What's the Matter with Kansas State Sen. Kay O'Connor?

The redoubtable Mrs. O is running for Kansas secretary of state. Her most interestin' policy pronouncement came a few years back. From an AP story:

In 2001, O'Connor received national attention for her remarks about the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1920, which gave women the right to vote.

"I think the 19th Amendment, while it's not an evil in and of itself, is a symptom of something I don't approve of," she said at the time.

Whole story here.

She contends that the husband should the "head" of the family, the wife the "heart." Which, needless to say, begs the question of who has to be the groin of the family.

Mrs. O, who has been a state senator since 2003, maintains an enjoyable Web site here. You can take her at her word, folks: "I promise to always SAY WHAT I MEAN, to always MEAN WHAT I SAY"

She's proud to be a hardcore conservative, which means she doesn't like same-sex marriage, abortion, gun control, or, apparently, tax increases. Which means she might represent an interesting question for libertarians: Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?

[Thanks to reader Brendan Themes]

Comments

[SPD]

Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?

Haven't we been asking that question since 2000?

[metalgrid]

Haven't we been asking that question since 2000?

No, we've been asking whether borrow and spend is better than tax and sped.

[Brian]

A little token mumbling about the fiscal stuff isn't worth the social stuff, which is what their hearts are really set on. For the most part national republicans don't bother with the token mumbling anymore, although state and local pols still do.

I know too many guys (myself included perhaps) who are such clueless manchild clods that the idea that the dude should be the "head" gives pause. Except maybe for highly geeky niches, women are smarter.

[Jeff]

We're libertarians, we put up with everything.

[Jim Walsh]

Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?

Experience has taught me that sociocons are much more consistent in enforcing their social values than in protecting the fiscal ones. So my answer would be no.

Haven't we been asking that question since 2000?

I for one have been asking since 1980.

She's proud to be a hardcore conservative...

Well, she does look like something out of the seventeenth century. She's retro even by Kansas standards.

[Number 6]

Yet another humiliation for Kansas. As someone who grew up there, I feel qualified to suggest that we just go ahead and drop the bomb on that redneck, medieval backwater.

[thoreau]

Ann Coulter doesn't like suffrage for women either.

I wonder if Coulter comparisons will ever rise to the level of demanding a revision of Godwin's Law.

[Ben]

The social stuff is all they really care about, so no, you don't put up with it.

[Jennifer]

It's just like Phyllis Schafly, spending all that time away from home to talk about how women should stay at home.

[David]

Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?

The track record for getting fiscal relief isn't there,and even then I'd say no. What good is having more money to spend if you can't spend it on a little fun?

Looking at her site, I have to ask, is there a politician with decent haircut? Or maybe even one from the last decade?

[Penry]

As far as I'm concerned, high taxes are a lesser evil than being threatened with jail everytime I offend puritanical Conservative mores.

[Jennifer]

I'd rather be a poor woman in America than a billionaire in Saudi Arabia, so I'd say money is less important that social freedom.

[Mark Borok]

Isn't this a choice between a) a benevolent but ineffective attempt by government to improve society with tax money vs. b) a malevolent and probably effective effort to restrict personal freedoms?

(I'm using "benevolent" here in the sense that, from a libertarian point of view, if government social programs actually did what they're supposed to they wouldn't be so bad. I could be wrong here.)

[Yuri]

Of Mrs. O is against women voting, why is she participating by running for office. Those Republicans are such hypocrites!

[Eric II]

Anyone want to take odds on how long it'll be before Kathryn Jean Lopez writes a post at The Corner apologizing for her?

The answer to Nick's question depends on which state she's running in. In a state like California or Hawaii, her Victorian/theocratic views would have less political importance than those of an endangered aardvark, and thus can possibly be overlooked. But a state like Kansas doesn't provide that luxury.

[MP]

Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?
No. I'd rather be broke and free than rich and in jail.

Ann Coulter doesn't like suffrage for women either.
I'd fully support a Constitutional amendment revoking Ann Coulter's right to vote.

[dhex]

what a weird fucking lady. isn't it enough that she has the freedom to live a life of servitude if she so chooses? why does everyone else have to come along on the betty crocker chain gang?

very very weird stuff. i don't think you can argue that extreme social conservatism doesn't work unless everyone else plays along anymore than people on communes can argue the same. it makes it much harder, but like, isn't that the point of the road less travelled and all that pap?

