'Why I'm not a conservative'
What is a "conservative"? A conservative is someone who wants to keep things pretty much as they are, dubbing any major shift in direction a "risky scheme." By that definition, who in Washington today are more conservative than the so-called liberals?Or who in Helengrad? As he says,
The 19th century definition of liberal -- we now use "classical liberal" to maintain the distinction -- was basically a laissez faire type who favored free trade and sound money. True "liberals" wanted low taxes and not much meddlesome regulation. Sounds modest enough. But anyone who really took those precepts seriously today would have to call for a vast and real reduction in the size and intrusiveness of government at all levels, boarding up all kinds of departments and agencies.But you don't hear that from too many, if any, of today's liberals, do you? And you don't hear it from the conservatives either -- and if you do it's not followed up by policies that would ever make it happen.
I make no secret [says Vin] of preferring the more consistent smaller-government philosophy of the Libertarians. Though in today's America, the Libertarians (precisely because they threaten to shut down the pork parade, rather than merely diverting it to a new coalition) might poll 4 percent on a good day.So why is Vin the Libertarian not a conservative? Well, says he in explanation, take for example "Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation -- your quintessential modern "conservative" think tank" -- whose recent article "Curing the conservative crack-up," proposed "six criteria by which conservatives should weigh any proposed government action."
Among his criteria were "Does it make us safer?" and "Does it unify us"?Read on here to find out for sure why Vin is not a conservative. Nor me. And do check out Trev's challenge from last week:
It's hard to imagine any of the world's worst dictators having any problem eagerly embracing those justifications for their actions.
Freedom often looks dangerous, disorderly and divisive; bureaucratic control and the cops reading our mail, "wanding us down," and/or peering in every window are nearly always sold as "necessary to make us safer." And there sure is a feeling of "unity" as we're herded down those airport cattle chutes or race to mail in our tribute every April 15.
If this country had a libertarian government no legislation or force would impact on any non "mainstream" lifestyle, family arrangement, personal habit or proclivity. All lifestyles would be permitted as long as in living out your desires, you didn't force another to do anything against his or her will. Everybody would be free to live as a communist, a fascist, a vegan, a flat earther, a wife swapper, a gay leather fetishist, a bible believing Christian, a Zoroastrian, a Satanist, a line dancer, a rock star groupie, a heroin addict, a health food fanatic, a Sumo wrestler or a stamp collector. Would the same apply under a Workers Party/Socialist Workers/Socialist Party/Communist Party/Communist League etc government?Answers on a postcard, please -- or join the debate at Trev's place.
LINKS: Vin Suprynowicz: Why I am not a conservative - Las Vegas Review Journal
What's a libertarian for? - Not PC (Peter Cresswell)
Some questions for the comrades - New Zeal (Trevor Loudon)
TAGS: Politics, Libertarianism
Labels: Free Trade