tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post8664046608199539960..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Does liberal purism make you a moderate?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2917455524914985362010-06-08T07:18:36.484+10:002010-06-08T07:18:36.484+10:00Peter Frost said,
“My problem with libertarianism ...Peter Frost said,<br />“My problem with libertarianism is the same problem I have with any ideology. It's a simplification of reality. Libertarians believe that a free society will spontaneously self-generate as long as government gets out of the way.”<br /><br />This is exactly what I hear from conservatives every time I tell them I am a libertarian. I guess this is just a “petty argument about semantics.” So if I am an American traditionalist so be it. However, I believe in the kind of Government that existed before the Creation of First Central Bank and I do not believe in slavery. I also believe in woman suffrage, (the right of women to vote and to run for office). So technically I’m not an American traditionalist either. <br /><br />Peter, you’re assuming that libertarian’s approach complicated problems in a simplistic way just because they declare a simple ideology? That would be like me telling Jesus Christ he is over simplifying things when he declared “be ye therefore perfect.” Common sense tells us that no one can possibly achieve perfection in this life, but somehow Priest tells us we should strive for this end. I believe it’s an individual that over simplifies things not the ideology. After all, ideologies are just ideals. Ideals do not make decisions, people do; ideals just point us in the right direction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-79083530842982040542010-06-08T04:44:04.180+10:002010-06-08T04:44:04.180+10:00Anon,
Then why not define yourself as an American...Anon,<br /><br />Then why not define yourself as an American traditionalist? Why not say that you believe in the kind of U.S. government that existed until the 1960s?<br /><br />My problem with libertarianism is the same problem I have with any ideology. It's a simplification of reality. Libertarians believe that a free society will spontaneously self-generate as long as government gets out of the way. In fact, the free society of the "Old America" resulted from a unique set of cultural, social, and demographic circumstances. It will not self-generate elsewhere in the world and it's increasingly doubtful whether it will self-generate in today's America.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32030341977382171232010-06-07T15:14:32.073+10:002010-06-07T15:14:32.073+10:00Peter Frost,
I was the one who answered that ques...Peter Frost,<br /><br />I was the one who answered that question that you rebuttaled and I think you are right for the most part, (so does Mr. Richardson apparently). However, I believe you are strengthening the libertarian argument, seeing that the United States has moved far away from the founding fathers ideologies. So its not libertarianism that in destroying America, but the Federal Government; the exact opposite. And as Alte has already stated, “We only now rely on the state to handle everything because of the breakdown of all other control mechanisms: family, religion, community, etc.”. It is “Big Government that steps in and says, you have to hire this women because she is a minority! Not because of her qualifications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-37888619618472740932010-06-07T14:34:16.839+10:002010-06-07T14:34:16.839+10:00Alte,
Thanks for answering my question. I gues...Alte, <br /><br />Thanks for answering my question. I guess I am a libertarian; seeing that I share the same views as you do, or at least agree in everything you have said regarding libertarianism. Structuring words is not my strong point, so thanks for better clarification. <br /><br />I think the impulse for conservatives is to dismiss libertarianism as you said, “there being no limits on peoples' behavior.” And I very much agree with your statement, “Handing over all control mechanisms to the state goes directly against this teaching.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-86781457667778251512010-06-07T06:50:07.048+10:002010-06-07T06:50:07.048+10:00Sure, we shouldn’t kill people, or punch someone i...<em>Sure, we shouldn’t kill people, or punch someone in the face just because we don’t like the way they look, but what about abortion? One person may think it is their God given right to dispose of their undeveloped child, however there is another person in the same society/community/state that thinks otherwise. I personally believe you are impairing the potential child’s autonomy.</em><br /><br />This question wasn't addressed to me, but as a Christian and a self-professed libertarian, the answer is rather simple:<br /><br /><strong><br />Abortion is murder, and is therefore a trespass against the right to life.</strong><br /><br />Furthermore, libertarianism isn't about there being no limits on peoples' behavior. It's about not using the violence of the state to enforce those limits that do not involve severe trespasses. There are other ways of limiting people's behavior that do not involve locking them in jail; such as allowing them to suffer the natural consequences of their behavior, social shaming, excommunication, etc.<br /><br />At its core, libertarianism is the idea that <em>vices are not crimes</em>, and should not be handled as such. We only now rely on the state to handle everything because of the breakdown of all other control mechanisms: family, religion, community, etc. My faith (Catholicism) stresses the importance of subsidiarity -- handling things at the lowest level possible. Handing over all control mechanisms to the state goes directly against this teaching.Altehttp://traditionalmarriage.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41701581103926043582010-06-06T10:40:18.506+10:002010-06-06T10:40:18.506+10:00Peter, excellent comment.Peter, excellent comment.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-81630462527850932252010-06-06T01:53:07.766+10:002010-06-06T01:53:07.766+10:00"I can answer Peter Frost question with a yes..."I can answer Peter Frost question with a yes; as long as the individual has the freedom to leave that utopian society and as long as that individual is not harmed."<br /><br />If a libertarian society allows a community to hold land in common and to impose its own rules on its members (who can then be expelled for breaking these rules), what is the difference between this community and a State? <br /><br />Is it the fact that members are free to leave? But isn't this true for most nation states? "America love it or leave it?" When I talk with libertarians, I get the impression they want to kick collective identity out the front door while letting collective identities enter freely through the back door.<br /><br />In practice, this has the effect of stripping the established majority culture of any means of collective self-defence, while leaving the way clear for minority cultures. The nation state is, after all, the outgrowth of a particular nation, i.e., a people.<br /><br />We see this with the United States. It was founded by Anglo-Protestants, and it wasn't until the 1960s that its elites opened up to people of other origins. Today, Anglo-Protestants still make up just under half the U.S. population, but they now are excluded from the Supreme Court and account for less than a quarter of all admissions to Ivy League universities. <br /><br />This situation has come about because Anglo-Protestants can no longer advance their interests collectively. They're expected to act only as individuals while everyone else can fall back on ethnic networking.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36075368831600658932010-06-05T18:12:36.547+10:002010-06-05T18:12:36.547+10:00Jack,
I deleted two of your comments, one for a p...Jack,<br /><br />I deleted two of your comments, one for a personal attack on another commenter and one for bad language. <br /><br />I'm also going to delete any further discussion on this particular thread on pedophilia. It's not that I want to censor any debate on the issue, but that it's not directly relevant to the original post.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-55655637428342759752010-06-05T17:13:27.520+10:002010-06-05T17:13:27.520+10:00Anonymous classical liberal is basically the way l...Anonymous classical liberal is basically the way liberals distinguish themselves from modern liberals - its a belief in negative freedom. As far as I am aware libertarianism and classical liberalism are pretty much the same thing, it just got changed because in america the word liberal has been poisoned by the conservatives.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9735157552829373522010-06-05T17:11:27.688+10:002010-06-05T17:11:27.688+10:00'Of course homosexuals, closeted paedophiles a...'Of course homosexuals, closeted paedophiles and their useful idiots (read: you) will interpret the data in a way that is exculpatory and illustrates no connection'<br /><br />Kilroy, ever heard of the null hypothesis mate? You probably haven't because you have no understanding of what statistics is, but it assumes there is NO ASSOCIATION between them until PROVEN otherwise.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65130311268245198692010-06-05T17:04:11.442+10:002010-06-05T17:04:11.442+10:00Mr. Reeves,
I waiver my claim to Jack's apolo...Mr. Reeves,<br /><br />I waiver my claim to Jack's apology.<br /><br />I believe he's embarrassed himself sufficiently already and I always enjoy tearing liberals apart.<br /><br />The pleasure was all mine.Kilroynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35727596254461085062010-06-05T17:03:59.994+10:002010-06-05T17:03:59.994+10:00Reeves yes I've heard about this before and mo...Reeves yes I've heard about this before and most people know that while most homosexual people want the right to be able to get married, only approximately 40% of them say they will if they can. So they see it as more of a movement for equality.<br /><br />I fail to see how you bringing in a random fellow called Kinsey proves anything. I can come up with some pretty messed up heterosexual too - do you think that proves all heterosexuals are twisted?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-83032360501029238162010-06-05T17:00:35.363+10:002010-06-05T17:00:35.363+10:00Jack wrote: “Kilroy if you continue to quote resea...Jack wrote: “<i>Kilroy if you continue to quote research that cannot distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality then you are full of utter crap.</i>”<br /><br />OK, Jacko, try this on for size:<br /><br />A study published in the January 2008 issue of the <i>Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience</i> (‘Brain response to visual sexual stimuli in homosexual pedophiles’) analysed “<i>whether brain activation patterns of homosexual pedophiles differed from those of a nonpedophile homosexual control group during visual sexual stimulation</i>” and found that the “<i>central processing of visual sexual stimuli in homosexual pedophiles seems to be comparable to that in nonpedophile control subjects</i>” with the only difference being a “<i>weaker activation pattern</i>” for non-paedophile homosexuals. Thus, the difference was with respect to addiction only. <br /><br />Moreover, the October 2007 cumulative review of no less than <i>five hundred and fifty four</i> scientific studies was published in <i>Clinical Paediatrics</i> in which the arguments for and against the connection between paedophilia and sodomy was discussed. Nota bene: <i>no conclusions have yet been reached and the matter is still open to scientific debate</i>, meaning the suggestion that there is a connection between the two deviant sexual behaviours is still reasonable and valid.<br /><br />The <i>Journal of Biological Science</i>, November 2006 issue, made it very clear that more research is needed to dispel <i>any</i> theories, and that the accepted wisdom is a product of data exegesis, meaning interpreting the evidence (‘Two hypotheses on the causes of male homosexuality and paedophilia’).<br /><br />Of course homosexuals, closeted paedophiles and their useful idiots (read: you) will interpret the data in a way that is exculpatory and illustrates no connection (as a side note, I’ve often wondered why the default position is always to the negative, and why is it defended <i>so vehemently</i>). However, the overwhelming evidence of homosexual attraction between <i>homosexual</i> Priests and young “alter boys” and the like, is <i>highly persuasive of a positive relationship</i>. Gay culture is also quite revealing. The cult of youth within the gay community is public knowledge: the younger your “boi” the greater your prestige. Nobody denies this, except, of course, people more concerned about not “discriminating” because their ultimate virtue is “being nice”, always, at any price.<br /><br />In conclusion: people like you are part of the problem. You think you’re being “open minded”, but really, you liberals, (classical, libertarian, whatever) are some of the most ideologically driven and narrow sighted lot.<br /><br />With that, I’m off to dinner.Kilroynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-81006764748873167322010-06-05T16:53:43.424+10:002010-06-05T16:53:43.424+10:00The fantasy that modern homosexuals (whether Senat...The fantasy that modern homosexuals (whether Senators Brandis or Brown or whoever) compartmentalise their lives - in other words that they spend 30 minutes on Wednesday morning in a Kings Cross bath-house and the other 167.5 hours of the week attending an ultra-Presbyterian chapel or whatever - is now denied by the more candid homosexuals themselves.<br /><br />You want <i>secular</i> evidence of most homos' promiscuity, even by the wildest heteros' standards? You got it:<br /><br />http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090902092752AAXkgOJ<br /><br />Of course publicising this sort of thing in the mass media doesn't suit the Queer Nation / Queer World agenda, which is all about "we want to be faithful married couples just like you straights" etc. Twenty years ago the agenda was different. It was all about promoting what Michael Fumento rightly called the myth of heterosexual AIDS. In other words the agenda has changed. But the principles behind the agenda each time - sociopathic self-gratification - haven't changed a bit.<br /><br />And still we have no attempt from Jack (even with his prodigious capacity for verbiage) to rebut the truth of how Kinsey acquired the basis for his "statistics". <br /><br />Now hear this, Jack: Kinsey persuaded known paedophiles to violate at least 317 infants. <br /><br />Now hear this, Jack: he discarded all the evidence he'd collected among prisoners (about 70% of the total) that failed to confirm what he wanted to hear.<br /><br />Now hear this, Jack: Kinsey supported <i>bestiality</i>.<br /><br />You're not very bright, Jack, and never have been, so I'll spell that last word out for you: b-e-s-t-i-a-l-i-t-y. <br /><br />Look up Judith Reisman's researches on Kinsey if you don't believe me.<br /><br />Then and then alone will you have any right to set yourself up as a judge upon religion, and to utter obscenities about Catholic priests, who as every Protestant and atheist researcher conversant with the topic admits, <i>sexually offend, per capita, less than does the non-priest population</i>.