Saturday, February 05, 2011

Can classical liberalism get what it needs?

In looking at the American right in my last post, I noted that many of its leading lights are classical liberals. They hold to the idea of negative liberty (of being left free to do as you will, of non-interference), of free markets, of low taxes and a small state.

I pointed out that such a politics isn't likely, by itself, to be conservative. Genuine conservatism is concerned to uphold, in Lawrence Auster's definition, "a substantive spiritual, cultural and social order". But a politics based on the idea of doing whatever we like, as long as we don't impede the negative liberty of others, effectively denies the existence of such an order. And so classical liberalism in countries like Australia tends to be strongly socially liberal rather than socially conservative.

As a case study, I looked at the politics of Sean Hannity. He holds to a classical liberal philosophy but is not as socially liberal as his Australian counterparts are, because he goes beyond the concepts of negative liberty and the free market and recognises that society won't work without some traditional moral virtues.

What was the response to my argument? We had an excellent discussion at this site and someone also linked the post to the American Free Republic website. One of the most interesting responses was from a commenter at Free Republic. He argued that classical liberals had recognised from the start that their philosophy wouldn't work unless the population was virtuous:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

John Adams

What the writer fails to realize about classical liberalism and our founding fathers is that morality and our religion was the fabric that weaved this country together and helped to make our government work.

Many on here (myself included) enjoy the writings of Ayan Rand. Yet, for all her wisdom she never understood how or why the philosophy she espoused worked. It worked because a moral and religious people followed it...

A writer that few freepers ever allude to understood why this country was so great and why classical liberalism worked. If you read Alex DeToqueville's "Democracy in America", he marvelled at our religous people and understood why it flourished. Because it was not forced upon them as in the state run religions of Europe but because a free people willingly lived under a moral and religous code.

He's right. The classical liberals did recognise that their philosophy required certain attributes of character and moral virtue in a population to succeed. It's noticeable even when it comes to someone like J.S. Mill, who was not a Christian, but whose liberal individual was to be high-minded, cultivated and morally self-disciplined.

But here's the catch. How do classical liberals expect that virtue and character in a population will be maintained? What is there in the classical liberal philosophy that will uphold the moral standards that the philosophy requires for its success?

J.S. Mill pinned his hopes on education:

Nothing hinders us from so training a man that he will not, even for a disinterested purpose, violate the moral law, and also feeding and encouraging those high feelings, on which we mainly rely for lifting men above low and sordid objects ...

Well, higher education has expanded massively since Mill's time, but culture has become more, and not less, oriented to "low and sordid objects". Mill also seems to have fundamentally misunderstood human nature in his claim that people could simply be trained not to violate the moral law. That, surely, is an overly optimistic, utopian claim.

So higher education, in and of itself, is not sufficient. Another option has been put forward by a reader of this site, Alte. She argues that it is the growth of the state which is responsible for moral decline:

Furthermore, in our country we have seen over the years that the growth of the state leads to a decline in values. The state is inherently anti-tradition because it undermines patriarchy (which relies on strict subsidiarity to survive). We generally believe that if the state would just back off and let men handle things on their own, the social situation would improve.

That's a better suggestion. It's true that the state has intervened in society in ways which undermine the virtues. If you're a teenage girl, for instance, the state now makes it much easier to be promiscuous and to have a child out of wedlock (in the UK, as I understand it, such girls even get a council flat as well as an allowance, so single motherhood becomes a means to an "independent" lifestyle). And what happens to the young men whom these girls would once have looked to in order to form a household? They are no longer subject to the same pressures to act responsibly as fathers or providers.

So Alte's argument does have merit. Even so, I don't think it's sufficient. Is it really the case that if people were left to their own devices that people would then be virtuous and follow the good? Isn't it the case that human nature is fallen? Won't at least some people, if left alone, choose to act for their own selfish purposes rather than for the good?

And there are other problems. Classical liberalism encourages the idea that the goods we follow are private virtues rather than public ones. That's because the focus on negative liberty means that we see things in terms of individual choice and non-interference. So even if I have had a stable marriage and believe that to be an important good in my life, I'll be reluctant to assert it as a public good for others.

But people do need a sense of common principles or standards in society. So the void gets filled by the general principles of classical liberalism, such as negative liberty and a free market. These become the public goods of society, rather than the traditional virtues. So an action might be validated as "good" if it fits in with the free market or with individual choice (e.g. "I'm just an entrepreneur providing a service" or "This is what I freely choose to do".)

So the more conservative private virtues are subordinated to more liberal public ones, even in a society dominated by classical liberals. But, of course, we don't even have such a society. In Western societies, there is a large cohort of left-liberals. And they have a vision of positive liberty, in which the state acts to establish the conditions of life favoured by left-liberals.

And left-liberals are handed a tremendous advantage by classical (i.e. right) liberals. The classical liberal might be a terrific family man, living his life successfully according to socially conservative principles. But he is likely to treat this as a purely private good.

The left-liberal who opposes the traditional family, on the other hand, is more than happy to use the power of the state to force his own view on the whole of society. So left-liberals get to march through the institutions and to win the culture war over and over.

Which then means that right-liberals, living as they do in this culture, are always being dragged to the left. They might put up some resistance to the latest leftist cause, but once it's established they get influenced by the culture and come to accept it.

There is one final problem with the idea that cutting back the state will protect the virtue and character of the citizenry. Right liberal parties, even when they are in power for extended periods of time, rarely cut back on the social programmes of the state. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this. But I suspect that one reason is that right liberals quietly support the existence of many such programmes, even when they have been established by the left.

Classical liberals tend to share the view with the left that individual choice should not be limited by inherited group affiliations, such as our membership of a sex or ethny. What is supposed to matter is individual character, rather than unchosen characteristics such as being a man or a woman, a Chinese or a Swede. Classical liberals are therefore often sympathetic to the larger liberal aim of making such group affiliations not matter.

So what happens if they continue to matter? It's true that classical liberals formally don't approve of coercive, state action to suppress group differences. But if left-liberals have established some sort of affirmative action programme, for instance, or special funding for a "disadvantaged" ethnic group, then right liberals in power may not be unsympathetic to it.

In practice, right liberals have preferred to cut back the economic functions of the state (e.g. privatisation) rather than the social programmes.

To summarise:

a) Classical liberalism requires something external to it to succeed: the existence of standards of moral virtue.

b) The classical liberal aim of limited government might encourage such standards in certain areas. But it's not clear that classical liberals in power would actually limit government by cutting social programmes they philosophically approve of. And even if such programmes were radically cut, and people were left to themselves, there is still considerable scope for people to use this negative freedom to act immorally.

c) Classical liberalism tends to reduce traditional forms of morality to private or personal goods. This makes them difficult to defend. First, because negative liberty and the free market are recognised over time as higher ranking public goods. So the standard is no longer the traditional morality, but whether an action accords with the free market or individual choice. The traditional forms of morality lose their standing.

Second, left-liberals have a vision of positive liberty, in which the state is used to guarantee individual conditions of life. So left-liberals are highly motivated to seize control of the state to implement their more radical social programmes. This means that a small number of left-liberals can use the state to influence society in an effective way. In contrast, a very large number of more conservative-minded family men will have little influence, because they regard the goods they follow as private or personal values.

If the larger culture is drawn leftward, the mainstream right will adapt to it.

It is therefore not enough for classical/right liberals to affirm that their philosophy requires a standard of virtue in society. They have to make clear how they would assert traditional forms of morality as high ranking public rather than private goods; and how they would effectively establish these public goods in society given the existence of a left that is willing to use the state to enforce its own vision of society.

109 comments:

  1. I wrote in this post the following line:

    If you're a teenage girl, for instance, the state now makes it much easier to be promiscuous and to have a child out of wedlock

    And then found this very interesting article on the growing culture of teen single motherhood. Worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good article Mark, should get yourself a proper website so your work is better framed.

    I personally agree with the idea of small government, but only because i feel that without government interference society trends towards traditionalist outcomes from sheer genetics, for an example you could see the massive growth in orthodox Judaism in Israel or the eclipsing of the secularists in Turkey by fast breeding backwoods Anatolians.

    Without the big state people move towards traditionalism of their own accord because the family is the natural method of human social support. It works and we are genetically inclined towards it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good analysis Mark.

    "It is therefore not enough for classical/right liberals to affirm that their philosophy requires a standard of virtue in society. They have to make clear how they would assert traditional forms of morality as high ranking public rather than private goods."

    Classical Liberals need to be converted - as I have been. They need to be convinced that a healthy society needs both Liberal and Conservative elements, and that both should be argued for with equal vigour. All claims along the lines of "In a Democratic Society, X..." where X is a radical-liberal proposal (votes for serving prisoners, in the UK right now) must be vigorously contested from the first premise, that Liberalism - what they mean by Democratic - is the only Good.

