updated July 16, 2012
Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry is a new campaign to highlight and build support for the freedom to marry among young conservatives. According to its website, the campaign is reaching out to “the rapidly growing numbers of young conservatives across the country that agree all Americans should be able to share in the freedom to marry. The freedom to marry is not a partisan value and is consistent with basic conservative values of responsibility and community, limited government and individual freedom.” Moreover:
Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute Survey found that nearly half (49%) of Republican Millennials favor the freedom to marry, while 19% of Republican seniors and 31% of all Republican said the same. Clearly, the next generation of conservatives is driving these tectonic shifts in their party, and their thoughtful voices and willingness to depart from the perspectives shared by their older party members should be applauded and supported.
Our friend David Lampo has written a new book that fits in nicely with this effort, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights. He explains why “an anti-gay agenda succinctly exposes the hypocrisy of those who talk of limited government and individual rights but ignore both when it comes to gay rights and other personal freedom issues.”
More. Coverage at the Huffington Post, where David Lampo is quoted observing, “The religious right has ruined our brand. Hopefully they haven’t ruined it permanently.”
Furthermore. Rick Sincere covered the event for the Washington Examiner, taking note of featured speaker Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) who remarked: “It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the overregulation of our economy. No one should have to deal with government red tape when it comes to committing themselves to those whom they love.”
More still. Here’s a link to Lampo’s July 16 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He writes:
Leading religious organizations and their spokesmen argue that gay rights are simply incompatible with conservative principles and policies. Yet an examination of polling data shows that most rank-and-file Republicans view gay rights issues — including the repeal of state sodomy laws, equal access to the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexuals, and the right to serve in the armed forces — as compatible with core Republican principles of individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise.
Eventually, the party’s leadership will catch-up to the rank and file.
48 Comments for “A New Generation: Not Your Father’s Conservatives”
posted by Rick Sincere on
As it happens, I was at the launch party for Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry last night in Washington. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen addressed the group, and I wrote about her remarks on Examiner.com, here: http://bit.ly/O9z5bh
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Overall, 63% of Millennials support marriage equality, and the differences in support between younger and older voters cut across all political and religious lines.
As you pointed out, the Pew polling shows the differences among Republicans (31% of Republicans overall, 49% of Millennial Republicans); a similar difference exists among White Evangelicals (19% overall, 44% Millennial White Evangelicals).
So while there remains a significant lag among Republican Millennials (49% of Republican Millennials in support, in contrasts to 63% of Millennials overall), the younger Republicans will, over the next couple of decades, become dominant with the party as the old die off and the young take over.
I’m not fool enough to believe that I’m likely to live long enough to see the day when the Republican Party endorses marriage equality in its party platform, but increased levels of support among younger Republicans may be critical in the long run.
If SCOTUS does not rule in favor of marriage equality by 2020, as I expect it to, then increased levels of Republican support will be needed to dismantle the anti-marriage amendment bulwark created by Republicans during the 2004-2006 election cycles in order to attain marriage equality nationwide. Without a SCOTUS ruling, I expect that work to be completed by 2030.
posted by JohnInCA on
Good on them for trying and all that jazz, but I’ll refrain from celebrating until I see actions to match the words.
Or, to put it another way… when “I’m totally cool with gays” conservatives actually stop voting for candidates that totally *aren’t*, I’ll be impressed. Until then it’s just more “wait your turn, we’ll get around to you when we have the time”.
And as we know, “when we have the time” never comes.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yep. I constantly have Republicans telling me that they are for gay rights. (I also know plenty who are pro-choice.) But they don’t say anything about this to the party and are perfectly happy to support anti-gay (and anti-choice) candidates. So for all practical purposes there’s no difference between them and the people who are anti-gay because the message to the people they vote for is the same either way. Perhaps if they would tell the GOP they are for gay rights, rather than telling me, that might change things. But they don’t seem interested in doing that. Just in acting offended that anyone who dare think that they themselves are anti-gay. I am not impressed.
posted by Houndentenor on
“The religious right has ruined our brand. Hopefully they haven’t ruined it permanently.”
ROFLOL. At this point, the religious right IS your brand. Good luck getting them to let go of the reigns of power.
posted by A New Generation: Not Your Father’s Conservatives | Maryland for All Families on
[…] [a guest post by our friend Stephen H. Miller, cross-posted from Independent Gay Forum] […]
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the overregulation of our economy. No one should have to deal with government red tape when it comes to committing themselves to those whom they love.”
It is beyond absurd to describe anti-marriage constitutional amendments as “government red tape”, as if depriving citizens of fundamental rights was nothing more than yet another case bureaucratic stupidity. Idiotic, in fact. No wonder Republicans don’t get Lampo’s message.
posted by Jimmy on
I wonder how much crossover there is in the respective memberships of the YCFFM and the College Republican National Committee, which contains the future leaders of the GOP.
posted by Jorge on
Slightly unrelated question: why am I seeing a ChristianMingle.com advertisement on this site?
I LOVE their commercials, and I went on their site once just for fun. But there were only two choices: Man seeking Woman and Woman seeking man.
posted by Lori Heine on
So changing the GOP would be hard. A real battle. No one would just hand it to us, and there would be a fight.
Sounds a lot like how adults used to understand life to be, before they expected instant gratification and cradle-to-grave coddling by the State.
Anything worth doing is going to be a challenge, and nobody promises us it will be easy. But “not easy” is seldom the same as “impossible.”
Nothing will ever change for us as long as we can sleepwalk our way through a political landscape in which one major party takes us for granted and the other demonizes us.
posted by JohnInCA on
… you know, this sounds alot like someone complaining that atheists aren’t doing enough to make the Catholic church less anti-gay.
Me? I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Catholic. I disagree with them on many points. So while it would be really nice if gay and ally Republicans and Catholics changed their respective institutions, it’s quite baffling to listen to people stand there and act as if *I* should be trying to change them.
I mean fuck… wouldn’t that be more then just a *bit* presumptuous of me? “Hey! You there! Yeah, I’m kinda anathema to your current policies and politics, being [long list of traits and policy positions], but you? You need to listen to me tell you how you should be! ’cause I know better what your idealogy *should* be saying about people like me then you do yourself!” … yeah… that would go over like a stack of bricks, I think.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So changing the GOP would be hard. A real battle. No one would just hand it to us, and there would be a fight. … Anything worth doing is going to be a challenge, and nobody promises us it will be easy. But “not easy” is seldom the same as “impossible.”
It’s been done in the Democratic Party, starting about 35 years ago. All it takes is hard work — getting involved in the party at the county, state and federal levels to earn a seat at the table, learning the skills of campaign work and volunteering on the campaigns of pro-equality candidates, identifying and supporting pro-equality candidates, and so on and so on. It isn’t magic, and it isn’t an epic battle. It is just work.
Sounds a lot like how adults used to understand life to be, before they expected instant gratification and cradle-to-grave coddling by the State.
I have never understood why pro-equality Republicans stay trapped in passivity and dependency, complaining that Democrats, the HRC and other similar groups, and “leftists” in general aren’t doing enough to turn the Republican Party around, all the while funneling gobs of money into the coffers of anti-equality candidates. News flash — nobody is going to change the Republican Party except Republicans.
… political landscape in which one major party takes us for granted and the other demonizes us …
I’d suggest to you that both political parties take gays and lesbians for granted, the Republicans (who count on GOProud, LCR and the like to support anti-equality Republican candidates) as well as the Democrats. The difference is that pro-equality forces in the Democratic Party have been at work to move the party in the right direction — pushing, shoving, making noise — and pro-equality forces in the Republican Party have not. The results show, too.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m not a Republican; I’m a Libertarian. I’m not sure whether I want to plunge into changing the GOP. But I have come to realize that if I and people like me do not, it will not change.
It is fundamentally dishonest for the Republican Party to tell its members it’s a big enough “tent” to house both social conservatives and libertarians. The goals of each of those factions are mutually-exclusive. No organization, no matter how large, can move in two opposing directions at the same time.
