I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet.

The Flada Blog ^ | May 23, 2007 | Ed Snyder

[r9etb]

I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet

Sounds like "Initiation of Force" to me ...

[DangerDanger]

“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.”

************************************************************

I wholeheartedly agree. More importantly, one late, great, well known leader who had his own revolution did not get liberalism and libertarianism mixed up: Ronald Reagan.

See my tag line...

[Russ]

I don't know when you were growing up but the Republican Party has had an ongoing internal battle between the liberal, big-government wing and the conservative, less- government wing since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Control has flowed between these wings for decades with the conservative wing holding on to power through much of the eighties and nineties. Now, as the liberal wing seems bent on taking over, many conservatives want to juimp ship instead of staying and fighting.

I guess we should ask the question: "WWRD? What Would Reagan Do?" I don't think he ever thought about leaving the Republican Party when it was controlled by the Gerald Fords and the Nelson Rockafellers. He stayed and battled for his ideas and, eventually, won. We should do the same.

[r9etb]

Liberalism can only exist through coercion, while libertarianism is about, well, liberty.

Actually, dogmatic libertarians are prone to insisting on being given the liberty to behave badly in public, while at the same time insisting that others have no right to complain about or curtail that behavior when it impinges upon them. The problem is that libertarianism seems only to recognize individuals, while ignoring the fact that people tend to live in groups -- and living among others imposes certain duties upon us which may run counter to our individual desires.

Which suggests a correction to your statement: libertarianism seems to be about "liberty without civic duty."

[JamesP81]

In genereal:

A libertarian is someone who is more conservative than liberal and is noted by positions that generally mean "less government is better government."

A Libertarian (notice the capital L) is a liberal who wants to dress his liberalism up as libertarianism and, thus, be taken seriously by anyone to the right of Michael Moore and Joseph Stalin.

Very important to know the difference. I consider myself to be a social conservative with some libertarian (small l) tendencies. But I think the Libertarian party is staffed by borderline nutbars; I wouldn't vote Libertarian party any more than I would dim party because they are so similar when you get down to it. The Libertarian party just has better window dressing for their liberalism.

[metesky]

Years ago I used to subscribe to Liberty, Reason and a couple of other Libertarian rags. As they slowly drove off the edge of the cliff, especially Liberty with their "how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin" stuff, I edged out of the room and returned to my conservative roots.

Sorry, bud, no takers here.

[Constantine XIII]

Is it made of hemp? :p

[weegee]

RINOs who switched parties after Reagan left office.

They can be found in office in many places, often as governor.

As RINOs infiltrate the party, the Socialist influence on the Democrats also becomes more pronounced. So the political “middle” slouches Left more and more.

Republicans are continually branded “extremists” as a result for holding true to party principle.

[Beagle8U]

Libertarian = Well armed Liberals that don’t want to pay taxes.

[JamesP81]

How did this travesty happen?

I have a theory. It involves two major factors.

When 9/11 happened, you had a lot of semi conservative democrats (Joe Lieberman types that are for strong defense but socially liberal) that knew that the current dim party was totally unfit to fight a war. So they bailed and went for the GOP; this explains Bush's bigger reelection margin in 2004 and I think they also constitute the base of support for the RINOs infesting the party these days. Simultaneously, the social conservative wing of the GOP became more active. While I'm glad all my Christian brothers and sisters are getting involved, the truth is that they've been so uninvolved up to this point that they don't understand the American system of government. They don't understand that government is not empowered to do many of the things it's doing, and they just don't seem to care. I think there's basically a deal between the old dems that joined because of 9/11 and social conservatives ignorant of the American system. That is that the social cons will let the liberal RINO republicans have what they want on domestic spending as long as they let the social conservatives win on their social issues and a few domestic programs of their own.

The result of that is George W. Bush: a fine man, who has done well on some things, but likes big government more than Bill Clinton.

God help us all.

[Publius Valerius]

All of society will suffer unless some control is exerted over certain damaging behaviors.

We (libertarians) don't disagree with this. We support laws that prevent people from taking coercive or forcible action against others.

[Niteranger68]

Great observations!

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
“...dogmatic libertarians are prone to insisting on being given the liberty to behave badly in public, while at the same time insisting that others have no right to complain about or curtail that behavior when it impinges upon them.”

Little “l” libertarians are not the same as big “L” libertarians any more than Republicans are necessarily conservatives. Dogmatic people of any stripe are prone to assigning behavior to others that exists in their only in their view of reality.

Behaving badly in public. LOL.

Michael Frazier

[LibLieSlayer]

AMEN!!!

LLS

[Publius Valerius]

Actually, dogmatic libertarians are prone to insisting on being given the liberty to behave badly in public,

What does "behave badly" mean? Wearing a cutaway after 6:00? Gossiping about the neighbors? Getting drunk and rambunctious? Waving a Confederate flag? Drinking and driving?

I'm not sure what you mean by behaving badly, but libertarians, contrary to your assertion, have no issue with laws that prevent coercive behavior, but if one's actions are offensive--without being coercive--that is where we part company with conservatives (and liberals).

[r9etb]

Behaving badly in public. LOL.

Yeah, well, that's the stuff libertarians tend to focus on most -- prostitution, drugs, and so on.

[JamesP81]

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.

This fusionist conservatism, embodied in many ways by the late Ronald Reagan, is the platform the GOP must adopt if it is to ever win another election.

Social cons can have their pro life positions, but need to give up on overreaching things like public smoking bans and, to some degree, drug issues. I know it goes against the grain with a lot of folks I know, but I believe the evil perpetrated by the state running the 'drug war' is far greater than the evil of someone sitting around smoking dope. I won't hesitate to tell that dope smoker that what they're doing is wrong and is affront before God, but the government has already proven it's not responsible enough to punish such behavior without catching innocents in the process and that, my friends, is a far greater threat than any pothead ever will be.

Government is instituted among men to secure the rights and liberties of the people. Securing the rights of the unborn falls under this category, so social cons can win on their single biggest issue hands down under this platform. But social cons need to get used to the idea that returning our govt to its constitutional bounds is both a good thing and will require actions that may seem extreme. Many social cons are also apathetic on the 2nd Amendment; this group either needs to get enthusiastic about it, or just stay out of the way.

Libertarians can win on the free speech and reduction of police state powers, but left leaning libertarians are going to have get off the pro abortion, pro euthanasia, and pro embryonic stem cell research thing. In fact, a true libertarian would probably note that the Constitution doesn't grant the govt the power to spend public money on scientific research anyway, so this one shouldn't be an issue but for some reason, it is with some Libertarians.

Libertarians might've opposed the war in Iraq, but it's time for them to get some common sense about it. The war is on, and withdrawal now would be a disaster.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

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). ...When we use the government to “fix” an undesirable outcome, there’s no reason (consequence pressure) for the undisciplined to be moral.

Attrition. Yeah, right. Is that how it is on your planet? Problems just take care of themselves?

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
“Yeah, well, that’s the stuff libertarians tend to focus on most — prostitution, drugs, and so on.’

That’s the stuff that seems to gets you attention, for sure, eh.

I’m going to go kill some star thistle. See you all later later.

[JamesP81]

I'm not sure what you mean by behaving badly, but libertarians, contrary to your assertion, have no issue with laws that prevent coercive behavior, but if one's actions are offensive--without being coercive--that is where we part company with conservatives (and liberals).

Indeed. And unfortunately, some social cons have this problem too. I have good friends tell me straight to my face that we should outlaw behavior in public that bothers other people. Specifically, one of my friends was trying to justify a public smoking ban because his fiance has breathing problems and cigarette smoke bothers her. While I agree that that sucks, once you make a law to accomodate one group of people, it only becomes fair to make a law to accomodate another group, then yet another group, and pretty soon, it's illegal to leave your house.

That's why I'm so doom and gloom about the future of our republic. Even the folks with good morals don't understand the fire they're playing with.