"...abortions in these cases would allow women to substitute children who would be born later, and would be better taken care of, for the fetuses that are aborted now. That seems to me to be a tradeoff worth making."

Really Dr. Becker? No consideration of the moral implications? I would just like to ask you one simple question- when does life begin? There's only one, obvious answer- conception. If not, then when could life possibly begin? Do you believe murder contains negative externalities?

What about delegating those social issues to states or counties or cities. I agree with your thoughts, but it seems also true that people are happier and the community is more peaceful when they share values.

The difference is between "federal government should not intervene at these social issues" vs. "government at any level should not intervene at all."

I would appreciate your thoughts.

This is an excellent post. I wonder if classical liberal movements are stronger in countries with proportional representation voting rather than winner-take-all formats.

Some writers suggest that changes in the voting system can determine the number of parties in a country. Proportional representation systems encourage more parties to emerge because each one is able to find a niche and secure at least some power. Winner-take-all systems, in contrast, encourage a two-party system because voters balance the power of their vote (that is, the probability that it will matter) against the utility of winning (the smaller the coalition, the greater each member's gain).

In a winner-take-all system, a voter maximizes the power of her vote by voting for either of the two largest parties, because it is only between these two that her vote can make a difference; a vote for the third strongest party would be wasteful. On the other hand, the voter maximizes her utility by keeping the size of the winning coalition as small as possible. This latter point keeps most winner-take-all systems from devolving into single party rule. They end up being two party systems, as in the U.S.

Proportional representation seems reasonable as a civic matter, but the point is moot: it is implausible that the two parties would ever vote to weaken themselves.

You seem to be advocating a libertarian philosophy rather than a conservative one as generally recognized.

Historically, American libertarians allied themselves with more conventional conservatives but this is more a matter of politics than philosophy. The current political challenge for them is whether they can influence the conservative political movement so as to make it a comfortable place to call home in the next few years.

Becker, "Republican Party is trying to incorporate two inconsistent sets of beliefs: one is the support of competition and generally freer markets, and the other is the advocacy of interventionist policies on various social issues."

You could argue that the Democrats do as well: interventionist policies when it comes to the economy, libertinism on social issues.

However, I'm not certain if holding such positions are inconsistent. As Ludwig Von Mises wrote in his book "Socialism",

"PROPOSALS to transform the relations between the sexes have long gone hand in hand with plans for the socialization of the means of production. Marriage is to disappear along with private property, giving place to an arrangement more in harmony with the fundamental facts of sex. When man is liberated from the yoke of economic labour, love is to be liberated from all the economic trammels which have profaned it. Socialism promises not only welfare - wealth for all - but universal happiness in love as well...

>Free love is the socialist's radical solution for sexual problems. The socialistic society abolishes the economic dependence of woman which results from the fact that woman is dependent on the income of her husband."

The problems with the current Republican Party have nothing to do with social issues, but everything to do with supporting an imperialistic foreign policy.

"For there is an obvious conflict between the rights of women to control their bodies and their motherhood, and the rights of fetuses that might be far enough along in their development to be considered human beings."

True, but this is a tougher problem than cases where the status of the parties is agreed, and debate proceeds from a largely shared set of assumptions.

The crux of the issue is the timeline over which the embryo or fetus is granted consideration as a human being. There are conflicting views with insufficient shared assumptions to either choose among the views or to use the shared assumptions to reach judgment on the morality of abortion.

I wonder if people get hung up on defining "conservatism" because there are so many definitions. Hayek's essay "Why I am Not a Conservative" cleared a lot of it up for me. While the conservatism he described was the old European kind, closer to the type Easterly described in resisting change, American conservatism was rooted in the classical liberal philosophy of the 18th century. It seems to me that it has since moved towards the latter European old style of conservatism but hangs on to some classical liberal philosophy, hence the contradictions. Perhaps a lot of it really comes down to confusing semantics due to a switch in the terms "liberal" and "conservative" from Europe to America.

Uzair: I've run a few political campaigns and the issue of getting the best from voter input is truly a confounding subject.

In our own lives we've a broad array of choices, even down to sharing a pizza we can get "half with pineapple" so as not to have to compromise. The temptation to have third or more parties seems related to expecting something closer to MY choice, while our two party system tends to force us to compromise and end up with a "majority" supporting the new government even though that majority may have had to compromise a lot more than they'd wish, or at times, is healthy for the nation.

The issues of the minority candidates often serve to move the majors, as even a 5% vote for a Nader or Ron Paul is enough for the majors to try to capture next time if it's not in conflict with their larger platform. It's a "funny thing" but Nader with so little political power has probably done more for mandated auto safety than any individual elected representative, and surely Ron Paul has us at least wondering about a monetary system that has seen a 90% devaluation of the purchasing power of the dollar in just 30 years.

I like the "instant runoff" model (perhaps used in NZ?) in which one can cast their first vote for a minority candidate with their second choice taking effect when the minor candidate falls by the wayside. It would seem that feedback would give the process a better message of the direction voters favored. (I'm of the opinion that today's fast moving world would be better served by such input from the voters with perhaps a quicker response from the government.)

Probably the most important dimension is that of the people having a stronger voice as compared to the money-fueled lobbyists of self-serving special interests. We may be seeing an improvement there as the internet and winning elections via small donation and lower cost campaigning, offers as least some option other than candidates being financed by wealthy donors.

My wish list includes a faster turnover in Congress as well. I think the Senate is 3% which points to an average stay of a quarter century or more........ one of the most secure jobs in the nation!

Becker and Posner way to go, you guys both rock. I'm pleased with Arlen too :).
One of the things that complicates viewing conception as the start of life is that the majority of conception events fail to result in pregnancy. Is a natural abortion before anyone knows about it really as big a tragedy as a baby dying? How far should the state interfere to prevent that happening?
And I think that the 2 party system is a natural result of how broken our voting system is when dealing with more than 2 candidates. Instant runoff voting is not the best(or even a particularly good) solution however. Range voting is as I think I clearly argue here.

http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12629

Автор выйди к напроду, вопросы есть!

The past four posts of this blog have been enlightening for me, not so much for their content, but for the comments by the readers. I broadly agree with the view of classical liberalism endorsed by Becker and Posner, and realize that the asylum that Classical Liberals had found in Reagan's Republican Party was only temporary. The party has two souls, and I have no doubt that the social conservative will reclaim the party as their own. Of all conservatives, the readers of this blog should be the most inclined to Classical Liberal ideals. And yet they confirm Posner's theses, and then some. They are fundamentally anti-intellectual, and reject ex ante Global Warming and Evolutionism. Abortion and Gun Control are bigger concerns than torture, violation of privacy, and illegitimate wars. With friends like these.