<br /><br />But before you do that, Jack, you have a duty to apologise to everyone on this website whom you have calumniated.A. Reevesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-58136633278369461052010-06-05T15:59:47.441+10:002010-06-05T15:59:47.441+10:00Jack, I consider myself a libertarian more or less...Jack, I consider myself a libertarian more or less, but I have never heard of a “classical liberal “ before. I’m interested in what your definition of this phrase is; “unless it impairs the autonomy of someone else”. Sure, we shouldn’t kill people, or punch someone in the face just because we don’t like the way they look, but what about abortion? One person may think it is their God given right to dispose of their undeveloped child, however there is another person in the same society/community/state that thinks otherwise. I personally believe you are impairing the potential child’s autonomy. But not only that, if a state or federal tax helps this abortion, then my autonomy has also been impaired by someone taking my money and using it to do something I believe is immoral. Do you agree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-42131391832970190742010-06-05T14:01:50.633+10:002010-06-05T14:01:50.633+10:00Kilroy if you continue to quote research that cann...Kilroy if you continue to quote research that cannot distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality then you are full of utter crap. The kinds of people who try to foster relationships with children have NO interest in adult relationships with either gender - they just want children. So it is a fallacy to associate that with homosexual adults who engage in consensual relationships.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22344006546670252992010-06-05T13:51:37.001+10:002010-06-05T13:51:37.001+10:00Wow! Twelve posts, the first seven in rapid succes...Wow! Twelve posts, the first seven in rapid succession! I must admire Jack's commitment, but it is starting to border <i>just a little</i> on the obsessive. <i>Hmmm... is there a Freudian in the house?</i><br /><br />On the topic of references and sources: There are heaps of “studies” proving this-and-that position in any social controversy. It is my experience that many of those in support of liberal arguments are in large part advocacy research, done by people with either highly partisan attitudes to the subject matter or at least a subconscious bias (mostly noticeable in the language used, the terms of reference of the study and the black-out on non-liberal references in the bibliography etc). The quote I provided was indeed from a Catholic website, but it was clearly a <i>reply</i> by a high ranking member of the laity to the editorial line of the site <i>which was openly leftist and pro-homosexual</i>. So to suggest that the source is “homophobic” is nonsensical. The reverse is actually true. But then again, liberals will never let a bit of thought get in the way of an opinion (“classical” or otherwise). Moreover, the “authorities” mentioned were an academic research institution, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and a prominent lawyer. None of these are good enough for Jack, which illustrates just how much he is interested in “authority” and the truth.Kilroynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2069000395292297782010-06-05T13:24:44.344+10:002010-06-05T13:24:44.344+10:00Reeves you dare attack me for quoting an actual ac...Reeves you dare attack me for quoting an actual academic report from several sources when all Kilroy did was give me a link to a catholic website?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52444897779693196682010-06-05T13:22:10.612+10:002010-06-05T13:22:10.612+10:00Mark if you had a pure classical liberal governmen...Mark if you had a pure classical liberal government wouldn't it have no effect on the views of people in society and what they do? If its only purpose is basically just defense, and a few other things then it isn't really influencing people is it? People are free to associate just as they please, they are free to hold conservative values, do whatever they like, just so long as they do not harm others or try to force their beliefs on others.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-6601765528760910732010-06-05T13:19:19.956+10:002010-06-05T13:19:19.956+10:00Mark, you're right, there is not a lot of unit...Mark, you're right, there is not a lot of unity between classical liberals and modern liberals, and there is a lot of debate as to whether they should even be classed together. I think having two definitions of freedom - positive and negative - to try and link the ideologies is just absurd.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65366822638965093732010-06-05T13:17:43.166+10:002010-06-05T13:17:43.166+10:00Anonymous good point, i agree.Anonymous good point, i agree.