Thursday, December 8, 2011

The problem with conservatarians - they don't take logic seriously

Michael Barry, a local conservative talk show host who has connections with Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, said this on his facebook profile:
 The only reason Blacks won't vote for Hillary is bc they hate women. I feel Obama is taking us back to pre-suffrage days, with a sort of Jane Crowe mentality. Ladies, burn your bras and your Hope & Change bumper stickers.

I'm disappointed. He says this as if women's suffrage was a good thing.  This type of thinking is my main beaf with mainstream conservatives, even those who serve as the intellectual height of the movement and thus should know better. Their basic ideals are ok but their thinking is so shallow they end up advocating policies diametrically opposed to their stated missions.  It's a strategic nightmare.  With some exceptions like Vox Day, Ron Paul, and Keoni Galt, Libertarians have the same problem as well.  They beat on the drums of freedom and peace, but are advocating policies that will unravel us all: open immigration and free trade. Likewise, conservatives and libertarians advocate woman's suffrage even though it has been the most powerful fueling rod for the welfare state and big-government in the past century.  

The problem, I believe, is that they confuse what superficially appears to promote more freedom with what will ultimately produce more freedom.  Vox Day frames it in terms of Liberty of Opportunity vs. Liberty of Result, a spin off of the distinction between Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Result.

While Liberals are enamored with EoR and Conservatives with EoO, Libertarians are fantasized about LoO, the thought that it may be contradictory to LoR never seems to cross their mind.

Well, that's not entirely true, as everybody save the anarchist believes that the Government should violate human liberties for the sake of liberty as a whole, or else you would have libertarians proposing that murder should be legalized, or that property rights should be abolished.

So, unless you want pure anarchy, some sort of Liberty of Result must take precedence.  This is why mainstream L Libertarianism is an incoherent ideology.  It tries to have it both ways. "Give women the right to vote because it gives her more freedom," except it doesn't.  "Allow anybody to walk into our country unchecked because we don't need Government intervening with the flow of labor," except mass third world immigration, both democratically and demographically, sweeps the notion of liberty into obscurity.  You get the point.

And I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to point out that America doesn't have universal suffrage, nobody wants universal suffrage.  Toddlers crapping their diapers and teenagers being the immature souls they are cannot vote.  We all accept that because exceptions have to made, according to circumstances and observable human behavior. Opponents of women's suffrage like myself have simply taken the logic one step further. Of course, this means universal men's suffrage has to tossed out as well.  

So, Michael Barry, check yourself.  I like you.  You're a real talent. But check to see if you're not just spouting out conservative talking points and not critically examining your beliefs.  But in the event that you are, you may rest secure that you are not alone.


  1. I see this sort of thing a lot on the "mainstream" "right": attacking this or that leftist person, group, or constituency because it is INSUFFICIENTLY LIBERAL.

    They usually imagine this is some kind of great insight on their part, exposing inconsistency and thereby falseness in the leftist program -- in fact it does nothing but congeal the leftist consensus in society and probably radicalize the leftists themselves, who come to recognize that their enemies concede 90% of the metaphysical ground.

  2. That's true to a certain extent. But I would say that most conservative attacks on liberals for being insufficiently liberal arise from the need to point out the logical consequences of the leftist paradigm, and to show that their inconsistencies are necessary to avoid obvious absurdities. Their intent, I believe, is to unveil leftism's true face.

    This serves as rather effective pathos for the 1+ SD types sitting on the fence. These are the people who have the aptitude to understand the significance of logical consequences. And when they see radical leftists like Peter Singer espousing eugenics they're scared as heck.

    Not sure what you mean by "enemies concede 90% of the metaphysical ground." Perhaps you could elaborate on that for me.

    Anyhow, the point I was getting was that rightists end up cutting their strategic goals in the throat. Ergo, exposing those inconsistencies and making adjustments accordingly would strengthen the movement.