

Republican Study Committee disavows copyright reform memo - mikedouglas
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/an-anti-ip-turn-for-the-gop/

======
csense
Clearly, Hollywood/RIAA has some of the finest politicians money can buy. They
got both parties to agree on something.

You'd think with all the anti-SOPA protests that the party that just lost the
election would be pushing the issue. Hollywood and the media -- key copyright
industries -- have never been friendly to Republicans. So they wouldn't make
many new enemies with an anti-copyright position.

Meanwhile, they might be able to detach younger, technology-savvy, Internet-
loving freedom junkies from the Democratic party by taking an aggressive
stance on that bloc's core issue.

While many HN'ers seem to be donkeys to the core, I daresay a not-
insignificant number would vote Republican if that party managed to get its
head out of its elephant (the usual idiom features the wrong party's mascot)
and put libertarian principles on the front burner.

Of course, hoping that politicians -- of any party -- will behave in a way
that's actually in the public interest is probably a lost cause.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Most of my friends, tech-savvy or not, are fiscally conservative but socially
liberal. If the republican party and its candidates dropped its stance on some
of the social issues, I can definitely see them attracting a lot of voters who
traditionally vote democrat.

Not to mention the beneficial effects of having people in office who don't
think that rape can be legitimate, etc., etc.

~~~
csense
> rape can be legitimate

Even if that guy actually believes that, it was a _stupid_ thing for him to
say. I'm sure that even he himself would agree after the election results.

> fiscally conservative but socially liberal

Is it possible to be socially conservative privately but socially liberal
publicly? I'm thinking it's not an inconsistent worldview to believe that
things like abortions and homosexuality are morally wrong, yet it is not the
government's job to enforce those rules.

I'd believe that most church-going, God-fearing Americans would say adultery
is morally wrong, yet few would support making adultery illegal. In fact, most
of the Western world looks down on many Muslim countries for their positions
on adultery.

When you come right down to it, the reason many Christians believe an
omnipotent, omniscient God tells people that it is His will that "Thou shalt
not commit adultery," yet chooses not to enforce that moral compass by (for
example) bending the rules of reality in a way that makes it physically
impossible for us to do so, or making anybody who thinks about it change their
mind before they actually do it...is that it is God's will that morality is
something humanity should freely choose, rather than something which should be
enforced by the power of the Authority above.

I fail to understand why so many self-described Christians do not agree with
an argument endorsed by God Himself. But theology is rather far afield from my
areas of expertise; perhaps there's something I'm missing.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> Is it possible to be socially conservative privately but socially liberal
> publicly? I'm thinking it's not an inconsistent worldview to believe that
> things like abortions and homosexuality are morally wrong, yet it is not the
> government's job to enforce those rules.

I'm glad you clarified what you meant, I thought your first sentence was just
referring to hypocrites.

I think it's possible. Your adultery example is good; I personally think that
for 99% of people, polygamy doesn't work at best, and harms at worst, but I
have zero interest in the government poking its nose into people's
relationships, and I'd probably vote for multiple-partner-marriage becoming a
recognized legal entity like man-and-woman marriage is today.

------
adinb
I knew it was just too good to be true!

------
mtgx
Well that didn't last long. It seems the whole party has been affected by
Romnesia.

