Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
David Strom :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Are Americans Giving Up Their Freedom?
by David Strom
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Are Americans tiring of individual liberty?

It sure seems so. How else can you explain the proliferation of laws that regulate the most mundane aspects of our lives, and the mostly passive reaction of Americans to the ever increasing micromanagement of our lives?

Liberty has always been a tougher sell than many of us assume. We all want the freedom to do as we like, but few of us are as committed to allowing others to act contrary to our notion of right and wrong. Majorities have always sought and often found ways to impose their views upon minorities. The most vocal minorities have often been successful in imposing their will on the majority, at least for a time.

So there is nothing new about threats to Individual liberty being a daily part of our lives. What is new is that the institutional barriers to regulating our daily lives have effectively broken down. It took a Constitutional Amendment to pass prohibition of alcohol (and repeal it). Who today expects a Constitutional fight over smoking, obesity, trans-fats, or any of the myriad personal issues now under the purview of government control?

America was founded on the belief that government power should be strictly limited, because the alternative to limited power was unlimited power. The framers of the Constitution were rightly concerned that without strict institutional barriers to the expansion of government powers there would eventually be no barriers at all. Power, in any form, longs to be absolute.

Unfortunately, the concept of limited government is becoming an anachronism in today’s America.

There are no limits on what government can regulate because we have accepted the notion that there are no limits to the benefits government can and should bestow upon us. Fifty percent of health care is paid for by the government—including universal health care for all of us over 65. Your trans-fat laden donut today could mean higher taxes for me in the future. Ditto for smoking and other risky behavior.

The pervasiveness of government power over our lives is so complete that at times it becomes invisible. Today only the most obvious and egregious violations of our liberty seem to get people riled. For instance, Californians rebelled at the idea of government control over their thermostats, but Americans have in the main meekly submitted to massive social engineering in their daily lives.

Americans have made a bargain with the devil. Dispensing with the idea of limited government in realm of benefits has meant dispensing with the idea of any limits to government power at all. Once we accept the notion that government should ensure that our pursuit of happiness succeeds, we have accepted the notion that government has the right to define what a happy life should look like.

We can call this trend the encroachment of the “nanny state,” which it is, or the spread of “liberal fascism,” which it also is. But it is also the inevitable result of Americans’ increasing desire to have government guarantee that more and more aspects of our lives turn out all right.

Limiting government power requires limiting the benefits that government can bestow upon us, and right now that seems a bridge too far for some Americans. The revival of the conservative movement will not depend upon conservatives making peace with the welfare state, as some are arguing. It will depend, instead, on tapping into Americans’ uneasiness regarding the encroachments of the State into more and more aspects of our private lives.

Can conservatives succeed in convincing Americans that government benefits, and hence power, should be limited? Perhaps. But only if they remind Americans (as Barry Goldwater did) that a government big enough to give you everything you want is one big enough to take away everything you have.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

David Strom is the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. He hosts a weekly radio show on AM-1280 "The Patriot" in Minneapolis-St. Paul, available on podcast at Townhall.com.

Be the first to read David Strom's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

The Fascist on the move
The biggist threat to our freedom is being promoted by the so called conservitives. The Bush administration is pushing hard to make the Fourth Amendment an illusion in the name of "National Security". If the new FISA is allowed to pass without modification and accountablity for the telcoms and the Bush administration there will be no area in the life of the Individual that will be free of government intrusion.
As to the laws about trans fat ect. That fight is being lead by "conservitives" in New York. In fact if you look at most of the laws designed to restrict personnal freedom they have been championed by the "Conservites" the small government advicates.

IMBRA : A law that regulates romance
Its hard to believe that Congress recently passed a law that makes the act of sending a love letter a crime. I am talking about the new IMBRA law that Congress recently passed that allows the government to intervene in the courtships between American men and foreign women who use a matchmaking organization by requiring Americans (generally men) to submit extensive personal and criminal history disclosure at the matchmaking stage of the relationship and another disclosure requirement done by the American citizen petitioner at the Visa stage of the relationship.

The laws mandatory disclosure requirements represent Congress’s first attempt to regulate Communication and marriage between consenting adults. This sledge hammer approach cruedly aims to reduce violence by creating a barrier between between Anmericans who wish to date or marry a woman who lives outside the boundaries of the United States.

American democracy has become the biggest joke in the world.

Dave R.

Right
"Hardly the ideals of the nanny-state."

No, the ideals of a facist state. There are states like that exist today--Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind.


Stoic Patriot
Re: Stoic Patriot – post of 9:02 AM. where-in he lists numerous things and activities which should be Banned in his ideal “Social Conservative” Utopian State.

I agree: His list does not reflect the goals of a “Nanny State”. But it perfectly reflects life in some Mideast countries governed by Sharia Law which Ive had the misfortune to live in for several years. Apparently you prefer this and would be happier living there. Lotsa luck. LOL
The rest of us enjoy the principles upon which America was founded: the freedom to make our own choices without interference from a Fascist government.

David Strom 2/19/08
Your frivolous examples of government intrusion into the American inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is disheartening to say the least. From your picture, it looks like you might do well to get some exercise.

A spiritual battle is raging. Abortion, sexual immorality, drugs (prescription and illegal - where do we put marijuna?), materialism, youth adoration, lack of common sense, Godly wisdom, and respect for authority are rampant in our country. Those who speak out are either shouted down, ignored, or in some cases, jailed. Many states do not have the right of voters to petition their government. Those who do have the right of referendum, gather the stringent number of signatures, find their state government can refuse bonafide signatures for virtually no reason. Then, of course, we have representatives in state and federal legislatures who are their because they told us one thing, and they turn around and do whatever will give them the most reliable way of returning to office. We have to sue Planned Parenthood who not only receives our tax money but also has free legal representation. Half the USA wants God out of our country so they can feel free from any measure of guilt about their unwholesome behavior. This is not going to change. It is going to get worse because in the last days people will be lovers of themselves (isn't pornography fun), lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, . . without self control, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - having a form of godliness but denying its power. This is what God says not us.