I’m not sure what is meant, here, by phrases like “pro-equality.” I do not favor using government violence to achieve means that can only morally be achieved by persuasion. The only legitimate role government can play in the achievement of “equality” is to treat all as equals under the law.
Democrats and libertarians disagree on some fairly fundamental issues. But we can’t even thrash those out as long as one of the two major parties is held hostage by overgrown bawling infants who advocate big-government meddling in the lives of others, yet lie and claim themselves in favor of small government.
posted by Houndentenor on
For at least 30 years now the GOP has claimed to be the party of small government. Yet not once in my lifetime (more than those 30 years) has any Republican administration actually reduced the size of government. It’s a lie. When I hear someone say they are a Republican because they are for limited government, I can only scratch my head.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not sure what is meant, here, by phrases like “pro-equality.” … The only legitimate role government can play in the achievement of “equality” is to treat all as equals under the law.
“Equal means equal” is encapsulated by two principles: (1) All citizens should be treated equally under the law, without differentiation as a class, unless differentiation as a class and discrimination in treatment under the law is essential to the common welfare. (2) All citizens should be able to live free from government interference, unless government interference is essential to the common welfare. The social conservative agenda is the antithesis of both principles.
posted by Houndentenor on
Re: the addendum: A hearty round of applause for Congressperson Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) for speaking against DOMA. Maybe she can bring a few of her house colleagues along with her.
posted by Sandhorse on
If your on a passenger train headed full steam for a cliff, which conductor do you want in control; the one that can reroute the train or the one that will reimburse your ticket if you die from the sudden impact at the bottom?
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Interesting. This could, maybe, be the sign of some good change within the Republican Party, somewhere down the road. The key issue will be how many of the M. Republicans are actually going to get involved in changing their party’s views on gay rights issues.
The official groups for young/college Republicans are still, at least officially, opposed to gay rights. Many future GOP leaders come from these types of groups as well as interns and pages.
The Democratic Party views on gay rights are not always perfect, but they have greatly improved, largely because gay Democrats did not just sit on their hands or claim to be supportive to a friendly person taking a poll.
They got involved at the local, state and federal level and the result was that the platform and a growing number of (most at the federal level) candidates are supportive, on some level.
Also, I am not really sure why ‘Libertarians’ were included in the books title. Perhaps this is another right-wing ploy to try and pretend that right-wing Republicans and Libertarians are really the same ‘limited government’ folk.
I do not know too many Libertarian Party members at my University. Mostly some right-wing, anti-gay Tea Party types that worship Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.
However (accordingly to Wikipedia) the Libertarian Party has not really changed its position on gay rights since it was created in the 1970s and it is basically its response to every single civil rights issues.
It opposes anti-gay criminal laws and discrimination from the government itself. But it opposes private sector civil rights laws and basically wants the private sector to do everything and anything it wants.
posted by Lori Heine on
And as the private sector has proved basically able to police itself, leaping light-years ahead of the government in its evolution on gay issues, its desire to leave such matters to the private sector must be viewed as a bad thing…why?
The characterization of “libertarians” at a particular university as “Tea-Party types” who are “anti-gay” seems a strange contradiction of the previous paragraph, in which an admission is made that libertarians and Republicans do not have the same views on what does or does not constitute small government.
Are, pray tell, these university anti-gay Tea-Party types merely people who don’t like gays? This may be shameful, but if they don’t believe in using the government to enforce their prejudices, who cares what they think of gays?
It’s the usual befuddled Leftist response to libertarianism.
posted by Houndentenor on
You are correct that some sectors of the private sector have leap-frogged ahead of government in providing workplace non-discrimination policies. But that is far from universal. In a better economy it might be possible for people to choose a job where they are promised not to be discriminated against or fired for being gay. Currently many have to take what they can get. In addition many people have family and other obligations that keep them in a part of the country where it is still legal to discriminate against them. It’s naive to think that all businesses will follow suit. In fact many workers have lost these workplace policies in mergers.
But more significantly, while I hear this argument voiced in opposition to adding gay people to employment nondiscrimination laws, I rarely hear anyone, especially not elected officials, propose repealing such workplace rules for everyone.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And as the private sector has proved basically able to police itself, leaping light-years ahead of the government in its evolution on gay issues, its desire to leave such matters to the private sector must be viewed as a bad thing … why?
I think that it is important to look closely at the patterns in the private sector. The pattern isn’t simple.
First, workplace non-discrimination is largely confined to Fortune 1000 companies and companies doing business across state lines.
Second, although workplace non-discrimination is becoming the norm among Fortune 100 companies, it is not uniform across industry segments or within industry segments.
Third, the progress toward non-discrimination has been led by the “knowledge industry” — law firms, investment and banking companies, technology companies, and so on — in which the most desired workers tend to be mobile and in short supply.
Fourth, unions have been a primary force for the movement toward non-discrimination policies in the manufacturing industry.
Fifth, the role of non-discrimination laws at state level need to be considered. Non-discrimination is the law in slightly less than half the states, so a company doing business nationwide is motivated to enact policies that comply with the laws of the states in which it does business.
Sixth, the role of non-discrimination state laws governing contracting need to be considered. A company wanting to do business with the government in many states has to have non-discrimination policies in force.
I think that it is fair to suggest that most gay and lesbian employees are not currently protected against discrimination, either by state law or by private sector policies.
The “equal means equal” test can be met either by including all workers under laws requiring an employer to have a performance-related reason to fire a worker, or by eliminating all non-discrimination laws, allowing an employer to fire any worker for any reason. “Equal means equal” isn’t met by the current non-discrimination laws, which pick and chose which citizens are protected and which are not.
posted by Lori Heine on
Rules using aggression to bully employers into government-approved hiring practices should be eliminated. Period. No big-government threats of violence against those who refuse to comply with the demands of those who can assemble the biggest mob — under the veneer of a legal fiction — should be tolerated from any quarter on the political Right or Left.
Principles do matter. Aggression is either wrong or else it isn’t. It can’t be wrong when it’s done to you — because you’re “special” — and okay when you do it to someone else — because “that’s different.”
If we return to the principles of life under a civilized society, in which we behave like adults toward one another, some will be slower to get a clue what’s going on than others. Some will continue, for a while, to discriminate. We can always use our right to free speech to publicize their conduct and drive them out of business.
There aren’t enough bigots out there anymore for such troglodytes to depend on “buy-cotts” to stay alive.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Aggression is either wrong or else it isn’t.
That is simply not true. Aggression takes in a context; sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is wrong. Discerning the difference is the issue.
posted by Houndentenor on
I had this discussion several years ago with an anarchist. He honestly believed that over time the south would have desegregated on its own without any outside pressure. I laughed out loud. There are still a good many people here who think Jim Crow was a good thing. Nothing would have changed.
It’s a nice idea but it assumes things about human nature that I just don’t find to be true. Maybe you didn’t grow up in the south. My senior class was the first in our town never to have been segregated. It took 14 years after the Brown decision for them to desegregate. They weren’t ever going to do it voluntarily.
posted by Ginkgo on
“If we return to the principles of life under a civilized society, in which we behave like adults toward one another, some will be slower to get a clue what’s going on than others…”
Return to? This presumes a past that never existed. All societies are characterized by exploitive power arrangements and one purpose of government is to preserve and stengthen thhese, and onther is to protect citizens form each other – from arangemets like thes. So now, you can’t do it without government.
posted by Lori Heine on
We are not trying to liberate ourselves from government-protected slavery in the mid-Nineteenth-Century South. We (or, rather, you) are trying to force ALL employers — without exception — to hire gays.
Surely the difference between the two situations is obvious.
Aggression using a legal monopoly on force cannot be considered acceptable except in defense of human life or liberty. This does not meet Mr. Scharbach’s test of acceptability.
Nor — as in the matter of public schooling — are we forced to deal with businesses that discriminate against gays. There are an ever-growing number that do not discriminate, and we remain perfectly free to reward those with our business.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Aggression using a legal monopoly on force cannot be considered acceptable except in defense of human life or liberty.
A true believer, I see.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but we differ.
