Too Much Government

DontTreadThumbby Steve Lancaster   1/2/14
Good Morning fellow criminals. I say this because before the day is out everyone reading this will be in violation of a law, statute, or regulation with the force of law. With the New Year over 40,000 new laws in the US and at least 100,000 new regulations go into effect. My son in Utah who lives almost 10 miles from the Great Salt Lake is now required to purchase flood insurance under a regulation that says he lives in a flood plain. In order for his house to flood the lake would have to rise to levels it has not reached in 10,000 years. I am sure that FEMA will be there to help out.

It is no longer possible for the average citizen to obey the law. If you live in Colorado you can now imbibe in as much marijuana as you can afford. If you live in California you will find that the lunch you send with your child to government schools could get you fined for lack of mandated nutritional supplements. You could be banned from after school sports by giving your child a Big Mac. The social democrats and republicans in the state legislature and Gov. Moonbeam will continue the attack on individual freedom in the name of the collective. You, your family, your home and your church are targets.

Every aspect of your life, with the beginning of Obamacare is now under scrutiny by some aspect of government. Government regulations control how you choose to reproduce and raise your children. You are compelled under threat of losing your children to send them to indoctrination at government schools. Your wealth is confiscated by local, state and federal government and transferred to people and programs you may not find in adherence to your moral or ethical values and this theft is called a “social good”.

I once asked a congressman, Vic Fazio 3rd district in Sacramento, why no one in congress ever talks about repealing useless laws, or laws that serve to limit freedom. His answer is illustrative of the group think in D.C. and in elected government in general, “no one gets elected by doing the right thing, only by making the electorate think they are actually doing something.” Vic was defeated in that election because McClellan AFB was ordered closed by the Clinton controlled BRAC, after promises made to keep it open by Clinton at McClellan in 1994.

Those of you social conservatives who posit that Libertarians are the new Bolsheviks would do well to consider that Libertarians in general would ask for fewer laws and regulations, and less government. You talk a lot about individual freedom, but the concept of a free individual seems to scare you. • (1974 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Too Much Government

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Welcome to the fight, Libertarians. You act as if we conservatives are not appalled by these things. We are and having been saying so for decades. I wonder if Libertarians have inhaled without thought the same second-hand slanders of conservatives that are predominant in our culture. I think they have, and that is much of their problem. If they see conservative principles as being wrong (when they are actually right), then therefore you get some of the kooky contrarian beliefs of Libertarians which, much like the Left, is grounded in “not right.”

    If you don’t understand conservatism, and are truly surprised that we are as outraged as anyone by the state telling us what kind of light bulb we can buy, then I think it is likely you are living behind a cloud of your own pot smoke.

    Viv Fazio is quite correct about one aspect of why government tends to grow only in one direction. It’s a point that Michael Medved has championed. It’s the idea of a politicians needing to “do something, do anything.” I don’t know if this has always been the case. But I do think the electorate, and their entitlement mentality, has caused it to be worse.

    I don’t know what the solution is. But, first, understand that most in the GOP are not conservatives. Second, understand what a conservative actually is. We believe in our country, as founded. We believe in limited government. But that does not mean that we believe in no government. Nor do we go off half-cocked if anything you can imagine is outlawed by government. This is the part of Libertarianism that is so kooky. It’s based on radical and simplistic beliefs.

    Conservatism is a rich and complex mix of considerations. Neither freedom, morality, the state, the individual, the family, law, economics, and the justice system exist in a vacuum. But life becomes so easy when you are of the belief that “individual freedom seems to scare you.” Steve, if you had even the most basic familiarity with conservatives, you would know that we are against gun control, the nanny state, over-regulation, high taxes, inappropriate incursion of government into the free market, etc., etc., etc.

    It’s just that if pot or prostitution is not legalized, we don’t see that as overriding all the other freedoms that we fight for. Libertarians are counter-productive when they hold such bizarre beliefs such as that the concept of a free individual scares us. No, the concept of people such as yourself, ungrounded in any principle other than simplistic sloganeering, is what scares us, or one of the things that scare us.

