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?

[Odile]

//Your overtly simplistic and, I might add , erroneous description of the GOP, is naive and sounds quite like some class warfare rant from a Dem.\\

That sounds to me as though you either did not read -- or did not comprehend -- everything I wrote. There are enough conflicting concepts and underlying principles outlined in that statement to fill volumes if all the implications were fleshed out.

Any 1,000-word statement that attempts to synthesize the fundamental differences among the three different political philosophies is bound to sound "simplistic." Sorry, but I haven't the time to write a tome, and even if I did, this would hardly be the place to present it.

It should have been obvious from what I said that I, personally, find NONE of the established political parties to be on the right track.

I'm a registered Republican, because that is the most viable and realistic way we can hope to defeat the sheer idiocy of the Democratic party platform. However, in my view the Republican party does not go anywhere near far ENOUGH towards a truly Conservative agenda, and I resent that the true philosophy of Republicanism has been obscured and partially side-tracked by the Religious Right, who in their own way would be every bit as tyrannical as the Democrat/Socialists if they ever manage to gain untempered ascendancy.

I am a senior citizen, and have, therefore, enough perspective to see that today's Republican party has caved in to the Democrats to such an extent that they are actually are LESS conservative than the Democratic party of Truman and Jack Kennedy. The corollary there is that most of today's Democrats are out-and-out SOCIALISTS. EVERYONE has moved farther and farther to the Left these last forty years.

I have never joined the Libertarian party. I HAVE read a good deal of their literature, which generally sounds pretty good. I have ALSO observed their nominating Conventions on C-Span and have to admit that I was not favorably impressed. Sadly, they tend to come across as a bunch of kooks. And yes, they so sound suspiciously more like ANARCHISTS than serious students of political philosophy.

On the other hand I am a GREAT admirer of the CATO Institute from everything I have seen of THEM on C-Span. CATO, I believe, identifies itself as a Libertarian "Think Tank." THEIR brand of Libertarianism, which, as I understand it, calls for total intellectual, freedom to explore the potential of ALL ideas and theories -- just as our Declaration of Independence and Constitution urge us to do.

Freedom is a very precious -- and FRIGHTENING -- thing. Most people don't handle it very well. You need to be an ADULT in order to benefit from the blessings of true freedom. Unfortunately, there are not many adults around these days. Undoubtedly, that is why so many are fatally attracted to the false security offered by Nanny Statism.

[Liberal Classic]

In my opinion, the Libertarian Party Platform is hopelessly utopian and unworkable. Whatever differences I have with the party, I still maintain that liberty is the best policy; and that the war on drugs and the coming war on guns, as well as war on tobacco and war on fat all come from the same, misguided desire for an activist government to do good.

Not that doing good isn't a laudable goal in and of itself, but when it comes to government policy it is important to realize that the best laid plans go astray. Democrats completely ignore, and Republicans are beginning to forget the law of unintended consequences. Remember that the Father of our County said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force. It is like fire. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."

The unintended consequences from an activist government stem from the lack of understanding of what government is. Again, I point to Washinton's quote. Government is a blunt instrument. The government is very good at imprisoning people, seizing their property, disposing at their assets. The government cannot make a man moral. It takes a different kind of authority then that of government to instill morality in men. Democrats don't know this. Republicans sometimes forget this, or are in the process of forgetting this. Republicans would do well to remember this, and act on it.

[Liberal Classic]

And yes, they so sound suspiciously more like ANARCHISTS than serious students of political philosophy.

I am inclined to agree. Most of the moderates I know have gone back to the Republican Liberty Caucus, leaving the most anarcistic in the Libertarian Party. I have personally been cussed out at convention for suggesing to moderate the party platform. Browne's comments after 911 were about the last straw for me.

[Badray]

"Name calling won't ever prove whatever point it is,. . ."

You started off being rude and degenerated into stupidity with your snide remarks. You are tiresome. Go away.

[rb22982]

IMO it is

[biblewonk]

IMO it is

How about when soldiers get killed in combat and the government helps to take care of their family. What part of that is either bad or not socialism.

[tacticalogic]

How about when soldiers get killed in combat and the government helps to take care of their family.

The difference between that and socialism is roughly the same as the difference between paying your debts and getting mugged.

[rb22982]

I don't consider military funding in any way socialism by historical or dictionary definition

[biblewonk]

I don't consider military funding in any way socialism by historical or dictionary definition

The difference between that and socialism is roughly the same as the difference between paying your debts and getting mugged.

How about if a gargage man dies while collecting garbage? Should his family be taken care of by the local government? Is that also not socialism?

[tacticalogic]

How about if a gargage man dies while collecting garbage? Should his family be taken care of by the local government? Is that also not socialism?

Was that part of his employment benefits when the locality hired him to collect garbage?

[biblewonk]

Was that part of his employment benefits when the locality hired him to collect garbage?

It's a benefit paid for by the community, yes. Is it socialism?

[tacticalogic]

It's a benefit paid for by the community, yes. Is it socialism?

I don't think it is if the community agreed to that before he was hired, any more than money from the company provided life insurance I have that would go to my family in the event of my death would be considered charity.

[biblewonk]

So, if the federal government took out a life insurance policy on every working man with dependents in the country it would not be socialism?

[newgeezer]

When federal employees are paid a salary, is that socialism? ;O) ;O)

Just like in the private sector, life insurance for federal employees is a benefit of employment, part of the compensation package.

[Democrap]

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

No sorry but dope smoken potheads, needle jacken speed freaks, and nosecandy cokers are who I like scewing over.

[tacticalogic]

No apology necessary. Not to me, anyway.

[tacticalogic]

So, if the federal government took out a life insurance policy on every working man with dependents in the country it would not be socialism?

Who's the beneficiary?

[biblewonk]

Who's the beneficiary?

The dependants.

[tacticalogic]

I believe that would qualify as socialism, particularly if the amount of coverage varied according to the number of dependents.