Why libertarianism isn't conservatism

Selfish/ Destructive? Your life is your own property. You may make it beneficial or destructive to you, because you are the one dealing with the consequences. Thus, I have to say you have the right to make your own choices. The interests of others arise when those choices impose upon the rights of others, either individually or as a society.

This is perhaps an area that may have several valid views- but a good many conservatives also believe that you should have authority over yourself first, and any others who would interfere need good and vlaid reasons. It's called freedom.

 

Some some issues, such as marijuana, drugs, prostitution, I agree with libertarians, as do some conservatives ( Bill Buckley, among them ).

To say 'libertarianism' is not 'conservativism' is misleading. Libertarianism is (or can be) a component of both the right and the left, as is authoritarianism.

one conservative might lean on the authoritarian side, yet another might lean on the libertarian side.

Same goes with progressive left, some might lean on the authoritarian side, yet others lean on the libertarian side

I'm a leftist/libertarian, similar to Bill Maher. As a leftist libertarian, I support most social programs ( the good ones ) am against 'defunding the police' am against most 'woke culture' ( non-binaryism, removing grades in schools, giving everyone a trophy, etc ) but I am for making marijuana legal, prostitution legal, all drugs legal. I'm for gay marriage and polygamy.

Also, I could be all of the above and be religious, or non religious.
As a matter of fact, I'm into eastern philosophy, meditation, the soul is eternal and there is such a thing as reincarnation, enlightenment of the soul, and there is no personal god, that all of life has a spiritual basis, and if god is anything, it is the whole ( pantheism -- but there is no such thing as 'intelligent designer' or a 'supreme being' or maybe the whole universe is intelligent and is the designer, but not in an anthropogenic sense, not in a personal God, traditional sense).

 

"Liberal democracy' is a term meaning 'as opposed to a monarchial/dictatorship. a liberal democracy is a place where inviduals have free speech, freedom of assembly, one man/woman one vote, and many of the items listed in the bill of rights.

that's all it means. That is how it has been taught for decades, if not centuries, in academia.

And that is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

"Liberal democracy" is a term devoid of left or right politics. It's an answer which evolved in response to authoritarian societies. What specific form it takes, democrat or republican, centrist, etc., is another subject altogether.

Liberal Democracy is an idea, it doesn't create anything. Humans either adapt it or they do not or they accept some measure of it. Humans do it, the idea is just an idea. America was founded on that idea.

 

I'll be happy to show you where you are wrong. In order:

1) Your first error is found in your claim that libertarians and conservatives are polar opposites. They're not. In fact, libertarians and conservatives have more in common than they have in opposition to one another. Furthermore, the polar opposite of the individualistic libertarian, much like the individualistic conservative, is the statist collectivist who subscribes to the philosophy that Benito Mussolini expressed in "The Doctrine of Fascism":

"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State...The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people."

In light of the fact that the ideological roots of fascism are found in socialism, you could replace the word "fascist" with "socialist" or "progressive" and the statement would remain accurate. The common attribute of these authoritarian collectivists is their anti-individualism and the supremacy of the State/collective, which is antithetical to both libertarianism, conservatism and the principles the United States of America was founded on.

2) While I agree with what you quoted from the Libertarian Party's website, it is important to remember that the LP is a political party, and all its views and policies are not shared by all small "l" libertarians.

3) It is you who has grossly taken the words "freedom" and "liberty" out of context by equating them to libertinism. This reveals a profound misunderstanding of the Individualism that libertarians embrace on your part.

4) Finally, your biggest mistake is narrowly equating conservatism to social conservatism, and it's a mistake that a lot of people on the Left and Right make. There is much more to conservatism than social conservatism, and thus you are in error when you state that "true conservatives 'conseve' (sic) Judeo Christian doctrine". Clearly, what you refer to as "true conservatives" are social conservatives. I would argue that true conservatives seek primarily to preserve individual freedom and inherent individual rights, limited government and the rule of law. Furthermore, I think we would do well to consider the term "conservative" in the same way that men like Edmund Burke and John Dickinson did - as a way of approaching and formulating social policy. By this I mean looking to history and contemplating the lessons it has to teach us, and then thoughtfully and prudently proceeding with the development of policy from there. Conservatives do this because they see themselves as part of the arc and continuum of History. The Leftist revolutionaries who seek to "fundamentally transform" the United States and the world have no use for History and deliberation. One need look no further than the birthplace of the Modern Left - revolutionary France - to see that.