I think that it is acceptable to enact laws closely related to the common good — for example, laws prohibiting theft, laws regulating child labor, laws mandating equal treatment in public accommodation, laws licensing doctors, laws proscribing pollution of our rivers, streams and groundwater, and so on — and to enforce those laws.
But our differences are to be expected. I am a Democrat and you are a Libertarian. As you noted earlier, “Democrats and libertarians disagree on some fairly fundamental issues.“. I suspect that the most important area of disagreement is the legitimate role of government.
In any event, you seem determined to draw absolutes. I don’t think that approach is helpful. All it does, in my view, is to hamper public debate about where the lines should be legitimately drawn.
posted by Houndentenor on
I suspect a large majority of Republicans would balk if we repealed employment nondiscrimination laws making it legal to fire everyone over 40.
But then when we talk to libertarians (and socialists too for that matter) we are trying to have a discussion about the real world with people who live in an ideal fantasy world. I reject the idea that I have to choose between Orwell’s Animal Farm and Brecht’s Mahagonny.
posted by Lori Heine on
Interesting — and, I suppose, revealing — Mr. Scharbach, that you would link laws prohibiting theft with laws proscribing pollution of rivers. I suppose some people will actually be dull-witted enough to buy that (A) libertarians oppose laws prohibiting theft and (B) that every sort of law you mention may be seen, by everyone, as equal in logical necessity to every other.
Libertarians believe that as citizens, we should treat others as we want to be treated. If that ideal belongs only in a “fantasy world,” Houndentenor, then we truly have made this one a Hell.
posted by JohnInCA on
… so… did you fail history in high school?
’cause… yeah. Pretty much hell on Earth by your standard. People don’t treat people fairly if they can get away with it. A person might be nice, magnanimous, caring and fair, but people? Ruthless bastards that’d slit their mother’s throat for a wooden nickle.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am having a hard time understanding you, Lorie.
In earlier comments, you seemed to equate enforcing laws with “aggression” and “government violence” (e.g. “I do not favor using government violence to achieve means that can only morally be achieved by persuasion.“, “Rules using aggression to bully employers into government-approved hiring practices should be eliminated. “, and so on) and then said “Aggression using a legal monopoly on force cannot be considered acceptable except in defense of human life or liberty.”
I’m not sure what to make of that, to say the least. Do you believe that enforcement of laws by the government are “aggression” and “government violence”, or not? I don’t. Do you equate, as you seem to do, use of deadly force with normal law enforcement, for example, levying fines for companies that don’t comply with environmental laws, or jail terms for those who steal? I don’t.
You are not clear enough for me to follow your thinking.
posted by Lori Heine on
Did I fail history in high school, John in CA?
No, actually it was my minor in college and I got all A’s.
Do you fail to understand the meaning of the word “ideal?” If so, perhaps a nice dictionary might be of help to you.
posted by JohnInCA on
… well, so long as you accept that you’re in what you consider hell, I suppose my work here is done.
Now, if I could just persuade you to stop bemoaning realistic solutions simply because they aren’t ideal.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. Scharbach, I’m not sure who peed in your Wheaties tonight, but you do seem to be in a temper.
It depends upon the nature of the law being enacted whether it involves excessive force. Trying to enforce a certain way of thinking, and to police people’s opinions, certainly falls under the category, for me, of excessive force. Whether I like those opinions is irrelevant as far as the principle is concerned.
The government is not protecting anyone’s life or safety by forcing companies to hire people they do not wish to employ. I can understand why you might disagree with me on that. I hope I have at least made it easier for you to understand.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It depends upon the nature of the law being enacted whether it involves excessive force.
That was the point of my comments to you. Drawing the lines of what is and what is not legitimate use of government power requires a balancing of the common good and individual freedom, a balancing that is not furthered by demanding unrealistic absolutes. The position you seemed to be taking (“Aggression using a legal monopoly on force cannot be considered acceptable except in defense of human life or liberty.“) was extreme, even by Libertarian standards, and ultimately untenable in a free society, and I’m glad you seem to be walking it back a bit.
I was pushing you — pointing out the extremity of your position by example — in order to slow you down a bit and get you to think about the extremity of the words you were using (“government violence”, “aggression”) and the positions you were taking (“Aggression using a legal monopoly on force cannot be considered acceptable except in defense of human life or liberty.“).
