Posted on 12/22/2001 8:31:03 PM PST by jackbob
Not exactly, the trunk of the tree is Classical Liberalism. From that trunk two branches comprising positive and negative liberty grew. Now I know that the term "authoritarian" is sinister sounding and is used to denigrate many conservatives however; the fact remains that in any civilized society there are those that are in positions of authority based on the privilege granted them by the members of the society who wish to maintain the cultural norms that make up that society hence the term "conservative". There are always those minorities living within that culture that are determined to live unconstrained by the norms of that culture and place themselves above the majority wishes of the surrounding community, hence the term "libertarian". Then there are those that also wish to live above the same cultural restraints of the same society just as the "libertarians" do but, at the same time, want that society to pick up the pieces of their lives caused by their own bad judgment hence the term "liberal". I have nothing at all against a libertarian that just wants to be left alone to live his life isolated and within his definition of personal freedom. I do have a problem with a movement that wants to give us a "libertarian" solution but end up with a "liberal" outcome.
Uh, looks like Jonah is so bright that he's responded to you before you commented-- check out "The Libertarian Lie" of 12/18/01. I quote one of the best parts below:
"So let me just say once and for all: I'm sorry, but your philosophy ain't that complicated. I think I've got a handle on it: The government uses force, so we should keep it limited; open society; maximize human freedom; respect contracts; free minds, free markets, blah blah blah. I get it. Good stuff. Thanks.
In fact, I thought the whole point of libertarianism was that it's simple. I mean, whenever I hear libertarians trying to convert people, they always make their creed sound so uncomplicated. They begin their sentences with, "We libertarians simply believe X"; or, "Libertarianism is just a partial philosophy of life." Harry Browne says conservatism is worse than libertarianism because it can't give you "one sentence" answers on every political issue. In fact, he makes libertarianism sound like a warm bath you can slip into to melt all your political cares and concerns away.
And that's all fine. Except for the fact that when criticized, all of a sudden libertarianism becomes this deeply complex body of thought with all sorts of Kantian categories and esoteric giggling about "rational fallibility" flying all about (many of my blogger critics actually sound like self-parodies). On offense, you guys are like the "Drink Me" bottle in Alice in Wonderland, or Morpheus's pill in The Matrix. But on defense, you turn on the smoke machines and cloud the room up with faculty-lounge verbiage. You can't have it both ways.
And besides, there's nothing particularly wrong with simple philosophies — which is why I'm pretty much a libertarian when it comes to the federal government. Regardless, please spare me the more-sophisticated-than-thou crap. When smart people (and I've always said libertarians are very smart) — whether they're Marxists, libertarians, whatever — claim that other smart people "just don't get" very simple ideas, they only lend credence to the impression that their intellectual adherence is the product of a religious impulse. Or, they just sound obnoxious. "
Gee-- the product of a religious impulse, or obnoxious? Your choice. For what it's worth, many intelligent people under 30 think that they discovered libertarianism all by themselves and no one has ever understood it before. By the time one reaches middle age, its limitations have become apparent.
That's what the Leftists calling themselves liberals would have you believe. It's wrong. Socialistic so called liberals do not have those called classical liberals as ideological ancestors; the Left broke off long before the term liberal become current. The only thing giving their canard even a small bit of credibility is the fact that J.S. Mill started as a classical liberal and became a moderate socialist.
Your dichotomy is telling, though. If negative (i.e. real) liberty is libertarian and "positive liberty" is liberal, what kind of liberty do conservatives believe in?
I made a valid critique. You didn't even attempt to refute. - Get lost.
I can see you have never actually studied the concepts of positive and negative liberty as applied to Classical Liberalism.
What would you know about being any kind of man?
Conservatives believe in liberty, not license.
How is the distinction made, who makes it, and how is it enforced?
well let's see...take drugs as an example. If drugs were legal but the user was left to his own devices when he becomes debilitated and unable to support himself then his liberty to do drugs has been balanced by the accountability of either quitting or dying. If however, the user is provided with publicly financed and never ending "treatment" for his addiction while being given welfare then his "liberty" is divorced from accountability and then becomes license. Having said that, I have endeavored to answer each of your questions. It is now time to either tell me what you disagree with about my answers instead of just moving from one question to the next.
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.