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?

[nopardons]

I didn't say " druge " ; you did. I said narcotics,opiates, and the like. It is ILLEGAL for anyone to sell or buy opium, laudanum, heroin, hasish, cocaine, etc. etc., etc. on the open market. I have the facts straight ; you don't.

Few products ? FEW ? You can't be serious. The Pure Food & Drug Acts were specifically going after patent medicines and adulterated food. Patent medicines contained all manner of garbage AND high quantities of alcohol and narcotics and opiates. Food stuffs had been and were being adulterated with alum, chalk, sawdust, and yes, even narcotics, opiates, and things like lead. This had been the case for hundreds of years and killing people all over the world. In a Libertarian Utopia, it would just be " too bad ", for those who were made ill or who died. It was their own fault...wasn't it ?

Responsible governments are supposed to do things , such as pass such Acts, that actually save lives and do good for ALL people. The market place can't and didn't stop people from becoming alcoholics / dope addicted, from taking patent medicines ( a much more usual occurance, than you give credit to ), nor ill. maimed, or killed from eating adulterated food. That IS historical fact ; whether you want to believe it or not.

Nope, Libertarians " feel "; Conservative GOPers, THINK !

[nopardons]

Sorry .. I seem to have missed a tag closing. Oooppppppps.

[tpaine]

.

[Robert_Paulson2]

4100 dead babies on the average a day and growing...

"yehaaw and praise the lord," as long as our leaders use the bible, the name of jesus and terms like "born again christian" for the TV cameras.

I thought we were goin to get the "buck stops here" kinda guy I voted for... instead we got "wish I could stop the hemorrahageing of your bucks, but the dems, they made me sign it..." type of texas bull. And the budget for every social program is on steroids.

It has been confusing. We expect God to bless our war on Sadaam, while we kill more babies in one day than the saudis, president bush's alleged "allies", did on 9-11.

But we sure better get that war on drugs cranked up, along with that homeland security.. gotta SAVE (???) american lives. How bout saving some helpless little babies for a year or two W?

something is very amiss.

Talk about moral clarity... we are as clear as mud.

[Tall_Texan]

Thank you for proving my point. You'd rather stand on an irrational principle than to make even the slightest nod to common sense. That's why you'll always be the 1% party.

Of course some criminals will still get guns. By your logic, there should be no laws against murder or rape because murderers still murder and rapists still rape even though the laws are on the books so we are only giving BIG EVIL GOVERNMENT the right to interfere more and more with our lives when we, the people, give them right to prosecute people who murder and rape.

And you libertarians still blush when people call you anarchists...

[nopardons]

No, dear, I still just miss most of my typos and missed seeing the tag left open. I'm as calm as can be and still laughing my socks off at the Libertarian drivel I see posted here. :-)

[AFPhys]

... such as those imposed by the Republican mayor of New York.

I hate to be overly critical, but it is important to realize that the present so-called "Republican mayor" was a Demodog. He switched parties to avoid major competition in the demodog primary not long before that election. Why NYC "Republicans" voted for him in the Republican primary is a mystery to me, but he certainly was a better choice than the super-liberal the Demodogs ran in the general election.

[tpaine]

Dear, you have no idea how much amusement you provide us all. Thank you.

[Patriot2000]

Some points about the Libertarian philosophy......

The best debates I have ever seen are the ones where there is a Republican, a Democrat and a Libertarian. The Libertarian brings questions and issues to the debate that would otherwise be over-looked by the current establishment. The debates between GW and Al Bore were pathetic. Our current government suffers from this same affliction. The ideas that the Libertarian candidates bring to the table could be very invigorating to our government. We need to elect a few of them in order to keep the Republicrats from running over us. To you doom and gloomists, it would not hurt, and would only help the basic "Freeper" cause.

What about the drug question? Drugs were basically legal in this country until around 1930. In this country the Libertarian philosophy of drugs prevailed until then. Now our government is fighting a drug war it cannot win. The losers in this war are all of us. It causes massive expenditures of our tax dollars, but even more disastrous is it's effect on our rights and liberties. Just look at the new laws that have come about because of this so called "War":
* Taking of personal property before there is a trial
* Violations of 4th Amendment warrants
* CRI's or Confidential Reliable Informants that are used against defendants who do not have the right to "confront thier accusers".
* The passage of over 20,000 state and federal gun laws througout the country.(mostly spawned by drug related problems)
* Over 60% of prisoners are in for drug related no crime "crimes" (what does that cost?)

Is it worth it? I do not advocate drug use, but I think the time has long passed for us to stop this insanity.
I think we could spend a lot less money on education and get better results! Some people will always do drugs, be prostitutes, watch porn and etc. I say let them. As long as they don't harm anyone but themselves. Whenever governments try to dictate morality, they usually end up violating rights. I would rather be free than deal with the latter.

[Bonaparte]

Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)

[Robert_Paulson2]

I'm not a libertarian.
I register and vote republican.. idiot.

"sensible laws" usually aren't.
When did your sensible "gun laws" prevent a single criminal from obtaining a firearm eh?

or using it illegally?

The guy that robs banks and rapes women, is not going to obey your gun laws. If they did LAWS would make us safer. They don't.

When have "sensible" gun laws made it difficult or impossible for a law abiding NON criminal to get a gun... like the "cooling off" period laws of such great fame?

YOU prove MY point. MORONS love statism even when it runs contrary to common sense, history and the constitution... and then they CLAIM to be conservatives and call other registered republicans who vote republican :libertarians: for standing up for "shall not be infringed..."

Glad to have all you Centrists on board with our team...
When the tent gets so big you anty constitutionalists are allowed in the door, maybe it's time to burn the tent and the stakes that are holding it up...

[Democrap]

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.

Well then there is not much to talk about here. You believe that that abortions should be legal and i have a hard time understanding why you say that’s not what you believe. So you are in the right party because the LP that believes...

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

And that my friend makes it legal.

There is nothing federal about murder or rape other than those special cases. You are mistaken.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Wow, what a statist you are. You obviously cannot read for yourself, are statist brainwashed to a fault and therefore capable of equating the rkba with rape and murder, in a specious argument. I have to point out the fact that the rape and murder you assigned to my position are NOT PROTECTED rights under the constitution. So try and differentiate them in your arguments.

As you know, apparently by experience, true statism, requires deceit, lying and misrepesentation of truth.
You said I oppose common sense laws... I did not say that.
I did say that most common sense laws, are not.
Gun laws, don't disarm criminals. To me, that is common sense.

You seem to be practiced in or subverted to the statist arts.

SHOWING YOUR TRUE COLORS.

The right to SELF DEFENSE is not really up for debate with me.
but for statists, it is always an issue, when the ominpotent power of their god, the enforcer state, is under assault by us small-minded folks who actually read and KNOW THEREFORE THAT there is a difference constitutionally between the right to protect yourself via the rkba, an the right to rape or murder others.

They simply must find a way to regulate those evil guns... and attaching the words "common sense" to the front of an argument does NOT change the nature of it's stupidity.

Yours was a rather stupid strawman argument... and it burns rather nicely, perhaps you could try another with somebody else. But you both offend, and bore me.

In summary for the infirm: keeping a fire arm is NOT the equivalent of raping or murdering... they are NOTHING alike. Furthermore neither republicans, like me, nor libertarians like lewis, SEE them as similar. Perhaps YOU would like to paint guns as nasty as murder... or delusionally choose to believe that gun laws, if they are only sensible enough, will stop criminals from doing what they do...

Shame on you for equating guns, murder and rape and then assigning them all to my thought process in a specious and blatantly deceptive argument... all because YOU THINK I belong to a party, that I don't.

If your type of sense eq8ting rape, murder and rkba, is any part of creating "sensible" laws, we better lay off the "sensible laws" till your doctor says its okay to stop taking your meds.

[nopardons]

Dear, you have absolutely no idea just how ironic your reply , to me, truely is. ROTFLMSO !

[nopardons]

Your date is incorrect and you don't seem to know what the use of opium, heroin, laudanum, cocaine, etc. was like, when it was legal.

[nopardons]

Thanks for posting that link. I do know what that one says, along with the 1913 one. :-)

The Libertarian crowd won't read it and don't know what it says, nor obviously, WHY it was needed.

[AFPhys]

If you are truly interested in learning and undrestanding, pay attention to Replies: 9, 26, 32, 39, 55, 65, 121, 125, 132 and certainly 60.

Reply 28 and 127 is what libertarians think they are, but aren't.

Most of the other replies are not worth reading for one reason or another: redundancy, inaneness, inaccuracy or just being wrong, etc.

Republicans aren't devoted to either the conservative or libertarian position, but are more in tune with conservatives, albeit many are quite (read "far too") liberal in construing what ought to be meant by Constitutionally-limited government.

Probably the most important item to realize, though, is that the net effect is that "libertarian voters" are not taking away any votes from Republicans, and it is important to forget pandering for them. In many ways, they have more in common with the "greens" and "anti-globalists" and their anarchical views are self-marginalizing.

[A CA Guy]

No kidding, Libertarians do more to get Liberal Democrats elected than Republicans.

As far as I am concerned, a Libertarian is a liberal DU poster of FR.

[A CA Guy]

I agree!

[A CA Guy]

Boy they sure sound French to me! LOL