It is obvious that libertarians and European-style liberals are in for a long exile. If the Democratic Party doesn't overreach (unlikely) they may find an uneasy refuge in it.
Meanwhile, social conservatives will ossify into a filo-authoritarian organization.

очень занимательно было почитать

The abortion issue certainly raises the spectrum of human rights and how any government, right or wrong, can and should interfere in the affairs of man.

Here, I must agree with Henry David Thoreau, less government is best.

No doubt, the conservative movement has made its stand on the issue and cause, raising the boundary of crossing by any government with the general happiness and harmony of its people and society.

What are the rights of government? What are the rights of the individual?

Each has a stake in the question and possible solution and outcome answer.

Man has created government for order and ruling, always maintaining the dignity of the individual with real rights and authority of Life and Living.

Man for man, taking its characteristics of the authority of man its creator, makes governments.

The matter is not easily solved.

To date the question has centered on when life becomes life to find clarity of concern.

Evolution might consider operative feature of life when it initially becomes functionality and cells begin replicating and moving toward an expressional outcome.

Life itself offers what protection of development? The process is now in motion being governed by the miracle life of itself.

Thatguy

Dan, I looked at and considered your "range voting".

I've seen something like this used for corporate policy or say where a city should site a new airport after considering all the variables. The participants would have a limited number of blue, yellow or red inventory dots with blue being for, yellow lukewarm and red for over my dead body for the various options.

Perhaps range voting might be applicable to a primary with lots of candidates but I doubt it. Would those favoring candidate A want to water down their vote by giving a percentage to a less favored candidate??

As we wend our way to picking just ONE for the office it would seem of even less use. I can't think of a presidential race in which many would say they favored one by 80% and the other by 20%. What would be gained?

Television has changed our two party system. While it has never been perfect or even close to being so, in years past it all started at precinct level with hammering out a platform. In the best of times a candidate would be nominated who supported the platform. Of course this system had the drawbacks of "smoke filled rooms" and brokered conventions that smacked of party or old boy politics.

But television has allowed any telegenic candidate with a fair sized war chest of campaign funding to virtually ignore the party and the platform and jump in.

I don't know if the current system of primary caucuses and primaries is better, but it seems to short-circuit working within the party to move the party and bring in the people and issues that create the desire for third parties, in favor of charismatic "leaders" who may or may not be thoughtful or fit for the task.

Все самое лучшее для Вконтакте - [URL=http://vkmania.ru] картинки вконтакте[/URL]

[b]Не проходи мимо![/b]

If we define 'conservatism' as a desire to return to the good old days,
this might easily characterize Roosevelt Democrats of today. This
characterization marginalizes the philosophical conservative by making the idea of "local" interest only, applying to one set of traditions and regional interests. The animus of philosophical conservatism transcends provincial interests that are exploited to marginalize conservative influence. The philosophical conservative is devoted to the principle of freedom over equality, notwithstanding a commitment to due process, etc. A resistance to social engineering is guided by a realization that such engineering brings with it a brittleness, one which by emphasing freedom maximizes adaptation to sudden disasters which are unpredictable. Prof. Posner in his excellent book relies too frequently on the idea that probabilities are real, if only we could find out what they are. The philosophical conservative is a "frequency" theorist by contrast, preferring freedom over social engineering as a way of maximizing adaptation in probabalistically uncertain and changing conditions.

I agree with you .wellcome my blogseo

1. Abortion is an issue mostly because of the "slippery slope" issue around the sanctity of life. How can it be legal when murder is illegal in the face of uncertainty when personhood begins?
Conservatives want to be on the side of caution and liberals want unfettered freedom. We need Solomon!!!

2. Conservatives want guns because they feel that the police cannot protect them in a still violent society (by the time the police arrive, you are already dead) and the gun makes them feel as though they are in charge of their own security. The liberals don't like guns because they consider them unnecessary in a "civilized" society. As one conservative wag put it to his liberal friend, "I promise not to use my gun to defend you if you are attacked.". Since there are as many privately owned guns as there are folks in the USA, stop arguing about gun control but enforce severe penalties for the commission of a crime using a firearm, fired or not.

3. There are some serious academic scientists who take issue with global warming and its causes. No one yet has explained how the last ice age ended in global warming when there were very few people around. Was it dinosaur flatulence? The conservatives don't believe in man-caused global warming because they doubt the integrity of the proponents of that theory or perhaps of academia in general (another subject). Liberals accept the academic more easilly and believe that government can take a problem and design a solution effectively (the civilized approach).

To say that one or the other of these approaches is more "intellectual" than the other is to mis-state the analysis. It is more a value system that underpins the debates since neither approach has all of the answers. There is no question that the issues will not be solved without a continuing conservative-liberal dialectic and political power struggle. One thing is for sure---history as in economics is cyclical.

Relative to elections there should clearly be term limits. One for the senate and two for the House with being able to run again after a one term interim out of office. Let's face it. If you can read and write lucidly and pass a brief psychiatric test, you should be able to do those jobs and there would be an incentive to quickly learn the ropes and not screw up too badly knowing that you have to return to your community sooner. That way, as Obama says, you would spread the power around.

Mr. Becker I am a little concerned by your call for the Republican party to move away from interventionist social policies. They are the biggest and most reliable vote gainers for the party. After all I am not sure why a majority of the people would choose a party that decreases marginal taxes on the rich and generally promotes policies that increase income inequality.

Don't Ask Don't Tell has been a holding of the middle position for a long time.

I am opposed to it basically because it forces people to in effect lie-even though it tries to limit the conditions for that.

Given all that it still is a question of reality,economics, and feasibility.

There are a lot of arguments to be made about certain costs and the best timing for changing the policy-mid war is probably not a good time.

It might be easy to assume that the military is not overtaxed because especially after BRAC most of the general public does not have to come into immediate contact with the military but the Ops Tempo for some critically manned fields has been unrelenting for some time now.

Certain units were experiencing divorce rates that hit 80% and went upwards from there-this was under Clinton by the way-when he was trying to increase the Ops Tempo while not adjusting the RIFT formula.

So unfortunately Obama like Clinton before him is just being practical when he pushes that particular issue on the back burner.

That's not something you can pin solely on Republicans and they aren't the ones who end up breaking their promises.

This is clear in Reagan's successful efforts to wear down the Soviet Union.

Some believe we probably won that arms race after upping the ante-with SDI because of our superior economic system.

