Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do Liberals think Libertarians are conservatives?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   


Why do Liberals think Libertarians are conservatives?


Because after the embarrassing Bush years, many republicans started calling themselves libertarians to separate themselves from the Bushies and other right-wing freaks.




posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Why are we republicans?

Republicans support a state, mandatory taxes(enforced with violence), and are against the NAP.
edit on 10-10-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Fantastic summary, thanks! Also I'd just like to throw in that the original hippies were total libertarians! Somehow over time the media has managed to turn the ultimate anti-government group into Democrats, and Democrats have become pro-government.
edit on 10-10-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Sorry . . . you are wrong on Libertarianism being conservative . . . that's falling for the double-speak.

The best way to look at it is in terms of Collectivists (Progressives, Conservatives, Dems, Repubs) and Individualists (Libertarians, Liberalism, Anarchists).

Here is a nice video on the false left/right paradigm of Collectivism in this country:



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Because you know you can't win a national federal election without money and only the democrats and republicans have money.

It also gets into voting against someone rather than voting for someone. Rather have someone 'close' to your ideology in office than someone farther from your ideology.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


What makes one a stateless socialist(libertarian) vs statist conservative ?

True libertarians are against a state. Statist conservatives are for a state.

Simple.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

John_Rodger_Cornman
Why do Liberals think Libertarians are conservatives?

Conservatives are pro-statism(somewhat limited statism).
Libertarians are anti-statism.(for the smallest amount of statism achievable)

I just don't understand why the big-state leftists tend to lump conservatives and libertarians together.


Because there's a bunch of neo-cons running around pretending to be libertarians.
It confuses the general populace, who have no idea what libertarianism is.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Not that simple at all. Are you American?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

solomons path

Tusks
Conservatives usually maintain a strong belief in protecting the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is a Libertarian document---guaranteeing those rights which the Gov't may not take away.

Of course with the Statists, "liberals", Democrats, Socialists, and Communists wanting to have state control of everything--property, income, schooling, jobs, commerce, medical care--the Bill of Rights is passe'.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)


This isn't true past the last couple of decades . . . It's a rather new stance for "conservatives". They only back those items in the BOR that fell inline with their moral conservative outlook. The GOP's stance today is just more double-speak . . . just like the Progressives who co-opted the label of "liberal".


Obviously a matter of definitions. I'll stick with mine over those of the Media with its agenda.

Which item(s) in the BOR do you think most Conservatives would give up?
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

MsAphrodite
reply to post by solomons path
 


Fantastic summary, thanks! Also I'd just like to throw in that the original hippies were total libertarians! Somehow over time the media has managed to turn the ultimate anti-government group into Democrats, and Democrats have become pro-government.
edit on 10-10-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)


Yes, good point. Both parties change their "tune" based on which way the wind is blowing . . .

The Democratic party used to be the party of racism, small government, and anarchist beliefs. However, they had to changed their tune when the Progressive and Socialist movements became popular, at the turn of the 20th century . . . you can't win elections by siding with the socialists, so they adopted the liberal moniker (solidified under FDR) and became the voice of the poor and downtrodden. They pushed big government as a way to equality.

So, the Republican party saw an influx of moral conservatives and racists who didn't want the government controlling their lives . . . even though they still wanted everyone to have to live by their morally conservative laws. So, it became a fight for the same thing . . . Big Government. Dems through the guise of class warfare and equality for all and Repubs through conservative values. While this change took a few decades to accomplish, in the end both parties want the same thing . . . Big Government and Imperialism.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Absolutely amazing flash history lesson and spot on! Star for you.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Tusks
 


Only you are using the "media" definition for Conservatives, so how is it "your" definition.

While I agree that the BOR is a Libertarian Document . . . Conservatives (at least those prominent in the movement) only talk about "upholding" it as a ruse.

In practice, they work to circumvent it all of the time, through morality based legislation (anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, etc.) and authoritarian practices (like the Patriot ACT, NDAA, etc.).



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

solomons path
reply to post by Tusks
 


Only you are using the "media" definition for Conservatives, so how is it "your" definition.

While I agree that the BOR is a Libertarian Document . . . Conservatives (at least those prominent in the movement) only talk about "upholding" it as a ruse.

In practice, they work to circumvent it all of the time, through morality based legislation (anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, etc.) and authoritarian practices (like the Patriot ACT, NDAA, etc.).



Morality does play a big role for most Conservatives--those practices which have been found to be harmful in the past are not to be easily approved without firm foundation---"That which is hastily torn down is not quickly rebuilt"--"If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them." .

There is a very big difference between Libertines and Libertarians. Many folks who want to do away with all social constructs (Libertinism) mistakenly think they are Libertarians.

Liberals and Conservatives alike voted the Patriot Act and NDAA into existence, and those are definitely anti-libertarian. They(Conservatives) were fooled, as they often are.

Many Republicans are correctly called RINOS--Republican in name only. And most of those I would not consider to be of a Conservative ideology.

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I have long wondered why it is so hard for people to grasp that terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are descriptive terms and not parties themself.

Libertarians, by definition, are politically conservative. That doesnt mean they are the same as a hardcore republican conservative.

THese terms have been so perverted....it saddens me to see that its working....



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
As a Strict Constitutionalist, I think all the others are too far left leaning. What keeps me from being a Totalitarian Constitutionalist is that I accept that there does need to be a social net since so many have paid into it over the years.

If I were President, I could bring the size and budget of the Federal Government down by forcing the Congress to work. Chief goals would be the elimination of redundant programs and ineffective departments within the system as well as anything unconstitutional or comprises a tyrannical threat to the people, like the IRS and the FICA tax for example. I honestly give my life expectancy as president about six months.

As much as I despised Romney as a person, he had a very valid point about the 47% that was blown out of the context. Rather than pay billions of dollars to millions to sit on their butts and collect a check for doing nothing, that money would be better spent investing it into career infrastructure and job training. Why loan out $100,000 to a person for college education that if they can find a job in their field will only pay them $35,000-40,000 when that outstanding school loan debt will hamper their ability to buy a home or even a new car? And at the same time do nothing to make the cost of a college education more affordable.

I guess it boils down to simply not buying $1500 toilet seats and $500 hammers. Because so long as you do, nothing is going to happen to lower that cost.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

John_Rodger_Cornman
Why do Liberals think Libertarians are conservatives?

Conservatives are pro-statism(somewhat limited statism).
Libertarians are anti-statism.(for the smallest amount of statism achievable)

I just don't understand why the big-state leftists tend to lump conservatives and libertarians together.


Maybe it is because they support and vote for Conservatives (Republicans) all the time?

Oh that's right...Ron Paul isn't a Republican...he has only been one forever...but he is really a Libertarian.


Libertarian is the new label Republicans use so they don't have to call themselves Republicans because they are ashamed to do so. But don't worry, they still vote Republican.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Tusks
 


It's not about "doing away with social constructs" , it's about legislating based on morality . . . a morality that isn't universal and usually based on nothing more than Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I'm not saying that someone that lives their life as a moral conservative cannot be a libertarian; however, a libertarian would not push or force their conservative beliefs on those that don't share them, nor use the government to promote or enforce those beliefs. As someone that advocates upholding the principles of the BOR, would you not agree that your rights end where they begin to infringe upon the rights of others? As a conservative, if you are morally opposed to action or procedure, yet someone else engaging in those actions does not infringe upon your rights . . . what right do you (or any conservative) have in dictating your moral code? How does that fall in line with individual liberty and freedom? How is that not authoritarian in nature, which is the antithesis of upholding libertarian ideals or the BOR?

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism


It seems you choose to give your own special definition to Libertarianism, as it relates to social conservatism, to justify maintaining the morally superior view that all conservatives seem to share.

