• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarians ought to completely divorce themselves from conservatives.

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I mean more than simply politically - though the Republican Party is assuredly bankrupt as anything approaching a vehicle for our ideals, and the Ron Paul wing of the Party is woefully inadequate to do so.

I mean rhetorically: the conservative wants to conserve a past that was not even close to being libertarian (the Constitution itself was the product of a betrayal of the American Revolution by the Federalists in the service of the eastern protoindustrial aristocracy). I mean historically: the Republican-dominated 1920s were most emphatically not remotely libertarian; H.L. Mencken, who was, had this to say about the GOP of his era:

In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.

We must not be content to once again play the lackey to a conservative Establishment, no matter whether that Establishment be 'neo' or 'paleo' in its leanings. We must repudiate the neoconfederates; it was the Confederacy that began the long American tradition of race-based Statist legislation with the Fugitive Slave Acts, compelling individuals to return into bondage escaped slaves who fell under their take. We must categorically reject Christian collectivism, that socialism-of-the-spirit that seeks to compel herd conformity to some imagined social standard.

We must likewise refuse the temptations of Randianism. During the height of the Vietnam War - a war as profoundly damaging to liberty as has ever been waged by Americans - she had this to say about the political choice of 1972:

It is against statism that we have to vote. It is statism that has to be defeated - and defeated resoundingly.


That she then went on to suggest that a vote against Richard Nixon was "immoral", given "the circumstances", suggests a sort of Orwellian doublespeak: for Nixon was far more purely Statist than his opponent, the New Left-leaning George McGovern.


Digression aside, we must re-embrace a few former libertarian fundamentals that have been forgotten because of our alliance with the Right:

1. Unions, when had under the auspices of the private sector economy, are not Evil Incarnate. Quite the opposite: whilst the AFL-CIO is useless and corrupted, organizations like the IWW - "The Wobblies" - ought to have always had our fullest support.

2. Freedom, not capitalism, is the highest virtue, and the two are not synonymous. A syndicated industry, voluntarily owned by a worker's collective, can be much freer than a hierarchically-organized capitalist industry, depending upon the specifics of the business in question.

3. State and local governments can be every bit as tyrannical as the Federal government, and the tyranny of one is in no wise preferable to the other. Our end and aim is to free men, not to promote one form of subservience over another.
 
That wasn't much of a conversation. With no body language, either something good or something bad happened and I can't tell which is which. Can you?

The conservative mouths the word 'freedom'; what he really means by it is "you are free - to be as I am, to value the same things as me."

That, in a nutshell, is what happened there. A much more purely libertarian movement will be called 'anarchism' (I see no reason to object to the label) and denounced as Satanic, as corrupting of the youth (we'll be led to our hemlock), and the conservative apparatchiks will see to it that we are denounced as heretics.

Any libertarian with the slightest inkling of historical understanding realizes that at no point in time has American history made contact with anything approaching libertarian ideals. Consequentially, there is no history, no tradition, for an American libertarian to 'conserve'.
 
We have, for that matter, several radical libertarian thinkers who completely disdained notions of 'tradition', 'conservation', etc. and who all wrote far better than have any of the mainstream conservative-libertarian sellouts. They begin with Max Stirner and continue through Tak Kak and Sidney Parker:



These have all been forgotten about by 'libertarians', of course, because we must stick to the von Mises/Rothbard orthodoxy, as our conservative political handlers have deemed them acceptable.
 
You make a lot of demands for someone who is opposed to such constrictive requirements. There's a term for that...
 
Libertarians ought to completely divorce themselves from reality. No wait they've already managed that, good job guys.
 
Libertarians ought to completely divorce themselves from reality. No wait they've already managed that, good job guys.

Ah, right. I'd forgotten that conservatives alone have insight into 'reality' - complete with a zombified Jew-cum-creator-Deity who murdered Himself to appease Himself to forgive our sins and who loves America and makes it rain when He cries.

'Reality', indeed.
 
You make a lot of demands for someone who is opposed to such constrictive requirements. There's a term for that...


