Skip to comments.Are libertarians part of the conservative movement? An interview with Jonah Goldberg
Posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:22 AM PST by Superstu321
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren't that different.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org ...
There are two kinds of libertarians; sincere believers in liberty, and dopers who want to shoot up legally.
A sincere belief in liberty presupposes that you must allow libertines who might glom on to your movement to hurt themselves without intervention. Freedom comes with costs that too few are willing to pay.
This tolerance ends when those same people start hurting others or their property in their quest for self destruction.
Capital L libertarians (nut jobs) and small l libertarians........ the small l libertarians are the true liberty strict constitutionalists...we are closer to conservatives than the mainstream republicans are..
Where is the difference?
Trick is, sincere belief in liberty includes belief in the liberty of dopers to shoot up.
Don’t neglect the third kind: sincere dopers who believe in liberty...
That definition works for me, and I’ve become pretty much a small l. LIke Santorum told Ron Paul (paraphrasing) “I don’t believe in “no government” and just vote no on everything like you do, I believe in small government that only does what the constitutions says it should do”.
To the extent that libertarianism stands for getting gov’t out of our lives, I think most conservatives support that.
sincere dopers who believe in liberty... and open borders
Art 1 Sec 8 is a short list... Anything not EXPLICITLY on it should get the Axe.
Then we can talk about some of the State’s stupidity...
Not “no government”, just the LIMITED government outlined in the Constitution.
Borders are relatively open now. Property owners, in a more libertarian world, would have a lot more Rights/resources to protect their land than they currently do.
Get rid of the entitlement/wealth redistribution crap we give illegals now and the ones still coming here are the ones who want to BE Americans...
Nicely phrased. I consider myself a libertarian at heart. I like the benefits of a modern society; but would like to live much the same way I would if I were on a deserted island.
Drugs, never had much interst in them - I need my mind to earn a living. But, that said, I will not raise a finger to stop anyone else from using/abusing or even over-dosing on them. If they want to kill themselves, all I ask is that they do it such that they don't kill an innocent on their way to their maker.
I vote Republican, lean heavily libertarian and always have. I don’t think we should concern ourselves with what adults do as long as they aren’t committing crimes-stay stoned and lose your job? Too bad-someone else will do that job and stay sober. Addicted? Pay your insurance co-pay for rehab ONE time-if it happens again, you pay the whole cost. Drive stoned/drunk? Go to jail. If you keep it up, you won’t last that long anyway-problem over.
Nothing trumps common sense and personal responsibility, nor should it-just leave people the hell alone-we do not all have to agree, for God’s sake. And leave issues like homosexual marriage, abortion, etc to the states, where the voters decide-not a bunch of tyrants in robes like the 9th circus did.
Yup, a libertarian believes you are free to shoot up - anything you want, anytime you want.
What's the difference between a Libertarian who doesn't care if someone shots up, and a Conservative who doesn't care if someone drinks themselves into oblivion? They are both killing themselves - we both agree they have the 'right' to kill themselves. You seem to indicate that the 'medium' in which they kill themselves is important. A libertarian doesn't care what 'medium' they use; it's the philopshy that we each are responsible to make our own choices, that is important. I chose not to take drugs, this is my informed, adult and rationalized decision. You are free to do whatever you wish (with minimal criteria attached - adult, not killing innocents, children, etc).
“This tolerance ends when those same people start hurting others or their property in their quest for self destruction.”
Just so-everyone is responsible for their actions-f*** with someone else and you go to jail, get fined, etc-that is, if you are lucky enough to survive your intended victim’s ire...
Trick is, sincere belief in liberty includes belief in the liberty of dopers to shoot up.
What's the difference between a Libertarian who doesn't care if someone shots up, and a Conservative who doesn't care if someone drinks themselves into oblivion? They are both killing themselves - we both agree they have the 'right' to kill themselves. You seem to indicate that the 'medium' in which they kill themselves is important
Not me - I was just making sure that the "two kinds of libertarians" statement didn't wind up as cover for excluding substance use from the definition of liberty.
If I want to have an equal say about what types of behavior are harmful to myself or family there are many libertarians who want to deny me this right.
I have the right to represntation on issues whereas I feel the behavior of others is harmful to myself or my family. Many libertarians act as if they know better and want to deny you this right claiming that you need to have some sort of absolute proof that someones actions are directly harmful annd that all arguments that use a causation approach to showing the harm are not allowed to be used.
Libertarians are in many ways anti-liberty in my opinion and want to force others to live in a state of anarchy.
Libertarians have a simple solution for just about every social, economic and political problem: legalize it.
But their utilitarian approach to problem-solving is neither rule nor act utilitarianism: If a problem comes around, they whip it by saying, “Let’s pretend it really isn’t a problem. If we make it legal, then it goes away.”
Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool, huh? Sure, if you’re into OA-style anarchy.
Go Burke. Go play in the sandbox, Gillespie.
There are no excuses in a libertarian society. No “de debbil made me do it”, “it was the alcohol made me do it”, “crack be whack and I can’t stay off the rock”...
Tough. The information is out there. If you STILL make bad decisions, why do the rest of us need to suffer for it? Why do OUR liberties need to be curtailed because YOU can’t handle your life responsibly?
...and yet, strangely, the Borders in my town has closed...
Libertarians do not believe any of us could be responsible enough to know what is harmful to others and what is not which is why they continually push for no laws at all on issue after issue.
Libertarians would rather strip us all of our ‘right to representation’ and replace it with their utopian anarchical style rule.
Do whatever the hell you want to do as long as you don't make me pay for it. Period.
I blame it on the Bossa Nova. And my 2nd Kindle.
How hard is it to just FOLLOW THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND?
You can have a bug up your ass about the LP, I have a few bones to pick with them myself...
Just stop it with the rest of the BS though. It doesn't fly and only makes you look ignorant.
Liberterians are vocal, but have never polled more than 1% in any national election. They pretend to be republicans to fool people into voting for them because nobody takes the libertarian party seriously.
Being pro abortion and pro drugs aren’t particularly conservative positions despite their grand claims of being conservative.
Wow... So much fail in that first sentence. Especially since libertarianism is based on Objectivism and reason.
Most of the “l”ibertarians I know would be happy to just get us back to a Constitutionally limited Republic with a Bill of Rights that is enforced at all levels of government.
The leader of our local tea party patriots group is a Ron Paul supporter who spends his free time hanging out with the occupy wall street clowns.
Tell me which part of my post is BS and we’ll walk you through it.
If "what is harmful" is whatever a majority votes to be so, then those who claim to be "harmed" by you not giving them your money have won the day.
Many libertarians act as if they know better and want to deny you this right claiming that you need to have some sort of absolute proof that someones actions are directly harmful annd that all arguments that use a causation approach to showing the harm are not allowed to be used.
Libertarians are all for causation arguments - they just note that some such arguments are unfounded, for example, "some drug users harm others, therefore all drug use harms others."
My simple point is 100% objective. Libertarian sacrifice a person’s ‘right to representation’ in pursuit of their utopian ideals. It is like not seeing the forest through the trees. They become anti-liberty once they start telling me that I have no right to have repreesntation on making law in response to limiting behavior that I believe to be harmful to me or my family.
Just because you bel;ieve libertarian to be able to walk on water in regard to the Constitution doesnt make it so.
Demonstrably, pretty much every problem listed has been made worse by government. Social justice? The economy? Politics? Do you really think that just doing something, the Constitution says they aren't supposed to do anyway, YOUR way will have better results? This is just like the Dems saying Socialism will work, if we just give it one more try.
We need to get government back under the chains of the Constitution. Fecklessly denigrating the only folks even talking about it isn't helping things at all...
Tough sh*t cupcake...
We gotta have Libertarians to win? What a totally depressing thought. They have more books and pamphlets to push at you than the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons combined, do.
Oooh... Showtunes. There’s a winning argument...
Seems like the tough sh!t applies to you loser since your dope is still illegal. Thanks for the incentive though to vote once again to make your lifestyle illegal.
“We need to get government back under the chains of the Constitution.”
“Man is born free, but everywhere he is chains.”