Libertarian philosophies are generally divided on three principal questions: (1) Whether what is ethically permissible is determined consequentially or in terms of natural rights (deontologically); (2) on the legitimacy of private property; (3) on the legitimacy of the state


And I don't believe conservatives were "fooled" for one minute on the Patriot ACT, as it fell right inline with their authoritarian views on moral superiority. Whether it was the Acts/Laws previously mentioned or the war on drugs, sodomy laws, the right to choose, privacy laws . . . all of these are based on conservative's opinions and those that would be lawbreakers under these laws are infringing on nobody's individual rights or liberties. They are, however, going against the morally superior opinions of those that adhere to a Judeo-Christian ethos.

And "liberals" didn't vote for the Patriot ACT . . . the Democrats did . . . they are not "liberal", they are Progressives, Statists, Collectivists. Nothing "liberal" (see above for the etymology of the word liberal - liberty, freedom) about their actions, rhetoric, or policies.

That said . . . if you hold to a morally conservative personal ethos and keep that to yourself and family, while still upholding the philosophy of Libertarianism . . . have at it and carry on!



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


It's about time some common sense is thrown in this mangled mess of 'my-opinionated-generalized-political-terminology.'

Despite all of the name-calling, not a single relevant issue or bill passed by 'Denialcans' or whatever political slur you prefer is addressed.

Works damn well.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

muse7
Most Libertarians are what I would call "Denialcans" they're in denial and don't want to accept that they are really just Republicans in disguise.

When has the Republican Party called for the decriminalization of drug possession, sales and use?

I am a libertarian.... not a Republiblowcrat. IF you think there is a real difference between the R's and the D's.... you are in denial.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Why do liberals think libertarians are conservatives? I would say the answer to that question is an awful lot simpler than you might have been lead to believe.

Basically, the fact is that the political spectrum in the USA is amongst the most convoluted, over complicated, highly divided, and impenetrable constructions of its kind, in the whole world. And it's little wonder therefore, that the American public cannot tell the difference between left and right (politically speaking), let alone liberals and libertarians.

It's precisely the same reason that commentators can get away with calling Obama a socialist without being lambasted from every angle, and the same reason that ignorant oafs can be forgiven for believing that Hitler was a left wing political leader, when in Europe (the continent where the left/right paradigm was first initiated in any meaningful way, and therefore where correct understanding of the difference is the norm, rather than a product of a university education) he is known to have been a far right political and military dictator, despite the (rather obvious) ruse of having called his party the Nazi party, national socialist party....

It wasn't socialist any more than I am a bloody conservative.

But you cannot blame the electorate in the USA for not knowing the true direction of any one of the parties and/or movements in the US. The fact is that the various parties and "grass roots" movements in the United States, have more in common, than they ever do to tell them apart. The largest (and most dominant) parties have power at their foremost concern, and are headed pretty much exclusively by psychopaths. I do not mean to say, that every big ticket political face is hiding a serial killer, baby eating, nut bar of course, I am talking about the psychological condition.

These would be, people who have an inherent ability to lie, manipulate, dissemble, people who have no moral boundary constraining their own success. What a good politician would achieve through honesty, respect for his fellow man, love for all the citizens he or she aims to represent, and a genuine ability to empathise with everyone from the lowest gutter dweller to the highest and mightiest Brahmin, the current batch achieve through sniping, backbiting, dirty deals, and perfectly delivered lies, aimed at a vulnerable and defenceless audience, the public. The only thing to chose between them, so it seems, is which TYPE of BS they intend to force feed the public.

No matter which of the big two get in, there will be BS, no one will look out for the little guy, and whatever problems remain in the system will still be there by the end of this administration, and the one after that, and the one after that, and it will never end as long as people keep allowing folk who LIKE power, to actually have any.

In summary then. People confuse libertarianism with conservatism because they have never learned any better, and because decade upon decade of lies, deals, cheating, manipulating and money grubbing have rendered all political parties and candidates so similar to one another, that to chose between them is a greater sin than to abstain from voting at all, and makes the choice between them a mere matter of whose face appears the most honest, whose manifesto is the most positive. It's all lies, and all irrelevant.

The question should not be, why do people confuse affiliations in political groups. The question ought to be, why are people still being fooled by this utter rot? Mind you, I saw a thread title in myATS earlier on, which went something like 60% of Americans would fire congress... Perhaps things are finally looking up!






top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution