What are the differences between libertarians and conservatives?

[Intense]

The issue came up in another thread. I thought it deserved it's own.

The result of Chaos and Anarchy. Sticking your head in the sand in the end will result in the same Totalitarianism, our Opponents are heading for. Individual Liberty feeds Freedom. Authority, uncontrolled feeds absolutism, inevitably. The snowball rolling down hill syndrome must be addressed, not ignored.

 

[Intense]

The issue came up in another thread. I thought it deserved it's own.

Libertarians support the Constitution and individual liberty as a matter of PRINCIPLE. We must defend LIBERTY even if doing so makes our candidate unelectable.

.

You have no defense against opposition by ignoring it.

 

[dblack]

The difference between Libertarians and conservatives?

(ignoring the fact that Libertarians ARE conservative)

Libertarians love liberty and the Constitution, want fiscal responsibility, and want the government out of our lives.

Republicans only give lip service to those things.

I don't think libertarians are, necessarily, conservative. At least when it comes to the core meaning of the words, they are more likely to lean liberal. They aren't opposed to change just for the sake of being opposed to change. In fact, they call for quite radical change. And, despite mainstream Democrats, individual freedom is still considered a primary concern of the liberal mindset.

 

[Contumacious]

The issue came up in another thread. I thought it deserved it's own.

The result of Chaos and Anarchy. Sticking your head in the sand in the end will result in the same Totalitarianism, our Opponents are heading for. Individual Liberty feeds Freedom. Authority, uncontrolled feeds absolutism, inevitably. The snowball rolling down hill syndrome must be addressed, not ignored.

I see, so in order to "prevent" anarchy and protecting freedom the conservatives believe in creating a gargantuan tyrannical police state which ignores individual rights .

That my friend is the definition of Orwellian doubletalk.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we are having difficulty understanding the real meaning of these labels?

Perhaps the problem is that we feel we need to LABEL people.

Why do we do this?

Because its easier to label a person than it is to listen to his POV.

We see this kind of stupidty playing out daily on this board.

I don't have any problem with labels so long as these define a perspective is to save us considerable time and trouble to explain ourselves. When I define myself as a modern American conservative, the numbnuts will make absurd statements about it, but at least to other conservatives and intelligent liberals, I have explained pretty much what basis I use to evaluate society and government. I don't have to go through the whole litany of concepts involved.

The problem always comes in definitions, of course, such as the cordial discussion re libertarianism vs conservatism between Law, Kevin, and myself.

 

[Intense]

The issue came up in another thread. I thought it deserved it's own.

The result of Chaos and Anarchy. Sticking your head in the sand in the end will result in the same Totalitarianism, our Opponents are heading for. Individual Liberty feeds Freedom. Authority, uncontrolled feeds absolutism, inevitably. The snowball rolling down hill syndrome must be addressed, not ignored.

I see, so in order to "prevent" anarchy and protecting freedom the conservatives believe in creating a gargantuan tyrannical police state which ignores individual rights .

That my friend is the definition of Orwellian doubletalk.

.

No. Not me. I'm thinking Assertive, not Aggressive. We distinguish between Right and Wrong, and encourage Right Action. We don't ignore Threat. Ignoring Problems does little to rectify and maintain balance, be it World Affairs or Drug Addiction, we can do more than stand by.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives believe in the rule of law, with that law being based on the Constitution.

Libertarians think that the answer to any problem is there should be no law. Hence Ron Paul's fantasy world on how things should work.

It's as simple as that.

I am by no means a Ron Paul supporter, and of ALL the candidates that have announced for President or who might have announced for President, including those still running and those who have dropped out of the race, he would be last on my list. (Though I would still vote for him over Barack Obama.) I completely agree with many of his positions and completely disagree with others.

Ron Paul absolutely does not advocate a lawless society, however. He is a strong advocate to return the Central government to its Constitutional rooots--making him a political conservative. But as most libertarians do, he would tolerate a far more permissive society at more local levels than most Americans would find attractive or acceptable in their pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[dblack]

Ron Paul absolutely does not advocate a lawless society, however. He is a strong advocate to return the Central government to its Constitutional rooots--making him a political conservative. But as most libertarians do, he would tolerate a far more permissive society at more local levels than most Americans would find attractive or acceptable in their pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's accurate in my view, although the libertarian aim (in general) isn't to go "back" to anything - in many ways things were worse "back in the day" - but rather to go forward toward better government and more freedom. That's why, even though there is some overlap, I consider libertarians more liberal in spirit.

I think it's accurate to say that libertarians take freedom and tolerance as a 'prime directive'. More so than modern liberals, certainly more so than conservatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

The result of Chaos and Anarchy. Sticking your head in the sand in the end will result in the same Totalitarianism, our Opponents are heading for. Individual Liberty feeds Freedom. Authority, uncontrolled feeds absolutism, inevitably. The snowball rolling down hill syndrome must be addressed, not ignored.

I see, so in order to "prevent" anarchy and protecting freedom the conservatives believe in creating a gargantuan tyrannical police state which ignores individual rights .

That my friend is the definition of Orwellian doubletalk.

.

No. Not me. I'm thinking Assertive, not Aggressive. We distinguish between Right and Wrong, and encourage Right Action. We don't ignore Threat. Ignoring Problems does little to rectify and maintain balance, be it World Affairs or Drug Addiction, we can do more than stand by.

Exactly. If a Catholic community does not want an abortion clinic, they should be able to collectively decide they don't want an abortion clinic in their community. They are deciding for their own conscience and quality of life, however, and not deciding for anybody else.

If a community doesn't want open saloons or big box stores in their community, they should be able to zone in a way to restrict such. They are deciding for their own aesthetic sensibilities and not deciding for anybody else.

I believe the realistic definitions for these terms as they exist in America today, in their most basic state for each group:

Conservatives don't want blanket rulings about such things made from the federal level or often even from the state level, but in the conservative concept of freedom, people should be allowed to organize themselves into whatever sort of society they wish to have short of violating anybody else's unalienable rights. Mind you that it is not the government deciding such things, but the people themselves who then entrust the government to enforce their bidding.

Libertarians would more often oppose zoning laws or restrictions on what kinds of businesses should go into a community or other components of social contract. They want individual liberty and rights defended and to them that requires a totally open and permissive society. They do not trust government but somehow seem to trust lawyers to protect their rights.

Liberals want a strong central government to assign what rights the people will have everywhere, to deny people the right to restrict what the liberals approve and deny people the right to implement what liberals disapprove.

Both Conservatives and libertarians agree that if property rights are not sacrosanct, there is no freedom. Therefore nobody has any right to our property no matter how great their need unless it is voluntarily given.

Liberals are more likely to see the collective wealth of the people as belonging to all to be distributed as fairly and humanely as possible and give government complete authority to make such decisions.

Conservatives and libertarians understand and embrace a concept of no king or authoritarian government ruling and deciding for the people, but rather a free people governs itself. Their only disagreement is in their somewhat different concepts of what self governance looks like.

Liberals do not trust or tolerate the people governming themselves, but look to government to decide for the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarcho-libertarian, and he refers to what he believes in as a "private law society." They believe in laws, they just don't believe in the state as the enforcer of those laws. And they do believe in inalienable natural rights.

Then he technically isn't an anarchist is he.

Merriam Webster:

Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order.

If one believes in law and enforcement of law, then there must be an authority to do the enforcing. So there is social contract and a government formed even if they don't call it that.

Firstly, I agree with the above, but would like to provide some refinement to the definition of anarchy, albeit in a purist form and is hard to find. And, when found, it probably doesn't look a lot like the definition above.

The only anarchy that is not chaos, as described above, is one where everyone a part of it knows everything there is to know about needs, and does not place wants over them.

As far as the various political parties, under an unconstitutional government, they are used against us and the constitution by dividing us. A large number of the framers felt there should be no political parties for this reason.

Also the Mew Testament takes a pretty strong stand against a 'party spirit' in which each group feels superior to other groups. Conservatism and libertarianism, however, are not political parties in any sense but are basically somewhat different ways of looking at social contract.

Your statement here is interesting: "The only anarchy that is not chaos, as described above, is one where everyone a part of it knows everything there is to know about needs, and does not place wants over them."
What you are describing here is precisely Karl Marx's vision of the ideal society, the core objective of pure communism. Unfortunately, to get to that point, you have to establish an all powerful government to wrest property and privileges from the haves so that the have nots can become haves. Once that is accomplished and the wealth is equally distributed, then the government can be dissolved and everybody will live happily in peace ever after. Anybody who has ever been a member of a family or a business or a club or a neighborhood knows that 100% permissiveness is not the solution to anything.

But the worst part of Marx's concept, one he did not anticipate, is that once that authoritarian government has control, those in government are never willing to voluntarily give it up and will go to great extremes, fair or unfair, ethical or unethical, to retain it. Meanwhile there is no freedom for anybody else.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Most of you haven't the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. At least we have a more clear picture of who the ignoramuses are.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Libertarians are the half wits in the Conservative fold.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I found an online quiz that said I was a libertarian so I went and found this other quiz and took it and it said I am a Classical Liberal. I am have come to my beliefs organically and so I am not as educated in the intricacies of the different ideologies as some of you but I was inspired to go out and read about the different types of libertarianism because of this thread. I do agree that I am a classical liberal based on the wiki definition I read.

I have considered myself conservative because of a strong belief in the value of the constitution as it was written. I believe there has been a subtle shift that over time has brought us away from the original intent. I think modern conservatives tend to be blind to the amount of changes that have been made or they agree with some of them and wish to preserve the status quo with only reverse the other guys agenda. This is one place where I break with them. Another is the use of the military in the geopolitical arena.

