Election 2016

Mike Huckabee's Long Battle Against Libertarianism

|

FWIW, I found him to be a super nice guy and pretty darn good bassist. |||

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee announced this weekend that he's quitting his Fox News show while he thinks about whether to run for president again. If recent history is any guide, there will be space in the GOP primaries for a Huck-style populist social conservative; Rick Santorum filled it in 2012, Huckabee himself in 2008, Alan Keyes in 2000. Another throughline knits together these disparate pols: hostility to libertarians.

Here's Huckabee in May 2008:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be.

And in November 2008:

The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of this past election cycle: libertarianism masked as conservatism. And it threatens to not only split the Republican Party, but render it as irrelevant as the Whig Party.

And February 2010:

CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn't go this year

 And January 2011:

the governor gave an all-out defense of his tax hikes while governor of Arkansas on the grounds that they were the only responsible course of action to repair state roads. He snorted with derision at "libertarians" who fail to recognize that "we don't have a health-care crisis in this country, but a health crisis." He spoke with passion and knowledge on the need for preventative care to bring down exorbitant costs. And then, without the least amount of prompting, he mustered a vigorous defense of Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" campaign against childhood obesity.

This antipathy, of course, makes all the sense in the world, since Mike Huckabee's applied ideology is often the opposite to that of libertarians.

I went on Huckabee's show back in the summer of 2013 to talk about divisions within the GOP:

Advertisement

NEXT: Is the International Criminal Court biased against Israel?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Huckabee is not even a star amongst SOCONS anymore. Ben Carson is the real SOCON guy. He is a has been. He is one of those politicians that only has a career because the media is five years behind the times and still pays attention to him.

    1. Everyone knows the GOP has been doing badly in recent presidential elections because candidates haven’t been SOCON enough. At least, that’s what I’m told the day after Election Day.

      1. Considering that they ran McCain, a guy who made his career hating SOCONs, and Romney, a Mormon from Massachusetts, the last two elections, claiming they haven’t been “SOCON enough” may not be true, but it certainly hasn’t been disproven by events.

        The SOCONS are the most hated people in America. You could probably win a majority for an amendment to deprive them of the franchise and restrict them to a Pale. Why exactly people are convinced they run the GOP and exert all of this power is beyond me. Do they have secret meetings and a set of Protocols?

        1. Romney lost because of poor GOP turnout. He actually won among independents.

          The SoCons are more than willing to sit at home on Election Day if you don’t kiss their pious asses.

          1. Good thing Libertarians don’t do that or anything. It is funny, Libertarians do that and they call themselves principled. SOCONS do that and they just want their pious asses kissed.

            Why don’t you guys just cut to the chase and start advocating rounding the SOCONS up and putting them in ovens, because they clearly are some kind of subhuman species unworthy of the rights of actual human beings.

            1. rounding the SOCONS up and putting them in ovens

              No way. Do you know how much CO2 that would release into the atmo?

              1. But still less than John’s overheated rhetoric today. Socons in ovens, oh my!

            2. Socons and libertarians are sitting in the same boat, wondering why they’re sinking as they try to shoot holes in the other’s barge.

              Seriously, deontological libertarianism isn’t too far off from being a hobbled, secular variant of Christianity.

              1. That is about right Trouser. You think the Libertarians hate the GOP establishment, talk to the SOCONS sometime. They actually deliver votes and money to the GOP and are told to fuck off just like the Libertarians are. The people who run the GOP are the big government crony capitalists at places like the Chamber of Commerce. It is not the SOCONs nor the Libertarians running anything. But the assholes at the top sure like for both the SOCONs and the Libertarians to hate each other and blame one another for their woes. That way there is no danger of them ever getting together and doing something about the situation. No one wants that.

                1. If you wanna see how close (many) socons and libertarians can be, look at who supported Ron Paul in congress and who he’s endorsed for office.

              2. There is absolutely no benefit to libertarians from supporting someone like Huckabee. It would be like us expecting the SocioCons to support Mary Ruwart for president.

                Bedfellows and compromise is great, but if the SocioCons go the Huck route that’s not compromise, that’s getting pwned.

                1. Who said anything about supporting Huckabee? I’m talking about people who aren’t anti- abortion neocons.

                  1. What is this article about again?

                    1. Then the discussion can’t possibly be about something similar or completely OT right?

              3. Seriously, deontological libertarianism isn’t too far off from being a hobbled, secular variant of Christianity.

                Except for the, you know, policies and stuff…

                1. Except for the, you know, policies and stuff…

                  A proper reading of Scripture shows “do unto others”. It also shows that God’s preferred method of governance was one where there was one judge who wasn’t supported by taxation and where “every man did as he thought was right”. In other words, one had to have been harmed in order to use legitimate force against another.

                  That sounds like Ayn Rand, no? It’s right there in the Scripture for anyone to see…

                  I’m a libertarian because I’m a Fundamentalist Christian…

                  Mwahaha!

            3. I want my pious ass kissed too. Difference is that so-cons are a lot more likely to get their asses kissed.

            4. Erm, John, not thinking they should call the shots isn’t calling for them to be put into ovens.

              1. No Bill. It isn’t. The point I am making is that bitching and moaning about other people standing by their principles and not voting for people they don’t like is utterly unfair when you do the same thing yourself. So unfair it is to essentially to view them has having fewer civil rights than you do. You can think someone is wrong on the issues but that doesn’t mean you should think they are wrong for expressing and acting on those views in ways you otherwise find legitimate. That is my point.

                1. Who is bitching and moaning? Seems like just an observation about elections. I say good for them for sticking to principles and not voting purely for team. Now if we could just get more Democrats to do the same.

                  1. The original post at the top of the thread was talking about the SOCONS “just wanting their asses kissed”. That is just bitching and moaning about SOCONS doing what Libertarians do Zeb.

                    1. I don’t see it. Doesn’t everyone want their asses kissed? I sure do. I’d say it’s a simple observation and not a complaint.

                    2. Huckabee is a Republican. He held office as a Republican, he has run for the Presidential nomination as a Republican. Libertarians are not Republicans. Glaring difference.

                    3. SOCONS stay home and wont’ vote when they don’t get a candidate they like. Libertarians do the exact same thing and make a big deal about arguing against strategic voting.

                      There is no difference.

            5. OK!

              Socialists, I mean Progressives in Oven #1

              Fascists, I mean Eastern GOP and SOCONs in Oven #2

              Well, I think that about covers it.

              1. I have a FAR better idea. Why not round up the mainstream media, plus outlets like MSNBC, NYT, etc. and put THEM into ovens?

                It would be truly glorious. Send a real thrill up Chris Matthew’s leg.

            6. Rounding people up and shoving them into ovens what progressives have done historically, not libertarians or conservatives.

              In any case, I think the SOCONS are really cut from the same cloth as progressives; they differ on the Jesus bit, both otherwise are the same nanny state meddlers. SOCONS should just go over to the Democrats and everybody will be happier.

        2. The SOCONS are the most hated people in America.

          If you believe a chattertariat devoted entirely to a certain parochial view of the world, at least.

          1. Certainly by the media class and their various toadies. But yes RC, that is not “America” thank God. Forgive my hyperbole.

          2. Al Qaeda is probably hated more, but that’s also in part because they’re socially conservative.

            Rapists and child molesters are probably more hated than social conservatives.

            I think social conservatives are probably hated more than drug dealers and gang members. You can sell a lot music and other consumer products to the wider culture by promoting it as being made by or endorsed by authentic drug dealers and gang members.

            Sell consumer products to the wider culture because it’s made by or endorsed by authentic social conservatives?

            I don’t think so.

            1. Rapists and child molesters are probably more hated than social conservatives.

              If they organized into a more cohesive voting bloc, they could probably overcome that perception.

              1. If they organized into a more cohesive voting bloc, they would just be social conservatives.

                1. Wow, did I just accidentally wander into the MediaMatters comments section?

            2. “Sell consumer products to the wider culture because it’s made by or endorsed by authentic social conservatives?”

              I’ve got this book here, that was published by a socially conservative organization, endorsed by many if not most authentic social conservatives- and is one of the bestselling books in history.

              That’s right, I’m talking about The Guinness Book of World Records.

              1. cool story bro.

            3. “Rapists and child molesters are probably more hated than social conservatives.”

              Polanski, Roman

        3. The SOCONS are the most hated people in America. You could probably win a majority for an amendment to deprive them of the franchise and restrict them to a Pale.

          My impression is that the smarter of them seem to be picking up on this. And that is precisely why the Huckabees and Santorums of the world are yesterday’s news, even for them. Smarter socons seem to recognize that the thing to be concerned about, at this point, isn’t forcing everyone to get on board with their program, but not having others’ program forced onto them.

          1. That is my impression as well Bill.

          2. I certainly hope so.

            My conversations with those I know try to lead them in that direction.

            That, and remembering that GOD chose to give us the freedom to choose HIM, or not. When you try to enforce your, even if accurate, idea of choices that should be made by individuals, you set yourself up as god. Perhaps the greatest of sins.

          3. We just need more gay rights activists searching out Christians to sue.

            Eventually, the Christians will figure out that a powerful state is not a friend to freedom of religion, and in fact, SoCons do far better by working outside the state.

          4. Smarter socons seem to recognize that the thing to be concerned about, at this point, isn’t forcing everyone to get on board with their program, but not having others’ program forced onto them.

            Once the realize that, they cease to be socons and become classical liberals/libertarians.

            Social conservatism in politics means trying to impose a socially conservative view on others through the government, not about holding socially conservative views privately.

    2. Carson is this year’s Herman Cain. He’ll wither as soon as he gets media attention. Huckabee is a lot more viable than Santorum was at this point in the 2012 cycle.

      1. In other words, he will suffer the same fate as every other SOCON champion candidate has. You are probably right in your assessment. But whatever chance Carson has, and it is not much of one, it is better than Huckabee’s chances.

      2. Herman Cain wasn’t going to win the presidency any more than his brother John Mc was.

  2. If the Republicans want to win, they’ll have to reject controversial candidates and go with a moderate or a maverick with a history of working across the aisle.

    /sarc

    1. Bob Dole?

      1. Every losing Repub Presidential candidate in a generation fits this template:

        (1) Romney (2012)? check.
        (2) McCain (2008)? check.
        (3) Dole (1996)? check.
        (4) Bush the Elder (1992)? check.

        You have to go all the way back to 1988 to see a “moderate” Republican win an election (Bush the Elder, again). That’s close enough to a generation ago.

        But they keep trying to kick that football.

        1. Because they nominate moderates when they know it’s going to be a difficult general election. 1996 and 2008 they were probably doomed no matter what.

          1. 2008 they were probably doomed no matter what

            People forget how close 2008 was.

            McCain was leading right up until he went full retard and suspended his campaign to rush back to DC and do things his base really, really hated.

            1. Had Wall Street collapsed two month later or had McCain kept campaigning and used it as an opportunity to oppose TARP, McCain would have won. McCain completely blew it with TARP.

              1. McCain completely blew it by showing his true big-government colors.

                1. ^^^THIS^^^

              2. McCain ran a pretty awful campaign to begin with. it astonished me he got the nomination after his big amnesty push was DOA in summer 2007. What a snooze.

              3. McCain is just bat shit crazy. As craven as Obama is, I’m glad he won. Hoping that as he reveals the lunacy of the fascistic progressives, the progs will eventually go down in flames as well.

              4. when McCain came out for TARP, I came home and told my wife, “Barrack Obama is the next president of the United States.”

            2. Huh? What are you talking about?

              Obama was consistently ahead of McCain (with a solid margin) in nearly every poll except for a few immediately following the Republican convention. That was not a close election.

            3. McCain appeared to be a creepy, dangerous, senile fool even back then; I think there wasn’t a chance in hell he would have won no matter what.

        2. And the only winning GOP presidential candidate during that stretch may have been a SocioCon, but he sure as hell didn’t give a damn about ltd govt.

        3. You don’t consider Bush Jr. to have been moderate?

          1. GWB was from the Santorum/Huckabee wing of the party. All statism all the time. Yes to drones and no to dildos.

            1. GWB looked very moderate in 2000.

              And he was never as extreme as Santorum/Huckabee.

              1. McCain was much worse… I remember that election all too well.

              2. Yes, GWB was another fraud who running the first time tried to soft pedal it.

                Remember that first time he was the “Compassionate Conservative”. Huckabee with an education.

                1. You misspelled edumacation.

          2. You don’t consider Bush Jr. to have been moderate?

            Its a close call, but I tend to say no, at least not as “moderate” as the others on the list.

            It goes mostly to presentation, really. The “compassionate conservative” thing really makes it a borderline case, but on the whole I don’t think he was ever lauded by the media as a moderate. Could be wrong, its been a while.

            1. I remember a a skit that SNL did before the 2000 election where W and Gore teamed up to form the perfect middle of the road ticket. Fact is, Bush junior was a born and bred neocon. He just didn’t go out of his way to piss off socons like McCain did.

              1. Before he decided there was millions to be made as a global warming Imam, Gore was always a centrist Southern Democrat. In fact, there isn’t a lot of difference between Gore in say 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000.

                The idea that the GOP is run by SOCONs or is somehow this far right party is another example of everything the Progs say being a lie. The GOP is about the same as it has always been. What has happened is the Left culture warriors and radicals took over and now run the Democratic Party. It is the Democratic Party that went radical and off the rails, not the GOP. If only the GOP were an actual radical small government party. The GOP is pretty close to what the reasonable Democrats used to be. They just occupy the field because there are no reasonable Democrats left.

                1. That describes it pretty well too.

              2. He just didn’t go out of his way to piss off socons like McCain did.

                He was fairly open about his Christian faith; that probably helped.

                I remember a Rush Limbaugh program in 2008 where Rush had talked to W about claims that he couldn’t win the SoCons, and his response to Rush was “I’m gonna win’em.”

                Something like that.

                1. I think the exact quote was: “I’m gonna winnify ’em.”

                  1. As in Winnie the Pooh.

                2. This is why Rand Paul has a chance. He’s a so-con personally, so so-cons can feel comfortable with him.

                  Palin was similar.

                  This is somewhat akin to the English Civil War which had the protestants go from strong backing of state religion (their’s of course) to leaning towards freedom of worship.

        4. But, on the other hand, no real hard right or libertarianish Republican has ever won. Nixon and Eisenhower certainly weren’t. Reagan was a bit closer, but wasn’t terribly socially conservative and didn’t do much to make government smaller or less intrusive.

            1. I think he was referring to the gen’l election for POTUS.

              1. But Goldwater won the GOP nomination. This is a discussion about the GOP, not the nation as a whole.

                1. Yes, but it was a response to RC Dean talking about what kinds of republicans have won elections.

            2. I’m talking about people who were elected.

              1. It’s clear that was RC Dean’s concern too, posting about GOP nominees who lost the gen’l election for POTUS.

          1. But Reagan set out with Meese to gut the 4th Amendment and they certainly accomplished that. And turned the Drug War into a morals war.

            REAGAN!

          2. Reagan…didn’t do much to make government smaller or less intrusive.

            Understatement of the century.

    2. Oh, so you read the letters to editor post Election Day in my rapidly turning dark blue state, too?

      “If only Republicans could put a non extremist on the ballot, then I would have votes for them.”

      Republicans put a democrat lite on the ballot.

      “Too extreme!”

      1. Lytton? Late of the Dalek Task Force?

  3. Huckabee is an example every thing wrong in the republican party.War hawk,WOD hawk,food and sex nanny and bible thumper.

    1. Which is why we must unite under Rick Perry to stop him.

      1. You really want to be under Perry?

        1. I dunno…he’s kind of sexy, especially when he wears those little glasses.

        2. Small government guy from an actually fairly reliable small government cultured state.

          I’ll take it.

    2. Huckabee is a totalitarian.

  4. Show me a compassionate conservative, and I’ll show you a big-government progressive who opposes abortion.

    1. also wants prayer in school

      1. Abortion is the litmus test for conservatism. Well that and unquestioning support for all things military. Throw in some compassion and what you’ve got is basically indistinguishable from progressivism. Except for abortion of course.

        1. Unfortunately it does seem that the Roe decision within about a decade froze that scale of political typifying, such that people will identify someone as “liberal” or “conservative” on abortions above all else. That’s why it’s such a mindfuck to some when I get nominated to public office by the Conservative Party and they look up my position on abortions, which you may know from here is pretty extreme?and the only reason it doesn’t seem even more extreme is that nobody surveys about infanticide.

          1. It really is funny when people try to scale me on issues like abortion & same sex marriage without knowing the reasons I hold the positions I do.

            1. Why do the reasons matter? For most people these are emotional issues. They didn’t reason themselves into their positions, they emoted. And you absolutely cannot reason someone out of a position they arrived at by emotion.

              1. This is true, and only shows the similarity to Progressives. In both cases the facts and logic need not apply because it is all about FEELINGS.

            2. No soul?

          2. which you may know from here is pretty extreme

            Does anybody know who this guy is? I don’t remember a Robert ever posting here before.

            1. Well, if you click his name you can connect to his resume:

              http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/resume.html

              1. And there you will also see this:

                2010-present: Proofreader and copy editor for fiction and for instructional materials related to Vrilology.

      2. And moar police boots on poor necks!

    2. Fucking this.

  5. “it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message.”

    It is incredible how much shitty economic policy your average urban swing voter will accept–rather than vote for someone they think is a social conservative.

    I used to think that stupidity was dwarfed by the stupidity of social conservatives–who would apparently rather suffer the economic policies of Barack Obama and more–rather than stop dictating how other people live their lives. …but if that Huckabee quote is in any way indicative of social conservatism, then the social conservatives are even worse than I thought

    1. I wasn’t done yet!

      Then the social conservatives are even worse than I thought…

      They’re not undermining capitalism and free markets by prioritizing their sick government control of the culture.

      In that quote, they’re undermining capitalism and free markets–because of the control they want of the culture.

      It really isn’t much different from what the progressives are trying to achieve–by using the economy to achieve social goals. It’s just that the social conservatives social goals are different.

      A pox on them. They’re worse than progressives, at least, in that they should know better. They should all go back to the Democratic Party, which was practically founded on the sick theory that other people’s rights only exist if we put them up to a vote.

      1. I wasn’t done yet!

        Ah, but the character counter thinks so.

        1. Nah, there’s just some key combination that makes things post–and I hit it sometimes by accident. I’d have fit it all into one post otherwise.

          Honest!

      2. I believe I said something similar!

        1. I have long asserted that the reasons progs and socons hate each other so much is because looking at each other is like looking at a bag of shit and then realizing oh wait that is a mirror.

  6. Not all SoCons are economic “populists” like Huckabee.

    In fact, if you took all the politicians who are serious about cutting govt spending and regulations, you’d find that you have a large proportion of SoCons, a higher proportion than mere chance would have allowed for.

    1. Unless it’s for the military.

    2. Proof of that is at the state level. Unlike the national level where they are mostly mythical figures used as scapegoats for the world’s problems by various douche bags on both sides, at the state level there really are no shit SOCONS with a no shit SOCON agenda. And they are very numerous in a fair number of state legislatures. If the myth that the SOCONS are all really socialists were true, places like Kansas and Mississippi would have state governments that looked like Illinois or New Jersey rather than the comparatively small governments they have.

      1. SOCONs are extremely well organized. They can and do take over local and even state-level organizations. Their primary focus at these levels is abortion and education. It is the unending court battles that result from the policies they implement in these areas that prevent them from turning to lower-priority nanny-state projects.

        1. Oh yeah, kinnath, they have a majority in some state Legislatures but they never get around to passing their real socialist agenda because they are too busy going to court to defend their abortion laws. Yeah, that makes sense.

          Or maybe it is that they don’t have a nanny state agenda beyond abortion and a few other issues and they haven’t passed this great evil you are so worried about not because they have forgotten to but because it doesn’t exist? How about that idea?

          1. Happy new year to you too, John.

            1. You too Kinneth. And I wouldn’t want the SOCONs running the world either. I just view them as much less of a threat to liberty than the Progs. Ultimately, the SOCONS don’t have the much power outside of a few areas and would be more likely to be content with being left alone in those areas. The Progs in contrast have an all encompassing agenda and will never quit, no matter what.

              1. You know, I think the progressives are more of a threat to libertarian values too, both in terms of having a philosophy more intrusive on liberty and as a geographical/political matter (having the federal executive). But so what? Socons are still pretty far from libertarian ideals. If you’re saying we should work with them where we agree and only where we agree, well, with all due respect, duh. I actually think the same thing about progressives. But if you’re point is that they are better than progressives, well, congratulations, they’re the taller midget. I’m not going to celebrate them.

                1. Midget? RAAAAACIIIIIIISSSST!!!!

                2. If you’re saying we should work with them where we agree and only where we agree, well, with all due respect, duh. I actually think the same thing about progressives.

                  Except progressives have so successfully cast social conservatives as the bogeyman among many libertarians, that they effectively ignore the opportunities to work with social conservatives. Offhand, gun rights, home schooling, opposition to public accommodation laws, and opposition to campus speech codes strike me as fertile areas for cooperation with social conservatives. Can you say the same with progressives? Even areas where libertarians and progressives ostensibly share concerns, such as police reform, anything beyond a cursory examination shows the “agreement” is illusory.

                  1. ” opportunities to work with social conservatives. Offhand, gun rights, home schooling, opposition to public accommodation laws, and opposition to campus speech codes strike me as fertile areas for cooperation with social conservatives.”

                    I would add taxes and government spending to the list.

                    1. I would, too. I just wanted to keep it specifically to social issues where libertarians and socons are seen as having the most direct conflict.

                  2. I’ll add, on further reflection, I’m not sure you really can have long-term cooperation between libertarians and progressives. Fundamentally, progressivism rests on the notion of the government re-engineering people into a more “enlightened” form. As much as many socons are all too happy to enlist the government to do their bidding, the role of government isn’t fundamental to their outlook.

                    1. Oye, finally some actual brain power chose to grace this comment thread.

          2. “Or maybe it is that they don’t have a nanny state agenda beyond abortion and a few other issues…”

            Trouble is, it’s those “few other issues” such as gambling, prostitution, drugs and gay marriage that should be accessible with reasonable regulation… yet the socons are all too willing to swing the Ban Hammer around on these things.

        2. I don’t buy this.

          California passed 900 laws this year.

          We’re also busy with lawsuits.

          This doesn’t stop legislatures.

      2. “rather than the comparatively small governments they have.”

        I live in one of those states, and it depends. In some areas our socons certainly push for smaller government, and it’s sincere and for real. But in other areas, they’re for more government. In my state regulating/closing abortion clinics and fighting gambling are two of the larger concerns for state socon pols.

        1. YEs, they are anti-abortion. Everyone knows that. But there is more to life and more to liberty than gay sex and abortion. And every state regulates the hell out of gambling. I fail to see how legalizing it for a set of cronies to run in designated places is preferable to just banning it. At least the ban is honest and doesn’t involve corruption. The day the blue states let me run a card game in my basement without the cops showing up to enforce the crony monopoly on it, is the day they can throw stones about other states banning all gambling.

          1. I personally place reproductive rights right up there with second amendment rights John. I understand not everyone does, but if we’re not talking about a person when talking about early stage embryo’s/fetuses then I can’t think of a more fundamental intrusion on personal liberty than forcing a woman (heck, a couple) who doesn’t want to to have a child. And as for ‘gay sex,’ sodomy laws often hit on heterosexuals, and I can’t think of something more fundamentally important to me than my sex life.

            As to gambling, being able to do it, albeit in a regulated way, is certainly far superior in terms of liberty than not being able to legally do it, period.

            1. I can’t think of a more fundamental intrusion on personal liberty than forcing a woman who doesn’t want to to have a child

              How about killing a human because it inconviences a woman? The only valid libertarian argument against abortion is this, but no one really knows the answer of when an impregnated egg becomes human. I’m personnally certain that a fetus in the third trimester is a human life, and that, therefore, abortion needs some control on it.

              1. but no one really knows the answer of when an impregnated egg becomes human

                I want to agree with everything you say, but it’s a human being when it has its own DNA. The Supreme Court insisted it was not yet a “person”… sort of how they defined blacks as “non-citizens” due to their race. Now the question is when you get to be a “person”…

                It’s bull, but that’s the law, and lots of libertarians don’t like thinking about justice no where rights come from.

                1. You believe a fetus is a human being because it has DNA? Doesn’t it make more sense to believe a human is human because of its human soul? A religious person would believe that the soul comes from God; a non-believer would say the soul is determined as the brain forms neural connections;

                  Do you believe every person’s life is sacred; valuable as an individual? I do, and I’m betting you do also. How about identical twins? Are each of their lives valuable as individual and separate people? Again, I say yes, bet you do too. Well, identical twins have identical DNA, so clearly human DNA is not what makes us each unique and individual human persons. A brain-dead person, kept alive on machines, still has their human DNA, present since conception; but most people realize they’re not “there” anymore; their soul is gone, and therefore it’s not murder to pull the plug. I believe it’s the same with human fetuses. They don’t have a soul yet, they’re not a person. HOWEVER, I respect anyone who feels differently and would fight for their right to NOT ever be FORCED to have an abortion. Just as anyone who believes differently from pro-choice people should never force a woman to continue a pregnancy. It is possible (and very logical and reasonable) to be both pro-life and pro-choice. It is not reasonable to ever force one’s beliefs on others, nor to use the government to do so.

                  1. I’m sorry, but all of your arguments against the idea of DNA determining when a fetus is a human are terrible. First, a non-believer wouldn’t say there is any such thing as a soul, but there certainly is evidence of the existence of DNA. Second, just because identical twins have identical DNA, doesn’t say anything about why having human DNA shouldn’t be a determining factor. The DNA is human. That’s what matters. The DNA being identical is irrelevant. Third, a brain dead person is DEAD. Just because machines are causing the mechination of their lungs, heart, and blood flow, doesn’t mean they are alive. If the brain isn’t working, a person is dead. Dead is different from a living being, even if that being is in a stage of it’s life cycle where it is just a cluster of growing and multiplying cells. You haven’t dis-proven the idea of DNA as the determining factor of humanity. You’d have a hard time doing so since it’s the basic fundamental feature that makes us what we are. And as for you to base your determination of humanity on the presence of a soul, first you have to prove the presence of a soul. Then you have to be able to test for it to ensure that someone wanting an abortion does not kill a human being with a soul present. I say a human being because with human DNA already, that’s what it is regardless of the presence of a soul or not.

              2. “I’m personnally certain that a fetus in the third trimester is a human life, and that, therefore, abortion needs some control on it.:

                I’ll agree and will go even further. i am scientifically certain a fetus in the third trimester is a human life. period.

                1. I’m scientifically certain that a fetus in any trimester is a human life. Human DNA = Human Being.

          2. But there is more to life and more to liberty than gay sex.

            Easy to say when you’re straight. You’re not the one they want to send to jail or execute.

            1. “You’re not the one they want to send to jail or execute.”

              Executing people for gay sex? We were talking about the US. I think you’ve taken the hyperbolic meter to 11 with that comment.

    3. At a gathering of Jews, Muslims, and Methodists, you’ll note that those eating pork are disproportionately Methodist. Therefore Methodists must love eating pork.

      1. Again, if SOCONs are all about big government, why don’t the places where they have real political power have bigger governments?

        The churches that are actually socialist and for big governments are not the evangelical ones. They are the old Protestant ones like the Presbyterians and the Anglicans. And of course most of the black churches.

        1. I never said they’re all about big govt, just that the appearance of a connection between SocioConism and economic liberty is an illusion.

          Most of the places they have power are relatively poor and/or sparsely populated and can’t support a big govt. The ways they would prefer to grow govt (laws against sex and free thought) have been cut off at the pass by the courts.

          1. Most of the places they have power are relatively poor and/or sparsely populated and can’t support a big govt.

            That is completely idiotic and counter to the facts. Places like Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas are hardly poor and could certainly support big government if they choose to.

            And what laws against free thought do they want to pass? And last I looked the only people passing laws on sex are Progs trying to turn consensual sex into rape.

            Bigotry and ignorance is not a substitute for rational thought.

            1. “And what laws against free thought do they want to pass? ”

              School prayer laws?

              “only people passing laws on sex are Progs trying to turn consensual sex into rape.”

              Well, now that the SCOTUS has told socons they can’t keep their sodomy laws I guess.

            2. The parts of TX that are wealthy are not socially conservative.

              97% of the poorest counties in the US are Republican.

              1. Even assuming that you are correct about the relative poverty levels (and no, the stat you are citing is not the same as a non-existence proof or evidence for same)… you do realize that in the US, the areas most inclined towards socialism were the same small-government states as today, yes? Kansas is where we get the term “prairie socialism”, for God’s sake. Of course no one needs to get into the state of pre-Communist Russia or China.

                Poverty and big government are not exactly opposites.

                1. Yes Trouser, Progressiveism was born in the Midwest. And it was driven largely by religious ferver. But that is ancient history.

                  There was an enormous split in Protestantism after the 1960s. The Left basically took over the old Protestant denominations. The people who left those denominations in disgust over that largely joined evangelical churches and are who we refer to as SOCONs today. Those people are not economic socialists, the way the old religious Progs were.

                  The other thing that changed things was the New Deal. The New Deal totally fucked the prairie states and turned them against Washington in big government.

                  1. Progressiveism was born in the Midwest. And it was driven largely by religious ferver. But that is ancient history.

                    That’s my point — the Midwest is different because the SoCon of today ain’t your daddy’s SoCon. If SoCons really did want socialism so bad, they could have it just like they did in Crawford County in 1912. Kansas is one of the most small-government states in the nation; this is not because they are poor but because they stopped being socialists. New York and Cali have some of the biggest governments in the nation; this is not because they are rich but because they moved more in that direction over time.

                    1. My mistake TIT. We agree.

              2. Somewhere close to 90% of all counties voted republican, because democrats tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

                You’re statistic is meaningless.

              3. “97% of the poorest counties in the US are Republican.”

                Congrats, large urban areas where money congregates are all run by democrats and progs on the back of the uninformed voter base. Causation vs. Correlation. I don’t think anyone here would accuse Progressive politics of being responsible for the high net worth of the counties in which they hold sway.

                Also, as an aside, many of the richest counties are centered around DC, so take from that what you will.

              4. Take a look at the breakdown by voting precinct and get back to us.

          2. “Most of the places they have power are relatively poor and/or sparsely populated and can’t support a big govt.”

            North Korea is poor, and it can’t support big govt, but has it anyway.

            1. NK doesn’t have big govt. The Kims watch their people starve every year. Oppression and big govt are not the same thing.

              1. 3rd largest standing army in the world, but okay, whatever you say…

                Also, if oppression is not the same thing as big government, how exactly is a small government with little power supposed to be able to oppress their people? Seems to me you can’t have one without the other.

              2. “Oppression and big govt are not the same thing.”

                Yes they are. Can’t really have on without the other, can you?

                1. Big Govt is not necessary for Oppression. It isn’t an “if and only if” relationship.

          3. The ways they would prefer to grow govt (laws against sex and free thought) have been cut off at the pass by the courts

            I see where you’re coming from with laws against sex, but surely you’re joking about laws against free thought. Where in the US do you see this? (And no, I’m not talking about teaching some form of intelligent design in schools alongside evolution; that can be considered many things but it is not a prohibition on thought.)

            1. They want to suppress Islam for one. They regularly grumble about not being allowed to force school prayer and the Pledge on people.

              1. This is, of course, where I get to point out that the most prominent figure on the right who supports banning Islam at the current moment is an atheist and self-describes as Objectivist. And thank God we don’t have the socialists running things, otherwise we might still be having kids repeat an Orwellian chant before school every morn… wait, we still have that, don’t we? Well, I’m sure getting rid of that is somewhere real high on the list of concerns for the non-SOCONs.

                As far as school prayer goes, I’m not even going to dignify your misunderstanding of the issue with a considered reply.

                1. This is, of course, where I get to point out that the most prominent figure on the right who supports banning Islam at the current moment is an atheist and self-describes as Objectivist.

                  Which has fuck-all to do with whether SocioCons want to suppress it. Your logic is as backwards as the Chesterton wannabe’s.

                  1. Which has fuck-all to do with whether SocioCons want to suppress it.

                    Of course it does. It’s a fallacy to suppose that this is on the SoCon agenda anymore than it is on the atheist agenda simply because one sees people in both groups stating such things. There is simply no political movement in the US which is seriously trying to “suppress Islam” — there are no position papers on the subject from any SoCons, no party platforms with anything like this, no policies being pushed along these lines. Random chatter from idiots does not entail political assent anymore than racist chatter from Llew Rockwell implies that one of libertarianism’s agenda items is to foster racism. There is no unity around this point among SoCons or any other group in the US for that matter, and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.

                    1. But Trouser, if you keep debunking things I feelz with your words, how can I keep disdaining these people?

        2. And of course most of the black churches.

          Who are pretty socially conservative in a lot of ways.

          1. They are very socially conservative. But Black SOCONS don’t vote Republican. If they ever did, the Democratic Party would be doomed.

            1. Hence their hunger for a massive amnesty.

      2. “Therefore Methodists must love eating pork.”

        I’ll confirm that statement.

    4. “Not all SoCons are economic “populists” like Huckabee.”

      Social Conservatives are reactionary.

      They’ll vociferously oppose almost anything that someone from the left supports, and they’ll support almost anything that someone from the left opposes. Capitalism is one of those issues.

      At best, they support capitalism just as much as the left opposes it–but not one penny more.

      1. Jesus Christ you are an ignorant bigot Ken. Seriously, you realize what an ass clown you are? It would never occur to you that anyone you disagreed with ever had a serious thought. Nope. They are all just idiots who oppose the left out of reflex not because of any thought.

        That is in many ways the dumbest thing you have ever wrote on here Ken. Seriously, could you be a bigger elitist douche bag? I am not sure it is possible.

        Get a fucking clue Ken. Just because you don’t want gay marriage or have your tax money used to pay for sex change operations doesn’t mean you don’t understand economics or are not a classical liberal.

        1. Come on, John, take a deep breath, meditate or something.

        2. John, in a post where you’re accusing someone else of being an bigot ignorant and unkind to those he disagrees with you might want to lighten up on insulting and cursing the fellow.

          1. No. I might not. If he wants to make idiotic statements that have no bearing in reality and just assume that everyone who disagrees with him must just be ignorant and only agree with him out of reflex, I am going to call him out for what he is.

            1. Whoosh.

            2. There is more than a grain of truth in what he is saying in that he does accurately describe some social conservatives. Though by no means all.

              1. But surely you can say almost anything about any sizable group and have it describe some of them, so what does that even mean?

              2. You can make a similar statement about members of any group. So that really doesn’t mean anything.

            3. John just got back from the holidays–spent a lot of time with socially conservative family.

              I must have hit close to home!

              …when I quoted Huckabee.

              It’s hard hearing the truth about social conservatives–when your own family is like that–is it John?

              Or maybe John works for the government or something. Maybe I hit even closer than family! Do you work for the government or something, John?

              Why do you believe people should be free to make economic choices for themselves, John? How much does it have to do with your opposition to the left and their social agenda? If the left didn’t support gay marriage, to what extent would you still be a free market, capitalist?

              1. Ken,

                My family is nothing like that. And I bet yours isn’t either. I bet their side of the story is a bit different that yours. Maybe they are the ignorant hillbillies you claim they are. But it is just as or more likely that they are nothing like that and manage to win a few arguments and score a few points you don’t like and your way of not dealing with that is to pretend they are the characterature you portray. I haven’t met them, so I can’t say. But my money would be on the latter.

                Beyond that, I have multiple friends who would describe themselves as SOCONs and they are nothing like that. They are all educated, successful professionals and exhibit about a hundred times more reasoned analysis of things than you do on here.

                People from both sides of the political spectrum come in all shapes and sizes. I know some very liberal people who are also very thoughtful and extremely smart, if mistaken. I know SOCONS who are the same way and I have met people on both sides that are the opposite. Stop pretending no one on the other side could possibly have a reasonable difference with you or just be mistaken. It makes you look like a douche bag.

                1. “My family is nothing like that. And I bet yours isn’t either. I bet their side of the story is a bit different that yours. Maybe they are the ignorant hillbillies you claim they are.”

                  I claimed they were “ignorant hillbillies”?

                  You’re hearing voices in your head, John.

                  Don’t listen if they tell you to burn things.

                  1. Ken,

                    I have forgotten more about economics than you know. Seriously, you consistently show the inability to grasp anything but the most simple economic concepts. The real interesting stuff and second order effects, go right over your head.

                    Beyond that, I am not a social conservative. I just defend them on here because I can’t stand posers and douche bags like you being bigots.

                    I am for legalized gambling and drugs. I think child pornography should be legal. What exactly is socially conservative about that?

                    You and a lot of other people on here just assume I am a SOCON because I defend them. Apparently, the idea that someone could think outside of crude tribal logic and defend people they don’t agree with is beyond your comprehension. I defend them and don’t hate them, therefore I must be one of them. Ah, no. It is called being a reasonable person Ken and saying what you think with no regard to whose tribe it offends. You should try it sometime.

                    1. “I have forgotten more about economics than you know. Seriously, you consistently show the inability to grasp anything but the most simple economic concepts. The real interesting stuff and second order effects, go right over your head.”

                      Oh, you frighten all of us with your enormous bank of economic knowledge, wise one! Never mind all the money from investors and banks over the years for development deals

                      You’re biggest problem is that when you don’t understand what other people are talking about–you think they’re ignorant.

                      “Get a fucking clue Ken. Just because you don’t want gay marriage or have your tax money used to pay for sex change operations doesn’t mean you don’t understand economics or are not a classical liberal.”

                      If you learn anything all week, let it be that when you don’t understand what other people are talking about, it doesn’t mean they’re ignorant.

                      “You and a lot of other people on here just assume I am a SOCON because I defend them.”

                      You seem to get personally offended whenever people start speaking badly of social conservatives–or Republicans, really.

                      Why wouldn’t we assume you’re a social conservative, John?

                    2. Who is this ‘we’ you speak of? You got a turd in your pocket? Seriously, you are one self important puffed up individual. I think John has you pegged.

                      Personally, I am no SoCon. I didn’t like some of the things they were trying to push in the 80’s when they had the influence to push them. On the other hand, they do have some good points here and there too. And i do not like to see them so bullied and disenfranchised as they currently are.

                      And as self important and limited as i consider you to be, you should still no better than to be so ignorant and bigoted towards them. You really need to stop leading the charge against SoCons and other groups that will not conform for you.

                    3. I hope you’re saying “child pornography should be legal” in the sense that you don’t want the Sally Manns and David Hamiltons of the world prosecuted for artsy photographs of kids with no clothes on (who have no problem being photographed that way)… and that if they’re doing it against their will or under duress, the perpetrators will still get imprisoned. It’s a thin line, but that’s where I draw it.

        3. No, Ken has them fairly well pegged. Conservatism has defined itself for well over 2 centuries as the opposition to the “left”. In doing so, the conservatives have taken a stance that was put up in more or less its current form by the Christian church a millennium ago.

          The way conservativism came about explains some of the difference between North American & European continental conservatism, and even some degree of neoconservatism. Nobody said they do any less thinking about their -ism than most people do. Isms are commonly combinations of ideology & rxn form’n.

          1. To be fair, these days it’s often the left that’s defending the status quo and conservatives fighting for change. The labels got frozen in place in 1932.

            1. No, not exactly, because as John points out, “social liberalism” keeps moving on, often obsessively. The “left” has had to spend considerable periods defending much of the economic status quo, however.

          2. “Conservatism has defined itself for well over 2 centuries as the opposition to the “left”.”

            That’s just a ridiculous comment that shows little historical awareness. Neither the American right nor left existed in anything like their present form 200+ years ago.

            George Washington was clearly a Conservative, but also a Leftist radical by the common definitions of the late 18th century.

      2. “At best, they support capitalism just as much as the left opposes it–but not one penny more.”

        So…they support capitalism?

        1. As long as the capitalists are tithing generously and not shipping/uploading anything SkyDad disapproves of.

          1. Hey, listen, you don’t want to get grounded by SkyDad…that’s just a good safety tip.

          2. Your concept of a supreme being is rather small and sad.

        2. Not really.

          Not on their own.

          If their support is predicated on the opposition of the left, then, no, they don’t really support it.

          They just oppose the left–for socially conservative reasons.

        3. They support at least the forms & appearances of capitalism. That’s why from time to time & place to place, the “right” has been identified with fascism, Nazism, dirigisme, corporatism, etc. Some of them develop a free-market ideology, but others are suckered into various schemes that either give the appearance of “favoring business” or look like a caricature of things the “left” opposes: monocle polishers, etc. Hence much of the diversity on the “right”.

          1. Bullshit Robert. The only corporatist “fascists” in this country are in the GOP establishment and on the Left. Show me one Socially Conservative politician who supports the views you are talking about. Moreover, show me how those sorts of policies are more common in areas where SOCONs have power. They are not. They are common in states where the left has power.

            You are just wrong.

            1. What part of “from time to time & place to place…has been” do you not get? I was thinking mostly about the European continent during the 20th C.

              In parts of the USA where “conservatives” are politically dominant these days, it’s true that corporatist ideas are less common. However, in parts of the country where “conservatives” are mostly in opposition, their leadership frequently tries to get some leverage by initiating or getting on board with public-private partnerships, etc.

              1. Robert,

                There is a difference between being a real corporatist and just an ordinary crook. And if your point doesn’t apply to this time and place, what does it matter?

                Yes, a lot of good Lutherans in Germany embraced socialism. So what?

      3. You need to back off the talk radio for a while.

      4. They’ll vociferously oppose almost anything that someone from the left supports,

        So far, so good.

        and they’ll support almost anything that someone from the left opposes.

        Bit more of a mixed bag, but on the whole, not a bad starting point.

        Seriously, Ken. With the commanding heights of the Dems thoroughly captured by proggy leftists, who are pretty thoroughgoing totalitarians, you could find worse bedfellows that people who reflexively oppose proggy leftism.

        Now, do the socons also have some pretty repellent notions of what government should be doing? You bet. But fighting proggy leftists trench by trench is a feature, not a bug.

        1. If you have a snake problem, bringing in mongooses to eat them sounds like a good idea… until you wonder how to solve the resulting mongoose problem.

          1. Isn’t that why we have a 2nd Amendment?

        2. Some people might think libertarianism is more than (though it surely includes) just fighting leftism.

          1. Obviously. But unless one can figure out *how* to fight political leftism effectively (which has not happened in a long time in particularly concentrated doses), it’s a damn sight more important for libertarians to put that higher on their agenda than writing the Nth treaty on human rights or libertarian philosophy.

            1. But unless one can figure out *how* to fight political leftism effectively…

              That’s the libertarian conundrum. People with no desire for power tend not to seek out positions of power. Yet you can’t dismantle the power structure without first seeking out the power to do so.

          2. Some people might think libertarianism is more than (though it surely includes) just fighting leftism.

            Of course, but as things sit today, that’s the main battle to be fought.

        3. “Seriously, Ken. With the commanding heights of the Dems thoroughly captured by proggy leftists, who are pretty thoroughgoing totalitarians, you could find worse bedfellows that people who reflexively oppose proggy leftism.”

          I didn’t say they weren’t bedfellows–of a sort. Only that they’re very, very strange bedfellows–and only on the surface.

          They don’t support capitalism because they think everyone should be free to make choices for themselves.

          The progressives left opposes “Wealth of Nations”. The social conservatives oppose “Theory of Moral Sentiments”. But Adam Smith was writing about the same processes acting on different subjects.

          Progressives oppose capitalism, but they want to use the government to impose their social values on everyone else, too. Social conservatives also want to impose their own different social values on everyone else–but just like the Progressives are phony on not trying to impose themselves on the culture, social conservatives are phony on their support for capitalism, too.

          If they got a candidate that promised to impose their socially conservative values on the rest of society, they wouldn’t give a shit if his economic populism was somewhere to the left of Liz Warren.

          1. A la Mike Huckabee.

        4. With the commanding heights of the Dems thoroughly captured by proggy leftists, who are pretty thoroughgoing totalitarians, you could find worse bedfellows than people who reflexively oppose proggy leftism.

          This is true. We owe them a great debt in North America, plus a little in the British Isles. On the European continent, not so much, although arguably they may have staved off Communism there.

      5. The problem with this taxonomy is that there are simply too many kinds of so-cons.

        I doubt they are all in that pigeon-hole.

    5. That’s true. It’s mostly the Calvinist influence, which, however, I date back to pre-Protestant times as a result of the great plagues & crusades. The people had an obligation to repopulate & deliver soldiers. Therefore they should be industrious, but not have any fun spending, and should have legitimate kids & turn over their wealth & their kids to their lords and church.

      1. I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of Calvinism, but I don’t know about the repopulation part.

        The Protestant work ethic was about showing off your predestination.

        No matter how bad life may get, you show the outward signs of your predestined status by being industrious no matter how bleak things seem at the moment.

        You’re extremely frugal because even though things may seem great now, the predestined path God has set out for you may still contain terrible misfortunes in the future–and you need to be ready for them.

        Yeah, the protestant work ethic is about the influence of Calvinism.

        1. About the repopul’n part: It started centuries before any type of Protestantism. Great areas of Europe had undergone significant popul’n declines because of a succession of plagues, and the Christian church was warring against Moslems & Vikings. That’s when an oblig’n was imposed on people to work hard, have children, and supply the sons to the church as soldiers, while also giving their wealth (in excess of what their daughters needed to be fecund) to their feudal lords & the church.

          By the time Calvinism came along, the Catholic Church didn’t have as much need for that sort of thing, so Calvinism can be seen as a revival of that sort of ethos that says you should make all the $ you can but not enjoy yourself spending it.

          1. See, the God-has-favored-you bit produced a problem for Calvinists: what to do with the wealth. Couldn’t give it to the church, because that was the corruption the Protestants broke away from. Couldn’t give it to the poor, because that encourages idleness, and since God must’ve disfavored the poor, why thwart God’s will? Couldn’t spend it on luxury, since you’re supposed to enjoy yourself only in the afterlife. The only thing left to do is invest it, which leads to mo’ $, which leads to more of the same problem. But you could also tax it for military purposes, since there’ll always be enemies, and killing yourself & others just gets quicker to your judgment after death, so violence is OK.

            1. Robert,

              That is completely absurd. The US never had a large peace time military of any kind until after World War II. And Calvinists never had a problem with wealth. They had a problem with greed but not wealth. Calvinists are more than anything believers in pre-destination and grace through faith not works. So they never worried about being wealthy, because they didn’t believe their works were what was going to give them salvation. They worried about greed and vice but never felt guilty about being wealthy or supported policies to punish wealth for the sake of doing it.

              It was the Calvinists in the Netherlands and England who created the entire capitalist system as we know it. It is the Catholics who view wealth as a sin and punished wealth creation, not the Calvinists.

              1. As to the USA, you’re selecting a relatively small chunk of time & the globe and trying to disprove the pattern that spans more centuries & more of the globe.

                The Calvinists didn’t view wealth as a sin, but they viewed luxury as one. They were for prod’n but not consumption.

                1. Robert,

                  But the Calvinists by and large were not socialists. Socialism came from Germany and was first embraced in Germany. And the Germans were not Calvinists. They were and are Lutherans. And Lutheranism is much closer to Catholicism in its views on wealth and sin.

                  As for the rest of Europe, it only got more socialists as it got more secular. Indeed, of all of the Western Democracies, America is by far the least secular and the most religious as a society. And it has resisted socialism more than any other Western Country. That is reasonable evidence I think that religion is not what is driving Socialism.

                  1. I never tried to say religion was what drove socialism, nor that Calvinism was an important part of conservatism in all countries. I’m trying to acc’t for the combinations of beliefs people have, by at least showing compatibility between them.

      2. Robert,

        That is completely counter to history. The “Left” as we know it today comes from the French Revolution. And its goal was to build Utopia on earth and to destroy and or co-opt religion in support of the state. Everyone who is a classical liberal is opposed to that.

        The people who built this country were by today’s standards Social Conservatives. The Victorian age was in many ways the height of social conservatism. Yet, it was also the height of economic freedom and what we call classical liberalism. There is more to liberty than abortion and sodomy. Ken doesn’t get that and apparently neither do you.

        1. The “Left” as we know it today comes from the French Revolution.

          You think I picked that dating, “well over 2 centuries”, arbitrarily?

          Most of the families who built up North America came from Europe, and came well after the French Revolution. And yes, they were by today’s standards social conservatives. So how is that counter to hx?

          1. It is counter to HX because the people we call “social conservatives” are generally just defending themselves from the left. It is the left who wants to transform society and who are totalitarians. They are the ones who are the endless aggressors in the culture war. Yet, people like you pretend the SOCONs are the aggressors or that they just mindlessly oppose the left. That is just horse shit. The SOCONs, by maintaining institutions and values out side of the state are prime targets in the left’s war to rule and transform society. The Left has always made war against civil institutions and the church in particular. So the fact that the SOCONS oppose the left is not surprising. The Left is out to destroy them. And it says nothing one way or another about the SOCON’s views of economics.

            1. You seem to have something against agreeing with people, because you keep imputing elements to disagree with. I never said so-cons were the aggressors, and I never said they were mindless. I don’t think they’re any more mindful than most people in their -isms, but not any less either.

              1. Fair enough. We don’t disagree on that.

  7. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be.

    Which has fuck-all to do with the Republican Party of the 21st century.

  8. After reading those Huckabee quotes I am reminded why I find Socons, and Progressives to be so annoying. Not only do they have an innate desire to pigeonhole everyone. They make the type of politicians that do not want to represent you. They want you to represent them.

    1. They’re not leaders. They’re rulers.

    2. Libertarians are the same way. It’s an ideologue thing.

      When someone comes along who just wants to win elections, and thus will do whatever is popular with voters, we derogate them as a “weather vane”.

      1. You have a good point squib. Though IMO Libertarians are a lot more flexible, and contentious with each other.

        1. You haven’t taken the LP Purity Test then.

          1. piss off twit

  9. It would never occur to you that anyone you disagreed with ever had a serious thought.

    I need to go lie down, now.

    My tummy hurts from all that guffawing.

    1. Red Tony is a funny guy.

    2. You are smarter than Ken Brooks, but you are in many ways worse. Ken can’t help himself. He doesn’t know how to think seriously. You actually can and do occasionally. You just mostly refuse to do so because that would require actually standing for something and being something besides an asshole. It is a shame you don’t give yourself more credit.

      1. Do you support Gohmert for Speaker?

  10. Gohmert for Speaker?

    How about it Red Tony?

    1. Go do some work on your crappy book, scumbag. You should have been done with it already, and your publisher is probably starting to get pissed off.

  11. my buddy’s mother makes $72 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her payment was $12076 just working on the internet for a few hours. read more…………
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  12. I read Huckabee’s first book; he thinks highly of voluntary service, and further thinks that young people would benefit greatly by engaging in voluntary service. He thinks so highly of voluntary service, in fact, that he said it just might be necessary to make it mandatory.

    1. How dare the libertarians stand in the way of everyone’s right to mandatory service!

      1. I was a Huckabee fan in 2008, due primarily to his support for the Fair Tax.

        I don’t even remember everyone on the lists that year…

        Brownback (who bowed out early), Romney, Huckabee, Ron Paul. I could look it up, but I don’t feel like it right now.

        The list wasn’t a very good one, excepting of course, for Dr. Paul (who I thought had some good ideas for domestic policy, but whose foreign policies clashed with my neo-con leaning outlook at the time).

    2. And, you vil like it!

    3. This is already in place in high schools, now.

  13. my friend’s sister makes $68 an hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 10 months but last month her check was $21549 just working on the laptop for a few hours. browse this site……….
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  14. On the plus side he supports the Fair Tax. That’s a big one for me.

    1. No way…unless they find out a way not to double tax savings.

      (There is a way, but you have issue a new currency at the same time. So, 1 old dollar gets you 1 + Fair Tax Rate new dollars.)

  15. RINO!

  16. In my opinion, the author’s idea is advisable.I will make advertisement freely for your post,recommend it to my frields.Most of my frields are fall in love with your post.http://www.rsgpfast.com/RS-3.Gold

  17. Until socons give up Prohibition – I’m going to be extremely antagonistic.

  18. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

  19. @66 I know a better site and wanted to share my top secret with you. You cant live with $8724 per month only!!!

    Here’s a way better site : : : == http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  20. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobs700.com

  21. Ya, I am surprised and not surprised (he was a Minister wasn’t he) and I still would take him over Warren or Clinton….

  22. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  23. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay check was $19835 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here………
    ????? http://www.good-reports.com

  24. I’ve noticed this about SoCons: the issues that motivate them are barely political. I have a couple who is constantly liking clickbait on Facebook. Most of it is stuff like “if you’re going to burn our flag, wrap yourself in it first.” “Like if you want a White House that honors God.” General bumper sticker type stuff. Amongst my very SoCon family I find this to be a trend. They’re involved in the culture war but they’re rather unconcerned with much else. This is why libertarians shouldn’t write them off. On the issues we’re passionate about, they’re rather neutral. Just like we tend to be neutral on their areas of concern. Make some fiery statements about the liberal media or Obama and they like you. They don’t really give a crap one way or another about the minimum wage or pot or any of our pet issues.

    1. *cousin not couple

  25. Huckabee ironically agrees with the more rigid Libertarians that they should go third party.

    Of course in a winner-takes-all electoral system that means the first party wins by default. The idea that the GOP could win by becoming a Pure Conservative party, whatever that means, is bizarre.

    The GOP can only win if it becomes a more libertarian party. Libertarians have to convince the geriatric conservatives that they are not dangerous pot smoking radicals, but good kids firmly within the American political tradition’s mainstream.

  26. Thief is primarily aimed at World vs World because tit would work for PVE as well. It wields dual daggers and a short bow to buy rs gold. The short bow is awesome for a certain distance and when defending a keep.

  27. I think that the authors say is very right, especially the views of the author close to our daily life.So we can go to the:[URL=http://www.rsgpfast.com/]Runescape Gold[/URL] or [URL=http://www.rsgpfast.com/RS-3.Gold]RS3 Gold[/URL] for study more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.