Liberal, Conservatives, and Libertarians...

[ihopehefails]

Is there really a difference between these political philosophy when you separate the progressive idealogy from them? I'm convinced that once you take the communist out of all of these groups that all of these groups will probably find a lot of common ground with each other.

 

[LuckyDan]

I think it's a question of valuing liberty vs valuing equality. So many liberals, progressive or more traditional, tend to see any inequality as something to be corrected through governmental action with the goal being the improvement of the social order. They are big on class differences.

Conservatives remain suspicious of government involvement and see it as an encroachment on liberty, while understanding there will be inevitable disparities.

Then there are the cutting edge issues, like abortion, taxes, the role of the US in world affairs. These tend to break down along liberal and conservative beliefs. Removing progressives from the spectrum wouldn't change the nature of discourse all that much.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The OP asks a stupid question. Liberalism and Libertarianism are ideologies. 'Conservatism' refers to no ideology, only support for the current or old system, whatever it might be.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Oh my!

 

[ihopehefails]

The OP asks a stupid question. Liberalism and Libertarianism are ideologies. 'Conservatism' refers to no ideology, only support for the current or old system, whatever it might be.

I'm beginning to see the difference between democrats and democrats and republicans and republicans. Some democrats are full blown communist while some conservatives are just as communist in other ways Ronald Reagen and Blue Dog democrats can probably agree with each other politically.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Is there really a difference between these political philosophy when you separate the progressive idealogy from them? I'm convinced that once you take the communist out of all of these groups that all of these groups will probably find a lot of common ground with each other.

If you take the progressive out of each group you end up with real american values that they all share. IMO There are very few, if any, progressives in the libertarian ranks....the tenants of libertarianism run counter to progressivism.

 

[johnrocks]

I look at it less and less as right vs. left or lib vs. con and more at liberty/free markets vs. statism/corporatism/tyranny , both left and right want bigger government, just a different type, even some of the "State's Rights" people seem to be ok with power at the state level and state/local government can be just as abusive;if not more so; as the Federal govt.

 

[MIPS]

Is there really a difference between these political philosophy when you separate the progressive idealogy from them? I'm convinced that once you take the communist out of all of these groups that all of these groups will probably find a lot of common ground with each other.

Sorry ihopehefails but you're in need of some significant edification with respect to political philosophy if you believe that progressives and libertarians have anything in common from a philosophical standpoint. As far as liberalism goes the word has been so bastardized by American Progressives that it has lost nearly all of it's original meaning and had it's history made murky by progressive historical revisionism.

The specifics of conservatism as a philosophy are even murkier because it depends on who you talk to and where they are coming from, for example European "Conservatives" often have a very different outlook than American "Conservatives", while (American) "Southern" Conservatives often have very different priorities than (American) "Paleo" Conservatives. Of course this confusion isn't helped by the fact that libertarians often get lumped in with conservatives in the popular lexicon as well (when in fact libertarians are closer kin to true (classical) liberals).

I suggest you start here, should illuminate some of these points for you.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266437238&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Libertarianism: A Primer (9780684847689): David Boaz: Books[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What is The Libertarian Party? www.lp.com
The Libertarian Party is my representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual.

America's Heritage:
Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren.

Free and Independent:
Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.

Caring For People:
The Libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential.

Principled; Consistent:
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.

Tolerant:
The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

 

[MIPS]

What is The Libertarian Party? www.lp.com
The Libertarian Party is my representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual.

America's Heritage:
Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren.

Free and Independent:
Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.

Caring For People:
The Libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential.

Principled; Consistent:
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.

Tolerant:
The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

Don't confuse the Libertarian Party with libertarians, while I find the LP in some ways a good organization (having working extensively on campaigns for state and local LP candidates with many positive experiences), the National Party tends to be a bit schizophrenic and confrontational.

 

[Annie]

The OP segues with something I was just reading:

Pajamas Media GOP Risks Being Swept Away Unless They Adopt Tea Party Principles Print

GOP Risks Being Swept Away Unless They Adopt Tea Party Principles
Posted By William T. Quick On February 17, 2010

In a recent blog post I wrote [1]:

If the GOP cannot find some way to align itself with the Tea Party and its ethos, then it will be swept away.​

This contention, as well as the title of the post — “Tea Party Versus Socialist Party” — generated a fair amount of discussion, requiring, I think, further elaboration on the ideas involved...

...Today the heart of the Democrat Party stands exposed as beating to a socialist drummer. The party no longer has a “conservative” wing in any meaningful sense, and as such, would easily fit into any European-style “center-left” designation, an appellation best translated as “socialist but not doctrinaire Marxist.”

