Posted on 04/17/2012 4:03:24 PM PDT by WPaCon
The term "libertarianism"is distasteful to people who think seriously about politics. Both Dr. F.A. Hayek and your servant have gone out of their way, from time to time, to declare that they refuse to be tagged with this label. Anyone much influenced by t h e thought of Edmund Burke and of Alexis de Tocqueville - as are both Professor Hayek and this commentator - sets his face against ideology; and libertarianism is a simplistic ideology, relished by one variety of the folk whom Jacob Burckhardt called "the terrible simplifiers."
Nevertheless, I have something to say favorable to today's libertarians in the United States; later I shall dwell upon their vices. With your indulgence, I mean to make three points about persons calling themselves libertarians, whic h may warm the cockles of their rebellious hearts.
First, a number of the men and women who accept the label "libertarian!' are not actually ideological libertarians at all, but simply conservatives under another name. These are people who perceive in the growth of the monolithic state, especially during the past half century, a grim menace to ordered liberty; and of course they are quite right. They wish to emphasize their attachment to personal and civic freedom by employing this 20th century word deriv ed from liberty. With them I have little quarrel - except that by so denominating themselves, they seem to countenance a crowd of political fantastics who "license they mean, when they cry liberty."
Descendants of Classical Liberals.
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
I'll later post his speeches on popular conservatives and neoconservatives.
Here is a link to the thread with his lecture on cultural conservatives:
I think that Libertarians have much to offer the public discourse. They are consistant in their ideas.
My disagreements with libertarianism are slightly less strenuous.
Yea, I hate your guts too. Now what ass hole?
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and libertarians are the living proof.
That comment's addressed to Kirk, not me, right?
I don't agree with everything he says, but I would give Kirk more respect than that.
Yes yes yes, Kirk not you. Sorry for the confusion.
I don’t give Kirk a lick of respect. He doesn’t deserve any.
As the author noted, "ordered liberty" is the goal of conservatives. Libertarians have no concept of order which enables them to devise a real society in the real world. Libertarians are doomed always to live in an autistic world of fantasy about "wouldn't it be loverly".
As the author noted, "ordered liberty" is the goal of conservatives. Libertarians have no concept of order which enables them to devise a real society in the real world. Libertarians are doomed always to live in an autistic world of fantasy about "wouldn't it be loverly".
Libertarians are anarchists who own property.
It's fine. I thought you meant Kirk.
I don’t give Kirk a lick of respect. He doesn’t deserve any.
Really? He was one of the most important conservative thinkers of the last century, and I say that while disagreeing with him on at least a few counts.
Anarchism is an intriguing idea. Of course, not the type you see on tv, but more like the Hans-Hermann Hoppe idea, where there is no nation-state. For a long time, Europe went without having the type of nation-states that really started appearing after the Peace of Westphalia.
Everything is property. Starting with 100% ownership of your own life and the products of your efforts.
If that’s anarchy, bring it on. It a damn sight better than this crap Socialist society we have...
Everything is property. Starting with 100% ownership of your own life and the products of your efforts.
If that’s anarchy, bring it on. It a damn sight better than this crap Socialist society we have...
It is more and more clear to me that “conservatives” are a big part of our problem.
I haven't read so much undiluted truth in one stretch in quite some time.
Thanks for posting. It did make good reading.
However I lost respect for Russel Kirk with this one, he employed every rhetorical vice in a single essay. He makes an ad hominen attack on a straw man while contradicting himself in the process.
The Ron Paul faction in the last 25 years has ruined the libertarian ideology and the party. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. The confusion over Ron Paul’s political philosophies has led to much misunderstanding of libertarianism.
Ron Paul is more of a mix between a Paleo-conservative on economic issues and a Neo-leftist liberal on everything else. And when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not only not conservatives, but left wing to an extreme. Going further than most libertarians.
It is clear that one look at the social Platform and Ron Paul is nothing more than a new version of a liberal.
The differences between a liberal and a progressive are confusing as it relates to today and the modern left. It has gotten to the point that some people call themselves progressive or liberal without knowing much about the words.
So my point is that Ron Paul has more of a traditional liberal stance but progressives embrace most of it.
>>>Libertarians are anarchists who own property.<<<
I always thought libertarians were Republicans who liked to smoke pot.
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.