Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

Good for you sadly there are those who do.

 

How ever were you saved?

 

And bakeries fit that standard?

 

My past reading of the difference between the "Big L Libertarian" and the "Small l libertarian" has been that the Big L denotes someone that actually belongs to the party, while the little l denotes someone who is inclined to libertarian ideals and beliefs but doesn't belong to the party. I don't think this is a good way to differentiate between libertarians generally because there are so many varieties, the only commonality being that they want less government than they have now. Libertarians like Tom Woods, Robert Murphy and Walter Block (the mises.org crowd) describe anyone who believes in the Non-Agression Principle (NAP) as libertarian and anyone who tolerates the initiation of force in any form as not libertarian. This is the definition I prefer as well.

I don't think being skeptical of government borders or preferring private ownership of property to government or common ownership of property is an ideological "hole". I recognize that in the current environment, with most of the country owned by government borders are necessary. In the event of a more libertarian private ownership society there wouldn't be any publicly owned property and a government border wouldn't be necessary.

 

Things just clicked economically, the more I read. Ironically, when I was a young, like 10-13 years old, I was drawn to libertarian principles first. But later became a liberal progressive, primarily due to emotions, (I do care for people after all), but when I read more, and started to think more logically, I made the return back to my former initial libertarian principles. All it takes, is a little open mindedness, something that we don't have in politics today.

 

It looks as though you are STILL unable to say whether or not bakeries fit your 'harm' standard. That's what I thought.

 

Yeah well, there's always going to be that. I don't know where you want to go with this, but have you thought it through? For example, I learned to discriminate based upon lots of things, such as race, religion, age, gender for many very good reasons.

sorry, but... it's my investment and I'll decide who I want to do business with. You can say that it's illegal, and yeah, but you just learn how to work around that by silently discriinating. It's only against the law if it's spoken out loud.

 

Your definition of discrimination is different than the legal definition. Just because someone prefers blondes over brunettes does not fit the legal definition of discrimination.

The question being addressed was whether or not discrimination for a business should be legal. Should a business .. be it private or public .. have the right to refuse service based on the discriminatory whim of the provider.

If you say Yes .. then I say that the power company should also be able to deny service on the whim of some individual provider - in particular .. it should discriminate - on the basis of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have done to you - Treat others as you would be treated.

So the power company should the deny service to the businesses that chose to discriminate.

 

What is your line of work?

 

What do you mean "some individual provider?"

 

Actually I think there are more differences than just the party affiliation. Big "L" libertarians tend to be as authoritarian as any other ideology in their demands that the law adhere to THEIR principles and ideals and they are willing to use the central government and/or the courts to achieve that.

Small "L" libertarians are the classical liberals of the Founders' time who wanted the federal government to have absolutely no say in who they were allowed to be, what they were allowed to think, believe, profess, express, or interfere with their ability to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. If they wanted a strict, judgmental, narrow minded theocracy, they could have that. If they wanted pretty much a total anarchy in a lawless and wide open community such as say Deadwood, they could have that.

They wisely believed though, that a religious/morally centered people, given freedom to choose for themselves, would choose a law and order community that recognized and protected individual rights. And they were right as all the little theocracies voluntarily dissolved themselves by the end of the 18th Century, and the lawless frontier towns that would spring up would all eventually voluntarily tame themselves and adopt law and order and keeping the peace as the norm.

 

It was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that played a major role in bringing Law and Order to those frontier towns.

 

The problem is that without a government border, there is very little that can be done to protect individual property rights. It'll be you and your neighbors against whoever wants your stuff, and that can easily mean an entire army. That protection is why governments were seen as necessary ever since the agricultural revolution.

 

The FBI was established in 1908. Those frontier towns tamed themselves long before that.

 

Nope!

Outlaws and bank robbers were still very common in those frontier towns especially through the gangster era that was only eventually ended by the FBI.

https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/robberies/history-of-bank-robberies/

 

Using your big "L" definition I think you're still misreading what that group's goals are. Those Libertarians that are active in government are merely recognizing the reality that government is involved in every aspect of life and politics at every level from the individual to the national and corporate. In order to allow a libertarian society to exist there needs to be less authoritarian government and the only way to achieve that is through the legal/political systems that are in place now. Should they achieve their goals of reducing government to the minimal "Night Watchman" State they believe is necessary, that would leave anyone free to have any kind of voluntary society or culture they want. If a group wants to institute socialism within their group the Libertarians wouldn't (couldn't) stop them. If a group of people wanted to go to the most fascist or communist extremes, in a Libertarian environment where the State doesn't have the power to dictate what kind of society or rules you have within your group you can have whatever kind of structure you want. I don't see how any libertarian, either big or little L, could be considered authoritarian if their objective is to reduce the use of government force and leave people free to engage in whatever kind of society they choose on a voluntary, community or individual basis.

 

Any people with a common interest can come together and organize to meet an objective. What can the government do that a private land owner can't do on his property? I can shoot trespassers if I need to to protect my property. I can hire guards to shoot trespassers for me if that is necessary. My neighbors and I can hire a company to patrol our land, maintain our fences and repel trespassers. If everyone on the border with Mexico hired defense services to protect their private borders I suspect the private company would do a better job than the government ever did at that function. If the private company failed to protect your land you can fire them. You can't fire the border patrol or require them to protect your land.

 

I am all for government allowing the people to form whatever society they want to have short of violating the rights of others. The problem with big "L" is that far too many of that ideology would not allow the people to form, for example, a conservative religious community with strict 'puritan' laws if they wanted that. And they would do away with borders and any form of restrictions based on moral values. We have no liberty when any group demands that we do it the way THEY want it and nothing else is acceptable.

 

I don't agree with your "Problem". There is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents people from getting together ... forming a commune - and observing strict puritan laws.

The problem is when these Puritans try to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). It is allowing Gov't to mess with the individual liberty of others that Libertarians are against.

 

Freedom for who? It has taken Blacks, women, and gays a long time to achieve that freedom. Even Jews and non-believers have only recently acheived parity, freedom and rights wise, as Christians.

 

I do not see your concern. Most big L Libertarians tend to be rather religious. Many want the government to prevent abortions. A Libertarian ruled area would be a conservative Christian hell hole.

 

I've never met a libertarian who espouses what you're saying here. I know of many who are athiests but none who would restrict any people from behaving in any way they wanted, including religious laws, as long as those laws didn't infringe the rights of the individual. Of course that means whatever rules/laws a group enacted would only apply to those adherents who were part of that group and not to the rest of the population that didn't agree to those rules or want to participate in that community. That would work pretty much like churches and civic organizations work today. Members of the Lions Club agree to pay whatever dues and follow whatever rules and laws the club has. Nobody is suggesting that the Lions Club or the Baptist Church wouldn't be allowed to run their organization as they see fit.

 

Agreed.

We have fallen so low, that we just one election cycle away, from the federal government being able to declare the elimination of private health care insurance for all American citizens, and forcing us to provide free health care, free education, and free social welfare services to people residing in our country illegally, in violation of our immigration laws. Not to mention, the people being taxed into poverty to pay for all the "free" stuff the Democrat controlled government would write into law.

 

Our young people are being taught in the public schools and in the universities that our history is evil, our original goals for this great nation ridiculous or inspired by the racist rich or some such, that European nations are superior to us, and that government is the answer to all problems. They are not being taught Constitutions or the principles that undergird it, respect for the flag and National Anthem, tolerance for those of faith or traditional values, etc. etc. etc.

Which of course the methods of the totalitarian phase of Marxism--a totalitarianism that is never voluntarily relinquished once achieved--are to disarm the citizenry, abolish religion and tradition, abolish property rights, and control the press, speech, and means of production.

Those of us who are students of history see those trends in progress. If we do not stop it, it could happen and probably will.

 

Remember, in the definitions I use Libertarian (large "L") is a very different animal from libertarian (small "L"). The ACLU representing the large "L" Libertarians has amassed a small fortune in suing or threatening to sue towns, villages, etc. to force them to remove religious symbols and traditions. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian (large "L") candidate for President in 2016 advocated forcing everyone to legalize recreational drugs and to have open borders and was much opposed to allowing that historical old creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas. In other words Libertarians (large "L") would use the government to create the kind of world they want to have just as much as the most radical liberal or the most authoritarian conservative. All would be wrong to do that.

The libertarians (small "L") are among those who support the constitutional concept of the central government providing the common defense and securing our rights--i.e. doing only what the states or local governments cannot do more efficiently and effectively--and having sufficient protections in place to allow us to function as one nation without doing physical or economic violence to each other. Otherwise the central government was supposed to leave everyone alone to live as they choose. If a state wants to be a little theocracy, they have the constitutional right to be that. If a state wants complete anarchy, they have the constitutional right to be that. However, the Founders in their wisdom trusted a free people to get it more right than wrong, and their faith in that turned out to be pretty darn well placed.