Replies

I say at the end of the day, there is no difference between the two. Only the kooks on both sides try to distinguish the most minute of differences.

I'd say supporting drug legalization and opposing almost every conceiveable war, no matter how just, would separate liberaltarians from conservatives.

By far the biggest problem with the Libertarian Party is the name itself. 'Libertarian' sounds like a combo between 'liberal' and "librarian." Was it Murray Rothbard who coined the term? Whoever it was, the name sucks. Ayn Rand recognized this PR problem from the outset (in the early 70's), but never offered a superior alternative. (Rand wasn't a purist libertarian anyway). 'Constitution Party' is a lot better, but already taken. Labels/names are very powerful, and bad ones keep many people from investigating any further.

Are there any differences between Conservatives and Libertarians?

The definitions of labels are transient and subjective. Taken to the lowest level there is a fundamental difference between conservatives and libertarians as you will see from the responses on this thread.

The democrat leadership and therefore it's followers the liberals have an objective. That is socialism.

The republican leadership and therefore it's followers the conservatives have an objective. That objective is to be elected.

Libertarians adhere to a philosophy by which they guide their own actions and judge the actions of others. This results in consistency.

Liberals and conservatives do not have a core philosophy and establish opinions on individual topics in a vacuum on a case by case basis. Opinions established this way are often inconsistent with each other.

I consider myself to be a Constitutionist. That document is the standard by which I judge the political policies of liberals and conservatives. Philosophically the Constitution is strongly libertarian with it's emphasis on individual rights.

I have a lot more in common with libertarians than I have with many of the self described conservatives on this forum.

Regards

J.R.

"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?"

Yes, there is a difference. The term "Libertarian" refers to a member of the Libertarian Partz. The term "libertarian" refers to a person whose ideology is best characterized as favoring a circumstance that best favors absolute liberty. Conservative is some other ideology that shares some things in common with each, but not everything.

Personally, I think that people get too worked up about applying these vague labels. As one can see from reading through this thread, there is widespread disagreement about what the labels mean. Some people view the different labels as good, bad, evil, confused, et cetera. Most people are more concerned with bashing others, than in actually discovering truth. One of the ways that people bash others is to apply a negative label to them. People often come to the conclusion that applying a negative connotation to the other person's self-description is the most effective means to this end. When this is done "successfully" a sufficient number of times, the label is overused, perverted, and loses its meaning. As is the case in most any subject, many people who resort to using the label of a different ideology/party/group/etc as some kind of a personal attack are often ignorant of what that label means - often because the label has lost its meaning through overuse.

As evidence of this, go view any thread about the Libertarian Party, about evolution vs. creation, about Islam vs. Christianity, or read in a newspaper a debate about gun control or abortion. It is similar to the hijacking that our language is undergoing, with such words as "inclusive" "tolerance" "niggardly" et cetera.

Libertarians believe that social institutions are capable of operating without government guidance; conservatives don't. Simple.

"Social conservatives" are often willing to use the power of the state to enforce their idea of "morality" or "decency". Libertarians are not. That is the primary difference.

-Eric

A libertarian is a pot-smoking conservative.

Conservatives have better hygiene.

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

Yes

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.

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.

The main difference between Conservatives and Libertarians is the mindset. May be a simplistic assessment; but, bear with me.

Conservatives are largely motivated by morality. The same morality which penned our Bill of Rights and constitution.
That morality demands the things that live in those documents because they are moral issues, not just sound bytes that give warm fuzzies and make people feel good.
Conservatives believe in small government as a moral perogative that led them to write it out on paper and seal it as a founding principle of this nation.

Libertarians, on the other hand, tend to believe what they do - because. The because is largely because a piece of paper gives them reason to believe they have a right. A piece of paper, not a moral compass. Thus they mistake the right to act for the legality to do so. Not quite the same thing. You have a right to go out and murder someone. It is undeniable. You possess the right to make the cognative and physical movement to go out and act on your whims. Laws and governments exist to constrain us from making decisions that are morally and ethically wrong and otherwise unacceptable. So while you may have the right to make decisions and act on them, we the people have the right to hold you responsible. And that's the crux. Libertarians don't like that idea any more than Liberals do.
And they are selective arbitrarily in displaying it. Libertarians want drugs legalized because it infringes their presumed rights to be dopers. We the people have restrained them through laws because we have found drug use to be morally and ethically wrong and otherwise unacceptable.

I'm speaking in general terms; but, that is the underlying issue. The mindset. Liberals have the same problem - they are largely led by desire rather than a moral compass. Their belief system is largely constructed on what they can abuse out of a piece of paper and wrap around something they decide they want to do while trying to convince people with polls that we all accept it.

Conservatives believe in the document and the moral and theistic mindset that demanded the document. Liberals and libertarians believe in what they can sell you the document could say or would say if only the founders had been alive in our time when pot exists and after women started going topless on beaches. Problem is, women had breasts when the founders were alive and have had them for a long long time. And Pot didn't just leap from the jungles in modern times. There were drugs in their day too. And the people that used them went to prison for doing things they shouldn't just as happens today. Imagine that.

Libertarians and Liberals will not be constrained by conscience, morality, or a document. And if not for sophistry, more people would know what they actually believe instead of the spin they have to put on their beliefs to try and make them pallettable. Thus they say "pro-choice" instead of Pro-Baby killer. If you can murder a child to escape responsibility for it and convince a woman it's not wrong to do so, then it makes it easier to get by with sleeping with anything that moves and directing your attentions to trying to convince everyone that's ok and it's judgemental to tell a man he can't sleep with the man's daughter unless he marries her and stays married to her. Good lord, there's them morals again. I'd better stop while I'm being moral...