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
“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...
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."
Many faux conservatives who don’t understand the difference get the two mixed up"
Michael Frazier
The Libertarian Party is to Liberty what the Republican Party is to a Republican form of government and the Democrats are to Democracy, all complete travesties of the basic description of the core word they employ for a party name.
I've developed an extreme disdain of most people that describe themselves as conservatives or liberals, associate themselves with the Democratic Party or Republican Party, or cannot find within themselves the most basic moral premise upon which our nation was born, that being liberty. Most all Democrats, Republicans, conservatives and liberals today share two common bonds. They are followers and they have embraced authoritarian rule. They must love it more than liberty itself. They all employ it whenever they rise to power.
In recent years we have seen legislation introduced that would force children at public schools to learn homosexual history. We've seen legislation passed that forces Social Security recipients to participate in Medicare prescription drug plans (Social Security that mandates involuntary participation is an older example). We've seen the government force upon our citizens a requirement for Passports to reclaim our birthright when reentering our native soil. We've seen the federal government pass legislation that sets federal workers as spies upon the citizenry. All have the earmark of authoritarian rule. Always they combine to nibble further at our liberty.
There is a need for authority when a person or group impairs or threatens the liberty of another person or group. We see this with speed limits within residential areas. It is present in our laws barring homicide, assault, slavery, theft and destruction of property.
Liberty is not having an unalienable right to force behaviors upon others, but respecting the liberty of all. One might argue that capital punishment is an exercise in authoritarian rule over an individual. It is not. Such punishment is given those that have destroyed the liberty of another.
I need look no further into the Libertarian Party than their stance on abortion. The Libertarian Party takes the position the issue must be left to individuals to determine. This would be fine if it did not involve the life of another, but make no mistake, a living fetus at any point in development is living, not even the host has the right to abort. Failing to accept this is to accept the destruction of most necessary component of liberty itself which is life itself. Once a false premise is accepted it will eventually corrupt other issues.
Were the Libertarian Party truly about liberty they would have one guiding principle all citizens could easily absorb and exercise on a personal level. Does a proposed law uphold or negate liberty where life and property are not threatened? No citizen or group has the right to impose behaviors upon another individual or group where life or property is not threatened. NO PERSON OR GROUP HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIBERTY OF ANOTHER WHERE LIFE AND PROPERTY ARE NOT THREATENED.
From the Libertarian Party web site:
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
(http://www.lp.org/issues/introduction.shtml)
Only when a political party can find a cohesive core message assuring liberty to the most vulnerable can it claim to stand for liberty. I take further exception with the final sentence in the cited paragraph above as it would prohibit the federal government from having a standing military force or border protections, but leave all matters of defense to citizens themselves with only assistance from the government.
No, I see no consistent Liberty theme in the Libertarian Party, just as I see little Republican principle in the Republican Party, or little Democracy in the Democratic Party. They are all distortions of principles once valued in our nation. Only when a majority of citizens set themselves to fight against authoritarian rule will we renew these principles and be great yet again.