Fault Line between SoCons and Libertarians
I’m a regular participant over at Ricochet, and the subject of the “fault line” between social conservatives and libertarians arises from time to time. It’s a subject that is very interesting to me. Here’s how I see it.
The libertarian’s worldview begins with the fully developed and fully capable adult, which they refer to as the “individual.”
I will refer to him as the “individual as an infant” since this is how he enters the world. Libertarians do not account for how the “individual as an adult” came to be. If his legitimate needs and entitlements were violated while he was the “individual as an infant,” from a structural or policy standpoint they turn a blind eye, as they shun the very idea of entitlements and policy restrictions/encouragements for adults generally. The pain this causes the “individual as an infant” is personally meaningful to libertarians, but it is not meaningful to them on a structural/policy level. In other words, they are unwilling to use structural means to avoid that suffering because these structural means impinge on the liberties of the current “individuals as adults” in the short term.
Without providing for the structural means to reduce the risk factors for the suffering of the “individual as an infant,” Read more…
I am pleased to announce the release of my new book Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel.
Here’s the description from the website:
Lured by brochures promising limitless intellectual freedom, Jeff Jackson arrives at picturesque Tinsley College, eager to experience college life to the fullest. He does not know that the freedom he has been promised is in short supply at Tinsley, a college so dedicated to leftist ideals that the administration changed the name of the anthropology department to “anthrogynology” in order to make the name more “gender inclusive.”
Jeff makes the mistake of believing that the renowned Professor Bancroft Tarlton would be willing to debate the left wing politics that the professor advocates in his classes. Not realizing that there are just some questions one does not ask on a college campus, Jeff submits an essay outlining his provocative theories about happiness and human sexuality.
Professor Tarlton is not the only one furious at Jeff for his lack of devotion to left wing norms. Calling himself a “pomosexual” and believing Jeff to be not only a homophobe, but a “pomophobe” as well, Carl Fitzgerald, Jeff’s classmate, begins a feud with Jeff. The battle escalates from insults, to vandalism, to shattered love affairs and a dorm room inhabited by a fainting goat. In a college obsessed with political correctness, a clash between the writer of a “homophobic” essay and the “pomosexual” victim of a college prank can only end one way: with a showdown in a campus courtroom.
I am also pleased to mention that Dr. J was an inspiration for some parts of this book. Dr. J was the one that called my attention to Friedrich Engels’s views on marriage, views revered by Bancroft Tarlton, the one of the villains. Dr. J’s words also find their way into a discussion that Jeff Jackson has with a rabbi. I find it remarkable that Dr. J’s words seemed so natural coming from the mouth of a rabbi. I guess we have more in common than I first thought.
You can purchase Bias Incident at this link (the ebook is less than a buck).
let’s talk about forgiveness and reconciliation.
In my booklet, “101 Tips for a Happier Marriage,” I have a whole section called, “Forgiveness is More Important than Sex.” Why is that? People forget a great sexual encounter five minutes after it is over. But they’ll remember their grudges for a lifetime.
So, I was reading Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2, by Benedict XVI. I came across this explication of the theological meaning of the death of Jesus on the cross.
Again and again people say: it must be a cruel God who demands infinite atonement Is this not a notion unworthy of God? Must we not give up the idea of atonement in order to maintain the purity of our image of God?… with reference to Jesus, it becomes evident that the real forgiveness accomplished on the Cross functions in exactly the opposite direction. The reality of evil and injustice that disfigures the world and at the same time distorts the image of God–this reality exists, through our sin. It cannot simply be ignored; it must be addressed. but here it is not a case of a cruel God demanding the infinite. It is exactly the opposite: God himself becomes the locus of reconciliation, and in the person of his Son takes the suffering upon himself. God himself grants his infinite purity to the world. God himself “drinks the cup” of every horror to the dregs and thereby restores justice through the greatness of his love, which, through suffering, transforms the darkness. (page 232)
So, what is the non-religious equivalent of forgiveness? And could it be, that the willingness to forgive, at least partially inspired by religion, explains why regular religious practice is a protective factor against divorce?
Occasionally on this blog, same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents have challenged those of us who would seek to protect the institution of marriage to explain why, if we truly believe that (part of) the public purpose of marriage is to attach parents to their children, we nevertheless maintain that even a man and woman who are (for whatever reason) incapable of procreating together, or who simply have no desire or intention of doing so, should still be allowed – and even encouraged – to enjoy the benefits of married life. Read more…
Categories: Artificial Reproductive Technology, Babies, Book Suggestions, Demography, ethics, family, fathers, feminism, Marriage, Parenting, popular culture, sex differences
You can find the book,Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World mentioned in the previous post, here:
Ari talked about this book, Stumbling on Happiness a couple of posts ago. You can get this book on Amazon here:
You can buy my book, Smart Sex: Finding Lifelong Love in a Hookup World, mentioned in the previous post, here: