There is this notion one we hear more and more that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. Social issues are not the business of government!" says thoroughly modern millennial. Its a seductive cry one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the Liberty Kids" are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh wouldnt the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.
If you would claim to be purely fiscal or assert that social issues" should never be governments domain Id ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?
Some responses here wont go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First the way to determine if ones principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance if someone claims he never judges others its legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.
Second there is no never-land in reality. People in the 50s would have said that homosexuality will never" be accepted in the US. And Bill OReilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I dont use the term gay marriage") would never" be accepted in America. Sometimes never" lasts only a decade or two.
Third my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about here there now is a movement afoot one that has received unbiased" mainstream-media news coverage to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are born that way" and have a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change" a film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as the love that dare not speak its name" and activists saying that lust for children is normative" and those acting on it are unjustly demonized." Why one Los Angeles Times article quoted a featured pedophile as saying These people felt they could snuff out the desire or shame me into denying it existed. But its as intrinsic as the next persons heterosexuality." My where have we heard that before?
So modern millie as we venture further down the rabbit hole know that one day you may be among these people" these intolerant folks who just cant understand why social issues" should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.
I should also point out that a movement advancing bestiality has also reared its head using much of the same language as the homosexual and pedophiliac lobbies.
Of course Im sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey my goat my choice right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia saying that well if a child agrees who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues as revolting and emotionally charged as they are are just examples. There are a multitude of others and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.
After all what are social issues"? What are we actually talking about? Were speaking of moral issues which again thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof every one.
Eyes may be rolling again but lets analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless were sociopathic like Aleister Crowley believe Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe its wrong or mandate something because we believe its a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasnt wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasnt a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous genuine tyranny.
There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isnt so obvious such as with speed laws: theyre justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.
Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made and were it not for this belief the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed war on women": the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.
Some will now protest saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong in which case it is merely the imposition of values which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality in Moral Truth which is objective that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isnt the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or worse still the imposition of immorality.
So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead as with those who sloppily bemoan all judgment" theyre attacked with a flawed argument the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would impose morality." But what we call social conservatives" arent distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you modern millie is that they care about the social issues that society often tendentiously currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment. But rest assured that one day the moment and never" will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.
There is this notion one we hear more and more that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. Social issues are not the business of government!" says thoroughly modern millennial. Its a seductive cry one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the Liberty Kids" are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh wouldnt the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.
If you would claim to be purely fiscal or assert that social issues" should never be governments domain Id ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?
Some responses here wont go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First the way to determine if ones principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance if someone claims he never judges others its legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.
Second there is no never-land in reality. People in the 50s would have said that homosexuality will never" be accepted in the US. And Bill OReilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I dont use the term gay marriage") would never" be accepted in America. Sometimes never" lasts only a decade or two.
Third my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about here there now is a movement afoot one that has received unbiased" mainstream-media news coverage to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are born that way" and have a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change" a film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as the love that dare not speak its name" and activists saying that lust for children is normative" and those acting on it are unjustly demonized." Why one Los Angeles Times article quoted a featured pedophile as saying These people felt they could snuff out the desire or shame me into denying it existed. But its as intrinsic as the next persons heterosexuality." My where have we heard that before?
So modern millie as we venture further down the rabbit hole know that one day you may be among these people" these intolerant folks who just cant understand why social issues" should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.
I should also point out that a movement advancing bestiality has also reared its head using much of the same language as the homosexual and pedophiliac lobbies.
Of course Im sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey my goat my choice right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia saying that well if a child agrees who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues as revolting and emotionally charged as they are are just examples. There are a multitude of others and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.
After all what are social issues"? What are we actually talking about? Were speaking of moral issues which again thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof every one.
Eyes may be rolling again but lets analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless were sociopathic like Aleister Crowley believe Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe its wrong or mandate something because we believe its a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasnt wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasnt a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous genuine tyranny.
There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isnt so obvious such as with speed laws: theyre justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.
Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made and were it not for this belief the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed war on women": the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.
Some will now protest saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong in which case it is merely the imposition of values which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality in Moral Truth which is objective that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isnt the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or worse still the imposition of immorality.
So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead as with those who sloppily bemoan all judgment" theyre attacked with a flawed argument the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would impose morality." But what we call social conservatives" arent distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you modern millie is that they care about the social issues that society often tendentiously currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment. But rest assured that one day the moment and never" will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.