    Conservatism is not a cult. It is a political philosophy consistent with America’s founding. We are to have the maximum amount of freedom consistent with order. But we do not see “the individual” as the most important element, per se. We see the family as the most important element. And that is for good reason. Good luck having limited government and a maximum of freedom if the government takes over the role of the family (as it is doing now) and becomes a surrogate parent or spouse.

    The Libertarians fixation on peripheral and unimportant issues such as legalizing drugs misses this point. And they want to miss this point because Libertarianism is just another word for “libertine.” Libertarians have no appreciation for the role of morals in society. A good society will not exist if we are but atomized free-market individuals in which the only principle seems to be an adolescent-like rebelling against any and all authority.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    In 2002, Robert Ehrlich proposed repealing gun-control laws that don’t actually accomplish anything while running for governor in Maryland. His Democratic (of course) opponent, Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend, denounced him for this (but lost anyway, the only statewide Republican win there since Bush won the state in 1988, which may have been a result of the Willie Horton business). My take is that this demonstrates that increased power is the purpose of such laws, and crime control (or other such arguments) merely the insincere justification.

    It also shows that bad as the GOP can be, the Democrats are ALWAYS worse because total government control is their goal, their purpose, their whole life. Too many libertarians have failed to see this (I used to see this a lot in Reason). Even when the GOP goes along with big-government ideas, they mostly are simply acceding to the noxious notions of the Left.

  3. steve lancaster says:

    I have been in the fight since 1964, when I listened to Barry Goldwater for the first time at age 16. Six years later I was in Nam and other vacation spots of the world for the next 20 years. I have seen the inner workings of government from the inside and on the whole I would rather watch sausage being made than what passes for law.

    I agree there are knee jerk libertarians, just like there are knee jerk conservatives, however, there are more issues in which we agree than disagree. If nothing else cleaning the swampland called DC should be a dealmaker for all.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Steve, I saw a story the other day — on The Drudge Report, I think. It was about some midwestern state that had outlawed “hidden compartments” in cars. A guy was pulled over and arrested because he had one of these hidden compartments which are apparently often used by those trafficking in drugs (which, apparently, this fellow has done, although he didn’t have any at the time he was pulled over).

      This is the kind of police state that conservatives do not want, at least I do not want. I have no problem with the cops going after drug dealers. But when we get the point where simply having a “secret compartment” in your car is illegal, that’s nuts.

      One could say this is the “civil libertarian” part of me speaking. And to some extent it is. But it’s also the conservative heart. Such thinking is part and parcel of being a conservative. And neither, for example, do I think that State Patrol roadblocks in regards to random drunk driving tests are legal. If they are legal, they are not desirable.

      What a conservative understands, or should understand, is that we can’t remove all risk from life. But we can remove some. I’m not against things such as sane and common-sense product safety laws, for example. But when making any law we have to keep in mind what happens to us and our government when, over the course of the years, we incrementally trade liberty for a supposed security. We turn people into farm animals and the state into Leviathan.

      To my mind this “libertarian” radar is something that is, our should be, activated in any conservative when assessing any issue. Sometimes the trade-offs are worth it. Sometimes they are not. But what Libertarians do is simply jam that radar in the always-on position and parse everything through that, with little or no consideration of other aspects of any situation.

  4. steve lancaster says:

    Good post Brad, the problem social conservatives have is that it is always tuned to social issues when the house is burning down around them. However, I refer you to my response to Glenn on abortion. It is a social issue that libertarians and conservatives, I believe, can agree. Perhaps for different reasons, but remember the enemy of my enemy may be my friend.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Steve, I think we have to get past the language. And not to obscure (as is so often done these days), but to enlighten.

      I have no doubt that many “social conservatives” are the mirror image of “anti-social Leftists” who are one-issue people and who are guided almost entirely by blind emotion. For some “social conservatives” it is gay marriage (which I oppose as well, but see it as a drop in the ocean, say, compared to our 100 trillion of unfunded socialist entitlement liabilities and the yearly one trillion of new debt). For some “anti-social Leftists” it may be “the environment” that causes them to lose their mind and all reason.

