Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Is the Libertarian View Valid?

We already hashed this over on the first page of this thread, and I already responded (in post #173823), and you already copped out once. If you had something new to contribute that I hadn't already considered, it'd be worthwhile to hash it through again, but I have better things to do than watch you cop out again. If you want to talk to me about law and morality, first answer #173823.


You seem to believe that if we could just get the government to enforce the correct morality, everything would be okay. That government would, of course, need to oppress and even kill people who disagreed with that morality, but perhaps you think that people will change their morality to suit you if you point a sufficiently big and scary-looking gun in their face.

That's an interesting view for a Christian to take.

On the one hand, it's right in line with the Christian history of torturing Muslims and Jews, burning their houses and places of worship and raping their women, until they agreed to be baptized.

On the other hand, it's in direct opposition to the Christian experience that even today Christianity flourishes most verdantly precisely where it is most persecuted by the government. If Christians won't change their morality when a Communist government lines them up against a wall and guns them down, what makes you think anyone else will when a Christian government lines them up against a wall and guns them down?


You don't read, do you?


That's true. And the government--any government--by its very nature, destroys whatever good moral values it's allowed to get its hands on.


I used to think that too, until Bush took office. Clinton was definitely scum, but he pretty much kept his scummy activities confined to desecrating the office of President. Bush hasn't bothered the office of President, but he has made a much bigger hash out of the Constitution, our liberties, and our nation's place in the world. And it's entirely possible that the next one could be even worse.


Why are we talking about the Libertarian Party? I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. Are you?


If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if you want to use the government to oppress people who, though they aren't hurting anyone or violating anyone's rights, do things with which you disagree, then it's an imposition upon you to tell you you can't.

By that logic, it's an imposition upon a thief to tell him he has to stop stealing. It's an imposition upon a murderer to lock him away where he can't kill people. You don't have any problem with impositions of that sort. Yet impositions on the government, which in reality is nothing but a socially-acceptable thief and murderer, are a problem for you.

Apparently this is because you're a bit too squeamish to do the robbing and murder yourself, and if you couldn't use the government to do it for you, you wouldn't be able to control other people the way you want to.

I have little sympathy.


A libertarian government, such as it would be, would impose no such rules. Government has no business imposing such rules, because it has no interest in their outcome, only in their political effect.

There would be rules like that in a libertarian system, but they would be imposed by either insurance companies or by the companies that owned the roads--probably both. Folks like that actually have an interest in seeing that the rules work, rather than that they attract the right numbers of votes from the correct constituencies.


Huh?


The Non-Aggression Principle says that it is unacceptable for any person or group to initiate force or fraud against any other person or group.

There are two more of the benefits of libertarianism: 1) it actually has a principle that can be quoted (as opposed to indistinct, airy references to "conservative principles"), and 2) there's only one of them, so the list is easy to remember.

I am indeed comparing libertarianism with conservatism (when I say "conservatism," assume "authentic American conservatism," as, firstly, we are in America, and, secondly, words should be assumed to refer to authentic, rather than false, objects). For a libertarian, there is no goal higher than individual liberty from government coercion within a sphere he deems an individual right. For a conservative, however, liberty is a primary interest, but so is the preservation of tradional institutions and the rule of law, without which liberty is invariably lost. A conservative realizes that liberty was not suddenly invented in the 18th or 19th Century, but is a product of an ancient organic development, and rests on a complex outgrowth of that development. A libertarian, on the other hand, would think little of clearing away every convention and starting anew, to establish his dream of a "libertarian paradise," while this would rightly horrify a conservative. That is why I say that a libertarian would think little of ignoring the constitution (i.e., federalism) , so long as this makes possible the establishment of his own personal idea of a libertarian paradise (such as you described in one of your recent posts). This is a rootless tree, and will not live to see day two. Radicalism has never resulted in enduring liberty, and never will.



You say I am referring to federalism, not conservatism, however you miss the point. A conservative realizes that liberty is a delicate organic development, which relies for its continued existence on the support of a complex system, deeply rooted in history and tradition, and the institutions it rose up with. Libertarians tend, on the other hand, to be radicals, and would think little of ignoring or even eliminating the constitution, if that meant they could establish their notion of a perfect libertarian society. It would only be one person's (or a group of people's) view of liberty, however, and would ultimately open the door for the worst kind of tyranny, once all reverence for convention had been eliminated.



So conservatives want liberty within the established order (realizing that they are mutually dependant), willing only to make prudent reforms to it, while libertarians want liberty NOW, and COMPLETE, without concern for the established order, which they would not mind disposing of completely if that meant they were free to establish in its place some imagined libertarian paradise. Yes, even federalism is expendable to a libertarian, the more efficiently "liberty" can be implemented on all. After all, liberty was invented ex nihilo by 18th and 19th Century liberal thinkers, wasn't it? We can therefore invent it anew.







Libertarianism imposes something indeed. Tell the small town resident who would like to keep pornography from public news stands, or drugs off the streets, that libertarianism doesn't impose anything on anyone.









Well said. I agree 100%. Perhaps you are a little bit conservative, Barak.

Hi Barak,
BTW, I don't know how to put things in quotes. How do you do that?
In the meantime regarding your statement,
[Apparently this is because you're a bit too squeamish to do the robbing and murder yourself, and if you couldn't use the government to do it for you, you wouldn't be able to control other people the way you want to.]

That is utter nonsense.
You confuse being squeamish with being moral. As a dedicated Christian I do not do those things because I do not want to and also I do not do some things because they are against the law. I am commanded to obey law unless it conflicts with the Word of God.

Your take on what "Christianity" has done does not reflect true Christianity. It also does not justify immorality by anyone.

I agree with the premise that to impose amorality on people is just as much an imposition as imposing morality. Without laws, based upon correct moral absolutes, man is basically an anarchist, and used force to do as he wills. Governments have the duty and responsibility to control that.
[Romans 13:1 �Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 �Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.]

In any case there is either anarchy or imposition of some moral standard on a society. That moral standard will be the basis of the success or lack thereof, over a long period of time, as to the well being of that society. That is the reason I will continue to attempt by all legal means to have the moral standards upon which this nation was founded, and made great to be the basis of law.
Those standards are the Judeo/Christian ethic found in the Holy Bible.

You of course have the same right to oppose those moral standards and the laws they would influence.

Jerry

I'll try, but you'll probably have to keep reminding me, since you're one very small voice trying to claim that particular meaning for "conservatism," while the Bush administration, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the media all prefer another meaning, and very loudly and pervasively--and therefore, some would argue, more relevantly.


Libertarians also believe in what I suspect you mean when you talk about the rule of law, but they'd probably use another name for it--perhaps the inviolability of contracts.


Here, apparently, we do disagree.

I don't believe that liberty is all that fragile or complicated, and I certainly don't believe that it needs to be supported by government. The thing that was unique about the American experiment was that for the first time it tried to make government and liberty live in harmony with one another. It worked for awhile, until people forgot; by now it has pretty much failed. It ought to be pretty clear by now that if there is some way to achieve that balance permanently, it's not the way the founding fathers designed. You could say that it wasn't their fault, because they assumed that the fruit of their loins would be courageous and stand up to the government when it tried to take away our liberties, instead of being the sniveling cowards we have shown ourselves to be. On the other hand, one could argue that it should have been foreseen that the blessings of liberty would bring prosperity, and continued prosperity would breed fat fundaments and wussy constitutions.

I think we're probably doomed to a swinging pendulum. We'll eventually be oppressed into some form of resistance, and then we'll beat the government back far enough that we can be prosperous again; a couple of generations of prosperity will breed all the fight out of us, and we'll consent to oppression again. Add a spiritual element to this cycle, and you get exactly what happened over and over again in the book of Judges.


Keep in mind that a libertarian cannot initiate force. If tearing down convention and starting anew would require an initiation of force, then a conservative has nothing to fear from a libertarian.


Libertarians don't have a problem imagining a system that isn't constrained by the US Constitution, that's true. Most libertarians also have moderate-to-severe objections of one sort or another to the Constitution itself--for example, its well-known crisis of authority, probably best elucidated by Lysander Spooner.

However, that doesn't make us necessarily enemies of the Constitution. If our government were to return to some kind of Constitutional form, regardless of who was in charge of it, it would have to get much, much smaller; and from a libertarian point of view that's a good start. My wife, for example, isn't as enthusiastic about primitive camping as I would like her to be; but that doesn't mean I don't love her, or that I think I could find someone better suited to me than she is. The Constitution may have its problems, but it's head and shoulders above what we've got now.


