I think that Jim O'Connor's question reflects the broader contradiction
that always lurks within "conservativism." On the one hand, there's
the libertarian, laissez-faire, vision of the Invisible Hand of the
market solving all problems and making everyone happy through
individual voluntary exchange and specialization according to compara-
tive advantage, etc., etc., in the realm of individual freedom.
On the other hand, there's the traditionalist, conservativism-in-
the-strict-sense, reactionary, vision of family, church, community,
and nation. This vision is one of societal restraints internalized
in individual conscience.
The problem is that laissez-faire in practice (unfettered capitalism,
encouraged by pro-business subsidies by the government) tends to
make tradition "melt into the air" as two old German fellows
described in a popular polemic a century or so ago. This causes
all sorts of debates and fights among "conservatives." Often, it
works out to be "laissez-faire for me" (and my ilk) but "tradition
and constraint for thee" (those dark-skinned or working-class
or female or otherwise "other" groups). Of course, the dynamic
of capitalism usually makes such solutions temporary as new prob-
lems arise.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"I have to learn this stuff so I can understand Rush Limbaugh."
-- student comment, during office hours.