    Do not accept the Liberals' Framing of the debate. Never accept the opponent's frame. Know your values and frame the debate accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see it like this: religion should cover 90% of your conscience, and politics the other 10%.

    If you have a very devout Daoist, a very devout Catholic, and a very devout Buddhist, they will frustrate the hell out of each other unless they all agree to be Jeffersonians. Once they allow 10% of their ethical thinking to be "liberal" they can go about their religious private lives without starting holy wars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark, more than half births are now out of wedlock in Britain and France every year, I do not know about Australia, perhaps you are a bit "behind the times" (take it as a compliment as the times have gone mad).

    My guess is that we will continue sliding downwards due to the liberal agenda, whether it be the left-liberals or classical liberals who govern the country (as you noted, this hardly makes any difference). Society will further deteriorate until we reach the very bottom. Then anarchy will loom, and people will tighten traditional bonds: the family, friends, neighbourhood as it will be the only solution to survive in hostile surroundings. This is not science fiction: when liberals wind up all our common values and established traditions, they create a dangerous void where bizarre individual customs seep in. This deconstructs and dismantles society itself, the atomicisation of the community where individuals become atoms hovering about an increasingly smaller nucleus can only lead to civil strife and anarchy. There is no other outcome for an immoral society, that is, short of a miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It may be that classical liberalism would not prosper without a 'background radiation' of morality from a religious or some other institutional source. This modifies the theory that classical liberalism "tends to reduce forms of traditional morality to private or personal goods". Privatisation of moral sentiments suggests, driven to its logical conclusion, that moral anarchy is just around the corner, I think.

    Classical liberalism certainly repudiates the idea of a paternal state which lays down the moral law. In Areopagitica, his discourse on the freedom of the press, John Milton attacked the state's claim to be the sacred fount of all truths. He thus anticipated a cardinal principle of classical liberalism, I think.


    P.S. As others have said, this is a lucid commentary on some aspects of classical liberalism. As always, it's well written too. Almost regardless of topic, Mark's good quality prose is a regular bonus that brings me back to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Richardson wrote,

    "But people do need a sense of common principles or standards in society. So the void gets filled by the general principles of classical liberalism, such as negative liberty and a free market. These become the public goods of society, rather than the traditional virtues. So an action might be validated as "good" if it fits in with the free market or with individual choice (e.g. "I'm just an entrepreneur providing a service" or "This is what I freely choose to do".)"

    This is a powerful point.

    God made us to want approval for what we do. If we are godless, then we seek that approval from one another. The end result is that everyone wants approval from most everyone else. We measure the degree of approval we have from others in units called "coolness". James Kalb has an excellent essay on this phenomenon somewhere over at AltRight.

    Your best chance at gaining that approval is to do what most everyone thinks is good. What most everyone thinks is good is, by definition, the public good.

    Since it's
    "_(fill in the blank)_-ist" to encourage others publicly to follow traditional, Christian morality, then following traditional, Christian morality is a poor bet to gain maximum, public approval. Hence, most people put their money on a more popular kind of morality, usually some iteration of liberalism, i.e. "freedom" or "equality".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rick wrote,

    If you have a very devout Daoist, a very devout Catholic, and a very devout Buddhist, they will frustrate the hell out of each other unless they all agree to be Jeffersonians. Once they allow 10% of their ethical thinking to be "liberal" they can go about their religious private lives without starting holy wars.

    Standard liberal line.

    Look, it doesn't really matter what percentage of our moral compass liberalism claims at first: 50%, 10% or 1%. What it always insists upon is that its percentage be the most important percentage: If there's a dispute between the Daoist and the Buddhist, it must be their shared liberalism that wins out.

    Mr. Richardson has already pointed out that, in the long run, the disputes never cease, and the liberals never quit. They just keep replacing this or that incompatible ("intolerant") belief in the traditional religions, until our traditions, and ourselves, are utterly consumed, and even classical liberals like yourself, Rick, are wondering how the world has become so insane.

    Doesn't work.

    We trads know a better way to coexist with different groups:
    BORDERS

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did anyone try this?

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/

    If so, where do you stand?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I suppose I'm not a very radical liberal, but rather someone who has a strong focus on patriarchy and subsidiarity. Also, I would prefer for Christianity to be the explicitly-defined core of legislation and politics.

    I also don't believe that the "right to liberty and property" applies equally to everyone (nor did the founders). I've always thought that the inalienable rights were given to men only, which is supported by the Rerum Novarum (my favorite encyclical). I suppose the difference between me and conservatives is that I see individual patriarchs as the bottom-rung of government, and believe that any powers that can be devolved to them, should be.

    I suppose I'm not a very consistent right-liberal, but I think I'm closer to them to the conservatives. On the other hand, my political views don't work in a society that is too ideologically diverse. This is true.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Southern Cross,

    I came out left-libertarian. I suppose that is because of my negative opinions of corporatism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As expected I came out in the very centre.

    That's the problem with these tests. In reality, living in a liberal society, I would not be considered centrist at all. It's just that since I'm neither left liberal nor right liberal, the computer usually puts me in the middle between them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, the questions on that test were structured according to liberal understandings. The very first question was premised on the idea that economic globalization is inevitable (really?), and then asks us whether we (who?) should make it (how?) benefit "humanity" (whom?) or multi-national companies (which?).

    But what if I don't think equality of material production or consumption matters the most?

    I ended up saying it should benefit "humanity", even though I doubt the test-makers meant the same thing I did. The computer put me just right of center (hah!).

    Also, did anyone notice the test-makers critique of the UK parties in 2010? They are "uncomfortable" with the make-up of the BNP's base--which consists of former Labor supporters.

    And why are they "uncomfortable" with the BNP's base? They don't say, but they do go on to make sarcastic comments about the BNP's racial convictions.

    The editors of the site, at least, are open about their liberal biases.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark said,

    "The left-liberal who opposes the traditional family, on the other hand, is more than happy to use the power of the state to force his own view on the whole of society. So left-liberals get to march through the institutions and to win the culture war over and over."

    Very good point. A right liberal might laugh at a leftie's commitment at working through a public institutions but nonetheless they keep at it and they make gains. The right liberals, on the other hand, in the face of opposition all too easily retreat to their gated communities and focus on making money.

    So politically the general public is forced to choose between people who seem quite blatantly to be selfish and short term in their thinking, (who use arguments clothed in whatever justifications or rationalisations available), and those who would take their freedoms but who also seem, or at least pretend, to "care" and are also "desirous" to act for their "good". Its a very inadequate state of politics and the general public seems to be mightily sick of it. Not that they have yet discovered an alternative though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another reason right-liberals cannot cut government effectively is that they have no allies within the bureaucracy. Budget cuts are turf wars, but if all the cutting is coming from the small-government "outer party" then the bureaucracy and its clients unite to fight the external enemy.

    Even when the outer party succeeds in budget cuts, it tends to cut the dead weight and thus leaves the most savvy bureaucrats in place, ready to grow their power again when the administration changes.

    Sean Hannity is the type of Catholic who once could have been a New Dealer. Since Catholics opposed to the sexual revolution were driven out of the Democrats, they were forced to join the putatively anti-government party where they can't challenge the bureaucracy from the inside.

    Barring systemic collapse, the only way to reform a left-liberal bureaucracy which rewards the destruction of family and tradition is to replace it with a bureaucracy which favors the family, fatherhood, etc.

    Simple budget cuts won't displace feminist bureaucrats. They must be replaced by policy thinkers in the mold of Allan Carlson.

    Right-liberalism actually prevents this kind of reform. It is too individualistic to play that game.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mark, an interesting post on autonomy from a mainstream liberal philospher.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12360045

    ReplyDelete
  17. Liberalism (classical and modern) is a slippery term which can be analysed in a number of ways. Some of its assumptions are tacit. But whatever considerations we emphasize, it's impossible to reduce liberalism to a solitary theoretical position.

    The liberal democrats who are in power throughout the English speaking world have a universal agenda. Nothing less than the creation of universal equality in which everyone's rights, duties, and advantages are adjudicated on the same basis will do. This ambition cannot be realized without the coercive apparatus that we call "political correctness".

    It doesn't matter how much we kick against the pricks or fulminate against so-called "left-liberalism, we're stuck with it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I personally agree with the idea of small government, but only because i feel that without government interference society trends towards traditionalist outcomes."

    If you read the article Mark links to it mentions how poor inner city kids copy the behaviour of the successful. Hence if it's ok for Hollywood women to be solo mums, it's ok for them to be solo mums.

    Cutting the size of the state won't stop wealthy Hollywood women or middle class career women being solo mums and setting a bad example. And if welfare is cut off to low income solo mothers then the public will call the elites a bunch of draconian hypocrites. This is one reason why before we can really do anything, we need to get the truth out about human inequality. Once elites accept the idea of inequality, then the successful will be under social pressure to set a good example for the less successful.

    Before you can cut back the state, you need the moral authority to do so, and that can't be achieved when the state is needed to compensate the poor for being led astray by the rich.

    Also I disagree that society will continue to get more liberal. The left has already started to become more populist and emphasis economic equality over 'identity politics'. The biggest iconoclast of 2010 was the centre left German banker Thilo Sarrazin.

    At the moment it's actually the wishy-washy mainstream right (think of David Cameron for example)that is holding up progress by shifting leftwards at a time when the left itself is either running out of steam or moving to the right.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mr. Richardson,

    America's Founding Fathers were all white Supremacists and there is not a single argument to contest this fact. America needs the white Supremacist to assert himself once again or our embrace of anti-white Supremacy (the "other's" equality/white descent) will continue us on our logical and inevitable decline.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I should add that white Supremacists are needed throughout all the Anglosphere. But are there really any whites willing to be real Supremacists in Australia?

    I don't know. Not Pat Hannagan, at least. We are in deep trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Mark, Alte and Bartholomew: I knew we would end up in lots of different places. On the horizontal axis (economics), I am considered to be slightly to the left (-0.25) which would be closer to Mark. This is a logical result for conservatives since we do advocate a kind of middle way between capitalism and socialism (from an economic perspective). Or, at least, we are usually wary of generalisations or economic ideologies. On the other hand, I am in the upper part of the vertical axis (+5.30, "authoritarianism"). Of course, as Bartholomew pointed out, the test was very biased and based upon a liberal understanding of politics. The premises were often wrong (as you wrote, they assumed globalisation is inevitable to the extent it almost smacked of Calvinistic predestinarianism). Some of them were worded in such a convoluted way there is no definite answer depending on the way you look at it. Alte, I supposed I ended up slightly to the economic left for the same reasons as you. For instance, take the assertion that "the freer the market, the freer the people", it reduces the concept of freedom to economic terms. Or this one: "What is of advantage to big companies naturally benefits you" (or something like that): I do not see why the interest of big companies should necessarily mesh with mine or those of a country as a whole. Rather, multinational companies have no allegiance whatsoever these days (except to King Money and to the calculator). So, I agree it is not always easy to fit in; the meaning of the questions is all too often ambivalent. On the other hand, the questions on social issues (crime, abortion, religion) were quite clear and I suspect our replies to these are closely matched.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, but there weren't many such questions (on social issues).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Test results: 0.5 to the right, and something like 3.25 authoritarian.


    I agree that the test was biased towards the liberal view point. May be traditionalists should come out with a test of their own:)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I love your posts Mark. These last two have been excellent.

    Classical Liberalism, 'negative liberty', probably came about to handle the different (yet similar) religious beliefs of the American settlers.

    I think that the libertarians who want to destroy the state have a personality component where they think they are better than everyone else. "I don't need the state, I am strong, My family is superior to everyone else, Take away all the social government safety nets, my church will be my support, my church will organize education for my children because we're superior" (I've heard that from a commentator on this site)

    With Christianity of the past...when our countries were still homogenous white and sane....They realized that no one is an island, no church an island, we are all in this together. The white upper classes were supposed to be the model of behavior for the lower classes. Christianity was a model for all white citizens...and in this way all of society kept improving.

    A state based upon Traditional Christian Values actually lifted up the lowest citizens by providing a model of behavior to strive for. Libertarian/Classical Liberals have a disgusting surivival of the fittest attitude that is VERY un-Christian, hidden behind their 'I'm not going to force my values onto you' attitude. It's basically just a way to wash their hands from helping others and taking responsibility for the direction of society as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  25. On VDARE, they were saying how Amy Chua's family comes from Fujian province. The most "elite" Chinese come from that province, yet that province has the most human trafficking.

    We see this all the time in Africa and Asia and all non-white societies. This attitude of "Sorry, it's not my problem if your not smart enough, don't work hard enough to become a member of the 'elite' like me. Anyone who is sold into prostitution is probably low and doesn't deserve me caring about them" It's very dog eat dog.

    This isn't the case in a white Christian society. Medieval Churches were built to inspire the whole community, art was meant to inspire, literature meant to educate. Imagine being a poor peasant in Europe, but seeing the craftmanship of the churches, and the beauty of the spirals...It's all very uplifting no matter how smart you are, or what your lot in life was.

    But nowadays with these concepts of "negative liberty"...there's this sick hyper-competitiveness amongst whites. They'll adopt an Ethiopian from Africa, but refuse to speak out against immmigration.

    So you have a white kid of average intelligence from a divorced family (his parents bought into all the liberal values bullshit) growing up in an immigrant neighbhorhood and he gets lost. No one cares about him. The Christians go "Well your not Christian too bad" the liberals go "You're not a minority too bad" and the Classical Liberals/Libertarian Conservatives say "I don't have the right to interfere in your life to help you make better decisions. Sorry that you have a low IQ and can't figure it out yourself"

    I hate this society. :(

    ReplyDelete
  26. Classical liberalism, libertarianism and right-liberalism will not get what it needs. Just as left-liberals their worldview is at the basic level not in accordance with truth and reality and even if it gives some positive effects it will release detrimental consequences to society as a whole and the destruction of the community. It says to offer freedom, democracy and individual rights but when right-liberalism reaches it's climax it is not what was adverstised and perhaps delivered it's opposite slogan. It produced slavery to immorality, lies and death. Also spot on. Traditional conservatives should reject that traditional conservatism should be only private. It can be private but it should demonstrate public presence as well. Also cease supporting liberals in their liberalism. A few conservatives in their goodness are 'prolonging' liberalism than it should occur.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mike Courtman said,

    "At the moment it's actually the wishy-washy mainstream right (think of David Cameron for example)that is holding up progress by shifting leftwards at a time when the left itself is either running out of steam or moving to the right."

    This is an interesting point, because we've definetly seen a rightward turn for the mainstream left party, labor, in Australia. For instance Gillard has come out against "Big Australia". Whether this translates into anything or not of course is a different point but we wouldn't have heard these kidns of arguments in the recent past.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I came out in the lower left quadrant of the Authoritarian box. I think the question on cannabis did me in.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Now I'm curious, Van Wijk. How did you answer? I was looking for the option, "We should be allowed to smoke, but not to inhale," but they didn't have it. Silly test.

    BTW,

    In an older thread, "tangy" wonders:
    (who wants to bet Alte 'had her fun' before her sudden conservative conversion?). It's a complete con, and I hope astute men aren't falling for it.

    Oh, I hope they aren't falling for it, as well. I'm not a conservative, and I'm still having fun.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Now I'm curious, Van Wijk. How did you answer?

    I forget the exact wording of the question, but I'm for total legalization.

    I'm not a conservative, and I'm still having fun.

    Hmmm...one wonders what sort of non-conservative fun you're having. The imagination runs wild, Alte.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kevin J Jones said...

    ""Barring systemic collapse, the only way to reform a left-liberal bureaucracy which rewards the destruction of family and tradition is to replace it with a bureaucracy which favors the family, fatherhood, etc.""

    No.

    Bureacracy always eventually turns against the family and traditionalism because the family is a rival for power with the state, and public servants work for the state and feel their fortunes to be caught up with it.

    There cannot be any such thing.

    The only way to do cuts properly is to wipe out entire areas of expenditure so that anyone attempting to rebuild after a change of government finds that they have to beg every dollar from the beginning again.

    And this should be the purpose of a right leaning government, to come in with a blowtorch and destroy all the little parasite power clusters of liberalism that have birthed and grown in the cracks of government spending.

    The fact that they do no such thing is because right wingers around the world do not hold "right wing" leaders to account, and any time the conservative grassroots try to do so they get screamed down by the entire establishment [see the Tea party, AAFI etc].

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jesse,

    There's an interesting but perhaps over-hyped political phenomena going on in the UK, with both the Labour and Conservative parties talking about getting back to their roots, and putting community ("Big Society") ahead of technocratic top down decision making ("Big Government")and a downplaying of neoliberal economics.

    The two influence intellectuals in this trend are Maurice Glasman with his 'Blue Labour' vision and Philip Blonde with his 'Red Tory' idea (both religiously influenced).

    I suspect a lot of it is fairly vacuous faux-communitarian stuff, but the fact they are going in for this kind of message suggests they have sensed that UK society is suffering from a moral vacuum that liberal politics has been unable to fill.

    Its also possible the NZ and Australian Labour parties have been influenced by this trend and have started to move slightly to the right on social issues.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mr. Richardson,

    To talk about the decline of the West and its embrace of an "equality" of universal autonomy is to talk about a people steeped in anti-Supremacy, specifically, anti-white Supremacy.

    No one on the right, from atheist to traditionalist, dare speak of white Supremacy in a positive light. When one even entertains thoughts of white Supremacy it must be of the vile, belligerent and evil specimen; it must be "white" degeneracy. Pay no mind to the fact that vile, belligerent and evil Supremacy is much like abortion being a reproductive right.

    I'll ask you as I asked Pat Hannagan...

    Why would you not want to be a "white" Supremacist? Especially when you are already perceived as one by those true to "autonomy theory?"

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mr. Richardson,

    For the everyday white man in the West, he has no choice but to strive towards Supremacy or embrace a turn-back-the-clock nihilism (our past greatness, our white Supremacy was an illusion) that morphs into a real-time nihilism. He must daily find it in himself to exercise his maximum moral autonomy or he exists increasingly in a state of radical autonomy and sprints towards self-annihilation. The liberal behemoth he faces and the sea of amoral autonomists he must swim through (the "other") gives him great clarity or confuses him beyond relief. But it is without doubt that everyday white Western man (redundant, I know) has, to a very large degree, accepted his inevitable decline as he has voluntarilty embraced "equality," i.e., anti-white Supremacy.

    If the white Supremacist is not up to saving the West from total subjugation then who is?

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ Van Wijk: Now that is interesting. On which grounds do you support cannabis legalisation?

    I am totally against it; I have seen too many of my erstwhile friends (for they are now only a shadow of their former selves) wrecked by an addiction to drugs, and taken advantage of in their youth by unscrupulous scoundrels. As far as I am concerned, I think dealers are the dregs of mankind and mass murderers worthy of the gallows (if only we would bring back hanging). "The gallows does well, but how does it well? It does well to those that do ill." (Hamlet, Shakespeare) Peter Hitchens has been making a very consistent case against legalisation. I believe legalisation would make an evil behaviour legal and even institutionalise it, playing music to the ears of liberals and their irksome litany to the tune of "it is our bodies, and we shall dispose of them as we will" or "I and my quirks, how I would like to smoke a joint and destroy my lungs so that society pays for it" (well, at any rate, we would be for it in Europe considering government runs healthcare).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Southern Cross,

    The "War on Drugs" has wrecked the black community in America, and drug trafficking (and its associated gangsterization side-effect) is causing the situation on our southern border to disintegrate rapidly, and is approaching civil war. This might soon spill over the border, right into Van Wijk's neighborhood.

    The imagination runs wild, Alte.

    Then I'll leave it up to your imagination. I'm sure you'll think of something suitably non-conservative.


    Bureacracy always eventually turns against the family and traditionalism because the family is a rival for power with the state, and public servants work for the state and feel their fortunes to be caught up with it.


    This is the crucial point that conservatives are in denial about.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The "War on Drugs" has wrecked the black community in America, and drug trafficking (and its associated gangsterization side-effect) is causing the situation on our southern border to disintegrate rapidly, and is approaching civil war. This might soon spill over the border, right into Van Wijk's neighborhood.

    There is little evidence this admittedly difficult situation is the direct consequence of a "war on drugs" that has been fitfully implemented and without any real political determination behind it (hence the lack of resources).

    This is the crucial point that conservatives are in denial about.

    Not me, anyway. I have never been a supporter of bureaucracy. Things will change only when enough people get a grip, which may take an awful lot of time, anaesthetised as they are by petty consumerism and rabid atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think its important to recognise that right liberals are hated by a large percentage of society. They are the "greedy" and uncaring ones. They're happy thinking only for the short term if it it means a quick profit. They're fine with people starving in the street etc.

    Whilst conservatives are often seen as oppressive right liberals are disliked on their own accord. This then opens the door for the acceptance of left wing politics.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Alte wrote,

    "The "War on Drugs" has wrecked the black community in America, and drug trafficking (and its associated gangsterization side-effect) is causing the situation on our southern border to disintegrate rapidly..."

    No, American blacks' taking drugs wrecked the black community in America.

    So, the government stops imprisoning drug dealers/users tomorrow--how does that make dealing/using drugs any less addictive and therefore destructive?

    If it doesn't, what's there to end drug-fueled destruction of the black community? And if nothing, then what would stop its wreckage?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anon wrote,

    "So you have a white kid of average intelligence from a divorced family...growing up in an immigrant neighbhorhood and he gets lost. No one cares about him. The Christians go "Well your not Christian too bad" the liberals go "You're not a minority too bad" and the Classical Liberals/Libertarian Conservatives say "...Sorry that you have a low IQ and can't figure it out yourself"

    I hate this society. :("


    Yes, it's true that the average white kid has little extra-familial support. If that's lacking, he's on his own.

    Sadly, there are influential people in my own church who do teach that Christian charity must come in the form of "social justice", by which the mean, monetary aid to minorities, often racial or ethnic minorities, sometimes women.

    This is a perversion of the Gospel, and as such it is evil. But Christ does not turn his back on you, no matter who does. I know that must sound cheap, coming from who knows how many thousands of miles away through an Internet connection, but He does love you, and He will show you a way if you ask. He has shown me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jesse,

    Thanks for reminding me that everyone hates us, and thinks we're Demon Spawn. I tend to forget, as they usually keep the sentiment to themselves. Not.

    Bartholomew,

    The "War on Drugs" started in 1982, when drug crime (particularly that fueled by crack) was already on its way down. Drug crime and drug use are both rising again. This time it is across the races, for the same reason as it plagued black people before: the breakdown of family and society.

    And it's not just a "black problem". I live near an area ravaged by crystal meth, and plenty of SWPLers snort cocaine and whatnot. Drug use is already rampant. That's why the cartels are so huge and powerful that they're overrunning Central (and now North) America. Wall Street has even been caught laundering money for them, and only got a minuscule fine.

    Prohibition brought us the Mob, drug wars bring us the Cartels.

    For the record, I don't -- nor have I ever -- used illicit drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lol Alte I wasn't talking about you but about right wing politics in general. Whether this is accurate or not it is a public perception that opens the door for the left.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mike Courtman 8:35pm said,

    "I suspect a lot of it is fairly vacuous faux-communitarian stuff, but the fact they are going in for this kind of message suggests they have sensed that UK society is suffering from a moral vacuum that liberal politics has been unable to fill."

    I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Alte said,

    "The "War on Drugs" has wrecked the black community in America, and drug trafficking (and its associated gangsterization side-effect) is causing the situation on our southern border to disintegrate rapidly."

    So drugs should be legalised? Fighting drugs might be uncomfortable but surrending to them isn't an improvement.

    In the US there is a curious mix of take personal responsibility for yourself and also a live life to the max attitude. The poorer classes take up the second part of the equation but fall down on the first. But how can they ever fully take responsibility for themselves anyway? By being poor they are in a substantially weaker position. The "take responsibility argumnet" only really works if you're rich or middle class. Then you can battle the tides of temptation and you have familial and other aids to call on if you slip. In the poorer communities there is much less of that, also IQ, also pride. Poor communities should be given help to get out of it. Help, not a a full denial of personal responsibility which is what parts of the left would advocate.

    If you leagalise drugs you're telling them, "hey life is hard get smashed". Totally the wrong message. Life is hard (sometimes), don't get smashed, seek to better yourself, live as part of a sustainable community, improve society and your life.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Alte said,

    "The "War on Drugs" started in 1982 when drug crime (particularly that fueled by crack) was already on its way down. Drug crime and drug use are both rising again. This time it is across the races, for the same reason as it plagued black people before: the breakdown of family and society."

    The war on drugs began as part of a movement against large scale welfare for the poorer classes, which was seen as causing family breakdown, helplessness and rising single parent familes. Any momentary blip in the stats doesn't get us away from the fact that increases in prevention does reduce crime rates.

    Jailing up the uneducated bastard children of single parent families is hardly the most constructive social approach and is a last resort. Legalising it though absolutely won’t help.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Alte I am a little distressed by your desire to adopt quick fixes. Just legalise it, just end government, just do this or that. These problems are not so easily fixed at all. Society has gradually evolved this way and it will only gradually unevovle.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The war on drugs began as part of a movement against large scale welfare for the poorer classes

    Well, at least we're being honest here. I know enough drug users walking around free and easy... in the middle class. Let us not assume that drug use is limited to the lower classes. Why are we cracking down on joints, while other people are washing Vicodin and Ritalin down with whiskey? Why don't we concentrate on addressing the reasons why they're getting high, in the first place?

    Alte I am a little distressed by your desire to adopt quick fixes.

    And I'm a little distressed by your desire to lock people up in jail just because they've done something you don't approve of. Vices are not crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Alte said,

    "And I'm a little distressed by your desire to lock people up in jail just because they've done something you don't approve of. Vices are not crimes."

    Well what is a crime? How is behaviour to be regulated then?

    ReplyDelete
  49. On which grounds do you support cannabis legalisation?

    I don't think any rational discussion of which substances should be banned is possible without scrutinizing what is already currently legal. A drug that is 100% legal today is also immediately toxic to every tissue in the body, is highly physically addictive, kills on overdose, is commonly fatal in withdrawal (unlike even the hardest of opioids), is known to cause total blackout, can inspire aggressive and violent behavior, and is responsible overall for the deaths of tens of thousands of people each year. I'm talking, of course, about alcohol.

    Guess what. If you like a cocktail after dinner, or enjoy popping down to the pub after work, you're a drug user.

    I have seen too many of my erstwhile friends (for they are now only a shadow of their former selves) wrecked by an addiction to drugs...

    Cannabis is not physically addictive.

    Peter Hitchens has been making a very consistent case against legalisation.

    Would this be the same Peter Hitchens whose brother is dying of the cancer most often caused by heavy consumption of whiskey? I trust you mean that he wants alcohol to be banned. That would only make sense.

    As far as I am concerned, I think dealers are the dregs of mankind and mass murderers worthy of the gallows

    What better reason to remove cannabis, which to date has been responsible for the death of approximately zero human beings, from the black market?

    "I and my quirks, how I would like to smoke a joint and destroy my lungs so that society pays for it"

    By that logic, tobacco should be made illegal, especially since your average smoker inhales an order of magnitude more smoke each day than the most die-hard stoner.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So drugs should be legalised?

    A propaganda term we see frequently here in the U.S. is "drugs and alcohol." Alcohol, with all its attendant dysfunction and death, has been surgically removed from the list of "drugs" that society should not approve of. Why? Certainly not because it's harmless.

    So to ask the question "should drugs be legalized" is a non-starter because some drugs are legal.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Alcohol has been part of our societes for millenia, so while you should say use it in moderation you can't say its a recently promoted drug.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Alcohol has been part of our societies for millenia

    Cannabis goes way back, as well. And if "newness" were the criteria for banning, then we'd have to outlaw Viagra and other recreational pharm drugs.

    Certain drugs are banned, or their usage punished punitively, because of who they are associated with, not because they are particularly evil. Prohibition was fueled by anti-Catholic sentiment, which is why home-made wine (popular among Protestants) was excluded from the ban, which focused on liquor and beer. Is wine less potent than beer? Hmm... no.

    Marijuana was banned because it was associated with Mexicans, just like they cracked-down on crack because it was associated with black people. Just note the difference in sentencing between powder cocaine and crack cocaine -- it's okay to snort it, but not to smoke it. In until 2007, there was a 100:1 disparity in sentencing, now there's an 18:1 disparity and they've finally eliminated the minimum 5-year sentence for merely possessing 5 grams of crack.

    If you like a cocktail after dinner, or enjoy popping down to the pub after work, you're a drug user.

    Yup. I'm not going to ask them to put down their weed, as long as they don't try to confiscate my martini. I'm not a hypocrite, so I certainly won't be throwing the first stone on this one.

    I'm sure I do (or have done), plenty of things that other people think I shouldn't and would like to regulate, out of the sincere kindness of their hearts. They are just that generous and loving; always looking out for my best interests. Maybe we should reinstate the ban on oral sex (sodomy), forbid gambling, make fornication a crime, outlaw miscegenation, define spankings as child abuse, bring back prohibition, prosecute homeschooling. Etc. etc. etc.

    Shoot, even yelling at your spouse is prosecutable now.

    Well what is a crime? How is behaviour to be regulated then?

    The difference between a vice and a crime is "trespass". This is, precisely, the difference in mentality between conservatives and right-liberals. We are both eager to control the behavior of those around us (largely in order to make our own lives more comfortable -- let's be honest), but right-liberals are more reluctant to regulate behavior. We do not wish to resort to state-mandated violence in order to achieve our aims.

    If you want to know why more right-liberals aren't conservatives, this is it: We don't trust the majority to do our thinking for us, so we agree not to do their thinking for them.

    Sometimes, I just want to relax with my husband on the couch, drink my extra-dry vodka martini, and watch trashy, mindless television before we engage in some non-conservative acts. Ya gotta problem with that? Gonna send in the swat team?

    ReplyDelete
  53. PART I

    "And I'm a little distressed by your desire to lock people up in jail just because they've done something you don't approve of. Vices are not crimes."

    Quick fixes seldom work. That is where conservatives and libertarians differ; conservatives think in terms of natural, gradual processes. Libertarians tend to side with the "legislative maggot" and believe hit-and-run approaches can work through scraps of paper. Drugs have become so ingrained it will take many years to wipe them out, even if imperfectly so. It will require a change in the general mindset, and it is not easily done.

    "Guess what. If you like a cocktail after dinner, or enjoy popping down to the pub after work, you're a drug user.

    A glass of red wine every now and then has never caused loss of memory, aggressive behaviour (except if you are highly sensitive to alcohol or based on corpulence), lack of reactiveness, etc. Besides, there is almost no addictive phenomenon in drinking a glass of wine/beer on an irregular basis. Also, the two cannot be compared on the basis that a small quantity of drugs can be very harmful while it is almost never the case for a range of alcoholic drinks (I agree a case could be made against whisky, vodka and all stronger liquor, but I will tackle the issue later).

    Cannabis is not physically addictive.

    I was not mentioning cannabis alone, but drugs in general. Besides, cannabis is often the first step towards consuming even more dangerous drugs. However, cannabis has many harmful effects, including lack of reactiveness, higher probability of having lung cancer, anxiety, depression, psychosis, and so on. Again, Peter Hitchens is profuse on this topic (see his blog, Mail on Sunday).

    Would this be the same Peter Hitchens whose brother is dying of the cancer most often caused by heavy consumption of whiskey? I trust you mean that he wants alcohol to be banned. That would only make sense.

    I do not know whether his brother overindulges in alcohol (although I know he is a raving atheist if you are referring to Christopher Hitchens); this is hardly relevant here. Peter Hitchens has indeed written he would gladly relinquish alcohol (have it banned) if it means it can improve people’s lives by erasing drunkenness, which is an especially serious issue over here (by which I mean Britain and Scotland in particular). So, yes, he does not object to banning alcohol, nor would I, to be fair. The treatment of alcohol-related diseases alone is expected to cost €35 billion (US$48 billion) a year to my country (i.e. France) in twenty years’ time, to be footed by taxpayers, which is due to the fact healthcare is state-funded (or rather unfunded, if you consider we have been running social security deficits for years). Far from denying the ravages of alcohol (I have got an empirical view of the issue due to the frequent, if not daily, occurrence of public drunkenness here), I agree significant curbs should be placed upon its sale and use.

    What better reason to remove cannabis, which to date has been responsible for the death of approximately zero human beings, from the black market?

    Cannabis has been responsible for wrecking entire lives due to the aforementioned harmful effects, and is frequently the gateway to consumption of even more harmful drugs such as heroin or ecstasy. One of the friends I mentioned started smoking cannabis, and went on to use heroin (legal in certain cantons of Switzerland where special “shooting” rooms have been set up; it has been a stomping disaster and they are considering the abolition of these places). In Holland, segments of the Albanian have taken up the trade of drugs after cannabis was de-penalised. Cannabis is indirectly responsible for killing people due to its being a foothold in the kingdom of drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  54. PART II

    By that logic, tobacco should be made illegal, especially since your average smoker inhales an order of magnitude more smoke each day than the most die-hard stoner.

    I would be fine with banning tobacco; it is another drugs responsible for addiction, detestable social behaviour, and is one of the principal causes of mortality in Europe (by enhancing the probability of cardio-vascular diseases and lung cancer). Drugs are morally wrong in that they are another manifestation of hedonism, of the overindulgence in petty, immediate pleasures that characterises my generation and Western society as a whole. Most of them also include significant risks of addiction, which makes them even more wrong on a moral basis. As you see, my attitude is fairly consistent as I would have no problem whatsoever with a downright ban on alcohol and tobacco. There is more about this in my reply to Alte.

    Yup. I'm not going to ask them to put down their weed, as long as they don't try to confiscate my martini. I'm not a hypocrite, so I certainly won't be throwing the first stone on this one.

    Your views are consistent. So are mine: I would ban ALL drugs (but we have yet to produce a precise definition of drugs).

    Maybe we should reinstate the ban on oral sex (sodomy), forbid gambling, make fornication a crime, outlaw miscegenation, define spankings as child abuse, bring back prohibition, prosecute homeschooling. Etc. etc. etc.

    Neither of the above is a drug: they do not involve “artificial” addiction through a dubious substance, although gambling certainly includes addictive aspects. Honestly, Alte, I fail to see the point of including miscegenation, child abuse and homeschooling in the list. Besides, serious questions could be raised as to the feasibility or the enforcement of yet another "Buggery Act" (similar to Cromwell's attempt to deter sodomy).

    ReplyDelete
  55. PART III

    The difference between a vice and a crime is "trespass". This is, precisely, the difference in mentality between conservatives and right-liberals. We are both eager to control the behavior of those around us (largely in order to make our own lives more comfortable -- let's be honest), but right-liberals are more reluctant to regulate behavior. We do not wish to resort to state-mandated violence in order to achieve our aims.

    Except there is considerable trespass due to drugs and alcohol. Drunkenness increases the probability of crime (and, thus, trespass), so do drugs. People driving in a state of advanced intoxication or in thrall to drugs are a danger to the public. It is perfectly acceptable to regulate these on grounds of public security as potential trespass is involved.

    If you want to know why more right-liberals aren't conservatives, this is it: We don't trust the majority to do our thinking for us, so we agree not to do their thinking for them.

    You overlook the fact we conservatives usually reject “pure democracy” and would like other forms of authority to interfere in order not to be subjected to the ever-changing whims of the populace.

    Sometimes, I just want to relax with my husband on the couch, drink my extra-dry vodka martini, and watch trashy, mindless television before we engage in some non-conservative acts. Ya gotta problem with that? Gonna send in the swat team?

    Not at all. That is your business (unless you hysterically shout in the street or whatever afterwards, I mean as long as it stays strictly private). I too may engage into “non-conservative” acts every now and then (whatever that means), and I do drink a glass of beer from time to time (with no addictive effects, apparently), although I do resent television in general. I would readily relinquish alcohol (in my case, beer and wine, never stronger drinks) if it meant public drunkenness would cease and safety increase. In short, I am willing to consider the impact on society as a whole. The point is I doubt a blanket ban on alcohol could be practicable in that it has been ingrained for centuries. This does not mean we should extend the concept to include drugs (and allow people to use them), simply because we want to minimise the potential damages (so Jesse is somehow right in my view) and consider the situation in the present circumstances (cf. Edmund Burke).

    ReplyDelete
  56. Honestly, Alte, I fail to see the point of including miscegenation, child abuse and homeschooling in the list.

    The point is that you wish to control cannabis (and, apparently, alcohol), but other people have "pet projects" that they would like to control, as well. I know plenty of people who consider homeschooling immoral or even dangerous. Same with miscegenation and spanking.

    Besides, serious questions could be raised as to the feasibility or the enforcement of yet another "Buggery Act" (similar to Cromwell's attempt to deter sodomy).

    Wouldn't it be great if we could set up cameras in everyone's bedrooms, so that we could make sure that they only do it missionary-style?

    I too may engage into “non-conservative” acts every now and then (whatever that means)

    Sometimes we play Trivial Pursuit, and I swear the questions tend very liberal. Has anyone else ever noted the non-conservative nature of certain boardgames?

    ReplyDelete
  57. "The point is that you wish to control cannabis (and, apparently, alcohol), but other people have "pet projects" that they would like to control, as well. I know plenty of people who consider homeschooling immoral or even dangerous. Same with miscegenation and spanking."

    I was mentioning drugs, none of the above apply here as homeschooling is manifestly not similar to drugs! As for alcohol, I have already made clear I am unsure of the consequences prohibition would have. At any rate, alcohol and drugs are not on an equal footing due to effects, harmfulness vs. quantities issues, and established use.

    "Wouldn't it be great if we could set up cameras in everyone's bedrooms, so that we could make sure that they only do it missionary-style?"

    I was joking and teasing you, Alte! Of course, I am no supporter of such things ("Buggery Act", private CCTVs and all the Big Brother outfit).

    "Sometimes we play Trivial Pursuit, and I swear the questions tend very liberal. Has anyone else ever noted the non-conservative nature of certain boardgames?"

    Good one! It is just I wondered what you meant by "non-conservative" acts.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Alte,

    Drug taking is everyone's business. If you want your tradition to survive you need adult men to act to defend it. That's not going to happen when the middle-classes are blotting out their problems with a couple of bottles of Shiraz every night or when discontented teenage boys turn to dope.

    As has been pointed out, alcohol has been part of the culture for thousands of years. It's also a drug that can be reasonably quickly processed from the body.

    But drugs like marijuana are not culturally embedded and regular smokers can be influenced by stored quantities of THC for extended periods of time. It's also a drug which, taken by teenagers, can stunt brain development and trigger mental health issues.

    The ban on marijuana should stay. The excessive use of alcohol will have to be fought in other ways.

    Alte, the problem of the state overreaching itself will always be there. That is an eternal issue of political contest.

    The problem we have right now is that liberals/moderns see "equal freedom" as defining our humanity. Therefore, there is a powerful impetus toward state intervention, both to level social outcomes and to suppress what are thought of as traditional impediments to liberal social aims.

    State overreach is therefore built in to our political system. That won't change whilst a liberal political morality is in place.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Southern Cross,

    You're so refreshingly continental. :-)

    I had to rack my brains a bit to think of something non-conservative that I could admit to on here, without being pelted by rotten tomatoes.

    Mark,

    I understand your concern. I am also aware that the abuse of alcohol leads to sexual immorality and laziness, which is a plague upon the entire society. But I am simply not willing to use the violence of the state to limit vice. I believe I would be giving up more than I gain, by doing so. I do not want the state (in practice, other women) in my home or even in my bedroom, threatening to hurt me if I don't do what it says, rather than what my husband and my God says. How many masters shall I serve? Shall I now add a mistress, or even a whole horde of them? Look at the damage they've already done!

    Conservativism is at direct odds with female suffrage, and if you do not end the latter, you can never maintain the former. As I do not believe that we will ever end female suffrage, my only recourse is to stick to libertarianism. Democracy, universal suffrage, and conservativism go together like oil-and-water. In a completely different governmental set-up, I might be more inclined toward conservativism. But as it is... no thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The government wants to, or is looking to, mandate the fat content in certain foods, remove smoking entirely, increasingly restrict gambling, implement cctv cameras everywhere and has many other ideas up its sleeve. We're getting this because people are overweight in greater numbers, continue to smoke in the face of the known health risks and public crime and violence is a real risk etc. All of these issues involve vices that have substantial consequences to people and society. They're also quite common in liberal societies where the emphasis is on personal gratification and immediacy and the importance of traditional moral behavior is generally undermined or denied.

    While society would benefit from a lack of public violence etc we do not live purely for the public benefit nor for the utilitarian good. Many of the vices involve personal pleasures, relaxation and privacy, which are essential to living in a free society. These vices should not be outlawed nor endlessly restricted, merely however generally discouraged and certainly discouraged if they lead to chronic behavior. Matters of privacy and personal choice are important too and pride should be taken in generally choosing how to live and not being endlessly forced.

    Drugs are not this though, they are a recent introduction and our society does not need them, nor does it benefit from them in any respect. Because they are so powerful they are the quintessential annihilating or nihilistic option. Clearly the word "drugs" does not refer to all pharmaceutical products and you weaken your argument by making that claim.

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jesse,

    A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.

    I used to work in the medical and pharma-sector (R&D), where drug-abuse abounds. Some analgesics are just derivatives of illicit drugs, or stem from the same source (notably, opiates). There are licit drugs, and illicit drugs, and whether they wind up in one category or other is a very subjective process. Alcohol and marijuana can be used as medicine, while codeine (a pharmaceutical related to heroin) can be highly addictive. Ecstasy is a form of amphetamine. Crystal meth is methamphetamine, marketed legally under the name Desoxyn. Then you've got uppers and downers, and even tranquilizers. Ritalin can produce a similar euphoric sensation to cocaine, when snorted.

    Shall I go on? Just because a doctor can prescribe it, doesn't stop it from being a potentially dangerous, mind-altering substance.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I guess what I'm saying is that: if people want to escape from their misery, they'll find something to help them do that. If you ban marijuana, they'll just do something else. They'll sniff glue and chug cough syrup, if they have to. Or they'll dump the drugs and sleep around, play video games until their retinas ache, masturbate to porn, whatever.

    Banning weed is like throwing a glass of water on a burning house. It might make you feel better, since you can then say "I've done something." But it doesn't really address the main problem: some people are miserable and deeply unhappy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Alte said,

    "Shall I go on?"

    Can you? We're not saying you should be pharma hounds but by very definition perscription medication have limitations on them. Its ridiculous to lump everything together. You don't have to be pill happy to recognise that pharmaceuticals can have legitimate uses. If marajuna is needed for medical reasons it can be prescribed as such. This is a different game. I'm not saying that people should pop pills like candy.

    On the point about female sufferage, should women be allowed to comment on blogs? If so they should be allowed to vote. They are adults with opinions and are capable of correct conduct. We're not going to put the women's voting genie back in the bottle.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Alte said,

    "They'll sniff glue and chug cough syrup, if they have to."

    Sure but we don't have to legalise that behaviour. Legalisation or otherwise provides a guidance for behaviour, not simply a mechanism for punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Alte said,

    "Banning weed is like throwing a glass of water on a burning house. It might make you feel better, since you can then say "I've done something." But it doesn't really address the main problem: some people are miserable and deeply unhappy."

    Throwing petrol on the fire doesn't help either.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "On the point about female sufferage, should women be allowed to comment on blogs? If so they should be allowed to vote."

    There is a huge difference between women voicing their opinions in private conversations and women participating in the political process.

    Giving women voting rights has been a huge mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Women writing on blogs are attempting to influence men, not circumvent them.

    Sure but we don't have to legalise that behaviour. Legalisation or otherwise provides a guidance for behaviour, not simply a mechanism for punishment.

    It's already legal to do that, you don't have to legalize it. You do realize that possession of cannabis is a felony-crime in many parts of the US, and that it can lead to incarceration?

    Americans are already pill-popping like crazy. That's one of the main reasons our medical care is so astonishingly expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Its not legal in Australia to sniff glue or petrol.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Women are adults and affected by the political process. I cannot in good conscience support measures that deny women this right. If women use their power irresponsibly that is a different matter.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Alte said,

    "Americans are already pill-popping like crazy. That's one of the main reasons our medical care is so astonishingly expensive."

    Your solution to people taking drugs or too many medicines is to have more of them.

    ReplyDelete
  72. No, my solution is Christianity. It worked for me, and for plenty before me.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I don't know what that means Alte. We all support Christianity here.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I meant that the best way to keep people from self-medicating -- through whatever method they prefer -- is the love of Jesus the Christ. What we're seeing out there is despair, Jesse. Faith, hope, and love. That is what they need. Not jail-time.

    And now I'm tired of discussing it, as the conversation is going nowhere and you're starting to sound ticked-off. I'm not attacking you guys, we just have a different opinion about it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. A glass of red wine every now and then has never caused loss of memory, aggressive behaviour (except if you are highly sensitive to alcohol or based on corpulence), lack of reactiveness, etc.

    Sure it does (apart from memory loss), depending on who is doing the drinking.

    Besides, there is almost no addictive phenomenon in drinking a glass of wine/beer on an irregular basis.

    Nor in smoking a single joint. I'm not talking about addiction, I'm talking about recreational drug use.

    Also, the two cannot be compared on the basis that a small quantity of drugs can be very harmful while it is almost never the case for a range of alcoholic drinks

    I'd love to know why you believe imbibing a small amount of cannabis to be "very harmful," while alcohol is benign by comparison.

    Besides, cannabis is often the first step towards consuming even more dangerous drugs.

    Here I thought the "gateway drug" argument went out in the 80's. Many people are born with genetic predisposition to addiction, especially those from parts of Northern Europe (especially Scotland and Ireland) and among the American Indian tribes. When cannabis is abused over a long period of time, it ceases to provide the "high" it did at the beginning, but the amount you would need to smoke to get to that point would pinpoint you as an addict in the first place. It's more likely that illegal nature of cannabis leads to making black market contacts which can provide access to the harder drugs.

    Peter Hitchens has indeed written he would gladly relinquish alcohol (have it banned) if it means it can improve people’s lives by erasing drunkenness, which is an especially serious issue over here (by which I mean Britain and Scotland in particular).

    Good for him. Although I think it's easy to sit back and talk about banning alcohol when you know very well that there would be riots in the streets if you did.

    Christopher Hitchens was recently diagnosed with esophageal cancer. 90% of esophageal carcinomas are caused by heavy tobacco and/or alcohol use. Christopher is (or was) known for his enthusiastic love of whiskey, and he will probably pay for it with his life.

    Alte is quite correct in that the drive to use mind-altering substances is part of the human condition. Moreover, the American experiment with prohibition proved that it is not a feasible way to combat the problem. A great many conservatives enjoy a good belt to take the edge off of a long day, which makes them recreational drug users, pure and simple. Cannabis is far more benign than alcohol can ever hope to be, and its continuing criminalization is stark madness.

    ReplyDelete
  76. As has been pointed out, alcohol has been part of the culture for thousands of years. It's also a drug that can be reasonably quickly processed from the body.

    The Greeks cultivated cannabis, as did the Romans, Scythians, Sarmatians, and various other ancient peoples. There are also pottery shards from the Minoan Civilization that show evidence of poppy cultivation.

    Cocaine and opioids are also eliminated very quickly.

    But drugs like marijuana are not culturally embedded and regular smokers can be influenced by stored quantities of THC for extended periods of time.

    This is extremely misleading. The active type of THC which produces the euphoria begins to dissipate after 2-3 hours. Inactive THC is stored in the fat cells, and that is why it stays in the body for so long. No one is walking around in an altered state for weeks at a stretch.

    The ban on marijuana should stay. The excessive use of alcohol will have to be fought in other ways.

    Why? Why not just ban it? Is the fact that it's traditional sufficient to allow it to continue to kill people?

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Women are adults and affected by the political process. I cannot in good conscience support measures that deny women this right."

    Jesse, you make the same mistake that liberals make, you view people as autonomous beings, it's not a traditional point of view. Women are part of families or should be and their interests are respresented by the men in those families.

    Laura Wood had a post on this topic where she argued for male heads of households voting on behalf of their wives and children.

    Further one could argue from the Bible and Christian tradition, that the female sphere of influence is private, not public.

    Vox Day also has written extensively on the evils of female suffrage.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous,

    Male and female interests will differ from time to time, consequently both have to have political rights and legal protection. In a perfect world this would not be necessary but the world isn't perfect and people abuse their power.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The entire civilization is something men create for women, maintain for women, and advance for women. If we fall down, they pick us up. If we are attacked, they defend us. If we are hungry, they feed us. If we are afraid, they comfort us. If we are cold, they house us. The justice system caters to our fears and strives to protect us. When they vote, men tend to take the interests of women into consideration. One could even argue that women had more protections before suffrage, than after.

    We already have most of the power, Jesse. The vote just turns us into despots. Taking away female suffrage would do nothing more than level the playing field a bit, which would benefit us all. Women aren't meant to wield political power over men, when they already hold so much personal sway over them. It's an affront to God, and upsets the delicate balance of our society. So Jesse, will you please take my vote?

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Male and female interests will differ from time to time..."

    Thinking in the terms of males and females as separate groups is a recent development, the one which also gave us modern liberalism and feminism.

    As traditionalists we should think in the terms of family and community. Why should a wife have separate interests from that of her husband? Is he not the Head of the family? If his wife gets equal political rights, will it benefit the family or will it create discord and strife?

    The ability to vote and choose the government historically has been tied up to the duty to fight in any war which this government may start, however till the present day only men are subjected to draft. If women have equal political rights they should shoulder equal responsibilities.

    So the question is should we have female draft or should we remove female suffrage. Article upon article proves that women in the armed forces are a disastrous experiment.

    The real female power is at home, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous and Alte,

    In the past the King or the aristocrats were the head of the society but it didn't take long for people to realise that the king's interests and the people's interests might not be the same. In a perfect world they would be but for every good king there was a bad king and it was often only the tension and demands of the subjects that made a king good.

    Can you elaborate on how women have the power? Because we in the west are generally very respectful of women it doesn't follow that other cultures will be the same. Informal power may not always cut it compared to economic or legal/political power.

    Just because an argument is new or relatively new and not generally traditional doesn't in itself make it bad.

    On the point about war service I don't want women in the military because they'll ruin it. That is too masculine a realm. If the argument is that they should contribute then they should do so in some other way.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Women have "soft power", Jesse.

    And we are not talking about "other cultures", but our own. We are discussing the proper method for governing our own societies, not whether the same method would work in Timbuktu. Different folks, different strokes.

    The men of the West have proven themselves quite capable of governing decently, capably, and competently.

    Giving each able-minded man a vote (out of respect for the responsibilities he carries -- including the draft), and an additional vote (or weighting) for any dependents he has, seems like a fair system to me. Women (and children, and the elderly and disabled, etc.) would still be equally represented, without their own vote. As of now, they go into nursing homes and get the elderly with dementia to vote, children are completely unrepresented, and women often vote against their own interests and against the interests of their own family. Or something similar.

    I'm simply saying that we should consider that the family -- not the individual -- is the base-level of society, and that a man should be representing that level.

    ReplyDelete
  83. While women having the vote has been a disaster I'm not sure the solution is to just take away the vote from women. Whether you add votes to men for women and dependents or not the problem is the same. Men can not let their votes be influenced by women ever. Women vote against the interest of their families but taking away the female vote just creates an incentive for women to cajole or force men to vote their way. This is how female suffarage got started in the first place. Since women can't be trusted with the vote they can't be trusted to influence men either. If women could be trusted to influence men whether women had the vote or not would be a non-issue.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I think there is a big difference.

    It is true that men vote in women's interests (and that of their other dependents) and are strongly influenced by them, but ending female suffrage would allow them to vote in their dependents' favor even against the wishes of the dependent, and politicians would be more likely to focus on issues that interest men. That alone would already be a vast improvement over the current system, where women often vote in a seemingly schizophrenic manner and where "women's issues" dominate politics.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Can you elaborate on how women have the power?"

    Women have sexual power while young and as they grow older they usually have a lot of influence over their children.

    "Because we in the west are generally very respectful of women it doesn't follow that other cultures will be the same"

    Personally I couldn't care less how men in other cultures treat their women, but even under islamic system women have "soft power" Alte mentions.

    If you ever marry you will understand:)

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Informal power may not always cut it compared to economic or legal/political power."

    Jesse, one of the reasons that our society is so dysfunctional is the economic power that women have.
    If a woman has her own income and a house and a car why will she want to marry? Add to this the political power and the ability to vote for more government programs that benefit women and you have a disaster on your hands.

    "Just because an argument is new or relatively new and not generally traditional doesn't in itself make it bad."

    I don't think that female suffrage is bad because it's a recent invention, but because of its negative consequences for the society we live in.

    Also, as a traditional Christian I believe that God created man and woman different from each other, and the woman was created for domestic sphere, not the public one.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Alte in theory you're right. In practice not so much. That we have women voting now is proof that men can and will be negatively influenced be women in voting. Harry Burn the deciding votes for female sufferage voted for it because his mommy told him to.

    What we need to do is take away women's power whether it's soft or hard. That problem is bigger than tweaking the voting system.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm confused. Is this all the same anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Sorry guys I'm a bit busy at the moment so I'm going to have to tap out of this argument.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jesse,

    If the modern liberal female is voting for her right to self-annihilate - think of the "right to abort" in its totality, not just a "mother" killing her child in utero, but a female aborting all relationships, commitments and responsibilities as unmistakeable evidence of her liberated state - then you may certainly in good conscience advocate for banning the right to vote for one who is a professed modern liberated female.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Alte, there are at least two different anons on this thread.

    My latest posts were from 9:28 and 9:40; anon 9:52 is a different person.

    In a healthy society the soft power of women will balance the political and economical power of men

    ReplyDelete
  92. I would say that voting is a social responsibility and that you have to do it responsibly. You can say that extending the suffrage to all economic levels of men has also had negative consequences for society but that in itself isn't a reason not to do it. If you give political power only to a few there is a danger that they will look not to everyone's interests but only their own. Then you have the issue of social instability as people feel they need to use force against each other to get their way. A woman might not marry, she might not be served well by her family or her husband. Its important that she accepts the obligations of citizenship and recognises that they are such a responsibility and that she should also vote responsibly. We know that young mothers are one of the biggest swinging groups of voters out there because they’re keenly interested in getting the best deal for their family. That’s totally consistent with a well functioning democracy.

    No system will be perfect but simply giving women the vote won't necessarily put them in conflict with men, but it will give them an official voice and that can be a positive.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "That’s totally consistent with a well functioning democracy."

    That's the point, Jesse, I am not a supporter of democracy.
    I also don't believe that the suffrage should be extended to all the males. Surely not to those who live off welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Its important that she accepts the obligations of citizenship..."

    A woman accepts the obligations of citizenship by being a virtous wife and bearing and properly raising children, not necessarily by voting.

    I would say that many an emancipated female who sleeps around, divorces frivolously and leaves her children in day care has not accepted the obligations of citizenship and doesn't behave responsibly even though she votes (probably for feminist socialist politicians).

    Jesse, women are different from men. Each sex has its own responsibilities and duties, but they are not necessarily the same.

    ReplyDelete
  95. If you don't have a state based on the people, ie democracy, then you have one based on a strong man, or "reason" whatever that means in the context of government, some other ideology or God. If its God, which denomination etc. Its a whole bloody can of worms. Democracies are generally more peaceful and usually more prosperous over the long run. When it works it allows everyone in the society to give feedback to the government which then improves its efficiency. We're simply left with saying what should we replace it with that's better? So if you're going to have a democracy it follows that the vote should be extended as far as is practical. Not all women will stay at home or want to. If this is a breach of their traditional role then I'm not sure if that in itself means the end of the world.

    Feminism is not just about women working. Its about women being "fierce". Women can vote and work without that.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Jesse, women first went out working and got the vote and then became "fierce" as you put it. According to the statistics published on Thinking Housewife in the year 1900 there were only 3% of white married women working outside home; as more of them joined the workforce the rate of illegitimacy and divorce grew steadily too, as those factors are all connected.

    USA wasn't intended to be a democracy, but a republic, with restrictions put on voting rights and it worked just fine.

    French women got the vote after WWII and in Switzerland some cantons forbade female suffrage as recent as 1990s. It's hardly the end of the world if not everybody can vote.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Well what about the working women who aren't interested in sticking it to men? Feminism has claimed working women as their own but it isn't the case in practice and it doesn't have to be in theory.

    Should women have no other access to sources of finance yes the divorce rate will be lower. However, freedom is a responsibility that can be mastered. If women are shackled for the sake of public order that hardly makes for a good outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "If women are shackled for the sake of public order that hardly makes for a good outcome."

    I have an impression that a Victorian society with "shackled women" had a much better outcome for everybody than our modern liberal dystopia.

    Furthermore, I don't see married women as ""shackled", that's a feminist assumption.

    You say Jesse:
    "Feminism has claimed working women as their own but it isn't the case in practice and it doesn't have to be in theory."

    Married women with able-bodied husbands working outside home are the very definition of feminism. Feminism seeks to eradicate the traditional sex roles and substitute them with equality.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Women have always worked and the pure stay at home women was a Victorian advance brought by higher middle class living conditions. I say "shakled" if they're denied the option of working.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "Women have always worked and the pure stay at home women was a Victorian advance brought by higher middle class living conditions."

    That is simply not true. Laura Wood published statistical data on her blog on the participation of women in the workforce in America. Well, in 1890 as many as 2.2 % of white married women in America were employed outside home. Apparently, 98% of American households at that time were upper middle class.

    My church uses a wedding cermon from the 16th century. It says that the wife must be a diligent homemaker and the husband must work well in his chosen profession to earn enough money to support his family and to give some to the church.

    The theory about Victorians inventing the traditional sex roles holds simply no water.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Here is a good article on the subject providing some historical background:

    http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1717

    A quote: "In seventeenth century New England no respectable person questioned that a woman’s place was in the home", again this was way before Victorians.

    And here is one more:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/10/22/womens-work-ii/

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous said,

    "Well, in 1890 as many as 2.2 % of white married women in America were employed outside home"

    So women should be able to work but not once they get married? 2.2% doesn't account for all the maids in various services so we can assume that such women were single. If a women works outside of the home, as opposed to say on a family farm or in a family business, I'm not sure I see a huge practical difference. As the economy moves away from farming and family businesses the economic requirements of the society will change and so will employment.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Yes, Jesse that's exactly what I think. An unmarried woman should be able to work outside home and will often need to, but the married woman's place is home.

    2.2% refers to married white women only. I don't know the statistics for the employment of unmarried American women of that period by I seem to recall that in the year 1900 in Britain there were about 50% unmarried women working outside home.

    Here is the link to the original blog post by Thinking Housewife:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/02/the-history-of-married-women-in-the-workforce/

    BTW women working on a family farm apart from performing normal farm wife activities like cooking, taking care of chicken etc were counted as being in the workforce, too.

    ReplyDelete
  104. A quote from the article:

    "I want to add, in the situation of a family living on a farm in the countryside where both the husband and the wife worked equally to maintain the productivity of the farm, both the husband and the wife would have been considered employed, the husband categorized as a “farmer” and the wife most likely categorized as an “agricultural laborer”; the very low numbers of married women working is not due to women’s work on the family farm not being counted"

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous,

    What you are suggesting is a totally traditional approach and I'm not suggesting that mine was. However, women worked, if not on the farm then in sowing or making clothes for sale, acting as tenants for boarders in the house, or in all sorts of capacities to make ends meet. In today's world women will work in careers perhaps for some of their lives. These women are open to conservative and traditional ideas, because liberal ideas are weak in many respects, and if we all we have to tell them is "be housewifes" they won't buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Jesse, of course some women worked to make a little extra money at home. They still can do it nowadays, it is made especially easy by the invention of internet.

    There are enough women who live fairly traditional lives while earning some pin money by selling stuff on the net, giving music lessons from home etc. All this doesn't make them into career women/working women. In such a family the husband is still the primary breadwinner.

    You said :"if all we have to tell them is "be housewifes" they won't buy it." I'm not sure it's true. You are forgetting that both men and women have been subjected to the relentness propaganda for the past 40+ years pushing all the women towards careers and still we do have some women who choose to be homemakers.

    I could recommend a book called "Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism" by Carolyn F. Graglia , where the author documents the relentness attack on the traditional homemaker. It is a fairly good read.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I would profess to a Classical Liberal philosphy and take socially conservative positions.Rather than Socially Liberal positions but again as Wikipedia said Social Liberalism differs from Classical Liberalism

    ReplyDelete