I'm going to having more on libertarianism in an upcoming essay. I don't see it as a governing ideology, although certainly we could improve a lot of public life, especially economic life, by adopting a way more libertarian programmatic agenda. That said, I've always disliked the rejection of a lot of social morality in libertarianism, and Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie capture some of the moral spinelessness at the clip:It's enough to say, as Matt Welch does, that one supports the freedom element of the right to an abortion. That part is fine. I've never argued we should have 100 percent criminalization of abortion. The squishy ground is where Nick Gillespie treads, and I don't think he acquits himself well. In fact, he's so squishy he harms even the liberty case for the pro-choice position. Libertarianism becomes a license for perverse libertinism. It's sick to think about what happens to the baby when a woman exercises that sliding scale for the termination of pregnancy. But again, that's why I'm neoconservative on domestic issues.
Ed Morrissey, who prompted the clip, has more: "Video: What is the libertarian position on abortion?"
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Maybe I misunderstood what a Neocon was but, isn't a Neocon typically a Foreign policy hawk and a social Liberal?
I thought the Neocons were originally Hawkish Liberals who felt the Democrat party had become the party of Treason?
Where am I going wring here?
Yeah, you misunderstood.
Neocons are conservative on social issues. Think Irving Kristol.
So what, in your opinion, is the difference between neo and regular Conservatives then?
Conservatives are all over the place right now. I hate isolationist "conservatives", who are really leftists to me, especially if they attack Israel.
Other than that, I'm big on social issues, and some "regular" conservatives (Mitch Daniels) want to downplay "hot button" issues like abortion and gay marriage. That's not for me, sorry.
Post a Comment