I've never been one to get caught up in the "liberal" vs. "conservative" debate--mostly because it doesn't make any sense to me, at least the way the two schools of thought are defined these days. Take the "liberal" penchant for forcible citizen disarmament, for example. What's "liberal" about a government monopoly on force? Sounds like a position more to the liking of fascists, to me. On the other hand, we have "conservatives" (or at least neo-conservatives) who seem to want to grow the federal government to a size FDR hadn't dared imagine.
John Norton apparently identifies himself as a "liberal," and has written a sarcastic piece exhorting his fellow "liberals" to embrace the Second Amendment. The funny thing is, he almost certainly unintentionally hit on some valid points.
I had an awesome vision: the well-armed liberal. This vision opened a host of questions resulting in new insights.Indeed. This goes back to what I've said all along about there being nothing liberal about forcible citizen disarmament. After that, he gets his sarcasm going full steam, and says nothing worthy of even a rebuttal. Follow the link and read it if you're really bored.
Why should conservatives have almost all the guns?
How about history? The Second Amendment itself provided for the arming not of conservatives but, believe it or not, the liberals of their day. The militias and minutemen were more than liberals, they became radical revolutionaries. The Second Amendment says arm them. The conservatives of that time were Tories loyal to a right-wing monarch who sought to suppress these enflamed liberals. So, our very revolutionary origins depended upon well-armed liberals fighting against the forces of conservatism.
I will respond to his last paragraph, though.
So, all you liberals out there get in line at your local gun shop. Load up for the big battle. But hurry. Second Amendment conservatives are sure to see the consequences of armed liberal elitists. A new revelation surely will follow. The merit of gun control will gain unexpected new support. Conservative members of the Supreme Court will rediscover that the Second Amendment does, indeed, allow targeted legislation to control guns.His assertion, apparently, is that whomever he refers to as "Second Amendment conservatives" will become disenchanted with Constitutional protection for the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, if "liberals" start exercising that right en masse.
That, clearly, is either a lie, or sheer stupidity (perhaps both). No one I would refer to as a gun rights advocate would argue that one's right to keep and bear arms should depend in any way on one's political ideology.
So if the "liberals" (whoever they are) wish to embrace the Second Amendment and arm themselves, I say more power to them.
Stumble it!
5 comments:
Hey! I resemble that remark...
Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger
This is why us small "l" libertarians have used the term "Classical Liberal" for a while now. The damn socialists co-opted our term!
Marc, like I said, I don't know enough about what "liberalism" means these days to have a strong opinion either way about it. I think you have to acknowledge, though, that a sizable majority of folks who think of themselves as "liberals" are big fans of "gun control" (forcible citizen disarmament).
This is why us small "l" libertarians have used the term "Classical Liberal" for a while now.
I definitely see myself as a Classical Liberal, and in fact have considered calling myself a "paleo-lib"--the anti-neo-con.
There are already plenty of "armed liberal elitists" in California - and they have the guns that the poor and other less well-off who live in the Liberal Government Created ghettos of Los Angeles and Oakland aren't allowed and can't afford.
All those gun-toting neighborhood guards up in the canyons and blocking-off wealthy neighborhoods from Malibu to Pasadena during the Rodney King riots, that was them.
yOk, here we go. It can be confusing due to the co-opting of terms and the fact the political conservative and liberal have opposite meanings here than they do in the rest of the world.
Let's deal with that before we go on.
The flow of power is the deciding factor in any society concerning what is liberal and what is conservative, politically speaking. In societies where all power resides in the state any loosening of that power is considered a liberal event. Any tightening of power and or harsh enforcement of that power is considered a conservative event because it conserves the power of the state.
In our society where the power resides in the people, the flow of power is supposed to go the other way, so while philosophically liberal when the state's power is limited, it is politically conservative, because it conserves the constitution and its guarantees against unlimited state power.
A conservative reading of our constitution means the words mean what they mean. Not what someone wants them to mean by redefinition to gain a desired goal.
A liberal reading of the constitution means the words mean what someone or a number of someone's decides they mean, no matter what they said. "Emanations of a penumbra" (Roe v.Wade) is a perfect example of this.
So here, a political liberal would be a political conservative in any other nation in the world because they support unlimited power to the state.
Here, also true political conservatives are in actuality philosophical liberals because they support limited state power, thus resulting in increased autonomy to the citizen. Pretty simple so far?
Now comes the really confusing part. Social conservatives are actually usually not political conservatives in our society because they would endow the state with the power to force others to live as they wished they lived. That actually causes them to be more in alignment with political liberals who work for the same dynamic, although usually with different goals in mind. However, both would endow the state with more power to force others to their preferences. Both are wrong. That they have different end results in mind changes nothing as to their politcal ideology. Both are political liberals.
Most people in our society do not understand the difference between social conservatism and political conservatism. Nor do they understand the difference between social liberalism and political liberalism. Part of this is due to the fact that players in the game purposely mislabel themselves.
There are many examples of this. The famous clergymen who promote for laws denying citizens a right to make a wholly personal choice because they are morally or religiously opposed to it are often called conservatives and often find themselves in political parties considered "conservative". In both they are wrong, if we are talking American Political Conservatism. This is but one example, there are more. I am sure you can think of some on your own.
Both major political parties, at the moment and for sometime now are politically liberal. Remember the unlimited power of the state to enforce their brand of thought and deed on others?
And let's not forget the confusion when we talk fiscal conservatism or liberalism, which has no bearing at all on their politcal viewpoint.
Our problem is, as a people, we have left unchallenged in our own minds the labels applied and do not analyze the appropriateness of the label in relationship to the area being discussed. We have done so for such a long time that very few really know what the labels mean or that the meanings have different connotations when applied to different issues.
For a political conservative who is truly a political conservative it is much easier. If the constitution has a position on the issue, that's the end of the question, it has been answered.
An American political conservative, may be a fiscal conservative, and hold personal conservative views as regards society and morality, but is required by his belief that the constitution means what it says to be a social liberal. In other words limited state power, the most consitutionally protected liberty as is possible for every citizen, and non-interference unless there is a competition of overlapping rights that requires resolution. Unfortunately, we have too few of those kinds.
There is more, but I have probably managed to alienate everyone by now.
Post a Comment