Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Rick Santorum Wants to Define Your Happiness

Today's Fightin Words podcast: Happiness is doing what Rick Santorum tells you.

by
Walter Hudson

Bio

May 20, 2014 - 6:31 am

santorum happy

On today’s Fightin Words podcast: In an appearance on The Independents on Fox Business, former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum questioned the individual right to pursue happiness. “Would you want your tombstone to read… she was happy? Is that a great accomplishment?”

Exploring Republican theocracy and why it ought to be rejected.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(10:52 minutes long; 10.49 MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this show to your hard drive. Subscribe through iTunes or RSS feed.)

Walter Hudson advocates for individual rights, serving on the boards of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota, Minnesota Majority and the Minority Liberty Alliance. He maintains a blog and daily podcast entitled Fightin Words. He also contributes to True North, a hub of conservative Minnesotan commentary, and regularly appears on the Twin Cities News Talk Weekend Roundtable on KTCN AM 1130. Follow his work via Twitter and Facebook.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
My tombstone may read, "Never voted for Rick Santorum." It might not be a great accomplishment, but it's something.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (13)
All Comments   (13)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I get the feeling that after one minute of conversation with Rick Santorum, I would be rolling my eyes.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Stephen Green's comment short and right on point! As usual.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
This quote from Santorum merely echoes a great theme of the Western tradition, "The end of life is not to be happy. The end of life is not to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. The end of life is to do the will of God, come what may". - Martin Luther King, sermon at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, November, 1956

Another point of view is, "The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins", ie, short of physical violence, society should not use law to shape character.

I guess those who support the latter view would see no good in having the law prohibit someone from posting sketches depicting sex with minors on the internet.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy new MarcH
At least this libertarian agrees with your last paragraph: no child harmed, no crime occurred.
I'm aware of the possibility that such images may facilitate a vicious person committing a crime to mimic the image. I'm aware of the possibility that the image will suffice others and divert them from harming children. I can't assign a weight to either one with any validity, but few PJM readers would endorse banning other disturbing images, like sketches of murders or of drug use.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Geoff -Thanks for your response. You honorably represent the libertarian POV. I happen to disagree with you and expect that Washington and Jefferson (who you cite below) would also certainly have endorsed the right of electorates to ban obscenity.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
It was this nonsense from Santorum during the last Presidential campaign that led me to realize that "social conservative" is an oxymoron.

One can be conservative in regards to social values. And advocate for such.
But the moment someone steps over the line into requiring government to mandate it they move from conservative into the realm of the default "progressive", rejecting individual freedom and insisting that government define and enforce everything.

I am as thoroughly unimpressed with such "progressive" "so-cons" as I am with the increasingly ubiquitous anarcho-capitalist "libertarian".
Neither have anything to do with the political values of the founding documents.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy BronxZionist
To borrow a phrase from InstaPundit: we anarcho-libertarians are determined to seize power and then leave you alone. Which sounds like what you want and sounds to me like what Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson wanted. Among others of the Founders.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Seize power, destroy our banking system, gut our military, eliminate our borders, redact our Constitution via legislative overreach, and otherwise disband our country . . . and THEN leave the remnants alone.

That may have been what Thomas Jefferson wanted, but it was far from what Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton wanted, among others of the Founders, and far from what I want.

And to be clear, "first we seize power and then leave you alone" is an oxymoron as well.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy BronxZionist
Libertarians have a range of views rooted in wanting to live our own lives and wanting others to live their lives.
We have to get along as a society, which means some societal norms, and as a political body, which means government as a dangerous servant that must be kept in its place.
I am a libertarian who believes that the Fed is probably necessary, that a strong military serves all of us, that our borders are part of our national identity and safety, and that the Constitution is a marvelous piece of work by which we should live. So of course I'm not an anarchist at all. I'm a Stossel-esque libertarian. I'm more socially conservative in my personal views than I think Mr. Stossel is -- and that's where it belongs, in my personal view and my personal life.
I like to think that Glenn Reynolds and I would get along very well. I suspect you and I would too, really.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am well aware of the range of views associated with those who use the descriptor "libertarian".
Among them are anarcho-capitalists.
Likewise there are dominionists who would find Rick Santorum a suitable leader who insist they support the Constitution and are in the "libertarian" area of the political spectrum.
I consider none of them to be "classical liberals", which is what "libertarians" are supposed to be, and yet that is what they call themselves, much as "modern" "liberals" have usurped the descriptor "liberal", along with the term "progressive", to describe themselves when they are absolutely the opposite.

In the face of that, I have decided that I am a flippity-floppity-floopitarian, and I will inevitably have to abandon that in due course.
And I have nothing but scorn for the whole lot of poseurs and frauds.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
My tombstone may read, "Never voted for Rick Santorum." It might not be a great accomplishment, but it's something.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
A great epitaph would read "Gave Santorum an Atomic Wedgie".
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ah, the pursuit of happiness: you should listen to an old Stone's song, Mother's Little Helper, written in the hey day of the British invasion and the socialist model; a valium for everyone.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All