Russell Kirk quoted in Newsweek?

Is it the Apocalypse?

Conservatives have generally taught that the health of society is determined by the health of institutions: families, neighborhoods, schools

This is what is frightening about the "big government conservative" ideology. It isn't as if they aren't correct about the ideology of universal selfishness - though that that too is a bit of a caricature - it is that they naively believe that these institutions are less "self interested" than the most Randian Libertarian.

"Families" and "Neighborhoods" are unregulated social institutions and networks.

"Schools," and 'NGOs,""governments," are not. They are rabidly self-propagating engines of waste and corruption that got that way because the people who populate them are as "libertarian" as they get. (If you want a poster child for an "unfettered individual," look no further than a school superintendent or tenured teacher)

This is why "schools" are hell bent on destroying 'families,' 'neighborhoods,' 'churches,' and any other "conservative" institution that exists in America.

Other than that, great post.

Bruno, I uh, wow. Families and neighborhoods are unregulated social institutions and networks? Where? I don't know of a place or time where that statement would be true.
The Boy scouts and Catholic schools are rabidly self-propagating engines of waste and corruption? Ok.....
Breath Bruno, Breath.

I sometimes wonder precisely where I fit on the whole conservative-libertarian map. I believe most government programs are hugely wasteful, I think some of them pose a threat to freedom, and I'm quite certain that giving power to bureaucrats often means doing an end-run around the idea of laws and not men ruling the nation.

I also think plenty of libertarian ideas are total nonstarters with the public and compromise is absolutely necessary in order to sneak market mechanisms into the usual welfare-state machinery. There's a typical conflict between what I'd ideally like to see and what I think the American people will put up with: I personally dislike the whole concept of requiring private citizens to spend part of their paychecks propping up a ramshakle government-sponsored annuity program, but I also know we're never going to reform Social Security out of existence. I'd like it if the government took steps to increase incentives for people to rely more on the little platoons and, conversely, less on government. What does that make me?

Matt: You are a Bushie, whether you like it or not. That has been Bush's definition of "compassionate conservative".

And a Happy Winter Solstice to all!

Matt, that makes you a man of the future.

Matt: Bravo Zulu, as far as it goes.

There is another reason why the Randian, "To the gas chamber--go!" appproach fails: technology.

Machines and, as we as now seeing via the open borders crowd, peons, can do much of the work for which there is natural demand. Government has a role in circulating wealth, thereby creating demand for services.

The problem has been when the state goes beyond circulating wealth to manipulating wealth, wielding it as a weapon against civil society. The difference has to do with who gets to make the choices.

Robert,

I suppose my first few sentences could be interpreted as an overly broad inclusion of ALL NGOs.

Of course, I didn't mean to paint the Boy Scouts with the same brush as the cadre of NGOs using their government grants to promote culturally toxic policies.

As for "families and neighborhoods", I stand by my general statement that they are "unregulated" in that they have come up through the ages as mostly self-organizing.

I suppose we could debate that, though.

My main point - and I won't stop making it - is that "schools" are hell bent on destroying 'families,' 'neighborhoods,' 'churches,' and any other "conservative" institution that exists in America. (Boy Scouts too, BTW)

Any "conservative" who wants to "save" today's public education system (over ripping it up by the roots and going to 100% fully funded school choice) doesn't have a clue as to the intentional destructive force of the system.

Doesn't quoting a Derbyshire title earn you some sort of demerit?

Matt Murphy: I'm with you. I have little use for the abolutists, of any variety, who fail to understand that their utopias cannot be achieved by real people, and are unable/unwilling to accept anything less. The best that can be hoped for is movement in the desired direction for as much and as long as possible. Incrementalism got us here, it can get us out, too.