Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

[Dante]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Daaaaannntttteeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!

'scuse me carry on

 

[Mr. H.]

I think you can't teach old dogma new tricks.

 

[Hossfly]

I think you can't teach old dogma new tricks.

My dogma can whip your dogma.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

"[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com

In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.

 

[Mr. H.]

I think you can't teach old dogma new tricks.

My dogma can whip your dogma.

My dogma done died giving pup birth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatism and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

Well, unlike Liberalism, they don't totally consist of bullshit. Carry on.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

It took me forever to housebreak my dogma.

 

[Dante]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatism and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

Well, unlike Liberalism, they don't totally consist of bullshit. Carry on.

You being a resident expert on bs, your expertise should be taken into consideration

 

[Dante]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

"[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com

In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.

My gawd, the Rockwell Dogma rears it's ugly head? LOL

The 'non-aggression' - ahem -- principle is nothing but bs warmed over and served up as something new. Going back into the history of Rockwell and the influences on him and that site will tell an interesting story. Trace it back.

 

[Dante]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

Yet none of the resident Libertarians nor the resident clowns have bothered to ask just whom this "founding father of modern conservatism" and this "leading Libertarian intellectual" are? Hmm...par for teh course.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

"[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com

In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.

My gawd, the Rockwell Dogma rears it's ugly head? LOL

The 'non-aggression' - ahem -- principle is nothing but bs warmed over and served up as something new. Going back into the history of Rockwell and the influences on him and that site will tell an interesting story. Trace it back.

So you've got nothing, in other words.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Physics Hunter]

I will leave the Libertarians to defend themselves once they clean out the munchies...

Let's take the intro to Conservatives and Dogma...

First, we don't eat our Dogma.
Second, we really like the truth.
Third, we know what works, and realize that if we want to wade into new situations it is best done with much thought and some trepidation.

The Liberals dogma seems to be: "Damn the consequences!"

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

"[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com

In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.

And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Bfgrn]

Just like a Pavlov dog, you boldly display right wing dogma...

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

"[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com

In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.

My gawd, the Rockwell Dogma rears it's ugly head? LOL

The 'non-aggression' - ahem -- principle is nothing but bs warmed over and served up as something new. Going back into the history of Rockwell and the influences on him and that site will tell an interesting story. Trace it back.

Whoever claimed it was new? What's new about socialism or government control?

I'm quite familiar with Rockwell's site. What's "interesting" about it?

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

"[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com

In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.

And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.

Uh . . . no they don't. They are implacably opposed to the non-agression principle. Every plank of the Democrat platform is an offense against the non-aggression principle.

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain. Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

Yeah? So?

 

[Mac1958]

This is one of those threads that was bound to be nothing but a partisan slap fight from the get go.