That system is going to look nothing like itself very shortly. You could believe that over 60% of the youth vote thought that the more pressing issue was Global Warming and voted accordingly even though McCain made a lot of concessions to them over that very issue.

Jack, What range voting allows you to do is give 2 candidates scores of 100%, so you can say (just for example) "I like Gore so he gets 100%, Nader is cool so he gets 100% also, but my crystal ball says Bush will drive our country off a cliff so he gets a 0%" In a 2 person election there is little benefit, but our electoral system spits out garbage once there are more than 2 candidates, which is why everyone worries about "throwing away" their vote. The difference between where people get a limited number of colored buttons and range voting is in range voting you don't have a limited number of buttons, so you can express your views without bizzare ranking systems.

Jim:

1. Perhaps you catch yourself in your own logic: First you equate abortion with murder, but then go on to say "uncertainty as to when personhood begins". Roe, thoughtfully, dealt with that very issue 40 years ago and despite it being a fairly short and readable decision it seems to me that few anti-individual-choice advocates have bothered to read it.

2. As an Alaskan I'm hardly a "gun banner" but the "feeling" of being made safer by having a gun handy is likely A. in one's home, B. in bear country. In a car or downtown, and god help us! in a bar full of inebriates, I doubt they are of much help, as typically in old westerns, the decisive edge goes to the first to move regardless of weapon. In terms of lowering our horrendous level of gun killing better we limited guns on the streets of our murderous cities. Works well in nearby Canada where the kill is less than a fifth that of the US and in Europe where the rate is lower yet.

3. I'll skip GW but to mention your honesty regarding the extreme right "doubting academia in general" and remind you that the response to global warming is very much the same as responding to Peak oil and the obvious divergence of supply and demand curves, or even responding to the nation tanking aspects of worsening our soaring trade deficit by sending ever more dollars to OPEC for fewer and fewer bbls of oil. CONSERVation of energy we've grown use to wasting pays dividends to us all, the world, and to our future, and I suspect the wise and principle conservatives of the past would be the first to adopt conservation.

Kinda dumb to spend ourselves into bankruptcy wasting, finite, NON-renewables, eh?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

madawaskan: Do you think the USSR fell due to perhaps eight years of outspending them along with a fairly transparent SDI bluff?

We studied the USSR in a comparative politics class in 1970 and concluded that the utter failure of EVERY five year plan and their failure even to provide enough food to feed themselves indicated the bear would fall within a few decades. (Interestingly during that era, we know now that the CIA estimated USSR's GDP at 2.5 times what it really was.)

As for Global Warming, if it belatedly rallies Americans to address the myriad problems of a wasteful over-consumption of pollution causing non-renewables it would be just fine with me if it turned out to be a false icon. Go youth VOTE!

Becker should clarify what should be the role of the father in the abortion decision.

This is confused.

You write:

Easterly argues that the true definition of a conservative is someone who respects traditions and existing institutions, and who wants to limit change. Although that is a common definition of the essence of conservatism, I do not believe it is a consistent or sensible one.

Nothing that follows gives any reason to believe that this definition is in any way inconsistent or not sensible. All you say is that if this is what “conservatism” is, then it does not entail a consistent view of government.

First, there is no reason why “Conservatism” or any other political movement should have a consistent view of government. You may be right (but I don’t think you are) in arguing that a consistent view of government is a good characteristic in a political movement, but it is hardly a matter of definition that conservatism should have only good characteristics.

Secondly, there is nothing incoherent about believing that governments are good at some things and bad at others. It is perfectly sensible to say that whether a particular matter is susceptible of government intervention is dependent on the nature of the matter in question, rather than on the nature of government. This view may be incorrect (again, I don’t think it is), but it is hardly incoherent.

Thirdly, a “Conservative” in Easterly’s sense would not, in any event, be bound to disagree with your examples. Easterly merely referred to a conservative as someone who “respects traditions” and “wants to limit change”. Even someone who wanted to limit change may quite logically consider the kinds of social change you refer to as falling within the limits that are acceptable. Merely respecting traditions does not entail that all traditions must be followed at all times.

You need to visit blog sites, such as mine, and websites, such as The 9.12 Project Network (for example)if you want to find some intellectual conversations regarding the problems we face and how we believe that solutions should be formulated. Yes, you will see emotional comments regarding controversies such as abortion and gun rights, but you should expect that. Not everyone is an "intellectual" such as yourself. However, you will also see some constructive conversations on these issues as well. Personally, I believe that "intellectuals" who were involved in policy-making over the past 20 years (for example) were some of the reasons why we are in such a financial and "anti-constitutional" mess today. I take a different point of view regarding the Constitution than you do. You insinuated in one of your latest posts that the U.S. Constitution is a living document and should be adjusted as times change. However, if you study the issues that the Framers of the Constitution faced and how they resolved them, you should be able to see that maintaining their values and principles led to resolutions which created the Constitution. The problem in the past 50 years is that the federal government and the court system have been slowly interpreting the Constitution based on their personal views, as opposed to sticking to the values, principles and morales that the Constitution espoused. This has directly led to the ongoing views of the responsibilities of the federal government and the court system, leading to decisions that are opposite of the public needs and views. The Constitution framed our government to place the power to the people first, followed by local, state and then federal entities. The federal government was intended to help resolve states' issues and provide protection to the citizens of the U.S. The people have the power to make policies and enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property as granted by the Constitution. But by having our elected representatives developing policies which do not reflect the people's needs but serve their own and/or special interests' needs, we have evolved from a republic (the intent of the Constitution) to a perverted democratic government (not what was intended). May I recommend that you read such books as "The 5000 Year Leap" and restudy the writings of such intellectuals as John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin (to name a few). You hopefully will get an understanding as to what today's educated, responsible and concerned populace is facing and what we are approaching in an "intellectual" manner.

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

I enjoyed your post. One point of correction: you seem to use the word "isolationist" when I think you mean "non-interventionist." An isolationist foreign policy couples non-interventionism with economic protectionism.

I make this point because non-interventionists (e.g., Ron Paul) are often characterized as isolationists. Conflating these two issues, though usually unintentional, is often confusing.

seomorpheme

Conservatives represent by the Republicans continued to act by trying to destroy the messenger versus the message, which is more often true than being false.

A good example is the latest over CIA briefings and water boarding and Speaker Nancy Peolosi, indicating that the CIA lied. The record of the CIA and their cover stories is well known, serving our enemies better than ourselves.

I would like to know what our good Republicans did when they heard of same procedures? Did they go to President Bush, indicating the Administration was violating both domestic and international laws and agreements? Or did they give their carte blanche to Bush; helping to provide a spin relating to our national defense, fear of fear itself?

