Gay Patriot Header Image

On Economic Issues, he’s Barney Bluenose

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:00 pm - April 24, 2009.
Filed under: Arrogance of the Liberal Elites,Freedom

Like Reason’s Nick Gillespie, I agree “that economic and civil liberties are conjoined at the hip,” yet this libertarian finds that the Barney Frank is desperate to distinguish the two. In an interview with the Conservative News Service (CNS), the unhappy Massachusetts Democrat shows that on personal freedom, he’s like a character from a comic book, call him Barney Two-Face:

I would let people gamble on the Internet. . . .  I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose. . . . But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems.

Well, Mr. Two-Face, if you’ve bothered to read some of the arguments opposing legalized gambling and drug use, you’d hear those putting them forward say that the bad decisions made by gambling grownups and toking adults spill over into society.  (For the record, while I neither use drugs nor gamble on the Internet, I do favor legalizing (or keeping legal as the case may be) both practices.)

There is this strange dichotomy among liberals like Barney who favor unfettered personal freedom in the social sphere, but wish to severely constrain our choices in the economic one.  But, then again, there is a strange dichotomy among social conservatives who favor unfettered personal freedom in the marketplace (except when it comes to buying certain products of which they disapprove), but not in one’s own bedroom.

In Barney’s eagerness to dictate how an individual conducts his economic affairs, down to so much as regulating the salary corporations should set for their executives, he’s nothing more than a marketplace version of the social bluenoses he so regularly derides.  While they wish to regulate different sorts of behavior, neither trusts individuals to run their own lives and the private associations they enter of their own accord. . . for their pleasure or their profit.

(H/t:  Instapundit.)

Share

5 Comments

  1. There is this strange dichotomy among liberals like Barney who favor unfettered personal freedom in the social sphere, but wish to severely constrain our choices in the economic one. But, then again, there is a strange dichotomy among social conservatives who favor unfettered personal freedom in the marketplace (except when it comes to buying certain products of which they disapprove), but not in one’s own bedroom.

    One explanation is that liberals are materialists/utilitarians and conservatives are moralists/spiritualists. The reason that liberals want to limit economic freedom and conservatives want to limit personal freedom is control. Both groups attempt to control those spheres about which they are most concerned.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 24, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - April 24, 2009

  2. I would let people gamble on the Internet. . . . I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose. . . .

    A case can be made that these things also impact broader society (as the libs assert when addressing smoking and eating).

    Could it be that Frank is OK with hedonistic impulses because people occupied solely with pleasure don’t really care about what’s going on as long as the party doesn’t end? A “Brave New World”?

    Conservatives could be thought to concern themselves with things seen to interfere assuming responsibility (sometimes correctly, sometimes not).

    Comment by SoCalRobert — April 24, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - April 24, 2009

  3. As a foster parent, I can testify that adult drug use does affect others than the individual. Most of the kids who are in the system got there because their parents cared more about getting f–ed up than they did about raising their young.

    Beyond that, Bawney Fwank is illustrating the devil’s bargain the Democrats make and that the left eagerly embraces: “We will let you do whatever you want in the bedroom, and in return, you let us control absolutely every aspect of your life outside the bedroom.”

    Comment by V the K — April 25, 2009 @ 8:11 am - April 25, 2009

  4. What I can’t understand is why the Gay Establishment keeps putting this incompetent fool on a pedestal? This is one of the reason why I do not support the groups that supposedly speak for me. This is an embarassment. It’s as if standards don’t apply to homosexuals.

    My own mother can’t stand him. She finds him sloppy and unkept. I couldn’t agree more. His actions are directly responsible for this financial fiasco. My biggest beef is with his constituency. Why do they keep re-electing him?

    Comment by Scherie — April 25, 2009 @ 12:34 pm - April 25, 2009

  5. #4 – “My biggest beef is with his constituency. Why do they keep re-electing him?”

    I think they spike the water in Massachusetts, because they also keep electing Kennedys and Kerrys as well.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 26, 2009 @ 9:12 pm - April 26, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.