As RINOs and Social conservatives battle over the future

Did someone lie to Newt Gingrich about Dede Scozzafava or whatever her name is? That seems to be an important question to some. Certainly important enough that Glenn Reynolds to felt obligated to offer some perspective about what might be more important:

To my mind, it’s more important — as noted in the Lamar Alexander interview above — that people not divide into permanently warring camps than that anything in particular happen in this election. The nice thing about NY-23 is that it’s an opportunity to send a message at low cost, but the cost won’t be low if it produces long-running enmity. Instead, it should be a spur for people to get involved in politics at the state and local level now, rather than complaining about the nominees later. Follow Bill Whittle’s advice!

Unfortunately, if you’re a libertarian, the options are limited.
I don’t like Newt Gingrich (so it doesn’t much matter to me whether he was lied to), and I don’t like Dede what’s-her-name, and if I had to choose between her and Doug Hoffman, I would prefer the latter — barely — for reasons I explained here. But I do not live in New York’s 23rd District, and I am getting a little tired of hearing about how this race will define the future of the Republican Party.
I hope it won’t, because if the frenzied emails I’m getting are any indication, it is shaping up as a showdown between social conservatives and RINOs, with libertarians basically just cut out of the equation and left in the lurch with no say in the matter. (Furthermore, as Eric Dondero explains, if Hoffman were a Libertarian instead of a Conservative, it’s highly unlikely that he would not be getting support from conservatives, even if there were no Republicans running.)
So much as I’d love to vote for a libertarian candidate, I have long since learned that they pretty much are not to be found outside the Libertarian Party. Moreover, libertarians are not especially liked by conservatives, even if the latter don’t literally want them shot. So I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I have been doing that for years. That’s what being a libertarian Republican is about, and it is not likely to change.
I just wish people would stop expecting me to get excited about what I consider another choice between the lesser of two evils. Sorry if I’m not going to hop up and down with enthusiasm for Doug Hoffman, but why should I? I’m not even in a position to hold my nose and vote for him.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I should be going gaga over Doug Hoffman, and sending him lots of money. Then I could hope that he’d become a libertarian and support sexual freedom and vote to legalize drugs and stuff.
And if he didn’t, I could always keep holding my nose.
What an exciting future. It’s like, as things are going, maybe the social conservatives will be able to “take back” what they used to imagine they had before Bush and McCain betrayed their principles and the country elected Obama. As Ann Althouse put it,

Bring the conservatives back and not only will they start appalling us again, but we’ll soon be dreaming dreamy dreams of liberal saviors.

Yeah, except I never liked saviors, liberal or conservative.
Sorry I’m not more enthusiastic, but I’m just not seeing much of a place for libertarians in the GOP. If the choice is between RINOs and social conservatives, (and the battle lines seem to be getting drawn that way), what’s to do other than take sides and hope some more?
AFTERTHOUGHT: By writing this post, in no way did I mean to negate the possibility of something I have long believed in, which is an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives. (I’ve even proposed a Judeo-Christian-Atheist Alliance!)
However, the idea that libertarians should just shut up and butt out while RINOs and social conservatives battle over the future of the Republican Party is unacceptable. Anyway, since I have been holding my nose and voting Republican for many, many years, and since there’s this huge power struggle going on right now, it has occurred to me that now might be a good time for libertarians to ask a basic question.
If libertarians don’t have any say in the future of the Republican Party now, then when will we?
Ever?
MORE: From Doug Mataconis, “A Libertarian Republican Case Against Doug Hoffman.”
AND MORE: While recognizing his problems, Gay Patriot endorses Hoffman:

We recognize that Hoffman is not an ideal candidate, but we don’t live in the ideal world. In this election, citizens of upstate New York have three real choices. Considering the broad range issues of concern to us, he is by the best of the three. We encourage all GayPatriot readers living in NY-23 to pull the Conservative Party lever in next Tuesday’s balloting.

That’s about right.
(Vid Glenn Reynolds.)