All this reflects on the conservatives and the Republicans ideas in terms of fascism at doorstep our demoncracy.

Today, we have Rush Limbaugh acting and directing their hatred and frustration that there are Americans wanting to take back their country under the value of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, violating the Oath of Office and laws therein represent nothing but treason.

We assert they were promoting crimes against humanity, which can only be resolved by appointing a special prosecutor and indicting.

The Conservative Movement under the Republicans needs to be destroyed.

Thatguy

I would wager that both Becker and Posner are "conservative" in the way that they conduct their personal lives. So I would suggest that the consevatives referenced in this blog refer to a set of princples which may represent some funky public version of a political view which has little to do with being "conservative".

In effect, abortions in these cases would allow women to substitute children who would be born later, and would be better taken care of, for the fetuses that are aborted now.

This argument falls apart when you consider adoption and the waiting list for that.

Jack -

That's an interesting and probably honest response, you don't care if Global Warming is used as a "false icon" if it gets you the end you want.

I think a lot of Conservatives might take issue simply with the way it is argued or really not allowed to be argued.

Gore refuses to appear with scientists who think otherwise.

Gore's movie with plenty of factual errors is shown to elementary school children whenever the teacher didn't properly prepare for class.

Gore who thinks the issue is of upmost importance flies around on Leer jets and maintains a 20,000 square foot home.

What begins to happen when you won't even allow for debate like that is the voter,maybe only the Conservative voter begins to see it as an area that's highly specialized and that he has to just accept.

The voter is taken out of the equation simply by the fact that he can't base his decisions on common sense or first hand experience-top that off with false information being propagated and debate being restricted and then yes I think you are on to something one more way to take the voter out of the loop.

I don't think however that is a good idea, the best way to maintain law is to make sure it has a broad basis of support- it's much easier and cheaper to "enforce" that way.

Labeling people either 'conservative' or 'liberal', trying to categorize hundreds of millions of people into two limited groups. This is ridiculous. How can two opposite groups represent the thinking of all the people in America? People need to think for themselves instead of joining these 'gangs'.

Sir,

I am not going to patronize you by telling you something you already know or repeating some argument you have already heard, but your comment on abortion in this post was even less satisfactory.

I only note that the loss of a human life, or in your parlance, potential human life, is not so easily justifiable as the cost of waiting to carry a child to term and take care of him or her.

I agree with madawaskan's point that you do not do a very good job of addressing this issue. Most attempts to improve the deplorable state of adoption and even related social services are shot down by the abortion lobby.

Please consider that there are many voices who, if they were not prematurely silenced, may care to respectfully, if strongly, disagree with you.

Sincerely,

Luca

It doesn’t matter if Gary Becker and Richard Posner are Conservatives or not. It is the principles, which they live by, and willing to expound in their blog on subjects, which they deem important that will find an audience of concern.

Blogs tend to produce less than critical discussions on any matter.

Under previous president, President Bush, they used the Conservatives in total without any outrage for policies and rhetoric produce.

Thus Conservatives should suffer the consequences of going along and associating themselves. Never saying No, always saying Yes!

The creditability of truth was lost in lies and propaganda. That record in history will certainly judge their performance and deeds.

The revisionists will put a slant, doctoring up the record that was less than honorable.

It became a Presidency of back sliding toward fascism, that we almost lost our Democracy to criminal thugs.

Conservatives refuse to address this record, letting Rush Limbaugh to be their spokesman for un-American activities, wanting the current administration to fail.

The Election had the population on the whole having enough and wanting change from this garbage.

Thatguy

Alas, those of us who admire J.S. Mill have a difficult time deciding with whom we shall cast our lot.

"A conservative philosophy would limit governmental international interventions to cases where the risks from not taking actions are very large, and the interventions reasonably straightforward."

So where the hell were you when it might have mattered to be stating these basic truths?

"A conservative philosophy would limit governmental international interventions to cases where the risks from not taking actions are very large, and the interventions reasonably straightforward."

So where the hell were you when it might have mattered to be stating these basic truths?

Becker stated:

I claimed in that post that the current Republican Party is trying to incorporate two inconsistent sets of beliefs: one is the support of competition and generally freer markets, and the other is the advocacy of interventionist policies on various social issues, such as gays in military, stem cell research, or in international affairs.

In the libertarian view of the world, there are two dimensions of freedom: personal and economic. This can be shown on a two-axis graph: on one axis is less to more personal freedom, and on the other is less to more economic freedom. We libs are in the top, right corner. Liberals, preferring more personal and less economic freedom, are in the upper left; conservatives, believing in less personal and more economic freedom, are in the lower right.

See here for more detail: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Could you back up your assertion about government being inefficient. Compared to what? Measured how? The big banks were efficient in doing what?

I'm an American living in Canada, and the single-payer (government) health care system here is about 20% more efficient than the private insurance system you have there. That's huge.

The brief post by Matthew earlier today asking who should a admirer of John Stuart Mill side with in today's political world gets at the underlying confusion in the present discussion. Mill is the pivotal figure moving liberalism from a focus on individual liberty within a moral and socially stable framework based on equality before the law to a philosophy of radical, anti-social individualism that confuses liberty with license recognizing the need this notion of liberty brings with it of inviting governmental mandates for redistribution of wealth and status by the state. Professor Becker, as well as Matthew, seem confused in this discussion since Mill's version of liberalism cannot decide which it is: liberty or license, equality in the eyes of God or equality in the eyes of the bureaucratic egalitarian?

One confusion Professor Becker runs into is the role of morals and tradition. While I applaud his seeing the need to respect the record that we have from the past in how to organize and direct human action by means of decentralized, organic institutions that evolved to meet the demands of a particular people, he is all too ready to overthrow the benefits such institutions bring to daily life because he believes that he knows better than the accumulated wisdom of past generations.

While I agree, as did Edmund Burke, on the need for careful change as the times and circumstances change, the examples he gives to illustrate when he would be wiling to do so are alarming. First, he proposes granting women the right to independently hold property and to enter into contracts. Contrary to what Professor Becker says, and is widely believed due to leftist propaganda, women in England have held the right to own property and enter into contracts since the Middle Ages. They typically contracted this right away to some extent when they married. One very important tie that the woman has to the man is financial security. When this tie is weakened, so is the family. University of Virginia sociologists W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock have found that women who do not work and whose husband adequately support them as the earn at least 65% of the household income are happier in their marriage and the marriage is stronger as a result. This finding holds for women across the temperament, educational, and political spectrum including feminists. They also find that a husband who is also emotionally supportive to be key to women's marital happiness. So, in some way, we do need to discourage women entering the work force after marriage. That truth from previous times still holds, according to contemporary studies.

