http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/07/11/jonah-goldberg/the-brink-lindsey-project/ Big Ideas for a Better World Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:01:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/07/11/jonah-goldberg/the-brink-lindsey-project/comment-page-1/#comment-99106 A Second Hand Conjecture » The Ever Expanding Reach of the State Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:11:06 +0000 http://www.cato-unbound.org/?p=514#comment-99106 [...] As Matthew Yglesias has acknowledged, liberals firmly expanding the power of the state for moral reasons, as are conservatives. That those moral ends lead to different policies does not change that they do see the state as the shaper of the particular (as opposed to general moral ends such as freedom or autonomy) moral outcomes they desire. To change that means changing that view. Few people are willing to do that, or reasonably restrict that impulse, even if they could do so in a bargain that others wouldn’t impose competing moral agendas. So liberals are unwilling to accept non violent sexual or racial discrimination even if it leads to a world where conservatives cannot pass laws forbidding certain sexual practices. Not to mention that in large areas they generally agree, such as on drug policy, whether illicit or for legal medications. If the larger entity of government does not satisfy most voters, it is not because of its size or reach, but the purposes that size and reach is put to which alienates them. Sadly, they will not sacrifice the reach they want to restrict the reach they don’t. Yglesias and Jonah Goldberg, reasonable and sharp liberals and conservatives state that quite clearly in an exchange with Brink Lindsey at Cato Unbound. I think their point is sound. With such competing and often incoherent demands for the state we have little reason for great optimism. Sphere: Related Content [...] [...] As Matthew Yglesias has acknowledged, liberals firmly expanding the power of the state for moral reasons, as are conservatives. That those moral ends lead to different policies does not change that they do see the state as the shaper of the particular (as opposed to general moral ends such as freedom or autonomy) moral outcomes they desire. To change that means changing that view. Few people are willing to do that, or reasonably restrict that impulse, even if they could do so in a bargain that others wouldn’t impose competing moral agendas. So liberals are unwilling to accept non violent sexual or racial discrimination even if it leads to a world where conservatives cannot pass laws forbidding certain sexual practices. Not to mention that in large areas they generally agree, such as on drug policy, whether illicit or for legal medications. If the larger entity of government does not satisfy most voters, it is not because of its size or reach, but the purposes that size and reach is put to which alienates them. Sadly, they will not sacrifice the reach they want to restrict the reach they don’t. Yglesias and Jonah Goldberg, reasonable and sharp liberals and conservatives state that quite clearly in an exchange with Brink Lindsey at Cato Unbound. I think their point is sound. With such competing and often incoherent demands for the state we have little reason for great optimism. Sphere: Related Content [...]

]]>