Posted on 05/23/2007 9:05:49 AM PDT by Equality 7-2521
My brother has told me several times that, as a libertarian, I should be far more sympathetic to the ideas of liberalism than to those of conservatism. I believe his rationale is that libertarians generally agree with liberals about more issues than they do with conservatives. Of course, I’ve never debated that point because I agree with it. It’s just that some of the conservative issues always seemed to rank higher on my “personal issues” list than those of liberals. After almost 7 years of a so-called neocon in the Executive and 12 years of conservatives controlling Congress, my opinions have changed.
It’s not that I don’t still find conservative issues regarding liberty more important, it’s just that I don’t find very many real conservatives holding office. The whole feigned outrage with the most conservative member of Congress after the last debate drives this home. It brings the lying hypocrisy of the neocons right out into the light for the whole world to see. It shows their “big tent” to be a reverse TARDIS–that is, it looks much bigger on the outside than it really is on the inside. Read the rest of this entry »
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.flada.com ...
What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.
--Thomas Sowell
Be good and take care!
the safetynet that has been installed also resricts uward movement, IMO
Best Regards,
In real life, Ayn Rand was essentially a cult leader... and when you get right down to it, to do that successfully does require one to have pretty pragmatic approach to life
Don't be a moron. Hemp was widely used for a variety of purposes beyond just smoking and drugs were not an unknown problem.
What is your utter fascination with drugs? All the other issues you so cavalierly toss aside are much more important than some 42 year old dopehead toking up in his mother's basement.
Er... no. I mean you. Personally. They are your damn kids. You look after them. Don’t count on the government to do a good job of it.
Excellent point. I’ve made that one before, but the NIMBY Nanny folks don’t care.
I'm Picking it Up Off the Floor and Putting it Back in the Garage.
Stop Throwing Things On The Foor and Go Clean Your Room.
What Are You Doing in the Bathroom All Day? Give Someone Else a Chance!
Uh, government was never cabable of compulsory morality, and goverment schools a did not exist until the late 1800s and really got going good in the progressive era.
You seem like someone who is arguing that government is the solution. If that is the case, I suggest you take a good, close look at your principles.
“Where “conservatives” and “libertarians” fall out is over the Nanny State in any form.”
Exactly right. The nanny state - social engineering - is a travesty whether it comes from the left or the right.
Agreed. Having the best intentions in the world doesn’t count for much when you lose power and your political enemies use your own tools against you. Extrapolate that enough, and you have todays political climate.
Yes, sir. And we pretty much know where today’s political climate has gotten us: Damned near the worst of all possible worlds.
My fascination with drugs? I couldn’t care less about some “dopehead toking up in his mother’s basement”. What issues are you accusing me of “cavalierly tossing aside”?
Since you’re personally calling me a moron, then all conversation with you has stopped. Don’t post to me again.
That's a rather simplistic notion. For example, it ignores history, such as the widespread existence of "blue laws" back in the days when the modern Nanny State did not exist.
A more useful discriminator between "conservatives" and "libertarians" might be found in their respective ideas of the place of the individual in society.
Conservatives tend to believe that while individual rights should be respected as far as possible, they cannot be considered without reference to the larger social group. A conservative would say that "community interests" are real, and that the exercise of individual liberties must be weighed against their effects on other people. As such, "community interest" could be considered to be a valid justification for curtailing certain individual liberties.
My experience with the more vocal libertarians at FR has been that they tend to reject the idea that "community interests" exist at all. As such, any attempt to moderate the exercise of individual liberties is dismissed as "nanny state - social engineering ... a travesty". Hollywood, with its abundance of human train wrecks, is a great example of how this philosophy plays out in real life. In that light, I see libertarianism as an infantile and destructive belief which has its roots in the same fundamental narcissism that drives liberal Democrats.
How many people even know what the TARDIS is?
Time and Relative Displacement in Space = TARDIS.
Doctor's Who's Time Machine was the size and shape of a British Police Telephone Call-in Booth on the outside but internally incorporated volume from other time and space dimensions so that it had the area and rooms of a grand palace.
Ed you are totally wrong!
Libertarians hold that the primary tenant is never to initiate force against another. Liberals and Socialists advocate the use of government force to implement their issues. Conservatives advocate the limited use of government control. Libertarians can get along far better with Conservatives than Liberals.
After all, the man that defined all of our rights, Thomas Jefferson, was the first American Libertarian!
It only took him two paragraphs to confirm the stereotype: scratch a libertarian and you'll find an SF geek.
They call Ron Paul, "Dr. No," not Dr. Who -- hough come to think of it, that may not be a bad nickname for Ron.
Well, I have bad news for the Republicans. The only way they can win the next Presidential election is with Ron Paul.
Very wishful thinking. Ron Paul would lose in a landslide. He doesn't really want to be President, anyway. And voters will be only to willing to oblige him.
Actually, most of the “more vocal libertarians” would probably disagree with your conclusion about their opinion regarding “community interests.” More accurately, community interests are nothing but the interests of a group of individuals in a community. That means that libertarians generally fail to see how community rights trump the rights of the individuals who make up the community. How does a group of people evolve more rights than each of the individuals?
If I suspect my neighbor is doing something in her home that I don’t approve of, do I have a right to go over there and stop her? If I get together with a few more of my like-minded neighbors (who become a community) do our greater numbers suddenly invoke us with the new “right” to stop her from doing whatever it was I disapproved of?
How many people does it take to make up a community that has an interest in the practices of the individuals among us? At what number are we allowed to initiate force?
That’s the real difference between the nanny-staters of the right and left, and the libertarians. Both neo-conservatives and lefties believe in some type of mob-rule. That is to say, they both agree that there is a number where a group of individuals becomes a community that gains new rights—rights that exist for “the community” but not for the inividual. Libertarians generally don’t accept that groups have any rights that aren’t derived from the individuals in the group.
They hate to admit it, but the differences between the nanny-staters of the right and left are only a question of which derived community rights trump which inherent individual rights.
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.