      Most people, as I’ve found, are not coming at public policy issues with any kind of even semi-solid background. Most people are grounded in little more than soundbytes, slogans, and simplistic thinking. I don’t doubt this has always been the case to some extent. But what is missing in our culture is even a modicum of a depth of understanding. We now tend to have sound-byte brains which think in superficial terms. We get this from the media. We get this from our degraded entertainment culture. We get this from our dumbed-down educational system.

      I don’t expect everyone to be able to recite the Federalist Papers from memory. But most should have some grounding in basic political theory, the basic structures of our republic, the basics of economics, and the basics in a good moral outlook guided by an eyes-wide-open basic understanding of human nature.

      But we don’t have that. We are a culture that is more and more being populated by farm animals instead of small-r thoughtful republicans who greedily hold onto their freedoms and don’t trust politicians as far as they can throw them.

      We’ve lost that. And this situation is exacerbated by the lunatic Left which has a truly Utopia secular-religious vision for our society that should make anyone ill if they understood the real implications. This is also exacerbated by a cowardly, opportunistic, and/or statist-oriented Republican Party. They tend to stand in the way of any reform. The try to de-legitimatize the very idea of reform. People such as Paul Ryan are held up as god’s gift to fiscal restraint, but the guy is just another one of these nice-suited statists who has a nice smile.

      We’re up shit creek without a paddle. My quibbles with Libertarians are somewhat irrelevant given the bigger problem that most of the population is lost in a spending spree and idiotically and reflexively believe the lies of these politicians. But those quibbles remain. And one is the soundbyte word of “social conservative.” I’m a social conservative. You can’t be a conservative and not have that as a component, much like you can’t be white light without having red, green, blue, yellow, violent, and all the sub-components that make up the whole.

      Libertarianism is a sub-component that people try to make an entire philosophy out of. This is the same mistake that some “social conservatives” commit when they forget that the “social conservative” aspects are a part — an important part — of the overall conservative structure. It’s silly, on some level, for example, to fuss over gay marriage when it is the state itself (and much of the degenerate cultural attitudes at large) that are breaking down the family. Few conservatives who receive their Social Security checks as some supposed “right” will admit that it was Social Security in the first place that broke the bonds between children and their parents.

      We are a culture that has to either reject Leftism/socialism or learn to live with our degraded selves. And the latter will require the kind of Orwellian madness that we used to think was confined to a novel. But we are seeing that nonsense now every day. And people now habitually acquiesce to it and thus lose their minds. They lose any kind of ability to objectively handle reality. They merely float in the vapid slogans and soundbytes of a culture that has gone rabid and stupid — even if everyone is smiling the smile of the do-gooder while this happens.

      Most Libertarians, in my opinion, are in the same position. They, too, are ungrounded in a solid foundation of the basics. People in that position are prone to go for the easy answers that are not grounded in reality. But the madness of dependency, victimhood, racial grievance, and just plain habituation to the “free stuff” of socialism has corrupted our culture. And I don’t see any way out. We are, right now, in the midst of building at least two or three major bubbles as a society — bubbles that will burst one day. I expect a big one to pop in 2014.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    As your “definition” of Libertarian is so broad that I am unable to understand it, I would like to know if your brand of Libertarianism is similar to that of Murray Rothbard’s?
    Do you agree with his quotes, which I included in “Bolsheviks: The Libertarians of the Right”? After I receive your answer, I hope to have a better understanding of where you stand politically.

  6. steve lancaster says:

    You seem to think that Rothbard is the singular authority on all things libertarian, where his philosophy agrees with me, then you could say we are in accord. However, I am more in line with Friedman, Murray, Sowell, Rand, Napolitano, and Walter Williams. I am afraid that branding libertarians into a coherent system is not possible. there are general core beliefs that center on individual liberty and responsibility but if you are going to make judgments on what you believe is a systematic whole than you are bound to be frustrated and angry.

    The great rabbi Bal Shem Tov once remarked that someone is a Jew, who calls himself a Jew. I think the same can be said of libertarians.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I do not take Rothbard to be a singular authority on Libertarianism, but he and his followers would seem to occupy an extreme, yet not small area of Libertarianism. I have used him and his views as a sort of benchmark with which to demarcate Libertarian beliefs. How close a professed Libertarian’s beliefs are to Rothbard’s is a good mearsurement, for me, as to how seriously I will take him. I have a limited amount of time which I will waste on such space cadets.