It has nothing to do with Wheaties. It has to do with language and logic.
The government is not protecting anyone’s life or safety by forcing companies to hire people they do not wish to employ.
Protecting life and safety are legitimate government ends, within reason. It seems to me, though, that promoting the common good is also a legitimate government end.
Many of our laws — take, for example, laws prohibiting theft, laws regulating child labor, laws mandating equal treatment in public accommodation — are only indirectly related to “protecting anyone’s life or safety”, if at all. Theft from an unoccupied house or vehicle threatens no one’s life or safety, but I think we’d agree that proscribing theft promotes the common good and that laws punishing theft are a legitimate use of government power. Similarly, children can work without anyone’s life of safety being threatened, but child labor laws, which limit the number of hours children can work in order to help ensure that children have time for schooling, are seen by most people as a legitimate means to promote the common good. Public accommodation laws are less accepted, and if you were as old as I am, you’ll remember the protracted, months long debate in Congress over those laws. But in my view, anyway, public accommodation laws, rationally drawn, have been a plus rather than a minus over time.
The considerations are similar, it seems to me, with laws constraining discrimination in the workplace. The federal government and almost all states have non-discrimination laws in place, and, for the most part, the laws seem to have promoted the common good, both for society as a whole and for businesses.
I am old enough to remember the time when women in law, for example, were a distinct oddity — my class at the University of Chicago had only three women in it out of about 160 — and now, thanks in part to non-discrimination laws, women and men are about equal measure in law schools and becoming so in law firms. It seems to me that our society has benefited from removing the largely irrational biases (“women aren’t tough enough to practice law … juries won’t treat them seriously … and so on) and hiring and promoting on the basis of performance.
So it is with extending non-discrimination laws to include gays and lesbians, assuming that the laws are extended no further than existing laws with respect to race, religion, gender and so on. The biases are largely irrational, and the cost to the affected individuals, businesses and society as a whole are relatively high in relationship to the cost of permitting irrational discrimination to continue in that respect. The case is not open and shut, to be sure, but on balance, it seems to me, it is time to extend the non-discrimination laws to include gays and lesbians.
Trying to enforce a certain way of thinking, and to police people’s opinions, certainly falls under the category, for me, of excessive force. Whether I like those opinions is irrelevant as far as the principle is concerned.
But that is not what our laws do, or, for that matter, can do given the First Amendment. Laws police actions, not opinions. The law is indifferent as to whether the clerk at the Super8 thinks the “N-word” when an African American family shows up, or would, left to his or her own devices, turn them out; what counts is that the clerk checks them in.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Libertarianism started out as a leftist movement tied up with eighteenth century, upper middle class liberalism, anarchy (Emma Goldman) and Social Democrats (early supporters of gay rights). It began a right-wing movement much later on, in large part due to the likes of Ayn Rand. So, Norm C. politics are actually closer to ‘old fashion’ libertarianism then Ayn Rand.
2. Right-Libertarians generally oppose any government regulations on the business, corps or any part of the large or small private sector. Some will support a few rules in terms banning outright, explicit fraud or violence. Although, some right-libertarians also want to privatize roads, sidewalks, and the criminal justice system.
3. In the eyes of a right-libertarian a business owner has the right to fire someone because they are gay [black, woman, Catholic, Jewish, etc], not offer then services because they are gay, evict them from a house, etc. In their mind, ‘property rights’ are essentially absolute.
4. Again, I known very few young libertarians at my University.
I meet young gay or bi Republicans or Democrats who have some libertarian views . I argued with some Tea Party/Paul types who are very anti-gay, anti-woman, but like to pretend that they are libertarians.
I am not sure if this means anything, but most of the gay/bi young Republicans I have known, are white and from upper middle class families. Same think with a gay Tory that I dated while he was studying in the U.S.
posted by Lori Heine on
No, Mr. Scharbach, you — in your manly and super-enlightened “progressive” superiority — have not walked me back or slowed me down from anything. You have been caricaturizing the libertarian position all along — making it sound as if the most extreme examples are the mainstream. That is typical of the dishonesty of both statist Left and Right.
