Question: What's in it for libertarian-conservatives? Answer: Not much

The Digital Collegian (Penn State) ^ | Wednesday, April 14, 2004 | Steve Boneck

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Political ideology is a thorny issue. Individuals need to base their decision-making on something. However, those who vote and act purely on ideological grounds are often the ones who obstruct needed change in our system. Most of us have our own ideology that we adhere to, but we often don't realize it. Not everyone, nor every political party, fits into the conservative, liberal, libertarian or moderate grouping.

It seems to me that there is a "flip" among the parties. The moral-absolutist social policies of Republicans match better with the redistributive fiscal policies of Democrats, while the pro-business stance of Republicans would seem to mix better with the Democrats' treatment of civil liberties.

I've had many people assume I am liberal due to my strong dislike for George W. Bush. Others think I am a conservative because of my positions against high taxes, labor unions and appeasing foreign policy. I have written that I am a moderate. More appropriately, I am what is loosely known as a libertarian-conservative.

We are often confused with being just a libertarian or just a conservative. People hear the libertarian part, and they think that we're going to start talking about legalizing pot. They hear the conservative part, and they automatically assume that we are Bush supporters.

What are the most important aspects of libertarian-conservatism? Capitalism, science and secularism are a good start.

The beautiful thing about capitalism is that it does a better job than any other economic system to work with the traits of most people. Let's face it -- human beings will always be in pursuit of material wealth, and greed is often a deciding factor in many people's decisions. Rather than attempting to restrain or eliminate human nature, it makes sense that we should use a system (capitalism) that harnesses the base instincts of our species so that the community as a whole benefits. I do agree, however, that some level of taxation is necessary so that people do not get trampled on economically.

Some would say that society has not advanced under capitalism. Instead of thinking that all Americans are nominally better off, another human characteristic takes over. Here, we compare ourselves to our neighbor. Some people will cite income inequality as a reason why capitalism is evil. Capitalism does have its winners and losers, but more often than not, capitalism rewards those who understand the system's benefits, and the pursuit of advancing helps all of us.

Most of the benefit of capitalism is through the risk-filled process of scientific endeavor. We value science. Understanding our natural environment and discovering new technology is vital to human development. When it becomes apparent that the president has chosen political calculus over scientific accuracy time after time, it makes the rational mind wonder what is going on here. Of course, it is human nature to desire more power (especially politically).

But, playing politics with science is a dangerous game, as is electoral pandering to base beliefs.

We have a religion problem in this country. I'll say right now that I don't believe in a god or life after death. For me, reason (evaluation of observable phenomena) will always win the battle against faith (the belief in something that isn't observable). That said, I'm not referring to the people who worship each week and lead normal lives. They choose this way of life, as I have chosen mine. The problem I speak of is those who find it ultimately necessary to turn the United States of America into the Christian States of America. Yes, I mean the evangelical proselytizers.

It's not wrong by any means to be socially conservative, but a reasonable basis should be required for acting this way. Why are they against abortion, gay marriage or, God forbid, stem cell research? Well, a book that was written under dubious circumstances two millennia ago supposedly tells them this.

Acting based on general religious principle isn't wrong; citing this as the reasoning to convince others is ludicrous. Since when has the non-provable become grounds for "evidence?"

When 58 percent of Americans (according to the June 2003 Pew Global Attitudes Project survey) -- compared to 25 percent of Brits and 30 percent of Canadians -- think that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral, it again confuses me to hear how the faith-based initiative programs are discriminated against.

It is impossible for an avowed atheist/agnostic to hold high public office.

Yes, we secularist, libertarian-conservatives have an image problem, but it's not as bad as the fact that we no longer have a political party to call home.

Republicans are socially conservative. This is not inherently a problem. However, anyone else notice the red ink spilling out of the Office of the Treasury? What is there to keep us in the Republican Party? A grossly mismanaged war on terror and the alienation of international allies seem to rule out the foreign policy aspect.

What about the Democrats? They sometimes seem too eager to enact socialistic health care and pension systems into the mix, while playing to labor unions and coming up with new arguments for affirmative action and trade protectionism.

