1

If you are looking for volunteers...

2

I was wondering that today. Actually, not about "social conservatives" just why there is no CONSERVATIVE blog (social fiscal, foreign policy)in the top 10.

3

In my humble little opinion, the internet (and especially linking routes, such as the Ecosphere) very closely reflects the popular opinion of the day(s). At this point, that includes liberals always being right, and conservatives (almost) always being wrong.

However, something like this does make me wonder how succeptible the Ecosphere is to problems similar to those Google has with their PageRank feature... and how many of those linked-to points really count.

4

Joe, you scored a mere 16 on the libertarian test. That puts you almost entirely outside the realm of conservative.

The better way, IMO, to read the libertarian test is that if you score 0 you are an unrepetent complete statists/collectivist. If you score 16-30 then you are a somewhat principled moderate. 31-50 makes you a conservative. 51-90 makes you a right-libertarian.

91-130 makes you a hardcore libertarian

Anything above 130 makes you almost an an anarchist.

5

I believe Joe's post referenced "social conservatives," which is a tad different than, say, a fiscal or economic conservative. Of course, that's said by somebody who scored even lower than Joe did, and who makes relatively few bones about being an economic progressive. Maybe that's why I'm so far from mere double digits that the notion of the "top 10" is essentially meaningless. :)

6

Doesn't InstaIdiot count? I would certainly classify him as conservative...

7

And Little Green Footballs (although most sane people I know don't really want to associate with him, and for good reason).

8

Considering that most social conservatives score around what Joe got I fail to see how they are actually conservatives. It's really hard for many traditionalists to admit that they are almost as enamored with welfare statism as the leftists they despise.

"Economic progressives" can dress up welfare politics as much as they want in the terms of being "democratically supported." It doesn't matter. Democracy is rarely anything more than a sugar-coated version of might makes right. It acknowledges no higher freedoms or morality than whatever the public wants. In that sense it is safe to say that a democratic system is no better than the totalitarian systems it claims to oppose. A totalitarian regime is nothing more than a democratic regime in its final stage.

Outside of the realm of individual rights, human life is utterly worthless. It is a commodity, a thing that can be used and disposed of. Only in an individualistic, capitalist system is murder actually morally wrong and tragic. Only a capitalist system places an intrinsic value on human life. A human being in a socialist system (or if you prefer, economically progressive system) is nothing more than a cog in the machine. The individual life in such a system has no value so it logically follows that within the parameters of a socialist system that concentration camps are acceptable means of dealing with those who disrupt the system in anyway.

That's why I couldn't be a socialist anymore. I actually value individual life.

Live free or die. If the former is too much to ask of someone then they should do their country a favor and do the latter.

9

T.,

When I was putting together my "Studmuffins of Conservatism" post I asked Reynolds if he considered himself a "conservative." He said that he was more of a libertarian. I agree. He's definitely not a social conservative.

10

Part of the problem is that "socially conservative" people can't agree on an appropriate course of action relative to their views. Do we legislate the full range of Judeo-Christian belief? How about a particular subset? If so, what subset? What about those who are personally conservative but believe it isn't the government's job to legislate morality?

You have the "Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson" conservatives who seem to believe everyone should be forced to act like Christians (bad idea). Then you have the "James Dobson" Christians who are very politically active, but recognize that government cannot completely control morality. Then you have more libertarian-minded conservatives who believe that the government should butt out from most issues (excepting some or all of the following: fraud, force, abortion, gay "marriage", etc.).

No one can speak with one voice for such a varied lot. And, yes, Andrew and Matt *definitely* don't count.

11

Captialism is an economic system, not a political system. It is defined as a system in which industries are subject to private ownership, and can take place in a variety of political systems. Unrestrained capitalism is as fundamentally uncaring about the individual as any other economic system: it is geared toward the production of profit for private individuals, not the protection of individual liberties. Unrestrained capitalism leads to he concentration of wealth. It is fundamentally absurd to assume that capitalism - which is inherently geared toward industrial monopolization - would care about the individual; indeed, history indicates otherwise.

I believe in capitalism as an economic system - when properly tempered to avoid exploitation of those who lack economic power (economic power, and not humanity (or individuality) being the only important characteristic in a "pure" capitalistic system).

A proper representative form of government (i.e., a republic, as opposed to a democracy) with a system of checks and balances is admittedly geared toward "majority rule." However, it is also protective of minority rights. It is not merely "might makes right," and there is far more of a political spectrum associated with the progression from democracy to socialism to totalitarianism than you suggest.

12

We can disagree on the extent to which the government stays out of the economy in a capitalist system, as there is room for pragmatism in capitalism, but capitalism as we know it is a new development. It really only began to take shape around 300 years ago.

An election should be primarily to answer the question of what type of person do you want to administer the constitution and laws, not what kind of government do you want. The public should never have the choice of creating a socialist system, for the same reason that a majority should never have the choice of limiting the rights of a minority who are citizens of the nation.

As a libertarian I am ambivalent toward the democratic process. It is often used by the majority to take something away from the minority. The reality of "democracy" is that it rarely protects freedom at all. Today almost every democratic system in the world is nearing the level of oppressiveness of many of the dictatorships that have littered human history.

I think the constitution should be bigger and more explicit. The ideal situation would be for the charters of each department and major agency to be created through a constitutional process, meaning that the Department of Defense's existance would be based on a new article being added to the constitution which defines explicitly the nature of the DoD. Each agency within it that is created would be an amendment to that article.

Contrary to the opinions of many leftists and social conservatives, the libertarian perspective on government is growing more and more important because of the increasingly sharp differences between the groups that make up America. Today we may take for granted that secession is never going to happen, but who is to say that the South wouldn't secede if Hillary Clinton took over? She'd be extremely unpopular in the South and most of her policies would drive a lot of southerners away from the rest of the Union. Again, a perfect example of why that as every new president expands central state power, the danger of conflict grows.

13

If I can note one small thing...social conservatives use the internet less frequently and less intensively if my personal experience is any example. It seems that the type of people naturally drawn to the position are naturally not drawn to blogging, at least, thus far. Libertarians (like myself in some ways) however, are generally socially outcast enough that we love the make believe world of the internet and are, thus, disproportionally represented.

14

Hey John,

I think you're right. Bill Wallo made a similiar point in the comments on Bill Hobbs blog. Since libertarians tend to be more individulistic its only natural that they would be drawn to blogging.

15

Two thoughts:

1. One an awful lot of high traffic bloggers are academics. It is easier to be a moderate libertarian professor than a moderate social conservative prof.

2. Ditto corporate america. After a couple of diversity and tolerance classes, managers might fear putting their anti-gay marriage thoughts on the internet.

16

Hewitt's answer is not a good one at all. The reason is simple: most conservatives don't take part in that ranking. To do it you have to use a specific counter and then submit your site. Conservative sites with heavy traffic, such as National Review, don't participate. Neither does mine. It's a crappy ranking with few participators.

17

Scored a 55 on the Libertarian Purity test, though I'd never have classified myself as a "mid-core libertarian". I guess I'm pretty well libertarian on economic issues (minimum wage, regulation, etc.), but certainly not on social issues.

I average around 75 to 100 hits a day, so I'm certainly not in the running. Hmph.

I tend to think that Joshua has the answer regarding the phenomenon. From what I've seen, the conservative/libertarian side of the blogosphere is more energetic than the lefties, so I don't put a great deal of faith in the Ecosystem rankings by themselves, but then again, I'm hardly unbiased (and, I'm only a Marauding Marsupial, anyway).

18

Ah, all of this gives me some hope for my own, tiny blog with next-to-no daily hits.
::sigh::

Maybe someday...