“People need to look at the history of Ronald Reagan when he lost his first attempt at the Presidency (in 1976). He didn’t go back and say, ‘Let’s water down the conservatism. Let’s dilute what we’re saying. He made it even stronger…. he made it EVEN sharper. There’s a lesson there for potential candidates”

“We need to be principled in our conservatism. We need to be unabashed, unafraid. We won’t always be popular with editorial writers and a lot of the members of the national media… and that’s OK.

At the end of the day, it’s more important that we stick to our principles.”

If given a choice between a government that promotes morality but is ambivalent about freedom, and a government that promotes freedom but is ambivalent about morality, which would you choose?

A false choice since in the western lexicon, at least, the issue of individual freedom is regarded as a moral one.

And I’ll add something you’re apparently missing; THere’s a major difference between reinforcing the culture and it’s morality, and legislating it.

If you pick morality, you lose both. Because a government ambivalent about freedom will always become tyrannical, and a tyrannical government will soon find itself unable to tolerate morality. That level of power is corrupting, and eventually the “morality” the government preserves will not be one you recognize. Does this situation sound familiar? It should.

If you choose a government that preserves your freedom, then you will find yourself responsible for preserving your own morality. That is difficult, but it is something people have been known to accomplish from time to time, and we have several non-governmental institutions that were created to help.

Choose freedom. It is the moral choice.

Aristotle writes that government derives legitimacy via consent of the governed. Social conservatism is a minority position (and becoming moreso with each passing day), thus for your viewpoint to prevail you have to override the wishes of the governed, hence their consent, hence it’s still a statist position. What your piece does is merely assume that your position is inline with that of the governed. It’s not.

Social conservatism issues are statism. On the other hand you couch your arguments as if they are the opposite.

Not at all. What you’re missing is far deeper than I think I can get into, realisticly in a comment section. But perhaps this very old writing will help you understand where I’m coming from on this:

http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=494

By the way you may find this useful –

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

Social conservatism issues are statism. On the other hand you couch your arguments as if they are the opposite. I find that interesting: it’s ironic, and aparently you can’t see this.

Social conservatives have far more in common with the leftists they despise than they would admit to; it’s an argument re who gets to control things rather than the freedom argument it’s usually cast as (by social conservatives, of course!)

What you have been advocating is statism although a different brand than the leftists.

Well then, as long as we’re chucking the skivvies and metaphordipping…

Ask any engineer: is the glass half empty or half full? “Neither. It’s the wrong glass.”

* The machine
* The reason the machine exists?