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50206316654095535532010-06-05T13:16:46.732+10:002010-06-05T13:16:46.732+10:00Reeves I look forward to you proving that people l...Reeves I look forward to you proving that people like John Locke had secret Marxist sympathies - since you seem to presume that is what influenced classical liberalism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321427668286014602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-19124014733006914072010-06-05T12:20:17.762+10:002010-06-05T12:20:17.762+10:00And quite frankly, shame on you too, Mr Richardson...<i>And quite frankly, shame on you too, Mr Richardson, for allowing such a troll to spew forth his four-letter words unchecked. If you can't impose the bare minimum of verbal decorum on your own website's comments box you don't deserve to have a website. If I want four-letter words I'll go to the nearest atheist kindergarten.</i><br /><br />That's unfair. I've spent five years running this site and the language on the discussion threads is amongst the best you'll get anywhere.<br /><br />You wouldn't know this but I've got a three week old in the house, a wife suffering PPE, 150 reports to write after I come home from work at about half an hour each and a terrible cold.<br /><br />And so one f-word slips through. I don't mind you pointing it out or even encouraging its removal, but it's excessive to respond the way you did.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-83462546860621244342010-06-05T12:06:41.129+10:002010-06-05T12:06:41.129+10:00I think the significance of Jack's comments is...I think the significance of Jack's comments is as follows.<br /><br />I wrote a piece pointing out that liberalism - even of the "right-liberal" variety - has radical rather than moderate consequences for society. That it leads to the radical remaking of society.<br /><br />There are lots of liberals who don't want to recognise this. They prefer to believe that liberalism is somehow neutral in its effects.<br /><br />So Jack has come in, put the "classicial liberalism just means non-interference" line and counterattacked with the claim that it is traditionalists who are authoritarians.<br /><br />As traditionalists take on liberals we are going to hear this over and over. It's a very convenient position for liberals to hold. Even while liberals are imposing their own worldview or ideology on the rest of society they get to believe that they are the neutral, non-coercive ones.<br /><br />I don't think the "liberalism is neutral" line is credible. First, liberalism affects society even in its philosophical assumptions - in preferring to start with the idea of abstracted, atomised individuals. This in itself undermines the defence or even the recognition of communal goods.<br /><br />Second, once you establish ideas about what it means to be human, and what social justice requires, then it's unlikely that people will simply be left alone to pursue traditional goods. In practice, all of the liberal governments in the West - all of them - have fallen in line with suppressing traditional goods in favour of liberal ones.<br /><br />A good example was the switch from the traditional national identity here in Australia to a multicultural one. Bob Hawke, a left-liberal, once boasted that this was able to be imposed on a more "backward" electorate because he and the right-liberals had a deal to keep it as a bipartisan issue. <br /><br />Did the classical liberal types - the Malcolm Frasers and Petro Georgious - spring to the defence of the goods preferred by the common man? Not in the least. They went along with the suppression, thinking of it as a great liberal cause.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41372279907439799412010-06-05T11:40:00.899+10:002010-06-05T11:40:00.899+10:00What I cannot understand is why Jack - whoever he ...What I cannot understand is why Jack - whoever he might be - is too ignorant to realise that his "classical-liberal" drivelling is in fact Frankfurt-School-Marxist sex education, decked out with Kinsey-style fake statistics. And we all (OK, all except Jack) know how Kinsey got <i>those</i> statistics.<br /><br />(Though I don't recall even the Frankfurt schoolers throwing around four-letter words as Jack does.) <br /><br />We also know that what Catholic priests are being accused (sometimes justly, more often not) of doing is <i>what the pagan Left has been doing and lauding for decades</i>. Get that into your skull, Jack, this time with bold type: <b>what the pagan Left has been doing and lauding for decades</b>. <br /><br />All Jack needs to do is to Google "Daniel Cohn-Bendit" and/or "Harriet Harman" alongside the word "pedophilia". He needn't even go to the trouble of reading a book, since giving him a book would be - as Evelyn Waugh said of a famous sodomite - like putting "a Sevres vase in the hands of a chimpanzee". <br /><br />OzConservative is clearly identified as a traditional conservative site. What part of that does Jack not understand?<br /><br />And quite frankly, shame on you too, Mr Richardson, for allowing such a troll to spew forth his four-letter words unchecked. If you can't impose the bare minimum of verbal decorum on your own website's comments box you don't deserve to have a website. If I want four-letter words I'll go to the nearest atheist kindergarten.A. Reevesnoreply@blogger.com