I earnestly hope you consider our words and understand that Jesus is your only confidence in this wicked world.

Shalom

Clearly though...
Social conservatives do have their priorities. Were this a perfect world, we would not advocate for government to undertake action regulating any of the aforementioned activities because people would be moral and upstanding citizens on their own.

But these immoral behaviors or less-than-virtuous behaviors can and do occur, and so social conservatives prioritize. Of that aforementioned list (which is hardly a comprehensive one of the social conservative agenda, and not all social conservatives desire all aspects of that agenda, in fact probably none desire every aspect listed but rather some combination of individual aspects), the question boils down to "what is *the* most fundamentally important matter?" And for social conservatives, the answer to that is nearly unanimous: abortion. The rest may all be immoral conducts, but abortion undercuts *the* most fundamental right: the right to live, and exists in denial of the human status of unborn babies. Compared to the other conducts, abortion is beyond them in its depravity and wickedness by leaps and bounds. It is the genocide and atrocity perpertuated by our society, and is the single practice that everything must be dedicated to fighting. All else is to some extent, negotiable or trivial relative to it.

On freedom and liberty...
First, not every freedom is a good freedom. The ability to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and other freedoms are morally repugnant, and can and should be fought by government.

Second, government is not intrinsically evil. If you think that, go join your local anarchist movement. The question is not whether government is a force for better or worse, but *how* government ought to function that makes it a force for better or for worse.

Unlike what the Engineer would suggest, social conservative do not want a nanny-state. A nanny is someone who takes care of you and provides for you. Generally social conservatives want a governmental force that crushes and eliminates immoral conduct. They support a disciplinary-state, not a nanny-state.

Consider many of the following social conservative positions:

- Ban drugs
- Reinstate prohibition
- Criminalize adultery & fornication/promiscuity
- Ban smut, pornography, and other tawdry/obscene material from the public and/or private square
- Ban lewd content and profanity from public airwaves
- Ban in-vitro fertilization, "outsourced pregnancy," designer defects in babies (deliberately inducing deafness, blindness, etc) and other "factory baby" practices
- Ban divorce, implement and make all marriages covenant marriages
- Ban abortion
- Ban cloning
- Ban genetic engineering
- Ban daycare
- Eliminate sex-ed or make sex-ed programs promote abstinence
- Encourage interdependent marriages (e.g. man works, woman is the housekeeper)
- Employ the death penalty against murderers
- Enforce the law
- Reinstitute corporal punishment for some offenses less than murder but greater than say, tax evasion (e.g. assault)
- Ban gossip amounting to defamation of character, slander, or libel

Hardly the ideals of the nanny-state.

Canadian programming?
Lilly, I've seen a fair amount of Canadian TV programming for teens and apparently you weren't watching the popular programs -- like, DeGrassi. My daughter and I use that program all the time to discuss what teens "shouldn't" do with their lives. She does tell me, however (I haven't been able to catch these episodes myself) that there are a couple of ongoing Christian characters who are treated with respect and shown actually acting like Bri thinks Christian teens should act. There have even been a couple of "crisis of faith" episodes that she appreciated it. However, for the most part, we agree the characters on DeGrassi would end up in jail, drug treatment or living on the streets if they made those same bad choices in real life.

SteveL
RE: The question in your post of 9:41 AM.

Yes.

Minor Correction
"Unfortunately, the concept of limited government is becoming an anachronism in today’s America."

Should read:

"Unfortunately, the concept of limited government long ago became an anachronism in America."


Otherwise, a very nice column.

Oh and JDW
JDW wrote:

"I want to live in a certain kind of society."

Move to China, Iran or Saudi Arabia, you can be sure not to see any "naughty" things on TV there. Or the DPRK, you won't have enough electric power per day to watch much TV--if you are lucky enough to live in the capital--if your TV uses too much, you'll be sent out into the boonies where there is no electric power at all. So no TV, no nudity on TV, no movies, life will be perfect. Say hi to the Dear Leader for me. He watches porn though I am told, is that a problem?


Liberty
JDW:

I think going to a movie is a done on your own free will and your TV does have controls that allow you to turn it off or switch to other channels. You also can block these offending channels. Oh and you have no right not to be offended.

You can burn a cross on your land, but since the symbol has been seen as a terroristic threat, you are not free to burn one where it can be seen by others for the purpose of threatening them. So JDW do you have a desire to burn one? Seems you could have picked a different example, no? Are you a member of the Klan? Oh. I think most LP members would support your right to burn a cross on your land. There are many things illegal now that the LP and its members would oppose. The government telling us we have to wear seat belts or helmets or can't smoke in a bar.

How exactly does prostitution hurt children and has your laws against it stopped the practice or simply made it more dangeorus?

Mark, the deal with my name? Oh people making stupid comments like..."you are just like your name sake, in flames and at the bottom of the sea." So since idiots are so interested in my name I have compiled a rebuttle to those that bring it up in hopes of educating them.

Zapdoodat - I dunno
"Then why does FoxNews always parade out Tom Delay as some spokesman for the Conservatives.
"

I dunno.. why does Fox news keep supporting McCain?

SteveL - Robert Goddard
"Who do you think established the goal of America's Moon landing? JFK, a liberal."

Yes, that's why I curse JFK. JFK made his big speech and died. And what did the liberals do? They masturbated over the space program until we got to the moon. Totally ignoring the real reasons for going to the moon. Once we landed, that'd be Apollo 11, 1969, public interest dropped so far that the Apollo 13 crew's broadcast from space was pre-empted for reruns.