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

35 responses to “As RINOs and Social conservatives battle over the future”

  1. Veeshir Avatar

    You take what you get, small-gov’t conservatives do most of what libertarians want.
    They can bless me all they want, as long as they don’t use the gov’t to bless who they want to bless.
    Once they start to use the gov’t to do religious stuff, I’m out.
    I think that’s an important race because it’s Teh Peepul telling the GOP they better start acting like conservatives. The GOP is pushing back hard.
    If they had backed the conservative in the race, some guy name Mouran I think, this wouldn’t have happened, but they backed a lefty with an (R) who was friends with one of the bigs in the district against the guy who won in the limited votes they allowed.
    It’s really about pushing back against rule by people who wish we would shut up and going back to being governed by people who at least pretend they know who they work for.
    The big push back right now is against big government elitist bastids.
    That’s a battle libertarians should be involved in.
    Imagine shrinking the gov’t? Seriously, people are really angry about the latest BS, most Americans don’t want the gov’t too powerful. Right now it has ridiculous amounts of power over our lives, this is the push back.
    If they start using gov’t for religion I’ll change my mind, but as long as they’re shooting for limited gov’t, I’m in.

  2. d.eris Avatar

    There is as little reason for actual libertarians to support Republicans as there is for actual progressives to support Democrats. Really, there is very little reason for anyone to support Republicans or Democrats. What’s your take on the idea of a progressive/libertarian alliance?

  3. Eric Scheie Avatar

    I basically agree, Veeshir. IMO, the GOP lost the economic conservatism/small government glue that once held the party together:
    http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/11/a_building_not.html
    The problem is that libertarians really would like to dramatically scale back government, while social conservatives want to run it with their own people.
    For example, under libertarians, Kevin Jennings would be out of a job because the post of Safe Sex Czar would be gone (along with the Department of Education). Whereas under social conservatives, the Safe Sex Czar would likely be replaced by a Chastity Czar.
    After all, the think tank policy wonks all want government jobs!
    (I may have touched upon why libertarians are shut out of the debate….)

  4. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    I’m a small government social conservative. There are a lot of us, particularly among home schoolers. If we were able to seperate school and state a lot of socons begin to approximate libertarianism pretty well, since what we mostly want to control is what our children experience. In fact, there are many libertarian positions which protect socons and that socons respond to. Much of the socon backlash to The Liberal Homosexual Agenda (TM) is fear of what will happen to socons when it is combined with Liberal Identity Politics (TM) and Liberal Political Correctness (TM). Socons are pretty adept at reading the writing on that wall. It would be helpful if socons could see that libertarians would actually help fight Liberal Identity Politics (TM) and Liberal Political Correctness (TM) when aimed at socons. Often, however, libertarians have their own issues with socons and gleefully join in with the liberals instead. Unfortuneately socons often tend to gleefully join liberals in smacking around libertarians in a similar way over our issues with libertarians. 🙁
    And then there is the pro-life stance. As far as I’m concerned all libertarians should be pro-life. (Particularly for late term abortions where I cannot understand people who claim the baby is not a human person.) You possess no liberty if you have been killed before birth.
    Oh and BTW, actual social conservatives in this country are not particularly repressive in actual practice, being much more concerned with public behavior than private behavoir. Again, it comes down to the kids. We don’t want our kids exposed to many things.
    For example we don’t want our gay fathers/brothers/husbands/sons and lesbian mothers/sisters/wives/daughters exposed to jail time for private behavoir. And when libertarians put things that way a lot of socons jump right on board.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  5. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Eric, you and I cross posted.
    Whereas under social conservatives, the Safe Sex Czar would likely replaced by a Chastity Czar.
    Under this socon, with no government run schools, but with plenty of private Christian, secular and even atheist schools, we would have neither.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  6. Veeshir Avatar

    The problem is that libertarians really would like to dramatically scale back government, while social conservatives want to run it with their own people
    See, I agree and disagree.
    First, I agree in that say, Huckabee is a Christian socialist. Romney is another big gov’t type.
    I disagree because the tea party movement is anti-big-gov’t at its core. That’s why NY 23 is so big.
    It’s a shot across the bows of the GOP. I really have to wonder how stupid and stubborn they are and how long they’ll keep rudely pushing back against the people who vote for them and send them money.
    The biggest problem is that whenever conservatives are ascendant, the religious right gets all excited and think it’s all about them.
    The good thing about conservatives is that if they stick to their small-gov’t principles, then the rest mostly takes care of itself.
    You’re going to have to deal with a religion either way.
    I really don’t like the leftist religion where you can’t deviate from orthodoxy and the whole goal is to get the gov’t to mandate their religion (like global worming or hate-speech or… well, you know).
    The Terry Schiavo deal really bothered me and I personally think that was another reason the GOP started losing, most Americans don’t want religion from the gov’t, they want the gov’t to keep people from hurting them or taking their stuff.
    If they start going the Romney/Huckabee route, you won’t see me defending them.
    I am considering writing in Zombie Reagan instead of Gus Hall.
    Is an undead conservative better than a dead commie?

  7. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    The Terry Schiavo deal really bothered me, too. Why couldn’t her parents have the liberty to take care of her? The notion that we proved that Terry would have wanted to die was pretty threadbare. It didn’t even come close to passing the clear and convincing standard. It may not have even passed the preponderance of evidence standard. But the parents desire to take care of her was well beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Can you tell I just finished jury duty Tuesday?
    DUI, BTW. Something libertarians and socons agree about. Thank goodness I didn’t have to try jury nullification! 😉
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  8. dr kill Avatar
    dr kill

    I’m glad you have a blog so I don’t need to. You make more sense than anyone in the blogosphere.

  9. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom,
    Why was Terry Schiavo a Federal case?
    If you don’t like the laws of Florida change them if you live there or move there and change them if you don’t.
    No system run by men will ever give you perfect justice.

  10. Veeshir Avatar

    Exactly M. Simon, exactly.
    I was viciously attacked because I thought it wasn’t the federal gov’t’s problem. Viciously attacked by people I thought were my friends.
    I made that comment on two blogs I liked a lot and at one it was the subject of a whole post on what’s wrong with people who want others to die and the other one I was just viciously attacked in the comments by commenters and the blogger.
    I didn’t look at the Internet for over a week after that and couldn’t watch any news. It really bothered me.
    I meant to answer this question Eric,
    If libertarians don’t have any say in the future of the Republican Party now, then when will we?
    Never.
    Libertarians need their own party, one that isn’t so absolutist and that understands that the gov’t needs to do certain things.
    I would actually join a Constitutional party, one that just wanted to follow the Constitution, that would be libertarian enough for me and could attract a whole lot of people.
    And that’s where I would like to see the GOP go. Just follow the Constitution and we could get rid of so many laws and the department of education and maybe a couple others like energy.
    The gov’t needs to keep people from killing me, hurting me or taking my stuff. That’s pretty much it.

  11. Mike Foster Avatar
    Mike Foster

    I still do not understand the Libertarian Party’s positions on (at least) two issues:
    1) Abortion
    From the platform of the Libertarian Party:
    http://www.lp.org/platform
    First, this:
    1.0 Personal Liberty
    Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.
    Then this:
    1.4 Abortion
    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
    So, everyone should be held responsible for their own actions, but if you get pregnant you are not held responsible for the resulting embryo/fetus? You don’t have to Pay the Piper?? I am sorry (ladies) that this responsibility invariably devolves wholly upon the woman, but, hey, that’s Biology. I guess sucking an embryo from a womb with a vacuum hose doesn’t constitute force upon that (now deceased) person?
    The point of libertarianism (I thought) is that every individual life is SO SACRED that no other person (or the government) has the right to infringe on LIFE, LIBERTY, etc. “Abortion Rights” erodes this foundation, de facto.
    Eric and Simon, I fear that you may be sick to death of this abortion issue, but I can’t come up with another instance of political/philosophical hypocrisy that outclasses this one (from the Libertarian Party, no offense to yous guys personally… I haven’t been reading the blog long enough to know your full opinions on the topic)
    As far as Schiavo, I can’t imagine that I would want the State and my ex-wife to have the power to KILL ME OFF in the absence of a living will signed by my own hand. It wouldn’t make it better that it was Vermont killing me off rather than Alaska since I would be equally dead either way. Although I suppose that if it were a case of Federalism, I would be pretty leery if my wife suddenly wanted to “move to sunny Vermont”… I’d have to suggest Alaska.
    I understand (and appreciate) the sexual libertarianism, the drug libertarianism, the free speech/expression, etc. I can’t understand this seeming disregard for human life.
    Oh, almost forgot:
    2) National Security/Isolationism — see in link above. Vague nonsense. And the small bit I do understand is a little Dovish for my tastes to boot.

  12. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Why was Terry Schiavo a Federal case?
    It wasn’t. And the Federal government has no business banning late term abortions, either, murder though they be.
    In both cases, however, at least a strong minority (+30%) of libertarians should be pro-life at the state level – because in both cases there are strong liberty interests on the pro-life side.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  13. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom,
    If abortion is really premeditated murder why when it was illegal was the death penalty not imposed?
    There seems to be a long standing contradiction there.
    My take is that the it was never murder. Just socially unacceptable to some religions.
    And suppose you got your way what would enforcement look like? Weekly pregnancy tests for women? A black market in ergot and RU-485? What exactly makes you think that passing laws is going to fix things? How has that worked out with drug prohibition?
    And you know – the last time religion got involved with government in a big way you got the public school systems as indoctrination centers for Protestantism. Had enough yet?
    I have never understood why conservatives have so little faith in their values that they need government to enforce them. Was that the message of Jesus? Become a government enforcer?

  14. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Pro-life is not a religious position, sir, nor is it putting religion in government, andy more than anti-slavery laws put religion in government. There are pro-life atheists. The reason I am so positive that late term abortions are murder is that I was two months premature. That isn’t a religious argument.
    Your biases are showing. Think carefully about the history of the abolition of slavery before you reply.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  15. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom,
    I was two months premature too.
    You still haven’t answered my question.
    1. If abortion is pre-meditated murder why isn’t the death penalty imposed?
    2. How are you going to enforce it? Pregnancy testing (the drug testing precedent)? Fighting a black market in RU-485? Menstrual extraction party enforcement? Fighting a black market in ergot and oxcytocin? Outlawing implantation prevention (a la the morning after pill aka birth control pills).
    And like it or not it is a religious question. Seculars generally have a different view. Reform Jews (the majority of Jews in America) are quite liberal on the question.
    Why not deal with it by convincing women not to have abortions?
    Any State strong enough to prevent abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory. cf. China. If you don’t want a state that strong why not find another way to reach your goal that doesn’t involve government guns? Or is your goal so lacking in attraction that the only way you can get what you want is putting government guns to people’s heads?
    I personally know a woman who had a number of abortions and once she got her head screwed on straight went on to have a rather large family. If she was in jail – no family. I know another woman who used abortion as birth control (yuck) who went on to have a family. Would these women have been better off serving ten to life (or better yet getting the death penalty for premeditated murder)?
    Laws are generally ineffective unless you can get 99+% voluntary compliance. If you consider 1 million abortions a year (.3% of the population) and 1/2 of those being different individuals you get .15% a year different individuals. Then multiply that by 20 (ages 20 to 40) years of fertility and it works out to 3%. The drug war is a total failure with 95% compliance.
    So tell me: how are you going to make it work?
    Let us say you can arrest 10% of those getting abortions. That is 100,000 a year (roughly). You going to sentence 100,000 women a year to death for premeditated murder? OK so you only want to give them 10 years in prison. At the end of 10 years you will have 1 million women in prison. An increase of 50% in the prison population. How is that going to work? Who will pay for it? The drug war costs $50 billion a year. So if it is proportional it will cost about $25 billion a year. Who pays?
    I suggest we get our best brains together to work on a Pregnancy Enforcement Administration (PEA). I’m sure the PEA brains will come up with a solution.

  16. M. Simon Avatar

    The only way to enforce an abortion ban is to have a lot of snitches. Do you really want a nation based on informers? We have that in the drug war. How is that working out?
    And then you have corrupt cops asking for sex to turn a blind eye. Do you really want that?

  17. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Actually, M., I would like to institute a system of prizes to develop abortion technology which doesn’t kill the kid, and, after such technology is well established, then make abortion which kills the kid illegal. Frankly, without such technology it would be politically impossible to outlaw abortion.
    I know this sidesteps all your questions, but at the same time it answers them. In the real world killing people before birth won’t be illegal unless women can safely terminate pregnancies without terminating babies. The inevitable result of the invention of surgical abortion was its widespread legality. That’s the way people are in the real world. And real world socons know how real people in the real world behave.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  18. bobby b Avatar
    bobby b

    The “Rino’s v the No-No’s” battle is, for me, sometimes theater and sometimes a frustrating bang-my-head-on-a-tree-loudly-for-the-distraction waste of scarce time and energy, but I’ve found one general truth in it.
    Rinos seldom make arguments or advance positions for the apparent reason or motive. They don’t disclose their true beliefs and values, frequently because they have little confidence in the truth or justice or beauty of their own values, and after a few election seasons in which they participate constantly, most have forgotten what they believe in, filling the vacated space in their brain with polls.
    The typical social conservative, on the other hand, is sincere and believable and will stick to their word.
    You can work with the so-cons. With Rinos, all you can do is try to avoid being eaten.

  19. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Bobby,
    Boy did you nail it. Some people seem to think moderation and compromise is the penultimate virtue. As a socon I find many libertarian solutions entirely impractical, but at least you know what libertarians think.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  20. OregonGuy Avatar

    The problem with the Libertarians is that they attract absolutists, that is, they approach anarchy rather than support for limited government.
    The problem with Republicans is that they attract trimmers, that is, they approach statism rather than support for limited government.
    It is very difficult on the local level to recruit new members–and candidates–for the Republican party when candidates like Scozza exist. Races like this, promoted on a national stage, re-inforce the question, “what are the differences between the parties?”
    Do I want Company A polluting the river that runs past my home? No. Do I want government telling Company A what to pay its executives? No.
    We need government. We need limited government. It is unfortunate, but I think it has been the intrusive federal courts that have created most, if not all, of our legislative conundrum.
    Why require the passage of a federal Constitutional Amendment when a federal judge can, by ukase, effect the same change?
    .

  21. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    The problem with the Libertarians is that they attract absolutists, that is, they approach anarchy rather than support for limited government.
    Yup.
    The problem with Republicans is that they attract trimmers, that is, they approach statism rather than support for limited government.
    Yup.
    Now tell me the problem with socons like me. I mean it.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  22. TallDave Avatar

    Power to the minarchists!

  23. TallDave Avatar

    Now tell me the problem with socons like me. I mean it.
    You seek to use the power of the State to enforce your vision of morality upon many who do not recognize it and in so disrecognizing do no harm to others; it is immoral, impractical, inconsistent with liberty and anti-minarchist.

  24. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    TallDave,
    Didn’t learn anything from your comment. Possibly because it does not distingish socons from the description of RINOs Oregon Guy gave. Possibly because it was not sufficiently brief. Almost certainly because it is a standard libertarian talking point I’ve heard many times.
    Maybe OregonGuy can help.
    What do socons actually get bent about most?
    Abortion. Dude, that’s a liberty issue for the mother and the baby. I’m not getting the bit where you side with the mother and whack the baby. The mother takes a period which is about 1% of her life – during which the mother is essentially free to do nearly everthing she would ordinarily do – so the baby can live. The bady gives up 100% of his life so the mother can abort. Sorry. Logic is not on the pro-choice side. Nor is liberty. The pro-choice side is murderously tyrannical. But then a true minarchist must be pro-slavery as well, as long as the slave owner does not use government force to keep his slave, right?
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  25. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom,
    That is the most honest and realistic answer on the question of abortion (within its limits) that I have ever gotten from a social conservative ever.
    Thank you.
    So my question is: why not take the question out of politics (at least until the technology you mentioned is developed) and win more votes?
    Why fight a Culture War politically when it gets a Communist elected. Given the Choice between a Communist and a Culture Warrior I’ll take the Communist.
    Why? Because a Communist might admit that a policy doesn’t work. A Culture Warrior will say: God Says.

  26. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom,
    Please explain the practicality of the drug war where kids can get marijuana easier than they can get a beer.

  27. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Simon,
    why not take the question out of politics (at least until the technology you mentioned is developed) and win more votes?
    An active commitment by libertarians, socons and RINOs to develop the technology would be a wonderful political development to solidify the coalition.
    Please explain the practicality of the drug war where kids can get marijuana easier than they can get a beer.
    I waffle on the drug war. But I’m certain the Federal government should not be involved in it. The political reality all over the globe is that people know how bad recreational drugs are for their society. The Taliban support for growing drugs is the number one reason they are hated in Afghanistan. I kind of like the Portuguese and Dutch methods of handling it. Decriminalization, right? But I am not sure either way.
    But in any event it is unconstitutional for the feds to be involved.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  28. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom,
    The problem with abortion is that Reform Jews and seculars do not agree with you. Many Libertarians and libertarians also do not agree with you.
    So why not handle it in the social sphere rather than the government sphere? I predict that if the government takes the issue to your conclusion it will wind up like the drug war. How is that working out for you?
    I do think the Catholics have it right. If you are going to force women to carry babies to term you need a corresponding welfare policy.
    So let me ask: are you willing to have welfare expanded in exchange for a ban on abortion?

  29. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom,
    The Swiss have the most successful heroin plan supported by voters. It won as a referendum twice. The second time with 60% of the vote.

  30. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Simon,
    Did you read this:
    An active commitment by libertarians, socons and RINOs to develop the technology would be a wonderful political development to solidify the coalition.
    I absolutely cannot figure out why you would reply to what I said above (and further above) with what you just said. To make it more concrete, I am proposing that we advocate spending tax money on prizes to develop the technology required with the promise that once that live baby transplants are safe enough that dead baby transplants will become illegal. Given a safe choice women (and doctors) will not break the law in significant numbers.
    I keep feeling like you are going backwards and arguing with someone else. What I would like is a design session where a libertarian and a socon get together and put out some ideas designed to appeal to both groups even if neither gets exactly what they want. But you keep slipping into confrontational mode.
    But then maybe you were distracted by my reply to TallDave – where I try to figure out why libertarians would would want to take a pro-slavery, opps, pro-abortion stance.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  31. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    The Swiss plan would certainly be worth considering, if only to break the grip drug gangs have on so many poor neighborhoods.
    I’m afraid that the drug issue would take alot of time for me to solidify my opinion on, however. It took months of active reading to solidify my stance on Iraq in 2002. There are too many people whose opinions I respect who think decriminalization is a non starter. Unfortuneately I’m not as interested in the subject as you are. I’m more interested in abortion and the culture wars. The most crucial issue for me always is preserving our right to home school. I’m very interested in that. Drugs aren’t a priority for me like they are for you.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  32. M. Simon Avatar

    Tom DeGisi ? October 30, 2009 03:19 PM,
    The problem with your proposal is that it saves the “children” (according to Jewish Law – they are not human until the head has exited the womb) but says nothing about who will raise them. It may be cruel in the extreme to the unborn but I would prefer that children be raised by people who want them.
    Here are three short reads on the science of addiction:
    Heroin
    PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System
    Addiction Is A Genetic Disease
    If you know why people take drugs your opinion on what to do will become clear.

  33. M. Simon Avatar

    And why is the drug war a priority for me?
    It is racist in origin:
    Drug War History
    Racist in execution.
    And it is destroying the Black Family.
    Demographics

  34. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    (according to Jewish Law – they are not human until the head has exited the womb)
    Given live baby transplant technology, I think the attitudes towards the preborn would change rapidly, just like the attitudes about slaves changed rapidly. And I believe, according to the Jewish law just mentioned that if we had live baby transplant technology the baby would become human as soon as it was removed from the womb. In fact, according to that formulation, current abortion technology always results in a dead human.
    I would prefer that children be raised by people who want them.
    So would I. But I don’t propose that we treat people in orphanages like we do dogs at the pound – put them to sleep if they don’t get adopted. Let’s not make the perfect the destroyer of the good.
    Are you sure it’s only the drug war destroying the black family? I just sat on a jury (DUI) for a white guy who is destroying his life using a perfectly legal drug.
    The first three articles were short and good. I’m particularly interested in the link between abuse and drugs. I’ve read the article on the racist origin of the drug laws. The demographics article looks good, but a little long. Maybe I’ll take a look again later.
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  35. […] advocated an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives. Hell, FWIW I even repeatedly called for an alliance between atheists and Christians. Not that anyone cares about what a silly pragmatist […]