Posted on 07/07/2009 5:53:05 PM PDT by moneyrunner
Yes, of course it’s easy to conflate Libertarians and Libertines, because in many cases they appear to be one and the same. Some of their single issue dedication to being able to use hallucinogenic drugs is an example of some of that orientation.
I am on the fence on that issue as all Conservatives should be because Conservatives are – by definition – cautious about changing the rules for fear of unintended consequences. Who would have guessed that the “War on poverty” would appear to have as its primary result, not a reduction in poverty, but an increase in unwed mothers and a subset of young men (and women) whose lives are truncated by drugs, violence and functional illiteracy?
But it’s not what I had in mind. Our host is an excellent example of Libertarian thought, agreed? Yet he explicitly disavows the definition he quotes of “family values.” What is the part that he disagrees with? The nuclear family? Christianity? Displaying the Ten Commandments? Opposition to abortion? Pornography? I could go on. So our host does not share “traditional values.” Which is fine as far as it goes. But in his support of publicly available pornography, his issues with the nuclear family, Christianity, and all the other issues that he and I may disagree on, he never once says that he would support my right to pray during a commencement ceremony, to exhibit a crèche in the public square, in sum, to do any of the things that people in 1950 thought was perfectly right and proper even though we were not ruled by a theocracy.
If I am going to take Libertarians seriously, not just as enablers of libertinism, I expect a respect for the rights that have been taken from people who are more properly considered conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at moneyrunner.blogspot.com ...
If you think political philosophies and party labels are interchangeable, consider for a moment how many Republicans there are out there who seem to not give a rat's ass for the republic.
To tell you the truth the one issue I have, as a conservative, with big and small L libertarians is the abortion issue. A philosophy whose base principle is non-aggression that sees aggression on the weakest amongst us as a choice is a philosophy devoid of logic. I can’t get past that one.
Don't over-read my use of capital letters. I don't think there are nearly as many people who actually belong to that party as there are people who call themselves libertarians.
Better?
Abortion IS the dividing issue. You can take an individual who is 100% on every conservative issue except abortion he/she will get no traction. You can take an individual who is 100% against all conservative issues yet is pro-life, he/she will get support.
Until such time abortion isn’t framed as a religious issue but a human rights issue, this will continue.
I am not willing to make grand experiments on something this good unless I have determined what can go wrong.
When we're dealing with the life or death of a culture, it's always prudent to ask what can make the wheels come off.
I am a Libertine wanna be...
I would be one of them. I subscribe to the philosophy of libertariansm, particularly in regard to national politics, because the federal government is supposed to be the government of the states. It isn't supposed to be involving itself in the day to day affairs of individual citizens, so I find that philosophy to be entirely appropriate in that context.
I don’t think you can decide when life starts until you decide what life is. By some definitions, a lot of people don’t fit. By others, there is no liability when someone kills your pet.
It is a tough issue for me.
Anyone who understands human nature and incentives and looked at what was going to be done and called a "war on poverty".
The Libertarian party and I differ on the immigration issue and abortion. Their immigration stand is suicidal. When 95% or more of the world does not agree with you, you cant' just let them in. They will dilute your culture and destroy it by turning it into the turd-world hell they left.
The abortion issue is a property rights issue. The fetus/child has a right to his body. A woman's temporary discomfort does not trump someone's right to live. The right to live is a property rights issue. (I think of regular old murder in terms of property rights, as well.) Their logic is just wrong.
That's why I am not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian.
I've never heard this. In fact, suasion has been a cornerstone of the philosophy and the right of association an oft quoted principle.
Do you not consider the “War on Poverty” and the “War on Drugs” to be examples of the grand experiments of which you speak? To me, they are those grand experiments that not only failed but miserably failed and made things much, much worse than the problem they were nominally intended to solve.
Repealing the “War on Poverty” or “War on Drugs” would not be a grand experiment, but a mature admission of failure and a return to the way things were before government started meddling with things it should have left alone.