Some libertarians undoubtedly want that. I did, when I was a very young libertarian. Not all of them do, however. Within a year of my conversion, I understood that if I had a magic button that, when pressed, would instantly eliminate all government and turn America into the most radiant libertarian paradise ever imagined by Robert Heinlein or L. Neil Smith, I would yank the button out by the roots and stomp it to pieces and burn the pieces. (That's very much like what Baby Bush and his minions did to Iraq; did that turn into a libertarian paradise, or chaos?)

You can't force liberty on somebody, or even give it to him. He'll simply give it back and insist that you re-lock his chains. Liberty has to be taken. That's what the Iraqis never did, and it's why they're not free. It's what the American Revolutionaries did do (with a little help from the French), and it's why they were free, at least for awhile. Mature libertarians understand that.


Libertarianism doesn't work that way. Under a libertarian system, there'd be no such thing as a public street. The street would be owned by somebody, and if you wanted to put a newsstand on that street, you'd have to sign a contract or covenant with the street owner. You'd also probably want insurance for your newsstand. A parent offended by pornography in the newsstand might well sue everybody in sight, so it would probably be an issue in both the contracts (with the street owner and the insurance company) that potentially-offensive pornography would not be displayed. If you were sued for public obscenity and held liable, the contracts would keep the streetowner and the insurance company out of it, and you'd be personally responsible for the entire judgment. Therefore, you wouldn't do it in the first place.

It wouldn't be illegal, exactly, but it wouldn't have to be. You don't need governments for everything. Really you don't.

Well, actually we cannot lay claim to that. It was England that attempted that first, and largely succeeded for a very long time. The American War for Independance happened precisely in reaction to a British retreat from its previously long-standing tradition of respect for personal liberty, the rule of law, limited, checked and divided government. We didn't invent those ideas in 1776. We inherited them. When Britain pushed too far in the direction of tyranny (a departure from its own long-standing tradition at that time), we reacted, which is a conservative response, not a radical one. Our goal was to "conserve" those things which we had long enjoyed as English colonists, e.g., local self-rule, representative government, rule of law, divided and limited government, decentralization of government, respect for basic rights and liberties, etc.,. Yes, once we kicked them out, we had to find a way to make those things work detatched from Great Britain, and that meant creating a government that embodied those ideals, but this was hardly a radical purpose. It's purpose was to re-establish what the Brits had taken away, while making provision for defending our way of life from competing nations. Like it or not, that means we need government.

As for other points, it looks like we will simply have to accept that we differ on them. I feel, however, that more often than not, libertarians and conservatives can work together for similar goals, as both of us aim at conserving liberty. We certainly differ when it comes to local rights of self-government, as you pretty much oppose government period. Rather than abolish government, however, I would like to see it reformed. The word reformed tells you that I think our government, as established, was pretty darn good, though not perfect, but has become deformed over the years. You, on the other hand, would be just as happy to start from scratch, and that's where conservatism and libertarianism differ.

Well, the popular media has chosen to identify neo-conservatism as the real variety. This, however, is a relative newcomer to the political scene in America, and has very little in common with actual conservatism. If you would like to know something about authentic American conservatism, take a look at www.thenewamerican.com. You will find plenty to read there.

The popular media has an agenda, and I would not trust them to define the word conservatism for you. Real conservatism has a history. You can read the writings of Edmund Burke, for example, to get a flavor for it. I particularly recommend his "Reflections on the Revolution in France." He is considered the father of American conservatism, in that American conservatives largely took him as their template.

You add "quote" and "/quote" in square brackets (I can't show you exactly, or you'll get a quote instead of a demonstration) before and after the quoted text. Or, if you prefer, click the "Quote" link in the "Instant UBB Code" cluster on the message-entry page for an example.


Perhaps not. Suppose you were walking down the street and you encountered a stranger shooting heroin in an alley. Would it be moral for you to grab that person, overpower him, tie him up, bundle him into your car, and chain him to the wall in your basement until he agreed to mend his ways?

If so, then why are you wasting time here posting on 24HourCampfire instead of saving junkies?

If not, then how can it possibly be moral for you to hire somebody else (the government) to do exactly the same thing?


