Libertarianism

[Pilgrim]

Considering that
1. there's been a fair amount of promotion as of late for Ron Paul and his mostly Libertarian positions, and
2. that some self proclaimed Libertarians are claiming to be the true Conservatives while attempting to label most Republicans as Neoconservatives (Neocons) - a sneering pejorative term used by some to describe conservative Jews and their sympathizers, I thought it might be a good idea to look into the Libertarian philosophy to see what the attraction might be. On the surface, their political positions seem to make a lot of sense; see the following link that spells out their platform:

Platform | Libertarian Party

At first glance these positions would certainly be in sync with most any reasonable conservative. But as the levels of the Libertarian onion are peeled away one begins to realize why this political party has never been and will never be a significant factor in American politics. Their isolationist attitudes on foreign affairs provide the first clues, and more research brings their unrealistic worldview into clearer focus.

The following article/speech was done a number of years ago but provides an excellent analysis that holds true to this day. It's a Loooong read, but here's a few excerpts that might reveal the general theme of the piece:
(Bold emphasis is mine)

A DISPASSIONATE ASSESSMENT OF LIBERTARIANS
by Russell Kirk

The term "libertarianism" is distasteful to people who think seriously about politics. Both Dr. F.A. Hayek and your servant have gone out of their way, from time to time, to declare that they refuse to be tagged with this label...

The libertarian groups differ on some points among themselves, and exhibit varying degrees of fervor. But one may say of them in general that they are "philosophical" anarchists in bourgeois dress...

Of society's old institutions, they would retain only private property. They seek an abstract Liberty that never has existed in any civilization - nor, for that matter, among any barbarous people, or any savage...

The representative libertarian of this decade is humorless, intolerant, self-righteous, badly schooled, and dull...

Why are these doctrinaire libertarians, with a few exceptions, such peculiar people - the sort who give healthy folk like Marion Montgomery the willies? Why do genuine conservatives feel an aversion to close association with them? Why is an alliance between conservatives and libertarians inconceivable, except for very temporary purposes? Why, indeed, would any such articles of confederation undo whatever gains conservatives have made in recent years?
I give you a blunt answer to those questions. The libertarians are rejected because they are metaphysically mad. Lunacy repels, and political lunacy especially. I do not mean that they are dangerous: nay, they are repellent merely. They do not endanger our country and our civilization,...

There exists no peril that American public policies will be affected in any substantial degree by libertarian arguments; or that a candidate of the tiny Libertarian Party ever will be elected to any public office of significance...

The American public rejects this fantastic ideology of extreme individualism, and rightly so. Libertarianism, nevertheless, is a peculiarly American political folly...

A Dispassionate Assessment of Libertarians | The Heritage Foundation

 

[aristotle]

Yes, the neocon label is a particularly vicious term used to denigrate the broader conservative movement generally, and certain conservatives specifically. It isn't a great leap to make word associations such as NeoCon/Neo Nazi. Of course, such connections are linguistic fantasy, but the subliminal message achieves its intended damage. Leftists hurl this objectionable term because its mere utterance places conservatives on the defensive. Libertarians, in a constant state of frustration, are likewise fond of tossing the "neo" grenade.

To Pilgrim's point, I liken Libertarians to an orphan brigade. Homeless, and desperate to attach themselves to something meaningful. A motley crew of malcontents and libertines whose signature is anger. The conservative movement would do well to be wary of forming alliances with this tiny but loud assortment which in my view is a modern day Trojan Horse presenting itself as a friend.

 

[jimby82]

I think if you take the time to look at the core tenets of Libertarianism, you would find a philosophy surprisingly close to that of our founding fathers.

If you read through the Libertarian Party's Platform, there really is not much there that really conflicts with the thoughts of Jefferson or Madison (well early Madison anyway.)

From the first section:

1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Now I don't fully agree with everything they stand for, (especially their thoughts on the military and drugs) but in most cases, their vision of society makes more sense to me than either of our "major" parties.

Now remember I am talking ideas, not the sometimes failed attempts to put those ideas into practice.

Maybe their slogan sums it up best:
Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.
I could live with that.

 

[aristotle]

Jimby, I understand the attraction of a catchy slogan. Moreover, I actually like some of their platform. Still, there is a vast chasm between Libertarians and conservatives on many social issues and foreign policy.

 

[Lawrence]

This maybe my 4th or 5th post in this forum...so here goes.

A conservative worldview, is in my opinion - over. Done. Fini. It's purpose has been served. It's time to retire it like a favorite pair of boots.

It's only hope is to integrate the Libertarian view that predated the modern conservative movement.

 

[Turtle]

I agree. The modern conservative movement has been a disaster. The reason there is a vast chasm between Libertarians and conservatives on many social issues and foreign policy is because, at the core of conservatism (much like at the core of liberalism) there is a deep-seated need to tell other people what to do, how to think, and how to live their lives. Conservatives believe in liberty, but only within their narrowly defined scope of what liberty means. Libertarians want none of that, and will only tell people they are free to do as they please as long as the rights and liberties of others are not infringed.

 

[aristotle]

Lawrence... I admire your grit and optimistic fervor for the forlorned Libertarian cause. While the registered voters aligned with the Libertarian Party in the United States equals less than 1% of our national population, Libertarians enjoy the multiplier effect brought about by unbridled enthusiasm. So intense is their zealotry, I fear if their numbers reach 2%, we are doomed!

I want to keep an open mind on this subject. Can anyone please point to a successful nation where Libertarianism has made for a vibrant, strong and happy people? This would have to be a nation-state where almost all social vices (drugs, prostitution, etc) are legalized. Would Amsterdam or Las Vegas be laboratories of Libertarian tendencies? The American people, in their collective wisdom, have brushed off Libertarianism as cute, quaint and wholly impractical.

