Libertarians Versus Conservatives

Townhall.com ^ | June 11, 2014 | John Stossel

[Kaslin]

Both libertarians and conservatives want to keep America safe. We differ on how best to do that. Most libertarians believe our attempts to create or support democracy around the world have made us new enemies, and done harm as well as good. We want less military spending.

Some conservatives respond to that by calling us isolationists, but we're not. I want to participate in the world; I just don't want to run it. I'm glad Americans trade with other countries -- trade both goods and people. It's great we sell foreigners our music, movies, ideas, etc. And through dealing with them, we also learn from what they do best.

On my TV show this week, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton will tell me why my libertarian skepticism about the importance of a "strong military presence" is "completely irrelevant to foreign policy decision-making."

Bolton thinks it's dangerous and provocative for America to appear militarily weak. He supported the Iraq War and says that if Iran were close to getting nuclear weapons, the U.S should attack. "I will go to my grave trying to prevent every new country we can find from getting nuclear weapons," because if they do, "it's going to be a very dangerous world."

He criticizes Presidents Barack Obama's and George W. Bush's failed attempts at negotiation with Iran, "negotiation based on the delusion from the get-go that Iran was ever serious about potentially giving up its nuclear weapon program."

That kind of talk makes Bolton sound like a hard-headed realist. Who wants to be naive like Bush or Obama? But hawks like Bolton ignore parts of reality, too.

They are quick and correct to point out the danger of Iran going nuclear. They are not as quick to talk about the fact that Iran has a population three times the size of Iraq's -- and the Iraq War wasn't as smooth or short as then-Vice President Dick Cheney and others assured us it would be.

If it's realistic to acknowledge that America has dangerous enemies, it's also realistic to acknowledge that going to war is not always worth the loss of money and lives, and that it makes new enemies. War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.

I asked Bolton if he thought the Vietnam War was a good intervention. "Obviously, the way it played out, it was not," he said, but, "it's always easy after the fact to second-guess."

Bolton also acknowledges that the Iraq War did not go well, but then adds, "Where mistakes were made was after the military campaign." The U.S. was unprepared for the civil war that broke out. The U.S. also failed to turn utilities and other state-run companies in Iraq over to the private sector, maintaining poorly run monopolies on energy production and other essential services, often squandering billions of dollars.

It might be seen as a harsh lesson in the importance of planning for the aftermath of toppling a bad regime. But we libertarians wonder: Why assume government will do better next time?

Occasionally government acknowledges mistakes in domestic policy -- but that doesn't mean it then becomes more efficient. It usually just spends more to try, and fail, to fix the problem. It's the nature of government. Politicians don't face the competitive incentives that force other people to make hard decisions.

Candidate Obama garnered support by criticizing Bush for costing money and lives through a protracted stay in Iraq. But that didn't stop Obama from putting more money and troops into Afghanistan.

In his first term alone, Obama spent about three times as much in Afghanistan as Bush did in two terms. Did we win hearts and minds? I don't think so. The Taliban may still retake the country.

Our military should be used for defense, not to police the world.

[TBP]

Well, we issue a couple of statements “condemning the violence.”

[tanknetter]

That’s a good point. There’s big-L Libertarianism (dope smoking hippies) and then small-l libertarianism. Which is really Classical Liberalism (with the end point being Objectivism)

It illustrates just how corrupted the term “Liberal” has become, after being cynically appropriated by the Left when the term “Progressive” became politically unpalatable in the early 1900s ... and how those who fall into the Classical Liberal ideological sphere flail around trying to find a substitute term.

[TBP]

It's socialism in its de facto government control of the economy.

[wagglebee]

Rand Paul is a man with no principles other than his own selfish interests. His namesake (Ayn Rand) was an atheist narcissist philosopher who literally promoted self interest as a religious principle.

Exactly.

Those who claim to be Christians and still push Ayn Rand need to read what Whittaker Chambers wrote about her in National Review back in 1957 when it actually was a conservative publication.