(Calm down, little lady…just calm your little feathery head down and let me walk you back and slow you down.)
When you use the threat of force to implement your goals, backed by an entity (the State) that holds a monopoly on the legalized use of it (and can outlaw the self-defense of the citizenry at any time), you are indeed resorting to violence. If you sit down for a while and think about it very hard, you may be able to figure that out. And telling me I’m being extreme — the typical statist dodge — does nothing to change the facts of the matter.
There is no other legitimate reason to use force except in defense of life and liberty. Period. Play the condescending graybeard all you want, but I will walk back nothing.
But you believe that violence is acceptable when the right people use it. Chilling. Absolutely monstrous. This is actually what has become of the U.S. of A. under statism.
I cannot answer for young Republicans, as I am a forty-nine-year-old Libertarian who was a Democrat for most of my life. I quit the Dems in revulsion over what has become of them. You are a prime example of why I — and so many others — have left.
Our entire local LGBT conservative/libertarian group is made up of women who used to be progressive Democrats. You won’t learn anything of value from knowing that, because you’ll only spin it somehow. Condescending to us and flattering yourself.
We were no longer willing to engage in “working for hope and change” with sheeple and armed thieves.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is no other legitimate reason to use force except in defense of life and liberty. Period. Play the condescending graybeard all you want, but I will walk back nothing.
Your position is extreme, and, by limiting government legitimacy to life and liberty alone, you have placed yourself well outside mainstream Libertarian thought:
When you limit legitimate use of government power to “defense of life and liberty”, you are ignoring the third leg of the Libertarian tripod.
You have a right to your views. But, if the party’s platform is any indication, I doubt that many Libertarians would agree with you, and I certainly don’t.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. Scharbach, arguing with you is like arguing with a five-year-old.
The right to property is certainly “the third leg of the tripod.” I certainly do believe in it, though I was speaking mainly of the use of force (which I assumed was what we were talking about here — at least until you chanegd the subject), and applying it to my own set of ethics. I think others have the right to use force to defend property, and would not want that ability taken away from them, though I personally would not choose to kill anyone over property.
In the future, I will speak of the vast majority of libertarians every time I make a point so you can’t go in and misuse our party platform against me. If I personally would not choose to kill someone to defend my property, I will merely keep that to myself.
You are a textbook example of someone who merely lives to score cheap “gotcha” points instead of engaging in actual adult dialogue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are a textbook example of someone who merely lives to score cheap “gotcha” points instead of engaging in actual adult dialogue.
Nonsense. I have responded to each of your comments with detailed and substantive discussion, raising issues, raising questions and probing to try to figure out what you believe. You can carry on all you want with the sarcasm and hyperbole, but it won’t change what I’ve written.
posted by Doug on
With all due respect it’s a pretty short hop from libertarian to anarchist.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Trying to figure out what you believe.”
If you haven’t done that by now, Mr. Scharbach, you are an idiot.
The shrieking and howling that goes on every time a libertarian comments here is really quite amusing. The lengths Leftist statists will go to in an attempt to distort something as simple as “people should treat each other as they would want to be treated.”
That is obviously because you do not intend to do so. It is also — as you have made abundantly clear — because you intend to use violence against others every time you can seize enough State power to do so.
Thanks for showing exactly what you are.
posted by JohnInCA on
The problem with the golden rule is that it ignores different perspectives. I mean face it… saying “sure, I wouldn’t mind if a queer kicked me out of their store” doesn’t have much impact coming from a straight guy that wants to kick gays out. Same with pretty much every other case of sexism, racism, ablism and so-on. Not to mention that even aside from cases of gross-imbalance of power, there’s some things that some people are ok with that aren’t really fair to others.
So me? I’ll stick with the Wiccan Rede instead. “And ye harm none, do as ye will.” Doesn’t rely on perspective or relatively likely outcomes to reach fairness.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you haven’t done that [figured out what Lori believes] by now, Mr. Scharbach, you are an idiot.