The next mistake Professor Becker makes in the name of reasonable updating conservative views is his embrace of easy divorce. I would certainly argue for some legal justifications for divorce such as adultery, desertion by the other mate, physical abuse, etc. But there is wisdom in not allowing easy divorce. And most divorces nowadays are for relatively trivial reasons. See a study by Margaret Brinig of George Mason University and Douglas Allen, economist at Vancouver's Simon Fraser University on why people divorce and who is more likely to file for divorce--it is women by a long shot and not usually due to abuse, adultery, etc. Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver finds similar results in his study published in his *Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths.* The harm done to children, no matter how many there are, is long-lasting and common. Consider here the longitudinal studies of Judith Wallerstein. Both boys and girls are harmed in their development by the absence of one of the parents continually in the home. The psychological harm done to men can be life-threatening since they are typically more emotionally invested in marriage than most women, contrary to many people's understanding. Their suicide rate goes up dramatically after a divorce as does their propensity to contract cancer. Many women tend to lose financially from divorce. We are all harmed by easy divorce as men are socialized by marriage and given a safe outlet for their sexual impulses that brings with it tenderness and a sense of responsibility as they care for their families. If the family goes, so does the whole shootin' match--the community, the economy, the society, the culture. See the Marriage Project website at Rutgers University.

I have noticed people making reference to F.A. Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative," in this discussion. In this essay, Hayek was talking about a continental European conservatism, not an Anglo-American conservatism, that rejected individual rights and defended the Ancien Regime. Hayek, like Burke, defended individual rights placed within a social context of established personal relationships where people are anchored to a particular tradition that supports the responsible and effective use of liberty. This was Hayek's view expressed very well in this essay, "Individualism: True and False." The true individualism is the socially situated individualism while false individualism is the self-contained, socially isolated atomistic individualism that paradoxically gives rise to socialism. I am afraid that both Professor Becker and Judge Posner are sliding into this trap of false individualism.

Both Professor Becker and Judge Posner seem to overlook the work of economist Douglass North who found that economic development is dependent upon cultural and social institutions. All too often free market economists are blind to factors outside of business relationships that provide a integrated package that responsible and fruitful economic practices can flourish within. When they do consider social institutions, they falsely believe that they will simply and easily adjust to the economic changes suchh as those that Professor Becker touches on in his discussion. Like left liberals and modal libertarians, they seem oblivious to historical and social structures that shape people's lives just as much or more than do purely economic ones.

Professor Becker's discussion of abortion, though nuanced, still falls into a disregard for the individual in a responsible, life nurturing relationship with others within a person's own family by advocating the killing of innocent human life for any reason whatsoever. While there are many defenses for abortion on demand ( I support therapeutic abortions but would like to see non-therapeutic outlawed as manslaughter except for cases of rape), Professor Becker's is quite disturbing:

"In effect, abortions in these cases would allow women to substitute children who would be born later, and would be better taken care of, for the fetuses that are aborted now. That seems to me to be a tradeoff worth making."

A commentator last week appealed to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. I think his appeal was timely especially in light of this line from Professor Becker's essay this week. The fundamental determinate of rational ethical decision identified by Kant was the Categorical Imperative. The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative as framed by Kant, but could be recognized in essence by any rational person, states: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

One problem with Kant as I read him is that he can argue from too abstract a perspective. We humans tend to view people who are different from us or distant from us as less than human. That is why we need face-to-face, on-going relationships with people with whom we forge a common future. The danger is that without these bonds, we fall into the false individualism that Hayek warned us against that threatens our liberty. In abortion on demand, we have the paradox of the bombardier mentality as we kill the child that holds our future dwelling within our own wombs or the womb of those we are closest to. In its baldest form, Professor Becker describes the epitome of irrationality, immorality, and self-destruction as we treat our own flesh and blood as a mere means to an end. This is not conservatism, which should seek to save and nuture; this is nihilism.

hmmm.........got it

nice informatiom

Ask to Ashu

There is only an inconsistency because you insist on viewing the size of government as being the highest aim of conservatism or the glue which holds it together.

The clue should be in the label.

Conservatives aim to conserve America's founding principles.

It is libertarians who cast their ideology predominantly along the lines of what government cannot do.

Thus, conservatives do not have trouble embracing the American military, despite the Founders' concerns over a standing army, because they see the armed forces as protecting the American way of life and indeed Western culture.

You also cannot understand conservatism without understanding the three bulwarks of society: church, family, and property. What distinguishes conservatism is not preference for small government (libertarians and anarchists share that), but in the preservation of individual rights---especially those around church, family, and property---from government encroachment.

This is a function of conservatives' belief in natural law---where rights are not granted by government but by God.

Difficult for lawyers to understand, surely, but the law is not the highest power in the land. The Lord is. To the extent that the law does not reflect the Law---say, Roe v. Wade---it tends to destabilize our society. Conservatives generally abhor such currents---the Founders built to last.

Read the Declaration of Independence. It embodies much of what conservatism seeks to preserve.

Bravo Telfon93!

Your comments are right on the money.

Best comments all around on the subject of conservativism.

Thatguy

Bravo Telfon93!

Your comments are right on the money.

Best comments all around on the subject of conservatism.

Thatguy

Damm Senators Lieberman and Graham for not fronting the disclosures of photographs of detainees and victims of American torture.

I ask who speaks for the victims certainly not Lieberman or Graham in terms of criminal acts that should prosecuted to the fullest of our laws and international agreements.

Lets review their positions concerning torture and international agreements.

Shame on them using ever excluse under the sun that we are at war. If we are not bound by the rules of war.

American conduct is a disgrace to our people and our country.

These are conservative values from where? I assume they must go to church, being good Christians that they are, having the love for humanity in their hearts.

When do they address a wrong for a wrong?

Thatguy

Hey! All this blogtastic rhetorical regurgitation of Philo 101 is well and good, but have any of you with GOP membership cards noticed-

None of this matters to the majority of current registered voters. I think the Judge is far too polite, or erudite, or both, to reductively state the key point here: without a compelling electoral message, none of the permutations of definitions of "conservative" will result in anything other than more wasted blog bytes.

The day of prominent American intellectuals is over anyway, in general, not just in the GOP. I don't want a resurgence of intellectual rigor in the party. I want a resurgence of practical problem solving:

1. Where safe, legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down. Solution: shall-issue CHLs; enforcement of existing laws; no crazies, no felons, no druggies, no drunks, no spouse-beaters.

