Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Conservatives are Not necessarily Libertarians. Indeed they

by Ziks511 / August 19, 2013 5:07 PM PDT

are rarely, if ever, Libertarians


"Mike Konczal has an interesting and useful essay over at Wonkblog on what conservatives don't get — namely, their failure to appreciate that some problems are inherently public in nature, and require public solutions. Somewhat unusually, however, I think that Mike has somewhat missed the point, and engaged in a bit of wishful thinking. His essay is an excellent critique of libertarians; but most conservatives are not libertarians, even if they like to use libertarian rhetoric now and then." (emphasis added RTB)

In addition to this article and Mike Konczal's article I'd recommend reading the first Chapter of Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower which discusses the period from 1890 to 1910 in Britain. The chapter discusses Robert Cecil, Marquess of Salisbury, leader of the British Conservative Party and the Prime Minister, and the Bob referred to in the phrase "Bob's your uncle". He saw his role as fighting a rearguard action to preserve the privileges that he and his class possessed in Britain. Nothing else. He was a roadblock to change of any sort (sound familiar?). Unfortunately, he was the living contradiction of John Stuart Mill's statement about stupidity and conservatism. He was a man of considerable brilliance who set his sights on stopping all change, for his own benefit and those of his friends.

"the modern Republican party may be the party of deregulation and low taxes, but it's also the party of social illiberalism."

in William Buckley's God and Man at Yale what Buckley "wanted was, in effect, for those colleges to get back to their proper role, which was religious indoctrination."

" In its heyday National Review was a staunch supporter of free markets; but it was also a staunch supporter of Jim Crow — which wasn't just about the right of white business owners to discriminate against blacks, it was about a system of laws designed to protect white privilege."

"Now, there are some real libertarians out there, particularly in the realm of economics bloggers, but they have no real power base. Even when politicians claim to be libertarian, there are telltale giveaways: the two R. Pauls, father and son, may be unusual in questioning the national security state, but they both have a remarkable tendency to cater to and/or employ white supremacists. (emphasis added RTB)

So there is an interesting debate to be had about the proper extent of the public sphere. But that isn't the debate driving our politics; our left-right split isn't nearly that idealistic, or innocent."</div>
And in the 19th Century, the building of Public Hospitals which were inspired by the idea that everyone deserves access to health care (which is why they were called Public) was widely accepted as a goal to be worked toward. There is abundant literature on the subject as well as the founding of various Schools of Public Health the first of which, if I'm not mistaken (and I may well be) was at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Md. They even accepted Canadians into the school. I know of one, John FitzGerald, who was there in the early teens of the 20th Century, and I know another personally.


Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Conservatives are Not necessarily Libertarians. Indeed they
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Conservatives are Not necessarily Libertarians. Indeed they
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
by James Denison / August 21, 2013 1:39 AM PDT
" In its heyday National Review was a staunch supporter of free markets; but it was also a staunch supporter of Jim Crow — which wasn't just about the right of white business owners to discriminate against blacks, it was about a system of laws designed to protect white privilege."

people still have the "right" to discriminate in regards to what they own, at the current time however the govt won't recognize those "rights" fully. The question is if when one goes "public", how much of their "right of ownership" is abridged on behalf of that which is "public". Today we have an odd mashup of what is allowed by govt and what is abridged. Clubs can be exclusive by discrimination, but retail businesses can't. Congressional caucus can be discriminating, but colleges and lower schools can't, at least racially, although gender seems acceptable at times.

I notice the word "privilege" has the "lege" in it, which usually referred to the right of a king, or royalty. One of those words which came along to describe "uppity" people. I feel the word itself to be discriminatory, definitely opinionated, and often applied improperly. The word implies people who have a right to something that isn't theirs, some extra right of access, some extra right of use, some demand of favored treatment. Having a say however over what one owns, instead of what some other owns, is not "privilege" but "right". I would say govt has taken "privilege" in order to abridge the "rights" which belong to owners, for it's own often nefarious reasons to perpetuate and increase it's power over us all, to turn citizens into subjects.
Collapse -
People with "public" institutions
by Diana Forum moderator / August 24, 2013 3:50 AM PDT
In reply to: discriminate

do not have the right to discriminate based on race and other things but Jim Crow is still alive and well.

This is a woman that turns away a party of 25 waiting two hours because one customer feels uncomfortable. Interesting.


Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Big screens for the big game

Still looking for the best TV deals ahead of Sunday's game? Here are our top three big screen picks.