It’s Got to Stop.

by Little Miss Attila on July 17, 2009

I agree with Ace again. And this is the second time in six weeks or so.

I don’t care how “conservative” someone is, whatever the fuck that means: I care how effective they are, and I want people in public life to stay out of my bedroom and my bank account. Some social conservatism is fine—in small doses—but I’ll be happiest if our politicians try very hard not to legislate morality. Because . . . that doesn’t work. We’ve got a human nature thing going on.

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Darrell July 18, 2009 at 12:40 am: Consider our faces spited.
Even those to whom “Conservatism” matters.

Reply
Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET July 18, 2009 at 4:20 am: Like Ron White says, you can’t fix stupid. Well unless there is a complete turnaround next election cycle. And that ain’t no guarantee that it will get fixed. The stupid being that desire of the obamaroids and company to be nvolved with every facet of a citizen’s daily life. I am about to get a dose of it. I am virtually inprocessing for a DOD/AF job. It is relevant to what I did in the Navy, but it is in California. Lately the People’s Idiotic Republik has had a tendency to hit Service retirement checks at a higher than regular paychecks. So, what in blazes do we ow them? Somebody please enlighten me.
j. going to the mojave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
Foxfier July 18, 2009 at 8:37 am: “Cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

Reply
Aaron Gardner July 18, 2009 at 8:42 am: I agree, well kinda. I think the biggest problem we have is that social progressives have somehow been linked with social conservatives. I suppose I should explain myself.

Social progressives, unlike their close cousins secular progressives, do wish to legislate morality, just like they did when they banned alcohol. Social conservatives on the other hand wish to repeal or avert what the secular progressives are pushing. Where social conservatives fail is when they try to go national rather than sticking to their roots in federalism. Social conservatives have given up the fight at the state level and foolishly engaged at the national level. In doing so they have actually hurt not only their cause, but federalism in general. How? Well if we don’t exercise the States rights to form their state how they choose the the Federal Government will gladly step in, both the social and secular progressives, and decide for them.

I think it is time for the conservatives, meaning those who believe in all three legs of the stool, to recognize that each leg of the stool has it’s place in both the vertical and horizontal separation of powers. And with that it becomes clear that social conservatism belongs in the battle at the state level.

Anyhow that’s how I see it. I am interested in your response Little Miss Attila*.

Aaron Gardner

* no snark intended, your name just lends itself to looking snarky when addressed..;^)

Reply
John July 18, 2009 at 9:39 pm: The law against murder is legislated morality every bit as much as a law against oral sex. They both say that something is so wrong that the government should do its utmost to stop it.

However, while most people agree that society would collapse if the law did not impose an extremely limited definition of “needs killing,” the opinions on oral sex are more varied and mostly positive.

In other words, only when there is a consensus on a moral point should the government try to legislate it.

Reply
I R A Darth Aggie July 19, 2009 at 7:32 am: I’ll amplify what I said on Ace’s site: running as Democrat-lite isn’t a winning strategy.

Why vote for a pale imitation if you can have the real thing?

Reply
Foxfier July 19, 2009 at 8:43 am: In other words, only when there is a consensus on a moral point should the government try to legislate it.

So if we get enough psychotic Muslims, honor killings should be legal?
Enough pedophiles, and my baby’s fair game?

Pardon me while I disagree, quite vehemently.

Reply
Foxfier July 19, 2009 at 8:50 am: I agree that a stable relationship, even one outside of marriage, is probably better for children than serial pologamy. The trouble is that it is very difficult for me to think of anybody I know who has one. A lot of my friends “shacked up” with guys back in their 20’s and 30’s – none of them are still with those men

Longest one I can think of was about seven years; before that, five.

Three to five seems to be about the average among those relationships I know enough to count.

Reply
John July 22, 2009 at 4:14 am: Foxfier:

I did not say, and the words I used do not mean, that I support anything and everything that a given society might agree on. I said that a government should not legislate a given idea unless its citizens are in consensus on it. I did not say that once the consensus exists, the government must make such a law.

Reply
Foxfier July 22, 2009 at 8:00 am: I did not say you supported what they would agree on. If you’re going to be pissy about folks pointing out the down side of your philosophy, don’t turn around and do what you accuse them of having done.

That said, your words do support the creation of such psychotic laws as I mentioned– note, not what the laws promote, but the laws themselves.

Reply