[683] in libertarians
Re: The Religious Right - Threat, Menace, or ...?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Travis Corcoran)
Tue Feb 14 14:55:53 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:35:52 EST
From: tjic@ICD.teradyne.com (Travis Corcoran)
To: moakler@ICD.teradyne.com
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU, rosed@world.std.com, lfb@panix.com,
Todd_Seavey@kaplan.com, libernet@dartmouth.edu
In-Reply-To: <9502141903.AA00758@difrel.ICD.Teradyne.COM> (moakler@difrel)
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:03:11 EST
> From: moakler@difrel (Kathryn Moakler )
>
>
> > "The reasons for this remarkable unity are numerous -- the visionary
> > leadership of Newt Gingrich, the growing savvy and sophistication of
> > religious conservatives, and a consensus across ideological lines on the
> > need for values that inform our private and public lives. But even more
> > important is a new respect for a rather old-fashioned wisdom: that in an
> > essentially conservative society, traditionalist ends can be advanced
> > through libertarian means.
>
> But these _aren't_ libertarian means... Traditionalist ends (meaning
> 'family values' etc) are exclusive of personal liberties (meaning, freedom
> to have an abortion, use birth control, be a single parent, be gay, etc.).
> If the Libertarian party endorses traditionalist values in personal lives,
> then how is it different than the GOP?
I think you're missing the point here. The original article was not
arguing that the LP, Cato, or any other Libertarian group should
espouse "traditional" values, but that those with traditional values
saw that they could achive some measure of success in spreading those
values in a free society. This seems correct to me: The Moral
Majority, Green Peace, The Boy Scouts of America, etc. can all work
towards their goals in a free society by trying to convince
individuals of their positions.
To recap: noone said the LP should endorse the values; all that was
being said was that a group advocating those values could function
well in a free society.
> I don't understand why anyone would fight for the rights to keep
> their own earnings from the government's re-distribution plan, just
> so they could forfeit them to some religious organization's
> re-distribution plan.
I think this is pretty easy: a lot of people are willing to take
actions of their own free will that they would not want to take if
compelled by others to take. I've bought a copy of _The Communist
Manifesto_ with my own hard-earned dollars, but I'd be pissed if the
government said that I had to spend the $$ to buy the book. I've
given birthday presents to friends, but would not want to be compelled
by law that I must spend at least $20 per friend per year. I've given
money to the LP and the Catholic church, but would not want to be
forced to do so.
A few decades ago blacks protested in the South that they were being
forced to sit in the backs of busses. This does not mean that once
they won acknowledgment of their right to sit in the fronts of busses
that they chose to do so; I'm sure many continued to sit in the back.
The whole thing boils down to freedom from compulsion, not conflict
with the goals of the compulsion.
As a final point, it does not matter whether or not *you* understand
why someone would fight against the government taking their earnings,
then turn around and give some of that $$ away - the decision to do so
rests soley with the earner, who is not compelled to either explain
himself to you, or to act in a rational manner (this reminds me of the
endless debate against guns: "I don't understand why you need a
semi-auto rifle for <given purpose>"...it doesn't matter if someone
else understand the motives, only that the individual making the
decision does so of his own free will...).
> > Therefore, anything that reduces the role of the Washington
> > bureacracy in the lives of families is a step in the right direction."
>
> Yes, so the churches can step in and take over that role ...
The difference between the US government and the church down the
street is that the government arrogates to itself a monopoly of force,
and (theoretically) maintains that private individuals and
organizations may not initiate use of force between themselves to
compell behavior. If the government stops telling me to get married
(with the force of tax laws, and therefore guns, to back it up), the
church can start printing up pamphlets, but it can not compell me to
listen, the way a government can.
> > 1. make gov't the friend not the foe of the family; specifically, end
> > subsidies for divorce, planned parenthood, and CPB, NEH, NEA, etc.
>
> No. Government should be the friend of liberty. It should not be any
> friendlier to Cleavers and the Bundies as it should to the Murphy
> Brown types.
Agreed.
> > 4. secure religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all citizens,
> > including voluntary school prayer and the right to freely express ones
> > faith in public places.
>
> This really shows their hidden agenda in its true colors... Any type of
> school prayer is the government endorsing religious values for everyone.
> The government's role should not be to endorse anything. Period.
I personally think that the *mandatory* ( not optional ) lessons in
school on environmental concerns and current day politics constitute
far more government endorsement of idealogical positions than school
prayer does - by (a) cloaking themselves in the arguments of logic and
science (although rarely actually being rigorous examples of such );
and (b) being covered for a large amount of time they can convince
those who are not cynical enough to do further research.
The entire debate over prayer in school is an artifact of the current
system wherein all the tax payers are forced to support the education
of all the kids. There is no fundamental reason that prayer should be
banned from schools. I went to a Catholic high school ( based on the
decisions of myself and my parents ) where there was daily prayer and
it worked out OK for me. My youngest brother went to a public school
that did not have prayer, and it worked out OK for him. As long as no
one is being forced to support education that they do not agree with,
there seems to be no problem.
--
TJIC (Travis J.I. Corcoran) TJIC@icd.teradyne.com
opinions(TJIC) != opinions(employer(TJIC))
"Buy a rifle, encrypt your data, and wait for the Revolution!"
