Conservatives VS. Libertarians VS. Liberals

May 7, 2003 | self

[HighWheeler]

Conservatives: Want Freedom with Responsibilities.

Libertarians: Want Freedom without any Responsibilities.

Liberals: Want No Freedom with No Responsibilities. (Hillary's little people liberals don't realize this is where their leaders would take them)

Conservatives:
- Drive the speed limit, or something close to it, knowing the penalty for getting caught driving over the speed limit.
- Keep their house and property in good shape and up to the community standards.
- Like the Constitution and all it stands for.
- Dont' tolerate criminals, and want them all punished to the extent of the crime.

Libertarians:
- Drive whatever speed they want while smoking pot, if they hit someone, well too bad, they should have known there are no speed limits, and maybe now they learned something. EFF the world anyhow.
- Keep the house and property in good shape for growing pot, and protecting it from the neighbors who want to steal it. EFF the world anyhow.
- Only like the parts of the Constitution that don't say that pot is illegal. That old Constitution parchment also makes a great rolling paper. EFF the world anyhow.
- There are no criminals, nothing is illegal.

Liberals:
- Drive bicycles like in China.
- Keep their house and property, uh wait, the government furnished commune and surrounding federal land, in whatever condition they find it each day. Where's the super been the last couple months anyhow?
- Hate the Constitution except for the part about free speech...well before the government took that away after the Liberal Supreme Kort ruled that every word ever spoken offended at least someone, and therefore all speech was determined to be hate speech.
- All criminals are promoted to positions of liberal leadership.

[HighWheeler]

Yeah, I like the frothy reaction from most libertarians to the standard stereotype of them. I am surprised that the reaction from conservatives here isn't a bit of outrage that we DON'T all just blindly follow some convention as written here because "we are independent thinking people".

I wanted a thread to challenge the stereotypes, but the Admin Monitor sent this to the chat rathole about 2 minutes after posting.

[alfons]

Libertarian do indeed believe that one has to be resposible for their actions. If a person is caught speeding then that individual has to pay whatever fine is imposed on him. If a person drives a car and is caught for D.U.I. that person has to face those consequences. If that person driving D.U.I. has an accident and the person with whom he has that accident dies, that person will be charged with manslaughter and if found guilty by a jury, will have to serve the sentence which is ultimately imposed. To say that libartarians do not believe in consequences for their actions is simply not correct. There is an obvious difference between libertarians and libertines.

[dustind]

"we are independent thinking people"

Who told you that, your parents, your pastor, or the president?

"conservatives want freedom, and responsibility"

Sure, you want your freedom, you just don't want anyone else to have their freedom.

This is a joke, and not meant to offend any group, or individual.

[stonegarden]

Everybody gets on the Drugs thing when it comes to Libertarians. What you're really describing sounds more like anarchists to me...

That being said I like some of the Libertarian positions. They are Constitutional Constructionists in the extreme. Every right in the Bill of rights is an absolute...

Libertarian Position - I get to have full auto weapons AND all the porno I want!

Conservative View - Full auto weapons good! Porno Bad!

Liberal View - Hooray for porno! Guns are for losers! (unless of course we're talking about NOW, in which case porno is bad bad bad, but oh boy, abortions are wonderful!) By the way this is my very first post here. Hi everybody!

[honeygrl]

"Thought provoking! As in, provoking thoughts about how somebody can so clumsily misrepresent libertarian positions. Are you truly that misinformed? "

That's what I was thinking. I don't know any libertarians that actually smoke pot even though they don't see why it should be illegal.

[spunkets]

Good post.

[Old Mountain man]

Either you are not real bright or just cannot understand that the love of freedom is more important to some of us than love of the Republicrat or Demican party, or even the government of the United States! You probably don't even get it that your own room should be your own room and not the government's playground! And who gives a hoot whether so somebody smokes grass and kills somebody in a car? We all know that NOBODY does that with liquor, a legal substance. Right?

[thoughtomator]

I bow to your eternal wisdom, Holy One.

[thoughtomator]

That was the shortest description of five years of Free Republic I have ever seen! Nice!

[MitchellC]

This is old, but...

do know that some schools are treating homosexuality as a lifestyle no different than heterosexuals, and that they should have the same considerations. Where do "many libertarians" stand on that?

That government-run schools will always have this kind of problem, so long as the nation is made up of people with extremely diverse views on the subject.

[robertpaulsen]

Problem?

I was under the impression that libertarians believed the homosexual lifestyle should be treated no differently than a heterosexual lifestyle. Certainly the Libertarian Party believes that:

"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

So, that brings us back to the original point in post #8. Libertarians may be opposed to the "active promotion" of the homosexual lifestyle by the government, but they don't object to it being promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Correct?

[robertpaulsen]

In post #19 dustind says, "If your actions do not harm anyone else, 'go for it'".

But you say that if I speed or if I drive while intoxicated I can be arrested and have my liberty taken away. Granted, if I harm someone while speeding or while intoxicated, I should be punished.

But if I'm not harming anybody, why should I be arrested?

And if we can write laws which cover behavior that is potentially harmful, the why can't we write laws against drug use?

[jackbob]

Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals, want/don't want freedom and responsibility. Good humor should have a bit of reality attached to it. This one fails, as any combination of characteristics can be accurately applied to any of the titles. Examples given in the article are equally absurd.

If being absurd is the objective, I would then propose, that conservatives want only that freedom that is free, and only if they can sell it at a good price.

Libertarians only want freedom for the property owner, only when he is on his own land.

Liberals want freedom to use everything that is not free, without any regard for those who pay for it.

[jackbob]

I can't think of the type of person who likes No Freedom but all the Responsibility.

Actually, this description best applies to conservatives, as it best balances with the description given liberals by the author. Also a marginal number of liberals would believe it to be true.

[tpaine]

--- you say that if I speed or if I drive while intoxicated I can be arrested and have my liberty taken away.

Granted, if I harm someone while speeding or while intoxicated, I should be punished.
But if I'm not harming anybody, why should I be arrested?

And if we can write laws which cover behavior that is potentially harmful, the why can't we write laws against drug use?
33 -rp-


How many times can you be told, rp?

DUI on a public hiway is a threat to everyone on or near the road.

Getting stoned or intoxicated in private threatens few.
We can handle that risk, rather than violate individual liberty & privacy.
And, -- rather than face the known evils of prohibitions.

Give up your idiocy about trying to regulate the private conduct of your peers.. Why do people think that they need to control others? ---

---- "The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others."

[robertpaulsen]

"Getting stoned or intoxicated in private threatens few."

You cannot guarantee me that a stoned doper is going to stay indoors, no more than I can guarantee you that a speeder won't get into an accident. How can you make such a ridiculous statement?

Just like a DUI or speeder may injure himself or others, so may a person on drugs, indoors or out. Drug users overdose and die. Drug users rob and steal to feed their habit. Drug users are a drain on the medical system.

Now, maybe that's a small percentage of drug users. But it's only a small percentage of licensed and insured (by law) DUI and speeders that harm others.

[tpaine]

You prove my point by ignoring it. Thanks for once again displaying your idiocy.

[Voice in your head]

"Libertarians may be opposed to the "active promotion" of the homosexual lifestyle by the government, but they don't object to it being promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Correct?"

Please clarify the difference between "'active promotion' of the homosexual lifestyle" and "promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle."

I'm not a member of the Libertarian party. My views could be characterized as libertarian, though such labels are always inadequate. My stance on homosexual lifestyle is indifference. I don't care about how other people live their lives, so long as they do not violate the rights of others. I don't care about homosexuality, polygamy, shacking up, traditional marriage, or whatever lifestyles I may have omitted, so long as those lifestyles are between consenting adults. Why do people care about how other people live their lives? I think that we should stop recognizing marriages altogether. The stance that I think our government should have on this issue is, "if you want to get married, go to your church/synagogue/mosque/etc. Don't go to city hall - it is not the government's business."

[jmc813]

You cannot guarantee me that a stoned doper is going to stay indoors, no more than I can guarantee you that a speeder won't get into an accident. How can you make such a ridiculous statement?

You can't guarantee me that a gun owner will keep his guns away from his children. Let's ban 'em.