Posted on 05/25/2024 2:09:16 PM PDT by Jonty30
Remember the “New Atheists”? They were a big deal 15 or so years ago, bashing irrationality and superstition in bestselling books like “The God Delusion,” “The End of Faith” and “God Is Not Great.” Some of them ultimately ended up as believers, others turned to ayahuasca, and Richard Dawkins recently admitted to being a “cultural Christian.” He still doesn't believe in the big J.C., but acknowledges his worldview was shaped in a Christian context.
In a similar way, I've always been a cultural libertarian. A son of the Mountain West, my traditional conservatism is heavily dosed with a “leave me the hell alone” contempt for Washington, Wall Street and anyone else who dares to tell me what to do. It’s more instinct than ideology. When policy wonks argue how government can best solve a problem, I’m the guy in back muttering, “Why should government be involved at all?”
That said, I’ve never described myself as a full-blown libertarian—never joined the party, haven’t even read “Atlas Shrugged.” Despite admiring the libertarian movement, I’ve always sensed a hollowness at its core that didn’t jibe with human nature.
(Excerpt) Read more at discoursemagazine.com ...
We have no regard for natural law. We don't think we need to regard consequences, because our society has created a lot of hedge around the prevention of consequences.
I'm a libertarian-conservative. I believe in minimal government with government only doing what the individual cannot readily do on his own.
Give people good information, so they can't say they were never told, and let them live their lives. If it comes out badly for them, that's on them.
Conservatism is limited government, there is no need to bring in the fantasy libertarians, for one thing the most impossible thing for them to have under their social liberalism goals (and successes) is limited small government.
Social liberalism is obviously very, very easy to accomplish as we can see, and the more of it we get and the less socially conservative America becomes, then the more it results in massive and all controlling government.
The people who want to be left alone will always lose to the people who want to rule.
Either you rule, or you will be ruled. Choose.
I call myself a, ‘ConservaTarian.’ It’s basically a Libertarian without all the dope smoking. ;)
I agree with what you said about small Government (that Horse is out of the barn and into the hills!) and what the Author said about, ‘leave me the hell alone!’
I can manage my own life just fine, Thanks! :)
Libertarianism is smaller government than conservatism, so it has a place.
As I said, most self-proclaimed libertarians are not libertarians. They want to do what they want, but they want socialism to save them when it goes wrong. It’s an impossible philosophy to maintain, because you are trying to hold opposite style philosophies in your mind simultaneously.
A true libertarian is left to his own devices to live the live he wants and be responsible for himself.
The Founding Fathers were to the right of conservatives, because they wanted a person to be the most basic form of government and they wrote the Constitution that way.
I know. It’s impossible to maintain self-sovereignty when facing mob rule. All you can do is not be there if they try to govern you.
As that post pointed out, Libertarianism makes small government impossible.
The libertarian’s social liberalism is obviously easy to attain as we can see and are forced to endure today, but it makes small government impossible.
But there is nowhere to go.
Ruby Ridge is just about as far in the backwoods as one can get in the Lower 48, and the FBI still showed up to attempt to entrap Randy Weaver.
I completely understand that.
Under liberal America, you can’t be a true libertarian and survive. It’s amazing the country the Founding Father created has lasted this long.
True. But I hope they vote trump anyway. The more votes the better.
Then the Californians, New Yorkers, etc. descended and the independents were kicked to the curb.
New housing developments were almost always "covenant communities", i.e. HOAs with stand-alone homes. The increase in housing prices also led to the buying out of gun ranges, race tracks, etc.
Cities prided themselves on having government built and operated gyms, health clubs, open spaces, etc. More bike lanes started appearing. All things that government didn't need to do, but did because the newcomers wanted them.
Libertarians are living a pipe dream if they think they can ignore our leftist rulers and just live out their lives as they see fit.
If someone wants to live a "libertarian lifestyle" then he should first become a billionaire, and then bribe every necessary public official to look the other way when he's doing what he wants to.
The libertarians couldn't stomach a "dictatorship of the non-entrepreneurial" and so they are left with a vision of an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist dreamland that most humans couldn't survive and wouldn't choose even if they could.
It is possible to be an individualist within a collective. You just put everybody on ignore and live your life. That generally works.
Many libertarians are against the FDA, CDC, EPA, etc. and yet those are the agencies tasked with giving people good information.
We all know that all of those organizations have been compromised. The libertarian solution is to get rid of them and allow industries to "self-regulate". That path has also led to grave failures, deaths, and destruction.
This is why I think the libertarian philosophy is wrongheaded. It is too simplistic. The constant refrain "Well that's Econ 101" or the NAP are just two examples of an unserious political philosophy.
In my opinion this article is nonsense.
You can't ignore the rules of the road you are expected to obey if you want to continue driving.
You can't ignore the criminals who the Dems have let into the country across open borders (something lots of libertarians support).
You can't ignore building codes or your neighbors if you want to do something with your property that is against code or is considered a nuisance, e.g. flying a large American flag.
Also, two or more people living and working together isn't always a "collective". In most cases it is something called a "community".
Pure libertarianism is problematic. At the very least, because people want to be rescued from the bad decisions they made.
I’m big on giving information. I don’t have a problem with the government giving people information so they can make decisions and take on the risks they’ve decided they can handle. I’m ok if the government set up web pages on diet, exercise, healthcare, drugs, alcohol, whatever information we need. Each giving honest information.
Where, I think, it has trouble being maintained is because people aren’t really wanting to pay the price for bad decisions. They want to be saved.
It’s the idea of using government to save people, a liberal quality, is why libertarianism breaks down. People don’t like to be hit with the consequences of what they do.
You ignore where you can ignore.
Keep walking when a liberal tells you to stop.
If he is coming from a conservative or liberal position then he should have made some more specific comments about what policies he believes that governments should follow that would be opposed by libertarians.
Does he believe in the use of eminent domain? Does he believe in protecting the borders? Does he believe in some social safety net? Does he believe in organizations like the FDA, CDC, OSHA, EPA, etc. that supposedly protect citizens from the excesses of the free market?
The essay is silent on these issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.