Are there any differences between Conservatives and Libertarians?

1/12/03 | Sparta

[Sparta]

I've been reading posts by people who use the term Conservative and others who use the term Libertarian. I have a question for all FReepers, is there a difference between the two?

[Bonaparte]

"Libertarians will not prosecute war..."

Oh, they will but only within very narrow limits. In other words, Libertarians would lose if they went to war. The moment there was a cost overrun they would call it quits. The moment they were told they could not use certain war metals that they might want to use for their businesses, they would rebel.

If you read their platform, they demand the immediate removal of all our military personnel and materiel from foreign soil and water. In other words, they don't think we should honor our current treaty commitments or do anything to prevent the spread of communist and other sorts of aggression. For example, they would have wanted us to have nothing to do with driving Saddam out of Kuwait, preferring to just let him take it along with all of its petroleum. They tend toward extreme isolationism and would prefer to wait until we're surrounded on all sides by enemies before applying corrective measures. Again, they would lose.

[Texasforever]

Perhaps I give them too much credit for their desire to see us return to a Constitutional Republic

It would be nice if a clear definition of "constitutional Republic" could be posited. Which version of the constitution? The one that was originally ratified with only 10 amendments that gave states supremacy over the federal via the 10th amendment. OR the one that gave the federal supremacy over the states via the 14th amendment and then reinforced by the 16th? I have seen the term "constitutional republic" bandied about so much that it has no real impact beyond a simple slogan. Is the Republic we have today what the Founders envisioned? I have no way of knowing but they could have put 'THE END" right after the 10th amendment and then there could be at least a common base for arguing what is or is not constitutional but.... they didn't.

[ThinkDifferent]

For the 428th time, that is a very amoral view!

It is a recognition that law and morality are not and cannot be equivalent. Do you really believe that every immoral act should be a crime?

[Texasforever]

It is a recognition that law and morality are not and cannot be equivalent

Of course they are different. If everyone were "moral" there would be no requirement for laws at all. Laws are not for those that have self-restraint they are for those that lack it.

[Tall_Texan]

...libertarians seem to abhor ALL gun laws. Conservatives seem to want some restrictions based on their own particular qualms... "some controls may be good."

So would you say a law that keeps guns out of the hands of people with violent criminal records or serious mental illnesses a good idea or just one of those nutty conservative "qualms"?

My argument with most libertarians is that their concepts are too black-and-white. It's as if they are so intent on being consistent with their dogma that they are willing to accpet serious departures from reality just so they can stay ideologically pure.

I still have yet to have a libertarian offer one method acceptable to their precepts that would get a drunk driver off the road before he actually hits something. They recoil in horror to ideas like sobriety checkpoints, open container laws, breathalyzer tests or car searches. They seem to be saying that until the drunk plows into a minivan full of kids, he's within his rights to weave all over the road since he wasn't harming anyone.

[Bonaparte]

Agree. It's always going to be a balancing act. And, this side of paradise, purists will have a tough time of it.

[tpaine]

I think we over-intellectualize the entire libertarian/conservative/liberal distinctions.
I see it in much simpler terms. Every 12-year-old boy is a libertarian along with a few girls. They stay that way until they become responsible for someone other than themselves.
Once they have others that depend on them they begin to fall into liberal or conservative depending on how much personal responsibility they take for their own family.
Libertarianism is the philosophy of the single male and it has nothing at all to do with constitutional issues.
101 -tex-

Yep, simpleton philosophy 101, as taught by Tex Forever, eternal sophomore.

What a joke. Most of the libertarians I've known have progressed from schoolboy democrat to young republican family man, to maturity as a libertarian, having finally seen the bull spread by the republocrats for what it really is, -- socialist lies.

[lewislynn]

25 mos into the current "conservative" president's administration, and they still have not outlawed partial birth abortion...

Funny you mentioned that. I actually deleted words to this effect from my post to you:
"I predict Republicans ("conservatives"?) will eventually turn a blind eye to abortion long enough for it to become acceptable in the party. (Many, a growing number I believe, already do)"

[Texasforever]

What a joke. Most of the libertarians I've known have progressed from schoolboy democrat to young republican family man, to maturity as a libertarian, having finally seen the bull spread by the republocrats for what it really is, -- socialist lies.

Tpaine, you embody the old saying that "if you are 18 and not a liberal you have no heart. If you are 30 and not a conservative you have no brain. If you are over 30 and a libertarian you have neither".

[Robert_Paulson2]

of course they do... as long as it is THEIR definition of immorality that is the one being enforced at gunpoint.

even the taliban would love to see THEIR morality enforced at gunpoint, or by stoning, caning or gang rapes...

enforcing ones personal morality on others who do NOT proscribe to its virtue, is the essence of the "christian democrat" movement that has seized the name "conservative" as its own... gone are the days of an extremely limited government, held to the bounds of a constitution...

today we have the unlimited power of a busybody legislature that is FULL TIME and FULLY FUNDED via the gunpoint from our paychecks, bank accounts and personal property... the more the merrier, as long as THEY make THEIR rules cost us all.

Of course, they were the very ones who were the most terrified when Clinton "socialist democrats" started enforcing their "gospel" on the rest of us... racial quotas, state sponsored abortions, church prosecutions under rico, feminization of the military, "greenienviralism", and tax/spend up the kazoo on pork programs that would make jimmy dean's sausage blush...

That was the socialist democrats turn... now we get the social democrats reversals of the very same thing. "the wheel has turned" so to speak... but I am a little fed up with wheels... as they keep coming back around to the same thingl... OUR LIVES governed by a soviet central command, more and more every day...

I am tired of wheels... I want my kids to have three squares... only rats in a cage like running inside the same old wheels.

[Democrap]

All that statement means is that Libertarians think that abortion should never have been made a federal issue. Just like rape and murder are not a federal issue.

Then you don’t believe that abortion is the taking of a life. Otherwise you would be for “the right for the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Are these rights not in the LP platform?

By the way there are federal laws against rape and murder. But I understand you believe them unconstitutional like the draft.

[A CA Guy]

Just imagine each of the acts you want legal to be happening before Jesus Christ himself.
Would he approve what you want with a smile and a blessing or do you think you might get a look of disappointment with your choices? Perhaps more on judgment day?

I always say the same for those who approve of abortions. Can you picture God smiling in the room with approval during an abortion or do you think you might draw His wrath?

[tpaine]

Tpaine, you embody the old saying that "if you are 18 and not a liberal you have no heart. If you are 30 and not a conservative you have no brain. If you are over 30 and not a libertarian you have neither".
129 -texfer-

Well said tex.

[Leisler]

Get your verbs accurate. Drugs are already "legalized."
Get your history accurate. The Pure Food Acts had to do with hidden ingredients in some few products. Many and most manufactures at the time went to great lengths to insure the safety and quality of their goods and thus in their own capitalistic interest, the value of their good name and reputation. It, the act, had little if nothing to do with narcotics and other drugs per se, just the labeling.

Actually, it seems that it is the conservatives that operate on feelings. The idea that someone, somewhere might be doing something, well, that is just too much and conservatives will sign on to every government power. At least the left like to build a school or a road or something. Conservatives just want government agents sniffing about ones windows at night. Kind of like prissy small town fundamentalists.

[Liberal Classic]

That is their ugly naked obsession.

There is little more I can say to this except that this is purposefully misleading. I can't speak for every person here, and neither can you. You really ought to stop broadly tarring anyone who thinks the prohibition is also harmful as mentally deficient. You won't, however, and there's nothing I can do except to respond. I claim the moniker of libertarian but I am not particularly obsessed with prohibition. I have other interests, as do you. So, if you would please stop repeating this pernicious lie I would be truly thankful.

[Leisler]

"They seem to be saying that until the drunk plows into a minivan full of kids, he's within his rights to weave all over the road since he wasn't harming anyone. "

They do it anyways, now what was your solution again? It can't be more government, because we have more government. Oh, you mean more-more-more government. Right, I get "conservative" now.

[Robert_Paulson2]

first you start with "reasonable" restrictions... then the laws expand and their costs... based on the latest GUN TRAGEDY... and there's always one to whine about... the end result being we always need more restrictive laws.

"but what about the criminals having guns"
You are mistakenly of the opinion that our gun laws have had a proven history of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals... laughable. CRIMINALS don't OBEY GUN LAWS... Hence the laws we deem SENSIBLE they deem as INSANE... and they both procure and use them against the rest of us anyways.

you would be far better off if we were all armed to the teeth INCLUDING the criminals and psychopaths, than you are with most of the sane people who SHOULD be packing... walking around unarmed.

ALL gun laws by those terms, are therefore a waste of taxpayer time, money and an eggregious loss of freedom to defend oneself...

Gun laws, in your premise which is a false one, DO NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals or crazies...

They cannot... as by definition, criminals do not recognise or obey our laws and KNOW how to flaunt them. and crazies do not rationally comprehend our laws, and often do the same thing...

false premise. but it's too good to see folks show their true colors. SCREW the constitution, if it makes us feel safer!!!

[krb]

Then you don’t believe that abortion is the taking of a life.

No, I do think that abortion is the abrogation of a person's right to life, which is a no-no according to the 5th amendment of the Constitution which is supposed to protect us against government usurpation of life, liberty or property without due process (not pursuit of happiness, that's in the Declaration, not the Constitution).

By the way there are federal laws against rape and murder.

The federal laws against rape and murder are either 1) Hate crime law, where the fed gov gets to tack on extra time if the victim is the right color or gender, 2) "conspiracy" law, where 2 or more people were involved, or 3) interstate law, where the FBI gets to screw with local law enforcement.

There is nothing federal about murder or rape other than those special cases. Those are state issues (except where the fed gov has been able to exert itself). That's why you get the needle in Texas if you kill my mom, but in Massashusetts you get 3 hots and a cot for 20 years if you off her.

[Bonaparte]

"This means of course that it [abortion] has to be legal."

Exactly. There's no other conclusion. PBA would also be a "sensitive" issue. And so would cloning. So we couldn't have laws against those either, could we?

[Tall_Texan]

Effective government is not a sin. I appreciate efforts to *try* to intervene before the drunk hits the minivan full of kids. You apparently don't.

I don't think some of the solutions are particularly good or useful, such as trying to hold bartenders legally responsible for the drunk hitting the minivan. But if I'm inconvenienced for two minutes to verify that I'm driving sober, I personally don't mind because they will always find me sober and perhaps that drunk they stop won't be hitting ME or MY loved ones.