      Frankly, I don’t even take Friedman, Murray, Sowell, Rand and Napolitano as exclusive authorities on Libertarianism. And believe it or not, I have read books or papers by all of the above.

      What I am trying to do is learn enough of your concrete political beliefs so as to make them comprehensible to a simple person such as myself. If the only thing which unites a group of people is the lack of a “coherent system”, then the group is really about as effective as a fart in the wind; to coin a phrase used by an old boss for particularly ineffectual people. I would not include the people you mentioned in that category. So obviously you and I have a difference of opinion as to the importance of the ability to express a coherent system when discussing and practicing politics.

      While the Rabbi’s phrase is cute, it is not very helpful. He may have believed it, but I guarantee you many of his co-religionists and Landsmen, do not. It is a simplistic statement which leaves much of the question unanswered. That many might find his maxim profound does not impress me. Most people are happy to have a simple sound byte answer for complex problems. Because such things can help make life easy. Unfortunately, such overly simplistic utterances too often obscure uncomfortable truths. I have always suspected that many of those who come up with such sayings do so because they like the sound of their own voices i.e. their own cleverness. And at the same time they avoid the doing the hard work and taking the responsibility to grapple with the difficulties of finding real answers to important questions. But I suspect the good Rabbi had more to say on the subject than the quote you cited. So he likely didn’t fall into this category.

      As an example of the necessity of concrete definition, I may call myself “Superman”, but that don’t make it so. And you probably wouldn’t call me Superman, unless you did so out of pity or derision, neither of which would be very helpful for curing the obvious mental instability displayed if I really believed I were Superman. Much more helpful would be getting to the bottom of the problem and trying to help me solve it. That is a conservative approach.

      As I have said before, much of what Libertarians claim to be their political philosophy is merely a rehash of classical liberalism. From what you have written you appear to fall generally into this classification, regardless of how you wish to label yourself.

      Words have meanings, and catchy phrases, while useful to arouse the passions of a crowd are not helpful to people wishing to have a serious political discussion. Perhaps I am being picky, but I like a degree of clarity when I have a discussion with someone. If, as you say, you have spend time in business you will know the devil is in the details.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Those of you social conservatives who posit that Libertarians are the new Bolsheviks would do well to consider that Libertarians in general would ask for fewer laws and regulations, and less government. You talk a lot about individual freedom, but the concept of a free individual seems to scare you.”

    Since this sentence seems, in part at least, to be aimed at me, I would simply ask how do you define “social conservative”? Sorry to be pedantic, but you have been singularly unclear as to how you define woeds. Personally, I find most of the problems you mention in your article to be “social” problems. To you it seems “social conservatives” are obsessed with sex and drugs. We are not, but they do play a huge part in our society.

    If you would like to see an example of the world which you Libertarians so pine for, it is quite simple to find. All one has to do is visit a few inner cities in this country and you will have it. In these places there is free sex, massive illegitimacy, crushing illiteracy, rampant murder, devastating poverty and increased rates of disease and addiction.

    And don’t come back to me saying it is unfair of me to make this comparison, as given the political situation in this country, Libertarian policies on sex and drugs and other “social” issues would only exacerbate the situation. The government is not about to let all these people live with the consequences of their actions. Government support would only grow. And with it would grow further irresponsible and damaging behavior.

    • steve lancaster says:

      Will you agree that the problems of inner cities are the result of governance by liberal social democrats and labor unions? The bankruptcies of Stockton, San Bernardino, and Detroit are all cities run by social democrats for as much as 40 years. Cities on the watch list include Oakland, Chicago, Cleveland, and even San Francisco, again all run for decades by liberal social democrats.

      I can assure you no libertarian is pining to live in these cities, even the democrats are leaving. In 1960 the population of Detroit was almost 2 million, today it is less than 700 thousand with 80,000 abandoned buildings no tax base and very little, if any capital investment by the business that remain. It is a hell created by social democrats like Obama. It was not libertarians who created these wastelands, but liberal elected officials who sold the idea to the voters that there really was a free lunch forever, something no libertarian would ever agree with.

