Intersection of Libertarian and Conservative thought

[j1mmyd]

Nice to find something not completely insane in The Daily Paul. I'm kidding! A full 67% of their content is partially sane.

I've often found Libertarianism to be very logical, but lacking in compassion in a couple areas and just plain misguided in others. For me, this makes it an unlikely (if preferable to Progressivism) platform for national success. The moral underpinnings of Conservatism give it that missing compassion and moral compass needed to navigate the in-betweens, but sometimes resorts to the same statist solutions as Progs, wherein government becomes the enforcer.

This author-guy says, "Libertarian politics requires a conservative value structure in order to be workable, and a conservative value structure requires libertarian politics in order to be just." He goes on about "tyranny" and "destruction" and whatnot, but to me it's just more practical when balanced.

For those who don't want to read the whole thing, he goes on that, "What is meant by a “libertarian political structure” is that man was meant to be free. He possesses certain clear-cut rights that are to be protected, rather than manipulated, by politicians. Therefore, his government must be objectively limited by a constitution rather than arbitrarily determined by the dictates of an autocrat or the passions of the majority. What is meant by a “conservative value structure” is acceptance of the fact that there is an objective moral order in the universe, i.e., certain rights and wrongs in life that are applicable to all humans for all of time."

Guess I'll be buying the book.

Full article: http://www.dailypaul.com/283907/liberta ... ot-enemies

[ShotgunBlast]

"The moral underpinnings of Conservatism give it that missing compassion and moral compass needed to navigate the in-betweens, but sometimes resorts to the same statist solutions as Progs, wherein government becomes the enforcer."

Translation: "We want to control your life in other ways."

I don't need a government to provide me a moral compass. What some consider a lack of compassion, I consider live and let live.

And this is why I'm a Libertarian and not a conservative.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[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.

[FiremanBob]

Jimmy, that's right. Most people confuse "libertarian" with "libertine" - as in do whatever makes you feel good as long as it doesn't violate my rights.

But in truth, libertarianism is essentially the same as conservatism. Liberty and responsibility are the two sides of a coin. They are inseparable. Only by living according to conservative principles can one become a success in a libertarian world.

There are those who would say, "What about the rich heirs, or the dissolute lifestyles of the rich?" To which my answer is, "If they waste their lives and their fortunes, they will be scorned by honest men, and when their money runs out they, or their descendants, will have to learn how to earn their way once again."

Only in today's "Progressive" society, where moral principles have become perverted by the teaching of the Left (whether in Leftist government schools, by Leftist media promoting "consumerism, or by dependence on government handouts), can one become a celebrity based on one's consumption rather than one's production.

Many people also brand as "conservative" intrusive government and narrow-minded social ideas that have nothing to do with the real meaning of conservatism.

[GeneFrenkle]

Conservatives can be social or Constitutional.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

Conserve means the same thing as preserve. So what are conservatives trying to preserve? The Constitution. Though, at this point, it would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to restore the Constitution.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[j1mmyd]

Conserve means the same thing as preserve. So what are conservatives trying to preserve? The Constitution. Though, at this point, it would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to restore the Constitution.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

And even before there was a Constitution weren't they trying to conserve individual Liberty? In any event, your point about restoration is very valid.

[Kreutz]

And even before there was a Constitution weren't they trying to conserve individual Liberty? In any event, your point about restoration is very valid.

They were called Loyalists then.

[SHMIV]

I would say that the Constitution seeks to conserve individual liberties.

One thing I've noticed is that conservative citizens are often confused with and/or judged by Republican politicians. It's a lazy judgement, but we Conservatives keep voting for them...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

Conserve means the same thing as preserve. So what are conservatives trying to preserve? The Constitution. Though, at this point, it would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to restore the Constitution.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

And even before there was a Constitution weren't they trying to conserve individual Liberty? In any event, your point about restoration is very valid.

NO! They were radically different and were considered progressives and liberals because they were for the things "natural to a man in his free state." Those terms were stolen and corrupted to mean something very different in the 20th century; so much so that we refer to the real liberals as "classically liberal." That was radical thinking then as it is now; the power of the People over the State and the Rights of the Individual over both.

[gunderwood]

And even before there was a Constitution weren't they trying to conserve individual Liberty? In any event, your point about restoration is very valid.

They were called Loyalists then.

Exactly, they wanted to conserve the Monarchy/British State which was the exiting status quo.

