Posted on 04/08/2010 9:27:19 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
During a question-and-answer session at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., one man opined, "One thing I've learned here at CPAC is that the 'C' actually doesn't stand for 'libertarianism.' It's not 'L'PAC." When Congressman Ron Paul won the annual straw poll at CPAC, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made a point to tell his listeners that CPAC wasn't conservative this year because a libertarian had won.
Both men are worse than just wrong. They're out of their minds.
Arguably the most popular history of American conservatism, George H. Nash's book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America begins with libertarianism. In the first chapter titled "The Revolt of the Libertarians," Nash states: "For those who believed in the creed of old-fashioned, classical, 19th-century liberal individualism, 1945 was especially lonely, unpromising, and bleak. Free markets, private property, limited government, self reliance, laissez-faire — it had been a long time since principles like these guided government and persuaded peoples."
Chronicling the intellectuals who tried to rectify this bleakness, Nash begins his history with two men: economists F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Then he explains how these libertarian heroes kick-started the American conservative movement. Few actually used the word "conservatism" in 1945, a term that began to gain popularity when Russell Kirk's book The Conservative Mind was published in 1953 and with the founding of William F. Buckley's National Review in 1955. Nash notes that even Kirk was inspired by both Hayek and Mises, writing to a friend that these men represented a "great school of economists of a much sounder and different mind."
After Hayek and Mises, Nash then cites Albert Jay Nock, publisher of the unabashedly libertarian magazine The Freeman in the 1920s. Writes Nash: "Nock came to exert a significant amount of influence on the postwar Right," yet was so libertarian that "Nock verged on anarchism in his denunciations of the inherently aggrandizing State." Noting the impression Nock made on a young Buckley, Nash explained that "it was Nockian libertarianism, in fact, which exercised the first conservative influence on the future editor of National Review."
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, says, "Nash's work is one of the very few books that must be read for a full understanding of the conservative movement in America." However, Feulner's Heritage Foundation advertises on Limbaugh's show, where the host is seemingly oblivious to the fact that the American conservative movement could not have existed without libertarianism. Furthermore, pundits like Rush often claim to be "Reagan conservatives." However, they seem to forget that in 1976 said Reagan, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." As you can see, advocating for "limited government" without employing some degree of libertarianism would be logistically impossible.
Which is exactly why so many of today's so-called conservatives are so quick to dismiss it. If there is an interloping ideology on the Right today, it is not libertarianism but neoconservatism, an ideology born not of limited government philosophy but of ex-socialists who migrated Right in reaction to the counterculture of the 1960s. Today, neoncons are devoted to promoting the maintenance and expansion of America's global empire.
Whereas traditional conservatives considered war — and the massive bureaucracy necessary to wage it — an occasional, necessary evil, neoconservatives consider perpetual war a good precisely because they believe it is America's mission to export democracy to the rest of the world.
Questioning the cost or wisdom of waging perpetual war is considered unconscionable or even "unpatriotic" to neoconservatives, which is why they are so dismissive of libertarians and others who question foreign policy. Most neoconservatives instinctively realize that their ideology is incompatible with the libertarian's pesky obsession with limited government, giving neocons reason to marginalize, or expel, any libertarian influence that threatens to expose the statist nature of today's mainstream conservative movement.
Considering their new, radical definition, it's easy to see why Rush and other mainstream conservatives don't consider libertarians part of their movement —because they're not. And while it remains to be seen how the irreconcilable differences will play out between limited government libertarians (whose numbers are growing) and big government neoconservatives (whose ideology still dominates), let there be no more ignorance about which philosophy is truly more alien to the historical American conservative movement. And let there be no further delusions about which philosophy was most responsible for creating it.
Catch Southern Avenger commentaries every Tuesday and Friday at 7:50 a.m. on the "Morning Buzz with Richard Todd" on 1250 AM WTMA.
Of course, one simple way to know we are the real conservatives and these other guys are fake “conservatives” is simply in the fact that we are the ones arguing for a more limited government and less control -— they are the ones arguing for more government and more control.
Yeah... Somehow, I don’t think that simple and logical fact will sway the OP in any meaningful way.
You guys aren’t conservatives. You are Libertarians. I’m sure you ll struggle with this level of rational thought, so I’ll ask Daniel to interpret down to you.
Ayn Rand on Libertarianism:
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
Logic?... rbmillerjr hasn’t used a logical argument yet. A logical argument would make conclusions based on a known premise with conclusions that necessarily follow. But his base premise “begs the question” and is itself unknown and unproven... namely his assertion that federal roads are constitutional despite having no specific constitutional text authorizing their construction. It “begs the question” because we don’t accept the premise that federal roads are necessarily constitutional.
That’s a strawman argument (another logical fallacy). Nobody here is advocating anarchy. We are advocating constitutionally limited government. If we were anarchists, we would be arguing for no government. But no comment here is urging that.
Try reading it again. It describes Libertarians perfectly.
Ayn Rand on Libertarianism:
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
I am not an anarchist, nor are most “libertarians” in the United States. The term “libertarian” in the United States generally applies to minarchist libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism) or classical liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). Again, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody here is advocating anarchy. We are arguing for federalism. The federal government should be constrained to the 17 specific powers it is empowered by Article I, Section 8 to legislate regarding (and nothing else) as reinforced by the 10th amendment. Drug laws, if they exist at all, should be done on the state level.
“It “begs the question” because we don’t accept the premise that federal roads are necessarily constitutional.”
