fbpx

Dear Anti-Market Conservatives: Meet Wilhelm Röpke

Though conservatives are often portrayed as strong supporters of the free market, not all of them are. Now and in the past, many individuals have happily embraced the conservative label while expressing strong reservations about, if not outright rejection of, market economies.

Even so I’ve noticed, as someone who identifies very much as a conservative, that skepticism of markets among conservatives has swelled in recent years. The financial crisis of late 2007 to 2009 and the subsequent recession have hardened an attitude—including among conservatives—that free markets are essentially unfair, facilitate unhealthy cultural trends, and leave many people on life’s economic margins.

It would be unwise to dismiss the conservative critique of capitalism as resulting solely from either insufficient knowledge of economics and economic history, or from the embrace of romantic visions of pre-industrial life. Certainly, these and other elements play a role. So too, I suspect, does personal experience of the turmoil associated with recent economic upheavals, invariably blamed as they are on allegedly unfettered markets.

But surely another cause of this rising anti-market sentiment is many free marketers’ inadequate responses to these and other concerns. Rejoinders like, “If you only understood economics, you’d just know that everyone’s better off in the long-term” may be true—if one is primarily thinking in aggregate terms about material prosperity, lifespans, and overall levels of human health. It is a reckless soul who would trivialize such things. Such reasoning, however, fails to answer legitimate questions that many conservatives have long pondered, such as where markets fit into accounts of the good life that go beyond an emphasis on individual autonomy.

One thinker who seriously engaged these issues in satisfyingly broad and deep terms is the economist who was perhaps most responsible for laying the intellectual foundations of Germany’s market-driven economic miracle in the postwar period. Wilhelm Röpke died just over half a century ago. Yet his numerous writings not only underscore his appreciation of the market economy’s unique ability to solve many economic problems and contribute to the development of free and civilized societies; they also reveal him as an economist who reflected widely, to cite his most famous book’s German title, beyond the world of supply and demand.

Born in 1899 in Schwarmstedt in lower Saxony, Röpke was decisively marked, like many of his generation, by the experience of combat in World War I. A decorated war hero, he graduated from the University of Marburg with a doctorate in economics in 1921. At the age of 24, he became Germany’s youngest professor. Deeply read in fields outside of economics and the master of several European classical and modern languages, Röpke was an intellectual star in a country that took academics very seriously.

Röpke’s free market views manifested themselves early on. He fiercely opposed the cartels and monopolies that littered the economies of Imperial and Weimar Germany. For this reason, Röpke wasn’t shy about criticizing large German businesses’ cozy relationships with political parties. He was also hostile to price controls, censorious of the welfare state established by Otto von Bismarck and expanded by successive German governments, an outspoken free trader in a protectionist age, and a lifelong promoter of the gold standard at a time when many governments tried to disguise deeper economic problems by printing money.

Until the mid-1930s, Röpke’s politics were more of the classical liberal variety than conservative. Though a patriotic German, Röpke was critical of the hyper-nationalist strain of early 20th century German conservatism, much of which articulated decidedly protectionist views. It was, however, his outspoken criticism of the National Socialists (matched by his equally stern denunciations of communism) that led to Röpke’s being one of the first professors to be dismissed from German universities after the Nazis came to power in 1933.

As a bona fide war hero and accomplished athlete who closely approximated the Nazis’ “Aryan” ideal-type, Röpke was exactly the sort of intellectual who could have prospered, if he had so desired, in National Socialist Germany. But rather than bend to the regime’s expectations, Röpke went into exile. He taught economics at the University of Istanbul before becoming a professor at Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International Studies in 1937.

It was Röpke’s time in Turkey that caused him to start asking questions about the preconditions for not just free markets but civilizations that took freedom and the good life seriously. Later on, he would look back and say that his experience of living in a Muslim country (albeit one that was being aggressively secularized at the time) made him realize the huge differences between Western societies “and everyone else.” The most significant dissimilarities, Röpke observed, were to be seen in institutions, value commitments, and, above all, religion.