2. Where taxes are moderate and perceived fair, investment goes up, jobs go up, budgets balance. Compare today Texas and California. Solution: Stop stealing from employers ("the rich"), keeping most for the government teat-sucking unions, and tossing pennies to the "poor" under the tin halo of "justice." Aside: why aren't these "poor" crowding their local tv news outlets, demanding with pitchforks raised to show off their glowing resumes full of As in math and summer jobs mowing grass and excellent references?

3. The US pays to defend Europe. They let us because they know we need them to buy our stuff. We do it because we need them buy our stuff. They jerk us around in NATO, WTO, UN, and ICJ because they think we need them more than they need us. Solution: let Putin shut their gas off again next winter, and this time, let some German villagers freeze to death. Coincidentally, displacing the portion of the US budget spent defending Europe to Europe would make "deficit reduction" in the US a non-fantasy proposition.

4. Israel: Iran is not going to stop until they can deter your nuclear monopoly in the region, or attack you outright. Do what you have to do. You are the wronged party, and you have the right to defend yourself. Neither Egypt nor Saudi will cry for Tehran. With Iranian sponsorship cowed or killed, Lebanon and PCA will come to the table and deal, wither and become susceptible to control, or provoke a war they will lose. That's the part Olmert got right. Regional stability goes up, US interests are served.

5. All the pricey, balky, ugly windmills in the world plus all the toxic, pricey, balky, impotent solar panels in the world can't replace coal, gas and oil. Space-based solar or nuclear - those are your choices, short of Chinese-peasant standards of living. Space-based solar sound a little too Star Trek? Nuclear it is. Lots of it, and now. Drilling what we have wouldn't hurt either, especially since the Exxon Valdez resulted in exactly zero extinctions and has not been repeated on US soil since.

Messaging, folks. Madison Avenue. Reagan didn't get elected on brain-power. He did not shriek, rant, or scold. Hippies, Marxists, victimists, and potheads should not be this difficult to discredit, displace, and electorally dispose of. Let's argue about the words we use. Let's argue about the linkages between foreign policy and US wallets. Let's argue about what makes investors write checks. Let's argue about the words we need to make the cause-effect relationship between jobs and sales so exciting it causes swooning in the first four rows. "Abortion is murder," is true - the problem is saying that way is just going to get you labeled "religous whacko." Loving to hate the MSM also results in lost Senate seats. What I love is thinking about how to manipulate them, because that's what we need to win.

You do want to win, right?

It may be disappointing that both Judge Posner and Professor Becker are gloomy about their appreciation of the conservative or Republican condition in America today. In fact it should not be very surprising that Judge Posner assessment is negative when two weeks ago he published a book using the term "depression" to describe our current economic situation.There is an extraordinary difference between unemployment at 9% and 30% as in 1931. Similar statistical comparisons may be made for trade, immigration, bank stability, and most other classic economic indicators. And Judge Posner's gloominess about the state of the conservative movement should not surprise when compared with traditional conservative media pundits. Many "intellectual" conservatives felt battered and beaten from the past election and the experience of being associated with the Bush Administration.

It is surely true that some classic "conservative" economic theory must be reassessed in light of the financial problems of the past 2 years. Whether that ought consist of some derivative regulation, some international money supply regulation, or increased hold requirements on securitizations to facilitate more responsible originator conduct is a matter for experts like Becker with his traditional values to figure out.

The important point is that the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress who believe in deeper government economic involvement are already demonstrating the loss of freedom and efficiency associated with their program. They'll fumble the ball back to us because of the impracticality of their ideas. Remember this group is looking at Carter, not Clinton, for inspiration.

Judge Posner and Professor Becker may never be comfortable with a society that believes in the freedom to own and carry guns. It is beyond my understanding how they can truly think that relying on police for safety is fundamentally different than preferring Honda or BMW as a car maker to USDOT. But they do, and it is their right. As a legal conservative with exposure to the arguments against incorporation, I find it difficult to argue for guns based on originalism. In my view, it is a traditional right of English speaking people (obviously lost in a recently wimpish England).

As for stem cells, it seems to me that W may be coming out as the intellectual victor on the subject as researchers regularly now are demonstrating alternate ways to produce them. If the life issues can be avoided shouldnt we do so?

Judge Posner has had a lifelong focus on economics and its application to areas of human decisionmaking beyond economics. His credits are enormous in this regard. But all life is not economics, and neither is all government.

One can meaningfully chose efficiency or utility as a standard for a sector of life and other values for other sectors. And sometimes they do collide. For me no better Supreme Court decision exists than Warren's Sunday Blue Law opinion. The desirability of protecting the opportunity for family get-togethers he celebrated in that decision was a triumph of judicial self-restraint.

As for foreign wars, it may be controversial but i choose Polk as the best of our Presidents. California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of other states? Measured in current GDP who else so enriched America. The application of military force in response to terrorist attacks? My guess is that by the next Presidential election such use of force will enjoy 2/3 suuport, maybe more. Cheyney is right: it's dangerous out there and they will prove it.

Dear Becker,

It appears that you have a very straightforward "hands off" ideal of government. The argument in back of such an ideal is, I suppose, efficiency. There are least two objections to such an ideal. First, markets might be much more inefficient than was previously thought. So the exception you make for government correcting market inefficiency might swallow the rule of a "hands off" government.

In the second place, there are many considerations that reasonable people would think "trump" that of efficiency. If we agree that certain considerations "trump" efficiency then we must reject a "hands off" government as a kind of default position.

Free market fundamentalism is as dangerous as any other fundamentalism. Quite simply, the fundamentalist believes steadfastly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For an insight into the phenomena known as the American Conservative Movement, the following conversation overheard on Main Street U.S.A. may shed some light on the subject:

Mod.: You know, we've got some problems we need to get straightened out.

Con.: You know I'm a CONSERVATIVE!

Lib.: Really!? That explains it.

Con.: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT!!? YOU DO KNOW PIGS WEAR LIPSTICK!!!?

Mod.: Well ... I guess the current State of Affairs pretty much explains it all ... we have met the enemy an he is us.

I am not surprised that no one answered my question, "You do want to win, right?"

The conservative movement doesn't want to win. They don't want back in power. The one-note religious zealots and science-hating gay bashers the triggering blogs described, what they really want is for their fantasy of the country wrecking itself to come true so they can, in their troubled imaginations, come salvage the pieces. There is a Randian/Nockian tradition to this kind of infantilistic retreat into delusion. Galt turning the lights off in NYC, and the Remnant, and so on.

There is also among this whacko contingent a revolution fantasy of the US government decaying into a crime franchiser, like Mexico, or Zimbabwe, or Ecuador, that these would-be Wolverines can insurge against while living off of deer and fish in the woods, like Swayze and the Pony-boy kid. What else is to be made of the spike in usage count of the word "revolution" on the Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh programs, the siren beacons to this deeply detached cohort? In delusional tones that deep is sung the death-knell of the GOP.

I, however, still prefer this world, this reality, and still want to win. I would be encouraged to see some support here, for the notion of winning. You know, like as in the Senate, the House, or 1600. Anyone? Anyone at all who can resist the urge to freak out about fetuses and post some words about winning? Please?

I am not surprised that no one answered my question, "You do want to win, right?"

The "conservative" movement doesn't want to win. They don't want back in power. The one-note religious zealots and science-hating gay bashers the triggering blogs described, what they really want is for their fantasy of the country wrecking itself to come true so they can, in their troubled imaginations, come salvage the pieces. There is a LeHayean/Randian/Nockian tradition to this kind of infantilistic retreat into delusion-- getting raptured off the plane, Galt turning the lights off in NYC, the Remnant, etc. These fantasies are the Dungeons and Dragons of this "movement," obsessive, in-bent, and utterly onanistic.

There is also among this whacko contingent a revolution fantasy of the US government decaying into a crime franchiser, like Mexico, or Zimbabwe, or Ecuador, that these would-be Wolverines can insurge against while living off of deer and fish in the woods, like Swayze and the Pony-boy kid. What else is to be made of the spike in usage count of the word "revolution" on the Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh programs, the siren beacons to this deeply detached cohort? In delusional tones that deep is sung the death-knell of the GOP.

This is also the group that coined the term RINO. I offer the counter-term AMINO: AMerican In Name Only. Since only a deeply disturbed counter-patriot would wish for the end of the Republic as a means to calm their personal hysteria.

I, however, still prefer this world, this reality, and still want to win. I would be encouraged to see some support here, for the notion of winning. You know, like as in the Senate, the House, or 1600. Anyone? Anyone at all who can resist the urge to freak out about fetuses and post some words about winning? Please?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFy7olAsHDQU&refer=home

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Two articles.

One shows the UK's credit rating may be going down because Debt/GDP is at 100%. Here is a nice quote which illustrates this concern is not limited to the UK:

“The key from a market perspective is whether this is a stand-alone U.K. problem or whether it is the start of a trend where the agencies start to review the ratings of various sovereigns across the developed world,” said Gary Jenkins, head of credit research at Evolution Securities Ltd. in London. “If this is really just a case of the U.K. deteriorating as a credit then it could have a significant impact going forward.”

The second link shows the USA will approach the same Debt/GDP % under Obama.

Those who think the next President isn't going to be a real fiscal conservative really don't understand much about our economy or the world economy. Those claiming "traditional" and "intellectual" conservatism is DEAD are very naive. We are just waiting for the bubble to pop on Mr. Obama (Mr. BIG GOVERNMENT).

I don't even think Republicans wanted to win with Mccain. They knew the leverage problem in the US required Keynesianism, afterall it requires government to fix a problem government created (by providing implicit guarantees for the GSE's). Republicans understand the Debt/GDP realities for our nation, and they know it cannot sustain these levels but has to return to a 65%-70% mean. They did't want another Bill Clinton taking credit for being fiscally conservative. Instead, they want their own guy getting credit for one of their bedrock principles (fiscal conservatism) while Democrats get credit for their sole bedrock principle (tax and spend).

Mitt Romney is going to have a field day in 3 years. It is going to be too easy to point to stagflation, higher taxes, deficits, and Mr. GOVERNMENT while calling for smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal conservatism. Mccain wasn't even funded by the GOP. Romney is going to have more money than the MESSIAH himself. And any argument for campaign finance reform will fall on deaf ears. Obama and the ACORN liberals illustrated that candidates can buy elections.

Obama's approval ratings is going to fall like Jimmy Carter's. 4 and out for tax and spend stagflaters...!

You wrote: I claimed in that post that the current Republican Party is trying to incorporate two inconsistent sets of beliefs: one is the support of competition and generally freer markets, and the other is the advocacy of interventionist policies on various social issues, such as gays in military, stem cell research, or in international affairs.


To intervene or not to intervene is not the question for most of these issues (issues, by the way, about which I have mixed sentiments). The government runs the military, which has a host of regulations-- what should its policy be towards gays? The entire argument about stem cell research has been about how much the government should fund it -- advocating not funding certain kinds of research is not interventionist!

There is no disconnect between arguing for more individual and market freedom and arguing for a particular set of moral positions in cases where the government will be acting anyway.

President Obama delivered a major speech on the legal course and direction of our country.

That speech was followed by the former Vice President Cheney’s delivery of litany of excuses for their misconduct in trying to destroy our country and their continued un-American activities.

As Americans we need bring these people before our system of justice for the highest crimes committed facing criminal changes for their action and deeds in fear mongering.

These crimes will seek the death penalty, and question that would be asked before selection of a juror is whether they have any problems in a conviction that would have these people executed for crimes committed.

We look to day that a special federal grand juror passes indictments for probable cause for Bush, Cheney, and associated members of that administration being brought to justice, knowing our system of due process can hear those cases, rendering whatever verdict and punishment is necessary for crimes committed.

Roy D. Schickedanz,

You spend too much time watching Keith Olbermann. Give it a rest man...!

What is the difference if Bush holds these terrorists indefinitely at GITMO or if Obama holds them indefinitely some place else...?

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-president-obamas-speech-national-security/

"Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people."

Barack Hussein Obama

---

There is no difference at all...!!! It is just a change in rhetoric that Obama worshippers actually are naive enough to believe. The issue does not go away and it does not change. Obama is still going to detain these terrorist indefinitely, where he does it really doesn't matter.

Also, why won't Obama release all the memos on enhanced interrogation...? We all know it worked in providing information on the terrorist attack the government stopped in California. Why not allow the public to see these memos firsthand and decide for ourselves...? Let's have a real Truth Commission, not one where Nancy Pelosi makes up facts.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-dick-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei/

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Dick Cheney

Schnickedanz,

You are a whackjob liberal who spends more time watching Keith Olbermann than anything else.

The Obama justice department has already taken the position that prisoners held at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan are not entitled to any protection under the US Constitution. Whether the courts will allow that is unknown. And even if the courts do allow that, I would love to hear someone explain why it's more "ethical" or "principled" to hold a guy indefinitely in a brig in Afghanistan than in the state-of-the-art prison at Gitmo.

Obama is stuck between a BS Campaign Promise and reality. Only Obama's worshippers do not realize this. They are too brainwashed by idiots like Olbermann.

I think it would be good to decouple the question, what is the future of conservatism from the question, what is the future of the Republican party. First, the Republican party is tarred by the failures of the Bush administratio and will not emerge from that shadow in the next three to five years. Second, the successes of Obama, Dean and moveon using the Internet to raise money lead me to believe that traditional party structures and old media are not as important as before to organize people. Third, as between continuing to be linked to the anti-intellectual wing of the Republican party vs sacrificing those to create new links to independents and Democrats who become disaffected with the far left, I think it will be a more successful strategy to pursue the latter course.

The GOP demographers of the Reagan era, gave voice to the abortion nuts, the gay-marriage despisers, the flag-burning zealots. And now you're as stuck with them as you are with Reagan's Greenspan legacy.

So you've got:

1) Cheney who wants a big bombing.
2) Jindal who wants science out of the schools
3) Buchanan who wants walls
4) Notre Dame football apostates who think passing laws against something will end it.

...not too mention a decade of your anti-Clinton screeds which allowed Obama to slip into the nomination. You guys made Obama. Get that through your heads.

Principled libertarians couldn't explain economic liberalism to the minds you've polluted above in a decade of loud-mouth radio shows.

You're screwed.

Anon., do you understand the difference between Civil Law and Martial Law and their relation to the Constitution?

Criminalizing past acts? Ever heard of Ida Tarbell, T.Roosevelt, and the Sherman Antitrust Act or President Washington and the Whisky Rebellion? Clearly, you have no understanding of the uses and techniques of Interrogation and yet you pontificate on the subject as if you were the expert.

I could go on and on and on through your comments, but that would be blatant and ignorant on my part.

I agree with the distinction that you draw between Republicans and conservatives, Mark. One can certainly be both a conservative and a Republican based on the Goldwater/Reagan strain in the party or even dating back to Lincoln and disaffected Whigs who, in turn, were descendants of Federalists. I see David Brooks and, in a slightly different trend, there is Lew Lehrman who is enthralled with Alexander Hamilton. But one must be wary of this marriage of political convenience.

I see Reagan and Goldwater as philosophical descendants of Jefferson and Madison. That is why so many Southerners flocked to their candidacy so readily. Both Goldwater and Reagan were much more interested in limited, decentralized government than traditional Republicans who were still be influenced by Lincoln and other founders of the party. There has also been a slightly socially liberal streak in traditional Republicans (but nowhere near what we got later with the counter-culture in the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party--that is why the Democrats have been ruled completely out of bounds by contemporary conservatives on the national level). The Reagan wing of the Republican Party always seemed more in harmony with the implicitly agrarian/small town values that can be traced back to the founders of the Democratic Party and were still present to a large degree even in the New Deal. That is why Reagan could consistently be both a Democrat in the 1930's and later a Barry Goldwater Republican. Until very recently I voted for local Democrats rather than Republicans. I live in Texas and previously in Georgia.

I see social issues such as abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, church/state relations as proxies for this battle between cities and the country and big business and small entrepreneurs/family farmers--or stated in an even starker, more encompassing contrast it is the conflict between impersonal, depersonalizing institutions and more personal, intimate face-to-face relationships.

Even though Jefferson and Madison saw a place for commerce and believed in laissez-faire, their basic motivation was to limit those in power especially those who controlled large, dehumanizing institutions such as central government, but also banks. They were able to see the dangers of a society solely focused on money with its urbanization and attendant coarseness and depersonalization of the individual. This instinct forms the nucleus of the Republican (which became the Democratic) Party in opposition to Hamilton's vision of an urbanized, centrally guided capitalism funded by a central bank. Jefferson's predictions on what would happen to the social fabric as well as the quality of the life for the individual if we over-industrialized and over-urbanized has come to pass.

There is a dehumanizing tendency in the extreme division of labor and mass production brought about by capitalism. Adam Smith himself recognized and worried about this danger. The factory system reduces each worker to an unthinking automaton. That is why workers can be so easily replaced nowadays by literal automatons. I see such technological innovations as wholly positive by freeing people from such degrading work while increasing the total level of wealth. But a lot of people have had to suffer during the past two centuries under such working conditions and many still do today. One can see the appeal of organized labor to ameliorate these working conditions even if the reality of unions was decidedly mixed. These ways of organizing the production process have made real improvements in people's living conditions possible. But let's also be aware of the real human costs associated with the Industrial Revolution that persist today.

What is even more pernicious about the fungibility of units of labor and capital being substituted for labor is the habit of mind it inspires. We saw that frame of mind on display this week with Professor Becker's suggestion of substituting one child for another after a mother kills the first one in the womb for the sake of convenience. The flexibility of capitalism not only does not produce great works of architecture (see Tom Wolfe's *From Our House to Bauhaus*) because of the disposable, functional mindset it engenders, but it also makes human relationships (consider how people in businesses are constantly transferred all over the country ruining any semblance of stable communities) and human beings (abortion, divorce) disposable as people are always looking to trade-up in human flesh.

I was in a doctor's office today and picked up the *Wall Street Journal Magazine.* In it was a story of entrepreneurs in the mortuary business challenging the dominant big funeral homes. These innovators are offering more personalistic funerals. The woman who was featured in the story spoke of her father dying in a sterile hospital environment (another example of the factory system) and how she wanted to offer people who are mourning the loss of a loved one a more comforting, respectful, and humanizing way to bury their dead. Of course, I applaud this move in the funeral business. But the dominant business model that inspired the depersonalized, mass produced funeral comes from the older business habit of reducing everyone to cogs in a machine.

I see this element of thinking present in both the socially liberal, irreligious, pro-business, growth at all costs traditional Republican of today as well as the bureaucratic statist egalitarian sexually liberated Democrat who would make Jefferson turn in his grave.

Friedrich Hayek warned against the introduction of positivism into the social sciences for this very reason (see his *Counter-revolution of Science*) among others. Existentialist philosophers were also correct in their pointing to the dangers of positivism. Positivism is the prevailing paradigm in the economics profession, unfortunately. I once sat in a presentation at Georgia State University's Economics Department where a young job applicant delivered a paper on making childcare more efficient. She spoke of measuring the quality of childcare by how many degrees the caregiver had in psychology or some related field. It apparently did not occur to her that the most important quality in caring for a child is a genetic tie to the child and being female, in other words, being the child's mother. Positivism is part of the rational-naturalistic-economic approach that Edmund Burke poetically decried in his famous lament: "But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever." And we might add America as well.

Производство обойных работ - [URL=http://stroy-invert.ru]строительство[/URL]