[Mick]

I share Ms. O'Connor's concern about giving women the right to vote. The ballot box is a lethal weapon. A better way to restore equality between the sexes would be to take the right to vote away from men as well.

[Jennifer]

what a weird fucking lady. isn't it enough that she has the freedom to live a life of servitude if she so chooses?

Enforcing your ways on others is what social conservatism is all about, dhex. Consider: if you're a social conservative, you can still live your conservative lifestyle even in a liberal society; if you're a liberal you can't live a liberal lifestyle in a conservative society. So far as I'm concerned, that's why when it comes to SOCIAL matters, liberalism always has been and always will be superior to conservatism. (And on a tangenital note, that's also why I never could understand the mindset of 'libertarians' who say that things like gay marriage or criminalizing sodomy should be 'left to the states;' what's libertarian about saying that the majority should be allowed to decide what rights the minorities should have?)

[John]

In a 1998 article in the journal Public Choice entitled "Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state" Burton A. Abrams & Russell F. Settle find evidence that the premise of this story is true. Judge for yourselves.

[Evan Williams]

isn't it enough that she has the freedom to live a life of servitude if she so chooses? why does everyone else have to come along on the betty crocker chain gang?

Ah, the very problem with the vast majority of social conservatives. They seek to control the actions of others, because they harbor some grand social vision which must be implemented/preserved by force. I've debated a few staunch socio-cons in my day, and it seems like they see everything as externalized to a certain extent, in the vien of "the butterfly effect", but much slower.

So, everyone else MUST come along on the betty crocker chain gang, because, I presume, these people have such a strong belief in the "one right way" to live, that anything else is morally wrong, and cannot be tolerated by law.

Personally, I see it as insecurity in the strength of their own beliefs to prevail without government coercion.

[M1EK]

KERRY^H^H^H^H^HHEINZ-KERRY WOULD BE WORSE!!!!!1

[Evan Williams]

Jennifer: I think you're confusing libertarians' objection to the federal government lording over states' laws, and agreement with those state laws in principle.

[Eric II]

isn't it enough that she has the freedom to live a life of servitude if she so chooses?

As they say, those who scream the loudest usually have the most to hide. Like so many other conservative women who rail against the evils of mainstream (as opposed to radical) feminism, she is an accomplished public figure, and probably bears little resemblance from a personality standpoint to June Cleaver. Espousing such antediluvian views is likely a means of soothing her guilty conscience.

[Kirsten]

In a 1998 article in the journal Public Choice entitled "Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state" Burton A. Abrams & Russell F. Settle find evidence that the premise of this story is true. Judge for yourselves.

Has anyone studied men's suffrage and the growth of the warfare state?

[Eric II]

In a 1998 article in the journal Public Choice entitled "Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state" Burton A. Abrams & Russell F. Settle find evidence that the premise of this story is true. Judge for yourselves.

There's probably some truth to that. And polls suggest that a greater percentage of women than men support a number of nanny-state social policies (gun control, marijuana criminalization, 21 drinking age, seat-belt laws, etc.). But on the other hand, men are more likely to support banning abortion or launching a boneheaded war, and repealing the 19th (assuming it was ever possible) would invariably lead to other attacks on women's rights. So even if the ends justified the means here - I don't think they do - the effect on liberty would at most be a wash, particularly with large percentages of men now supporting many of those same nanny-state policies.

[Jennifer]

Evan-
No, I'm saying that letting the majority decide what rights the minority gets is NOT a libertarian principle, regardless of all the federalist language used to defend it. Or are you going to say that the Constitutional amendment outlawing slavery was a bad thing, since it took away the states' rights to choose whether or not people should be enslaved? I would say that defending the rights of individuals--especially unpopular ones--is one of the legitimate functions of government.

[kevrob]

If I had to choose between a soc-con/fiscal-con and a soc-lib/fiscal-lib, I'd ask myself which elements of the candidates agendas are likelier to take effect. If the state legislature is unlikely to even consider the loonier ideas, I could give them a pass. If they are pretty popular, they have more salience.