Furthermore, libertarians and conservatives can conserve and preserve aspects of Judeo-Christian tradition and law without conserving an imaginary, monolithic Judeo-Christian doctrine that doesn't even exist in reality. If you study the history of Individualism and the evolution of individual rights doctrines, you will find that Christian ideology is a primary source of both. The notion that all men and women are created equal in the eyes of a God who endowed all of them, regardless of their conditions, with inalienable rights, and are defined by their own thoughts, words and deeds, not their positions in the family or society, are all products of the Christian thought that overturned the assumptions and conventional wisdom of Classical Antiquity. While one can acknowledge and conserve Christianity's invaluable contributions to the ideas of natural equality and inherent individual rights, one doesn't have to conserve Judeo-Christian religious doctrine to do so.

In conclusion and summary, I believe that libertarians and conservatives have a lot in common and in the case of many individuals you will find that they embrace elements of both libertarian and conservative thought. A good many of them - fiscal conservative/social libertarian - are what Charles Cooke dubbed Conservatarians. People have a tendency to want to categorize and compartmentalize each other into black and white terms when most of us are gray matter who don't fit so neatly into tidy conceptual boxes.

 

I got a chuckle from that, thank you.

 

Which judeo Christian doctrine are you referring too?

 

Talon, I don't know who taught you how to think, but I'd like to give them a round of applause.

 

Yes, the selfish and destructive "axiom" of self ownership (not to be confused with free will) and NAP/Non-Aggression Principle are core tenets of libertarianism, which directly goes against Judeo-Christian doctrine and Jesus' two greatest commandments (commandments, not suggestions).

Make your case for how an individual and society benefits when man can write his own moral code and not have the threat of punishment as a deterrent for his immoral and destructive actions.

 

I have to hand it to you libertarians, you do know your limitations when it comes to debate.

Well known libertarians wrote the Libertarian Party Platform (drug pusher Ron Paul, baby killer Murray Rothbard, NAMBLA defender Walter Block, etc.) so they know what they're talking about when it comes to defining libertarian ideology.

 

I already did. Read the thread I linked to you.

But one observation: arguing from a point of Judeo-Christian doctrine, one of the most violent and destructive doctrines in the history of mankind that is based on a myth, is pretty ironic.

 

I disagree with this point of view full heartedly. Military intervention has insured free trade since the Dawn of our Navy. Before we had a Navy out goods were consistently stolen and ships crews were turned into slaves. Our military makes us money in ensuring trade. It saved us money by helping oil prices stay low by creating stability in the Middle East. Foreign intervention has helped us out economically more so than You would ever know. Do you think we would have ever secured the petrol dollar without a military?

 

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

What libertarians won't admit is that their failed social policies create huge governmen and that they borrow off of Holy Scripture when it comes to economics and property rights (albeit a twisted view such as being able to do with one's property as he or she wishes, such as building a night club in a residential neighborhood, i.e. anti zoning laws).

Which has nothing to do with the true definition of conservatism.

Then make your case on how supporting abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostituion and recreational drug use are true conservative values, i.e. what are those things 'conserving'?

 

A culture and laws that values life (anti abortion), marriage (anti homosexuality and anti prostitution), sobriety (laws against recreational drug use), etc.

 

It is pretty simple. Libertarians value personal freedom above government power and mostly want minimal government aimed at protecting freedom rather than what we have. Libertarians want less government and the major parties want more of it. A libertarian can be conservative or liberal but most are conservative.

Democracy is just a way of choosing government leaders. It has nothing to do with the amount of government power vs. freedom. It is perfectly possible, as we have seen, to elect people with authoritarian tendencies. I know of no libertarians who oppose democracy. Same with democrats and republicans. Every libertarian I know wants smaller, more effective, less intrusive government that protects personal freedom. They are in a tiny minority.

 

I'm not here to debate an article Ted, I'm here to debate you. I've studied libertarianism for years and know what it stands for. Go ahead and copy and paste what things you believe are important in your article and I'll shoot them down just like I shoot down all arguments supporting libertarianism.

At least you're honest enough to acknowledge that you a God hater Ted. So tell me, those 60+ million unborn babies that have been murdered in the womb over the past 48 years, is that due to Judeo-Christian doctrine? How about all of the lives ruined by homosexuality, recreational drug use, pornography and prostitution, is that because of Judeo-Christian doctrine?

Oh, and those communists that have murdered close to 200 million people in the past 100+ years, that must be because they were following Judeo-Christian doctrine of loving thy neighbor as one loves himself?

 

You keep stating what you believe "true conservatism" to be. I keep refuting that notion while explaining why, and instead of providing a rationale for your belief or some type of supporting evidence in retort, you simply restate your original belief of what you THINK constitutes "true conservatism". This accomplishes exactly nothing. It is the intellectual equivalent of somebody saying the sky is blue and your retort being "no its not". This is obviously going nowhere. You have argued your point, and I have argued mine. I am more than happy to let the reader decide for themselves as to whom has put forth a more convincing defense of their position.

On a side note, you said..."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 ."

I took you up on that boast, and I asked you to explain how in your mind pornography explands the size of government, Despite you exclaiming just how much you "would love to discuss that", you mysteriously ignored that request altogether. Did you want to elaborate a bit more on your thought process as far as pornography substantively increasing the size of government? I am truly interested to see how you rationalize that to be the case.

 

That lie looks good on paper doesn't it fmw? Care to go out into reality and see how "free" these drug addicts are?

 

lol. Oh. The horror. Gays can get married. Prostitution should be legal and is in Nevada. Marijuana should be legalized at this point but any recreational drug abuse is a long term negative for short term gain(fun)

 

Explain "why" embracing immoral and destructive behaviors such as homosexuality, abortion, recreational drug use, pornography and prostitution should be considered a conservative value.

Regarding how things like pornography increase the size of goverment: when you do things that destroy the nucleus of society, which the traditional family is (one man, one woman, united in matrimony and the children that come from that union) then crime is a result.

 

Thanks for admitting that libertarianism embraces those things. Can you convince FAW that they do?

 

You see, like your other posts you are making inane assumptions. I'm not a god hater. I can't hate a what doesn't exist. I have no issue with people worshipping "a god" (it is thier right) but what I do have issues with is what people do in a god's name: murder, rape, pedophilia. See, religionists aren't any more moral than any other person. I know you like to think that you are, but go tell the Catholic church and those backwoods churches that are okay with the wife beating.

The commies- sure, they killed a lot of people, but what's that saying about the splinter in your eye? Genocide, unnecessary war, slavery, etc, etc. All governments kill and thier economic stance is irrelevant to that fact. That's why all govero are evil, and religion is just another form of government AFAIC.

And just as an FYI, the Golden Rule predates the Judeo-Christian philosophy.

 

There are 3 tenets to atheism:

1). There is no God
2). I HATE Him (i.e. I HATE His Word as seen in Holy Scripture).
3). I HATE Him so much that I'll redefine His Word to meet my selfish and destructive desires (i.e. the homosexual/gay Christian movement).

You're definitely fall under #2 Ted.

As do I (and more importantly Jesus) have issues with those hypocrites. Homosexuals were purposely allowed into the Catholic Church and the result was the sexual molestation of thousands of young boys. I guess there are "victims" when people are free to choose what they want to do with their body huh?

Yeah, 200 million in a 100 year period is most definitely "a lot". As we're seeing in libertarian doctrine and action, when there is no God, anything is permissible.

Yet when government allows abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, pornography and recreational drug use to be legal, that somehow makes governemnt good?

Yes, God "predates" what was written down in Holy Scripture. That being said: What civilization were you raised in that taught you that "predated" philosophy?

 

It appears that I missed this post:

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
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.

You summed up libertarian and it's culture of death philosophy quite well. Life is not valued under libertarian philosophy, if it were they would be against abortion, suicide, homosexuality and recreatoinal drug use, which has caused the death of many people in the name of "freedom" and "liberty".

Then those so-called "conservatives" aren't conseving Judeo-Christian doctrine that speaks out against immoral and destructive behaviors. They're libertarians posing as conservatives.

 

At no point have I claimed that immoral and destructive behaviors should be considered a conservative value. You are arguing against a point that was not raised. That is a textbook example of a strawman argument.

So crime increases the size of government? The notion of a smaller government is more along the lines of "with it being 20% of our economy, we do not want to nationalize healthcare because it represents a huge increase in the size of government", or "we do not want to expand the welfare state" etc.

The concept of an increase in crime leading to hiring more police and that somehow representing an increase in the size of government is quite simply not the true meaning of wanting a smaller government. On top of that, one could just as easily claim that more blue laws lead to the need for more police in order to enforce those laws. It is not clear which situation requires more police. A legitimate argument could be made on both sides of that concept, but it is irrelevant regardless because it does not speak to the notion of Conservatives seeking smaller government.

 

Nice red herring. Who said anything about drugs? Who said anything about being satisfied with personal freedom we no longer enjoyed. You can do better than that.