...final word (for now) on libertarians vs. conservatives

reasononline ^ | December 20, 2001 | Nick Gilespie

[jackbob]

Hayek may well have noted, as Jonah writes, "that United States was the one place in the world where you could call yourself a 'conservative' and be a lover of liberty" because of America's peculiar past as a liberal nation.

The past? We can still be a liberal nation (and conservative also), but not if we give our liberal heritage away to every ultra statist who claims it. They need to be challanged everytime they claim the title.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

For more on this debate see What Libertarianism Isn't

[det dweller too]

Well, I think that if tolerance means accepting very destructive things and refusing to at least try to change them, then it is a gutless empty fraud. If you see a person about to consume a drug that you KNOW will destroy their life, or you see a young frightened girl being dragged by a feminazi to a clinic to turn her unborn child into 3 Lbs of ground chuck and you don't do anything about it, then you have sunk to such utter ethical confusion that it would be a liability to know you. These days, most of what passes for high minded tolerance is actually low lying gutlessness.

Conservatism has been falsely labeled as filled with hate and anger, but it is actually the [pseudo]liberal that is nearly consumed by hate, class warfare, envy, etc. I say pseudo-liberal because ~90% of people, and 100% of the politicians, who claim to be liberal are really pseudo-liberal. A real liberal has compassion for others, but gives from their own time talent and treasure to help. A true liberal also has a high sense of right and wrong and a high sense of courage in defending the weak and innocent. The one person that I know who fits the description of a true liberal is Mother Theresa. I cannot thiink of a single so called political liberal who can measure up to the above description, do you?

[Texasforever]

The past? We can still be a liberal nation (and conservative also), but not if we give our liberal heritage away to every ultra statist who claims it. They need to be challanged everytime they claim the title.

I am disappointed that you resort to the term "statist" given your past civility in defending your libertarian philosophy. Be that as it may, I am glad that the debate has been settled as to the myth that libertarians are just conservatives in all but name. The fact is that libertarians and liberals share a family tree not libertarians and conservatives.

[IASKTHEREFOREIAM]

The fact is that libertarians and liberals share a family tree not libertarians and conservatives.

So, would you say that liberals and libertarians have points of agreement but not conservatives and libertarians?

[Texasforever]

So, would you say that liberals and libertarians have points of agreement but not conservatives and libertarians?

There are two stated positions that libertarians have in common with conservatives, the 2nd amendment and taxes/economics. That is where the similarity ends. On almost any social issue you can name, the libertarians are in lock step with liberals. The mantra that libertarians couple "responsibility" to freedom unlike the liberals rings hollow and is a stalking horse to maintain some semblance of credibility when debating conservatives.

[BlackElk]

Yes, as a rejection of objective reality and a remarkable simultaneous exercise in Clintonian "The world is what I believe it is not what it actually is" and juvenile knee-jerk Randianism, this is bad.

Gillespie reveals in himself the cultural idiocy that has made libertarians such an electoral powerhouse. As to Catholicism, truly the general run of "novus ordo" Masses are a cultural abomination by comparison with the Tridentine rites but the Deposit of the Faith remains the same as would be recognized by any 1901 Catholic.

I have often wondered what might make me think of Jonah Goldberg as something other than a two-legged wind tunnel. By golly, I think I've found it! Eureka!!!

[jlogajan]

Goldberg tried to blame Islamic converts on Libertarianism? You got to be kidding!!!!!! I kinda liked Jonah early on, but he's getting a bit daffy.

[tpaine]

Jonah is proving to be just another feather brained liberarian basher, no better than some of the meatheads here at FR. IE, - this from his article of the 12th, linked above:

------ liberals see no problem with using the government to impose their cultural beliefs on others; they just won't admit that's what they're doing.

In this sense, cultural libertarians are less bigoted than their liberal cousins. The libertarians think all ideologies — so long as there's no governmental component — are equal.

Indeed, RINO's like Goldberg see no problem either, with using the government to impose their cultural beliefs on others; they just won't admit that's what they're doing.

And, libertarians certainly do NOT think all ideologies — so long as there's no governmental component — are equal. -- For instance, the few libertarians on FR can not even agree on such basics of libertarian ideology as the non agression principle.

Jonah's generalizations are the pure BS of an outclassed mind, arguing of prinicples he doesn't and can't understand.

[jackbob]

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in using terms such as "pseudo liberal" and "so called liberal" when referring to the imposter who conservatives have let steal the term, as a matter of convenience. I do however distinguish a difference between the two, which probably for some time to come should keep the two separate. The difference is focus and not necessarily ideology. Liberals tend to disregard tradition, family, property rights, law, individual responsibility, etc. That does not mean they are against these things. It just means they give them a lower priority than they give individual freedom, equality, relieving human suffering, etc. Liberals actually believe that conservatives do not in the slightest care about their concerns. This belief makes them easy pickings for corrupt political hacks, communists, socialists, etc.

I say a well prepared movement of libertarians could pull the rug out from under the the ultra statists and their fellow traveling parasites, by basicly out lefting the left. As I see it, the Libertarian Party and movement were well on their way to doing just that by 1980. But the LP was growing out of control. So the conservatives with in the LP launched a purposeful campaign to pull it back to the right, where it now probably does more harm than good.

One small battle which could have extraordinary results, on which both libertarians and conservatives could join forces is the not crediting the most unliberal people in the country with the title liberal. I ask, is their any economic system more liberal than the free enterprise system?

[jackbob]

Thanks for the debate cite. I had already read the article finding so much to disagree with Rockwell in it, that I decided to just leave it alone. But I haven't read any of the replies. When I get some time, maybe I'll go back over and look at it.

[jackbob]

And this is bad?

Before asking if this is bad, I think one should ask; is it accurate? While there probably are cultural libertarians who think people ought to start out believing in nothing, I doubt there are very many of them. On the otherhand, I see nothing wrong with an individual having a period of time in their life when they basicly believe in nothing. I think it good that we have sub cultures, various religions, etc to choose from. I say variety adds strength to the culture.

[jackbob]

The fact is that libertarians and liberals share a family tree not libertarians and conservatives.

Actually we all share the same family tree. Of course specifics get complicating, so some choose to just charge at any red flag waved in front of them. Its easier.

[jackbob]

...blame Islamic converts on Libertarianism?

Why not? I assure you before this movement ever begins bringing on any real changes, we are going to blamed for one hell of a lot more. The public won't respect us until they fear us. And they won't fear us until they hate us. You know, maybe I've got it all wrong. It might just be good that the LP takes votes from Repubs.

[jackbob]

For instance, the few libertarians on FR can not even agree on such basics of libertarian ideology as the non agression principle.

Our greatest strength while we are small is in everything libertarians do not agree upon. The more infighting, factions and caucuses the better. I look forward to the day when the party is paralyzed by infighting. Because that is when we will break out and become a dynamic movement. In 1981 we were almost there. Interestingly, I blame Reason Magazine for helping set the movemnet back. They had a news letter called "Front Lines" which was full of Party infighting over ideological questions. They got rid of it, wanting not to advertise how dis-unified we were.

[exmoor]

final word.... AMEN

[secretagent]

I like your description of the movement as most healthy when the real disagreements got debated. Apparently the foundation types got nervous.

So now we have a false harmony: "We all basically agree", smiling, (kicking under the table)... how cultlike. As opposed to: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in".

We won't get respected until we inspire fear, and we won't get feared until we get hated. I presume you mean hated for stealing the young idealists/ altruists from the left.

[A.J.Armitage]

The fact is that libertarians and liberals share a family tree not libertarians and conservatives.

All three share a family tree, and dispite what you may think, the Left derives from libertarianism, not the other way around. Libertarianism is the modern representative of the liberal or whiggish tradition (and many who call themselves conservatives are in fact more moderate members of the same tradition). The great early philosopher in that tradition was John Locke. The Left comes from the French philosopher Rousseau, who came after Locke and modified some of his ideas, the social contract in particular, into supports for tyranny. About the time Rousseau's ideas were bearing fruit in the French Revolution, the founder of conservatism was active. Burke was a member of Parliament in the Whig party. In other words, he was one of ours! His arguments were different from Locke's, and probably influenced the arguments of libertarians/liberals/whigs like Bastiat and Hayek (and you can see obvious influence from Bastiat on whiggish conservatives like Sowell).

Locke himself took many of his arguments from Hobbes, but changed around the effect in much the same way Rousseau did to him, but had political forerunners in the Levellers. More about them here.

If authoritarian conservatives have any share in the family tree at all, it might be from Whigs like Cromwell. You must be real proud of that.

[IASKTHEREFOREIAM]

There are two stated positions that libertarians have in common with conservatives, the 2nd amendment and taxes/economics.

So If libertarians agree with the 1st amendment and the 4th and the 5th and the 9th and the 10th etc, conservatives differ with us? HMMMM, maybe you know different conservatives than I know?

That is where the similarity ends.

Hmmmm, so since there are only two basic limbs of responsibility, social (as you put it) and economic and libertarians are in agreement with conservative policy on fully 50% of that spectrum and nothing in libertarian philosophy condones any of the behaviors on the social side (where you incorrectly connect libertarians with modern day liberals) you conclude that we have very little in common with conservatives? Very odd conclusion indeed.

On almost any social issue you can name, the libertarians are in lock step with liberals.

Will you please list the issues that libertarians are in lock step with liberals so that I can refute them and disabuse you of those mistaken notions one at a time?