The Conservative-Libertarian clash: Values and the free society

Enter Stage Right ^ | May 12, 2003 | By W. James Antle III

[AdamSelene235]

Cato loses all credibility

Sort of like you did here: The Cato Institute is NOT a Libertarian site.

[AdamSelene235]

There is a lot to be said for Fabian-style libertarianism.

Shhhhhh....Its a secret.

[AdamSelene235]

You had better go tell the CI that they report to the LP!

You're having a hard time breaking out of the authoritarian mindset, aren't you?

The entire point of classical liberalism is not to subjugate individual dignity and liberty to politics.

[B Knotts]

I guess I just don't accept the premise that there is any significant difference regarding statism, especially as it concerns matters of private morality, between Catholics and Protestants.

(Nominally) Catholic Europe considers majority-Protestant America as a nation of prudes. While Europeans are very into economic statism, they shy away from it in some of the areas in which Bennett and Buchanan favor same.

Myself, I'm about where the author of the piece above positions himself (conservative-libertarian hybrid), and I'm a Catholic. I don't think we should criminalize certain behaviors, but neither do I think we should be forbidden by law from publicly expressing our displeasure with those behaviors, or acting on our displeasure peacefully.

[B Knotts]

I should add, though, that I am pro-life, so I don't consider abortion to be a "private matter," since it involves another person (the baby). That puts me at odds with some libertarians.

[B Knotts]

Well, I guess you were trying to say that Cato isn't an official arm of the Libertarian Party, which is true.

But it is staffed by libertarians, many of whom have been involved in the LP at some point. Ed Crane was one of the people involved in the LP early on.

[AdamSelene235]

Cato believes we can bluff SH!

CATO had been warning that non-state players such as Al Quaeda were the primary threat to national security long before 911.

Bush I allowed the conclusion of Gulf War I to be dictated by the United Nations and the "international community". This what resulted in our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia: The motive for the 9-11 murders.

We ended up having to go to war twice to do the job we should have completed the first time had we not surrendered our sovereignty to the United Nations. Thousand of innocent Americans and Iraqis died as a result. Now the American taxpayer must finance a complete political and economic transformation of the Middle East. We're just getting started over there. We have yet to even name our true enemies, the Saudis. You'll excuse me if I'm not awed by the brilliance of our foreign policy.

[bribriagain]

Libertarians are conservatives without morals or values.

[B Knotts]

Nonsense. The fact that some people think morals and values are better governed by Church and family does not make them hedonists.

The usurpation of moral authority by government, has, in fact, brought about the moral decline we now are experiencing. An example: the public school system. It's not terribly surprising, as government is hardly the best place to look for examples of moral rectitude.

[LizardQueen]

Maybe so, maybe not. Big 'L' Libertarianism has some bad ideas, eg, open borders, anti-Iraqi war. Maybe we small 'l'ers need a different name?

I think we do. I call myself a libertarian for lack of a better term (though the guy in the article did a good job of articulating a position very similiar to mine, and called himself a conservative-libertarian hybrid).

I do think that the Libertarian party has some flaky ideas that I don't agree with, and I do get real sick of people assuming I agree with all of it just because I use the same word (but with a different size L ::grin::) to identify myself. Witness cinFla's comments above re: "you believe in this, you believe in that". No, I don't. But I'm also not a social conservative. So what does that make me?

One term I use instead (and is in my profile) is "South Park Republican". This is a phrase I've heard thrown around to describe people of the fiscal conservative/socially moderate persuasion. Use of that tends to avoid the big/small L issue, but then people think I live in a place called South Park, instead of watching in on TV ::lol::

LQ

[tpaine]

We ended up having to go to war twice to do the job we should have completed the first time had we not surrendered our sovereignty to the United Nations. Thousand of innocent Americans and Iraqis died as a result. Now the American taxpayer must finance a complete political and economic transformation of the Middle East. We're just getting started over there. We have yet to even name our true enemies, the Saudis. You'll excuse me if I'm not awed by the brilliance of our foreign policy.
47 -AS235-

It will soon become apparent, imo, that a major goal of the Iraq war was to gain a base from which to control the Saudi 'situation', which is supposedly about to collapse.
- As you say, we are there for the duration.

[DPB101]

Libertarians are against the very existence of government schools, so your argument is moot on that point...

No it isn't. To claim, as many of them do, that religion should be banned from government schools because government should not fund education is a dodge. A typical Libertarian dodge which fits in perfectly with the liberal agenda. One doesn't give up constitutional rights simply because government funds something. Not all Libertarians are this way but many are. You can pin them down by asking about a privately funded Nativity scene on public land. They are against that too. Just my opinion of course but I believe, strongly, that most Libertarians are liberals in disguise.

Should they ever accomplish anything concrete to advance the principles they claim to hold, I will think different. But in 30 years they have done absolutely nothing except talk and pick off an occasional GOP candidate.

[gcruse]

I like that. South Park Republican. That's me, too!

[LizardQueen]

Garbage. I consider myself a libertarian and have morals and values that come from my upbringing, religous beliefs, and my internal code of honor, not from some nanny-state gov't trying to legislate them or the Defenders of the Public Morality trying to stuff them down my throat.

LQ

[tpaine]

bribriagain wrote:
"Libertarians are conservatives without morals or values."


Some time ago, tired of FR's neverending libertarian/conservative bash fest, JR established the RLC Forum, and posted their libertarian policy statement:

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts

Why don't you boys take a look at it, and tell us all how 'immoral' & valueless it is?

I'll hazard a guess as to why you won't. -- Juvenile inablity.

[ValenB4]

If ever I say "whatever", it will be whenever, wherever, and however I choose to say it. Got it? Good. I knew you would!

I liked the article. But Mises, Rothbard, Rockwell, and Hoppe are all from the true conservative libertarianism. Rothbard didn't like the lift wing libertines from Bizarro World.

[bribriagain]

"Defenders of the Public Morality trying to stuff them down my throat."

OK, LQ.

BTW, should there be laws against child molestors?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Whatever, whenever, wherever.

My answer: Whatever you say.

And, I didn't know about that piece. That's why, against my better judgement, I asked your opinion. Thanks. Now I know what NOT to think.

Just kidding, of course, sweetie.

[bribriagain]

"The fact that some people think morals and values are better governed by Church"

Example: The Catholic Church

[Stay the course]

You're correct that Cato is not big-L Libertarian, and there's a good reason why.

Cato was founded by David Koch, who was the 1980 LP candidate for Vice President. Koch used his own millions to bankroll the campaign, and the result was by far the LP's best showing in a Presidential election, a whopping 1%.

The LP had two opposite reactions. The more practical members realized they were on to something, and got Koch to agree to back a candidate again in 1984. The radicals were horrified at their electoral success, feeling that it implied a lack of ideological purity, so they nominated the most radical, hard-line candidate they could find. The radicals finally prevailed on the fourth ballot, by one vote. The Koch supporters stormed out and never returned. Koch diverted his attention and funding to Cato.

The radicals have owned the party ever since, so it has remained irrelevant ever since, which is fine with them. It allows them to dedicate all of their time to collecting dues, choosing party officials, drafting platforms, issuing condescending press releases, and recruiting computer programmers and Trekkies as members. They also nominally run candidates for office, but only if they're absolutely certain that they can't win.