What a clever ploy by Libertarians to latch onto the word "Liberty"... some see that word and fail to think through the consequences. Particularly, as it applies to maintaining good social order in a nation of 300 million. Granted, Libertarians talk a good game, yet...

Libertarians have only one hope: put your big boy pants on and embrace Conservatism in toto!

 

[jimby82]

Aristole, you asked,

Can anyone please point to a successful nation where Libertarianism has made for a vibrant, strong and happy people?

respectfully, I would strongly suggest that you are living in one.

I have read through the Libertarian Party's platform and I cannot find one single idea that is at odds with the ideas of our founding fathers as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Not one.

A friend of mine once described Libertarians to me as "Economically conservative and socially liberal", and I would guess that is a fair assessment.

Politically, I would put myself halfway between Libertarian and Conservative, mainly because of my personal feelings about one or two of the social issues (drug use, abortion), and the role of the military.

I guess when it comes right down too it, I just don't like anyone, especially the government, telling me what I can and can't do.

I think the divide between Conservatives and Libertarians is far less than that between Libertarians and today's "Liberals" or "Progressives."

The original ideas behind the Tea Party movement (not the Republican co-opted version we have now, but the original grass roots movement), were very Libertarian in nature.

I know it's a "catchy slogan", but one that would aptly apply to the very core ideas of our founding.

 

[greg334]

I want to keep an open mind on this subject. Can anyone please point to a successful nation where Libertarianism has made for a vibrant, strong and happy people?

Actually Here it is - The United States from 1783 to 1913.

This is where the country was the MOST prosperous, had the most freedoms and did the most good for the world by being a part of it but not trying to spread Democracy or be the worlds police department. After 1913, we were on a decline, even our great effort in the second world war was just a shadow of what we could have done IF we didn't have the regulations and the laws that restricted our abilities or our freedoms. The worst times were from 1914 to 1980's, where we had little freedoms in the proper sense of what this country was founded on and from the 80's to date we have regained some semblance of what we had in 1900 but not concrete enough.

Libertarian ideals is the driving force behind the conservative movement. Regardless who says what, the conservative movement lacks much of the cohesion and needed direction and this is where the cross over happens. The problem that most see is the party, the overlook the actual ideology of Libertarianism and assume that it is not like what a true conservative wants in life but in fact is closer to it than the conservative movement.

The libertarian party's mistake is trying to shake the 60's free love/free everything ideas and actually get back to what actually matters, a real constitutional government that works. They I feel will be forever holding to the drug issue which has been made bad by the fractured and misaligned social conservatives in the country. They don't understand how to grab the attention of the nation, telling them that the ideas that the party has is more in-line with that of their own ideas at the same time explaining the party and the movement so others can understand it.

I feel Turtle said it correctly when he said the conservative movement is a disaster. It really is and if you look at the actions of the party from up in the sky, you can't really tell the difference between the conservatives and the liberals in politics. They all stand for the same thing which as Turtle point out "there is a deep-seated need to tell other people what to do, how to think, and how to live their lives" which is why the conservatives in this country are truly afraid of the libertarians and the classic liberals.

The really nauseating thing to me is the twisting of Reagan and how he is looked upon as the foundation of conservatism while forgetting he was an old liberal. His ideas and his actions may seemed to have been great but he neither went far enough nor actually made a lot of gains with true freedoms - we still have gun laws, we still have regulations and we still have open doors that the liberals are trying to shut. His single move in granting citizenship (in effect) to many who invaded this country actually illustrated his inability to be an actual conservative and this I think is where the movement redefined itself to fit his ideology.

By the way, I'm a classic liberal.

 

[aristotle]

Reality check: Libertarianism has never held power or governed in this country. The Libertarian Party has no real influence and cannot get enough traction to pull itself out of the ideological ditch. It's a surreal pipedream... an embarrassingly naive philosophy which sounds good to 17 year-olds having an all night bull session . Serious people understand libertarianism is the last bastion of those fleeing responsibility. Libertarianism is only inches away from anarchism. It may work at the Arctic Cirlce for 10 Eskimos, yet Libertarianism is a laughingstock idea when proposed for a nation. Why?

Libertarians fundamentally misunderstand human nature. The entire drama of human history is about Struggle and Conflict. Every society must organize themselves in such a way as to guarantee social order and survival. This is true throughout the natural world. This is true throughout the animal kingdom and especially true for humankind. Nations and societies are formed by a people who generally agree upon certain core values, beliefs and principles. It is human instinct to prefer order over chaos. Chaos leads to destruction of the group. To minimize chaos, human societies implement Rules and Laws. Those who resist the necessary social order would find themselves marginalized and disregarded.

Liberals and conservatives may disagree upon the best method for achieving social order, but both readily acknowledge it is the prime imperative of government. Libertarians, for good reason, have been relegated to watch from the sidelines.

 

[greg334]

Reality check: Libertarianism has never held power or governed in this country.

The reality check is this, Libertarianism before the defining of different movements took place after the 1848 revolutions in Europe existed here in the thoughts and minds of many of our founding fathers. The concepts that man is given rights only by God goes right to the vary basic concepts of Libertarianism, not Conservationism or Liberalism. It is just the opposite with either of the latter movements, their entire justification seems to based on government's power and that power is the power to grant rights, not to protect them or be limited by them.

A very very good issue to prove this is the idea that a sitting president can overstep his authority and deem a piece of duly passed legislation as unconstitutional and VERY LITTLE IS SAID. It is neither his job nor his right to prevent a law from being defended in court - it is part of his oath of office to uphold EVERY law of the country. I have heard very very little from the conservatives on this subject, even less in the press but I would expect if it is asked by a libertarian or especially a classic liberal, the terms impeachment would be used without hesitation. The fact that there is a speration of powers issue means a lot and the failure of those in congress NOT calling for Obama's head seems to show they don't want to rock the boat and cause any strife between congress and the WH.

The Libertarian Party has no real influence and cannot get enough traction to pull itself out of the ideological ditch.

THIS is very true, and one of the biggest issues with the party but you, like many who seem to be self-proclaimed conservatives, lump the concepts and Ideology with the party and those are actually two distinct issues. As I said the libertarian party's mistake is trying to shake the 60's free love/free everything ideas and actually get back to what actually matters, a real constitutional government that works.

It's a surreal pipedream... an embarrassingly naive philosophy which sounds good to 17 year-olds having an all night bull session . Serious people understand libertarianism is the last bastion of those fleeing responsibility.

Actually I'm not a 17 year old but it sounds good to me as much of the ideology sounded good to people like Jefferson and others who formed the government.

I also don't think that when the idea of fleeing responsibility comes into the picture, people see the libertarian as the one who wants this - actually I think that is something that a conservative/liberal makes excuses and gives latitude to those who actually practice this in our country - welfare and drug rehab come to mind. Those two systems are supported by the very issues that drive the two major parties and perpetuate the problems we have social and economically.

On the opposite part of the spectrum, I have yet heard a single conservative agree with the idea that open market and uninhibited markets lead to a better world for all of us and will lead to employment based on choices not on political needs and desires to stay in office. What I have heard is the idea that free trade is a bad thing, conservatives seem to sit on the side of "big business" while liberals sit on the side of "big labor" and both call for import taxes, restriction of some trade, the protectionism of markets and so on but the libertarians seem to say "get rid of all of the BS and let the markets make money".

Maybe asking this question will invoke some thought.

If this was the same country as say in 1878, with the libertarian mindset that the government has no business in business, do you think that the housing crisis would have actually happened?

Libertarianism is only inches away from anarchism. It may work at the Arctic Cirlce for 10 Eskimos, yet Libertarianism is a laughingstock idea when proposed for a nation. Why?

Again I think this is a rather poor look at something that drove our country for its first 130 years. We didn't have the issues we have today not because we had conservatives in office but rather because we had a government that worked based on the freedoms that were there at the start. IF this meant that we were only inches away from anarchism by your standards, then OK it seemed to work. The intent I feel was to be one step away from anarchy by design, not because it was something as a desire to live like but rather it was something that was needed. Without the threat that the people could get rid of their government when the time was needed, the founding fathers understood that it would turn into a tyrannical government very quickly and when the social programmers and the social experts came into the picture with the intelligentsia firmly entrenched in our government, this changed our government from one that approached anarchy and chaos every few years to one that was stable by building a democracy that forced us to shed the rights and approach to anarchy. This happened around 1913.

Don't forget that without the FORCE of government, we had a system that actually worked for the individual, family and then the community. With the FORCE of government we destroy the individual, family and community and if you know anything about urban history and sociology, you will understand that the worst things we did was force people by laws to get along with one another. We didn't during the time that government wasn't intrusive have people with stations in life that they had to fulfill, the All Men Are Created Equal thing but now we make special considerations for race, creed, gender and sexual desired.

Libertarians fundamentally misunderstand human nature.

I think it is the opposite. Most of us, classic liberals and libertarians alike completely understand human nature. Many of us see what it is really about without the need for government to be involved and that people, not government will allow adjustments to build back the individual, family and community. IT is the opposite for conservatives and liberals who think that legislating behavior is a great thing to do in order to maintain social order and obedience.

The entire drama of human history is about Struggle and Conflict. Every society must organize themselves in such a way as to guarantee social order and survival. This is true throughout the natural world. This is true throughout the animal kingdom and especially true for humankind. Nations and societies are formed by a people who generally agree upon certain core values, beliefs and principles.

Yep I agree but see there wasn't social order by government decree in the late 1700's and when there was the revolutions in the 1840's there was a loss of government decreed social order which most of today's liberalism and conservatism came out of.

It is human instinct to prefer order over chaos. Chaos leads to destruction of the group. To minimize chaos, human societies implement Rules and Laws. Those who resist the necessary social order would find themselves marginalized and disregarded.

I also agree but see the chaos that was instilled in our society in the early part of the countries history allowed it to evolve and form into what others considered an amazing and rather unique form of government and society. Some French guy wrote a little book or pamphlet about it and made some important points about how our world, with chaos and without true government intervention IT was actually a very good thing. Up until the need to "preserve the Union", the rights of the individual and state counted for something but this was the beginning of the end of that which came to a real end in 1913. Until then we lived in a chaotic world where man was free to choose what he wanted to do, had access to the opportunity to own lands and provide for his family without the intervention or limitation of the government.

Liberals and conservatives may disagree upon the best method for achieving social order, but both readily acknowledge it is the prime imperative of government. Libertarians, for good reason, have been relegated to watch from the sidelines.

Well the problem seems to be that liberals talk about the freedom of choice and then we all pay the price for that choice. The conservative talks about freedom of the individual but then say it is only on their terms while many of us who believe in liberty say get the government the hell out of our way and mean it. Maybe that is one of the factors involved with the negitive picture many paint with the libertarian party.

One issue that sticks out a lot is Abortion.

Liberals are all for this right that doesn't exist - the right to have an abortion. Conservatives are split between allowing abortion, limiting it or having a law against it but you know the failings of both those groups are very clear and it makes a conservative and a liberal exactly the same - neither of them understand that this is a privacy issue, not a government issue, not an abortion issue but a privacy issue. The right to privacy trumps the right of having the government involved and this is where people think that many libertarians are for abortion when many are for privacy.

Overall I think conservatism is dying a slow and painful death. The problem is that it can't get a boost from inside the movement because everyone is either attacking liberals or vying for reelection. As I said much of what drives it now at this very moment are libertarian Ideals and this has been proven in two events, one is the tea party movement and the other is the straw election of Paul twice.

 

[jimby82]

Aristotle,

I just can't help but feel you are equating Libertarianism with anarchy, and that simply is not the case. Libertarians recognize the need for limited governments and social order, but only when said governments do not infringe on individual rights and liberties. Anarchy wants no order, everyone for themselves, and that would truly lead to chaos.

Liberals and conservatives may disagree upon the best method for achieving social order, but both readily acknowledge it is the prime imperative of government. Libertarians, for good reason, have been relegated to watch from the sidelines.

Sadly, I think both "mainstream" parties have lost sight of the rights of individuals in favor of the rights of the state.

 

[aristotle]

The reality check is this, Libertarianism before the defining of different movements took place after the 1848 revolutions in Europe existed here in the thoughts and minds of many of our founding fathers. The concepts that man is given rights only by God goes right to the vary basic concepts of Libertarianism, not Conservationism or Liberalism. It is just the opposite with either of the latter movements, their entire justification seems to based on government's power and that power is the power to grant rights, not to protect them or be limited by them.

A very very good issue to prove this is the idea that a sitting president can overstep his authority and deem a piece of duly passed legislation as unconstitutional and VERY LITTLE IS SAID. It is neither his job nor his right to prevent a law from being defended in court - it is part of his oath of office to uphold EVERY law of the country. I have heard very very little from the conservatives on this subject, even less in the press but I would expect if it is asked by a libertarian or especially a classic liberal, the terms impeachment would be used without hesitation. The fact that there is a speration of powers issue means a lot and the failure of those in congress NOT calling for Obama's head seems to show they don't want to rock the boat and cause any strife between congress and the WH.



THIS is very true, and one of the biggest issues with the party but you, like many who seem to be self-proclaimed conservatives, lump the concepts and Ideology with the party and those are actually two distinct issues. As I said the libertarian party's mistake is trying to shake the 60's free love/free everything ideas and actually get back to what actually matters, a real constitutional government that works.



Actually I'm not a 17 year old but it sounds good to me as much of the ideology sounded good to people like Jefferson and others who formed the government.

I also don't think that when the idea of fleeing responsibility comes into the picture, people see the libertarian as the one who wants this - actually I think that is something that a conservative/liberal makes excuses and gives latitude to those who actually practice this in our country - welfare and drug rehab come to mind. Those two systems are supported by the very issues that drive the two major parties and perpetuate the problems we have social and economically.

On the opposite part of the spectrum, I have yet heard a single conservative agree with the idea that open market and uninhibited markets lead to a better world for all of us and will lead to employment based on choices not on political needs and desires to stay in office. What I have heard is the idea that free trade is a bad thing, conservatives seem to sit on the side of "big business" while liberals sit on the side of "big labor" and both call for import taxes, restriction of some trade, the protectionism of markets and so on but the libertarians seem to say "get rid of all of the BS and let the markets make money".

Maybe asking this question will invoke some thought.

If this was the same country as say in 1878, with the libertarian mindset that the government has no business in business, do you think that the housing crisis would have actually happened?



Again I think this is a rather poor look at something that drove our country for its first 130 years. We didn't have the issues we have today not because we had conservatives in office but rather because we had a government that worked based on the freedoms that were there at the start. IF this meant that we were only inches away from anarchism by your standards, then OK it seemed to work. The intent I feel was to be one step away from anarchy by design, not because it was something as a desire to live like but rather it was something that was needed. Without the threat that the people could get rid of their government when the time was needed, the founding fathers understood that it would turn into a tyrannical government very quickly and when the social programmers and the social experts came into the picture with the intelligentsia firmly entrenched in our government, this changed our government from one that approached anarchy and chaos every few years to one that was stable by building a democracy that forced us to shed the rights and approach to anarchy. This happened around 1913.

Don't forget that without the FORCE of government, we had a system that actually worked for the individual, family and then the community. With the FORCE of government we destroy the individual, family and community and if you know anything about urban history and sociology, you will understand that the worst things we did was force people by laws to get along with one another. We didn't during the time that government wasn't intrusive have people with stations in life that they had to fulfill, the All Men Are Created Equal thing but now we make special considerations for race, creed, gender and sexual desired.



I think it is the opposite. Most of us, classic liberals and libertarians alike completely understand human nature. Many of us see what it is really about without the need for government to be involved and that people, not government will allow adjustments to build back the individual, family and community. IT is the opposite for conservatives and liberals who think that legislating behavior is a great thing to do in order to maintain social order and obedience.



Yep I agree but see there wasn't social order by government decree in the late 1700's and when there was the revolutions in the 1840's there was a loss of government decreed social order which most of today's liberalism and conservatism came out of.



I also agree but see the chaos that was instilled in our society in the early part of the countries history allowed it to evolve and form into what others considered an amazing and rather unique form of government and society. Some French guy wrote a little book or pamphlet about it and made some important points about how our world, with chaos and without true government intervention IT was actually a very good thing. Up until the need to "preserve the Union", the rights of the individual and state counted for something but this was the beginning of the end of that which came to a real end in 1913. Until then we lived in a chaotic world where man was free to choose what he wanted to do, had access to the opportunity to own lands and provide for his family without the intervention or limitation of the government.



Well the problem seems to be that liberals talk about the freedom of choice and then we all pay the price for that choice. The conservative talks about freedom of the individual but then say it is only on their terms while many of us who believe in liberty say get the government the hell out of our way and mean it. Maybe that is one of the factors involved with the negitive picture many paint with the libertarian party.

One issue that sticks out a lot is Abortion.

Liberals are all for this right that doesn't exist - the right to have an abortion. Conservatives are split between allowing abortion, limiting it or having a law against it but you know the failings of both those groups are very clear and it makes a conservative and a liberal exactly the same - neither of them understand that this is a privacy issue, not a government issue, not an abortion issue but a privacy issue. The right to privacy trumps the right of having the government involved and this is where people think that many libertarians are for abortion when many are for privacy.

Overall I think conservatism is dying a slow and painful death. The problem is that it can't get a boost from inside the movement because everyone is either attacking liberals or vying for reelection. As I said much of what drives it now at this very moment are libertarian Ideals and this has been proven in two events, one is the tea party movement and the other is the straw election of Paul twice.

Here is an example of Libertarians trying desperately to attach themselves to something meaningful. The Tea Party movement is all about electing Conservatives to office, not electing fringe groups (e. g. Libertarians).

Of the thousands of political officeholders nationwide, I am unaware of a single openly-declared Libertarian being elected to a statewide or federal office. As politely as I can, let me repeat the Libertarian movement has no currency among the American people. Proof being they cannot get any of their own elected. If Libertarianism was so wonderful, it wouldn't be a hard sell.

Lastly, revisionist history aside, this malarkey of Libertarians trying to attach themselves to the Tea Party or the Founding Fathers....or whatever populist movement of the day.... doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is an effort to appear viable, which they aren't. Libertarianism is more a figment of one's imagination than a real force to be reckoned with. Just feel-good happy talk for permanent adolescents. Other than that, I like 'em.

 

[jimby82]

Of the thousands of political officeholders nationwide, I am unaware of a single openly-declared Libertarian being elected to a statewide or federal office. As politely as I can, let me repeat the Libertarian movement has no currency among the American people. Proof being they cannot get any of their own elected. If Libertarianism was so wonderful, it wouldn't be a hard sell.

And I guess we all see the bang up job the Democrats and Republicans have been doing!

 

[greg334]

Here is an example of Libertarians trying desperately to attach themselves to something meaningful. The Tea Party movement is all about electing Conservatives to office, not electing fringe groups (e. g. Libertarians).

AND?

I don't see the desperation to attach anything to anyone, on the contrary, I see the conservatives being reactive in a threat that they are "being taken over" by another party - one of the biggest issues from the mainstream conservative movement on the subject of Ron Paul.

Of the thousands of political officeholders nationwide, I am unaware of a single openly-declared Libertarian being elected to a statewide or federal office. As politely as I can, let me repeat the Libertarian movement has no currency among the American people. Proof being they cannot get any of their own elected. If Libertarianism was so wonderful, it wouldn't be a hard sell.

Well I don't see the political office holders being libertarian either, maybe it is time we should?

On the other hand, I can't agree with the idea that the American people don't go along with the Libertarian movement, well in a way. If we talk about the movement and not the ideology, then yes I can agree with that but overall I feel that if given a choice, the ideology that the movement is based on would win without hesitation.

Lastly, revisionist history aside, this malarkey of Libertarians trying to attach themselves to the Tea Party or the Founding Fathers....or whatever populist movement of the day.... doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Actually I don't see the libertarian party being attached to the founding fathers - however the ideology that they base their movement on is almost exactly the same as the founding fathers with only little differences. The tea party ORIGINAL movement was not conservative nor was it all about conservative values, it reeks of libertarian values.

I have two good books, "Andrew Jackson" by Philip Morray and "The Political system of the United States" By John Rodney, written in 1838 and 1849 respectfully by writers who were from Europe. Both of the authors talk about the same values that shaped the founding fathers mindset which the libertarian and the classic liberals talk about today. These two books are not part of the revisionist history set or modified to fit some political agenda but rather two objective works trying to figure out why there is a lot of success in the United States and how it can be repeated in other countries. John Rodney at the time my copy was printed was 65 and talked to many of the people who actually were part of the forming of our government - being born in around the time of the revolution.

The point is you can take any piece of literature of that time on that subject and find the same things in it.

It is an effort to appear viable, which they aren't. Libertarianism is more a figment of one's imagination than a real force to be reckoned with. Just feel-good happy talk for permanent adolescents. Other than that, I like 'em.

The same can be said about conservatives.

Especially those who see religion as the basis for their political involvement and try to use the government as the vehicle for the protection of their beliefs while forcing others to their way of thinking. With that, many use religion as a way to leverage issues for their own purpose, like with things they claim are destructive to people. Their position seems to be a clear need to have a regulation to control the destructive behavior, like drugs (which I am not for legalization) as a false protection to the public at large. This in itself shows that they are no different from the other side of the issue where they feel building a welfare state to help those who take the wrong road in life and force others to believe in it as a solution to all the societies problems.

My example with Abortion is great for showing the distinct difference between one who espouses liberty as intended by the founding fathers and one who espouses liberty but with regulating to protect. NOT saying that abortion is right or wrong, instead I'm saying that choice is borne out of the right of privacy which matters more than to have government intervention while espousing a specific religious belief.

This among other issues is where conservative movement is flaws to its core. There is a purposeful ignoring of the real underlying need to protect the right in order to control the people based on one or another religious beliefs or to regulate to protect. This is actually shown better in the Schivo case a few years back where the right of the person (husband) was questioned based on facts that really were false. The parents as you know had a large contingent of "pro-life" people behind them who happened to be conservative while the other side of the issue was liberals. No real difference between the two groups other than they crapped all over the right of privacy to make a decision about someone else's life. People on the conservative side talked about making laws to prevent this from happening and didn't it make it to congress but they happened to pass a law that really was not just a travesty to the basic tenet of our rights but also plainly crapped over every medical law that was created to protect us. By the way the libertarian view seemed to be simple, the husband has the right to pull the plug - no one else.

Don't forget I'm only defending the libertarian movement because of the common thread the classical liberal movement has with them, which is far removed from the sometimes counterproductive movements of both the liberal and conservative movements.

 

[Pilgrim]

A very very good issue to prove this is the idea that a sitting president can overstep his authority and deem a piece of duly passed legislation as unconstitutional and VERY LITTLE IS SAID.

True enough, but let's not confuse lack of leadership with a flaw in the conservative philosophy. There is no Reagan in the party right now, an outspoken leader who made his case directly to the American people rather than allow it to be misinterpreted by the mainstream media. The leaders of the GOP right now are still too concerned how they will be portrayed in the media. Besides, bringing up the subject of impeachment would be pointless considering the Democrat majority in the Senate.

If this was the same country as say in 1878, with the libertarian mindset that the government has no business in business, do you think that the housing crisis would have actually happened?

Of course not, but we can't discount events that happen when the liberal Democrats are in power like the first two Obama years.

The conservative talks about freedom of the individual but then say it is only on their terms...

Examples of this are...?

One issue that sticks out a lot is Abortion...
The right to privacy trumps the right of having the government involved and this is where people think that many libertarians are for abortion when many are for privacy.

Granted, but what about the right of life granted the unborn fetus - especially when it reaches the stage where it would be a viable life form outside the womb? At that point its right to life would certainly outweigh another's right to privacy.

Overall I think conservatism is dying a slow and painful death. The problem is that it can't get a boost from inside the movement because everyone is either attacking liberals or vying for reelection. As I said much of what drives it now at this very moment are libertarian Ideals and this has been proven in two events, one is the tea party movement and the other is the straw election of Paul twice.

A "slow and painful death"?? Not hardly - in fact, the exact opposite is true given the results of the most recent elections. The "conservatives" dying the not-so-slow death are the moderates like John McCain who try to form a hybrid philosophy in their efforts to be "bipartisan", and in the process discard most of the fundamental principles that make conservatism and libertarianism attractive. The country voted to be governed by the most radically liberal administration in the nations' history, and got fed up with them in a very short time. When a true conservative leader emerges as the presidential race progresses, he should easily sweep BHO out of the White House and into the dust bin of failed leaders. But this will only happen if he endorses and campaigns on true conservative principles and values based on smaller government, a strong defense, lower taxation and a free economy.
Regarding Paul's victories in two straw polls: given the limited makeup of the straw poll in question, these victories are insignificant. If he, or any other Libertarian wins a significant primary we've got something to talk about.

 

[aristotle]

OKay, Greg. When Libertarians gain some credibility and winning elections on the strength of their ideas, we will be forced to take notice. I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I like so much of their economic policies, it leaves me wondering how they can be so wrong on important social issues, national defense and foreign policy. It seems Libertarians really are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Being socially liberal is the death knell of their aspirations. We aren't about to dilute the American conservative movement for a fringe element.

 

[greg334]

A very very good issue to prove this is the idea that a sitting president can overstep his authority and deem a piece of duly passed legislation as unconstitutional and VERY LITTLE IS SAID.

True enough, but let's not confuse lack of leadership with a flaw in the conservative philosophy. There is no Reagan in the party right now, an outspoken leader who made his case directly to the American people rather than allow it to be misinterpreted by the mainstream media. The leaders of the GOP right now are still too concerned how they will be portrayed in the media. Besides, bringing up the subject of impeachment would be pointless considering the Democrat majority in the Senate.

But there isn't a lack of leadership in the GOP, it is a lack of uniformed leadership and a lack of promoting leadership qualities. For the same reason that there is no impeachment, there is no leadership in either party we can actually look at and say this is someone who may help. The media may very well stifle any potential person who can be counted as another Reagan, but really it is the party with the old guard that has done the damage to itself more than anything else.

Using Reagan as a standard for a leader is troublesome in itself, mainly because most of the gains made by the republicans and the conservatives were made in the 90's not in the 80's and his policies as much sounded good just don't live up to the standards that we really need to move the country forward.

If this was the same country as say in 1878, with the libertarian mindset that the government has no business in business, do you think that the housing crisis would have actually happened?

Of course not, but we can't discount events that happen when the liberal Democrats are in power like the first two Obama years.

Well see the problem is that this happened under a conservative congress with a conservative president, not a democratic congress with a democratic president. The housing crisis started to take shape in 2005 when there was an established flood of sub-prime loans for anything from cars to pools. IT was also propagated by the need to spend and spend coupled with low interest rates.

By the way, not one thing has been done to prevent this from happening again. The present predictions from economist have been consistent, if congress doesn't act to straighten up the regulations and put a stop to the same crap that caused all of it in the first place, we will be in a very bad way in a short time - they want to see an end of sub-prime lending altogether.

The conservative talks about freedom of the individual but then say it is only on their terms...

Examples of this are...?

OH crap I don't know ... maybe some of the abortion legislation, a number of issues with Muslims that are screamed about from the right (freedom of religion things), Drug Policies that include forfeiture laws, School and education issues like Zero Tolerance. I have maybe a few thousand that I can list, some of them I can show the inexplicit foundation of my statement but those should do well enough, especially with the Muslim thing - starting with people saying no to Mosques and getting all worked up about Sharia law.

One issue that sticks out a lot is Abortion...
The right to privacy trumps the right of having the government involved and this is where people think that many libertarians are for abortion when many are for privacy.

Granted, but what about the right of life granted the unborn fetus - especially when it reaches the stage where it would be a viable life form outside the womb? At that point its right to life would certainly outweigh another's right to privacy.

OK I hear that a lot but the issue isn't with anything but the right to privacy. The right of the individual or fetus or viable tissue isn't an issue, that is a problem that society needs to solve. The really important question is what do you want government to do, either they are to protect your right to privacy or you have no right to privacy - there isn't an in between. The problem when other mitigating factors are thrown in, it causes a retraction of an absolute right to a gray area that than government must adjudicate it so it can be applied fairly. Regardless, it isn't man that gives the right to privacy, it is God and the same to worship as we feel like not as other men want us to.

Overall I think conservatism is dying a slow and painful death. The problem is that it can't get a boost from inside the movement because everyone is either attacking liberals or vying for reelection. As I said much of what drives it now at this very moment are libertarian Ideals and this has been proven in two events, one is the tea party movement and the other is the straw election of Paul twice.

A "slow and painful death"?? Not hardly - in fact, the exact opposite is true given the results of the most recent elections. The "conservatives" dying the not-so-slow death are the moderates like John McCain who try to form a hybrid philosophy in their efforts to be "bipartisan", and in the process discard most of the fundamental principles that make conservatism and libertarianism attractive. The country voted to be governed by the most radically liberal administration in the nations' history, and got fed up with them in a very short time. When a true conservative leader emerges as the presidential race progresses, he should easily sweep BHO out of the White House and into the dust bin of failed leaders. But this will only happen if he endorses and campaigns on true conservative principles and values based on smaller government, a strong defense, lower taxation and a free economy.
Regarding Paul's victories in two straw polls: given the limited makeup of the straw poll in question, these victories are insignificant. If he, or any other Libertarian wins a significant primary we've got something to talk about.

I understand what you are saying, but I think any one who speaks of lower taxes, a free economy, smaller government may win against Obama, on the other hand there needs to be a serious examination of the republican party and many who espouse conservatism within their ranks.

With that said, if there wasn't a tea party movement, I really think the GOP would not have won and their party and the conservative movement would have been dead. Right now the issues we face are things that the old guard have caused regardless if they are conservative or liberal, republican or democrat - it is that group that has put us in the position that people can't take much more of the issues they throw at us and why even through it was only two years into the administration, we saw changes that may have been caused by people being sick and tired of both movements in power.

This does not mean there isn't a place for a hybrid movement, but the old GOP won't give up easily and as Marco Rubio said in his first speech as a member of congress, they should not think of themselves as winning a victor that it will be business as usual but the people have spoken and now it is time to act on what they want the newbies to do in congress. We already have the old conservatives holding these people back, they are not moving fast enough and seeking out compromises instead of doing what we, the people, wanted them to do - NOT BACK DOWN.

THAT is the attraction to Paul, he has been consistent in his message and not backing down. He is alas a politician and maybe a someone who can invoke a little change to the party. His winning as much as it is irrelevant shows that people are listening carefully.

OKay, Greg. When Libertarians gain some credibility and winning elections on the strength of their ideas, we will be forced to take notice. I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I like so much of their economic policies, it leaves me wondering how they can be so wrong on important social issues, national defense and foreign policy. It seems Libertarians really are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Being socially liberal is the death knell of their aspirations. We aren't about to dilute the American conservative movement for a fringe element.

BUT see I don't care if they gain credibility, the conservative movement has lost a lot of it in the past 5 years. Maybe if you talk about the important social issues, maybe by placing the emphasis on what bothers you instead talking about the same thing we may be come to some agreement.

Don't forget, I don't agree on some of what they say, the same with their political ideology but outside of the differences, I can see where they came from and where they can help.

I guess what it comes down to is not the definition of the libertarian party but a lack of a clear definition of what conservationism and the movement stands for. To many like me, we see a hodgepodge of different ideologies which come down to the same basic tenets that are shared with social liberalism, from controlling the people to limiting their rights as they (the people in power) want it to be. I think the attraction to libertarianism to many like me is not about no responsibility but the return of opportunity and actually as odd as this sounds fairness. Being a classic liberal, I have felt those two things are disappeared under the present movements that govern us, and by having people cling onto these movements as something that changed the country for the better (depending on if you are left or right), it seems that they show they are as antiquated as those mid 20th century ideas that keep popping up as the way to get us out of that mess.

 

[Pilgrim]

But there isn't a lack of leadership in the GOP, it is a lack of uniformed leadership and a lack of promoting leadership qualities.

True, but the leadership of the conservatives will come into focus. At this stage of their respective campaigns no one would have guessed Bill Clinton or BHO would have ended up being the nominee.

Using Reagan as a standard for a leader is troublesome in itself, mainly because most of the gains made by the republicans and the conservatives were made in the 90's not in the 80's and his policies as much sounded good just don't live up to the standards that we really need to move the country forward.

Au contraire - the 1980's showed considerable conservative gains - so much so that Reagan's VP, H.W. Bush got elected on Reagan's coat tails in spite of being a milktoast moderate that most true conservatives didn't much like. During that time Reagan's conservative principles turned the nation 180 degrees from the direction of the disastrous Carter years. The 1990s brought Slick Willie's attempt to introduce his liberal policies (i.e. Hillarycare) which brought about the GOP gains in 1994. However, Slick had the political sense to pivot to the center and save himself for a second term. The conservatives once again lost ground when they nominated Bob Dole - another moderate and uninspiring candidate.

The housing crisis started to take shape in 2005 when there was an established flood of sub-prime loans for anything from cars to pools. IT was also propagated by the need to spend and spend coupled with low interest rates.

Actually, the problems with the sub prime mortgage crises started during the Clinton administration when Slick and his boys put more pressure on the banks to relax their lending standards for sub prime loans issued under the Community Reinvestment Act, which incidentally was enacted into law during - you guessed it - Jimmy Carter's presidency. Subsequently, we've all seen the YouTube videos of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters stonewalling the Republicans as they tried to enact more stringent regulations on Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae.

By the way, not one thing has been done to prevent this from happening again.

And we won't see anything happen so long as we've got the current resident in the White House and a Democrat majority in the Senate.

"The conservative talks about freedom of the individual but then say it is only on their terms..."
Pilgrim "Examples of this are...?"

OH crap I don't know ... maybe some of the abortion legislation, a number of issues with Muslims that are screamed about from the right (freedom of religion things), Drug Policies that include forfeiture laws, School and education issues like Zero Tolerance. I have maybe a few thousand that I can list, some of them I can show the inexplicit foundation of my statement but those should do well enough, especially with the Muslim thing - starting with people saying no to Mosques and getting all worked up about Sharia law.

I can see this issue having enough depth to warrent its own thread, and this post is already too long. But my initial thought is that you've just indirectly made the point that certain freedoms must come with certain limits. It's my belief that pure libertarianism and multiculturalism are not compatible in today's world - and it's primarily because of the Islamic religion.

 

[greg334]

True, but the leadership of the conservatives will come into focus. At this stage of their respective campaigns no one would have guessed Bill Clinton or BHO would have ended up being the nominee.

I don't see it, with Steele and now the new guy running the GOP, the leadership within the ranks is murky at best. Most of the GOP is still running with the old gaurd who for much of the '94-'06 majority in congress did less other than compromise with the minority.

If you looked at the number of times democratic sponsored or co-party sponsored bills came up for vote in congress, you can see what I'm getting at.

Au contraire - the 1980's showed considerable conservative gains - so much so that Reagan's VP, H.W. Bush got elected on Reagan's coat tails in spite of being a milktoast moderate that most true conservatives didn't much like. During that time Reagan's conservative principles turned the nation 180 degrees from the direction of the disastrous Carter years. The 1990s brought Slick Willie's attempt to introduce his liberal policies (i.e. Hillarycare) which brought about the GOP gains in 1994. However, Slick had the political sense to pivot to the center and save himself for a second term. The conservatives once again lost ground when they nominated Bob Dole - another moderate and uninspiring candidate.

As much as this can be considered the case, Reagan didn't start deregulation as many claim. I feel it wasn't conservative principles but rather those of a hybrid nature - conservative/classic liberal principles that did the job. The problem with the idea that in '94 the GOP made gains because of conservative values seem to forget that many times in our history the people have been seeking balance within the government and hence the reasoning for the change in 2006 and again in 2010.

Actually, the problems with the sub prime mortgage crises started during the Clinton administration when Slick and his boys put more pressure on the banks to relax their lending standards for sub prime loans issued under the Community Reinvestment Act, which incidentally was enacted into law during - you guessed it - Jimmy Carter's presidency. Subsequently, we've all seen the YouTube videos of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters stonewalling the Republicans as they tried to enact more stringent regulations on Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae.

BUT see you miss a very important point. IF we had a president with some balls and a congress who would not compromise in fixing problems, then what happened under Clinton would have been corrected and we would not have had this problem. The republican congress passed a number of bills and made a number of changes during that time from changing accounting methods for banks and lenders to lowering the threshold for loans. It was further a republican president who allowed and sometimes encouraged the housing industry growth which was solely driven by sub-prime loans but the sub-prime lending and a lax oversight increased during the Bush administration which put us down this path of ruin.

And we won't see anything happen so long as we've got the current resident in the White House and a Democrat majority in the Senate.

I don't agree, the problems that we have can be solved by putting blame where it belongs within congress, the house is a good position to force some of these changes but it goes right back to the lack of unified leadership within the GOP and the need to worry about being reelected.

I can see this issue having enough depth to warrent its own thread, and this post is already too long. But my initial thought is that you've just indirectly made the point that certain freedoms must come with certain limits. It's my belief that pure libertarianism and multiculturalism are not compatible in today's world - and it's primarily because of the Islamic religion.

Well there are three different subject now, libertarianism, multiculturalism and Islam?

Here is the problem, I still say conservatism is dying, people recognized this by taking an independent position on many issues. THIS like it or not is about liberty to decide for one's self - a libertarian concept, not conservative. We don't live in a democracy, thank God for that because if we did, we would only have 1 party.

Again I think you mistake the party for the ideologies behind the party.

Multiculturalism has been around for the last 200 years, so it seems to have worked well up until people decided to force people to live together. The last time I looked there was a problem with republicans (read conservatives) invading states with federal troops to enforce laws that the federal government had no right to enforce. THIS is part of the same problem, so just because Modern Multiculturalism is a problem for conservatives, it is forgotten they were part of the formation of that movement and they supported it until it didn't serve them a purpose any more.

Islam has been in this country since its founding, but until recently people have not cared or noticed it. NOW because there is a threat to the "American" way of life by this rather obtuse view many conservatives have that Muslims want to introduce Sharia Law to the country while at the same time less than 12% of the entire population is Muslim.