This only ever becomes a problem for me in non-partisan local elections, where we have run-offs, because I always vote Libertarian, except when I write in NOTA, anyway.

Back in the day when every man-jack was expected to be available for the militia, universal manhood suffrage made a certain sense. Those who were exempted from fighting didn't qualify as voters. In this age of all-volunteer forces, with servicewomen increasingly involved in making war, a distinction based on sex seems obsolete.

In many states, before the 19th amendment, widows who headed a family could own property and vote. I guess that's because, with no man around they had to be heart and head. 🙂

Kevin

[gaius marius]

Consider: if you're a social conservative, you can still live your conservative lifestyle even in a liberal society; if you're a liberal you can't live a liberal lifestyle in a conservative society. So far as I'm concerned, that's why when it comes to SOCIAL matters, liberalism always has been and always will be superior to conservatism.

fwiw, ms jennifer, i think the basic issue is that the conflict of liberal vs conservative is, in some important aspects, the conflict of individual vs social.

it's easy for a liberal to tolerate individualist conservatives because they concede the basic point, which is that life finds meaning in individual isolation. (which is not a traditionally liberal viewpoint, i might add, but has become one in nietzschean postmodern society.)

it's much harder for a conservative to tolerate individualist liberals because the primacy of individuation basically violates the social contract the conservative has in mind.

now, i know many people here are boggled by the idea of limitless individuation having drawbacks. (libertarianism is rooted in utopian ideology, after all). but social networks do need consensus to function, and constructing that limiting consensus of civil society is the object of socially-minded conservatives.

i'll undermine my own argument here by noting that most modern conservatives (including this lady) are less concerned with restoring the social contract that was put asunder in the early 20th c than with manifesting their own self-seeking ideology and revisionist conception of consensus and civility by means of compulsion. but the point remains that actual society-builders must be less tolerant of personal indulgence.

[gaius marius]

There's probably some truth to that

i think, mr eric, that it has more to do with expanding the franchise generally to the entire proletariat, of which enfranchising women was a part.

[Anvilwyrm]

Ah, the very problem with the vast majority of social conservatives. They seek to control the actions of others, because they harbor some grand social vision which must be implemented/preserved by force

And Liberals are different how? They want just as much control over your actions, indeed your thoughts in many cases, they just want you to act in different ways. Why is this better?

A pox on both their houses.

[David]

Come to think of it, I've never got how social conservism can really be mixed with lower taxes. Wouldn't enforcement of the things they'd ban cost money or do they expect that passage of a law against something makes it go away?

gaius,

I'm not sure that the 'social contract' that you remember ever existed the way you remember it. Granted, the oldest pimary sources I've talked to were all born after WWI but even the written volumes don't seem to paint the picture that you do.

[David]

And Liberals are different how? They want just as much control over your actions, indeed your thoughts in many cases, they just want you to act in different ways. Why is this better?

A pox on both their houses.

That's why their liberal in name only.

[too many steves]

You know, I can't resist the catty impulse so I will tell you that when I visited her website I recoiled abit and said "OH MY!". I'm wondering if Kay was baptised Ken, which might explain the opposition to women having the right to vote?

Sorry.

Well, she does say "I am who I am. You don't have to agree with everything I say,". How true, how true. And if we disagree enough we won't vote for you.

I wonder too what the point is of admitting in public that you disagree with the 19th Amendment. As if it might some day be repealed if only people knew your stand on the question? Um, unlikely as it isn't a question anyone is asking.

She lists seven specific items on her "Issues" page. Opposes same sex marriage AND civil unions - should play pretty well in Kansas, I think. She voted for a law that requires basic sanitation and safety at abortion clinics - not quite sure what that means (me being a suspicious sort that looks for ulterior motives). Otherwise the issues list is pro-lower taxes, pro-school choice, and pro-2nd Amendment; not much to object to there.

I bet she wins in a landslide.

[David]

Should read they're liberal. I'm an idiot.

