Intersection of Libertarian and Conservative thought

[Tweaker]

Very likely. COME OUT OF THE CLOSET, YE LIBERTARIANS!

Voted for Gary Johnson (who?) last year.

250% increase in votes over the last election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... erformance

[FiremanBob]

Shotgun, I'm surprised that you would defer to the opinion of "what most of the country imagines". Keep in mind that "most of the country" is either too ignorant or too propagandized to know the proper meaning of the word "conservative".

There are libertarian arguments, entirely without reference to religion, against both abortion and the extension of the word "marriage" to homosexual relationships. Being against those things does not make one a Statist. If the tax code and the panoply of unconstitutional "benefit" programs did not explicitly subsidize marriage, there would be no substantive argument for homosexuals to agitate for legislating the language. As Rand Paul said recently, the correct approach is to get rid of all the government programs that transfer money to married people at the expense of everyone else.

I am disappointed to see the loose use of quite specific words in this thread. "Conservative" does not mean Statist. For a brief education on this topic, read Mark Levin's "Ameritopia" and "Liberty and Tyranny".

[ShotgunBlast]

Shotgun, I'm surprised that you would defer to the opinion of "what most of the country imagines". Keep in mind that "most of the country" is either too ignorant or too propagandized to know the proper meaning of the word "conservative".

Which is why I listed it second to the Tea Party (erroneously referred to as "Teamorality" in my previous post - worst smartphone post ever). They themselves claim to be conservative. Even our own Ken Cuccinelli classifies himself as a conservative, yet he is quite extreme on social issues, but his own website states "As Attorney General, he has become best known for his efforts to preserve liberty and defend the US Constitution." How exactly can you preserve liberty AND tell me how to conduct my bedroom and personal affairs?

There are libertarian arguments, entirely without reference to religion, against both abortion and the extension of the word "marriage" to homosexual relationships. Being against those things does not make one a Statist. If the tax code and the panoply of unconstitutional "benefit" programs did not explicitly subsidize marriage, there would be no substantive argument for homosexuals to agitate for legislating the language. As Rand Paul said recently, the correct approach is to get rid of all the government programs that transfer money to married people at the expense of everyone else.

And I agree with Rand's solution to the issue. You're right that simply being against abortion, gay marriage, drug use, or whatever doesn't make you a statist, but telling someone else they can't do that does make you a statist and that's exactly what social conservatives do.

I am disappointed to see the loose use of quite specific words in this thread. "Conservative" does not mean Statist. For a brief education on this topic, read Mark Levin's "Ameritopia" and "Liberty and Tyranny".

Thank you for the references; I'll have to check them out. I'm not sure that a lot of people would agree with you that "conservative" is quite specific because the reference point someone uses to define what is "conservative" is subjective.

The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

But more specificially, even in the US we can't agree on what "conservatism" specifically is.

The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support school prayer and capital punishment and oppose abortion and the legalization of same-sex marriage.[3] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.[4] Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism.[5] Most conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions support strong foreign policy, military, and support for Israel. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "Godless Communism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... ted_States

So everyone individually can have a specific interpretation of what "conservative" means to them, but when you lump all of those ideas together there is going to be a lot of variations.

[gunderwood]

Gunderwood's otherwise excellent post is weakened by his improper application of the word "conservative". He is conflating "conservative" with "Republican", as I warned against in my earlier post. There are a great many Statists in the Republican party, but they are not conservatives even though they may claim to be.

I've listened to "Conservatives" expose that there is a difference for years, yet when it comes time to vote they vote 100% Republican even if the candidate doesn't believe in anything they claim too. In practice it's a distinction without a difference.

[gunderwood]

I am disappointed to see the loose use of quite specific words in this thread. "Conservative" does not mean Statist. For a brief education on this topic, read Mark Levin's "Ameritopia" and "Liberty and Tyranny".

When it comes to many topics, conservatives actively choose the statist solution. i.e. the State > Individual/People/Liberty

Even their so called desire for free markets, etc. is rarely actually free in any meaningful sense of the word. Rather they just want different government regulations on the "free" market than the Democrats.

I tried reading Liberty and Tyranny, but IIRC I couldn't make it more than a couple of chapters in because he quoted TJ, then made some stuff up about what TJ meant and how it fits the conservative ideology even even a plain reading of it clearly contradicted his claims.