JFK's interest was in beating the Russians to the moon, not exploiting the moon.

zapdoodat - clueless
"You're a Marxist and know nothing of the dreaded free market's benefit by touting a BIG government, high spending program.

For you, 'let the state own the means of production' turns into 'let the state own the means of R&D.'"

Wrong. I never said that the state should own the means of R&D or anything like that.

There is no reason why the federal gov't cannot engage in expensive R&D. That doesn't mean private enterprises can't.

The Delta Clipper, the ground-to-orbit system I favor, was not a gov't project, for example.

But if the gov't could do everything as well as it did the Apollo program, I'd have no objection to the gov't doing everything. Because it did Apollo well.

Private enterprise would never have engaged the Apollo program, just as Columbus couldn't find investors until Isabella of Spain hocked her jewels.

Freedom for Sale
Our freedom is not being lost, our freedom is being sold in exchange for convenience, comfort, and security.

We've forgotten what it means to be human beings, with responsibilies to go along with rights. Babies are killed in the womb because we can not keep sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage where it belongs. Our children are lost because of broken marriages and lack of moral standards. We've become greedy and status symbol oriented.

We've given up responsibility for our own lives:
We rely on government to protect us from illness, unemployment, old age instead of planning ahead.
We rely on government to tell us what we can and can not put into our bodies, instead of informing ourselves about what is best for us.
We rely on government to protect our homes, instead of arming ourselves against those who would do us harm.

This reliance on the government comes at a terrific price: the loss of the liberty bought at such a great price by those who came before us.

SteveL - and you know why
"When Fred Thompson opposed Federal action on marriage because he properly said that issue belongs to the states, social conservatives instantly jumped on him for it; and that's why they went with Huckabee instead.
"

And we jumped on him because there's a little clause in the Constitution that says one State has to acknowledge the papers and proceedings of the others.

So if Massachusetts decides to create "gay marriage" and issues licenses... Oklahoma has to acknowledge that travesty.

So it's not a State issue.

In the land of milk and honey
Where love flows down chocolate rivers, and everyone acts precisely as the liberal / communist idealist expects them to behave, there are no laws....

"Whose rights are being violated if they film themselves and sell the film to other consenting adults?"


Whose rights are being violated if I burn a giant cross in my front yard and hang nooses from the trees? Why, nobody's... and yet, people going past, innocent people who don't want that kind of garbage in their neighborhood, have to put up with it.

The thing is, no longer to sex-obsessed perverts film sex acts and pass them around in back rooms and view them in darkened bedrooms. They put that crap right on the tv and in "mainstream" theatres.

I have to be careful flipping channels anymore, because I'll go past a variety of materials I don't want to have to view... and they aren't restricted to certain channels so I can block them.
The most specious claim that can be made in any society of people is the idea that people's actions have no effect on the society as a whole.

I want to live in a certain kind of society. Whose hurt by prostitutes? Spouses and children.
And with the increased acceptance of sex as a commodity, you get younger generations trivilizing sexual encounters.

So tell me, if a mother gives her 3 year old kid to a doctor to take into the privacy of his home, and sucks his brains out , hey, who in society is hurt?

All of us are, just as when a a female has her unborn child murdered.

Paint it any way you want, Akagi: your "libertarianism" is nothing more than a dedication to an escape from responsibility.


GOP
JDW:

John C. Fremont (a explorer of the west) was and it was 1854. Made up of northern Whigs, northern Democrats, Free Soilers and various other anti-slavery parties.


H.L. Menken said that:...
..."Americans have an appetite for bogus revelation.

I would add that American voters and politicians have an insatiable desire for "Placebo Legislation". (ref: "myopine2") Laws regarding any issue that do nothing to improve the problem(s) that these laws are directed toward. Many times these ill-conceived laws just makes the problem(s) worse.

Because
The LP doesn't support anarchy, it supports limited government. Drugs are bad, the drug war has been worse, in the states where prostitution is illegal, there is still prostitution and 50% or more of these sex workers have HIV. In the 15 counties in Nevada where it is legal, there are no STDs among its sex workers. Whose rights are being violated if two adults want to consent and have sex with each other? Whose rights are being violated if they film themselves and sell the film to other consenting adults?

The LP doesn't believe in no government, but rather limited government. Government should be in power to protect its citizens from enemies domestic and foreign--thus a police and an army, it needs to build roads, ports and the like, create a currency, courts to resolve disputes between parties, but nothing else. Basically just the conditions to foster a market economy. Taxes would be low, services as well.

The US will never get to this point. People in the US want to be taken care of by government and both liberals and "conservatives" attack freedom on a daily basis. "Conservatives" talk a good game about freedom--but when homosexuals, porn, drugs, other religions come into play--they have no more regard from freedom than the liberals they oppose. As I said, the same enemy, just attacking on different flanks.


Spot on David!
The next question is what will be the modern American literary and state sponsored equivalent of "Sieg Heil!"

Freedom and Prosperity
Welcome to the Ron Paul Revolution as your article taps into one of the primary motivations for this movement. The ideas are important and will find another messenger in time. But let's hope we don't wait too long.

smoking
In Iowa the dems control the legislature and they voted to not allow cafes,bars smoking.However they exempted some clubs and the gambling casinos.Looks to me that the casinos bought these clowns off and to cover thier leftists rears they included clubs that some people aren't allowed in..

The Acid Test
The acid test for whether you believe in liberty and limited government is this:

Would you accept severe limitations on your OWN political power, and on the success of your OWN political causes?

Because I've seen liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc., all preaching about "liberty" and "freedom" and "First Amendment"--and then AFTER they win an election and take office, they become just as power-hungry and contemptuous of limited power as their political opponents.