[kevrob]

....if you're a social conservative, you can still live your conservative lifestyle even in a liberal society; if you're a liberal you can't live a liberal lifestyle in a conservative society. - Jennnifer

I can think of scenarios the soc-cons fear that would prevent them from living their preferred lifestyle. They fear that Junior and Missy will have to walk to the bus-stop, which is right outside the Porn Shoppe, past the streetwalkers, drug dealers, and child molesters, where they will be bused away from the Good Neighborhood School they aren't allowed to go to, to the Bad School Inna Worse Neighborhood, where they have to take compulsory Sex Miseducation taught by Gays and Lesbians. During recess their classmates will play Evil Rap Music on their Ghetto Blasters, while J & M will be punished for Meeting At The Flagpole to pray, such behavior being violative of the schools's Diversity Code, as exclusive of pagans, agnostics, etc. When the school Social Worker counsels the kids, she finds out that Dad enjoys a cigar now and then, which means that Child Protective Services will snatch them and place them in foster care, with a nice couple - Bruce and Derek.

Avoiding all this through homeschooling or private school is futile, as in LibWorld publik skool is mandatory for all, as it inculcates Democratic Values.

Silly? I think so, but we can all think of statist crap pushed by lefties on "the social issues."

Kevin

[Shem]

Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?

What's the point of saving money on taxes if you can't spend it on hookers and booze?

[metalgrid]

What's the point of saving money on taxes if you can't spend it on hookers and booze?

I think conservatives use that to pay their spouse for sex. You don't think she gets it for free do you?

Speaking of which - wasn't there a H&R linky about that conservative guy who's wife claimed he'd pay her for sex?

[Dave]

RE: particularly with large percentages of men now supporting many of those same nanny-state policies.

But they only support those policies so they can get some poontang. J/K

[Number 6]

The problem with Gaius' social contract (non-existence and apparent confusion between Lockean and Roussauian versions aside) is that someone must determine the terms of that contract. In other words, someone must determine whose version of public morality will be enforced. The follow-on question is, of course, "By what right do they set those terms?"

The answer is what it always was and always will be-because they know best and are the sole possessors of absolute truth.

[Xrlq]

She's proud to be a hardcore conservative, which means she doesn't like same-sex marriage, abortion, gun control, or, apparently, tax increases. Which means she might represent an interesting question for libertarians: Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?

Since when do libertarians "put up" with people who oppose gun control?

[Henry]

Nick, was that a serious fucking question?

Apparently, as Lou Reed once sang, "you'd eat shit, and say it tasted good--if there was some money in it for you."

[Kevin]

"You know, I can't resist the catty impulse so I will tell you that when I visited her website I recoiled a bit and said "OH MY!". I'm wondering if Kay was baptised Ken, which might explain the opposition to women having the right to vote?"

If only it were that simple. Show me a woman opposed to suffrage and I'll show you a woman who's been beaten down by fundamentalist dogma for as long as she can remember and who sincerely believes she's going to hell if she doesn't submit to hubby's will on everything. The landscape is full of Kays here in Idaho.

[fyodor]

In a 1998 article in the journal Public Choice entitled "Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state" Burton A. Abrams & Russell F. Settle find evidence that the premise of this story is true. Judge for yourselves.

It fascinates and saddens me when I see logic like this. I see a lot of it in the immigration debate as well. As if illiberal policies can be justified on the grounds that they're necessary to suppress voting patterns that might result in illiberal policies.

[Shirley Knott]

"Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?"
Of course not. She's a conservative kook, aka liar.
She should be the first to go when her and her ilk bring by the witch trials.
hugs,
Shirley Knott

[Corkie]

Eric II:

For the record, men are MORE likely to support abortion rights, rather than less likely, as you suggest.

[Eric II]

i think, mr eric, that it has more to do with expanding the franchise generally to the entire proletariat

In America at least, suffrage for the male "proletariat" came nearly a century before the creation of the federal income tax. That said, while I think the expansion of suffrage rights through the 17th and 19th Amendments did help contribute to the growth of the welfare state, I consider the main factor to the profound shift in political attitudes on the nature of government among the public in general - attitude changes that I attribute at least in part to the social and psychological impacts of the Industrial Revolution and the technological advances that flowed from it. Ascetic quasi-Luddite though he was, I thought Huxley outlined this phenomenon well in Brave New World.

It's worth recalling here that many of the most well-known American "progressives" of the time were wealthy Northeasterners - think Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, or Katherine Hepburn's family in The Avaiator. And in some European nations such as Germany, the welfare state sprouted long before the advent of any genuine democracy.

