Why the time has come for Conservative Libertarianism

[King_Lazy]

The secularists embrace the dream of individual freedom, but they don’t embrace individual paying the consequences. They believe it’s the rest of society’s job to pay more in taxes to pay for the sequelae of their individual freedoms. So, this isn’t really freedom for the masses. It’s a form of “freedom bigotry,” so it’s not really freedom for all. Individual freedom is a glorious dream, as long as they can continue the injustice of raising taxes on the innocent people who who embrace goodness and sacrificed to find a more responsible individualism.

Well, the libertarian idea of freedom is just another secular idea of freedom. I cannot affirm any idea of liberty without God. It’s very similar to the idea of the liberal left, except its focus is more economic than social.

A responsible individualism involves consideration of the collective good. Individualism without respect of the common good is selfishness. The pursuit of certain ideals of what the common good is without respect for the individual is collectivism. I affirm neither.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Whatever you want to tell yourself. I lived in the state where it formed and I remember VERY clearly how it came about. Perhaps there are people who want to go back and re-write history but some of us lived it and know better.

Excuse me. I provided several lines of evidence.

Where is the evidence that supports your claim?

The other issues came into play as a branch off the main issue, or a result of the intake of the substance in question. “Leave me alone so I can grow and smoke pot,” pretty much sums up how the philosophy evolved. Everything that would mean government intervention into the individual’s right to grow, consume, and share pot with others, is a bad thing.

Libertarianism as a political philosophy has existed since at least the 18th century, running along parallel lines with Classical Liberalism, and often intersecting.

In the linked wikipedia entry, you will find a long and detailed history, which doesn’t even contain mention of marijuana. I suppose marijuana legilisation was a big issue for Frederic Bastiat (died 1850) and Lysander Spooner (died 1887)?

If you refuse to read the free and readily available resources that refute your claim, you’re choosing to remain in ignorance. I’ll let everyone decide between my evidence and your assertions. I’m sorry, I can’t let this slide. This is not a debate, you are simply wrong.

Now, I grant you that it’s possible there was a thread of these issues in that group of people all along, but it didn’t COALESCE into a political party until the marijuana issue galvanized them.

We’re supposed to accept your word for it when you have provided no evidence and I have provided detailed and thorough evidence to the contrary? No thank you.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

As the king of public perception, the media, continues to drag us into practical atheism, we need to realize that the words of the bible will have less and less affect on human behavior over time. Unless we turn it around, how then can you force people to take responsibility for their own choices?

Hello ManOnFire.

I’m not sure what the media, atheism or the Bible have to do with conservatism or libertarianism.

The only thing I can say is that I believe libertarianism is the only political philosophy that is in accord with what Jesus called the 2nd greatest commandment.

Please explain further.

 

[ProVobis]

but they are also pro-choice because they believe in non-interference with personal decisions that don’t affect them directly.

They are pro-life, pro-liberty, and pro-pursuit-of-happiness, at least the ones whom I’ve known.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Whatever you want to tell yourself. I lived in the state where it formed and I remember VERY clearly how it came about. Perhaps there are people who want to go back and re-write history but some of us lived it and know better. The other issues came into play as a branch off the main issue, or a result of the intake of the substance in question. “Leave me alone so I can grow and smoke pot,” pretty much sums up how the philosophy evolved. Everything that would mean government intervention into the individual’s right to grow, consume, and share pot with others, is a bad thing.

Now, I grant you that it’s possible there was a thread of these issues in that group of people all along, but it didn’t COALESCE into a political party until the marijuana issue galvanized them.

Huh?

Look, I’m not going to presume to know your age, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you have not been alive since the 1700’s. And last I checked Catholics rejected reincarnation.

 

[EasterJoy]

Because I don’t agree with Libertarianism as a whole. lp.org/platform

Me, either, and not just because it considers abortion something that falls under “personal choice”. The unborn are only the most obvious canaries in the Libertarian coal mine.

