Why libertarianism isn't conservatism

I respectfully disagree with you on a couple points, Mike.

First of all, I think most libertarians believe that the individual freedom and rights that they embrace are inherent in their being and nature, so I don't think it can be said that libertarians don't believe in human nature.

Second, I think most libertarians believe that the source of their freedom, rights and philosophy is in their being and nature, not economics. As far as those libertarians are concerned, economic freedom/rights are part of and inseparable from their inherent individual rights but not the source.

Incidentally, if you have the time and inclination, I'd be interested to hear your definition of conservatism.

 

I'll make you a deal I'll ignore you. Bye now .

 

Actually, corporate personhood was a liberal wet dream because it allowed them to tax corporations.

 

I will continue to point out nonsensical posts.

 

Thank you... glad someone knows the actual definition of fascism

 

I think you are confusing the philosophy of libertarianism (which as I previously stated is simply the antithesis of authoritarianism) with the Libertarian Party. Lower case 'l' v capital 'L.'

The context of the OP makes this discussion about the former. The Libertarian Party is not necessarily comprised of libertarians...

 

Well that is a given, as those fun labels apply to most male politicians and other poweful men.

 

That's inaccurate.

Some rights were assigned to corporations in America as early as 1819. The courts didn't grant full rights until 1886. Taxes on corporations didn't begin around 1910, some 25 years later.

The fact is that large corporations little tax (which is fine by me- they shouldn't be taxed at all) the legal rights of campaign contributions, and the ability to lobby is all something conservatives love. The the "high tide lifts all ships" philosophy is a fallacy, and it is because of corporations and crony capitalism why people get super rich and super powerful in ways they wouldn't otherwise be able to.

 

Bill Clinton comes to mind immediately. Worse than Trump ever was.

 

Trump did not push any policy that DP leaders had not embraced within a decade of his election.
"lue-blooded Manhattan socialite"s reject Trump as a rube from Queens and will never forgive him for immigrating to Manhattan.

I suppose sending the feds in to stop rioters from burning that Portland courthouse could be described as "authoritarian" - foolish would be more accurate.

 

Joe "Sniffy McFingers" Biden, Andy Cuomo, Tony Wiener, Gary Hart, Al Franken, Trent Franks, John Conyers, Roy Moore, Barney Frank, Bob Packwood (I mean come on with a name like 'Packwood' LOL), Gary Condit, Mark Foley, Larry "tap tap" Craig, Denny Hastert... to name a few. The dalliances cross political, racial, and orientational lines... All the way back to Ghengis Khan, powerful men take liberties.

 

Myself, I don't love it. Powerful corporations cause change. I oppose change as a conservative.

 

It is plain English.

An opinion I certainly do not share.

The size, cost, intrusiveness, incompetece and corrpution of federal government. They haven't explained that to you?

We agree there. There is no point in passing a law and then not enforcing it. It is clear incompetence, one of the things I mentioned above.

If that was a question then it is a silly one.

Certainly correct. For instance, I am not a libertarian.

And huge, expensive, intrusive, incompetent, corrupt government.

As you certainly understand there is no agreement on what is best for society.

I see all political parties that way because they are all ideological. Ideology trumps common sense every time.

 

I never gave libertarianism much thought. I was around when Goldwater ran, his brand of conservatism, traditional conservatism. I describe myself as a Goldwater conservative with some of Perot thrown in. At one time Barry was considered the father of modern day conservatism. Now most conservative call him a libertarian. He certainly wasn't a social or religious conservative which abound today nor would I call him a neo-conservative.

Barry once said in reference to gays in the military, "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight." I think he'd be all in favor of gay marriage. He was also in favor of a woman's right to choose and once told Reagan to get rid of those religious zealots as they'd be the ruin of the Republican Party. Goldwater was also a strict Constitutionalist. I think keeping government out of a citizen private business and lives as paramount to him.

I'll just say this, conservatism sure has changed from Barry's time to today. Back then conservatives believed in being fiscal responsible. Making ends meet. Today, fiscal conservatism means only low taxes, but spending like a wild whore. If one had to cut spending to makes ends meet, do it. If one had to raise taxes to make ends meet, do it. Usually it involved both.

So I guess all I'm saying is I'm at a lost to what exactly conservatism is these days. It's certainly not traditional conservatism that I once knew or what the Republican Party stood for.

 

Very simple start on what is "conservatism:"

 

Natural rights are an enlightenment concept that make sense if you have a divine precursor to establish those rights in nature. This is an easy leap for most of the founders who believed in some sort of god or another and thought that man was a special being. You could write a book on this, but the idea that man could deal directly with God and the state is a post reformation concept, and the Enlightment was born (among many other things) from the reformation.

Libertarians are almost all atheists and all of the writing that forms the backbone of their philosophy are from atheist writers, so although they can parrot "natural law" as a basis for liberty, they don't really believe in it since in a strictly materialistic universe, there is no such basis for such a law, and nothing that would make freedom an actual "unalienable right." That has nothing to do with what I mentioned in my post about human nature. That was really not about freedom but about how libertarians, marxists, and other assorted leftists think the world works and how it differs with how conservatives view it. Leftists and libertarians all believe in "Economic Man" and think the proper incentives are all that's needed to direct people. Decades of social program failure doesn't speak to the success of that viewpoint.

As far as my definition of conservatism, I already posted one of G.K. Chesterson's maxims of conservatism on post #92. That simple pithy statement covers a lot. For more detail, Russell Kirk laid out ten conservative principles that are a pretty good guide.

 

It's the other way 'round, friend.

 

In my view, natural rights derive from the fact that we breathe air and walk erect.

Source? Thank you.

Please see my comment above re the origin of natural rights. Are you suggesting it's not possible for rational people of goodwill to recognize the personal autonomy of their fellows without some "higher power"??

Please explain how libertarianism -- which is, as I have stated above, simply the antithes of authoritarianism -- conforms to your comment above and your conflation with Marxism. For these purposes, Marxism is the ultimate expression of authoritarianism, tyranny of the minority.

No person who would advocate "decades of social programs" can correctly be called a libertarian. Social programs -- or other forms of state austerity or incentive -- are comprised of the state's monopoly on violence. A libertarian who would advocate force to create a desired social outcome is not a libertarian, rather its direct oppsite: the authoritarian as I have already identified in my thesis.

 

I like your quote, not sure how it supports conservatRumpisim.

 

It's nice to see someone else ina thread that understands the concept of libertarianism for a change.

 

Well that's your view, but if they are so natural, why has the norm been forms of government that ignored "natural rights?" Historically speaking, it's a new concept.

The world is made up of only a tiny minority of "people of goodwill." They aren't the ones who decide whether you have rights or end up dead in a trench.

See my post #5.

I wasn't arguing that libertarians support social programs! Oh boy...only that they don't work because people don't behave like libertarians and Marxists think they should.

 

Is this thread about "conservatRumpisim?" My posts have not addressed "conservatRumpisim."

 

The true meaning of liberty means freedom from the bondage of sin, but then libertarians pervert those words to meet their own selfish and destructive agenda.

Drug addicts, homosexuals, pornographers and prostitutes don't fit into that definition.

I think what you mean is that "man's natural condition is to sin", which is why God created 3 institutions for the governance of man: the family, civil government and the Church.

 

Again: If the life long libertarians that wrote the Libertarian Party Platform (Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, etc.) got libertarianism wrong, then please explain where they went wrong.

 

Human thinking evolves. The fact that various forms of government throughout history that have been hostile to your natural rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

Interesting. You've literally just summarized The Communist Manifesto in one sentence.

You're right. Those would be the authoritarians. Whom through brutality or the extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds developed the charisma necessary to convince a lot of people to waive their natural rights... in exchange for promises of safety and security, of course. You know, for their own good.

Disagree.

My mistake. I stand corrected.

You're painting with to broad a brush to make a convincing argument here.