The differences between libertarians and conservatives?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

"If he is a libertarian, why has he been a republican congressman for more than ten terms?"

He explained why he left the libertarian party several times. It has nothing to do with his views and everything to do with how government has established a two party framework that is nearly impossible to penetrate as a third party candidate.

Now this is where I disagree with you. Ron Paul complains and argues against the two party system, and yet he conforms to it as well? What about in 2008 when Ron Paul asked his voters to support other established Texan Republicans? I am not convinced that Ron Paul did this out of necessity. He had a choice and had one for some time. During all that period that the Republican party was pushing of the patriot act and the Iraq war (with many Democrats in support) Ron Paul continued to stay in that party. There is no excuse in my view.

I'm sure Ron Paul has enough support to stand as an independent or to form his own party. He chooses to remain int he Republican party while criticizing them. To me Ron Paul just provides an avenue for libertarians and others to register republicans.

One that knows he'll never get elected running on a third party platform. Ron Paul's goal is to take over the republican party with libertarian candidates and return the republican party back to its earlier libertarian platform.

It's been what? 16 years? He's had plenty of time to form his own. He chooses not to. His son chooses not to. I think you are

reply to post by Southern Guardian


In the end, it doesn't matter whether his name tag has a "D" or an "R" after it.

All that matters is how he votes once he is in office.

Ron could care less what party he is affiliated with, which is why most of the republicans in congress hate his guts.

They've stopped him from getting his committee chairmanship several times just to spite him.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Trust me, the neo-con's don't want to be branded as libertarians and the libertarians don't want to be branded as neo-cons.

Glenn Beck and many other high standing rightwing figures and political leaders waste no breath declaring themselves libertarian. Unless you consider the likes of Glenn Beck libertarian?

Both have a large amount of animosity toward each other.

I disagree. I have never seen any major rifts between libertarians and other conservatives/neocons alike. They have been largely cooperative in my eyes. Do you have an article or anything? I'd be really interested. I know that many conservatives were frustrated at Ron Paul in 2007 over his comments about the war on terror, but there didn't appear to be any major rifts..

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Go make a few libertarian posts over on Moonbattery.com and see what happens.

You'll find out just how much neo-cons like libertarians.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

In the end, it doesn't matter whether his name tag has a "D" or an "R" after it.

All that matters is how he votes once he is in office.

Ron could care less what party he is affiliated with, which is why most of the republicans in congress hate his guts.

They've stopped him from getting his committee chairmanship several times just to spite him.

Mnemeth1 I am pritty confident in believing that you are a capitalist anarchist or libertarian at the truest sense, but I do believe you are purposefully misleading yourself into thinking these explanations about Ron Paul put to rest the inconsistencies of where he is. Maybe there are not any pure libertarians out there for you to look up to, I don't know. I can't convince you any further so I'll leave it there for now.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I have listened to hundreds of hours of Ron Paul lectures and thousands of hours of anarchist/libertarian economics lectures.

I know Ron Paul's views better than I know my own views.

And I can say emphatically, Ron Paul is a libertarian.

I would even argue that Ron Paul is a closet anarchist and would abolish the State entirely if it was in his power to do so. What he says in public on Fox News is a tad different than what he says in private economics lectures.

He is a politician after all.

I hate the labels but in my view a pure libertarian should believe "No harm no crime" period! Also that the government has no business in anyone's life if they are not harming others, perhaps most notably with things like business, licensees, sex, drugs, abortion, etc.. Now of course in reality we have people at varying degrees of libertarianism as with other so called political philosophies. I know folks who claim to be libertarian who think it is Ok to steal my money in the name of doing good against my will because they think it pays for roads and stuff...

Today's neo-conservatives do not believe any of that they are fascist/socialist just like the so called left believing they have the right to use government to force others to thier political brand and differ only slightly from the so called left. Both believe it is OK to steal using government force to fund social programs of thier choosing. Both believe it is OK to spy on people against their will, both believe it is ok to legislate behaviour, speech, restrict travel, force people to buy certain goods and services like health care, take over private business etc etc etc... Again individuals are at varying degrees but essentially the legislators that end up on the hill pretty much act in unison in this respect.

PS you haven't done your homework on Ron Paul he is much more libertarian then you cast him. Most of what you said about him is false. But I don't care to argue it so won;t go into it.

He explained why he left the libertarian party several times. It has nothing to do with his views and everything to do with how government has established a two party framework that is nearly impossible to penetrate as a third party candidate.

He didn't leave the Libertarian Party. He left the Republican Party, joined the Libertarian Party, then left it and re-joined the Republican Party. My point is, Ron Paul was originally a Republican. Yes, Ron Paul has talked about the two-party debacle, and he has also talked about how it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to win. I concede that.

One that knows he'll never get elected running on a third party platform. Ron Paul's goal is to take over the republican party with libertarian candidates and return the republican party back to its earlier libertarian platform.

Ron Paul's goal is not to take over the republican party and replace it with libertarians. Sure, he wants the platform to be "liberty friendly," which, in many ways, is more libertarian. But it isn't libertarian. Just more libertarian. The republican party has become far too liberal, and it is true that the GOP was once a party that promoted smaller government, personal responsibility, and a stricter interpretation of the constitution. However, it was never a strictly libertarian platform.

Being a libertarian does not make one in favor of abortion. Ron Paul is against the State's use of capital punishment. Ron Paul is also for open borders AFTER the socialist welfare state has been deconstructed. And the "we the people act" is a pure libertarian 10ther piece of legislation.

It is very true that being a libertarian does not make one in favor of abortion, and that was probably something I should have left out of my argument. Ron Paul is against funding state capital punishment, but has said that he believes it to be a reasonable punishment for those who commit serious crimes like murder. I have never heard that Ron Paul plans on opening the boarders. The We the People Act was flawed for many reasons, one of which was that it removed the ability of a federal court to hear cases that arose from state or federal violations of religious freedom. Also, are you, a staunch anti neo-conservative (as am I) going to tell me that a bill cosponsored by such individuals like John Sullivan and Tom Tancredo is totally libertarian?



I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I respect your positions, and I hope you feel the same way about mine. From your avatar, I noticed that you are an Anarcho-Capitalist, and that's awesome (I toe the line with that position, myself... maybe I'll be converted someday). I love Murray Rothbard, and I have studied Austrian Economics for pleasure. F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" was one of the greatest, and oddly most beautiful books I have ever read.

You think Ron Paul is libertarian, and I think Ron Paul is kinda libertarian. Whatever. I'm sure we can both agree that he has done many great things for this county, and the fact that he has inspired so many people will go a long way in saving this sinking nation.

reply to post by hawkiye


Don't get mad.

Just keep pointing out the violence that the State perpetrates against its own people.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


Ron Paul wants the republican party to become the libertarian party.

End of story.

He is not simply trying to make it more liberty friendly, he wants it to become nearly anarchist in nature.

In the first minute and a half of this speech, Ron Paul states that not only does he not believe in politicians fixing any problems, but he also assures a crowd of anarchists that he is here to help them.

The "can you believe there are people here who are anarchists?" is a facetious joke. He knows who he is speaking to.

At time 16:00 he apologizes to the anarchists for taking the oath of office, then provides an explanation for his actions.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Don't get mad.

Just keep pointing out the violence that the State perpetrates against its own people.

Why do you think I am mad? Not mad just stating facts and opinions.

Libertarians
believe that religion has no place in government
illegal must be shipped home
That homeowner have the right to be well armed and criminals have no right once the enter someone elses home to commit a crime.
The no one should be required to get a license to be able to work a trade. Word of mouth or the courts will weed out the bad or criminal trades people.
People credit record should not be used by any company for hiring. Same with there medical records.

Conservatives.
Companies can hire based on religion.
illegal need only be shipped home if they can not be used for cheap labor.
Companies are always right and can hire anyone they want based on health records, credit record ECT ECT that have nothing to do with how the do the job or there skills.
People can own guns but must registrar them.