[lormand]

The purpose of our Government is defense of our nation. So, I’d say at least 90% of our budget should go to Defense. Don’t misunderstand though, there should not be any other department, just the DOD, period. The states should take care of everything else, on a state by state basis.

[tanknetter]

I’d see Socialism as closer to Communism in that regard, because Socialism allows for the nationalization of at least some (indeed many) industries. I’d still submit that Fascism is a different animal from Socialism in that it is very much grounded in preserving private ownership, just under government (Statist) direction.

[TBP]

Nominal private ownership, but with virtually total government control -- IOW, backdoor nationalization.

[tanknetter]

Rand Paul won’t get the nomination because too much of his Dad is now coming out as he further details his positions and philosophies.

I do think he brings an important voice and point of view to the national stage, and am glad that he’s a Republican Senator.

But I’m also glad that there’s only one of him.

[Blackyce]

"Rand Paul is a man with no principles other than his own selfish interests. His namesake (Ayn Rand) was an atheist narcissist philosopher who literally promoted self interest as a religious principle." His name is Randal, Ayn Rand is not his namesake.

[lormand]

"You’ve never heard of Libertarians for Life?"

Yes I have, but sooner or later you must question what you call yourself. Someone calling themselves 'libertarian' but are opposed to abortion, dangerous drugs, open borders, anarchy, is a confused person.

[NFHale]

Condemning the “SENSELESS” violence, “and our sincere desire for peace”.

There, that’s proper diplospeak!!!

Hey... maybe I’LL get a Nobel Prize medallion too!!
(there’s cash with that, right?)

[tanknetter]

Yes, so again both being peers, even cousins, with a common Statist point of origin.

Remember that Hitler and the Nazis coopted “Socialism” as a PR move. Much in the samecway that the Left abandoned Progressive in favor of Liberal.

Mussolini, for instance, abandoned Socialism (he was kicked out, actually) in favor of Facism, and I don’t recall that he ever returned to using the term as a self-descriptor.

[zerosix]

I said under Pres. Bush, that when it came to "regime change," we might well look to our own continent, especially to the country to our Southern border.

Liberals claim that immigrants are entering our southern border by the thousands monthly not just for jobs but also for safety and security.

If that be the case, then these thousands, now millions, who have broken our laws to enter our country would certainly not be traveling back and forth to visit and even live for a time to Mexico, so I wonder at those claims.

Come for a job do they, what about our own citizens who'd like a job, some job - any job at all, so this is not in our own best interest but even if we were at full employment (lower than 5% unemployment is considered "full employment") we still don't want to hand the country over to people from foreign lands who invade us, refuse to follow the rules, refuse to speak the language and worst of all - stick their fingers in our eyes and demand benefits that our out-of-control government take from our tax dollars and liberals in black robes, tell us must be done to comply with our Constitution!

We know that none of this is constitutional but even those we have sent to Washington to change and fight against this, have changed sides once gaining their congressional seats and show us their middle fingers!!!

[TBP]

So one can only be a libertarian if one subscribes 100 percent to your caricature? By that standard, the Pauls aren’t libertarians.

[ConservingFreedom]

Good read! I'd like to hear more about the following: What are the pre-conditions for aristocracy of talent? Why do they no longer exist? Can they not be recreated?

"I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship."

[ConservingFreedom]

Someone calling themselves 'libertarian' but are opposed to abortion, dangerous drugs, open borders, anarchy, is a confused person.

I don't call nor consider myself a libertarian - but I don't see why those who do must submit to the loons of the Libertarian Party expropriating that term (which predates the LP by centuries).

[TBP]

They didn’t co -opt “socialist” — they were socialists.

http://rexcurry.net/mussolini.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143131/posts

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fascism-is-socialism.php

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

http://www.hubertlerch.com/modules/European_Dictatorship/Mussolini_the_Socialist.html

http://www.williamcooper.com/socialist.htm

[Professional Engineer]

bfl

[lormand]

Libertarianism is a Utopian concept. If you are not 100% on board to it’s core principles, then you are not really a libertarian.

Utopia demands no exceptions