Here’s my conundrum with what you’ve written on this thread:
(1) You assert that government power to enforce laws rests on the threat of force. I agree with that assertion. We both agree that government use of force (fine, confiscation, incarceration, capital punishment) needs to be proportional to the law being enforced. (Tom: “Aggression takes in a context; sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is wrong. Discerning the difference is the issue.” and Lori: “It depends upon the nature of the law being enacted whether it involves excessive force.“). I don’t see much, if any, disagreement between us on the questions surrounding government use of force in appropriate circumstances. We no doubt differ on whether particular laws are a legitimate exercise of government power, but we don’t seem to disagree about the nature of force in the hands of government and the need for proportionality in the use of that force.
(2) You asserted early in the discussion that “Aggression using a legal monopoly on force cannot be considered acceptable except in defense of human life or liberty.”
(3) I pointed out that laws prohibiting theft (and other laws, but I’ll stick with theft because you haven’t discussed the others) are not laws related to the “defense of life and liberty”, and yet, almost everyone (including the Libertarian Party platform) agrees that the government’s power to enforce laws proscribing theft is a legitimate use of government power.
(4) In response, you made it very clear that your assertion was not a thoughtless choice of words: “There is no other legitimate reason to use force except in defense of life and liberty. Period. Play the condescending graybeard all you want, but I will walk back nothing.
(5) You asserted, in the same comment, that individual citizens have a right to use force to defend property (“I think others have the right to use force to defend property, and would not want that ability taken away from them, though I personally would not choose to kill anyone over property.“) but that does not respond to the question of whether or not government enforcement of laws prohibiting theft is a legitimate use of government power.
So here is what I would ask you to discuss:
posted by Houndentenor on
Lori and other Libertarians can hold that position. It’s one of many reasons why the party almost never gets more than 1% of the vote.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I dunno how deeply I want to get into this, Tom, but I’m not sure all libertarian theorists would agree that laws against theft have no relation to “defense of life.”
First, certain categories of theft — such as armed robbery, though not shoplifting — may actually jeopardize the victim’s life; second, the hours of work put in to obtain property may amount to a significant fraction of a person’s life, and people like coal miners and firefighters are even shortening their statistical life expectancy by the type of labor that they engage in to “put food on their families” or to buy furniture, etc.
For these reasons and possibly others, theft of that food and furniture cannot be considered absolutely or “tidily” seperable from “an attack on life” (at least in libertarian thought) — and I believe that a lot of libertarians would say that the “third leg of the tripod” (property rights) derives from and is subordinate to to “right to life.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Folding defense of property into defense of life as a subset strikes me as both strained and attenuated, as well as logically unnecessary.
The Libertarian Party’s straightforward approach — government has three legitimate roles (defense of life, defense of liberty, defense of property), and each is sufficient to justify the use of force — makes sense to me, although I think that government has a forth legitimate role — to promote the common good. It doesn’t seem to me to be necessary to try to stretch our ordinary understanding of crimes like theft from an unoccupied house or unattended car, or theft by fraud or embezzlement, into “defense of life” in order justify the government’s law enforcement role.
The discussion quickly disintegrated into personal insults (“your manly and super-enlightened “progressive” superiority” and name-calling (“dimwit, “idiot“), and missed the mark, as threads sometimes do. It is time for it to come to a close. Lori can have the last word.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course you do, paid Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach.
And that is because to you “common good” means “punishing a business who fired someone for sexually harassing employees when in fact he WAS sexually harassing employees”.
Lori brings up an excellent point, which is that tin-pot dictator wannabes like yourself are mentally and emotionally incapable of following through on your “equal means equal” drivel, because that would actually mean you had to accept ALL consequences of your actions, not just the good ones. You do not want “equality”; you want the government to give you freebies and excuse you from actually having to perform because you are (insert favored minority here).
Houndentenor demonstrates that. Houndentenor is so desperately obsessed with his minority status as his only point of value that he believes Republicans would be horrified if employees over the age of 40 lost protected status. Never mind the fact that the over-40 status protects both gays AND straights; in Houndentenor’s disordered and desperate mind, no gay apparently ever lives past the age of 40.