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 ...
I knew there was a reason I've never identified myself as a libertarian.
It’s been clear to me for about 20 years that Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than they do with Conservatives. I have no time for them.
Conservatives get their backs up on some of the libertarian positions, like drugs & prostitution.
However, if the government would get out of the business of alleviating the consequences of poor choices and bad behavioral decisions, the problems would take care of themselves,
and conservatives would get their way - reduction of immoral behaviors and decisions (through attrition).
The reason that morals ARE morals is that they have the best record of causing a desirable outcome. When we use the government to “fix” an undesirable outcome, there’s no reason (consequence pressure) for the undisciplined to be moral.
Libertarianism is the politics of the adolescent, as well as the perpetual adolescent who happens to be 40 years old.
It seems the Republicans of today love massive government and staggering deficits. When I was growing up, this was not so. How did this travesty happen?
Very good points.
Years and years of voting for the lesser of two evils. I'll paraphrase Ayn Rand. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If you are offered a plate of food with a lot of poison and one with only a little poison, which should you choose? The obvious answer is neither since they both contain poison. Go out and find your own, non-poisoned food.
Your scenario better describes the alliance between libertarian and liberal. The libertarians and liberals share a desire to unrestrict personal behavior, but the liberals then want socialism to provide a cure for the consequences.
I do believe he stipulated that, in his scenario, the government would have to “get out of the business of alleviating the consequences of poor decisions”. The result would, by definition, not be a “semi-socialist society”.
Liberalism can only exist through coercion, while libertarianism is about, well, liberty.
Many faux conservatives who don’t understand the difference get the two mixed up.
Michael Frazier
Out of frustration with the Illinois GOP (or what is left of it) I looked at the website of the Libertarian Party of Illinois. Outside of the absence of socialist planks, their platform was hardly distinguishable from the Green Party’s. One of the things that stood out was their participation in a coalition that included A.N.S.W.E.R, Code Pink, and other leftist organizations, including the CPUSA as I recall, in opposition to the Iraq War. They can oppose the war if they like. Do they have to get in bed with communists to do so?
I stayed Republican.
Personally, I have grown up and figured out that Libertarians are about perpetual childhood, with nothing mattering more than their personal wants...
Please ping the Ron Paul list.
Libertarians are useless, and the fact that Ron Paul ran as one speaks volumes about them.
I believe you are referring to their shared arrogance.
The two major camps parted ways in the 60's, with one camp aligning with the liberals, the other camp aligning with the conservatives. As for organizations, the Cato institute is representative of the group within the fusionist conservative coalition, and the ACLU is representative of the left-libertarian camp aligned with democrats. As for most visible proponents, Samuel Edward Konkin III (author of "The New Libertarian Manifesto", BIH) was a left-libertarian, while Milton Friedman (RIP) was representative of the right-libertarian group.
Right libertarians should continue to work with the Republican party, despite the growth of nanny-state, big government tendencies of late (temporary I hope). Left libertarians are in a far more precarious position; IMO, most Democratic resistance to recent government expansion is fake, rooted in partisanship only - if it was Hillary doing it, the party establishment would be cheering her on.
Coercion is not something I like, but a world with no coercion would be an ugly world. "Do as thou wilt" sounds appealing to some but it's a recipe for disaster.
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.