Social Conservatives thrive on prohibitions. So do criminals. Makes ya wonder sometimes don't it?

posted by Simon on 11.19.10 at 09:25 PM


Both sides thriving at the expense of the middle ?

MetaThought   ·  November 20, 2010 3:38 AM

So do social 'liberals' - the cons need to get out of the bedroom. The libs need to get out of the kitchen.

Kathy Kinsley   ·  November 20, 2010 7:49 AM

And both of them need to get out of the medicine cabinet...

Kathy Kinsley   ·  November 20, 2010 7:50 AM

So we can eliminate crime for once and for all by passing no laws and thus simply not calling any act a crime?

Talk about your "overseas contingency operation!"

As with many controversies, it's not about DO we draw the line, but WHERE we draw it, and in that regard, this post misses the mark by a wide margin.

T   ·  November 20, 2010 9:25 AM

Most true social conservatives mainly want to be left alone. The only things they want to ban, like abortion, is where they sincerely believe that an innocent life needs to be protected.

Many of the charges against them reflect more of a projection of bias or false stereotyping rather than the true beliefs of most social conservatives.
Social conservatives tried to avoid politics until the seventies when they were more and more being attacked legally and bureaucratically. They want to control what is taught to their children, not others; they want to be able to do things according to their beliefs without government interference, not telling other what they can and cannot do.
Those trying to control the actions and thoughts of others are not true conservatives, no mater what name they take.

DDW   ·  November 20, 2010 2:22 PM

Kim Jong-Il thrives on food.

Simon thrives on food.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Ryan Waxx   ·  November 20, 2010 2:51 PM

Social Conservatives thrive on prohibitions. So do criminals.

So do you advocate getting rid of laws that deal harsh consequences for such acts as murder, robbery, and physical assault?

Gringo   ·  November 20, 2010 4:50 PM

There were a lot of factors at play when the 18th amendment was ratified. There was a big labor shortage thanks to the "Spanish Flu" and the "War to end war". It is not hard to find archived business news articles complaining about the man hours being wasted in saloons and pubs. Just as it became law and was set to go into effect; the war ended and a deep recession began. Now it was a job stimulus, providing enforcement jobs for Izzy and Moe as well opportunities for enterprising smugglers, and moonshiners.
It was the dawn of the League of Nations, Women voters, and as soon as things could settle a bit, everyone knew there was going to be a brave new world.

Will   ·  November 20, 2010 7:24 PM

Again, M. Simon, thinking like a liberal, or in this case a liberal conspiracy theorist.

I get my check from Helliburton to come here and mess with the Champions of True Freedom.

Tennwriter   ·  November 20, 2010 8:31 PM

Oh Tenn,

My dear girl. The Baptist/bootlegger connection has been remarked on for uh I dunno, at least 90 years. You know. Since around the beginning of alcohol prohibition. I'm surprised you never heard of it. I remark on it a lot.

Sorry to see the truth putting you in so much pain.

May be it is you who are the liberal.

"If you want to make a Conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to get a Liberal mad, tell him the truth." Rush Limbaugh 11-11-2010

M. Simon   ·  November 20, 2010 10:07 PM

So do you advocate getting rid of laws that deal harsh consequences for such acts as murder, robbery, and physical assault?

1. Laws against that kind of behavior are universal. Something on the order of 99% to 99.99% of humans would agree. Murderers don't want to be murdered. Robbers don't like being robbed. Thieves don't like getting their stuff stolen.

2. It only takes 5% of the population to disagree with a law to make enforcement very hard. Up around 10% to 20% it becomes impossible.

3. Criminal transactions are very hard to police - there is a willing seller and a willing buyer and if they are clandestine enough no one to complain.

4. Laws that create black markets corrupt police. Every where some one is getting paid to look the other way to let the deal go down. With crimes of malice such looking the other way is more difficult. People get emotionally involved when a relative is wronged. Or they are wronged.

5. By the time the USSR collapsed it was one big black market. Why even push in that direction? Do you know what the stability margin for civilization is? You want to test it?

6. Are you so thin brained that you are unable to conceive of solving social problems without government guns? Liberals have a similar problem. The evidence is starting to pile up.