If you are not a theist, life is nothing but biology (naturalism). Peter Singer, a world famous ethicist, believes that a dog is more valuable than a newborn human. He seems to define life as an awareness of your surroundings or of your existence. If that is so, then people in the latter stages of Alzheimer's would not be classified as having life, or value. For Singer, all life is of equal value, and one should not value human life over other species. As a Christian, I believe that human beings are created in the image of God and have a soul. This makes them unique. If you don't believe in God, then Singer would be correct. Man is just a talking monkey and no more valuable than any other creature.
I have libertarian leanings, but I do have a question. Are libertarians disciples of John Stuart Mill? Is that the philosophical foundation of libertarianism?
Don’t forget those who confuse Libertarians with librarians.
A lot of the problem is based on the different kinds of conservative that form the conservative majority.
To start with, there is what could be called a “Type 1” conservative. That is a literal conservative, who is satisfied enough with the status quo that they do not want dramatic change in *any* direction. They want little or no involvement with government or politics, and seek to be left alone.
A “Type 2” conservative not only wants to arrest national movement in a liberal direction, but believes we have gone somewhat too far, and need to return to the right. However, they are not radical about this, and have limited goals for how far this return should be.
A “Type 3” conservative wants to move strongly to the right, either going back a ways in time, or with specific agenda driven things, like abortion. They are willing for radical change, like a federal law prohibiting abortion.
A “Type 4” conservative is much like a “Ron Paul” conservative, or even more so. They support a national retrenchment, a return to constitutionalism, restoration of States rights, minimization of foreign “entanglements”, and a severe reduction in federal power and scope.
A “Type 0” conservative isn’t a conservative, but a liberal pretending to be a conservative. Once called “Country Club Republicans”, and now called “RINOs”, they are consistently liberal, yet despise Democrats, though they vote with them, while in caucus with the Republicans. Importantly, they go to lengths to obtain and control party leadership positions, limiting the influence of conservatives, who they see as more of a threat than Democrats.
I consider myself mainly a free-market conservative, but with libertarian leanings on certain issues. I agree that, for example, the Libertarian view of immigration is just insane.
However, I do believe in as much personal freedom and as unobtrusive and small a government as possible, within reasonable, moral and non-self-destructive-to-the country limits. Oh yeah, and for the record, I have never taken any illicit drug in my life, and don't plan to. I don't drink or smoke either. So that whole thing at the beginning of the article about being dedicated to hallucinogens? LOL...no.
I consider my political philosophy to be libertarian. I also believe a person's liberties end where another's begin. It is just as foolish to have a 'zero tolerance no matter what' attitude when opposing social restrictions on personal liberty as it is with any other broad subject.
I don't agree with using legislation to force lifestyle choices on others. I don't agree with restricting freedom for the sake of social engineering. I don't agree with laws that forbid poor personal choices 'for their own good'. And I don't agree with a government entity making decisions for me simply because they think they know what's best for me.
None of these positions alter in the slightest my agreement that there must be some rule of law to resolve issues where the individual rights of separate people conflict. To me this includes the prohibition of acts that deprive another of their own rights - murder, robbery, and assault, for example.
In the case of abortion, I see no difference between the murder of a person still inside a womb vs. one that has managed to pop out before getting offed. I don't understand why abortion is considered a Libertarian trait. It is not a political ideology - it is a personal belief. Some libertarians support legal abortions and some do not. Some Republicans do the same. And - this may shock you - even some Democrats are opposed to legalized abortions.
I accept that abortions are legal as a travesty of liberty, not as a beacon of free choice.
As an atheist I have absolutely no problem defining life as beginning at conception. I also hold a very strong and dear reverence for life itself - not as a gift from some divine entity, but as the most precious promise of an individual's contributions to humanity. My belief that death is such a final end does not diminish the value I place on human life, it magnifies it beyond all else.
I would agree with Singer that my dog or cat is more important to me than your baby... I buy the dog or cat food every week. your baby, not so much.
Of course I wouldn’t expect you to let your child be hungry, much less be hungry so you could feed my dog or cat.
So, Christian, Atheist, Jew or Pagan, we can all agree.
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.