I make no demands. The political situation demands it. If society is ever to progress along lines friendly to the individual as an individual, libertarians are going to have to be the ones who force that progression, who create the conditions for it. And they will not be created as long as we step lightly around the fragile feelings and egos of the conservatives.
 
Last edited:
Ah, right. I'd forgotten that conservatives alone have insight into 'reality' - complete with a zombified Jew-cum-creator-Deity who murdered Himself to appease Himself to forgive our sins and who loves America and makes it rain when He cries.

'Reality', indeed.
I'm guessing that you skipped going to church today?
 
Despite their rhetoric, the Republican party is about as far from libertarian ideals as they can be. They count on libertarian votes without actually following any of those ideals. I honestly think that libertarians ought to try to join the left wing and temper its excesses. I think the ideologies are more closely aligned. But they certainly should divorce from the right wing. It does not make good on any of its promises to libertarians.
 
I'm guessing that you skipped going to church today?

I always do.

The reality of the situation is that there is no God - and thus no collective standards that men must hold to. There is only life itself, which in the human species realizes itself in the form of the individual and which reproduces itself individually. As such, it is good social policy for society to reposition itself to accommodate the individual, rather than forcing the individual to accommodate it.
 
Once Paschendale's socialist dystopia has fully implemented you nutty Libertarians will be ground up for dawg food right along with all the Conservatives.
 
Once Paschendale's socialist dystopia has fully implemented you nutty Libertarians will be ground up for dawg food right along with all the Conservatives.

Drivel. The utopians today are the conservatives: they think that man can be perfected - if only we use the force of the State to compel everyone to be heterosexual and Protestant.

Utopianism has long passed from the domain of the Left into the province of the Right. From the neoconservatives who thought Iraq could be Westernized by the force of the gun - the modern incarnation of Wilsonian Idealism - to the theocrats who think that a good dose of Jesus, administered by Doctor Government, is all this nation needs, the radical utopian dreams are firmly of the past, of the Right.

What I want is simply to create the conditions necessary for the individual to flourish. That means defeating you.
 
good luck with that
 
Libertarians already have our own party. So Einzige hasn't been paying attention since 1971.
 
The conservative mouths the word 'freedom'; what he really means by it is "you are free - to be as I am, to value the same things as me."

That, in a nutshell, is what happened there. A much more purely libertarian movement will be called 'anarchism' (I see no reason to object to the label) and denounced as Satanic, as corrupting of the youth (we'll be led to our hemlock), and the conservative apparatchiks will see to it that we are denounced as heretics.

Any libertarian with the slightest inkling of historical understanding realizes that at no point in time has American history made contact with anything approaching libertarian ideals. Consequentially, there is no history, no tradition, for an American libertarian to 'conserve'.

Is there a parrot in here? I definitely hear a parrot!
 
I mean more than simply politically - though the Republican Party is assuredly bankrupt as anything approaching a vehicle for our ideals, and the Ron Paul wing of the Party is woefully inadequate to do so.

I mean rhetorically: the conservative wants to conserve a past that was not even close to being libertarian (the Constitution itself was the product of a betrayal of the American Revolution by the Federalists in the service of the eastern protoindustrial aristocracy). I mean historically: the Republican-dominated 1920s were most emphatically not remotely libertarian; H.L. Mencken, who was, had this to say about the GOP of his era:



We must not be content to once again play the lackey to a conservative Establishment, no matter whether that Establishment be 'neo' or 'paleo' in its leanings. We must repudiate the neoconfederates; it was the Confederacy that began the long American tradition of race-based Statist legislation with the Fugitive Slave Acts, compelling individuals to return into bondage escaped slaves who fell under their take. We must categorically reject Christian collectivism, that socialism-of-the-spirit that seeks to compel herd conformity to some imagined social standard.

We must likewise refuse the temptations of Randianism. During the height of the Vietnam War - a war as profoundly damaging to liberty as has ever been waged by Americans - she had this to say about the political choice of 1972:




That she then went on to suggest that a vote against Richard Nixon was "immoral", given "the circumstances", suggests a sort of Orwellian doublespeak: for Nixon was far more purely Statist than his opponent, the New Left-leaning George McGovern.