  8. steve lancaster says:

    Of course its classical liberalism. You will find most libertarians adhere very closely to the idea of natural law and laissez-faire economics. I have well read copies of Hooker, Montesquieu, and Smith on my bookshelf. Most of their ideas are reflected in American conservative thought since the 1950’s. The areas where we are most likely to differ are social, not political or economic, and even there I suggest we have more agreement than disagreement.

    You can make the argument that social issues have a political and economic cost, however, too much of that could put you in the Frankfort School of Marxist thinking and I doubt you want to go there.

    For me there is the individual with rights given by God as natural law. There is individual responsibility for my actions or even lack of action. I make no claims to non-violence, however, I will not initiate violence unless the situation is unavoidable. In that I suppose I am not a Ron Paul type of libertarian. But then I did carry a gun for this government for over 20 years(usmc, cia), as did my brother(usaf), father(usmc), mother(usa), two grandsons(usa), grandparents(usa) and g grandparents(csa) my g g grandfather was with Jackson in 1814 at New Orleans.

    I am willing to listen to any law you wish to propose, with the caveat that if you pass it. And I find the social/political/economic culture you wish to create oppressive I will vote with my feet. If you attempt to restrain my natural right to move than I will oppose you in any way I find appropriate.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Steve, I have not said or tried to imply that the problems of the inner cities are the result of Libertarian policies.

      My point is that given the actual facts on the ground and the political reality which we have had to deal with over the last 50 years, that if we were to implement many of the “social policies” which appear to be the Holy Grail for Libertarians this would in fact lead to less freedom, larger government and greater societal anarchy. I do not believe any of these are the goal of many “Libertarians” so I am asking Libertarians to stop pretending and look at the huge problems which exist in our society as a result of rampant Leftism. The solution to these problems is not to work with the Left because they want to allow everyone to be libertines without paying for their actions. The solution is to work with the Right to roll back the State and try to reach a point where freedom is actually valued in fact and action as well as in rhetoric.

      As to the Frankfurt School, nothing I have said, and I have been clear on this, puts me near this disgusting group which originated from racial and class grievance and has been used these to turn truth upon its head. Critical Theory is an absolutely dishonest ruse which has been used to confuse low watt intellects into believing the opposite of what is true.

      The constant battleground of modern politics has been to find the balance between personal freedom and State powers which are necessary to organize and maintain a stable and safe society which allows the individual and humanity to flourish. There is simply no absolute in such a case. Constant work is required and clarity helps, or at least one prays it helps, find and maintain the balance.

      • steve lancaster says:

        In substance we are in general accord. I have no desire to “work with the left”. What you term the left, is really an amalgamation of power seeking political opportunists who have figured out that they can maintain their office by keeping large numbers of the voting public dependent on the transfer of wealth from the producers to the takers.

        Most of those politicians are social democrats in the European mold with fellow travelers who call themselves republicans. If you want to end this continuing crisis then we must curtail the growth of government at all levels, which means I may have to accept a less than free market, in place of over regulated market that exists today.

        It means that you may have to accept that marriage is a civil contract that the government in any form is not allowed to interfere except to enforce the conditions of the contract, and that contract could include two or more of any sex. It also means that your church has an absolute right to not sanction a marriage it does not consider cannon law.

        But, none of what we would desire is going to happen as long as the idea, propagated for the last 120 years by so called progressives, that the government can solve all social ills, cure all economic crisis and transfer trillions of your dollars to non-producers is more beneficial than harmful. If that were true we would indeed be living in a paradise.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          “you may have to accept that marriage is a civil contract that the government in any form is not allowed to interfere except to enforce the conditions of the contract, and that contract could include two or more of any sex.”

