peekay wrote:
] Excerpt: "It’s ironic that some of the same people who
] deride the narrow moralism of the “values voters”—Jane Smiley
] in her now-infamous rant in Slate, for instance—also deplore
] the “greed” driving Bush’s re-election. Greed is to the
] moralists of the left what sex is to the moralists of the
] right."

Hrm. Some thoughts:

1. Everyone has some kind of morality. The fact that there are moralistic jerks on the left does not excuse the moralistic jerks on the right.

2. The core thrust of this article is obviously wrong. It is not a myth that traditionalists are concerned with controlling other people's behavior. The fact that they are also concerned about controls to their behavior isn't a counter point to that. What part of prison terms and $100,000 fines for people who say fuck on the internet involves protecting religious expression?

3. This essay seems to be an example of libertarians trying to come to terms with the fact that they voted for Bush. Its OK, they tell themselves, the Conservative Christians aren't that bad... Its in the interest of the Republicans to play both sides. Mind you, lately I've been less and less impressed that many so called libertarians are really libertarians. If you would never vote for a "liberal" then you're not a libertarian. Real libertarians sometimes sacrifice their fiscal conservatism for the benefit of social liberty.

Reason website looks a little questionable in this regard right now. Pissed off that there is a SeaWolf class submarine named after Jimmy Carter? Then you're not a libertarian. You're a hard liner.

4. The most interesting and insiteful thing in this article in my opinion is the quotation below. Also not a very libertarian observation, but I think a very practical one worthy of deep consideration. Do absolute rights create intractible contradictions that would be better servered by a more flexible system? How do you protect important freedoms without absolute rights? I think both sides of this question have problems, which means there is another answer in here that no one has found yet.

The American rights-based approach is obviously more respectful of individual choices, but it is also more likely to generate intense social and political conflict by pitting two sets of absolute rights against each other.

RE: The “Values” Panic