Why libertarianism isn't conservatism

If conservatism isn't based on Judeo-Christian doctrine (thou shalt not murder your own baby in the womb, engage in immoral and perverse sex acts, get high on drugs, etc. etc.) what is the basis of conservatism?

Yeah, a surveillance camera in every business and practically every street corner kinda sorta implies that those cameras are there because of crime.

Yet failed libertarian social policies bring about the welfare state. Surely you don't expect a homosexual with AIDS or a junkie to be able to hold down a job and pay their way do you? You might expect them to, but in the real world the welfare state takes care of them.

Except that more police (and as shown in the video above) are needed because those immoral and destructive behaviors (recreational drug use, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are either legal, decriminalized, or just aren't being enforced by the police.

A Christian church is a good example. Are police and surveillance cameras needed in a Church for fear of it's congregation shooting up the place and stealing from one another?

"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
-Robert Charles Winthrop

 

Actually the Libertarian Party Platform does:

1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

Platform | Libertarian Party (lp.org)

 

Liberty is directly-proportional to personal responsibility: Individuals who accept the deep burden of personal responsibility will behave ethically toward their fellows and do not need the government nanny to be their moral compass. Those who do not will find the heavy hand of government very much a part of their daily lives. Since man's natural condition is that of liberty, in my view the former is vastly preferable to the latter.

 

You are confusing the Libertarian party with the philosophy of libertarianism.

 

I was talking about my post.

 

I made it clear I was uncertain on this point, and invited comments to the contrary. Thank you.

When I was in the Navy, we were told the Navy's primary mission was to 'keep the sea lanes open', and that, obviously, can only be done with a global strategy.

 

If people were as good as they demand that everyone believe they are, they would be taking care of those problems as communities, in their communities, and we would not need any career overseers making everyone else pay for problems their social dogma creates.

 

Libertarians are technically "moderate" on the left-right spectrum, but only by averaging things out. The most simple way to put it is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarians generally align with conservatives because they care more about money than the rights of people unlike themselves, being usually above-average income and white. And then there's the christian influence which makes them more libertarian-leaning conservatives. I was a liberal libertarian in high school, i.e. I aligned with liberals because I cared more about the rights of others than money - convenient since I had none of my own at the time.

 

"less or small government' is a meaningless soundbite.

If you add up all the government buildings and employees thereby, in relation to the US as a whole, the government isn't actually that big.

Well, if it isn't that big, really, then what are libertarians and conservatives talking about?

They are talking about laws. Too many laws. But the problem with that logic is that enforcement agencies never enforce every law that is written .

Where the argument does have meaning is in areas such as Construction, where getting permits and building codes is a veritable nightmare. Same is true for pharmacists, who spend their days and nights filling out paper work. I'm are there are other areas on society where reform is warranted.

But one doesn't have be a libertarian to agree with our need for reform in areas that really need it.

So what is left? All that is left is ideology.

Well, as a dem, I argue that we should discard all ideology in any approach to governance and just go with what is just for society, on the whole.

i see libertarians so dominated by their ideology they wind up supporting wacky ideas, like pulling out from all bases in the world. Is that a good idea? I don't know, but I won't assume it is based on an ideology. They want to end all entitlements and relegate the function to charity. That's wacko, as I explained elsewhere Thing is, their ideology leads them to some bizarre policies.

 

Heh, that's been my observation as well!

 

Libertarianism is not an ideology, it is simply the antithesis of authoritarianism. Philosophically, it posits that the citizen exists above the state, whereas authoritarianism is its converse. Of course in a complex dynamic society like ours, these distinctions are matters of degree. Wyoming, for example, exhibits far greater libertarian tendencies than, California. The libertarian state will exert less force on the citizen than the authoritarian one.

 

Social Conservatism is based on Judeo Christian doctrine, and no one is claiming otherwise. Social Conservatism however does not define the whole of Conservatism. You are wholly ignoring the notion of fiscal Conservatism.

There are a number of ways to define Conservatism, but a quick google search reveals the following 7 tenets of Conservatism. While they are not the last word on the subject, it is most certainly an objective and honest attempt by that author to define the concept.
1.Individual Freedom
2. Limited Government
3.The rule of law
4. Peace through Strength
5.Fiscal Responsibility
6. Free Markets
7. Human Dignity

While looking at that list numbers 3 and 7 are primarily about Judeo Christian values and the remainder are primarily about fiscal Conservatism. I am in no way denying the influence of Judeo Christian values upon Social Conservatism, rather I am correctly recognizing its influence while also correctly recognizing that fiscal Conservatism is not dependant upon Social Conservatism, regardless if one can argue that some social Conservative principles can help to support fiscal Conservatism.

Obviously you are a Social Conservative, but that does not mean that Fiscal Conservatism does not exist or that it is somehow subservient to Social Conservatism. I personally despise your brand of political sanctimony, but in order to promote my fiscal Conservative desires, I am happy that we both tend to vote for the same people. That is the entire concept behind big tent politics.

Once again, the notion of bigger or smaller government is about large sweeping governmental policy, not about tiny micro instances of adding a government official here and there to support or enforce a particular rule or government initiative. Conservatives and Liberals require government officials to enforce their political desires

While you are fundamentally trying to argue that prostitution, pornography etc leads to more crime which leads to more police officers, technically, those police officers are there to enforce laws. If those laws did not exist, those police would NOT be required. If prostitution was all of a sudden legal, there would not be a need for vice cops.

I am going to remind you once more that I am not Libertarian and do not have a dog in this fight. I am merely arguing against the sanctimony that you are pushing where you think that Social Conservatives somehow have sole ownership of the whole of Conservatism.

Surely you do not believe that you can legislate away homosexuals catching AIDS or the existence of junkies? In the real world, the government has shown a shocking inability to have even a modest impact on such actions.

I have already addressed this concept. Look up.

I seem to recall some very notable examples of Christian churches being shot up. Regardless, if your position is that Christians by in large commit less crime, you will not get an argument from me. I am not sure however how that reality in your mind promotes your position about what does and what does not represent Conservatism.

Rather than formulating a cohesive argument in your post, it seems to me like it is moreso a disjointed rant.

 

I'm not sure how libertarians "don't care about the rights of others" as you claim. Please clarify. Thank you.

 

Sad to see, but not my call to make what a person puts in their body.

 

This part of your post tells me everything I need to know right now. You aren't here to discuss or debate, you're here to elicit a response and nothing more. That's a waste of time.

If you wish to actually have a discussion sometime we may. Until then, I'd recommend you study further libertarianism because you really don't understand it. I'd recommend "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto..." by Murray N. Rothbard.

 

Truth

 

I've heard libertarians called "dope smokers who want to own guns"

 

I don't know about Libertarians, but what is Conservatism? Looks to me that they only have one issue, one plank, one goal ... Donald Judas tRump and whatever he wants on the day he wants it. : disbelief:

 

It looks like YOU only have one issue.

For crying out loud I cannot think of a thread that would have less to do with Trump than this one, but you have somehow managed to turn even this into a Trump discussion. When one is a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail. You represent the very apex of TDS.

 

Trump is not a conservative, however: He is a corporatist authoritarian and a blue-blooded Manhattan socialite.

 

Thanks!

When one can count to one it makes me wonder about big number skills, like 2 and 3? But that's what tRump devotion sickness seem to have done to you.

 

It was not a compliment in any manner, but your steadfast belief that it was only serves to further my point.

 

The terms are all screwed up and the parties are led by corporate shills.

The Libertarian Party tends to support things like restricting firearms and allow the overburdenning of the nations social safety nets with economic migration (directly in line with the socialist agenda commonly known as the Cloward and Piven strategy), while libertarians tend to promote the right to armed self defense and preventing the social safety nets from luring in economic migrants before openning the borders to free migration and so the bulk of libertarians don't support the Libertarian Party.

The Republican Party mostly has the proper rhetoric to line up with republican values (which focus around adhering to constitutional rule of law and preserving individual freedom), but in practice it tends to just pretend to oppose collectivist authoritarian policy but usually ends up supporting it when it comes times to vote in congress, leaving most republicans to refer to the Party's leadership as 'RINOs' ...while continuing to vote for them all the same.

The Democratic Party has of late been all about allowing mega corporations to guide policy (which is what fascism technically is) more than 'the people' and while democrats don't like it, they like it better than anything that seems 'Trumpy'.

 

You left out the more fun labels: cheat, con man, liar, misogynist ...

 

They are a 3rd party in a 2 party system. They need to align themselves with one side or the other to be relevant. They believe in freedom from government power, and the conservatives mostly fit their needs on fiscal policy while liberals are a better fit on most social policies (drugs, gays, death penalty, immigration, most things except guns, they were not united on abortion back when I was one). They choose conservatives and in so doing choose being taxed less over protecting other people’s rights from conservative social policies.