PPC Homepage

Freedom ain’t a la carte.

by | 8:03 am, August 29, 2010 | 11 Comments

According to the New York Time's article on Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in D.C. (see "At Lincoln Memorial, a call for religious rebirth"):

. . . Tea Party groups have said they want to focus on fiscal conservatism and not risk alienating people by talking about religion or social issues . . .

To the extent this is true, it is a fatal flaw.

Tea Parties - indeed, all proclaimed believers in small government - should be about freedom. Economic freedom. Social freedom. To only address half of that equation is problematic.

It is the equivalent of saying, "yes, you should have the freedom to spend your money any way you wish, but, no, you should not be able to conduct your private life any way you wish."

The inconsistency is obvious.

BlueCarp

Category: Colorado Politics, PPC, Syndicated
Tags: > > >

Comments

  1.   PerlStalker
      August 29th, 2010 @ 9:59 am

    There’s nothing wrong with focus. The Tea Party Movement is focused on fiscal issues, not social ones. It’s the same as the GOA and NRA being focused on gun rights and not abortion rights.

    It’s regrettable that there are Big Government conservatives who like getting the government involved in social issues. It’s a view that, I think, is changing as more conservatives begin to lean libertarian thanks, in part, to the Tea Party movement.

  2.   james
      August 29th, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

    Regarding the “flaw”;
    It may be a flaw, but it is not fatal. And the flaw is not that “Tea Party groups” are unwilling to be distracted by “religion or social issues.” The flaw is that they have not yet identified and agreed upon a way to address such issues without the Marxists being able to use those issues as a wedge between conservative positions and the People.

    Regarding “social freedom”;
    This term sounds little different from the Marxist means-whatever-is-convenient-for-it-to-mean term “social justice”. It is a vague term loaded with emotional baggage designed to manipulate rather than inform.

    Regarding “conducting my private life any way I wish”; Except when the government prevents me from buying a product I want, forces me to buy a product I do not want, taxes and fees me for almost everything I wish to do, and attempts to silence my dissent by various deceitful and manipulative means, I do conduct my private life any way I wish.

  3.   Kevin J Jones
      August 29th, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

    Have you ever considered whether your idea of freedom is vastly different from the traditional American view?

    “they put on the appearance of the Sons of Liberty; and now their cry is, Where is that Liberty so much boasted of and contended for? We hear them very gravely asking, Have we not a right to carry on our own trade and sell our own goods if we please? who shall hinder us? This is now the language of those who had before seen the ax laid at the very root of all our Rights with apparent complacency,–And pray gentlemen, Have you not a right if you please, to set fire to your own houses, because they are your own, tho’ in all probability it will destroy a whole neighbourhood, perhaps a whole city! Where did you learn that in a state or society you had a right to do as you please? And that it was an infringement of that right to restrain you? This is a refinement which I dare say, the true sons of liberty despise.”

    -Sam Adams, letter signed “Determinatus,” January 8, 1770

    One of the truest signs of a successful cultural subversion is when old and hallowed meanings are distorted and put to different uses. Sam Adams’ view of liberty is quite compatible with restrictions on the “social freedom” of the wicked.

    Libertarians are victims of the government education system and so have been taught the novel permissiveness beloved by usurpers.

  4.   David K Williams Jr
      August 29th, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

    Who decides what is “wicked?” If we cede that authority to the government, we have given up all that matters. I love Sam Adams. Too bad he’s wrong on this.

  5.   David K Williams Jr
      August 29th, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

    And Sam sets up a straw man:

    If I set fire to my house and destroy my neighbor’s house – I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS.

    If I set fire to my own own house and nothing happens to my neighbor’s house: Who cares? So what?

    If I get drunk in my house and don’t harm another, so what?

    If I bugger another man willingly, who really gives a crap?

    If I get high and miss work, my employer can fire me. Where does the government come into play?

  6.   David K Williams Jr
      August 29th, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

    And regarding the “traditional American view:”

    At one time that included: Black people are chattel, women shouldn’t vote, and Japanese Americans should be interned regardless of whether or not they pose any legitimate threat to the country.

    I am proud to say I hope I would not have supported the “traditional American view” in each instance.

  7.   David K Williams Jr
      August 29th, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

    And allow me to define “social freedom” for you:

    Do whatever the hell you want as long as it does not interfere with someone else’s ability to do whatever the hell they want.

    I hope that clarifies the issue.

  8.   David K Williams Jr
      August 29th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

    Fiscal issues and social issues can not be separated from “freedom.”

    Either you believe in freedom or you don’t. Do not start parsing when freedom is appropriate and when it is not.

    The state, nor you, should get to decide that.

  9.   ia.
      August 29th, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

    Economic and social freedoms are inseparable, and dividing them in any way is anti-liberty.

    ia.

  10.   james
      August 30th, 2010 @ 12:24 am

    Your definition of “social freedom” only clarifies the issue in your head. The term “interfere” is a matter of argument. It is not an absolute.

    Tea Party groups are free to parse fiscal and social issues if they damn well please.

    Either you believe in freedom or you don’t. Do not start parsing when freedom is appropriate and when it is not.

    Bloggers do not get to decide this.

  11.   Kevin J Jones
      August 30th, 2010 @ 6:21 pm

    “Who decides what is “wicked?” If we cede that authority to the government, we have given up all that matters. I love Sam Adams. Too bad he’s wrong on this.”

    Government is all about deciding. Do you really want a government which blinds itself to moral concerns?

    There is no way to rule out these hard decisions beforehand. Decisions must be fought out in the nasty realm of politics and moral argument, not some principled realm immune from experience and humanity.

    So you reject Adams. How long did Adams’ view persist, in your view? I’m guessing it didn’t face significant challenge until the past four decades. People disputed certain kinds of morals and financial legislation, but most didn’t deny the legislative authority in its entirety.

    (Actually they still don’t.)

    “Do whatever the hell you want as long as it does not interfere with someone else’s ability to do whatever the hell they want.”

    Do you really think that all wants are equal? Do you reject the capacity of reason to determine whether many (not all) ways of life are superior or inferior to others? Isn’t it possible to determine whether certain actions undermine or support enduring liberty?

    If you reject reason, there’s not much point in continuing this conversation.

    “Either you believe in freedom or you don’t. Do not start parsing when freedom is appropriate and when it is not.”

    Is “parsing” just a synonym for “thinking” here? I don’t believe in your amputated concept of freedom, and I don’t see how any thinking man could. I don’t want to undermine a good thing, but I don’t want to idolize it either.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!