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to shrink the size of the federal government. As hard as it is to get voters to accept an increase in taxes, it's even harder to convince voters that we should take away some of the things they already have. It will be a tough battle, and victory will be difficult.

Steve Boneck is a senior majoring in economics and a Daily Collegian columnist. His e-mail address is smb394@psu.edu.

[rdb3]

It's not wrong by any means to be socially conservative, but a reasonable basis should be required for acting this way. Why are they against abortion, gay marriage or, God forbid, stem cell research? Well, a book that was written under dubious circumstances two millennia ago supposedly tells them this.

Moving right along...

Show 'em my motto!

[Robson]

Good article. As a libertarian-liberal, I find the two-party winner-takes-all system to be abysmally inadequate. What drives me crazy is when Democrats and Republicans each blame the other for authoritarian behavior. It's a completely different axis, but we don't currently have the apparatus to make these distinctions in the general political dialog.

[apackof2]

Fellow Liberty Caucus?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

As a libertarian-liberal,

How can that not be an oxymoron?

[Cultural Jihad]

All ideologues make the ordinal mistake of thinking that relative goods are absolute ones.

[Cultural Jihad]

Maybe a libertarian-liberal is different from a libertarian-socialist by degrees.

[graf008]

A libertarian-liberal would focus more on the social issues at the heart of libertarian ideology and less on the economic ones.

I am a libertarian-libertarian. Makes me a liberal on some issues, conservative on others and somewhere in-between on the third.

[Cultural Jihad]

A libertarian-liberal would focus more on the social issues at the heart of libertarian ideology ...

In other words, a moral-liberal in total agreement on social and moral issues with Trotskyite moral-liberals, Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist moral-liberals, and moral-liberals in the mass media and academia.

[Cultural Jihad]

A libertarian-liberal would focus more on the social issues at the heart of libertarian ideology ...

In other words, a moral-liberal in total agreement on social and moral issues with Trotskyite moral-liberals, Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist moral-liberals, and moral-liberals in the mass media and academia.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I guess I fail to see how an ideology that espouses personal freedom and personal sovereignty could reconcile itself and become "one," however bastardized the splice, with an ideology that espouses groupthink and groupcontrol and "public" property (aka, taxes), as liberalism does. I'm of the opinion it's quite impossible to be a liberal and a libertarian at the same time, as it's impossible to be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time.

[tdadams]

Although I think he's a little antagonistic toward religion, I pretty much fall in the same place. Libertarian-conservative, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, reason above faith. Yes, that often puts at odds with the social conservatives here.

[graf008]

Take the individual ideas expressed as compared to the whole ideology. It is very possible to be both pro-choice and anti-tax. Focusing on the pro-choice part over the anti-tax when picking a candidate would be a liberal-liberatarian.

[graf008]

I didn't realize this was a discussion on communism...but if he is using the same thinking as communists do - then yes.

He could come at the issue from a libertarian aspect, though - which would be entirely different than enforcing no morals at the end of a gun, as is the communist idea.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Focusing on the pro-choice part over the anti-tax when picking a candidate would be a liberal-liberatarian.

With all due respect, I believe you're using your terms incorrectly. It's certainly possible to be pro-choice and anti-tax, but a liberal would believe the government has a duty to pay for abortions for women who can't afford them. A libertarian wouldn't.

[graf008]

That would be a libertarian-liberal. I think most pro-choice individuals (outside of what NARAL or other groups say) would be libertarians on the abortion issue and oppose the government saying what can be done, but also oppose the government paying or forcing abortions.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

That would be a libertarian-liberal.

Um, okay . . . whatever. Good luck with that. Next up, Monarchist-anarchists.

[Howlin]

Where's my book?

[The kings dead]

All ideologues make the ordinal mistake of thinking that relative goods are absolute ones.

So liberty is a relative good? Are there any absolute goods, and if so, what are they and how do we tell the difference?

[mountaineer]

Well, a book that was written under dubious circumstances two millennia ago supposedly tells them this. ... Since when has the non-provable become grounds for "evidence?"

I assume this college boy will prove, with ample evidence, that the Bible was written under "dubious circumstances," just for the sake of consistency.