Why libertarianism isn't conservatism

In fact they're polar opposites, yet many libertarians are passing themselves off as conservative these days, especially since the election of Donald Trump back in 2016 when many libertarians left the Libertarian Party to vote for Trump.
In order to establish my case, it first has to be shown what libertarianism is, which the platform of the Libertarian Party shows quite well:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
Platform | Libertarian Party (lp.org)

Of course the use of the words "freedom" and "liberty" are grossly taken out of context by libertarians, and one only need to look at what things they call "liberty" to understand that they promote immoral/sinful behavior.

So what is conservativsm then?

Conservatives must be 'conseving something', and true conservatives 'conseve' Judeo Christian doctrine.

Ok PF libertarians, show me where I'm wrong.

 

Pretty simple: Libertarianism is the antithesis of authoritarianism. It posits that the state should fulfill a very narrow role as impartial administrator, and only to the extent necessary to defend the citizens' natural rights: Life, liberty, and property. We have never had a truly libertarian state.

 

Sounds nice, but how does that translate in the world of health care? Social services? Child lunch programs? And many of the programs currently in force to help the needy?

I should think all American parties make the same claim.

These are high minded statements, they sound nice, but how do they translate into policy?

"Force" is a dubious word. What? we should append stop signs to say 'we suggest that you stop" ?

What does it mean?

Libertarians are about half right. Or, I think they are half right.

( I think ) They are pretty much right on foreign policy, where they would cease to make America the world's cop, and thus relieve America of the considerable expense she incurs for doing so.

However, though it would save America money, what happens to the western world who, at large, are unable to defend themselves against China and Russia? Would that plight ( by removing America as the beacon of hope for the rest of the world ) be in America's best interest, just to pullout out from every country America has a base in, to cease all foreign aid, to cease the peace core, etc?

I don't know, I would like to hear a discussion on the ramifications of such a policy, if libertarians had their way on foreign policy.

On domestic policy, theirs is to end all entitlements and relegate that function to charity.

That would have a horrific outcome because the state of charity is a hodge podge of ad hoc committees, without a coordinated policy, many of whom provide services to select groups ( as dictated by the charters of said charities ) and, as such, are wholly incapable of dealing with the huge demand for charitable services, such that the outcome would be chaos and injury to millions who, when trying to contact charities, are put on endless hold / call waiting, when they are called, because the surge of demand would be many more millions than the existing charities can handle.

In short, libertarians are wacko on domestic policy.

ON foreign policy, I'd like to hear the pro and con arguments.

 

Liberal Democracy is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

"Libertarianism" is just a variant of the several different types of liberal democracies.

 

Libertarianism is not conservatism. I agree with that. I wouldn't say it doesn't have some positions that would be similar to conservative ones, but it's differences are in the most basic way it views human nature.

In short, they don’t believe there is such a thing.

As an ideology that is highly dependent on economics as a crucial part of their belief system, libertarians share with Marxists the view that Man is a blank slate that responds only to incentives. In this way, libertarians are virtually identical to Marxists. Homo Economicus, as defined by Investopedia as “…a financial term that some economists use to describe a rational human being… Homo economicus, or economic human, is the figurative human being characterized by the infinite ability to make rational decisions. Certain economic models have traditionally relied on the assumption that humans are rational and will attempt to maximize their utility for both monetary and non-monetary gains.”

The Homo Economicus model is a great teaching tool in an economics class to explain economic incentives. It’s not an all-encompassing view of human nature. The inability of libertarians to deal with human’s penchant for making non rational (from a strictly incentives view) decisions tends to gum up the works. Family, religion, culture, language, status…unless these can be quantified as a unit of economic incentives, libertarians have no answers to their influence. Looking back, this was probably the beginning of the crack in my libertarian edifice. How people were supposed to act and why they were supposed to act didn’t match up to the how and why that people actually acted.

In addition, the libertarian view of human nature requires a certain amount of blank-slatism. Everyone must have the same basic potential or it quickly devolves into rule by the elites. Libertarian society would work great for Peter Thiel or Elon Musk. Not so much for people below them in ability.

 

I would argue that "small l" libertarians are the only ones that use the "freedom" and "liberty" properly. I wouldn't go thinking that the Libertarian Party properly represent all libertarians. At last check, there were 33 different factions of us. If you want to characterize us, the best way is by referring to us as "the freedom movement".

 

Are you an anarchist?

If so, how would anarchy work?

Noam Chomsky describes himself as Anarcho-syndicalist.

But, funny thing, when listening to Wolff ( a Marxist ) and Chomsky describe a society according to how they think it should be, they sound alike.

 

How are you going to ban 'fraud from human relationships'.

You don't actually believe banning it is going to rid society of it, do you?

I ask because that's what it sounds like you meant. I think you mean strive to limit it by banning it, but isn't that already the case?

I mean, where is fraud legal in America?

 

I think you need to start with what conservative means. Like all other group labels, there are variable between those who define themselves in that way, so there is always flexibility.
In my view (and I am a solid conservative) Conservatives generally are people more inclined to support proven, time-tested values. Individual rights- and individual responsibility for yourself, and the recognition that others are equally responsible for themselves. These are things that are fundamental to you having control over your own life, and causing you to not interfere with others right to control their own lives. It does generally endorse the right of a society to interfere in any situation where one person or party takes advantage of or does harm to others. It is a philosophy where you benefit from your own productivity, or you suffer from the lack of it. It supports charity, but finds welfare is often an enabling and denigrating approach to social support. To a conservative, America is a team game, where everyone needs to be a player or supporter and shares in the benefits of that.

Many conservatives are religious; some of those would feel justified in using bible scripture to dictate law. Not all conservatives think that way. I believe in a higher power (Mother Nature) that makes the principle rules- but that is a guide, not a god and does not authorize me to force you to believe as I do. Many conservatives are strongly anti-abortion; however I am pro-choice. Not because is think abortion is a good thing- but because there are times when it's the best long-run choice for the quality of life, both for the mother and future children that can be born into a far better environment. And most of all- because I don't have the right to make a decision that personal for anyone else. This is what I mean about variables. I'm conservative in my own views and want the best overall for society, but I'm not in line with all conservatives. I think such variations exist in all groups.

From my experience (and I have explored the libertarian philosophy in depth) much of the libertarian view is parallel to conservatives, but like- on steroids. Personally, I see their points, but I don't see it keeping a solid viable society working well. Humans are not totally loners, we are social beings and do best is a healthy social structure. Like the perspective of seeing the nation and society as a team- while we are each responsible for playing our part well, we are also responsible for being supportive of the society that benefits everyone; and that starts with not damaging that structure. .

Conservative to me- means keeping the course of my life on a smooth track; fully supporting myself and my immediate family, having a long-term plan, always prepared for tomorrow. And to quote myself.... "Today is the tomorrow you failed to prepare for yesterday" is the reason so many lives have no track, no order or progress- and wind up being a burden on the rest of society. Looking to the future is perhaps the largest single benefit of conservative views, it allows a person to be prepared for the unexpected and handle things far easier. That concept should apply not only to us as individuals- but to our government, which sadly has never been able to do that well. Be it individual or government- band-aids for today's ills, poorly conceived plans and near-sighted leadership are what keeps us in turmoil. Proper conservatism would resolve that.

Libertarian philosophy in government would probably create a void rather than an overload, but with no better results than what we have now. While some could thrive under the philosophy, I don't think that humans are geared to the total sovereignty it endorses. I don't see it as being viable on the national scale. Libertarians are in many ways like conservatives, but take the basic concept much further. I think like the idea that if some is good, a lot is better...and that is not conservative...

 

In France (where the terms "left" and "right" originated) a conservative (a person on the right) was a person that favored businesses over that of rights for the people. The onset of corporate personhood in America was a conservative's wet dream, and is one huge reason why we live in a crony-capitalist economy.

Conservatives are the opposite of libertarians in many regards.

 

Way back I THOUGHT I was Libertarian, until I realized they can't take a firm stand on any issue.

 

Just because you couldn't doesn't mean we can't. I have firm positions on any issue you'd want to bring up.

EDIT: ahh, I misunderstood- you said "Libertarian" not "libertarian".

 

I prefer to call libertarians "moral anarchists", as immoral behavior does cause huge government, which leads to "authoritarianism".