[gunderwood]

I've often found Libertarianism to be very logical, but lacking in compassion in a couple areas and just plain misguided in others.

Which is why most Conservatives are statist just like most modern Progressives. Both believe in the power of the State to mold and shape their people into moral/ethical citizens. Libertarianism merely wants to limit the State to violations of others Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The morality of a society isn't for the government to impose, which it really can't do. E.g. imposing Prohibition created more alcoholics, not less.

The moral underpinnings of Conservatism give it that missing compassion and moral compass needed to navigate the in-betweens, but sometimes resorts to the same statist solutions as Progs, wherein government becomes the enforcer.

What moral underpinning of Conservatism? No such thing exists. What I think you mean is that there are moral underpinnings of the people who happen to vote for what is classified as Conservative ideas. Of course the problem arises when they then want to impose their morality via the government on others. It's just like the Anglican and Roman Catholic (insert what ever you want, atheist if you want modern) battles of old over who would control the "official religion" of the State.

This author-guy says, "Libertarian politics requires a conservative value structure in order to be workable, and a conservative value structure requires libertarian politics in order to be just."

So only Conservatives are moral? Ya, I have a bridge to sell you too.

For those who don't want to read the whole thing, he goes on that, "What is meant by a “libertarian political structure” is that man was meant to be free. He possesses certain clear-cut rights that are to be protected, rather than manipulated, by politicians. Therefore, his government must be objectively limited by a constitution rather than arbitrarily determined by the dictates of an autocrat or the passions of the majority.

Exactly what Libertarianism is all about and that is exactly the idea that was so radical. The government is limited to protecting unalienable rights rather than imposing the States ideal of what is good on the people.

What is meant by a “conservative value structure” is acceptance of the fact that there is an objective moral order in the universe, i.e., certain rights and wrongs in life that are applicable to all humans for all of time."

Of which Libertarianism agrees 100% (underlined). It could not make any such claim to unalienable rights otherwise.

The problem is that most Conservatives want to use the power of the State to impose things beyond unalienable rights. For example, they want the State to outlaw prostitution because its immoral. Yet, if you read the Bible as many Conservatives claim to do, so is sex outside of marriage for any reason, so is adultery, etc. Why do Conservatives want Prostitution illegal and the government wasting our resources to "stop" it, but not other forms of extra marital sex? It's all immoral.

A Libertarian doesn't have to condone the activity to not want it made illegal by the State. E.g, prostitution. The Libertarian is concerned about what powers you are giving the State in order to stop a vice and what resources you are wasting trying to stop it. Prostitution, while I consider it immoral, does not violate any of the parties unalienable rights and thus the government should not make it illegal. Society should shun it IMHO, but it's dangerous to give the State the power to make it illegal because at that point it merely becomes a State with no limits on it's power. He who controls the State can make anything moral or immoral as they choose. E.g. guns kill people and thus are immoral, government should ban/confiscate them. Weed is bad, but caffeine or opiates via a prescription is ok.

Once the State has that power, what is moral becomes arbitrary based on who controls the State.

[graybeard321]

Lot of valid points in this post, but it reminds me why I hate labels. “everyone has different meaning for each labels.” Over 250 years ago just about all of the members of this board would have been classified by the British government as terrorist. Only because we won are our forefathers called patriots.

[ShotgunBlast]

@gunderwood: +1

@dormin: The winners always write history. Like you, I feel grateful that we won.

[FiremanBob]

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.

[Tweaker]

Change it to "those who claim to be conservatives" or just put it in air quotes, because he plainly does not seem to believe these are true conservative values and actions.

[Tweaker]

Today's "conservatives" (John McCrazy, Lindsay Gramnesty) make me puke and are why I will only go so far as to claim that I am a conservative leaning Libertarian. One of the few true conservatives was Barry Goldwater.

The ignorant, selfish, short sighted American of our time has neither the comprehension, sense of personal responsibility or the maturity to vote such a person into high elected office. We are sowing, and we shall surely reap.

[Tweaker]

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.

[GeneFrenkle]

@tweaker - excellent book.

[ShotgunBlast]

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.

You can believe what you want about what some words meant to you, but even the Teamorality people (some of the most "conservative" people in the "Republican" party) even act against things such as abortion or same sex marriage. I think gunderwood's use of the word was spot on and is what most of the country imagines when they hear someone is "conservative" (translation: they're just statists on social issues trying to legislate morality).

I feel there are probably more libertarian thinking people on this board that for whatever reason don't identify with themselves as being libertarian.