Libertarians Versus Conservatives

Townhall.com ^ | June 11, 2014 | John Stossel

[Daveinyork]

bullsh*t. Most conservatives I know have strong libertarian tendencies, and a lot of people calling themselves libertarians (small l) agree with conservatives on a lot of points.

[NFHale]

“...the Nazis took that bullet for us, not a bad outcome...”

Socialists killing socialists is never a bad thing. We should encourage it wherever possible. Same-same for the muzzies.

“...There still would have been war in Europe...”

I don’t know, maybe... but Hitler’s folks were the ones doing the invading. Russia was busying itself slaughtering and brainwashing it’s own enslaved population and had been since 1917, although, yes, they DID invade Finland in 1940.

Overall, I think Germany’s socialists bear the brunt of responsibility for the horror in Europe, as Japan does for the Pacific and China.

I guess my question is, do you think we would have been fighting Russia instead of Germany, with FDR in control?? He loved “Uncle Joe” and his “system”...

[rbmillerjr]

Your graph has no quadrant for conservatives.

Logically it appears you put them in the compartment of facists, which is absurd.

[ansel12]

My sense is that there are very few open pro-abortionists on FR.

The libbers aren't open about much of anything, it is why a thread on gay marriage can have the libertarians fighting the conservatives tooth and nail, yet never quite saying what it is they are fighting for, or why they are so mad and passionate, it is like trying to pin down mercury, they make for the most strange, vague, yet nasty threads.

[demshateGod]

Libertarians blindly accept the historical revisionist view of prohibition, ignoring the reality of it, because it makes their theory look good.

[ansel12]

Rand Paul has dropped his firm pro-life stance and has been stressing that he is leading the ascendancy of libertarianism.

CNN:
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?

PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.

I would say that after birth, you know, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.

And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.

BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.

PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.

So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.

This goes for the same with the end of life.

[rbmillerjr]

Imo this is the crux of the problem with libertarians.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident...all men are... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

Philosophically, they are moral relativists who don’t believe in absolute truths.

[lormand]

"Endless wars like Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan cost lives and treasure while destabilizing the world."

You do know that Afghanistan is the only remaining country that we are engaged in right? Hardly "endless wars" in anyone's book.

To make the libertopian argument look sane, they must employ lots of hyperbole and lies.

[rdb3]

However, I’d like to point out that neocon has no agreed definition, and most of those accused of being neocons don’t define themselves as such. As used, it tends to just mean anyone more in favor of intervention than I am.

So being opposed to neocons is pretty much a straw man situation.

I fully concur.

It's the most overused yet totally meaningless term used.

Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.

[xzins]

I agree. In that interview it sounds like Paul has dumped his pro-life claims.

PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.... So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed

That sounds even worse than "health of the mother" if that's even possible. That sounds like "situation of the mother."

[TBP]

Most libertarians believe our attempts to create or support democracy around the world have made us new enemies, and done harm as well as good.

So do a lot of old conservatives (the so-called "paleoconservatives.") Especially these days.

[Responsibility2nd]

Your punctuation was a little off. I fixed it for you,

____________________________________

bullsh*t: Most conservatives ....

[TBP]

"I will go to my grave trying to prevent every new country we can find from getting nuclear weapons," because if they do, "it's going to be a very dangerous world."

Isn't that what liberals say about guns?

Of course, if you really want to stop nuclear weapons, the obvious answer is strategic defense.

[Sherman Logan]

With the possible exception of “fascist.”

Neocon originally had little if any foreign policy connection. It referred to liberals who “had been mugged,” and had switched over the conservative or sorta conservative POVs on domestic issues, particularly those involving welfare and government dependency. As such, for quite a long time, conservatives of a more traditional bent were generally quite happy with neocons joining them.

For some obscure reason, during the GWB administration I believe, the term got transferred to proponents of spreading the American way of life around the globe, by military force if need be. This was usually, though perhaps not always, a cartoonish interpretation of the “neocons” actual opinion.

The term itself is based, apparently, on the absurd notion that conservatives are proponents of such intervention. The actual fact is that in US history there is little or no consistent correlation between liberal or conservative views and interventionist ideas in foreign policy.

[tanknetter]

Fascists exist at the extreme corner of the lower right. It’s really impossible to be a 100% perfect Fascist, just like it’s impossible to be a 100% pure Objectivist or Hippie Libertarian or Communist. Those are theoretical endpoints, not practical ones.

So in the context of where Conservatives fall within the quadrant, the question becomes how one wants Conservative values propagated through society. Either through societal mechanisms (shaming, for instance), or government mandate. The former puts one in the upper right quadrant, the latter in the lower right.

Of course, even the two dimensional construct is too simplistic, because in reality it comes down to specific issues (and is therefore really three dimensional)

For instance, someone can simultaneously hold the upper right Libertarisn view that the government should stay the heck out of restricting gun ownership as well as the lower right one that the government should be very much involved in restricting abortion ...

[ConservingFreedom]

Libertarians blindly accept the historical revisionist view of prohibition, ignoring the reality of it, because it makes their theory look good.

That Prohibition was a failure is well documented here: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf. Do you have better information?

[TBP]

We want less military spending.

Yes -- as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the ability of our military to do the job when we need it done.

Cut the Pentagon bureaucracy, reform our procurement practices so we don't spend so much on supplies, eliminate redundant weapons systems. All of that would be responsible cutting. I think we as conservatives can support that. But cutting our troops or anything that damages their ability to defend our interests would be irresponsible.

[TBP]

You’ve never heard of Libertarians for Life?

[TBP]

“Neoconservatives are neither neo nor conservative.” — Russell Kirk