McCain and Ron Paul, to their credit, actually have opposed pork going to their own constituents and districts, even though it might increase their own popularity. But how many other politicians will take a "No Pork" pledge?

Lilly has a point. It's easy for conservatives to be against Federal regulation of the economy. But will they also oppose sodomy laws and Federal Defense of Marriage Acts with equal vigor?

Will they oppose FCC "decency" regulation of the airwaves (a.k.a. government censorship)?

Will they oppose the licensing of gambling casinos, Internet gambling, etc., on moral grounds, or allow it because the public and free market have freely made those choices?

And what about the power of the government to make war? Will conservatives say once and for all that no American President has the right to take this nation into war against a foreign power without Congressional authorization? That was the original intent of the Framers, you know. They did NOT want the President to be a sovereign who could declare war on his own authority.

See? It's easy to oppose the Government excesses of the political opposition--liberals and Democrats. It's a lot harder to stand up to our OWN impulses to accrete power to OURSELVES whenever we can.

All or Nothing - fear tactics
There is no in-between. Either you play by my rules or I will take my ball and go home to mommy - the conservative mantra......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/01/ann-coulter-mccain-ha nnity-clinton/

for lilly
Lilly writes: "The same right-wingers who become hysterical over helmet laws and no-smoking ordinances have no qualm about wanting a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion and get into the private lives of homosexuals."

NOT TRUE.
Conservatives do NOT march in lock-step, despite what liberals like you think of us.

The social conservatives you refer to, ARE more comfortable with Big Government, so long as that Big Government uses its power to promote so-called "Christian values."

When Fred Thompson opposed Federal action on marriage because he properly said that issue belongs to the states, social conservatives instantly jumped on him for it; and that's why they went with Huckabee instead.

I'm an economic conservative who really does believe in limited government, Lilly. I do *NOT* support sodomy laws, or Defense of Marriage Acts, or Federal bans on abortion. And I was absolutely appalled at the Terri Schaivo fiasco. I don't go around wondering what my neighbors are doing on Saturday night and I certainly don't want my Government caring a whit about that.

And if you put aside Huckabee's social conservatism, you find that in economic and foreign policy, he was quite moderate, liberal even.

Those are NOT my beliefs.

Prior to 1968, the Democratic Party used to have this same problem--holding together an unwieldy coalition of Northern liberals and conservative Southern Democrats (the Dixiecrats). Now the descendants of those Dixiecrats are Republicans--and maintaining a coalition with them has become OUR problem.

for jdw
jdw writes: "I didn't even get into all the R&D NASA does that's not even related to spaceflight."

The Government could have spent that same money on ANY type of scientific research and probably gotten just as many spin-offs from it, if not more.

Project Apollo cost the equivalent of $150 billion in today's dollars. Think what spinoffs might have resulted if we had spent that money on cancer research or genetic engineering.

Engineers and scientists are creative people. That's why universities pay them to teach there and do research there: Just give scientists free money, whether it's grants from NASA or NIH or DoE or anywhere else, and they'll probably do interesting things with it.

But you can't justify the existence of NASA or NIH or DoE by the cash grants they hand out.

for jdw
jdw writes: "Idiot liberals like Zapdoodat like to believe that the Apollo program was a waste of taxpayer dollars, a boondoggle. Conservatives know better."

Do they?

Who do you think established the goal of America's Moon landing? JFK, a liberal.

Who do you think kept it going? LBJ, another liberal.

Who canceled the last 3 Apollo missions and effectively ended manned space exploration? Nixon, a conservative.

Nixon looked at places to cut the Federal budget. He decided that after the Moon landing, nobody would care much if NASA's budget got slashed. So that's what he did.

BTW, I remember when Ayn Rand's Objectivists denounced the NASA space program as a Government boondoggle.

He who governs best...
governs least.

Do the math
zap: "Are we nuts? Unless we want to get totally smoked in hi-tech and lose to China, Japan, the rest of Asia and Europe then reliving this dream is a big mistake and will surely send us over the precipice"
-------------------------------
Every dollar we invest in pure research yields five to seven dollars in benefits. Our lunar program yielded phenomenal returns.

We don't put enough into pure scientific research. Not by a long shot.

Stick your Bible where the sun don't....
Liberty Man: "Lilly, you seem to confuse abortion with sex. Pro-lifers like myself have no interest in "running people's sex lives". The contention isn't over a 'woman's choice' but over the 'life of a baby'. I understand abortion is the taking of an innocent life. You do not (or refuse to). Under the Constitution, no person may be deprived of life without due process. Unborn children do not get a court hearing before they are executed."
-------------------------------
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

For good or ill, the Constitution extends no legal protection to the "lives" of fertilized zygotes. They are not, and never have been, "persons" under the law. And frankly, that is probably the way it should be. Until you can come up with a means of contraception which is perfectly safe, perfectly effective, and doesn't infringe unduly on personal liberty, there is no reason why abortion should not be an option for those who don't want or can't have children. If pregnancy is a condition that cannot be remedied, you are running others' sex lives. Stop lying like a Christian, LM.

While I realize that most of your children have Down's syndrome or worse (Rick Santorum's was anencephalic, which made it a perfect Huckabee supporter), I find the concept of your being able to dictate when a woman is forced to give birth offensive to the concept of ordered liberty. As the Apostle Paul said, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. God forbid that someone might do what you don't approve of.

jdw
"we need to develop reusable intra-lunar and interplanetary spacecraft, generic and modular in design so they can be mass produced and reused. We need to develop better means to orbit, such as the Delta Clipper."

For what purpose? To mine iron at one billion dollars a pound and then sell it on the free market?

With all due respect, are you a Lunar-tic???

JD's son
"This was proven by the House Study on Scientific Advancements and the report, dated June 14, 1999, is on file with the Smithsonian Institute."

Who would ever dream that some big government think tank would rubber stamp a BIG government, BIG spending project.

It's like PRAVDA spouting that the USSR is the freest, most democratic country in the world.

Liberty (except for the mother) first
"I understand abortion is the taking of an innocent life. You do not (or refuse to). Under the Constitution, no person may be deprived of life without due process. Unborn children do not get a court hearing before they are executed."

Fine.

Convict the cells of theft of the mother's nutrients. If they won't stop, remove them from the scene of the crime.

Capitalism versus Capitalism
Look at how microprocessors, personal computers, mp3 and DVD players, digital cameras, HDTV's and all consumer products have gotten cheaper and a lot better the past 30 years. This is a result of free markets were there are winners and losers in the dreaded free market.

Now take a look at the space shuttle program where for the past 25 years we've done the same thing over and over and over and spend a $100 billion doing it.
We've performed the 1723 experiment on the effect of weightlessness on human beings. Big Deal.

Now, some people want to spend $100's of billions going back to the moon and then on to Mars. All of this money to relive the dream from 40 years ago.

Are we nuts? Unless we want to get totally smoked in hi-tech and lose to China, Japan, the rest of Asia and Europe then reliving this dream is a big mistake and will surely send us over the precipice.




elong: Reform?
"What I'm saying is that the Libertarians stand a much greater chance of reforming the Republican Party from within than they do by being a terciary (sp) party on the sidelines with absolutely no juice at all."

I think this is true. The mindset--even in the "moderate" democrats I know--is that the government can and will solve most problems. That is VERY hard to overcome.

PS It's "tertiary."

Akagi: Libertarians
"The LP has as many problems with the GOP as it does with the DP."

True. But.

I have been of the opinion that if I retain enough of my commercial freedoms (i.e. get rich), I can buy enough of my civil liberties to be happy, and as a consequence have held my nose, stuffed a fist in my mouth to keep the barf down, and voted republican.

This strategy was reasonably successful in that the republicans--once in power--have tended to ignore the "social conservatives" (i.e. christofascists), and spent less than I fear the democrats would have.

In the last eight years, however, this strategy has gone to hell. Republicans (let alone Bush) have spent more I than I could have imagined. I cannot think of a single program that has been cut. Bush has not ignored the christofascists. He has killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden.

Our only hope is that McCain does not pander to the christofascists by getting a VP like Wannabee. If he does, I'll have to vote for--the thought is sickening--Hillary.

jdw
"We've REJECTED liberal Republicans like Bush and McCain".

Then why does FoxNews always parade out Tom Delay as some spokesman for the Conservatives.

In 2005, he yelled out "There is no fat in the budget!" Tom deserves an award as the biggest spender in the world, EVER!

Origins of conservatism…

‘Can conservatives succeed in convincing Americans that government benefits, and hence power, should be limited? - David Strom

Thank you, Mr. Strom. You have given us the most significant article and asked the most probing question we have ever seen at TH.

Have you ever had the feeling of knowing something was true and significant, but were unable to convince anyone else? Have you ever read the prophet Jeremiah? Knowing that destruction was coming he was unable to convince his people of the remedy. Rather than listen they ridiculed him and sought to silence him.

We live in days not unlike the days of Jeremiah. Our country has enjoyed great blessing because our forefathers built on a foundation of revealed truth. We once had a consensus of the righteousness of God’s Law regarding morality. We instituted policies set to restrain the sinful nature of men.

Today there is no agreement on the most fundamental law of the land. The purpose of government to insure the right to life is trodden under foot. If there is no consensus here, then what hope is there for liberty? We have exchanged love of life and liberty for a vain hope of personal happiness and prosperity.

Sodomy used to be the unspoken sin. Today our culture would normalize sexual perversion of every stripe. Those who speak against it are considered the perverse. Do not be deceived; the culture will struggle for whatever is contrary to the Law of God.

There is but one force powerful enough to stand against this degeneracy and recover what has been lost. It is NOT conservatism, because conservatism is derived from first principles. We must first recover the first principles before we can begin to recover the love of liberty that was common among the Founders.

Continued on blog...

jdw
You're a Marxist and know nothing of the dreaded free market's benefit by touting a BIG government, high spending program.

For you, 'let the state own the means of production' turns into 'let the state own the means of R&D.'

Fidel Castro stills has his admirers in jdw. You Sir, should be ashamed of yourself!

I have had enough....
No more is the Bush administration going to lead the USA based on fear and threats toward americans. I am sick of hearing vote for me or the country will get attacked. support my beliefs unconditionally and without question or you are unpatriotic. This type of leading is unacceptable today. Americans deserve a President who is honest, trustworthy, and uses sound judgment. George Bush leads based on instilling fear into american hearts and minds, and attacks those same americans when they question his decision making.

No more America! It is time to continue the change. Elect Obama to President. More Democrats to Congress. Hopefully, with a true majority in congress can democrats accomplish what the american people elected them to do. If not, then they will get voted out of office...and eventually, hopefully america will rid themselves of the corrupt politicians that have been living beyond their means for far too long.

We have approached
the point where more than 50% of the population receives gov't largesse in some form. Good luck trying to convince these folks to give up their freebees.

Brilliant, true, and damned scary . . .
This guy hits the nail on the head. Why do we give up our liberty? because nobody knows what it IS anymore. Think that schools teach it? NO WAY! They are too busy teaching the evils that have been historically perpetuated by the privileged white male elites to talk about things like divided govt. and the founders (who after all, are just DEAD freaking white men, right? Ha, ha, ha . . . )

Good news on this end is that I am saving up to move out of this country. While it may be at least AS free as most others, too see the decline is too heartbreaking. It could of course be LESS free than others.

Frankly, I just don't give a flip anymore. You people want to sell out? Do you know what hyperinflation looks like? How about socialized health care (try waiting 4 weeks just to SEE your MD for a first visit). Hey, wanna give up your guns?

Then great. Enjoy. I'll be retired on a Carribean island because I saved like hell, bought gold, and decided to take action.

Robert
No I haven't.

The developments in medicine thanks to Apollo alone would pay for many such projects.


Robert, I will refrain from ad-hominem comments about your mentality. But you have no idea how much/little NASA propoganda I've been exposed to, nor my sources for my opinion.


I didn't even get into all the R&D NASA does that's not even related to spaceflight.

I hope everyone will vote for freedom
The statists have taken over both the left AND the right. PLEASE embrace freedom and get rid of the nanny-staters this November.

For example, we don't need the government to protect of from the freedom to play poker on the Internet. It's time to take a stand. I wrote a guide, at http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_artic le.php?DID=237 . We need more Republicans to stand for freedom. Please write to your Congressman. A pro-freedom site has an automailer, at http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/issues/alert/?alert id=10418046&type=co . Check it out.

Social conservative nanny-staters
Outstanding article!

Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family and many of the other nanny-stater CINOs have moved from protecting traditional values from big government to trying to legislate traditional (and other) values via big government. The backlash against this from freedom-loving people who don't believe our values come from the government, including many Christians, has been considerable.

For example, Focus on the Family has worked to ban Internet poker, when gaming (especially skill-based gaming) isn't even mentioned as a sin in the Bible. I enjoy playing a fun game of poker after work. There’s nothing immoral or sinful about it. Seems Dobson is inventing his own values, based on things that "sound" Christian-like to him. Well, many people don't see this as a legitimate function of the Federal government. Freedom-lovers everywhere are pushing back.

It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes.

So, just say no to nanny-staters like the Huckster (who's clinging to minute 14 of his 15 minutes of fame) and Dobson.

Giving Up Freedoms
Why do people get married? If you ever have to
give up freedoms, it is when you get married.

And sometimes it can be irritating to give them
up. And sometimes those within the marriage
demand too much "togetherness." But there is
so much to be gained in a good marriage and that is why we do it. It is why we create families.

Fill in the blanks from there.

Apollo MADE money
Idiot liberals like Zapdoodat like to believe that the Apollo program was a waste of taxpayer dollars, a boondoggle. Conservatives know better.

Most of the technology the world enjoys today can be traced back to NASA R & D to one degree or another.

Add a question to the list Zapdoodat
"Wasn't it George Bush and the Republican Congress that actually increased entitlement spending?

Wasn't it George Bush and the Republican Congress that doubled the size of the Department of Education?

Who bloated out pork-barrel spending from 3,000 to 14,000 projects? (All in a time of war, mind you?)"


Add this question: "Wasn't it the conservatives in the Republican party who refused to support the incumbents in 2006 for all the reasons you just cited?

We've REJECTED liberal Republicans like Bush and McCain. Rail away all you want against Republicans, looks like they're going to be nothing but Democrat-lites. But don't even think to pretend that real conservatives support that crap.

I do.

"Who thinks it's wise to spend our valuable R&D dollars on going to the Moon and Mars again?"

As the Apollo program was the one thing the U.S. government has done since the Constitution to promote the general welfare of Americans, I think it should be MANDATORY that the U.S. further fund NASA. Just get some rational control of NASA; instead of focussing on making sure every minority is represented in space, we need to develop reusable intra-lunar and interplanetary spacecraft, generic and modular in design so they can be mass produced and reused. We need to develop better means to orbit, such as the Delta Clipper. We need to establish solar power satellites, lunar colonies, and unmanned interplanetary tankers that could one day, ferry Titan petrochemicals back to Earth orbit.

Quick question lostinwilderness
When was the Republican party created, and who was their first candidate? (okay that's two quick questions...)


The answers are NOT: 1980 and Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Give it a rest. Reagan is not our JFK or Jesus Christ Superstar.

Bravo
The one complaint I have with this essay is that it ignores conservative socialism. When conservatives vote to give taxpayer dollars to faith based charities, they're voting for conservative socialism.

And what we've seen during the Bush administration is there's not an iota of difference between liberal socialism and conservative socialism. Neither ideology cares about freedom. Neither ideology cares about the individual. And both ideologies are destroying America.

Ronald Reagan understood that libertarianism was the the foundation of America. I just wish all those conservatives who pay lip service to Ronald Reagan would actually go back and listen to him and follow his vision. Ronald Reagan recognized that government was too big and intrusive in 198, and he was right. Therefore we have to reduce the size and scope of government to pre-1980 levels.

But I won't hold my breath for a conservative to actually support Reagan with more than just lip service.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

Freedom = 2 + 2
"Freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4".

But we're not allowed to say that anymore. We haven't been since the forces of PC started assaulting us right after WWII. We're not supposed to say homosexuals are sick and in need of help, not if we truly believe it We're not supposed to say that abortion is murder, that violence in movies is NOT the same as sex in movies. We're not supposed to say that the cult of equality is just that; a cult. We're not supposed to say that "Global Warming" is just another assault on the human species by those pathetic members of the species who loathe themselves through the rest of us.

Freedom is NOT disarmament. Freedom is not escape from responsibility (through abortion or welfare or drug abuse).

Freedom is NOT anarchy.

Silly people
"Libertarians support the repeal of all laws related to sexual activity between consenting adults, repeal of control substances laws, legalization of prostitution, elimination of the FCC and let the market decide what people get to watch and hear, allow anyone to cross the US border and live and work in the US as long as they obey US law, withdrawing all troops from outside the US, elimination of all tariffs and import duties, abortion, legal with no restrictions, gay marriage (the state should be out of the marriage business altogether), among others."

Why not just call it the "anarchist" party?

Lilly:
"The same right-wingers who become hysterical over helmet laws and no-smoking ordinances have no qualm about wanting a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion and get into the private lives of homosexuals"

I can live without a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion; one shouldn't even be necessary.

Are YOU willing to live without laws regarding murder? Are YOU willing to live without laws regarding equality for all Americans?

Point out ONCE when we right-wingers legislated anything to do with the "private lives" of sexual deviants? The problem isn't our interest in their PRIVATE lives; the problem is with their PUBLICITY of what they should keep private. Marriage, on the other hand is very public. And homosexuals can engage in marrigae just like heterosexuals, providing they meet the same requirements.


Bad news
for members of the so called "Democratic" party

Your fine candidates don't even trust you to pick your own candidates.

Not satisfied with badgering super delegates, they are now hustling pledged delegates to switch allegiances.

Too bad that they think you are that stupid.

who are the socialististas?
Didn't Rudy G. want some kind of 'Catastrophe Fund' when he was campaigning in Florida? If people want a 5000 square foot beach front McMansion shouldn't they take on the risk and not the taxpayer?

We pay $3 billion/year in cotton subsidies, mostly to wealthy Texans, who in turn ship their cotton to China. Why is the US taxpayer subsidizing manufacturing in China?
Are not these wealth redistribution plans?

Didn't Ronald Reagan say "Social Security shall not be touched" and isn't this a "cradle to grave" mentality,"

Who signed the "No Child Left Behind" Act and who was in control of the Congress at the time?




elong writes: "What bothers me"


"... Democrats try to control our behavior through the redistribution of wealth and the "cradle to grave" mentality,"

Yes, the dems want to control our behavior... as socialists.


"Republicans approach ... taking away our freedoms in the the name of safety (the national ID scam is the best example of this)."

Exactly what "freedom" would be taken away by a Nat'l. ID Card, or Voter ID Card?

Sadly, such tamper proof ID is becoming more and more necessary to PROTECT us from illegal aliens and al Qaeda.

I take it that you've not had your soc sec number used illegally by an illegal alien, or your credit ruined because of it.

And of course, you know you've had your phone calls tapped! If you do, you must know that you've been talking to a terrorist overseas. Good luck with that!



Maybe we need to start putting these things in perspective.





Lilly
"The same right-wingers ... have no qualm about wanting a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion and get into the private lives of homosexuals."

Lilly, you seem to confuse abortion with sex. Pro-lifers like myself have no interest in "running people's sex lives". The contention isn't over a 'woman's choice' but over the 'life of a baby'. I understand abortion is the taking of an innocent life. You do not (or refuse to). Under the Constitution, no person may be deprived of life without due process. Unborn children do not get a court hearing before they are executed.

I think not...
"Can conservatives succeed in convincing Americans that government benefits, and hence power, should be limited?"

No, because I don't think that's of utmost concern to most conservatives. Using government for their own authoritarian purposes is, and freedom be damned. Conservatives are too scatter shot in their beliefs to be effective. They don't even have any real influence on the Republican party, hence, G.W. Bush and John McCain.

Are Republicans really small government?
Wasn't it George Bush and the Republican Congress that actually increased entitlement spending?

Wasn't it George Bush and the Republican Congress that doubled the size of the Department of Education?

Who bloated out pork-barrel spending from 3,000 to 14,000 projects? (All in a time of war, mind you?)

Who receives the vast majority of the $35 billion in farm subsides every year?

Who thinks it's wise to spend our valuable R&D dollars on going to the Moon and Mars again? A robot went 25 years ago to Mars and took pictures. The space shuttle is just a big government program that has been doing the same thing, over and over, for the past 25 years.
Wouldn't tax credits to small and medium sized hi-tech companies give a bigger bang for the buck?













Lilly--we still have a say
The alternative is, for those who care, to discuss and debate the topic, and then make a conscious decision to not watch certain programming. Although I agree that it is market driven, the Hollywood types are creating these shows with their values reflected. Rather than reject it, we end up watching it or letting our kids watch it because there is nothing else on.
We do not need government TV. We need parents to care about this again, and to start turning off the TV. There are plenty of non-profit groups out there that can create programs with Morals.

GOP
As I see it, freedom is attacked on two sides. On the right by the theocratic authoritarians who attack personal freedom and on the left by the democratic socialists who attack economic freedom and in some cases they attack jointly on both sides.

While the LP will have no chance at reforming the Dems, they will have no chance at reforming the GOP either and they have no chance at ever winning as a 3rd party. So I guess you a few choices...support the Dems and let your economic freedom be stolen, the GOP and have your personal freedom stolen, vote for the LP in a futile protest vote, not vote at all or simply call it a day and get your passport ready and say what Eric Cartman says "S, you guys...."

And Yes, Lily, the DP is as bad as the GOP--they just attack freedom from a different side--they are just a different flank of the same enemy.


A must read book which
goes into further detail on Strom's column:
"The Nanny State" by David Harsanyi.

elong, you are right in that both parties are engaging in this type of nannyist control. The above mentioned book discusses this as well.
Until I had read it I had thought several of these nanny laws (like smoking bans) were a good thing. I now see that they are not.

Also, a Republican Mississippi legislator has just introduced a bill that would force food establishments to refuse to serve obese people, and then must "educate" these same fat people
on the dangers/prevention of obesity.
You can read further about this in the TH column by Walter Williams. http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/02 /13/theyre_coming_after_you

Lilly
You write:"So we have commercial motives deciding what our kids see."

WRONG! Parents should be deciding what our kids see! Period. Not the gov't!

Those commercial motives you disdainfully refer to create A LOT of jobs for A LOT of hard working people out there. Guess what? No commercial motives means A LOT FEWER JOBS!

Akagi
What I'm saying is that the Libertarians stand a much greater chance of reforming the Republican Party from within than they do by being a terciary (sp) party on the sidelines with absolutely no juice at all.

Reagan changed the direction of the Republican Party from within....not by running as a 3rd Party Candidate.

How many members of the Libertarian Party are in Congress? Exactly. None.

Lilly, you know the Dems are just as guilty of robbing us of our freedoms as anyone else. Their support of the welfare state proves it.

Andrew
We get the entertaining crap on TV because our system is market-driven and people would rather be entertained than taught. I could not agree with you more that most of what is on American TV targeted for teenagers is inappropriate and teaches terrible values. But here is the alternative, and no Republican I know would sit still for it: while visiting Canada I saw excellent programming for adolescents and older children, 30-minute dramas in which the kid was facing some kind of dilemma, considered alternatives, and then chose the wise one, with many little moral lessons explained along the way. That was a government program. It was specifically designed by government employees to teach the right lessons to kids (tell the truth, obey your parents, don't cheat on a test, be kind to your little sister etc). Can you imagine if the government tried that here? So we have commercial motives deciding what our kids see.

Why? A: Public Schools
Ok, I should say the "American Education System" and not just public schools. How many students learn the Constitution mandates limited government? How many students incorrectly learn "the President runs the country"?

If our teacher's can't get it right, can we wonder why the students don't know it?

Government Control?
The same right-wingers who become hysterical over helmet laws and no-smoking ordinances have no qualm about wanting a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion and get into the private lives of homosexuals. And it was Republican Tom DeLay who called Congress back to Washington on a Sunday night so they could use Congressional clout to intervene between a patient's family and her physician.

When Republicans become serious about "getting the government off America's back" they can abandon their rabid pursuit of running people's medical and sex lives.

The LP
Elong writes:

"But what if the Libertarian Party went away and ALL defected to the Republican Party."

Why would they do this? The GOP is no less anti-Libertarian than the Dems are--the GOP just attacks freedom from a different flank.

Libertarians support the repeal of all laws related to sexual activity between consenting adults, repeal of control substances laws, legalization of prostitution, elimination of the FCC and let the market decide what people get to watch and hear, allow anyone to cross the US border and live and work in the US as long as they obey US law, withdrawing all troops from outside the US, elimination of all tariffs and import duties, abortion, legal with no restrictions, gay marriage (the state should be out of the marriage business altogether), among others.

Does this sound like a platform the GOP could support? Does the GOP sound like a warm and cozy home for LP members? The LP has as many problems with the GOP as it does with the DP.


Hitchhiker
You make a great point and I understand that there is a libertarian wing of the Republican Party. But what if the Libertarian Party went away and ALL defected to the Republican Party. That may give them (us) significantly more clout. Maybe as much as the social conservatives. That's my point. Right now, you're right. There are too few libertarians in the party right now to stop what has already gone on.

housewar
Ever notice that everyone just clams up whenever Ron Paul brings up the Constitution. I don't agree with him on foreign affairs either, but you can't argue with his interpretation of the Constitution.

elong
writes, "The only chance that Libertarians have to make a real difference and fight for the freedoms that are flying out the window is to do it from within one of the major parties. I would prefer they infiltrate the Republican Party, but beggars can't be choosers"

We have been and are infiltrating the republican party. We are the only reason the party has not moved further left than it already has. We are too few though to staunch the flood. The social conservatives outnumber us by far and are only too eager to see their concepts of moral values instituted by the federal government. They want to legislate what goes on in the bedroom. The liberals want to legislate what goes on in commerce. The few, the proud, the libertarians just want to be left alone but, we will never be left alone. The greater good demands that we be regulated by the right then the left then the right etc. etc.

It is sad
It's sad that the interstate commerce clause now allows the government free reign over our lives. It's sad that the Republican Party seems totally disinterested in reducing the size and scope of the federal government. It's sad that the only candidate that would really restore limited government, Ron Paul, is either totally ignored by the conservative party and conservative media, or is somehow labeled a populist (?!) by Paul Greenburg. I'm not saying you have to think the guy can win, neither could Tancredo or Hunter, neither can Huckabee, but at least give the guy the time of day so that the bedrock of conservative ideology can at least see the light of day. I can understand that folks think he's a nutter on foreign policy (I don't agree with him either), but as often as we say, "None of the candidates really stand for..." (limited government, reduced spending, individual liberty, controlled borders, strict constitutionalism, federalism, etc.), we can at least tip our hat to the one guy that does.

What bothers me
is that both parties are complicit in this. While Democrats try to control our behavior through the redistribution of wealth and the "cradle to grave" mentality, Republicans approach it a bit differently by taking away our freedoms in the the name of safety (the national ID scam is the best example of this).

The Libertarians, unfortunately are misguided in their effort to exploit these abuses. For some time I felt that this "other" party had a real opportunity. I stand corrected. The only chance that Libertarians have to make a real difference and fight for the freedoms that are flying out the window is to do it from within one of the major parties. I would prefer they infiltrate the Republican Party, but beggars can't be choosers.

Why? Cable & Satellite TV
We are fat, happy, stupid & most importantly, entertained. The schools do not teach the importance of the American Revolution. Rather, they teach that Jefferson was a slave holder, so his ideas must be disregarded. They fail to understand how truly revolutionary our system of government was and is. It is taken for granted.
There is then the disconnect between then and now, as well as the importance to hold to the principles this country was founded upon.
This ignorance is coupled with our entertainment culture. Movies, cable, satellite keeps us disengaged and fosters ignorance as to what is going on politically. Rather than watch a debate, or open a book and read Locke, Voltaire, etc., we allow ourselves to delve into the Simpsons, MTV, professional wrestling, soap operas, etc. I believe the more stations we get, the more rights we will be willing to give up.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.