I'm not sure where you get the idea that someone has some kind of "right" to engage in immoral behavior, as the Creator of the Universe and everything in it has never said that and the Founding Fathers surely didn't, so you must be basing that false ideology on secular humanist man's court rulings.
That being said, in response to your statment that "we have never had a truly libertarian state": every major SCOTUS ruling (Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges, etc) deaing with human sexuality is based on the supposed "right to privacy", i.e. "It's MY body as I can do with it as I please!", so libertarian ideology has been in pracitce in the United States for close to 50 years from a legal standpoint and culturally it has been accepted for that length of time if not longer.

 

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."

While libertarians claim to believe in less goverment, their social policies create more (police due to crime, social services due to the break down of the family, etc.).

"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized."

Americans that embrace secular humanism make the claim that government force should be bannished from all human relationships (homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use, etc., etc.). From the Judeo-Christian perspective it's the role of civil goverment to use force (and the threat of force through legislation) to deal with immoral behaviors, per Romans 13.

We can talk about libertarian foreign policy later, as it pretty much goes with their faux "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" ideology.

 

If the preamble in the LIbertarian Party Platform that I linked in the thread's opening post doesn't represent the core ideology of libertarianism, then explain what does.

 

I am not necessarily a Libertarian, but I support many of their views.

I personally feel like you have described Conservatism in terms that are far too restrictive to be useful in defining what it actually is. Sure if one wants to get literal you can point to the notion of conserving traditional values as being the genesis of the term. But in reality, Conservatism is far more accurately described as the desire for a smaller rather than larger government, which puts the emphasis on the individual rather than the collective to maintain society. It is this emphasis on the individual along with the individuals freedom where Conservatives and Libertarians are mostly in alignment. Where they diverge is when religious dogma comes into play. The religious right and fiscally Conservative Libertarians, despite having differences, definitely belong under the same tent.

 

I did in my opening post: "conserving Judeo-Christian doctrine." Conservatism is the polar opposite of libertarianism because they know that being enslaved to sin isn't "liberty" or "freedom" as libertarians claim their policies are. A culture and legislation that embraces life not a culture of death which libertarianism is, is what true conservatism is.

 

Libertarians are very firm on their stand that "It's MY body and I can do with it as I please!". Either you believe in that selfish and destructive ideology and political movement, or you don't.

 

Gosh... where to start... "Liberal democracy" generally creates authoritarianism because it cannot tolerate dissent or competition to the majority, and entirely suffocates the rights of those they gang up on. Seriously, do more than just mouth the catechism....

 

Marketing usually always lies in some way.

 

Conserving traditional values, i.e. Judeo-Christian doctrine, culture and laws is what true conservatism is.

The size of goverment automatically is small when traditional family values are embraced by society through culture and laws. If you would like to talk about how the size of government has skyrocketed since abortion, homosexuality, pornography and recreational drug use have been legalized (in most large cities recreational drug use has been decriminalized), then I would love to discuss that .

 

Be more specific, tell me where in the Libertarian Party preamble it misses what the core tenet of libertarianism is.

 

The Axiom of Self Ownership. Read here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ccurate-libertarian-discussion-thread.473945/

From that spring the Non-Aggression Principal also explained in that thread.

 

Sorry, no time to write your term paper for you today.....

 

You said this in your Op, and I disagree and made a case for such. My hope would have been that you responded to my retort, but instead you simply restated your original claim. You think that conserving traditional values is what defines Conservatism. An awful lot of fiscal Conservatives such as myself disagree whole heartedly. An awful lot of Conservatives like myself define Conservatism almost exclusively by its fiscal tenets, and see the social side of things as window dressing.

I would argue that far more people vote based on fiscal issues rather than social issues.

I would argue that you are not the arbiter of what defines "true Conservatism".

As I have already stated, it is the desire for a smaller government and the accompanying emphasis on the individual to maintain society where the Libertarian and Conservative paths are conjoined.

I am not sure that this is exactly speaking to the true notion of a smaller government, but I would certainly be interested in hearing how you are saying that these things expand the size of government. For brevity's sake, explain how you are claiming that pornography expands the size of government.