Democrats.
No guns you must invite criminal into your home so they can take anything they want.
Illegals can be good voters for the democrat and need ether good high paying jobs that they are not skilled for or given free money for not working and committing crimes.
Must be union to get hired at a job with good wages so that your union dues can be used to support democrats getting elected. (union full employment act)
only unions may bid for government jobs.(union full employment act)
If not payed good wages then people should not have to work.
People should not have to work if they don't want to they should be able to sponge off of everyone else but democrats.
All people and companies that work or make products pollute EXCEPT those that are union or run by democrats. All companies (except democrat run. union)must be fined or regulated out of the country the fines will be used to support these that feel they are to good to work.
(environment lawyers full employment act)
Lawyers should be able to sue anyone anytime with no cause as long as they are not democrats, environmentalist or union members. Everyone else is fair game. (lawyer full employment act)

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I have always wondered what the difference was between libertarians and conservatives.

There is no difference between them. Well, to be exact: there is no any difference that will lead to any unwanted change.
Those are positional criteria of thinking: the position (left of right) will always lead to the same result.
All other things - fiction - schiza - simulacrums.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Here are the points I know of of greatest difference:

Libertarians:
In favor of free trade
Against wars
Either for or against abortion
Against the government involved in marriage
Against allowing torture
Wish to eliminate Homeland Security and various government waste
Tend to be for open borders
Wish to allow Wikileaks the freedom of expression

(neo)Conservatives:
Against free trade
For wars since they "help" the economy (LOL, literally)
Against abortion
For the government getting involved in marriage.
For allowing torture
Wish to grow Homeland Security and are terrified by obviously fictional accounts of terrorism.
Tend to be for closed borders
Wish to take away Wikileak's freedom of expression and murder its founder in cold blood.

The OP focuses on social issues, when in fact the most important issues are economic to libertarians. Given the list you made I'm almost entirely indifferent to each and every point, yet as a libertarian I more or less detest (neo)conservatives. So your idea that libertarians and conservatives may be the same is just not correct.

reply to post by ANNED


Your Definition of Conservatives is laughable and ridiculous. Not even close.

I assume you are referring to American political spectrum and ideologies. Libertarianism is becoming ever more popular among younger Americans who lean-right, however true Libertarians that are entirely within the realm of Libertarian thought are hard to find, some diverge into other areas on at least a few policies. Now below however I am going to go over something which is quite controversial but its logic is pretty basic.

During our founding there were two basic sides, the Federalists and the Republicans. By 1800 the Federalists were quashed by the Republicans and after a slight resurgence after the War of 1812 they were finally gone forever. The Federalists were the last Conservatives in American history, they stuck mostly to Great Britain and the belief in traditional government and traditional social institutions which are critical for any Conservative ideology.

The Whig Party soon emerged but it was the combination of Republicans and former Federalists making it a more Conservative party but clung to the principles of Thomas Jefferson and battled with the Democrats over who held the truly Classical liberal principles. Eventually the Whig Party collapsed over the issue of abolition, which brought about the Republican Party out of an alliance of anti-slavery Whigs and Northern Democrats. This Party was less Conservative than the Democrats though, but they still were Classical liberals.

While the Christian Right came to the forefront in the late 70s in American politics they were and still are classical liberal for their belief in individualism, states’ rights, limited government in economic realm, and strong defense of capitalism. What most ‘Conservatives’ of today could be described as are holders of Neoliberal economics and Socially Conservative legislative morality. There is no genuinely Conservative movement in the United States and there has not been since the end of the First Party System in the early 19th century.

But please do remember, Neoliberal Republicans of today are not Libertarians, these current Neoconservatives are also not real Conservatives because they are descendants of 1930s American Marxist intellectuals and Trotskyites who defected from the Social Party of America when it split apart in the 1960s over the issue of the Viet Nam war.

I have elaborated upon the Marxist history of Neocons in my thread here

Conservatism is not even an ideology it is a feeling, a belief that you hold, not some academic idea thought up and put together by collective individuals or a single thinker. It is the belief in holding dear and preserving everything from history and respecting history too, holding dear the ideas of where you live and loving it, holding close the ideas that all sources outside yourself and your family should be limited, and that liberty was best described in Micah 4:4 “But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.”