Comments on: Calhoun, Neoconservatives, and Liberty

By: Freedom and Culture « MANSIZEDTARGET.COM

Freedom and Culture « MANSIZEDTARGET.COM — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:44:33 +0000

[...] overseas and crippling debts at home in the name of economic stimulus. Having replaced the old stawart American people with a newer breed through mass immigration, and having accelerated that old breed’s decadence [...]

By: Mr. Roach

Mr. Roach — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:23:46 +0000

Just becuase there is objective right and wrong, does not mean all choices are between right and wrong, and also does not mean that everyone is equally suited to the same kind of political order and the same degree of free choice between degrees of right and wrong and other choices that are neither moral nor immoral but merely matters of good or bad taste, aesthetics, preference for risk and temperment. No one says liberty means man has a right “to commit evil acts,” but liberty does mean that within a certain sphere man can decide whether or not he will act a particular way and, even if something is evil, no other man has a right to stop him in the name of the state. The low but solid ground of “social order” is certainly better than the expansive “make men virtuous” mandate of the pagan era. We don’t ask our governmetns to do such a thing, because they too are made of sinful and at times mistaken men.

By: Theodore Van Oosbree

Theodore Van Oosbree — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:01:27 +0000

Mr. Calhoun is indeed an eloquent spokesman for the philosophy that liberty is for the few. A more nuanced approach would start with the nature of man. Is he a potentially rational, selfless creature whose true nature has been perverted by unjust social structures (the leftist/libertarian view) or is he an inherently flawed being dogged by the consequences of his sinful nature (the Christian/conservative view). If he is the latter than notions of unrestricted liberty and rights are nonsense for all – including the well-born and fortunate. Man’s actions should be constrained in accordance with the moral order and he has no rights outside that moral order (abortion rights, gay rights, and all the other claptrap of modern Rightsism are out). He has the right to any action sanctioned by the moral order. He may marry, procreate, educate his children, attend religious services, speak out against wrongs, freely associate. He has no right to commit evil acts – they can be tolerated if necessary but never recognized as licit.