As he grew older, Röpke’s Christianity became more important to him, personally and intellectually. Describing himself as a believing Protestant Christian who wished the Reformation had never happened, Röpke became more and more critical of the hostility toward Christianity that pervaded the liberal academic circles in which he travelled. Like Alexis de Tocqueville, Röpke increasingly argued that it had been Christianity, rather than liberalism, that had made the most decisive contributions to freedom’s emergence in the West. Nor did Röpke hesitate to highlight the utilitarianism, positivism, and scientism that lay just beneath the surface of a good deal of 19th century liberal thought.

Moreover, like Adam Smith, Röpke wasn’t afraid to concede that free markets can have negative effects. Some of his writings were concerned with finding ways to ameliorate, for example, the deleterious social impact often associated with the heavy specialization that’s integral to the division of labor encouraged by growing markets.

Nor was Röpke opposed in principle to state intervention. There were, he believed (like Smith), occasions when governments had to act to stave off wider crises that might threaten basic confidence in free markets.

Röpke also, however, believed that any such interventions should be guided by constitutional and legal principles that 1) prevented such temporary measures from morphing into more permanent features of the economic landscape, and 2) promoted crucial elements of the market such as free prices, private property, stable money, and free competition. These ideas lay at the heart of Ludwig Erhard’s 1948 liberalization of the West German economy, which turned a devastated country into Europe’s economic superpower within 10 years. During World War II, Erhard had clandestinely read as many of Röpke’s writings as he could. He later described them, and Röpke’s moral example, as constant reference points during his years as West Germany’s economics minister.

For all his criticisms of some aspects of free market thought, Röpke never wavered in his conviction that the trade-offs entailed by embracing commercial society were worth it. For one thing, he believed that the market economy reflected certain truths about the human condition. Denying these truths, he thought, was like denying that humans are fallible.

But what makes Röpke’s case for the market economy distinct in his later years is just how much it reflects a conservative’s case for economic freedom rather than a more recognizably classical liberal or a libertarian argument. One can see this change in Röpke’s thought happening in his three-volume trilogy written in Switzerland during World War II. The most mature expression of Röpke’s reflections on these matters was his famous A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market, translated into English in 1960.

Described by the distinguished economist of competition and entrepreneurship (and noted Talmudic scholar) Israel Kirzner as “a classic,” A Humane Economy outlined all the reasons why socialism can’t help but result in severe economic dysfunction. The book also expressed a powerful critique of the-then regnant Keynesianism, showing the ill-effects of trying to promote full employment and security for all through deficit-spending, loose monetary policy, and social welfare programs. These “facts,” as Röpke called them, “demand a firm position against” socialism and mixed economies on the part of anyone attentive to evidence. The same facts, he held, should incline us to the market order, insofar as economic policy was concerned.

That last qualification matters because it reflects Röpke’s conviction that markets needed to be grounded in cultures richly populated with intact families and intermediate associations, political systems that emphasized federalism, and philosophically undergirded by commitments to moral absolutes and natural law thought. Röpke also argued that the cultures in which markets are embedded must reject what he called “isms,” such as “utilitarianism, progressivism, secularism, [and] rationalism.” Röpke also sharply condemned “what Eric Vogelin aptly calls ‘immanentism’ ”—that is, believing that humans can somehow produce heaven on earth.

If this all sounds conservative, that’s because it is. Röpke even described these ideas as the “conservative ingredients” of his political economy. They are also reminiscent of the type of economics associated with Edmund Burke.

This shouldn’t surprise us. Burke was, after all, an admirer of Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), a champion of free trade, a convinced Christian, and the founder of modern conservativism by virtue of his opposition to the various “isms” let loose by the French Revolution. To this extent, Burke foreshadows Röpke’s argument that economic freedom is indispensable (albeit insufficient) for preserving what Röpke called “Western civilization” against the overly centralized governments and bureaucracies that corrode freedom and harm the communities that nourish liberty-sustaining virtues.

These are all classic Burkean insights to which conservatives interested in traditionalist (or even crypto-socialist) economic alternatives to the market should be attentive. Like many conservatives, Röpke was sensitive to many of the problems associated with modernity. This, however, didn’t stop him from stressing how market economies—as opposed to crony capitalism, social democracy, or the variants of populism that have inflicted economic misery upon many Latin American countries—can help promote distinctly non-economic goals that conservatism has always considered important.