Digression aside, we must re-embrace a few former libertarian fundamentals that have been forgotten because of our alliance with the Right:

1. Unions, when had under the auspices of the private sector economy, are not Evil Incarnate. Quite the opposite: whilst the AFL-CIO is useless and corrupted, organizations like the IWW - "The Wobblies" - ought to have always had our fullest support.

2. Freedom, not capitalism, is the highest virtue, and the two are not synonymous. A syndicated industry, voluntarily owned by a worker's collective, can be much freer than a hierarchically-organized capitalist industry, depending upon the specifics of the business in question.

3. State and local governments can be every bit as tyrannical as the Federal government, and the tyranny of one is in no wise preferable to the other. Our end and aim is to free men, not to promote one form of subservience over another.

The idea is to have smaller government overall. Leftist libertarians are just liberal Dems who are unwilling to admit it.
 
I mean more than simply politically - though the Republican Party is assuredly bankrupt as anything approaching a vehicle for our ideals, and the Ron Paul wing of the Party is woefully inadequate to do so.

I mean rhetorically: the conservative wants to conserve a past that was not even close to being libertarian (the Constitution itself was the product of a betrayal of the American Revolution by the Federalists in the service of the eastern protoindustrial aristocracy). I mean historically: the Republican-dominated 1920s were most emphatically not remotely libertarian; H.L. Mencken, who was, had this to say about the GOP of his era:



We must not be content to once again play the lackey to a conservative Establishment, no matter whether that Establishment be 'neo' or 'paleo' in its leanings. We must repudiate the neoconfederates; it was the Confederacy that began the long American tradition of race-based Statist legislation with the Fugitive Slave Acts, compelling individuals to return into bondage escaped slaves who fell under their take. We must categorically reject Christian collectivism, that socialism-of-the-spirit that seeks to compel herd conformity to some imagined social standard.

We must likewise refuse the temptations of Randianism. During the height of the Vietnam War - a war as profoundly damaging to liberty as has ever been waged by Americans - she had this to say about the political choice of 1972:




That she then went on to suggest that a vote against Richard Nixon was "immoral", given "the circumstances", suggests a sort of Orwellian doublespeak: for Nixon was far more purely Statist than his opponent, the New Left-leaning George McGovern.


Digression aside, we must re-embrace a few former libertarian fundamentals that have been forgotten because of our alliance with the Right:

1. Unions, when had under the auspices of the private sector economy, are not Evil Incarnate. Quite the opposite: whilst the AFL-CIO is useless and corrupted, organizations like the IWW - "The Wobblies" - ought to have always had our fullest support.

2. Freedom, not capitalism, is the highest virtue, and the two are not synonymous. A syndicated industry, voluntarily owned by a worker's collective, can be much freer than a hierarchically-organized capitalist industry, depending upon the specifics of the business in question.

3. State and local governments can be every bit as tyrannical as the Federal government, and the tyranny of one is in no wise preferable to the other. Our end and aim is to free men, not to promote one form of subservience over another.
FAR MORE RELEVANT...Libertarians ought to divorce themselves from Democrats. Except the "Libertarian Left" types... :roll:
 
They pretty much have for a while. There is only a flicker of a connection between the two, and it usually revolves around some misguided notion of what conservatism is.
 
Here's my problem with the OP:

Sorry, but libertarianism simply is closer to conservative values than liberal (today's definitions).

Sure, we may share a few ideals of the democrat party (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), but when the conversation goes from social values to fiscal, I'm sorry, but libertarians are FAR more conservative.

Gays wanna marry (and ultimately divorce)? Fine...give it to them. Women wanna be all "free love," and then go find a wire hanger? Sure...knock yourself out (you're probably doing society a favor anyway). But when it comes to a fascist government, or socialistic values...screw you. Do.Not.Want. Am I any less of a libertarian? No. It just means that my personal values are reflected more on conservatism.

There's a difference between common-sense libertarianism, and government-hating anarchy.
 
Rand Paul is a libertarian and is pro-life. Their are different branches. It's not monolith. The group that drives me crazy are those ambiguous "centrists".
 
yeah centrists & moderates c'mon make up your mind
either yer in or yer out get with the program
 
Back
Top Bottom