguished by their support of economic liberty, and therefore are identified as fiscal conservatives because they know that, well, capitalism is good. I think that, rather than social liberals who believe in anything and everything for all (leading to a somewhat more likely anti-capitalist mindset), social libertarians are more mindful of balancing a wide range of rights and values. This includes the understanding that conservative values can be and are beneficial and should not be discarded outright, because a truly free society requires stability and moral direction. Social liberals believe morals are relative, I don't think social libertarians buy that. It is in everyone's best interest to fall behind a more social libertarian mindset, because it helps to take away from the polarizing so-con vs liberal-hippie showdown which is gradually becoming a showdown of capitalism versus socialism as well. Libertarians and rationalists understand and appreciate the validity and correctness of Mark Steyn's poignant arguments. However, firebrand conservatives (Falwell, Dobson, Santorum, et al.) are a lefty's best friend right now, and it is giving credence to the idea that unworkable 19th-century economic theories are also "hip and modern" as well. Not cool. There is no doubt that social liberals are (generally) working to erode the moral fabric of our society, but a social libertarian understands that (generally) the same people opposing same-sex marriage and abortion also once opposed interracial marriage, sexual freedom, and even today routinely denounce free speech as being "not family-friendly." Neither side is right, and a social libertarian understands that while every society changes, not all change is a good thing for society, and not all "rights" are legitimate. I guess this is more a spiel for Republicans and not Tories, ...but perhaps for certain others here too.

Jared.

PS - Change all legal definitions of marriage to "common law domestic partnership," pass legislation with teeth that bans not only polygamy, but also any proven exploitive Bountiful-esque mutli-partnership, and tell homosexuals that if a religious organization chooses not to recongnize or sanctify their union as a "marriage" (or its reception), tough shit, go somewhere that will. Rights and freedoms are balanced. Problem solved.

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?