Replies

I thought libertarians believed in smaller, less intrusive government and lower taxes... while conservatives beleieved in using the unlimited power of the state to coerce their individual preferences on social issues...

what you can eat, drink, wear and which behaviors will entitle you to a tax credit... as a way to enforce their religious, or social preferences on others.

libertarians seem to abhor ALL gun laws. Conservatives seem to want some restrictions based on their own particular qualms... "some controls may be good."

libertarians seem to want folks to be completely free as long as they do not impact the lives of others... whereas conservatives can find a way to define EVERY liberty as an intrusion on something that needs to be regulated, taxed or outlawed... once again, inline with their particular religious or social views of propriety.

A taliban could conceivably fit in with the "conservative" agenda of lots of religious folks who agree with him on repression of women, controlling of their clothing and employment choices, or the consumption of alchohol and such.

A taliban could NEVER fit into a libertarian's mindset... as the concept of INDIVIDUAL liberty outside the collective fascism of Islam, is beyond the scope of their tolerance level.

Libertarians are very tolerant and many are EXTREMELY conservative in their social and religious lives... but would rather CROAK than have to force their way on others. Conservatives however, believe that the needs of the many outweigh the constitutional rights of the few, and for moral reasons, insist that THEIR moral leanings, would be much better for us all... if we were to codify them into our legislation, public education and even the constitution.

Conservatives can be democrats. Or republicans... as conservative is, to many of those who are self defined as such, a means to instituting their faith into governance. Be that christianity, talibanism, or communist socialism of the democrat party.

To me conservative USED to mean smaller and less intrusive governance... now that the movement has been coopted by the socialist conservatives, or "christian democrats" of yesteryears democrat party... I think many former conservatives are now calling themselves anything else.

I support a lot of conservative causes. But I support the governing concept of limited government, smaller police actions and a "preserve as much individual freedom" as we can attitude. Some conservatives, republicans and democrats, don't like that at all. to them, FREE INDIVIDUALS are the greatest threat to us being an ideologically pure or HOLY nation.

To me, if God wanted cookie cutter people, he never would have given us an indivdual conscience, or ability to reason on our own. That's how I see it.

To me, if God wanted cookie cutter people, he never would have given us an indivdual conscience, or ability to reason on our own. That's how I see it.

Well, sadly it seems some people, too many people including too many "freepers", have to be "cookie cutter people" because they have no "indivdual conscience, or ability to reason on their own".

If I was all the names I've been called I'd be all of the above.

I remember when the "conservatives"(?) around here would scream about "targeted tax cuts"...guess what they're all rallying around now?...Targeted tax cuts.

...libertarians seem to abhor ALL gun laws. Conservatives seem to want some restrictions based on their own particular qualms... "some controls may be good."

So would you say a law that keeps guns out of the hands of people with violent criminal records or serious mental illnesses a good idea or just one of those nutty conservative "qualms"?

My argument with most libertarians is that their concepts are too black-and-white. It's as if they are so intent on being consistent with their dogma that they are willing to accpet serious departures from reality just so they can stay ideologically pure.

I still have yet to have a libertarian offer one method acceptable to their precepts that would get a drunk driver off the road before he actually hits something. They recoil in horror to ideas like sobriety checkpoints, open container laws, breathalyzer tests or car searches. They seem to be saying that until the drunk plows into a minivan full of kids, he's within his rights to weave all over the road since he wasn't harming anyone.