Posted on 05/03/2006 2:49:08 PM PDT by ghostmonkey
Often I see Libertarians refer to themselves as "Conservatives" or "Right". Yet, many times, on many web-boards, I see the libertarians taking the same positions as Demonrats, and they seem to support Demonrats over Republicans.
I did a bit of research, and I found why this might be the case. Libertarianism is actually in the same political system as Liberalism.
http://www.moral-politics.com/xPolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.All
Heinleinland and Randovia are not real places but mental exercises in sheer and utter kookery. They make fine fiction because that is exactly what they are. Most libertarians that I know are radical ideologues who would destroy the country to refashion it in "anything goes but traditional values" image. That makes them the opposite of conservatives.
(Still, I do applaud you personally for trying to distance yourself from the ACLU.)
But again you are assuming a behavior that conforms to today.
My point is that he may not point a gun at you and demand your wallet,he may simply shoot you and remove your wallet.
Part of what forms peoples beliefs and moralities are the laws,do away with them and you very easily may do away with that morality.
I think there's a problem with putting conservatism as the opposite end of socialism. Conservatism, the way I understand it, refers to the idea to keep the social order as it is, or if it changes, it happens gradually. It may be divided into two big groups: social conservatism and economic conservatism. Social conservatism refers to idea of maintaining social norms (which is why it refers to the 'old religions') while economic conservatism refers to libertarian idea of minimum-government (although not as extreme as anarchis which is outright anti-government)--born from European classical liberalism. In the early 19th century, classical liberalism seemed to be the mainstream idea in Europe (at least in UK). That's why Marx and Engel refered it to 'conservative' social order.
Fell asleep during history class again didn't you?
You obivously don't know ANY libertarians then. Most of us sound just like me...
They rejected as defining an impractically weak federal government. They still defined a limited role for the federal government, with explicitly defined responsibilities and powers that did not extend down to the management of affairs of individual citizens.
The Articles of Confederation was predictated upon the existence of a very weak federal government joining together thirteen powerful and largely-independent states. While most libertarians recognize that the federal government needs to have some power and ability to raise revenue, the Articles allowed it basically none.
Under the Articles, the supreme entity was not the individual; the supreme entities were the thirteen states. Some of the states had government religions, and imposed many laws that libertarians would frown upon.
That's what I meant about terms like conservative being relative. In the old Soviet Union, the "conservatives" are the die-hard socialists.
------------- Libertarian Capitalism is an extreme form of Moral Liberalism.
Let's start here. They've jumped from libertarian theory, to economic theory. Capitalism in particular. Then economic theory is equated to moral theory. It's completely irrational. It's a pile of putrid rubbish.
"For libertarians, there are no positive rights (such as to food or shelter or health care), only negative rights (such as to not be assaulted, abused, robbed or censored).
A right belongs to the individual and no polarity whatsoever. Moral codes exist to protect those rights. You have a right to life and a right to sovereignty of will and to property. It is absolutely impossible to have a right to food, shelter and heathcare if they are not your property, or the service was not paid for in a fair exchange, because those things never belonged to you in the first place. You must obtain them. If obtaining them involves other people whatsoever, you must deal with them in a fair and just manner. The only way to deal in a fair and just manner is to ensure the rights of all parties are protected at all times.
Libertaianism is a fundamental theory of rational being interaction that protects every individual and all of their rights absolutely. Liberalism is a theory of interaction that is by it's very nature completely arbitrary and undefinable in any general, specific, or permanent basis at all. Liberalism is basically an authoritarian tyranny plain and simple. The concept of rights is arbitrary and based on whatever the powers that be dictate. Liberalism is authoritarian serfdom and slavery.
Read Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, The Constitution of Liberty, or visit some valid libertarian philosophy sources to learn about libertarianism. The Libertarian party is not a source, nor are the moronic pamphleteer sites you've sourced. Note that sometime before the middle of the last century the liberals co-opted the word liberalism. Most of the founders of this country were classical liberals, essentially libertarians. Modern liberals co-opted the word as a con to reintroduce their authoritarian socialist schemes.
As far as learning about modern liberalism, read John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. That's gives framework for all variations of liberalism.
While the terms "radical", "liberal", "conservative", and "reactionary" generically refer to people who want a huge change, a significant change, minimal change, or else a change back to the way things were, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have also come to describe specific target social conditions. The use of the terms for that purpose is in some ways unfortunate, since it tends to muddle their meanings, but I don't really know any non-pejorative alternatives.
Nothing stopping them from doing that now. Also, it is a MUCH bigger step from armed robbery up to outright murder. Most petty thieves aren't up to real bloodshed.
Either way, you'd still have a MUCH better chance of protecting yourself in a libertarian society as they actively encourage personal arms, rather than today where we are discouraged and merely "allowed" in some juristictions to "maybe" defend your self.
What forms the basis of libertarian thought is self, and ONLY self, ownership coupled with the Non-initiation of force, fraud, theft philosophy. Anyone acting consistant with that philosophy is a "libertarian" whether they are aware of it or not. It also forms the entire basis for a self-governing social structure that is self re-enforcing and driven by basic human nature. It is also simple enough that even those folks of modest intelligence can be taught the basics and live quite easliy by it. I'm currently teaching it to my two year old and even she "gets it".
Also, nothing in libertarianism precludes you holding your own personal religious beliefs. In fact, it leave you free to only interact with those of similar beliefs. If you want to discriminate, go ahead. Someone else will be sure to take that share of the market you don't want if there is a profit in it.
It all goes hand in hand.
Excellent post BTW... ;-)
In any given context they can be correctly applied in that manner. The problem is when that context isn't established up front and then maintained through the entire argument.
I took the test(s) and the questions are so slanted, it's really hard to take and not come out slanted.
I came out right on the line between Conservatism and Authoritarity (something like that). I think I'm a Centrist with conservative (right) leanings and beliefs. But nowadays, with both parties going where they are going, they are NOT the parties of old, imo, and these tests and opinions could be biased on the true meanings for what each party SHOULD be, not what they are today. Could be anyway...
If a crook tries that in a town where there haven't been any robberies or murders lately, he might get away with it once or twice. Once people become alert to the predator in their midst, however, it wouldn't take him too long to become fatally unlucky. Indeed, most crooks would recognize that before getting into robbery and murder.
The Articles of Confederation were not libertarian. They were far from it, because they failed to protect rights. The Constituiton which the founders created to replace it was far more libertarian in that, it had the capacity to protect rights and included a Bill of Rights enumerating specific protections.
What was not provided was an effective mechanism to protect rights. That was left up to the electorate. As DeToqueville noted, rights protection went down the toilet when the electorate discovered the public treasury. In addition, the protection of any particular right, or rights in general is left to the mercy of the tyranny of the majority.
How about when liberals/libertarians loudly appladed the federal government imposing its immorality on the states in the Lawrence vs. Texas sodomy case?
That's pretty paradoxical too, right?
Libertarians Capitalists believe individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others; -- exactly as does our Constitution.
They further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect those rights and our Constitution.
For libertarians, there are positive rights (such as to property of all kinds), and negative rights (such as to not be assaulted, abused, robbed or censored).
It's right there, plain as can be, in our Constitution.
ghostmonkey erroneously claims:
Libertarians are Liberals.
Nope, -- American libertarians are Constitutionalists.
Libertarians substitute their own moral philosophy for the Constitution. Libertarianism says that all laws against "consensual" crimes are unconstitutional, but the constitution doesn't say that at all.
no. Libertarians support small government and allow people to mess themselves up if they choose to. Liberals want big government and they'll force people to be "free". Even if they don't want to be "free".
I had the same % but with Bush. I scored really far bottome right, but I'm a mix of libertarian too.
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.