          The following is a short post of the evils of polygamy which I posted some months back:

          Quote “Have you ever lived in a country where polygamy is practiced? I have and have associated with numerous people from these unions, so let me give you some of the arguments against it:
          1. Woman are treated poorly by men.
          2. Envy, jealousy and hatred between the various families.
          3. Multiple children who see their father only occasionally i.e. an absent father figure.
          4. Poverty because it is expensive to support many families.
          5. Deserted families because it is expensive to maintain them and with so many families the bonds are not often as strong as the bonds in monogamy.
          6. Lack of wives for single men.
          7. Young girls being married to old men.
          And please don’t say that some of the same things happen in the West. The differences are large and I have seen them.
          Please give me examples, other than the Mormons, where polygamy has been practiced in the West. There is a reason for this. Have a look into Joseph Campbell and the age of chivalry. Even if he is not 100% correct, the Western view toward women is completely different from that in Asia.
          If you want to have Asia in the United States, just go ahead and allow polygamy here. Also, if you want millions more depending on social services go ahead with polygamy. We already have an analogue in the USA. It is called a 70% illegitimacy rate in the black community, about 50% for Latinos, about 25% for whites and about 37% overall.
          Theoretical social engineering, such as you seem to favor, is the bane of mankind. In this case, womankind.
          I really wish one of you “libertarians” would write a reasoned article why your “beliefs” should be taken seriously and on what factual grounds you base them. “Because I feel like it” doesn’t fall under the umbrella of a reasoned article. unquote

          Now what you mentioned is a little different, but not very. Again, you seem to think that changing the basic structure of Western Civilization is not a problem. We are seeing the effects of the dissolution of Western culture all around us and they are not pretty.

          I will try to put together something on the abomination of “gay marriage” shortly. And in order to disabuse anyone from thinking that I am coming at the subject from a “religious” perspective, I should point out that I have no church.

          Were we able to roll back the tidal wave of regulations, laws, lies and intrusions into our lives which have overtaken us in the last century or so, we could talk about social policy somewhat differently.

          • steve lancaster says:

            Every evil you list is also inherent in monogamy. While I personally do not favor polygamy, however, I suggest that the purpose of marriage is the safe care and raising of children and support for the partners as they age. Can you really say that state endorsed monogamous families have done that well especially in the 20th century?

            I am suggesting that:
            1. Care for children can be handled by multiple partners without state support.
            2. Multiple partners have a better opportunity to be self supporting in old age again without state support, or at least less of it.
            3. I am suggesting a civil contract that does not need state sanction other than the legality of the parties to make a contract. The last I heard teenagers of either sex do not have standing to make contracts.
            4. If multiple parties desire a “church” sanctioned marriage then they had best find a church that will marry them.
            Now as far as I am concerned western culture is best served with stable homes, loving parents and lasting relationships. I do not think that people will run out and seek multiple partners for marriage. Most will I believe understand that type of marriage takes much more work and effort and few will venture the work.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              The problem with the “no state involvement” is that there are taxes, inheritance laws, and other such laws in which family and marital ties are relevant, and more significant than those of friendship. You may not like such laws and want to get rid of them, but they’re here for at least some time to come. And so, there must be some sort of rule on which marriages the state will formally recognize. Note that the issue in the recent polygamy case in Utah was whether the state could ban an unofficial polygamous relationship (the man had only one official wife along with several unofficial ones), not whether or not it had to recognize it formally.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Can you really say that state endorsed monogamous families have done that well especially in the 20th century?

              It’s not the state endorsement of marriage that is the problem. It’s the incentives that the state (born of the perverse Leftist/”Progressive” ideology) has introduced that facilitate the breakup of marriage that is the problem, and that includes the incentives that lead people to not get married in the first place.

              If the state were actually neutral on marriage (and families), that would be a huge step in the right direction from where we are now. Social policy (starting when, I don’t know) has historically been to give tax breaks and such to married couples. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. A productive, healthy family makes for a good society and is the kind of conduct that is profitably taxable.

              But now we have the Left and Democrats using state power to incentivize dependency, not wholesome productivity, which is an act that degrades society. Libertarians do not typical make these kinds of distinctions. They just paint with a broad brush and say “get the state out of marriage,” thus libertarian philosophy does not even describe reality so therefore it is typically a solution to nothing.

              As for polygamy, I’ve been reading “The Frontiersman” by Allan W. Eckert. And trust me on this point: The whites committed some horrible murders against some of the Indian tribes. There’s a particularly heartbreaking one described that occurred in Ohio in 1782 called The Gnadenhutten Massacre.