That's a cop-out and you know it--or you should, if you call yourself an intellectually-honest Christian. The torturers of the Crusades and the Inquisition were not measurably farther in their practices from Jews and Christians in Biblical times than you are today; as a matter of fact, your modern practices would probably seem much stranger to the heroes of the Bible than what the Crusaders did. Remember, more than once God told his people to go into a city and kill every man, woman, child, and animal in it. At least once, he punished them when they didn't.

And the Crusaders and Inquisitors (at least some of them) were every bit as serious about being Christians back then as you are now. Have you read the writings of some of the church fathers from that period? If you want to draw credible, fundamental distinctions between them and you, you have to come up with something better than, "They just weren't true Christians."

There is a credible, fundamental difference between them and you, in case you're wondering, and it has nothing to do with doctrine or relative depth of faith. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.


One can impose neither morality nor amorality on anyone. Morality is a free-will choice: if you force somebody down one path or the other, then you have made the choice for him and destroyed whatever moral element it had. The concept of forcing amorality on people is just silly: it would have to consist of setting a free-will choice before them and then forcing them not to make the choice.


Ah--finally we get to Romans 13. Are you aware of the context of this passage? What behaviors or false teachings was Paul correcting?


"Imposition of a moral standard" is a contradiction in terms. If you impose it, then the most it can be is a behavioral standard, not a moral standard. If it's a moral standard, it must be accepted, not imposed.

Why must there be only one moral standard across all of society? Do you know of anywhere that this dream of yours has ever been realized? If so, how much blood had to be spilled to make it so, and how do you know it was successful? (Maybe somebody somewhere thought that renting a prostitute was actually okay, but the government was never able to kill him because he never told anyone what he believed.)

Barak, we posted simultaneously, so look up for my response to you. There are two posts there, one on the bottom of page 3 and one at the top of page 4.

Good point about the British Empire...although we could probably argue about whether the British idea of individual liberty (in its prime, I mean) and the Framers' idea of individual liberty was the same.

However, I'm much more interested in this: all the stuff you need to be happy as an "authentic American conservative"...why do you need a government to give you all that? What's fundamentally wrong with getting it from the private sector?

And of course, nobody can "start from scratch" anymore, libertarian or not.

Barak, go to www.thenewamerican.com/focus/government/index.htm and read The State of Big Government, and tell me if you agree with the gist of it.

I do.

Barak, have you ever read Our Enemy The State, by Albert Jay Nock? I think you would benefit from it a lot. There is a distinction between "the state" and government, and he really brings that out and makes it clear. Perhaps your quarrel is with the state, and not with government at all.

Barak,

You seem to be at odds with yourself here. Could you kindly explain what seems to be two conflicting statements? On the second point I don't mean the common explanation that the oppressors pushed and the oppressed pushed back but when you say that " Liberty has to be taken" there's an implication there that there may be an initiating force rather than a reactive force.

On another point, I'd have to agree with Hawkeye on his definition of what a conservative is. One of the major problems with society today is that people have forgotten that words have meanings therefore they tend to use them incorrectly or attribute their own meanings for them. Witness the common present day usage of words such as gay and [bleep]. Perfectly good words whose meaning has been warped by improper usage or improper understanding. Just because the "religious right" is branded as conservative or because the liberals call someone or something conservative or even when someone who doesn't properly understand the term conservative uses it to describe them self that doesn't mean that conservative is the correct description for them and their actions. It just means that either they don't have a firm grasp of the English language or they don't care that their speech is imprecise. As far as the commonly accepted meaning for "conservative" being the one that you have attributed it simply because it has become commonly accepted among those who either have an agenda or speak carelessly; just because the vast majority of the world's population at one time believed that the world was flat didn't make acceptance of that belief correct.

You don't need government to give you all that, you need government to assist in the means to protect it. Alone you're always at the mercy of anyone who wants to take control of you. As a member of a group you are stronger and more able to protect what is yours. In order for the group to operate and cooperate it must have some sort of structure. That's government.

Barak,

Quote:

"Then I met the government face to face in late 1998"

What happened?

Blaine

Barak,
Now I will see if I can Quote>


In Romans chapter 13 Paul is continuing his discussion regarding vengeance, which he began in chapter 12 verses 12 and 17.
In his discussion he covers the authority of government. God has said that vengeance is His. Ultimately He will judge for eternal destiny. However, there is a vengeance in this life, and He has given that authority to act in His behalf to extract vengeance on evildoers. He has also given government the responsibility to do that. The fact that human governments do a poor job does not negate the authority of government.

Quote
"Imposition of a moral standard" is a contradiction in terms. If you impose it, then the most it can be is a behavioral standard, not a moral standard. If it's a moral standard, it must be accepted, not imposed.
/quote

Not true. A law which has a moral standard as a base imposes the standard of conduct which the standard requires. That is an imposition of a moral standard.
I agree that it might not change the hearts of people, although it is a factor in teaching moral standards to the people of that society. If on grows up in a society which accepts a certain behavior according to its laws, then he draws certain conclusions as to the right or wrong of that behavior.

Do you really think that a child which grows up in a society which accepts and even encourages homosexuality, for instance, by its laws has the same attitude as if that society said in its law that homosexuality was immoral and illegal? The law is a great teacher, and the old canard which says that you can�t legislate morals is true, but not the truth. It ignores the fact that the law teaches, and therefore can change the moral attitudes of individuals. It certainly regulates behavior.

Quote
If so, how much blood had to be spilled to make it so, and how do you know it was successful? (Maybe somebody somewhere thought that renting a prostitute was actually okay, but the government was never able to kill him because he never told anyone what he believed.)
/quote

The types of moral based laws which I am talking about were the laws which were in effect for most of our history. How much blood was spilled then?
I am not sure why some of you think that it is necessary to kill everyone who does not agree with or follow the law. Where did you get such an idea?
The laws, which said that abortion was illegal, or adultery was illegal, or many other things, did not impose the death penalty.

As for prostitution, which you would probably say is a victimless crime; it is obvious that many who use prostitutes are married. Would you say that if the man caught AIDS for instance, and gives it to his wife, that she has not been a victim? If he is found by his wife and she divorces him would you say that she and the children have not been victimized?
The view which you seem to hold does not think past the two parties, and does not realize that �No man is an island.� (Who said that?}

Quote
One can impose neither morality nor amorality on anyone.
/quote

Not true. The moral standards which are reflected in laws are imposed upon everyone. If you allow porno and prostitution in a city, then that permission is imposed on those who might walk down the street at night as they see the prostitutes and maybe are propositioned. If we go to a magazine stand we see the porno magazines. Many of us find those things objectionable, and it is a hindrance to our own pursuit of happiness. It is objectionable to be in a restaurant and have to hear the gutter language which is so common today, and seems to be protected by free speech.
Now you will say, then don�t eat there, but I respond that I have the right to eat out free from vulgar language in the presence of my wife, and others including myself. Free speech has been grossly overdone. It is not without limits.

I think this is long enough for now.

Jerry

Thanks for reading closely enough to catch that.

If I had known that you would use it in that context, I would have written, "Liberty must be taken back." The natural state of man is liberty; if a man is not free, then it is only because another man is enslaving him. And in that case, the enslaver is the initiator of force; should the slave have to use force in throwing off his chains, it is reasonable to view it as retaliatory force.


I understand.

And yet, for good or ill, the language evolves. The word "prevent," for example, used to mean 'to come before,' rather than 'to stop from occurring.' I could argue, if I wished, that the former meaning was the purer one and the latter was simply an obscene corruption of it; I could, if I wished, always use the word in the former sense rather than the latter. People would not understand me, and I'd be constantly explaining myself.

Some folks, I suppose, see that as a worthy pursuit. I'm a libertarian: to each his own. But to me, it seems like a painful waste of time.

No, that's a bunch of guys with guns who have for some reason or other agreed to help you defend what you have.

Given your description so far, the entity can be either governmental or private. (Structure alone, as I'm sure you're aware, doesn't define government.)

Why, then, is it so important that the particular guys with guns who protect your particular stuff have to be hired by unaccountable government entities and paid with money involuntarily extorted from people?

The fundamental difference between government and the free market is that government has a monopoly on the legal use of initiated coercive force. The free market has to persuade you to do whatever it wants of you; the government merely sticks a gun in your face and forces you to do it--and in the process steals your money to pay for the gun in your face and the goon holding it.

You are in control of your relationship with the free market; but the government is in control of your relationship with it.