The GOP has not yet decided what sort of blood runs through its own veins, which brings us to my contention that if it continues to resist the tea parties, if it continues its business-as-usual policies of endorsing and supporting candidates who are noxious to tea party principles, then it will be swept away. It will force the tea partiers into the formation of a third party that could guarantee Democrat domination for a generation unless the tea party movement supplants the GOP, much as the GOP supplanted the Whigs 160 years ago.

One of the biggest problems in American politics is the blurring of principle inherent in the strategies of both major parties. The Democrats pretend to a conservatism they actually loathe, but which inattentive voters think the party supports. That faux conservatism is, of course, never actually translated into legislation, the bulk of which is almost uniformly socialist in nature. The GOP, on the other hand, pushes legislation only somewhat less socialist — or statist, if you will — than the Democrats, on the toxic notion that their base has nowhere to go, so the leadership is free to enter into a legislative bidding war for votes beyond the base. This ends up giving the American electorate a choice between a socialist party and a “not quite as socialist” party.

America would enjoy a much healthier and more vigorous politics if the tea parties either become the dominant force in the GOP or sweep it away entirely, so that for the first time in at least a hundred years Americans are given a clear-cut choice between a socialist (Democrat) party and a liberty-minded, fiscally responsible party that is represented by the tea party movement. At the end of the day the names don’t matter so much, but the policies and principles certainly do.

 

[ihopehefails]

Is there really a difference between these political philosophy when you separate the progressive idealogy from them? I'm convinced that once you take the communist out of all of these groups that all of these groups will probably find a lot of common ground with each other.

Sorry ihopehefails but you're in need of some significant edification with respect to political philosophy if you believe that progressives and libertarians have anything in common from a philosophical standpoint. As far as liberalism goes the word has been so bastardized by American Progressives that it has lost nearly all of it's original meaning and had it's history made murky by progressive historical revisionism.

The specifics of conservatism as a philosophy are even murkier because it depends on who you talk to and where they are coming from, for example European "Conservatives" often have a very different outlook than American "Conservatives", while (American) "Southern" Conservatives often have very different priorities than (American) "Paleo" Conservatives. Of course this confusion isn't helped by the fact that libertarians often get lumped in with conservatives in the popular lexicon as well (when in fact libertarians are closer kin to true (classical) liberals).

I suggest you start here, should illuminate some of these points for you.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266437238&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Libertarianism: A Primer (9780684847689): David Boaz: Books[/ame]

I've notice that some people who call themselves libertarians are really liberals trying to shed off their liberal identity yet still say the same thing as before. That is why the entire system is plagued with progressivism in some form.

 

[ihopehefails]

The OP segues with something I was just reading:

Pajamas Media GOP Risks Being Swept Away Unless They Adopt Tea Party Principles Print

GOP Risks Being Swept Away Unless They Adopt Tea Party Principles
Posted By William T. Quick On February 17, 2010

In a recent blog post I wrote [1]:

If the GOP cannot find some way to align itself with the Tea Party and its ethos, then it will be swept away.​

This contention, as well as the title of the post — “Tea Party Versus Socialist Party” — generated a fair amount of discussion, requiring, I think, further elaboration on the ideas involved...

...Today the heart of the Democrat Party stands exposed as beating to a socialist drummer. The party no longer has a “conservative” wing in any meaningful sense, and as such, would easily fit into any European-style “center-left” designation, an appellation best translated as “socialist but not doctrinaire Marxist.”

The GOP has not yet decided what sort of blood runs through its own veins, which brings us to my contention that if it continues to resist the tea parties, if it continues its business-as-usual policies of endorsing and supporting candidates who are noxious to tea party principles, then it will be swept away. It will force the tea partiers into the formation of a third party that could guarantee Democrat domination for a generation unless the tea party movement supplants the GOP, much as the GOP supplanted the Whigs 160 years ago.

One of the biggest problems in American politics is the blurring of principle inherent in the strategies of both major parties. The Democrats pretend to a conservatism they actually loathe, but which inattentive voters think the party supports. That faux conservatism is, of course, never actually translated into legislation, the bulk of which is almost uniformly socialist in nature. The GOP, on the other hand, pushes legislation only somewhat less socialist — or statist, if you will — than the Democrats, on the toxic notion that their base has nowhere to go, so the leadership is free to enter into a legislative bidding war for votes beyond the base. This ends up giving the American electorate a choice between a socialist party and a “not quite as socialist” party.

America would enjoy a much healthier and more vigorous politics if the tea parties either become the dominant force in the GOP or sweep it away entirely, so that for the first time in at least a hundred years Americans are given a clear-cut choice between a socialist (Democrat) party and a liberty-minded, fiscally responsible party that is represented by the tea party movement. At the end of the day the names don’t matter so much, but the policies and principles certainly do.

I agree. I hate republicans because most of them are inactive but Tparty people are pretty demanding about what they want. This kind of political activity is non-existenct with most republicans because most of them are happy with the status quo. I look at them as dead weight and wish they would just go away if they are not going to help.