Real Libertarians? (1 Viewer)

[::Major_Baker::]

Are there any real ones here?

Lately I have seen many conservtive Bush supporters claiming to not be republicans anymore, but instead libertarians. The two don't mesh.

If you think you can align yourself with the libertarian party and still support the Bush admin, tell me why.

I want good reasons, not just because you are embarrassed to be part of the GOP these days....and trust me, I don't blame you if you are.

So who here considers themselves a real libertarian?

Now, if you claim this, do you agree with President Bush's administration?

I better see some good explanations if you answer yes to both of these.

 

[FallingPianos]

Are there any real ones here?

Lately I have seen many conservtive Bush supporters claiming to not be republicans anymore, but instead libertarians. The two don't mesh.

If you think you can align yourself with the libertarian party and still support the Bush admin, tell me why.

I want good reasons, not just because you are embarrassed to be part of the GOP these days....and trust me, I don't blame you if you are.

So who here considers themselves a real libertarian?

Now, if you claim this, do you agree with President Bush's administration?

I better see some good explanations if you answer yes to both of these.

I agree with libertarians on a lot of issues, but for different reasons. I dont consider myself a libertarian because I dont agree with their fundamental principles, though I'd often vote libertarian.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Are there any real ones here?

Lately I have seen many conservtive Bush supporters claiming to not be republicans anymore, but instead libertarians......

A lot of Republicans call themselves "Libertarian" because its cooler to be a Libertarian than a Republican. I mean really, when you think about, nothing says looser like Teenage Republican. Just the same, the only part of Libertarian ideology they actually buy into is the low taxes part. So they are nothing but hard core very partisan Republicans who call themselves libertarians.

Kandahar is about the only true libertarian on here. Basically, Libertarians are social liberals, fiscal conservatives, and very much against huge defense budgets and foreign interventionist wars.

So to be a true libertarian you have to:

Be against bloated defense budgets
Against social safetynet programs
Generally against the premise of an income tax
Be Pro-Choice as far as the government is involved
Pro-Property Rights
Against the Iraq War
For Same Sex Marriage
Against the War on Drugs
Strong Supporter of the Constitutional Separation of Church and State

 

[-Demosthenes-]

It's what conservatism use to be, almost. It's the main ideas of conservatism taken all the way into the whole ideology. There is not moral contradiction, they believe on one great philosophy in libertarianism, not what ever sounds good like the Republicans.

Some would call Bush a "big government conservative." Conservatism use to be against big government, but I guess that died with Reagan. I don't know how anyone supporting Bush is really libertarian, the real conservatism.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It's what conservatism use to be, almost. It's the main ideas of conservatism taken all the way into the whole ideology. There is not moral contradiction, they believe on one great philosophy in libertarianism, not what ever sounds good like the Republicans.

Some would call Bush a "big government conservative." Conservatism use to be against big government, but I guess that died with Reagan. I don't know how anyone supporting Bush is really libertarian, the real conservatism.

Classical conservatism was never libertarian. Classical conservatives were both fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. Sure, they were for smaller government, but they were also for Child Labor, against women voting, for segregation.

If anything, libertarianism is closer to classic liberalism.

 

[mpg]

I'm from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. I've often considered registering as a Libertarian. I don't think that W is a good president, but mostly because he spends money like a drunken sailor. W certainly doesn't have a strong record when it comes to protecting civil liberties, but he isn't nearly as bad as the left says he is. I think Kerry would've been worse.

 

[mpg]

Classical conservatism was never libertarian. Classical conservatives were both fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. Sure, they were for smaller government, but they were also for Child Labor, against women voting, for segregation.

If anything, libertarianism is closer to classic liberalism.

That's true. It's also true that classic liberals resemble modern conservatives more than they resemble modern liberals.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'm from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. I've often considered registering as a Libertarian. I don't think that W is a good president, but mostly because he spends money like a drunken sailor. W certainly doesn't have a strong record when it comes to protecting civil liberties, but he isn't nearly as bad as the left says he is. I think Kerry would've been worse.

I am not big on Kerry, but Bush better than Kerry on civil liberties? Other than maybe on gun control, thats absurd. Bush campaigned on wedge issues.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That's true. It's also true that classic liberals resemble modern conservatives more than they resemble modern liberals.

I don't think so. There is a "libertarian wing" of the Democratic party as well. For example, my congressman, Dennis Moore, could certainly be characterized as something of a libertarian Democrat. Just the same, classic liberals have no more similarities to modern conservatives as they do modern liberals. The only difference between Classic American Liberals and Modern American Liberals is that classic liberals believed more in liberalization of the markets, and would be against most gun control. Other than that, on the issues of civil liberties, defense, and separation of church and state, there are far more similarities between classic liberals and modern liberals than classic liberals and modern conservatives.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Classical conservatism was never libertarian. Classical conservatives were both fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. Sure, they were for smaller government, but they were also for Child Labor, against women voting, for segregation.

If anything, libertarianism is closer to classic liberalism.

Under the assumption that smaller government is the true basis of conservatism, libertarianism would be the truest form of conservative. Conservatism without the moral contradictions.

Of course you don't have to assume that smaller government is the basis of conservative, it depends on how you look at history and politics.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is the best comparison I have found.

American Liberalism: A political current of modern liberalism in the United States that is descended from classical liberalism(disputed — see talk page)free-market in terms of devotion to individual liberty, but rejects absolute economics in favor of an economic system in which the government intervenes where it considers freedom to be threatened by bribery, trusts, monopolies, or the concentration of wealth.

American Conservatism: It is typified by three distinct subideologies: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and economic liberalism.

Libertarian: is a political philosophy[1] advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.

Or, to put it another way:

American Liberal: Willie Nelson

American Conservative: Jerry Falwell

Libertarian: Clint Eastwood

 

[alphamale]

Are there any real ones here?

Lately I have seen many conservtive Bush supporters claiming to not be republicans anymore, but instead libertarians. The two don't mesh.

You missed the real change - there's a lot of CONSERVATIVES who don't consider themselves republicans anymore - they've seen Bush evolve into a "moderate". The liberal media is eager to report Bush's low ratings, but usually don't say the reason - he is being deserted by conservatives.

 

[FallingPianos]

Basically, Libertarians are social liberals, fiscal conservatives, and very much against huge defense budgets and foreign interventionist wars.

So to be a true libertarian you have to:

Be against bloated defense budgets
Against social safetynet programs
Generally against the premise of an income tax
Be Pro-Choice as far as the government is involved
Pro-Property Rights
Against the Iraq War
For Same Sex Marriage
Against the War on Drugs
Strong Supporter of the Constitutional Separation of Church and State

there are a lot of pro-life libertarians out there. defending the unborns right to life.

as for property rights, you might want to look up Geolibertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So to be a true libertarian you have to:

Be Pro-Choice as far as the government is involved
Against the Iraq War
For Same Sex Marriage

None of these are quite true.

Libertarians can be against legal abortion on the grounds that it violates the rights of the unborn child, and in favor of the Iraq war if they believe that Iraq was positively involved in attacks against the United States.

By the same token, many Libertarians are against all State recognition of marriage-- which is what married homosexuals are fighting for.

If anything, libertarianism is closer to classic liberalism.

Like the conservative belief in "economic freedom", this is something that libertarians use for propaganda purposes.

Libertarianism isn't derived from classical liberalism-- which you can see the roots of in both American conservatism and American liberalism-- but from the anarchist thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, as influenced by Rand's ideals of private property. Libertarians are, essentially, anarchists with property.

Some would call Bush a "big government conservative." Conservatism use to be against big government, but I guess that died with Reagan.

Do you mean the same Reagan who drastically increased Defense budgets, spent billions on the War on Drugs, and rode into office on the backs of the exact same kinds of religious conservatives which support President Bush?

Conservatism has never been about small government; it is about traditional government, and the government acting to uphold traditional values. Support for lower taxes is merely their excuse for cutting social programs, which they accuse-- sometimes correctly-- of helping to undermine the American family, economic structure, and basic way of life.

This modern conservative push toward cutting taxes-- even at the expense of running deficits-- is based on the fact that neo-conservatives (like modern liberals and our entire political structure) have been subverted by industrial and corporate interests for well over a century.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This is the best comparison I have found.

American Liberalism: A political current of modern liberalism in the United States that is descended from classical liberalism(disputed — see talk page)free-market in terms of devotion to individual liberty, but rejects absolute economics in favor of an economic system in which the government intervenes where it considers freedom to be threatened by bribery, trusts, monopolies, or the concentration of wealth.

Oh, God! (scorn dripping from Atheist's keyboard). The "American Liberal" is identical to the European Socialist Surrender Monkey. It has nothing in common with libertarianism or liberty.

When confronted with the choice of cutting spending and raising taxes, the American Liberal says "raise taxes" in all cases except one: National Defense.

So much for individual liberty, or even "the good of society".

But it's nice to see that Wikipedia has an excellent double-speak writer. Orwell would be proud.

American Conservatism: It is typified by three distinct subideologies: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and economic liberalism.

See? NO ONE can define "conservatism". It's a meaningless buzzword.

Libertarian: is a political philosophy[1] advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.

Bingo! Well, pretty much, it's actually not infringe on their liberty, their persons, or their property.

Or, to put it another way:

American Liberal: Willie Nelson{/quote]

See? Mr. Socialist Farm Aid hisself.

American Conservative: Jerry Falwell

Who knows? Maybe. The word doesn't have a fixed meaning, so it's hard to fix a face to it, too.

Libertarian: Clint Eastwood

? I don't know enough about Clint's private life to comment.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Libertarianism isn't derived from classical liberalism-- which you can see the roots of in both American conservatism and American liberalism-- but from the anarchist thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, as influenced by Rand's ideals of private property. Libertarians are, essentially, anarchists with property.

How anyone can read Rand's work and equate it to any form of anarchy is a mystery. Who was one of the "producers" that resigned from society and was hiding in Galt's Gulch? A judge. He symbolized the legitimate law finally refusing to be prostituted for the evil uses of the looters.

Anarchy is a fool's idealization of chaos as heaven. In the real world, when two people interact, dominance is established early on as this is part of the natural behavior of all primates. In anarchic situations, people quickly organize themselves into groups with leaders who offer various forms of protection: gangs, which equals primitive government which ends the brief period of anarchy.

Libertarianism and libertarians aren't about anarchy. You can't have liberty without structure, you can't even have society without structure. Libertarians recognize the need for LIMITED government, intended solely to protect freedoms, not to "help" the poor or politicians' friends.

What's really funny, of course, is that Rand herself viewed libertarians as anarchists, even though they latched onto her writings as the best simple contemporary illustrations of their ideology.

This modern conservative push toward cutting taxes-- even at the expense of running deficits-- is based on the fact that neo-conservatives (like modern liberals and our entire political structure) have been subverted by industrial and corporate interests for well over a century.

Then again, maybe they just don't feel like carrying the poor and useless any more...especially since things are getting harder for them, too.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Are there any real ones here?

Lately I have seen many conservtive Bush supporters claiming to not be republicans anymore, but instead libertarians. The two don't mesh.

If you think you can align yourself with the libertarian party and still support the Bush admin, tell me why.

I want good reasons, not just because you are embarrassed to be part of the GOP these days....and trust me, I don't blame you if you are.

So who here considers themselves a real libertarian?

Now, if you claim this, do you agree with President Bush's administration?

I better see some good explanations if you answer yes to both of these.

Now I'll address the thread's initiator.

No libertarian can support Bush. If they actually argue in favor of almost any of his policies, they're not being libertarians. One could make exception to the war in Iraq, that being a national security issue, and thus within the purview of the ideology, but that's about it.

Libertarians that argue the military is solely for the defense of the nation in case of an invasion don't win chess games.

Bush was right to cut taxes. It's my money, after all. Too bad the reasons he used didn't contain that kernal of truth. He's goes on and on about how it "helps" the economy. That's NOT a libertarian issue.

Other than that, I can't think of anything he's done that fits with libertarian ideology.

I've listened to a whole bunch of libertarian wanna-be's who're actually disaffected Democans or Republicrats. It's obvious from the bilge they spew about rights, society, obligations, taxes, evil corporations, societal behavior modification, etc. They've no clue.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You missed the real change - there's a lot of CONSERVATIVES who don't consider themselves republicans anymore - they've seen Bush evolve into a "moderate". The liberal media is eager to report Bush's low ratings, but usually don't say the reason - he is being deserted by conservatives.

Bush has always been a moderate. He was never a "conservative", even if that word isn't firmly defined.

Only a moderate would make a pivotal primary campaign speech about "compassionate conservativism". That was the tip-off to anyone not sleeping.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

there are a lot of pro-life libertarians out there. defending the unborns right to life.

Yes, but going by the Libertarian Parties website, regardless of whether they believe that Abortion is morally wrong or not, they don't believe that government is the answer. Otherwise, they don't think it should be illegal even if it is morally wrong.

 

[Goobieman]

If you think you can align yourself with the libertarian party and still support the Bush admin, tell me why.

I'm a libertarian. For the most part anyway.

I support the GOP in general and the Bush administration in specific because the alternative is far worse.

That is, there are things I don't like about what the GOP/Bush are doing, but there's NO reason for any rational person to believe that the Democrats will do better.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'm a libertarian. For the most part anyway.

I support the GOP in general and the Bush administration in specific because the alternative is far worse.

That is, there are things I don't like about what the GOP/Bush are doing, but there's NO reason for any rational person to believe that the Democrats will do better.

This is exactly what I am talking about. A lot of very partisan republicans and constitutionalists call themselves Libertarian because it sounds better than Republican.

I have read through several of your lasts posts on various issues. You are no more of a libertarian than a communist is.

Its would be like me saying that since I am a strong supporter of Civil Liberties and believe that our laws are primarily based in the principle that your right to live your life the way you choose to live your life extends so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same, and because I am a strong supporter of the Constitutional Separation of Church and State, and because I am largely against interventionist wars, and because I am against most forms of gun control, and because I am against the war on drugs, that I am a libertarian.

The problem with that would be that I also believe that we have to have some sort of a safety net in our society (a responsibility to each other as well as to ourselves) and that we must have strong environmental protections, and I see a value in public lands like National Forests and Parks. So really, I am not libertarian, so I don't claim to be one.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

I'm a libertarian. For the most part anyway.

I support the GOP in general and the Bush administration in specific because the alternative is far worse.

That is, there are things I don't like about what the GOP/Bush are doing, but there's NO reason for any rational person to believe that the Democrats will do better.

And this, here, is the entire point of my thread. Call yourself what you really are--quit hiding behind the benign label that is 'libertarian'

 

[Goobieman]

This is exactly what I am talking about. A lot of very partisan republicans and constitutionalists call themselves Libertarian because it sounds better than Republican.

That's your perception. Woo-hoo.

I have read through several of your lasts posts on various issues. You are no more of a libertarian than a communist is.

Yeah right.
"Several of my last posts" are enough for you to make that judgement.

I said:
I'm a libertarian. For the most part anyway.
That necessarily allows for some deviation from the pure libertarian line.

And in any event, what you think here doesnt really matter, as I explained why I support the Bush administration.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That's your perception. Woo-hoo.


Yeah right.
"Several of my last posts" are enough for you to make that judgement.

I said:
I'm a libertarian. For the most part anyway.
That necessarily allows for some deviation from the pure libertarian line.

And in any event, what you think here doesnt really matter, as I explained why I support the Bush administration.

Are you a strong supporter of the constitutional right of privacy?

Are you a strong supporter of the constitutional separation of church and state?

Are you against large defense budgets and foreign interventionist wars?

If not, then you are by definition, not a libertarian. Just about anyone could pick and choose aspects of libertarian ideology that they agree with.

Liberals believe in collectively compelled altruism. That is largely what differentiates them from libertarians.

Conservatives believe in a government compelled nationalism and the legislation of morality. That is what largely differentiates them from libertarians.

Essentially, Republicans want to be your father, and Democrats want to your mother. Libertarians just want to your friend. (I read that saying somewhere)

 

[Goobieman]

And this, here, is the entire point of my thread. Call yourself what you really are--quit hiding behind the benign label that is 'libertarian'

If that's your point, then your point is moot.

I am a Libertarian.
I explained why I support the Bush administration even though it doesnt wholly agree with me.
There's no reason to change what I call myself.