A casual reader is irked by Jack Hunter telling social conservatives that war and statism are not pro-family. Of course, that was something the libertarian great Murray Rothbard always understood, which is one reason why traditional conservatives can profit from reading him, despite any qualms they have about his broader philosophy. The current issue of The American Conservative features essays from two of Rothbard’s most distinguished friends and colleagues — Sheldon Richman on the decentralist, pro-worker radicalism of the libertarian left and Ronald Hamowy reviewing Marco Bassani’s Liberty, State, and Union: The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson. TAC stands for peace, liberty, and traditional conservatism; Rothbard and the Rothbardians are exemplars of the first two.
The American Rothbardite?
12 Responses to The American Rothbardite?
-
Adam Rurik says:
Gay marriage has nothing to do with what’s ailing America.
-
Jim says:
@ stari_monak:
What does defending traditional marriage have to do with the state?
One can defend traditional marriage without wanting the state to pick and choose who gets to call his/her union a marriage. It should be left to churches and other private organizations to decide what constitutes marriage.
-
stari_momak says:
“It should be left to churches and other private organizations to decide what constitutes marriage.”
Because the state grants marriage licenses and has for the last 200 years plus in the English speaking world. Those licenses have always been issued to one man and one woman, because marriage is mostly about reproduction of society and that is the way we mammals reproduce. Yes there are marginal cases, but the fact is that the overwhelming number of marriages are of reproductive age people who do plan to have kids.
Frankly I couldn’t care less if two males decide to call their cohabitation + anal intercourse ‘marriage’; what they are trying to do is force me to recognize it as such through the agency of the state. And I am all for federalism, but unfortunately the ‘full faith and credit’ clause would seem to mean that folks in Utah would be bound to recognize the ‘marriage’ of two homosexuals contracted in Vermont.
-
sal magundi says:
“their cohabitation + anal intercourse”
so traditional marriage is “their cohabitation + vaginal intercourse”? i’d leave marriage to the churches, but the point is that the basis of the cohabitation is a commitment, just like man and women make.
ps – men and woman have anal intercourse too y’know, stari
-
“man and women”
heh-heh, read “man and woman”
of course, there have been ‘man and women’. the Patriarchs enjoyed it. -
Derek Leaberry says:
Jack Hunter is a social liberals just like about all the under-40 “conservative” crowd. Most of them don’t even have the guts to marry and form families. Frauds.
-
maxsnafu says:
Speak for yourself Sal.
-
ps – men and woman have anal intercourse too y’know, stari
Indeed, one of the great shames of the early years of the AIDS epidemic was that the danger of anal intercourse was suppressed, leaving women vulnerable.
And yeah, real marriage is pretty much cohabitation + vaginal intercourse, which in the nature of things leads to children, and the next generation of society. Marriage is an implicit social approval of a sexual relationship –otherwise, those spinster sisters who share a house down the block, or those twenty something dudes who went in on a temporary home together, would be ‘married’.
-
BTW after reading the Lui-McConnell and Baskerville articles I will correct myself and say that this journal is indeed offer thoughtful defenses of marriage and/or realistic appraisals of the situation.
-
“Speak for yourself Sal.”
and you for yourself, max.
“real marriage is pretty much cohabitation + vaginal intercourse”
you sad, sad person. my marriage, at least, is based on the fact that my wife and i have made a commitment before God and a churchful of people to stick together in illness and in health until death do us part. the knowledge of that does more for the soul than any amount of sex would. but i’m over 50 so i guess i’m a geezer to think such things.
Seems like most of the readers were irked by the tactic endorsement of ‘gay marriage’. For heaven’s sake, if AmConMag can’t even bring itself to defend (conserve) one of the oldest institutions in the West, why not just drop the ‘Conservative’ part of the name.