This doesn’t beg the question. If your radical ideology clouds your ability to see what is clear and evident...fine.
But you don’t get to create your own reality. Federal roads are constitutional as are drug laws written by both state and federal governments.
It is reality. For goodness sakes, look around you. If it weren’t the case, there would be cases proving your point on constitutional grounds.
Your interpretation of the Constitution is inept and not accepted in the mainstream. Your claim to have the “correct” interpretation is of course, ludicrous. Your interpretation is rejected and laughed at, much like Ron Paul when he is in public.
In fact, your perspective is not unlike the communist cell members who want to think for the masses and “know” the “correct” interpretation or path.
Coffee...reality...get some.
It is a “beg the question” fallacy (aka circular logic) because I have refuted your premise that federal roads have no Constitutional basis. You even admit as much when you can’t point to the authorizing text in Article I, Section 8.
The difference between us and you is that we believe in obiding by the actual text of the Constitution and like Jefferson oppose your view that we should rely on Supreme Court decisions based on “stare decisis” (using bad decisions of the past to justify more bad decisions).
Like Jefferson, I believe that our federal government should abide by the Constitution as written by our founders and not the Constitution as imagined by un-elected and un-accountable judges.
“I have refuted your premise that federal roads have no Constitutional basis.”
I think you’re slightly confused. I used the federal roads argument as an example of something that is constitutional, yet isn’t expressly stated in the Constitution. “Post Roads” would have to be expanded upon quite a bit to apply to the federal highway system and the federal funds used to pay for state roads and highways.
Just an example of how Libertarians “strictly” define only when they choose to on “certain” issues important to them, like drugs.
If America can be looked at as a ‘house’, heres how I would describe what each ideology or “ism” intends.
Obamaism-a blend of fasism and corpratism, this is the cockroaches in the walls of the American house. The cockroaches (Obamaism) got in because they were lured by the tasty termites (liberals) that had been infesting the house for many decades.Democrats address the new cockroach problem by introducing more termites into the walls, hoping to satisfy the roaches with liberal termites inside of structural load bearing material, which the roaches have already started to eat for the past 18 months. Republicans are addressing the problem by claiming that introducing more termites only feeds the problem, then offering to feed fewer termites into the walls, if elected in November. Paul Ryan says he can wean the roaches (Obamaisms) completely off the termites (liberals) and save the whole house (America), over the next twenty years with his plan. Unfortunatly his plan was on a sheet of paper eaten by roaches while its assigned guard was awol attending a lesbian lapdance club meet and greet. So what other plans are there? Anarchism, suggests that we invest in a book of matches, burn the house down, and call the problem solved. Socialism, suggests we sell the house to the Chinese government who we than hope will fix it, and allow us to be a renter. Neo-conservatism suggests we move ourselves into the inside of walls, and give the roaches the rooms and furniture, figuring we can make the world safe for democracy if we show the roaches the ways of our lives. Conservatives call the Orkin man, but ask for an exorcist first. This fails when the exorcist takes all the money we had alloted for him, and the Orkin man. We tell the Orkin man it is his moral duty to serve us non profit, he flys his non-four fingers, and goes. The libertarian proposal is to leave the house and bargain for the tree house in the back yard. ‘Who are we to initiate force against the roaches?’, they ask. After a month, the house is vacated , and the roaches head up the tree to the tree house. Of course the tree and tree house are gone, just a pile of ash, rumour has it, Murray Rothbard was there with a match. Just prior to total collapse, the owners call a group of economists...see the next post...
If America is a “house”, what would a group of laborers do to improve it, if those laborers were from different economic schools?
“Keynes” Day Laborers Inc would run down to home depot, before even looking up close at the house, and purchase new paint, insisting that without a florescent color, no house is worth saving. They never make it back to the work site, they get stuck at a brothel.
“Marx” Man-power To The People Dot Gov. show up. They try to organize a strike, fail, then brake in, steel the copper pipes, and leave.
“Milt Friedman” For Hires Company comes along. They go through the entire house with a fine tooth comb. The house (America) they deem savable. They call Orkin, wait a week, come back, knock down a couple of walls, expand some rooms, wallpaper over some holes, put an addition in, and replace the doorbell.
FA Hayek Temp Agency shows up. They like Milts work. They paint the house a fitting color, and pave the driveway.
Finally, L. V. Mises Co shows up. They chuckle. Windows and doors are replaced. Structural walls are inspected and replaced. Plumbing, electrical, insulation, completely updated. Garage is expanded from one car to three car. Pool in the back. House lifted up and new foundation is poured, reenforced concrete,ect.. ofcourse.
Larry Summers and Paul Krugman drive by later to see Mises work.Larry says to Paul..”I like it, but can we fix it Paul?”
Ask yourself, exactly WHAT are you trying to "conserve"?
For me, it the Constitution and our Republic. The very freedom we are supposed to have.
You? You'd piss it all away over a battle over a plant.
And yes, I've seen the same quote from Rand ad nauseum. It isn't germane to the current discussion.
Yeah, they don’t seem overly preoccupied with the finer details like facts. ;-)
neo·con·ser·va·tive [ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv], n., a term describing someone who posts something disagreeable, or propounds a disagreeable view, on a conservative message board (pref. someone of Jewish descent).
Constitutional interpretation from a bubble gum dispenser is frowned upon.
Your view that roads are unconstitutional is one of the most asinine things I’ve read in a long time.
Your post bears no resemblance to anything anyone has said so far...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.