Who said that? Rousseau? Or was it .... Karl Marx! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
(Don’t mind me, Dead—I’m just fecklessly denigrating you.)
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about this in his Summa Theologica.
It is hard for some to get their heads wrapped around that view. To them, it is patently obvious that if something is bad, it must be outlawed. They either reject or ignore the unintended consequences of their position, and the fact that it ultimately leads to a conflict with the small government aspect of conservatism. This is why we have the massive government we have.
Mind you, I have disagreements with some self-identified "libertarians." I reject the idea that, for instance, allowing the state to enforce a mandate that others recognize same-sex unions as marriage is somehow libertarian. It isn't, and is actually precisely the opposite of libertarianism; it is statism, and denies people religious freedom.
One of the things Id like to see is getting rid of property taxes once the property is owned, in some way. Maybe an upfront tax or something. But to pay taxes on a piece of property that you have paid off means that the government is the property owner.
How is his drug use harmful to your or your family?
No one is trying to take away your right to representation. Your complaint seems to be that if your representative isnt in line with you, then you arent represented. But that is not true. If you follow your representation plan to its logical conclusion, you support direct democracy where everyone in the nation votes everytime on the issues.
Representation doesnt guarantee that you will get people who represent your beliefs. There are liberals in Lubbock and conservatives in Austin whose representatives dont really represent their views. Do you think they have no representation?
In the same manner, if your district elects a libertarian who tries to make activities that you find destructive legal, you are still represented. Libertarians do believe that people are responsible enough, and that is why they want to remove as much governmental restrictions as possible. You seem to think the only way to let people be free is for their representatives to determine what is proper.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide things into two groups and those who don't. Besides, there are more than two kinds of Libertarians. Another is pretend libertarians who are trying to hide their liberalism, like Colbert, Maher, and some celebrities.
Is that their sincere belief, or a convenient rationalization? I see no support among "moral conservatives" for outlawing uncharitability - although it's one of the "seven deadly sins" and is roundly condemned in the Gospels.
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren’t that different.
Goldberg is a nut. Ron Paul is a nut. Conservatives and Republicans DO NOT NEED (L)libertarians.
“Where is the difference?’
Conservatism is a three legged stool: fiscal, social, and foreign policy.
It is true, Libertarians are lock step with conservatives on fiscal policy. Where we can cooperate, we should.
However, their social and foreign policies are anti-human.
If you’d like to close all of our foreign bases, consider Bradley Manning a “patriot,” (quote Ron Paul), want heroin legalized and big ads for homosexual prostitutes at your bus stops, think possession of child porn should be legal and have no interest in defending Israel politically/militarily - you may be a Libertarian.
Your post has nothing to do with what I asked.
The conservative movement does need help from libertarians, and labeling their policies anti-human to shut up debate does nothing to cut the growth of government.
But if you want to fit all libertarians into a box, then have at it. But dont wonder why government keeps growing.
Libertarians insist that Western ethics are “religious” and therefore illegal, like liberals do.
Being led or governed by people who reject a public Western ethical culture and character for the nation - especially among business and government leaders or the elite - precludes constitutional freedom’s self governance.
Marxism’s atheism goes with Marxism’s total governing structure. Constitutional freedom, born of Western philosphy, goes with a public Western ethical based, self governing public culture.
This is area where libertarians and conservatives will never agree. Rand thought it clever to mix Marxism’s social ideal of State enforced public atheism or amorality with free markets. It was not clever and it does not work - as we can see. We are losing the constituition as liberals and libertarians “progress” in cleansing the American culture of freedom.
I've never heard a libertarian say that. Can you give a specific quotation?
Being led or governed by people who reject a public Western ethical culture and character for the nation
Does having a public Western ethical culture and character for the nation require governmental enforcement? As far as I know, libertarians oppose only the latter.
There are two kinds of people, those in the box and those out. I guess I could be called either a libertarian hawk or fiscal conservative, but I see more similarity in nanny state liberals and nanny state social conservatives than either could imagine of each other. I think the key issue I agree with social conservatives on is abortion because I think the baby has right to life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.