But protection is defense; and defense by definition is retaliatory force, not initiated force; therefore protection doesn't require government. And if government is not required, then why in the name of Common Sense would you want it?

Apparently you left out the square brackets []. It's okay, though: I can tell what you meant.


Verse 12??

That's not what I meant. The reason Paul is talking about the continued authority of government to the believers in Rome is that they had gotten the idea that God's law completely nullified man's law. In modern terms, if you were a Christian, and there wasn't anything in Christian doctrine about speed limits, then you could drive whatever speed you wanted and man had no authority over you. Paul was setting them straight: God's law is superior to man's law, he said, but that doesn't mean that man's law disappears or is of no purpose.

He was not saying that every government and government leader acts only under direct inspiration from God, and the word of the government carries divine authority. It ought to be clear anyway that that's not the case; but if it isn't, I'll be glad to cite you some examples.


A moral standard and a standard of conduct are not the same thing. You can impose a standard of conduct, whereupon people will immediately begin squirming to find loopholes and convenient interpretations and other ways to get around it and do what they want to do. The best you can do with a moral standard is teach it. People who understand will then of their own free will overlook inept phrasing and difficult concepts in an attempt to apply the spirit of the standard as best they can.

The instant you try imposing a moral standard, it becomes a standard of conduct instead and loses all its moral character.


And if one grows up in a world where flies surreptitiously lay eggs in meat, he might draw the conclusion that meat spontaneously generates maggots. That doesn't mean it's true; it only means that his view of the truth has been distorted by his circumstances.


I already answered this "the law is a great teacher" flummery back on the first page of this thread. Repetition is not rebuttal.


If you're a gun person, then you ought to know. Governments kill scads of people. In the 20th century alone, by some counts, governments murdered 156 million of their own people. That doesn't count soldiers killed in battle.


Is there any other way to achieve a single society-wide moral standard? You have to kill or drive out everyone who doesn't agree with your moral standard; if you leave any dissidents alive, then you have more than one moral standard.


Not of the prostitute, no. If the wife wishes to bring her husband up on charges for infecting her with AIDS, then I support her. The prostitute is only liable if she has falsely represented herself as being free from AIDS.

Are you one of those people who wants to see an entire practice banned because you can imagine that one day it might injure somebody? Where do you stand on the "Assault Weapons" Ban?


Not by the prostitute, no. If the wife would like to sue the husband for breach of contract, then I support her.


You have a very, very low opinion of morality. I'm surprised. You expect a moral person to be able to avoid prostitutes and pornography only so long as they're made legally unavailable? Your moral person can't be expected to have enough character to resist actual temptation rather than merely theoretical temptation?

On the other hand, it's not actually that surprising. If you call "morality" that which you impose involuntarily by law under penalty of fine, imprisonment, or death on somebody, then it stands to reason that the "moral persons" you produce by such a process would exhibit very low character according to your "moral" code.

Christians like you make life tough on me sometimes. I frequently find myself in the position of defending Christianity to folks who have been the object of one too many Christian jihads from people like you, and from time to time I get weary pointing out that "make disciples of all nations" says nothing about the point of a sword or the muzzle of a gun.


Now you're one of the "I have the right not to be offended" folks too? Are you sure you're not a liberal? How do you feel about the word "[bleep]?"

Barak, what you say would have some validity if the "evolution" of the word conservatism were natural, gradual, and imperceptible, as the evolution of the word prevent was. This is a different case, however. It is in the interest of the left to blur the meaning of words which are dangerous to their cause, i.e., which shed light on their fundamental errors. If conservatism refers to religious fanaticism, and the desire to expand federal police powers at the expense of personal liberty, then the left feels far less threatened by the prospect of a mad rush of liberty-loving Americans wishing to identify themselves with such, or exploring that movement's tenets. There is a method to their madness, you see. By this method, they discredit real conservatives, making it seem somehow unseemly to be one. They hijack the language, and thereby limit the availability of ideas able to oppose them. If they identified conservatism as what it actually is, too many people would then be exposed to the compelling arguments of conservatism in opposition to liberalism, and that would not be good for their cause. The alteration of the meaning of conservatism was engineered as a means of neutralizing effective opposition. This was not just a case of a natural change in usage over time, as many English words have undergone since the days of Chaucer.