Are there any differences between Conservatives and Libertarians?

1/12/03 | Sparta

[Sparta]

I've been reading posts by people who use the term Conservative and others who use the term Libertarian. I have a question for all FReepers, is there a difference between the two?

[tacticalogic]

All the caring Americans agree with me. Loyal Americans follow my thinking. Those who care about the future will back up my point. If you don’t side with us you are for killing the (name it).

Actually, they don't, and I wouldn't want them to. I question everything, and hope that they would too. I will challenge authority, reject dogma, and demand reason. Tell me we would all be better off if nobody did.

[metesky]

I don't take any drugs, asshole.

Geez, it sounds like home around here.

Alcohol? Coffee? "Sweet tooth"?

[Democrap]

Real hero all right.

[metesky]

You're wrong.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, thus making the Constitution legally effective.

"Constitution of the United States," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Support from three-fourths of the states is needed to amend the Constitution. Vermont's 1791 statehood brought the number of states to 14, so 11 states were required to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Virginia became the 11th to do so on December 15, 1791.

"Bill of Rights," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[tacticalogic]

Don't fret about it. Better you spend your time peeking over the fence at your neighbors. Maybe you'll spot some suspicious looking weed growing in their yard. A discreet word to the authorities might ingratiate you to them, and perhaps give you the opportunity to acquire your neighbor's house for a pittance.

[Democrap]

Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

You’re absolutely right and I stand corrected.

[Democrap]

Don't fret about it. Better you spend your time peeking over the fence at your neighbors. Maybe you'll spot some suspicious looking weed growing in their yard. A discreet word to the authorities might ingratiate you to them, and perhaps give you the opportunity to acquire your neighbor's house for a pittance.

Sounds like a good plan I could use some of that money them dopers are getting from the kids.

[metesky]

I'm no brainiac, it just sounded wrong so I looked it up.

[Democrap]

As I should have done.

[nopardons]

I'm the antithisis of stupid, dear. Name calling won't ever prove whatever point it is, that you are ineptly trying to make. ; ^ )

[nopardons]

I have never, not once, on this thread, or any other, said that I was for a larger and ever larger government. That you keep saying that this is what I have said and think, doesn't make it true, dear. :-)

I write factual history and you babble on , rant, put words in my mouth, and have yet to disprove one thing that I have used as refutation. Language is expressed " thought. No wonder you are havinbg so much trouble ; you can't think cogently nor logically. Pity that. :-)

I make typos and more often than not miss correcting them. If THAT is your only criteria, for what is/is not a viable post,then your wrong. If pointing out my typographical errors is your only refutation, of what I have stated, then you have long ago lost the debate. LOL

[Barnacle]

I have a question for all FReepers, is there a difference between the two?

Yes

[rb22982]

That's socialism not liberty regardless of what uneducated lazy bums say :P

[discipler]

Did anyone listen to Neil Boortz back before the 2000 election. He was saying there was no difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Now he's all cozy with the Republican side. He's such a loser. I can't stand to listen to him but for a few minutes. The smug way he refers to Rush as the 'Godfather.' Boortz isn't worthy to lick clean Rush's boots.

[earplug]

So your worried about what?
While were dumping on the drug issue. What about the conservative/Republican none stance on our BATF? How does the Alcohol and Tobacco Nazi's figure in the Republican form of limited government?
Next, we will ask about our various government departments of Energy, Education, HUD,EPA and now Home Land Security.
While you gore one ox. You destroy many freedoms.
As a Libertarian I may condem many actions by others. Yet, I will not ask you to pass a law to make be feel better about it. Its sort of like passing a Flag burning law. I served 20 odd years so you and my kid can burn any damm flag they want. On private property of course.
Just because your private ideas don't coincide with others, is not a reason to ask for more government control.
If your driving a SUV and not wearing seat belts while doing drugs and have a fine automatic weapon on your person. Should the government be concerned?
If you should have a accident. Arn't you responsible for damages if found at fault? Why pass another restrictive law.
Republicans are like the farmers who collect my tax money for not growing crops, while complaining about others getting welfare for not working.

[Odile]

TO ALL:

Differences Between Libertarianism, Conservatism and Interventionism

So many intelligent observations! I can't possibly read them all. You probably don't need this, but here's my two-cents on it:

The labels we use are useless. What we are really talking about is INTERVENTIONISM versus LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

Democrats are INTERVENTIONISTS. They are REALLY SOCIALISTS, but won't own up to the title. DEMOCRATS want to take complete control of our money, property and means of production so that they can create a Socially Engineered Paradise where everyone is treated as the EQUAL of everyone ELSE -- regardless of their natural degree of beauty, brains, talent and ambition.