The platform advocates for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness via an “every man for himself” form of civilization. I fail to see how a just society could evolve from such a platform; it practically forbids protection of the vulnerable, based on the hair-brained idea that if everyone has an equal chance to be a self-centered opportunist, no one will have anyone but themselves to blame if they don’t get theirs.

The society imagined by Libertarians is falls well short of the far more just balance of personal freedom and societal responsibility that one reads of in the social encyclicals of the Church, for instance…not that I see any major parties in compliance with the teachings of the Church these days.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Huh?

Look, I’m not going to presume to know your age, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you have not been alive since the 1700’s. And last I checked Catholics rejected reincarnation.

The Libertarian Party started in 1971, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I am not talking about the classical libertarian. The terms get confused and that is what the Libertarian Party capitalizes on.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The Libertarian Party started in 1971, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I am not talking about the classical libertarian. The terms get confused and that is what the Libertarian Party capitalizes on.

You haven’t been bashing the libertarian party, but libertarianism as a concept.

And even if you were talking about the party, you’re still way off the mark with the marijuana assertion.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You haven’t been bashing the libertarian party, but libertarianism as a concept.

And even if you were talking about the party, you’re still way off the mark with the marijuana assertion.

I stated clearly what I was describing, the Libertarian Party.

Nope, I am not off the mark. But whatever you want to think. The pot agenda is being achieved over time as so many states now have “medical marijuana” laws. So now there are other platform items to move toward.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I stated clearly what I was describing, the Libertarian Party.

Nope, I am not off the mark. But whatever you want to think. The pot agenda is being achieved over time as so many states now have “medical marijuana” laws. So now there are other platform items to move toward.

Ok, you’re laughing at another poster about this? Give me a break.

Once again, I’ve provided you with several lines of evidence: from the broad principle upon which the party in the U.S. was founded, to the three centuries of political thought behind it to the fact that one of their primary founders (well, more than one) was schooled in the same political tradition.

So far from you we have anecdotal assertions from someone who seems way more focused on the marijuana issue than the LP ever was.

If you’re such an expert on libertarianism, TheRealJuliane, then tell me this: why does that party endorse the decriminalization or legalization of this substance? To be specific, I’m asking you this - on what basis was this position formed?

 

[TEPO]

If we create a conservative media that embraces goodness and innocence, then it will be easier for the weak and the downtrodden to climb the ladder since we will all have less distractions of messages of irresponsible sex, rise in STDs, abortion, drug addiction, violence, etc. By embracing goodness and innocence everywhere, then those who seek badness will need to “work hard” to embrace it. People will still have the Freedom to “work hard” to embrace badness, if that’s their choice, but then society can expect them to take personal responsibility for their own free will choices rather than tax those who “work hard” to avoid these tempations. This will emphasize Prevention rather than the current reactionary “but-it’s-everywhere” and “it’s-too-late” reality.

YES. YES… and YES…!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ok, you’re laughing at another poster about this? Give me a break.

Once again, I’ve provided you with several lines of evidence: from the broad principle upon which the party in the U.S. was founded, to the three centuries of political thought behind it to the fact that one of their primary founders (well, more than one) was schooled in the same political tradition.

So far from you we have anecdotal assertions from someone who seems way more focused on the marijuana issue than the LP ever was.

If you’re such an expert on libertarianism, TheRealJuliane, then tell me this: why does that party endorse the decriminalization or legalization of this substance? To be specific, I’m asking you this - on what basis was this position formed?

No, the position was formed because pot makes you high. The rest of the platform was discovered along the way. “Leave me alone to grow, smoke and distribute my drugs,” first, then, “Leave me alone, period.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Oh, and p.s. - I don’t have any animosity for the Libertarian Party. I think their agenda is valid for them. They obviously have supporters, and that’s fine. The problem is when they invade the Republican Party in order to win elections. If a party cannot get its platform elected, they should not subvert the platform of another party in order to win. This is a recent tactic.

 

[EasterJoy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManOnFire
If we create a conservative media that embraces goodness and innocence, then it will be easier for the weak and the downtrodden to climb the ladder since we will all have less distractions of messages of irresponsible sex, rise in STDs, abortion, drug addiction, violence, etc. By embracing goodness and innocence everywhere, then those who seek badness will need to “work hard” to embrace it. People will still have the Freedom to “work hard” to embrace badness, if that’s their choice, but then society can expect them to take personal responsibility for their own free will choices rather than tax those who “work hard” to avoid these tempations. This will emphasize Prevention rather than the current reactionary “but-it’s-everywhere” and “it’s-too-late” reality.

YES. YES… and YES…!

So you two are saying that the political position the most clearly reflects the Gospel is that the poor and downtrodden need a chance to “work hard” or be “free” to face their consequences?

I dunno. In the Lord’s depiction of the Last Judgement, he said “the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?”, not “when did we see you hungry, thirsty, naked, ill, or in prison…and failed to see that you had the opportunity out there somewhere to get yourself a job?”

I don’t want to trivialize the importance of giving everyone an opportunity to work–those who will not work should not eat, as the Apostle wrote–and that is a basic part of human dignity. Still, that cannot be all there is, because we know what use opportunitists make of their opportunities. To be hard-working is not to be invulnerable to that kind of fellow citizen! I feel as if the Libertarians pay too little attention to that reality of human nature.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Oh, and p.s. - I don’t have any animosity for the Libertarian Party. I think their agenda is valid for them. They obviously have supporters, and that’s fine. The problem is when they invade the Republican Party in order to win elections. If a party cannot get its platform elected, they should not subvert the platform of another party in order to win. This is a recent tactic.

Ok, you’ve confirmed it for me. That’s incorrect. The party’s opposition to the drug war has its foundations in the non-aggression principle, as do all of their positions. They are not now and have never been a one-issue party. It would be impossible to do, as the non-aggression principle has thousands of implications.

I have linked you to material. I will link it again. It practically borders on libel for you to persist in stating untruths when a significant amount of free information has been made readily available to you, and, by contrast, you do not even attempt to present evidence to the contrary.

If you had offered ANYTHING to counter this evidence other than mere assertion, I would not consider it libel. But, you persist in offering nothing whatsoever.

The wikipedia articles for some of the primary founders of the party are placed here for your perusal, and, as you can see once again, mentions of marijuana are slim to none. Have you ever read anything from Murray Rothbard? I’ve never seen him write anything about it, but he covers a whole bunch of other topics.

David Nolan
Murray Rothbard
John Hospers
Roy Childs

Here’s a video about the history of the party. Consider how many issues are raised.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Oh, and p.s. - I don’t have any animosity for the Libertarian Party. I think their agenda is valid for them. They obviously have supporters, and that’s fine. The problem is when they invade the Republican Party in order to win elections. If a party cannot get its platform elected, they should not subvert the platform of another party in order to win. This is a recent tactic.

Whether Libertarian, Green, Constitutional, Socialist or anything else, this will always happen in the United States. It is a necessary consequence of the two-party system.

Also, I find this objection rather confusing.

1. Even if it wasn’t done by a party, it would be done (and IS done) by interest groups: the religious right, the labor unions, the military, wall street, big oil, big pharmaceuticals, and so on and so on.
2. You act as if the parties (in this case, the Republican party) were always the same… like they aren’t constantly changing. Nonsense. They weren’t. They change all the time. Agendas change all the time. For some time, Republicans upheld a non-interventionist foreign policy. You don’t even have to look that far back to find changes in the Republican party. Consider George W. Bush’s words in the year 2000 (only 12 years ago!):

“I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.”

Now, Republicans are in the business of building nations all around the world. Pretty significant change, don’t you think?

 

[King_Lazy]

Hello ManOnFire.

I’m not sure what the media, atheism or the Bible have to do with conservatism or libertarianism.

The only thing I can say is that I believe libertarianism is the only political philosophy that is in accord with what Jesus called the 2nd greatest commandment.

Please explain further.

You mean

Do unto others as you would have done unto you?
or
Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you?

Libertarianism is largely based on the negative golden rule, which is also the foundation of modern, relativist morality. Because of its simplicity, it’s quite a neat and attractive attractive philosophy, but as Christians, we cannot affirm individualism to such an extent as to deny the State its legitimate functions or to the extent that one can define their own morality.

As for marijuana, insofar its use is analogous to alcohol and tobacco, its legal status may not necessarily follow from morality but from other pragmatic considerations. Although I don’t take serious issue with someone standing on one side or another with regard to its legality, I do take issue with the underlying philosophy of libertarianism, which might lead one to take such a position.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You mean

Do unto others as you would have done unto you?
or
Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you?

No. Absolutely not.

“The Golden Rule” refers to Matthew 7:12, or Luke 6:31, etc.

I’m speaking, of course, of the time Jesus spoke about the two greatest commandments, such as in Matthew 22:37-40.

From the NIV:

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’** 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”**

Contained in this is:

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal

and so on.

Life is the highest human value, and that which sustains life is liberty and property and those are secondary.

Libertarianism is largely based on the negative golden rule, which is also the foundation of modern, relativist morality.

As a student of libertarian theory for more than a decade, I say: no, it is most certainly not.

I’ve linked to this a number of times, but shall do so once more: non-aggression principle. That is NOT the “negative golden rule” as you call it.

Because of its simplicity, it’s quite a neat and attractive attractive philosophy, but as Christians, we cannot affirm individualism to such an extent as to deny the State its legitimate functions or to the extent that one can define their own morality.

As a Christian, I may say, “Thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal” and so on and be confident in those beliefs.

Ironically, it is not the libertarian who is the relativist, but rather, the overwhelming majority of Christians. The typical Christian will excuse away taxation (theft is wrong, “except”…), war/capital punishment (murder is wrong, “except”…). Thus the average Christian (or Catholic) is quite the relativist, despite their loud protestations to the contrary.

As for marijuana, insofar its use is analogous to alcohol and tobacco, its legal status may not necessarily follow from morality but from other pragmatic considerations. Although I don’t take serious issue with someone standing on one side or another with regard to its legality, I do take issue with the underlying philosophy of libertarianism, which might lead one to take such a position.

Are you saying there are no moral implications of the drug war?

 

[King_Lazy]

Ironically, it is not the libertarian who is the relativist, but rather, the overwhelming majority of Christians. The typical Christian will excuse away taxation (theft is wrong, “except”…)

Taxation is not theft. Theft is the appropriation of something one has no right to. The Christian says that the State certainly has a right to demand the payment of taxes (“render unto Caesar…”) because while the individual has a right to private property, it is not absolute and is subordinate to the moral laws of God. It is the libertarian who says that taxation is theft. And it is he who says that “theft is wrong, except” because he is forced to admit that a small amount of taxation must be tolerated to fund a minimalist state.

Are you saying there are no moral implications of the drug war?

The drug war’s failure stems in part from the government’s schizophrenic attitude of attempting to tackle supply but not demand. Where demand for drugs can occasion serious punishment, such as in East Asian countries like Korea and Japan, the drug war is not nearly as ineffective as it is in the West.

As for the legalisation of drugs, while there is nothing intrinsically evil about taking a mind-altering substance, there are practical reasons involving the good of individuals and the common good for why the government might not wish marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin to be available over-the-counter at your nearest pharmacy.

 

[Nec5]

The problem I have with terms like conservative libertarian is that they are meaningless until we get to a specific. Only then do you see the strengths or weakness. Consider the term “libertarian” as an example.

Libertarian: You can do what you want as long as it does not violate the rights of others.

Sounds great. Almost sounds like the golden rule.

Except under this view, things like public nudity are okay (and don’t bother arguing about health or somesuch nonsense). There’s no limit to just about anything and it quickly disintegrates into madness. It works great as a rule of thumb, but as always the devil is in the details.

So when you come up with “conservative libertarian”, it comes down to specifics and that’s the one thing none of our leaders or “thinkers” want to get into.
Another problem with these kind of political constructions is that they require a bit of magical thinking because it is assumed that you can separate political systems from the cultural quirks and values in a society. That’s rarely if ever possible.