Corkie,

I remember reading otherwise. Though interestingly enough, a Google search turned up polling data in both directions, but with only modest differentials in attitudes between genders either way - see here and here.

[Randolph Carter]

Sweet Jesus on a hot plate, I just made the conversion to full-on left-libertarian. Wow, with Christo-fascists on the side of the right, God knows (haha) where the conservative power base will go. I never thought I'd place social issues over financial issues like banking privacy and low-ass taxes, but at the moment I'm inclined to think that living your life as you damn well please is much much more important than the 1% increase on the dividend tax (no matter how much goddamn money I lose...). So yeah... Down with the state! Up with People!

[Justin Raimondo]

Since when is "same sex marriage" a libertarian crusade? I'd appreciate it if Nick Gillespie would quit trying to saddle us gay guys with state intervention in our private relationships -- and in the name of "libertarianism" no less!

[Randolph Carter]

Ok, so here's the deal for anyone who cares: I was a hardcore conservative (inherited from my parents) in high school, which happened to be a very progressive/"new thought" high school. I took poco studies in 10th grade, about the same time as 9/11. I thought my parents died in the WTC, and I was freaked out. Simultaneously, I was reading "Atlas Shrugged" and "Anthem," and I was totally into the anarcho-capitalist thing. I found out my parents were alive, and I was happy. Then, I discovered that my HS was somewhat oppressive (surprise surprise). I organised a conservative/libertarian group (more or less reactionary, a group called invictus [liberal] was founded, so I founded convictus) and I was all into being anti-PC and anti-establishment (which, at my school, meant hating the environment and silly people like Toni Morrison and Rigoberta Menchu). So I dealt with that for 2 more years, then I went off to college. Lo and Behold, college was the exact same as HS. I can't say I was surprised, but I was disappointed.

Anyways, I'm working for a congressman this year. He is prominent in both the baseball steroids issue and the Iraq war situation (he has been to Iraq more than any other Gov't rep.) and I was going over a letter he wrote. He said, "Some people say you can't legislate morality. I think they're wrong." I got very upset, asked the chief of staff if that was seriously what the congressman thought. She said yes, and I quit. Looking at comments by this whack job from Kansas further confirm what I already thought - People who are elected to office are douchebags. They must be stopped.

Well, I plan to move to New Hampshire and work out the FSP as well as possible... in the meantime, I'll be down in DC agitating for freedom in our time, if it's in any way possible.

Big thanks to reason Magazine for the intellectual guidance (I wish I'd gotten your internship instead of a congressman's!) and the posters here.

I know I've been somewhat of a useless poster in the past, but I hope that I will be able to have some insights in the future. Danke Shoen to those who actually read this, and I'll post later on.

==> Randolph Carter (yes, it is an H.P. Lovecraft reference.)

[Akira MacKenzie]

Randolph Carter (yes, it is an H.P. Lovecraft reference.)

You fool! Warren is dead!

[Randolph Carter]

I entered the dimly lit room. An eldritch blue glow surrounded me, and it appeared that the strange loping creatures that I had encountered earlier in my journed had gone back to the abyss through which they had entered. I was in a cyclopean cavern, and my companion, Akira MacKenzie, was dead in front of me... His eyes were glazed, but the horror on his face was discernable even in the dim light. I did not know the madness that awaited me, but I wish I had turned back...

P.S. I'm on my 15th white russian, so lay off it

[platinum]

Randolph:

Isn't it against the law for someone of your tender years to be drinking?
Ms. O'Conner would be horrified.

[Henry]

6gun:

Exactly where the fuck do our current authoritarian overlords--you know, the "detain citizens without trial" pushing, "Americans need to watch what they say" babbling, Patriot Act hugging goddamn liars without shame--fit into your cartoonishly black and white analysis?

(The question is purely rhetorical--I know the answer already).

[Randolph Carter]

Platinum - Mrs. (not ms. by any stretch of the imagination) O'Conner can uh... put it up her nose with a rubber hose. Hell yeha Kotter

[Thomas]

I live just outside of Senator O'Connor's district, and so my assessment is based on a bit more information than is known more generally.