[FiremanBob]

Really? Perhaps you would be willing to give an example or two.

[j1mmyd]

Let me break that back down for you, since you seem to have missed part of the point. The portion of my statement from which you quote means that the moral underpinnings provide the compass. These just happen to be part of, neither caused by nor exclusive to, true Conservatism.

Your "Translation" supports my point about where Conservatism gets it wrong. Glad we agree on that part.

Good posts, James.

As long as you're shopping, I recommend Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Only getting around to reading it now after it came out in 2007. Some amazing historical facts that I was unaware of. It's like he put a box under the "memory hole" and captured dozens of "inconvenient truths" the liberals have been scurrying to rip from the fabric of history for 100 years.

I read Liberal Fascism and its definitely worth the time.

[j1mmyd]

Not to put ourselves in their league or say our situation is as bad as was theirs, but this is the kind of debate that the Founding Fathers engaged in. I think its healthy and I'm glad to have a venue to exchange ideas and to persuade and be persuaded. See, I don't mind being proven wrong so much as I hate staying wrong.

Even while knowing we disagree as a group on many issues, I'm certain that I could more easily form a coalition with all of you (without using "guns" as an anchoring issue) than I could with anyone on the left or currently in office.

[gunderwood]

See, I don't mind being proven wrong so much as I hate staying wrong.

With that attitude you can go very far in life.

[gunderwood]

Really? Perhaps you would be willing to give an example or two.

1. Republicans/Conservatives supporting and proposing variations on the UBC. If it's a unalienable right, any such scheme, no matter how many protections you think it provides, is offensive. Otherwise, all you have is a government granted privilege.


2. Paul Ryan's budget (or is he not a conservative according to you, because the talk show hosts who started this Repub/Conserv distinction without a difference seem to think he is) that doesn't actually do a darn thing. In fact it grows government and spending, but merely does it at a slower pace than the Democrats want too.


3. The massive increase in spending and debt under the 8 years of the Bush administration. Sure you can disown him now, but the Conservatives did not at the time.


The list is nearly endless because they've thrown you under the bus so many times. Like a battered wife, you'll always come back for more so why worry about it?

[FiremanBob]

Gunderwood, I should have been more clear. I was asking for examples of Levin misinterpreting Jefferson.

[SHMIV]

Conservatives, as a rule, are generally against abortion and any form of legislation that supports the practice. This much is true. That, however, does not make us statists. Another thing that Conservatives want to preserve is the life of the most innocent and defenseless.

Like most Conservative, I also do not support gay marriages. Yes, I have moral objection to that sort of behavior, but that's not why I object. I truly do not care what folks do in their bedrooms, kitchens, or backseats. I really don't. It is none of my business, gay or straight. My objection is the continual perversion of perfectly good words and symbols. For example, I'd like to say that I'm pretty gay today without everyone assuming that I'm a homosexual. I'd like to display a rainbow flag, since a rainbow is symbolic of God's promise to us. The triangle, which is symbolic of the Holy Trinity has also been highjacked. Now, if homosexuals want to have some form of official bonding, I don't care. Just get a new word for it. The word "marriage" already has a solid definition, and it's had it for centuries.

Where I differ from most conservatives is the topic of drug use. As far as I'm concerned, a man has the right to self destruct in his pursuit of happiness. I don't care what drugs folks want to use, it's all the same to me. I just don't make it a priority, as there are more pressing things to focus on at the moment.

There was more that I wanted to say on the topic, but if I continue, I will end up breaking this retarded phone. 45 minutes to hammer out a 2 minute thought is just ridiculous.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

Conservatives, as a rule, are generally against abortion and any form of legislation that supports the practice. This much is true. That, however, does not make us statists. Another thing that Conservatives want to preserve is the life of the most innocent and defenseless.

Like most Conservative, I also do not support gay marriages. Yes, I have moral objection to that sort of behavior, but that's not why I object. I truly do not care what folks do in their bedrooms, kitchens, or backseats. I really don't. It is none of my business, gay or straight. My objection is the continual perversion of perfectly good words and symbols. For example, I'd like to say that I'm pretty gay today without everyone assuming that I'm a homosexual. I'd like to display a rainbow flag, since a rainbow is symbolic of God's promise to us. The triangle, which is symbolic of the Holy Trinity has also been highjacked. Now, if homosexuals want to have some form of official bonding, I don't care. Just get a new word for it. The word "marriage" already has a solid definition, and it's had it for centuries.

Where I differ from most conservatives is the topic of drug use. As far as I'm concerned, a man has the right to self destruct in his pursuit of happiness. I don't care what drugs folks want to use, it's all the same to me. I just don't make it a priority, as there are more pressing things to focus on at the moment.

There was more that I wanted to say on the topic, but if I continue, I will end up breaking this retarded phone. 45 minutes to hammer out a 2 minute thought is just ridiculous.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[GeneFrenkle]

From SHMIV

>> Where I differ from most conservatives is the topic of drug use. As far as I'm concerned, a man has the right to self destruct in his pursuit of happiness. I don't care what drugs folks want to use, it's all the same to me. I just don't make it a priority, as there are more pressing things to focus on at the moment.

I suspect it's not so much as trying to prevent self destruction of the user, it might have more to do with impacting others that choose not to self destruct (e.g. metro train operator stoned and crashing into another train, drunk beating kids). When the negative behavior adversely impacts others, that becomes an issue.

[SHMIV]

@Gene: I understand that. The thing is, though, that beating your spouse and children is illegal regardless of whether or not you are stoned. The stoned train operator shouldn't have shown up stoned, and his supervisor should have noticed, or perhaps should not have hired him to begin with.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[GeneFrenkle]

@SHMIV - But in some places in the world, beating folks regardless of one's state is considered lawful. The point I was trying to make was "do unto yourself is ahight, but tread carefully when your do unto yourself does unto others".

[SHMIV]

@Gene: I do not disagree. However, that is a personal responsibility thing. When one is irresponsible, and that leads only to self destruction, let him be.

Virtually everything that one can do while on drugs, that has a negative impact on others, is already illegal in this country. So, punish those crimes.

To deny the man with no responsibilities his pursuit of drug-addled happiness, however misguided that pursuit may be, is wrong.

But, I'm certainly not going to vote for anyone based SOLELY on that view point. Like I said, there are currently more pressing issues. If a candidate is prolife and progun, but also pro drug war, so be it. I'll vote for him over a candidate that shares my drug stance, but will support baby murder and gun control.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

From SHMIV

>> Where I differ from most conservatives is the topic of drug use. As far as I'm concerned, a man has the right to self destruct in his pursuit of happiness. I don't care what drugs folks want to use, it's all the same to me. I just don't make it a priority, as there are more pressing things to focus on at the moment.

I suspect it's not so much as trying to prevent self destruction of the user, it might have more to do with impacting others that choose not to self destruct (e.g. metro train operator stoned and crashing into another train, drunk beating kids). When the negative behavior adversely impacts others, that becomes an issue.

Using that logic you can justify nearly anything and human beings can't live their lives. It's the same rationale that promotes preventative weapons restrictions merely because someone could (and will) murder another. Their negative behavior affects others. Negative behavior affects those around us, but that is not a grounds for making many things illegal. e.g. blowing the budget on a new rifle certainly and negatively affects your spouse and kids. When that negative behavior crosses the threshold of affecting others rights, then the State/society limits and punishes the behavior which violated the right, not the dairy farmers because you had a glass of milk with breakfast. A free society doesn't punish everyone by registering/banning firearms merely because someone might blow the budget on a new rifle or another might murder someone with a firearm.

You can't even breath without negatively affecting someone else by reducing the oxygen of the air in their vicinity. Plants love it though.

[GeneFrenkle]

Huh? Adverse was identifying a degree of action or effect - detrimental, hostile, or substantially harmful rather than inconvenient or other petty slight.

Funny you mention milk and dairy farmers because people are being prosecuted for drinking milk - unpasteurized milk.

O2 consumption is a poor example, but i get the gist. But plants don't care one way or another. They also use respiration.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

Gunderwood, I should have been more clear. I was asking for examples of Levin misinterpreting Jefferson.

I took a quick look through the book today, but failed to find the passage I was thinking of...IIRC and all. I'd probably have to re-read (not high on my list of priorities) a good portion of it to find it and I may or may not have been wrong about it being TJ, but that's what I remember. IIRC, he was trying to soften TJs more radical side about revolution and despotism, etc.