I have been struggling with placing a label on myself because I want to be more involved but I am not sure I am willing to commit to any party in particular because I can't see myself adopting a platform that I don't agree with 100%. From what I see of political parties it becomes almost a religion complete with shunning. I have no wish to be involved with that type of group.


edit: Here is the link for the quiz if anyone is interested....

http://www.gotoquiz.com/what_kind_of_libertarian_are_you

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians are the half wits in the Conservative fold.

One could argue that you'd have to be a half wit to think that libertarians are in the "conservative fold."

 

[Decepticon]

I like how all these Ronulans and neo-cons assert "taxation is theft" but hardly a man-jack of them have the balls to NOT pay them.

Sure they can give you a long dissertation of why taxation is theft, then they let themselves be "stolen" from (their words) with nary a peep of dissent.

Taxation is not theft, you asshats.
It's the price of admission to our society. Don't want to pay it? Move to Somalia. No taxes there.


Libertarians are just republicans who want to smoke dope and be able to legally visit prostitutes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I found an online quiz that said I was a libertarian so I went and found this other quiz and took it and it said I am a Classical Liberal. I am have come to my beliefs organically and so I am not as educated in the intricacies of the different ideologies as some of you but I was inspired to go out and read about the different types of libertarianism because of this thread. I do agree that I am a classical liberal based on the wiki definition I read.

I have considered myself conservative because of a strong belief in the value of the constitution as it was written. I believe there has been a subtle shift that over time has brought us away from the original intent. I think modern conservatives tend to be blind to the amount of changes that have been made or they agree with some of them and wish to preserve the status quo with only reverse the other guys agenda. This is one place where I break with them. Another is the use of the military in the geopolitical arena.

I have been struggling with placing a label on myself because I want to be more involved but I am not sure I am willing to commit to any party in particular because I can't see myself adopting a platform that I don't agree with 100%. From what I see of political parties it becomes almost a religion complete with shunning. I have no wish to be involved with that type of group.


edit: Here is the link for the quiz if anyone is interested....

What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Libertarian and Classical Liberals are pretty much interchangeable as 'libertarian' was defined in the late 18th and 19th centuries. But just as the definitions for liberal and conservative, as understood in the USA, has changed over time, so has the definition for libertarianism.

If we could agree on concepts of social contract, however, classical liberal and libertarians are pretty darn close even yet today.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I like how all these Ronulans and neo-cons assert "taxation is theft" but hardly a man-jack of them have the balls to NOT pay them.

Sure they can give you a long dissertation of why taxation is theft, then they let themselves be "stolen" from (their words) with nary a peep of dissent.

Taxation is not theft, you asshats.
It's the price of admission to our society. Don't want to pay it? Move to Somalia. No taxes there.


Libertarians are just republicans who want to smoke dope and be able to legally visit prostitutes.

If someone puts a gun to your head and says to give them all your money would you have the balls to not pay them, or would you turn over your wallet?

 

[Foxfyre]

I like how all these Ronulans and neo-cons assert "taxation is theft" but hardly a man-jack of them have the balls to NOT pay them.

Sure they can give you a long dissertation of why taxation is theft, then they let themselves be "stolen" from (their words) with nary a peep of dissent.

Taxation is not theft, you asshats.
It's the price of admission to our society. Don't want to pay it? Move to Somalia. No taxes there.


Libertarians are just republicans who want to smoke dope and be able to legally visit prostitutes.

If someone puts a gun to your head and says to give them all your money would you have the balls to not pay them, or would you turn over your wallet?

Exactly. The government exacts a heavy price from any who would presume to say 'no' to the tax man. And that reiterates one of the most frustrating things about trying to attempt to debate liberals.

Conservative/liberatarian: I object to having my property that I ethically and honorably acquired confiscated on behalf of those who chose to not educate themselves, not prosper, not earn their living. To a free people that respects unalienable right to the fruit of one's labor, that is tantamount to theft.

Liberal: Conservatives/libertarians think taxation is theft.

How do you have a reasonable discussion in the fact that that kind of dynamic?

 

[Skull Pilot]

conservatives don't want federal government to be a nanny state, but have no issue when a state becomes one. See abortion, drugs, gay marriage.

Conservatives in general say they are for small government but their actions always contradict their words

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The issue came up in another thread. I thought it deserved it's own.

The simple difference is social issues.

Conservatives and Libertarians beleive govt is not the answer and the best govt is the smallest govt possible.

However, conservatives wish to impose certain social standards that liberarians don't take as issues. For example I am a libertarian and I don't like abortion but I believe that a woman should be able to make that choice herself. A conservative would like to make abortion illegal in all but extreme instances.