She should be perfectly acceptable to most libertarians. She's voted again and again against tax increases, which is a difficult thing to say in state government these days, and which is particularly difficult to say when one represents a district like hers. She's in favor of gun rights. She's a relentless campaigner for school choice, again a difficult position to take in her suburban and relatively well-off (read: good public schools) district. She's been an opponent of go-along, get-along corruption.

So we're left with two issues, gay marriage and abortion. One can oppose abortion rights without violating any libertarian principle, so her opposition to abortion rights isn't, in itself, a betrayal of any particularly libertarian principle (which isn't to say that her position is consistent with what many actual libertarians believe, especially as the influence of Reason increases). Her position on gay marriage (she's opposed) isn't consistent with libertarian principle, which would abolish marriage.

That's it--that's the principle that libertarians are asked to swallow. (Well, I suppose her position on school choice isn't consistent with libertarianism either--after all, she doesn't favor ending government support for schools or for education.)

[Take my decoder ring!]

Thomas,

Thanks for telling me what I, as a libertarian, should believe. It's nice to know that I'm against school vouchers, and against marriage. And all along, I thought I was for school vouchers and charter schools and such, and for marriage for straights and gays. And I thought I was a libertarian! Silly me!

[Akira MacKenzie]

I was in a cyclopean cavern, and my companion, Akira MacKenzie, was dead in front of me... His eyes were glazed, but the horror on his face was discernable even in the dim light. I did not know the madness that awaited me, but I wish I had turned back...

Randolph must now make a 0/1d6 Sanity check.

[Don Smith]

Perhaps we are forgetting Bastiat's notion that if government was limited to the role set forth in the Constitution (and the proper role of government in general), then choosing who our representatives are wouldn't matter as much, and therefore, whether women could vote, or men, or "free men" or "landed gentry" or whatever would not be as important as point.

But, when, as is now the case, government can control every aspect of your life, it's critical that Ann Coulter not be allowed to vote. Oh, wait, no, I meant that everyone get to vote.

Except Michael Jackson. He's just creepy.

[Shem]

Randolph, if the representative you're describing is who I think it is, you have my deepest sympathy. A friend worked for someone fits your Rep's description very well, and her job was mostly to explain why Rep. ****** dodged the draft and then supported the Iraq War. She got so tired of trying to drag a decent answer from him to give to the hoi polloi that she just about quit outright. You couldn't pay me enough to work for those pompous windbags, after some of the horror stories that I've heard.

[Ron Hardin]

Giving women the vote was a great mistake. It produces a huge lopsided genetic voting bloc interested in personal security by way of handouts, with not much interest in where the handouts come from before the government got them.

I agree with O'Connor, whoever she is.

[Neb Okla]

Nick said "Which, needless to say, begs the question of who has to be the groin of the family."

Does it "beg the question" or does it "raise the question"?

[6Gun]

What are you stupid Henry? (I already know the answer...)

Check the welfare state and get back to me. Jeez.

[thoreau]

Last night, while teaching a class on the optics of the eye, I kept poking fun at Kansas over evolution.

e.g. "The cornea is slightly flattened to reduce spherical aberration. A shape like that is fairly complicated, but over 1 billion years of evolution something complicated like that can develop. Oh, and if I said that in Kansas they'd haul me away."

e.g. "Human vision rarely analyzes a scene pixel-by-pixel. Instead, the brain has different centers that pick out lines, colors, and motion and mostly focus on those separately. Doing it pixel-by-pixel would be slower, and any animal that did that would get eaten by another animal. But don't tell anybody in Kansas that I said that."

T minus 147 minutes until defense. Still killing time so I don't have to start worrying.

[kwais]

"Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?"

FUCK YEAH, fuck yeah you do.

The state has proven very resoursefull at forcing me to pay taxes. I have seen many try to not do so, and few succeed. Public school? Your gonna pay for it. Want to become rich? It is possible, but lots of Northeast liberal millionaires who pay less taxes than a college student, have put a lot of hurdles out there for you.

I was able to have pre-marital sex, to get sloshed, and to not go pray, as were many others in Saudi Arabia. That is as socially conservative as a place gets outside of a Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

I was also able to do all those things in bible belted VA when I was stationed there. If I were into drugs, I am certain that I could do drugs in any state in the US, regardless of who is in charge, or what rules they implement. And I am certain that I could do it without getting caught.

I am not certain that I could come by money and keep it. I am not cetain that I can avoid paying for the social welfare state.

Fuck yeah I would vote for that lady 100 times before I voted for Hillary or Kerry.

[kwais]

Hey there mr 'Take My Decoder Ring',

You are getting a little pissy about someone mentioning what is indeed well known libertarian principles and whether a candidate stands for them or not.

I mean there have been a lot of decoder ring comments brought on because someone has mentioned in the past whether certain posters have the right to call themselves libertarians.

I myself have been told that I am not right to consider myself a libertarian, because am not 100% in accordance with libertarian principles.

Thomas did no such thing. He merely stated what libertarian principles the subject lady was in support of, and wich ones she wasn't. Apparently she is not against many libertarian principles in a strong way. And apparently some of the libertarian principles that she does not support 100%, you also don't support in the purest sense.

That doesn't necessarily mean in Thomas's view that you are not a libertarian, or friendly to libertarian views, it just means that she is also not libertarian unfriendly.

Unless you can argue that the state regulation of marriage is indeed a libertarian principle?

[SPD]

kwais,

I do agree with Sen. O'Connor's fiscal ideas and stances against gun control, but her take on the 19th Amendment seems downright wacky, and while she's free to believe what she does regarding abortion and gay marriage, if she attempted to get passed laws banning either she would lose my support as a libertarian.

What is her take on the PATRIOT Act? Is she a "government-out-of-my-life" conservative, or a "law-and-order-as-long-as-you're-cracking-other-people's-heads" conservative?

[kwais]

SPD,
"What is her take on the PATRIOT Act? Is she a "government-out-of-my-life" conservative, or a "law-and-order-as-long-as-you're-cracking-other-people's-heads" conservative?"

I don't really know anything about the chick. In my first post I was responding to the theoretical question. And my answer might change with more knowlede of her.

And in my second post I was responding to the 'Take my Ring' dude's response to Thomas. Taking on face value what they both said.

A chick being against the 19th ammendment does seem pretty whacky though, your right. Hell anyones platform (outside of a frat joke) being against the 19th is pretty whacky.

I am much more concerned about Republicans who are for the 'Patriot act' and who are willing to compromise on stuff like McCain/Feingold or SS, than I am about whacky ones that want to repeal the 19th or want to make sodomy illegal.

Back in the day the National Review came out against the drug war...those were the days.

[Susan B. Anthony's Ghost]

I think there probably is some degree of truth to the idea that the 19th Amendment partly led to the expansion of the Leviathan State. Women generally are more inclined to the task of nurturing, and stuff like welfare, SS, and the like goes along with this.

Still, though, it's hardly the ONLY reason why government has grown so much in the last 100 years, and any libertarian worth their salt would never advocate denying a right to a group of people just because some of them might be wrong.

In fact, I'd say the 16th and 17th Amendments have as much, if not more, to do with the expansion of the federal government than the 19th.

[Jennifer]

Kwais-
You as an American soldier may have been able to fuck like a bunny in Saudi Arabia, but that's not proof that social conservatism is worth it for the tax benefits. Plenty of people are executed in Arabia for having sex or smoking pot, and somehow I doubt that as the executioner's sword swings down toward their necks their final thought is "This sucks, but at least I don't have a high tax bill."

[Thomas]

TMDR--I didn't mean to write you out of any movement you want to belong to. I was merely trying to compare O'Connor's view to as "pure" a libertarianism as I could imagine. So, even though many libertarians favor school choice, the more pure form of libertarianism would do away with public funding for schools--that's my view of it, at least. I wanted a good foil for her positions, and I think she comes out looking ok.

SPD--I'm not sure she has a view on the Patriot Act. It isn't something she's been asked to vote on. She may not even have a fully considered view on the Iraq war, or social security privatization, or the marginal tax rate at the federal law. But, since she doesn't vote on those, that doesn't much matter.

[Eion]

I'd say that the economic and social liberty are inextricably linked - a government that only serves legitimate governmental purposes (i.e. preventing coercion and the like) simply doesn't need a lot of money, and if Congress are busy trying to work out how to pay the electricity bill to keep the lights in the Capitol on, they won't have time to interfere with people's lives.

The 17th Amendment and especially the 16th Amendment, as well as New Deal constitutional jurisprudence have done more to expand government power than anything else that comes to mind.

Personally, (and I think I've said this before) I won't vote for someone who I wouldn't want in office, and I certainly wouldn't vote for this woman... but then, I haven't received my decoder ring yet.

[kwais]

Jenn,
right you are. If the girl I was seeing was caught she would have had her head cut off. And depending on her pedigree, I would have either been deported or secretly killed, regardless of a owning a black passport or not. A German diplomat dissapeared for what appears to be the same reason the week I got there.

My point was to claim that even the heaviest handedness cannot prevent people to act socially as they will, but finanically a government is much more able.

So your comment makes me rethink my position. Social restrictions in a place like Saudi Arabia do indeed make one much less of a free person, regardless if you can get around them and act as you will. Still if the government owns your money you are still not free.

Also, Saudi Arabia is not a fiscally free nation by a long shot. If it were it would be a lot better a place, and I don't think that they could have the total social conservatism that they have.

[SPD]

Thomas,

Point taken. I unconsciously omitted the "state" part of her political title. Consider the second half of my previous post stricken from the record.

[Jennifer]

Kwais-
I've read that Saudis have almost no taxes at all, because the government uses oil revenues to pay the bill.

Granted, you can say that taxation equals less freedom, but some freedoms are more important than others. Would you rather live the life you have now (or rather, WILL have when you're discharged from the Army and return from Iraq) but pay fifty percent income tax, or live in Arabia (as a Saudi national, not an American) and keep your whole salary? And if you choose the Saudi option, pretend you're a woman and ask yourself again.

[kwais]

Jen,
As a woman no. As a man yes (if I get to keep my American mentality, if not nationality).

But the lack fiscal freedom in Saudi Arabia is not related to taxes, it is about what kind of buisness you can own, who you need to get permission from to open it. What days it can be open, who you can hire. And many many many more things.

Indeed fiscal freedom and personal freedom are not that far apart. Even as a man, if you wanted your wife to do certain things, you need to get permission from the government for. And the wife can't drive so taking the kids to school, the wife going to the hospital for whatever checkups, the grocery shopping and all that. Even if the wife doesn't work, she can't really be a housewife, unless you can afford a proffessional driver to take her around. Add on to all that if you have 1 or more teenage daughters. All of this adds cost to any Saudi man doing buisness. All of this deducts funds from the population.

As was mentioned by an earlier poster, I don't think that they could be this socially conservative if they were fiscally libertarian.

You can have laws against ho'ing around, against drinking and against sodomy, and all that crap. But they are got around. The laws that truly restrict freedom are the laws that restrict fiscally.

And I kind of slide women driving as a fiscal thing. But I see it that way, I think Saudi Arabia would be so much richer if women could drive, and help their husbands or fathers with their work.

By the way, I was never in the Army, I was a Marine. And I am now in Iraq under other non military leadership, and I shouldn't give any more details about that.

[Eric the .5b]

she might represent an interesting question for libertarians: Do you put up with her social conservatism to get the fiscal stuff?

We're libertarians, we put up with everything.

Well, let's be honest. It doesn't matter one bit whether libertarians can or can't put up with this psycho-chick. It won't effect the result of the election. What everyone else thinks will be rather more cruicial.

[kwais]

OK the ending of my last email sounds kind of silly. please unread it if you read it.

[Frank]

"You can have laws against ho'ing around, against drinking and against sodomy, and all that crap. But they are got around. The laws that truly restrict freedom are the laws that restrict fiscally."

You can get around fiscal laws relatively easily as well. The black market, money laundering, counterfeit goods, etc...

[poker room]

You may find it interesting to visit some relevant pages dedicated to pacific poker pacific poker http://www.poker-7.com/pacific-poker.html party poker party poker http://www.poker-7.com/party-poker.html poker rooms poker rooms http://www.poker-7.com/poker-rooms.html online poker online poker http://www.poker-7.com/online-poker.html poker poker http://www.poker-7.com/poker.html ... Thanks!!!