REPUBLICANS are INTERVENTIONISTS too, only THEY want to allow for a natural aristocracy of self-made PLUTOCRATS (and their HEIRS) to take and maintain CONTROL of an essentially HIERARCHICAL society based on serving the best interests of industrial production.

Republicans, however, WILL allow and even ENCOURAGE the strongest and cleverest of men and women to come up through the ranks to create fortunes of their own. Classic "Big Business-Country Club" Republicans and their more modern counterparts from the so-called Religious Right both believe fervently in strong SOCIAL CONTROL of individual BEHAVIOR in order to have a functioning society relatively free of crime and violence.

The industrialists go at this pragmatically: An orderly society, relatively free of vice and dissipation is a more PRODUCTIVE society. The Religious Right approaches strict Social Control from an idealistic, doctrinal position.

The Religious Right is formed of a rather odd alliance between Fundamentalist Christian sects, many of whom are rooted in the severely practical, yet simplistic ethos of rural America, and the Roman Catholic Church. Both of these disparate-yet-strangely-similar Christian traditions profess a deep distrust of anything free and natural, and take, therefore, a contemptuously dim view of human nature. ABORTION is the big issue for these people. HOMOSEXUALITY runs a close second.

Freedom from excessive taxation, the encouragement of entrepreneurial capitalism, and making life easier -- and more profitable -- for small businesses are way down on the list of what counts most for these people. For good or for ill they have become a major -- possibly even the CONTROLLING -- component of today's Republican Party.

Thus, BOTH the major parties are ready, willing and able to micro-manage our lives on one level or another. Either way we are subjecting ourselves to escalating TYRANNY.

LIBERTARIANS would like to do away with most of that.

I think any sane person would agree we must have SOME form of control. Obviously, we cannot allow murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, slavery, trespassing, vandalism, theft and any other abuses of property -- public as well as private. Obviously, we must maintain a string defense, which in MY understanding of what is right and proper would include keeping very strict control of immigration and making absolutely sure that elements obviously not in harmony with our particular culture and our traditional philosophical and religious objectives are permanently excluded from any list of prospective immigrants.

AND I would argue that building and maintaining our infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, water mains, reservoirs, etc.) is a legitimate and NECESSARY function of government.

Beyond those things listed above everything ELSE should pretty much be allowed to develop as it would without either help or interference from government.

In my opinion schools would be much better off under the direct control of individual communities -- as they once were. The current approach to public education is INSANE.

And each community ought to be allowed to set and maintain its OWN unique standards of zoning and the acceptance or rejection of any new or foreign elements that might seek to establish themselves there. Obviously, nothing sinister, sadistic or ruthlessly exploitative should be permitted in ANY community. but if you don't want a porn shop or porn in your public library, you shouldn't be FORCED to have it. PERIOD!

Pollution control and other environmental issues probably comprise a legitimate problem, though I think the dangers in this tend to be highly exaggerated by the always power-mad Leftists.

As for self-destructive practices, I do not favor criminalizing them nor punishing those who cannot for whatever reason be productive members of society. We are NOT our bother's keeper. The world is dangerously overpopulated as it is. If certain individuals want to end their lives early through alcoholism, drug abuse, irresponsible sex or actual SUICIDE, it is NOT society's responsibility to save them from themselves.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a minute dissertation on my own beliefs and reflects MY understanding of the issue raised here. By these standards, since the Democratic Party is an impossible HORROR and the Republican party a grossly inadequate antidote to the Socialist/Interventionist POISON of Liberalism, I consider myself a LIBERTARIAN.

I believe strongly in a live and let live society where people are discouraged from interfering in each other's lives to the greatest extent possible.

ANY form of Nanny Statism -- whether from the Left OR the Right -- is in my view an ABOMINATION.

[nopardons]

Read the LP platform. Understand what it is that you are aligning yourself with, BEFORE you claim to be one.

Your overtly simplistic and, I might add , erronious description of the GOP, is naive and sounds quite like some classwarfare rant from a Dem.

[Leisler]

"I have never, not once, on this thread, or any other, said that I was for a larger and ever larger government. That you keep saying that this is what I have said and think, doesn't make it true, dear. :-) "

You are pathetic. On this tread alone you have supported
The Pure Act of 1906
The act of 1913.
All the thousands of various state and federal drug Acts.
And, had your panties bunched and wanted to sue. Yet another government remedy.

[tacticalogic]

Sounds like a good plan I could use some of that money them dopers are getting from the kids.

Have at it. BTW, do you covet their wives, too?

[biblewonk]

That's socialism not liberty regardless of what uneducated lazy bums say

Not that all socialism is bad.