Translate

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Conservative or libertarian?

I believe in the pre-State institutions of Church, Family and the Market, which tags me as a knuckle-dragging bigot conservative in some quarters, and a heartless oligarch libertarian in others. I'm not an anarchist and I actually don't believe you have a right to masturbate on your front lawn or marry your own sex, so I'm probably fascist by libertarian standards. 'Conservative' sounds nice, but I don't really see any support for the venerable institutions in the conservative movement.

Conservatives despise the Church, favoring their atomized, do-it-yourself pastors in their preaching hall megaplexes. Every five to ten years, some nominally Christian fad sweeps through (evangelism, glossalalia, messianic judaism) and the megaplex members splinter off and fester until the next big eruption. There is a wry comment about the Protestant church eventually devolving to lone Christians lugging around their King James Bibles. That's apparently no longer satire.

Conservatives have done nothing as the State put their sons and daughters in economic competition with each other and with prospective spouses. They have destroyed their own children's bargaining power for academic and work advancement by swamping the country with immigrants. They have driven any notion of patrimony out of American discourse. They have reconciled themselves completely to the idea that the State, not the Family, is responsible for a child's education. They put their heads in the sand as the last redoubt of tradition in American public life (I am extending the concept of Family out to Nation here), the US military, was transformed into a Global Democratic Rainbow Warrior army. Conservative legislators, without whom the courts and the bureaucracy do not get a single penny for their crazed social engineering, have fallen meekly in step with the Marxist march.

Conservatives actively supported the 2008 bailout, the largest government-engineered transfer of wealth in human history. They support a tax structure that grinds the self-employed into the dirt. Any politician who questions the immoral public debt, money debasement (an act of theft), the Fed and its active manipulation of capital markets, the rent-seeking and externalities that sluice money to Wall Street, is labelled a crank or worse.

Only Ron Paul, a member of the nominally conservative Republican Party, has articulated a policy to foster organic society and energized young voters (no longer a coveted demographic, now that geriatric Boomers have a super-majority). Of course he is despised, and a demographically-doomed Republican Party is set to nominate one of their own shallow, glib number and member of an apostate sect.

Which raises the the question, as we survey the current wreckage, what do conservatives think they are conserving at this point? If homosexuals in the military are 1) no longer proscribed, 2) previously ignored and 3) now lionized, is the line in the sand going to be trans-sexuals? If women can lead churches, what is the conservative objection to single mothers leading families?

I think for now I'll just be a reactionary.

6 comments:

Scotsman said...

"I'm not an anarchist and I actually don't believe you have a right to masturbate on your front lawn"

That's it, Im telling Lew Rockwell.

Anonymous said...

There is a wry comment about the Protestant church eventually devolving to lone Christians lugging around their King James Bibles. That's apparently no longer satire.

Recalls one of my favorite passages from Tocqueville, concerning democracy and the atomized nature of individualism. An excerpt: "Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever upon himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart. "

Cowboy said...

That has always been my question: WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU CONSERVING?

You made a great post on Tyler's Murray thread.

Very powerful, thus you drew their ire.

As Brimelow says, it will all end in tears.

Overwatch404 said...

I enjoy your blog (even when I disgree), but find the assertion of "the Church" as being "pre-state" somewhat inaccurate, unless only in the modern sense. Corporate structure, to include the nation state, was derived from the Catholic organizational model.

The apparent defense of all things Catholic (ironically unitarian ["universal"]) is what I would call the sole weak point in this blog. Not that the critiques of Protestantism aren't spot on. Catholicism is every bit as arbitrary and human as any other failing institution.

I am conservative in my personal life but externally libertarian. It is not right to deny people the right to direct their own lives, a right I want for myself.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

You may substitute "Creed" or "Faith." I use "Church," but that's only my bias as an Orthodox Christian, and I certainly believe in freedom of conscience in human affairs.

Overwatch404 said...

Fair enough. I will admit that a extremely rough/vague critique of my personal views could characterize me as the "lone Christian lugging a KJV", except I long ago dispensed with any special consideration for a particular translation or desire to be tagged with the "Christian" label, with it's absolute ambiguity and multiplicity of stigmas.

My faith is a personal relationship, and beyond the actual personal relationship, I treat the rest of it no differently than I treat anything else on an intellectual level. At the risk of invoking a fallacy, I would assert that religious/theological dogma is the enemy of true faith, defined as a personal relationship with the Creator.