Certainly Röpke wasn’t right about everything. He bought into, for example, much of the population-growth hysteria that preoccupied many Western European intellectuals (and still does). In devising his framework to limit and guide state economic intervention, Röpke struggled at points to devise clear lines of demarcation.

Yet he got some very important things right. Prominent among these was his prediction that the then-European Economic Community (today’s EU) would turn into a top-down bureaucratic behemoth that would threaten many of the liberties and values held dear by conservatives as well as many classical liberals. Likewise, his warnings that the welfare state would significantly damage what we today call civil society—something especially valued by conservatives—turned out to be dead on target.

All this is to urge those conservatives attracted to schools of economic thought ranging from distributism to corporatism, or even tempted by Marxist economic analysis, to read some of Röpke’s works before they reject the market economy holus bolus. In texts such as A Humane Economy and Economics of the Free Society (1963), they will find many of their concerns discussed sympathetically and addressed dispassionately. But they’ll also encounter strong normative arguments about why a commitment to market economies can and should form part of the conservative agenda in an age in which, like Röpke’s, the economics of the Left are in the ascendant.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on September 06, 2017 at 10:26:25 am

Röpke’s conviction [was] that markets needed to be grounded in cultures richly populated with intact families and intermediate associations, political systems that emphasized federalism, and philosophically undergirded by commitments to moral absolutes and natural law thought. Röpke also argued that the cultures in which markets are embedded must reject what he called “isms,” such as “utilitarianism, progressivism, secularism, [and] rationalism.”

In other words, Röpke’s embrace of markets depended upon conditions which no longer obtain. Ergo, his convictions are irrelevant to our contemporary times.

The only way to make Röpke’s philosophy relevant would be to devise some system by which to cause our culture to have more intact families embracing Röpke’s religious views while rejecting all other views (“isms”). Can we think of a way to achieve these ends while still claiming to rely solely on free markets?

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on September 06, 2017 at 14:28:49 pm

SG: "Moreover, like Adam Smith, Röpke wasn’t afraid to concede that free markets can have negative effects. Some of his writings were concerned with finding ways to ameliorate, for example, the deleterious social impact often associated with the heavy specialization that’s integral to the division of labor encouraged by growing markets.

Nor was Röpke opposed in principle to state intervention. There were, he believed (like Smith), occasions when governments had to act to stave off wider crises that might threaten basic confidence in free markets."

To put it more functionally, you need a little socialism to save capitalism from itself. Oddly enough, only a heavily-regulated market can hope to approximate the Adam Smith ideal.

As for moral principles, all you really need is greed. lt is always in society's long-term self-interest to curb the excesses of capitalism; left to its own devices, capitalism will devour itself. (We are in the last stages of capitalism.)

SG: "Certainly Röpke wasn’t right about everything. He bought into, for example, much of the population-growth hysteria that preoccupied many Western European intellectuals (and still does)."

How is he wrong? lt's hard to argue with Thomas Malthus. Fixed resources present natural limits to growth, and we're running up against them. The intellectuals are right ... and you're not one of them.

SG: "[Re: correct predictions] Prominent among these was his prediction that the then-European Economic Community (today’s EU) would turn into a top-down bureaucratic behemoth that would threaten many of the liberties and values held dear by conservatives as well as many classical liberals."

lf you want to integrate markets, you need appropriate regulations. You people scream about how much you hate Big Gub'mint, except when Big Gub'mint does YOUR bidding. You want government so small, it fits in the uterus down the street.

Remember, you need regulations in five languages. And in a democracy, things get messy.

SG: "Likewise, his warnings that the welfare state would significantly damage what we today call civil society—something especially valued by conservatives—turned out to be dead on target."