M. Simon   ·  November 20, 2010 10:25 PM

The problem with "crime" is that thanks to overcriminalization and the plethora of laws, we are all criminals now.

Is that an accident?

So do you advocate getting rid of laws that deal harsh consequences for such acts as murder, robbery, and physical assault?

I can't speak for Simon, but I'd prefer returning to them, and treating only real crime as crime.

Eric Scheie   ·  November 20, 2010 11:04 PM

M. Simon,

Is that all you were saying? I thought you were going further out on a limb than to suggest that Baptists and bootleggers were part of the same system. Although, of course, either side would be happy to get rid of the other side.

And yes, you have made me angry with your profoundly disgusting comments, but with your calling me a girl, you're trying to suggest that because I'm a nicer guy than you that I'm oversensitive. So instead of apologizing, its attack.


You do yourself and your cause more harm than you do me, and I recover pretty quickly.

The Girl Tennwriter

Tennwriter   ·  November 20, 2010 11:18 PM


Republicans and Democrats play the same game. They pretend to be on the different side while both want larger government.

I'm glad to know you represent the larger government side. It gives cover to the larger government side. You know "the other side". I guess that would be the other side of the larger government side. Good thing we have the two sides fighting each other or I might have forgotten which side I'm on. Well at least you remembered.

M. Simon   ·  November 21, 2010 9:49 AM

M. Simon,

I'm a Conservative, a member of the Base, a socon, and lastly a Republican. If you argue that the R Party needs serious reform, I'll be shouting 'yeah! right on!'. Much of what they do is wicked.

I represent the Conservative side which is mostly less gov't, but occasionally more gov't.

I don't think I said what you think I said.

Tennwriter   ·  November 21, 2010 12:05 PM

You know, it really doesn't make me friendly when my local Republican Party decides to start off its meetings with a prayer to Our Savior. Your savior, perhaps, but not mine.

It doesn't make me like Republicans when they try to tell me what behavior is appropriate in my bedroom as long as it doesn't involve minors or animals, neither of whom can give consent.

I really grow to dislike SocCons when they tell me when and where I must pray, even if it's token prayer as in a pledge of allegiance. Or at the start of a local government council meeting. That is their freedom directly impinging on where my nose starts.

If the SocCons want to ride along on the fiscal reform bus, I'll make room for them. If they insist on driving the bus, I'm off of it, pronto.

I'll be happy to leave the SocCons to form their own party--or take over the Republicans, for that matter. It'll just speed up a more centrist, fiscally conservative party that will let both extremes expire in the dust.

John Burgess   ·  November 21, 2010 8:43 PM


This is where your social conservatism "more laws" leads:

Read it and jump for joy I suppose.

"What is done to the least......"


M. Simon   ·  November 21, 2010 10:59 PM

This one is for the children.

Not to worry the protections you now crave were given up to fight the dopers - for the children. And now they are molesting children for $15 an hour and a government job.

M. Simon   ·  November 21, 2010 11:05 PM


So you are one of the sons of a bitchs we can thank for the Drug War exception to the 4th Amendment?

I'll be sure you get a prominent place on that roll of honor.

M. Simon   ·  November 22, 2010 12:52 AM

M. Simon.

Yawn. Ooh, he called me 'a son of a bitch'. I'm so frightened.

Perhaps if you jump around and scream some more I might be terrified out of opposing the One True Way.

John Burgess,

We each have our own decisions to make, and our own assessments of reality. I think that Soconism is practical as a solution for much of our nation's problems, mostly moral, and can lead to electoral victory.

I think that Fiscons are squishes who will probably bankrupt the nation, and lead to serious problems with the country (money doesn't solve every problem), and won't win electorally.

I'm happy to part ways with you. As I've repeatedly said, Socons don't need Libertarians.

Of course, I always have a question for the Libertarian. It helps to determine what he is.

If the ONLY two choices were Socons (who are fiscally conservative) and Socialists...which would you choose?

Tennwriter   ·  November 22, 2010 11:11 AM

How the Drug War Spawned the TSA:

They are both looking for contraband and you looked the other way when they did it to dopers. Well friends and neighbors. We are all dopers now.

Precedent on how to deal with contraband has been set. It is now going to be applied to everyone.

M. Simon   ·  November 22, 2010 11:22 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits