Media unable to voice what Tea Party really is

[MicroBalrog]

Conservatism is the same thing as classical liberalism.

Lately there are many people trying to pervert or confuse the concept of conservatism, and many people claiming to be conservative who aren't.  Don't let it confuse you.  Conservatism is classical liberalism.

You really think someone like Robert Bork is a classical liberal?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

 

Robert Bork, the quintessential constitutional originalist?  Yeah, I'd certainly say that he's a classical liberal.  He adheres to the concepts of America as originally understood at the time of our founding, as best he understands them.

I think there's a tendency among modern libertarian types to assume that only Jeffersonian style rabid libertarianism qualifies as originalist American ideology.  This is a mistake.  You yourself pointed out the variance in attitudes among the founders.  Bork may not agree with the narrow historical interpretation of modern libertarians, but that does not make him any less of a classical liberal.

[MicroBalrog]

You realize Bork was an advocate for censorship, right?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oy.  Not this sh** again.

Quick question: was censorship of graphic violence and sex an accepted practice at the time of the founding?

[MicroBalrog]

Oy.  Not this sh** again.

"Society may properly set limits on what may be shown, said and sung."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If you have a point, Micro, would you please get to it?

You don't like censorship?  Ok, fair enough.  But does that mean anyone who disagrees with you on censorship isn't an American originalist/classical liberal/conservative?

[MicroBalrog]

I would argue that free speech is the basic tenet of classical liberalism, yes. I cannot find any mention of censorship in my Federalist Papers.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Aye, I can't recall any mention of censorship in the Federalist papers, either.  And yet it wasn't permissible to publish graphic sex or violence at the time.  There were numerous laws on the books against obscenities in public, laws that persisted until fairly recently, laws which the founders generally didn't object to.  

I don't think Bork is all that far off from originalist America in his views on restricting obscenities in public.

Don't assume that the founders agreed with your modern libertarian sensibilities on all issues.  On many issues, including this particular type of censorship, they did not. 

[MicroBalrog]

Free speech is libertarianism now?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Point?

[MicroBalrog]

Point?

Free speech isn't libertarianism. Free speech is a basic requirement of individual liberty that transcends the boundaries of petty partisanship. To claim that one's commitment to free speech is 'rabid libertarianism' is stretching the limits of both rabidness and libertarianism.

You claim that the Founding Fathers didn't share our modern sensibilities. Fair enough - but they also didn't share many of our modern conservative sensibilities. The contemporary precedent would be the dropping of obscenity charges (in 1750's England) against the publishers of Fanny Hill. And don't get me started about the sex life of the Founding Fathers.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Free speech as understood by modern libertarians isn't the same thing as free speech as understood, implemented, and practiced by the founders.  The founders' understanding allowed for restrictions on several fronts, including obscenities, slander/libel, public order, etc.  

Individual liberty isn't the same thing as anarchy.  Liberty requires you to be mindful and respectful of other members of society, and liberty specifically precludes you from damaging other individuals or society at large with your actions.  Nobody has liberty if members of society are free to injure others.

Bork's views on censorship were ordinary and routine until just a few decades ago, til about the 1960's.  The founders generally held the same views on obscenities, and there is no contradiction between that and originalist free speech, only a contradiction with the modern libertarian (mis)understanding of free speech.

It's been my observation that libertarians aren't interested in liberty so much as in anarchic "do anything I want any time I want without regard to consequences" total freedom for themselves.  They often confuse this sort of freedom for liberty, but they aren't the same thing.

Your gripe with Bork's originalist views on obscenity censorship are illustrative of the difference.  The libertarian has a problem with obscenities laws, the originalist/classical liberal/conservative/founders probably doesn't have a problem, at least not in principle.

[roo_ster]

To sum up:
contemporary conservatism ~ classical liberalism
contemporary libertarianism != classical liberalism

My favorite libertarian types are those who would use the power of the gov't to impose their views, much like a libertarian despotism. 

Ah, debates on the internets: a sport where we can, by the creation of a multitude of distinctions with no difference, spend all day trying to convince others they are wrong.  About something.  At some point, no one can quite tell about what, but it's really the wrongness that matters, after all.

Heh. 

Much like contemporary law, but with lower stakes.

[MicroBalrog]

To sum up:
contemporary conservatism ~ classical liberalism
contemporary libertarianism != classical liberalism

The latter is true. The former, not necessarily so.

My favorite libertarian types are those who would use the power of the gov't to impose their views, much like a libertarian despotism. 

You keep using that word... but I'm not that big of a fan of The Princess Bride.

[De Selby]

Classical liberalism certainly does not describe the beliefs of the founding fathers, at least not most of them, irrespective of whether you think it describes modern conservatives.

They were decidedly not free market, minimal gov't types.

[MicroBalrog]

Classical liberalism certainly does not describe the beliefs of the founding fathers, at least not most of them, irrespective of whether you think it describes modern conservatives.

They were decidedly not free market, minimal gov't types.

OOooh. This will be interesting.

[longeyes]

Somebody here has lapdances confused with political speech, methinks.

[KD5NRH]

OOooh. This will be interesting.

I'm calling that prediction a bust.

[Balog]

I'm calling that prediction a bust.

Seriously dude, necroing a four year old post for that?

[KD5NRH]

Seriously dude, necroing a four year old post for that?

Tempting as it is to wait five years to post "yes," my observation was accurate.

[freakazoid]

Tempting as it is to wait five years to post "yes," my observation was accurate.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Interesting timing for this necromancy. Watch as Chris Matthews actually defends the Tea Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y00h_nNBbpQ

"This looking down our noses at Tea Party people has got to stop."

 

[Angel Eyes]

Interesting timing for this necromancy. Watch as Chris Matthews actually defends the Tea Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y00h_nNBbpQ

"This looking down our noses at Tea Party people has got to stop."

 

I had to watch it twice to make sure I heard him correctly.

Is Matthews bucking for a job at Fox News?

[Perd Hapley]

He may have just realized that he could get more viewers if he stunned us all with the fair and balanced routine.

Or he just wanted to chew out the upstart punk who gets awards for having famous relatives.