What do you mean by "civil society," if is not an euphemism? Your ideal is a society (if one can even call it that) where life is mean, brutish, nasty, and short. They have a robust public commons, which contributes mightily to human happiness. These inveterate welfare states (Aus and NZ included) result in all of the happiest countries (we're not even close) in the world. As the Guardian reports:

"One way to examine the issue is to compare state help provided by the British government to one which traditionally charges much higher taxes: Sweden. Swedes support the second-highest tax burden in the world - after Denmark's - with an average of 48.2 per cent of GDP going to taxes. Yet Sweden, along with equally high-taxing Denmark and Norway, tops almost every international barometer of successful societies. ...

But for most Swedes paying high taxes is a benefit, not a problem. 'I am very happy to pay high taxes because I know I am getting value for the money later on,' says Valentina Valestany, a 39-year-old legal adviser. She is especially pleased with the school her daughters Westa, 15, and Anastasia, 13, attend. 'Lunches are free, it was no problem getting in. My daughters receive a very good education and they have great teachers. ...

Overall though, he says, 'Swedes are very attached to the idea of the state as the People's Home. Everyone in society is under the same roof, everyone will be protected. Sweden is now a more diverse society, but this idea still persists.'

And Swedes are well provided for. Year after year Save the Children puts it at the top its league of countries where it is best to be a mother; the country is sixth on the UN Development Programme's human development index (the UK is 16th); and Unicef ranks it second in its table of child wellbeing in rich countries. Maybe Sweden proves that it's worth paying high taxes."

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/nov/16/sweden-tax-burden-welfare

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 06, 2017 at 14:29:47 pm

Church attendance in Finland is 13%, and the Finns are a lot happier for it.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 06, 2017 at 17:27:19 pm

Mr. Dog,

You make some interesting points.

Doesn't this socialist model you seem to admire and espouse create tensions with the strict libertarianism, you also seem to espouse?

Is Socialism and Libertarianism as compatible as this?

I am always highly skeptical of surveys that seek to measure "happiness". How is it you are able to accept and rely on these findings and at the same time espouse a moral relativism?

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 06, 2017 at 22:06:18 pm

l'm not taking a position. My purpose in citing that article was to refute the propagandistic tripe that a robust social safety net is in any way incompatible with civil society.

But since you asked, my libertarianism is more pragmatic than dogmatic. l maintain that Gub'mint should do what it does better than the private sector, and that if you want the benefits it provides, you should be prepared to pay for it. l would rather pay 9% of my income for socialist health care than ~30% for for-profit care. And let's face reality: the University of Arizona does a far better job of educating our young than the "University" of Phoenix.

There is plenty of room for capitalism in the land of Volvo and lkea. And to be honest, there is more room for the libertarian in Sweden than the Talibanic regime you appear to long for. Even Catholic lreland authorized SSM.

As for the surveys, l've spent almost 10% of my time abroad this millenium, and lt comports with my experience. And pollsters know how to do their job. Don't know how "moral relativism" invalidates questions like "are you satisfied with your life?"

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 07, 2017 at 05:10:18 am

Dear Mr. Dog,

Thanks for the reply. I would agree that there are some things government does better than the private sector, but health-care is not necessarily one. Nor am I entirely convinced that parents (and student) are getting their monies worth from higher education as it is currently (d)evolved.

That espousing to the notion that government should remain firmly within the bounds, letter & spirit, in which it was constituted is Talibanic, is an odd characterization.

That my own travels to France and Italy on multiple occasions revealed similar impressions; that the people I encountered seemed generally satisfied and possessing of decent standards and quality of living overall comparable to my own, doesn't suggest to me that as a nation, they are any more or less satisfied, than say, Americans. Nor would I presume, they are generally any less (or more) satisfied than Swedes or Finns.

That pollsters know how to do their jobs (I don't disagree) doesn't really have much bearing on whether the results are meaningful measures or necessarily reliable, or less subjective; certainly not to any degree that they should the basis for making policy decisions, (not that you are suggesting they should be). The results may be interesting nuggets of info, but really what more?

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 07, 2017 at 10:26:42 am

Paul: "That espousing to the notion that government should remain firmly within the bounds, letter & spirit, in which it was constituted is Talibanic, is an odd characterization."

As in burning witches? You want what the Taliban wants: to impose your moral vision on society using the sledgehammer of government. But if you want to go back to the spirit of the Founders, l would remind you that they despised Papists. And l suppose that we could always refer to ltalians as "WOPs," if it makes you feel better.

Society evolves, and not always in accordance with our preference. You can either embrace change, or wage a desperate battle against it. But unlike you, COTUS is sufficiently flexible to adapt to those changes.

l'm a believer in ensuring the maximum liberty possible within the confines of civil society. Of course, we have to protect children from Catholic priests, but there is no reason why a lonely single man can't rent a lady for the evening. Nor is there a compelling reason why a man recovering from a knee replacement (e.g., me!) can't smoke some ganga to relieve the pain, as opposed to being forced to rely upon highly-addictive opioids. And when Fred and Ted down the street decide to tie the knot, it doesn't affect my marriage in the slightest of degrees.

l'm old enough to remember forced prayer and Bible-reading in public schools. Sunday blue laws. They served no objective purpose, and only existed to indoctrinate defenseless kids. l remember when girls died in back-alley abortions. And l can find no reason for returning to those bad old days. Et tu, Paul?

l understand the Christian's (and, Muslim's) need to force religious conformity on the rest of us. You are insecure in your beliefs, and really ought to be. That you need the rest of us to affirm--or at least, not laugh at--your objectively risible beliefs speaks volumes. But you need to be astute enough to listen.

As far as HC goes, one of the largest costs in a modern medical practice is collections. Just to send out a bill costs $20. And then, you have to fund your receivables, and eat the costs of patients who simply cannot pay.

ln Australia, when you show up at a private hospital, you simply plunk down your Medicare card, and the bill is settled at the close of the day. The docs save on billing, and the parasitic insurance company doesn't take its 30% cut. And without crushing co-pays, people get care on a more timely basis.

l have a friend in her mid-50s, battling Stage 4 lung cancer that metastasized to her brain. She and her husband were down on their luck, foregoing medical treatment because they needed what little they had to eat. And as a result, she is unlikely to live out the year. We can all thank the people here and their blind faith in the Market Fairy for that.

Her blood is on your hands.

Anecdotes illustrate, but the big data persuades: Other countries get far better results for the money they are spending ... and in most cases, people are not one catastrophic illness away from the poorhouse. ls it really any wonder why people in other countries are a lot happier?

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 07, 2017 at 11:15:10 am

[…] a recent article written for the Library of Law and Liberty, Gregg introduces the German thinker Wilhelm Röpke to […]

read full comment
Image of Conservatives going wobbly on the free market should read Wilhelm Röpke – Acton Institute PowerBlog
Conservatives going wobbly on the free market should read Wilhelm Röpke – Acton Institute PowerBlog
on September 07, 2017 at 11:39:05 am

one of the highest suicide rates in the world

read full comment
Image of bobloblaw
bobloblaw
on September 07, 2017 at 12:29:25 pm

The Dog: " it makes you feel better" - what would make me feel immensely better is if you would quit sounding like a broken record.

If the Framers despised Papist, and if the present day government despises me to their hearts content, just so long as they do not attempt to use the powers given by the constitution to that government to interfere with the religious freedoms that the same ensures to protect, it has little bearing on how I view the Constitution or my allegiance to it. I have been called worse than Dago and most especially by you. My response to these persistent insults is to make the conscious decision to like you despite the constant ridicule it incurs.

"You are insecure in your beliefs" - that it is you that brings up the issue of Religion in nearly every post, even when you respond to a post that has no reference to religion in the slightest, would suggest it is you who are insecure in your own Atheistic religious beliefs. Otherwise, it might only suggest that you are working from a prepared script which you are loathing to depart from. You are unaware how hearing you take issue with many of the same elements of my religion that has caused me to have doubt, in fact, has actually acted to reaffirm in me, a stronger religious belief.

There are many Atheist who reject abortion and (other various Progressive social stances), purely on a secular humanist level; as I haven't heard you denounce these persons in any of these posts, I must presume your objection is not that I do not support abortion on demand, but that I do so and have religious beliefs.

I am sorry for your friend's illness and prognosis, and I am not at all surprised that you would have assisted her and her husband financially; and/or as an attorney assisted them in tapping into food stamps, welfare and Medicaid for assistance, at least to determine if they might qualify. Still, I have no more blood on my hands than you; and perhaps I would have less , if it weren't the case that you knew they were in trouble and haven't done everything in your power and ability to assist them financially and professionally.

You might ask Charlie Gard's parents how happy they are to have had government and hospital bean-counters and Statist Judges relinquish them of their parental rights to not only make healthcare decisions for their child, but also to have their child imprisoned in an institution without permission for the operation of their rightful parental prerogative to take their child not only out of the country to seek last hope treatment, but not even so much as out of the state's institutions so the child could die in the peaceful surroundings of his families loving home.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 07, 2017 at 14:12:29 pm

Yep - I guess a lot of (teethless) people prefer gummint medicine as evidenced below:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/09/annals-of-government-medicine-26.php

Then again - see how long it takes the gummint to arrange for an MRI / CAT scan / Ultrasound - Awwhhh! _ Who needs any of that stuff anyway?

Dawg: OBSERVE the world - not the theory. Praxis, my friend -praxis!

Now back to my 10 hour pasta sauce - Heck, Dawg, it is SOOOO good, it could convert a heathen (Ha!) such as you as you wonder what miracle worker is behind this sauce.

seeya

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on September 07, 2017 at 14:33:07 pm

When you read gabe's comments, remember that he's been hitting the sauce lately. (After seeing the Seahawk's new logo, who wouldn't?)

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on September 07, 2017 at 14:56:46 pm

PB: "I have been called worse than Dago and most especially by you."

When? l don't think so.

PB: "There are many Atheist who reject abortion and (other various Progressive social stances), purely on a secular humanist level"

...and l am certain you travel routinely in that company. NOT! My guess is that in most states, you could fit them all into a Greyhound bus. By way of example, there aren't any coherent humanist arguments against SSM, see https://thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2011/up-front/stop-saying-same-sex-marriage And as humanists emphasize personal choice, they are rarely in the Thou Shalt Not camp:

"The current law is permissive: it does not impose abortion on anyone who does not want one or does not want to perform one. So even within the law, individuals have to make moral choices. How do humanists pick their way between these conflicting ideas? There is not one, correct humanist view on abortion. However humanists tend to converge on liberal, “pro-choice” stance. Humanists value happiness and personal choice, and many actively campaigned for legalised abortion in the 1960s."

PB: "it is you that brings up the issue of Religion in nearly every post"

...because it is always relevant, even though you want to run from it for obvious epistemic advantage. There is no credible secular argument for the kind of strictures you advocate that l am aware of; had there been one against SSM, we would have seen it advanced in at least one of the ~100 lower court cases.

My objection is that your religion is driving your beliefs on these core social issues, which is like imposing the chador on women in Muslim countries. There is no good reason for it.

PB: "You might ask Charlie Gard’s parents how happy they are to have had government and hospital bean-counters and Statist Judges relinquish them of their parental rights"

We have a thousand Charlie Gards a day, in a sense. A doctor recommends an expensive treatment--which quite often, isn't even experimental!--where time is of the essence, and by the time the lNSURANCE COMPANY bean-counters relent, it is too late. My friend had that precise problem with Keytruda, which is five times as expensive as it needs to be on account of the drug company's obscenely imprudent ad campaign.

Why do you accept the kind of behavior you excoriate the NHS for when it is done by an insurance company? lt's a pretty egregious double-standard.

Yeah, l would have let Charlie go at the TC level. l mean, it's not like the kid had any other viable options. What's the worst that could happen? But only partisan hacks are allowed on the federal bench.

As for my friend, we became friends after l learned of her diagnosis; all l could do is send a little money along. But my point stands; the irrational hatred for Big Gub'mint that keeps people from seeking timely diagnoses under a national HC system will be the proximate cause of her premature death--which seems inevitable at this point.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 07, 2017 at 15:11:40 pm

Still i feel remiss for not wishing you a speedy recovery. And hope it may improve your disposition in the process

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 07, 2017 at 16:29:21 pm

Mr. Dog,
Maybe you will find these sites interesting reading while you recover:

Secular Pro-Life Site: http://www.secularprolife.org/about

Pro-Life Humanist: http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

Atheist Against Abortion: https://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion/

Atheist and Agnostic Prolife League: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 07, 2017 at 17:32:33 pm

OMG: - NOW that is truly horrible.

I may have to start rooting for the Patriots - Yuuuucckkkkkkk!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on September 07, 2017 at 17:34:56 pm

Oops - forgot:

Some local sports knucklehead described it as a cross between Mr. Burns of the Simpsons and an ostrich - a fair description.

Oh and the sauce (indeed, BOTH types of *sauce*) is coming along just fine. I'll send you some.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on September 07, 2017 at 17:48:36 pm

Mr. Dog,

Maybe you will find these sites interesting reading while you recover:

Secular Pro-Life Site: http://www.secularprolife.org/about

Pro-Life Humanist: http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

Atheist Against Abortion: https://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion/

Atheist and Agnostic Prolife League: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 07, 2017 at 19:22:04 pm

https://vimeo.com/753559 Watch this and get back to me, gabe. When it comes to lousy health care, you can't GET worse than the good old USA.

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 07, 2017 at 20:43:36 pm

Mr. Dog,

Below are four Atheist/Humanist Pro-Life organizations. "Google" their names and check them out. I tried to include the links themselves, but for some reason this site is not posting them; I can't imagine why.

Secular Pro-Life Site
Pro-Life Humanist
Atheist Against Abortion
Atheist and Agnostic Prolife League

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 07, 2017 at 21:53:31 pm

PB: "And hope it may improve your disposition in the process"

What's wrong with my disposition?

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 07, 2017 at 21:59:28 pm

Other than its down-right nasty at times, nothing. Ha! Hope the knee is feeling better every day!

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on September 08, 2017 at 08:31:45 am

PB: "Below are four Atheist/Humanist Pro-Life organizations."

Never said there weren't a few out there on the fringes.

The "absolute right to life begins at conception" argument is conclusively refuted by the problem of the snowflake baby. Can l grab your daughter off the street and forcibly implant one? Of course not! Ergo, the right to life is not absolute.

Abortion involves the balancing of rights and interests. Society should not have a controlling say in the matter, as it doesn't bear the burdens of the decision.

Throughout the Western world, 93% of women faced with a Down pregnancy choose to abort. So, what do you Christian types do? You're Christians; lying is in your DNA. You want doctors to lie for you. https://rewire.news/article/2017/03/03/texas-could-join-states-allowing-doctors-lie-pregnant-people/

The Church has to lie to parishioners to stay in business. The Church had to lie to protect its legions of boy-buggerers. So, it seems perfectly natural to you to force doctors to lie or at least, indemnify them for doing so.

And yet, you wonder why l look upon your Church and religion with revulsion and disgust?

read full comment
Image of LawDog
LawDog
on September 09, 2017 at 07:45:45 am

[…] can take root. But good reading can overcome deficiencies! Start here with Samuel Gregg’s article on Wilhelm Röpke. A smart senior in high school could read Röpke’s book for […]

read full comment
Image of {bits & pieces} ~ Like Mother Like Daughter
{bits & pieces} ~ Like Mother Like Daughter
on September 11, 2017 at 00:30:07 am

[…] Dear Anti-Market Conservatives: Meet Wilhelm Röpke Samuel Gregg, Library of Law and Liberty […]

read full comment
Image of PowerLinks 09.11.17 – Acton Institute PowerBlog
PowerLinks 09.11.17 – Acton Institute PowerBlog
on December 13, 2017 at 15:00:14 pm

[…] Read Gregg’s article, “Dear Anti-Market Conservatives: Meet Wilhelm Röpke” […]

read full comment
Image of Radio Free Acton: Samuel Gregg on Röpke and Keynes; Upstream on Rolling Stone magazine – Acton Institute PowerBlog
Radio Free Acton: Samuel Gregg on Röpke and Keynes; Upstream on Rolling Stone magazine – Acton Institute PowerBlog

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.