              But the Indians, by and large, were truly a savage people. This book is hard to read at times because of descriptions of the ghastly things the Indians did. This book deals primarily with the Indians in and about the Ohio-Kentucky area, particularly the Shawnee.

              But even then, it was funny to read about one of the Indians (it could have been Tecumseh) deploring the practice of polygamy and saying that he saw hopeful signs that this ill practice was being put behind them.

              There’s something unnatural about polygamy. It robs men of the natural right to marry. It robs men of the positive formative influence of being married and raising children. For any culture that deals in polygamy, you tend to have a whole bunch of unattached males — which is doubly dangerous because young, unattached males are the greatest purveyors of violence in any civilization.

              And, as Mr. Kung pointed out, in such an arrangement the women are typically treated badly. If even the noble savage Indians understood polygamy as a bad thing, we should as well. And another simplistic libertarian notion is that all of life can be simply be described as contracts between people. Well, simple ideas have the advantage of wallpapering over all the true complexities of life. And those ideas may feel good inside the head, but they don’t typically do well in the laboratory of life. I think this is a trait that libertarians have with the Left.

              • steve lancaster says:

                Tim, Brad
                Do you want to discuss the tax system? The whole mess of exemptions for families, home ownership, charity is based on the 16th amendment it is not that these and many other “services” of the government are not good. It is that it creates a system that we have today of groups with a vested interest, because of tax breaks. Surly, federal and state government can be funded without theft.

                Please note I have not said in any post that I favor one male with several females. I have said multiple partners, that could be Kody Brown and his wives or it could just as easily be one woman with 4 husbands.

                I also have said that it is unlikely that many people will venture into multiple relationships because it is a very difficult life style.

                I knew several polygamist families when I lived in Utah. They were not FLDS and in fact viewed that group with the utmost contempt. The problems they had were the same ones we all have in our marriages.

                They raised their children to be honest, respectful and considerate. On the whole I think it safe to say the kids did not do drugs, drink, or sex outside of marriage and most of older ones worked and attended university. The last I heard that was pretty much the American dream.

              • steve lancaster says:

                Tim, Brad
                If I remember correctly the Chinese gram for trouble is two women under one roof. Those who take multiple partners seem to have more talent for relationships than most of us.

  9. steve lancaster says:

    Read my post to Glenn on abortion perhaps that will help you understand where my personal libertarian philosophy goes.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      That comment is at the bottom of this article. And it shows Steve to be conservative, not libertarian, on the issue of abortion…and apparently for all the right reasons.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Ethel C. Fenig has an excellent article at American Thinker regarding the new New York Mayor, de facto Communist Bill de Blasio: Life on the New York City Plantation. This is what Libertarians should make their Public Enemy #1, not their often straw-men arguments regarding who they think conservatives are. Conservatives are not this ugly thing pictured in this article — a thing which we should all be fighting tooth and nail.

    And Jeffrey Lord — one of the last great conservative thinkers — has an excellent article at The American Spectator: Karl Rove and the GOP Socialists. These are the people (and not Tea Party conservatives) that Libertarians should be fighting as Public Enemy #2, not their straw-man constructs.

    I recommend that all StubbornThings readers read both articles. We all need a thorough understanding of what we are facing. I usually link to only the best of the best. These are not your typical rant-articles that are a waste of time.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I read the articles. I’ve commented elsewhere that I think de Blasio is likely to create a super-Detroit out of NYC. I also wonder if the GOP donor class (the Cheap Labor Lobby advocating amnesty, for example) are really being paid by the Constitution Party to pad their vote totals. Or perhaps they want the Tea Partiers to join hose lousy Occupiers, forgetting that the former have not only completed toilet training, but also know how to use weapons properly.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yes, I think a super-Detroit is a real possibility…depending upon how long this Communist stays in office.

        I now completely scoff at the idiotic bravado of New Yorkers: “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.”

        Nope. Sorry. You’ve all shown yourself to be fools.

  11. steve lancaster says:

    Indeed it is, and they are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *