3 ms·

There must be a great deal of tension within the right. On the one hand, some undoubtedly consider themselves small government libertarian types, but the recen

There must be a great deal of tension within the right. On the one hand, some undoubtedly consider themselves small government libertarian types, but the recently ascendent MAGA folks are decidedly authoritarian and absolutely willing to use the federal government as a weapon against their perceived enemies. This sort of ruling helps the former but not the latter.

jandrese 2y ago
There is no tension. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Francis M. Wilhoit Viewed through this lens the actions are completely consistent.
- mindslight 2y ago
  This quote can be helpful for analyzing many situations. But applied generally it throws the baby out with the bathwater - people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda. (as an aside I think if you're in the libertarian camp but yet still supporting 2024's radical republican party you're either hoping for outright societal collapse or you're gravely mistaken about what it now stands for)
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda. AKA useful idiots. The fundamental debate between big versus small government is deceptive. What we really need is effective and efficient government (roughly in that order, in my opinion). Sometimes that is big, sometimes that is small.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      I agree on the "effective and efficient" point. I'd say the deception mainly arises out of ignoring that corporations have formed de facto government. That's the fundamental contradiction that causes the banner of "individual liberty" be transmuted into "corporate liberty", still ultimately denying freedom to individuals. So I do not agree with the "useful idiots" blanket characterization. It seems needlessly divisive, when what people who've become myopically focused on the nominal government need is to see the larger picture whereby corporations that capture markets, collude, and create externalities also independently destroy individual liberty. Not solely by regulatory capture, or otherwise enabled by the nominal government, but rather entirely on their own due to the fact that markets are not entirely efficient (P != NP).

jandrese 2y ago

There is no tension. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Francis M. Wilhoit Viewed through this lens the actions are completely consistent.

mindslight 2y ago
This quote can be helpful for analyzing many situations. But applied generally it throws the baby out with the bathwater - people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda. (as an aside I think if you're in the libertarian camp but yet still supporting 2024's radical republican party you're either hoping for outright societal collapse or you're gravely mistaken about what it now stands for)
- kergonath 2y ago
  > people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda. AKA useful idiots. The fundamental debate between big versus small government is deceptive. What we really need is effective and efficient government (roughly in that order, in my opinion). Sometimes that is big, sometimes that is small.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    I agree on the "effective and efficient" point. I'd say the deception mainly arises out of ignoring that corporations have formed de facto government. That's the fundamental contradiction that causes the banner of "individual liberty" be transmuted into "corporate liberty", still ultimately denying freedom to individuals. So I do not agree with the "useful idiots" blanket characterization. It seems needlessly divisive, when what people who've become myopically focused on the nominal government need is to see the larger picture whereby corporations that capture markets, collude, and create externalities also independently destroy individual liberty. Not solely by regulatory capture, or otherwise enabled by the nominal government, but rather entirely on their own due to the fact that markets are not entirely efficient (P != NP).