Is This Where Libertarians Say Goodbye to Conservatives?

[jimnyc]

Way back in the day (in the early years of the Cold War), libertarians and conservatives formed an unstable but decades-long coalition against actual, Soviet-style communism (in this, they were of course joined by most liberals as well) and many domestic increases in government power. This was, broadly speaking, "fusionism," and it allowed two political ideologies with very different beliefs and ideas to coexist not simply in the pages of National Review but also more broadly on the post-war right. As Ronald Reagan told Reason in a 1975 interview, "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

That interview, conducted shortly after Reagan had left his second term as governor of California and was gearing up to challenge Gerarld Ford for the 1976 GOP presidential nomination, highlights the tensions that continue between libertarians and conservatives. Even as Dutch explained, "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves," he stressed that "I cannot go along with the libertarian philosophy that says that all of the sin laws can be ruled out as simply trying to protect us from ourselves." In fact, from its earliest days, the libertarian-conservative alliance was wracked with all sorts of problems over religion, foreign policy, and lifestyle. Founded in 1968, Reason had from its earliest issues pushed for an end to the draft and the legalization of abortion, drugs, and sexual contact among consenting adults. The LP, launched in 1971, has always done the same.

Fast-forward many years—after the Reagan presidency, which saw a massive centralization of power in Washington and the launching of a national anti-porn action headed up be Attorney General Ed Meese; the end of the Cold War; the massive expansion of spending, debt, war, and surveillance under George W. Bush and a Republican Congress; and more—and the libertarian-conservative relationship is mostly in tatters.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/07/is-this-where-libertarians-say-goodbye-t

[Abbey Marie]

I honest-to-god don't get how anyone can think Libertarianism can work in a country of this size and population. Especially given mans' sinful and selfish nature.

[darin]

Libertarian view socially are probably what can save the nation - from a government involvement point of view. Cutting the govt out of social constructs and restrictions; putting the govt back in its place of only defending against those who want to interfere with the freedoms of others. I think that's best. I'm a conservative and a libertarian. Fiscally, we need drastic cuts. Socially, the gov't needs to take no opinion to the choices of free and of-age people.

[fj1200]

... As Ronald Reagan told Reason in a 1975 interview, "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/07/is-this-where-libertarians-say-goodbye-t

True statement is true.


I honest-to-god don't get how anyone can think Libertarianism can work in a country of this size and population. Especially given mans' sinful and selfish nature.

And we see where the opposite of Libertarianism has gotten us?

[crin63]

I'm closer to Libertarian than Republican but cannot go as far as they do. I believe actual Conservatives to be stuck in the no-mans-land between the 2. The government has to protect the life of Americans including in the womb. It should stop the exploitation of children in pornography. It should be out of the business of marriage altogether. The separation of church and state should be properly applied in there should not be a church-state but religion should not be silenced from the public discourse about the government.

[Gunny]

I'm closer to Libertarian than Republican but cannot go as far as they do. I believe actual Conservatives to be stuck in the no-mans-land between the 2. The government has to protect the life of Americans including in the womb. It should stop the exploitation of children in pornography. It should be out of the business of marriage altogether. The separation of church and state should be properly applied in there should not be a church-state but religion should not be silenced from the public discourse about the government.

I just want to know where people come up with these labels. There are right libertarians and left libertarians. How'd we get stuck with this one? They call NAZIs right wing when they were complete socialist fascists. Then there's the Tea Party.

The GOP is a political bureaucracy, not a belief. So are the Dems. Their motto is "Keep sucking off this government job accomplishing nothing but royal screw-ups no matter what".

[Drummond]

Libetarianism is anarchistic. The opposite of proper law and order. Try asking a Libertarian his / her views on the decriminalisation of drugs, for example.

See this, from Wikipedia ... regard it as a 'dipping a toe into the stream of Libertarian thought' ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Civil_liberties


Libertarian socialists have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love and free thought. Advocates of free love viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of individual sovereignty, and sometimes traced their roots back to the early anarchist Josiah Warren and experimental communities. They particularly stressed women's rights, as most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures.

Free love appeared alongside anarcha-feminism and advocacy of LGBT rights. Anarcha-feminism developed as a synthesis of radical feminism and anarchism, and views patriarchy as a fundamental manifestation of compulsory government. It was inspired by the late 19th century writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre and Virginia Bolten. Anarcha-feminists, like other radical feminists, criticise and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and gender roles. Free Society (1895–1897 as The Firebrand, 1897–1904 as Free Society) was a major anarchist newspaper in the United States that staunchly advocated free love and women's rights, while criticizing "comstockery", the censorship of sexual information. In recent times, anarchism has also voiced opinions and taken action around certain sex related subjects such as pornography, BDSM,and the sex industry.


Free thought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, in contrast with authority, tradition, or other dogmas. In the United States, "free thought was a basically anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty were prominent figures in both free thought and anarchism. The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and, for a time, The Truth Seeker. E.C. Walker was co-editor of the... free-thought/free-love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer". In 1901, Catalan anarchist and free-thinker Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia established "modern" or progressive schools in Barcelona in defiance of an educational system controlled by the Catholic Church. Fiercely anti-clerical, Ferrer believed in "freedom in education," i.e., education free from the authority of the church and state. The schools' stated goal was to "educate the working class in a rational, secular and non-coercive setting". Later in the 20th century Austrian freudo-marxist Wilhelm Reich became a consistent propagandist for sexual freedom going as far as opening free sex-counselling clinics in Vienna for working-class patients as well as coining the phrase "sexual revolution" in one of his books from the 1940s. During the early 1970s the English anarchist and pacifist Alex Comfort achieved international celebrity for writing the sex manuals The Joy of Sex and More Joy of Sex.

'Lovely stuff', eh ?

Who, here, from this material, recognises any similarity between Libertarianism and Conservatism, much less Conservatism allied to any Christian thought ??

I really don't think I need add any further comment.

[crin63]

I just want to know where people come up with these labels. There are right libertarians and left libertarians. How'd we get stuck with this one? They call NAZIs right wing when they were complete socialist fascists. Then there's the Tea Party.

The GOP is a political bureaucracy, not a belief. So are the Dems. Their motto is "Keep sucking off this government job accomplishing nothing but royal screw-ups no matter what".

It's because people are ignorant through laziness. They hear the Leftist propaganda and buy into it rather than educating themselves. Even on here there are some who have argued that Nazi's were right wing.

It's a simple scale. All the way to left is total control over lives and all the way to the right is no control over lives. If they can't figure out where the Nazi's belong on that scale they have a lot more than ignorance to deal with.

[fj1200]

Libetarianism is anarchistic. The opposite of proper law and order. Try asking a Libertarian his / her views on the decriminalisation of drugs, for example.

See this, from Wikipedia ... regard it as a 'dipping a toe into the stream of Libertarian thought' ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Civil_liberties

'Lovely stuff', eh ?

Who, here, from this material, recognises any similarity between Libertarianism and Conservatism, much less Conservatism allied to any Christian thought ??

I really don't think I need add any further comment.

Fallacy; you didn't present Libertarianism, you presented Libertarian socialists. But thank you again for showing you know nothing of Libertarianism. :)

At least some recognize the truth though.

---
Libertarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#Libertarianism)Thatcherism is often described as a libertarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) ideology. Thatcher saw herself as creating a libertarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) movement,[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-17) rejecting traditional Toryism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toryism).[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-18) Thatcherism is associated with libertarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) within the Conservative Party,[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-19) albeit one of libertarian ends achieved by using strong and sometimes authoritarian leadership.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-20) British political commentator Andrew Marr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr) has called libertarianism the "dominant, if unofficial, characteristic of Thatcherism".[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-21) However, whereas some of her heirs, notably Michael Portillo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Portillo)and Alan Duncan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Duncan), embraced this libertarianism, others in the Thatcherite movement, such as John Redwood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Redwood), sought to become more populist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism).[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-22)[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-23)
Some commentators have argued that Thatcherism should not be considered properly libertarian. Noting the tendency towards strong central government in matters concerning the trade unions and local authorities, Andrew Gamble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gamble) summarised Thatcherism as "the free economy and the strong state".[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-24) Simon Jenkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Jenkins) accused the Thatcher government of carrying out a 'nationalisation' of Britain.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-25) Libertarian political theorist Murray Rothbard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) didn't consider Thatcherism to be libertarian, and heavily criticised Thatcher and Thatcherism stating that: "Thatcherism is all too similar to Reaganism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganism): free-market rhetoric masking statist content."[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-26)
---

[Gunny]

Fact is this is where conservatives are saying goodbye to Republicans.

[Drummond]

Fact is this is where conservatives are saying goodbye to Republicans.

... and let the Dems in again, by splitting the only possible effective vote against them ?

Libertarianism is a far cry from Conservatism. As I've posted, Libertarians are anarchistic in nature. They've also been described, specifically, as SOCIALISTS. [I can re-post proof, if need be]

It's a strange 'Conservative' vote that would support any Socialists ... I'd go so far as to say that no knowledgeable Conservative would ever vote for a Libertarian .. and BE Conservative.

[Gunny]

... and let the Dems in again, by splitting the only possible effective vote against them ?

Libertarianism is a far cry from Conservatism. As I've posted, Libertarians are anarchistic in nature. They've also been described, specifically, as SOCIALISTS. [I can re-post proof, if need be]

It's a strange 'Conservative' vote that would support any Socialists ... I'd go so far as to say that no knowledgeable Conservative would ever vote for a Libertarian .. and BE Conservative.

It's a conundrum. I believe in taking control, not living in fear. But you have to stop the bleeding to take control. Libertarians are not necessarily sociliasts in this country. Maybe in yours. It's a label ascribed more to the right than the left here.

It isn't about anarchy. It's about personal responsibility. As long as I am handle my actions and myself responsibly, why do I need extra laws? What some like to call anarchy actually means freedom to me. I don't need someone that's dumber than me telling me what to do and I damned sure don't need them in my wallet. Our government is a hydra. It just sucks off the people, accomplishes nothing, and sticks its nose in where it doesn't belong.

I don't need to be governed and I don't need to pay for them to live better than I do.

[Elessar]

I just want to know where people come up with these labels. There are right libertarians and left libertarians. How'd we get stuck with this one? They call NAZIs right wing when they were complete socialist fascists. Then there's the Tea Party.

The GOP is a political bureaucracy, not a belief. So are the Dems. Their motto is "Keep sucking off this government job accomplishing nothing but royal screw-ups no matter what".

Liberals, especially, love to label people and stick them into pigeon holes of their own choosing.
The MSM...better known as Presstitutes...encourage that mindset.

[Drummond]

It's a conundrum. I believe in taking control, not living in fear. But you have to stop the bleeding to take control. Libertarians are not necessarily sociliasts in this country. Maybe in yours. It's a label ascribed more to the right than the left here.

It isn't about anarchy. It's about personal responsibility. As long as I am handle my actions and myself responsibly, why do I need extra laws? What some like to call anarchy actually means freedom to me. I don't need someone that's dumber than me telling me what to do and I damned sure don't need them in my wallet. Our government is a hydra. It just sucks off the people, accomplishes nothing, and sticks its nose in where it doesn't belong.

I don't need to be governed and I don't need to pay for them to live better than I do.

Countries, nonetheless, do need Governments (unless ruled directly by dictators, or kings, or queens ?). If they didn't, we'd have seen examples in this world of something approaching Libertarian anarchy succesfully making its mark elsewhere. We haven't, of course.

You say 'Libertarians are not necessarily Socialists in this country'. However, they certainly CAN be, and they are recorded as being in line or in sympathy with Socialist aims and goals.

To help illustrate how 'comparatively' Socialist Libertarians MUST be ... consider these statements, against each other ..

1. 'Libertarians are not necessarily Socialists in this country'

2. 'Reaganites are not necessarily Socialists in this country'

3. 'Thatcherites are not necessarily Socialists in this country'.

Applying the idea of Reaganism or Thatcherism as allied in any way, shape or form to Socialism is an absurdity, even an outright insult. But, to Libertarianism ??

No. Voting Libertarian is an anti-Conservative vote. It takes away from the ability to kick the Dems out, by splitting the GOP vote. And it also supports a movement which, even in the USA, really CAN be seen as Socialist (and definitely is, elsewhere !!).

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Countries, nonetheless, do need Governments (unless ruled directly by dictators, or kings, or queens ?). If they didn't, we'd have seen examples in this world of something approaching Libertarian anarchy succesfully making its mark elsewhere. We haven't, of course.

You say 'Libertarians are not necessarily Socialists in this country'. However, they certainly CAN be, and they are recorded as being in line or in sympathy with Socialist aims and goals.

To help illustrate how 'comparatively' Socialist Libertarians MUST be ... consider these statements, against each other ..

1. 'Libertarians are not necessarily Socialists in this country'

2. 'Reaganites are not necessarily Socialists in this country'

3. 'Thatcherites are not necessarily Socialists in this country'.

Applying the idea of Reaganism or Thatcherism as allied in any way, shape or form to Socialism is an absurdity, even an outright insult. But, to Libertarianism ??

No. Voting Libertarian is an anti-Conservative vote. It takes away from the ability to kick the Dems out, by splitting the GOP vote. And it also supports a movement which, even in the USA, really CAN be seen as Socialist (and definitely is, elsewhere !!).



Voting Libertarian is an anti-Conservative vote. It takes away from the ability to kick the Dems out, by splitting the GOP vote. And it also supports a movement which, even in the USA, really CAN be seen as Socialist (and definitely is, elsewhere !!)

Quite so.. In my opinion Libertarians only serve to weaken the right--thus they unwittingly are more often that not serving the dem/leftist/socialist party's strategy to divide and conquer..
And I suspect that with far too many of them its not so much --"unwittingly"....
Sad to say...-Tyr

[Gunny]

Countries, nonetheless, do need Governments (unless ruled directly by dictators, or kings, or queens ?). If they didn't, we'd have seen examples in this world of something approaching Libertarian anarchy succesfully making its mark elsewhere. We haven't, of course.

You say 'Libertarians are not necessarily Socialists in this country'. However, they certainly CAN be, and they are recorded as being in line or in sympathy with Socialist aims and goals.

To help illustrate how 'comparatively' Socialist Libertarians MUST be ... consider these statements, against each other ..

1. 'Libertarians are not necessarily Socialists in this country'

2. 'Reaganites are not necessarily Socialists in this country'

3. 'Thatcherites are not necessarily Socialists in this country'.

Applying the idea of Reaganism or Thatcherism as allied in any way, shape or form to Socialism is an absurdity, even an outright insult. But, to Libertarianism ??

No. Voting Libertarian is an anti-Conservative vote. It takes away from the ability to kick the Dems out, by splitting the GOP vote. And it also supports a movement which, even in the USA, really CAN be seen as Socialist (and definitely is, elsewhere !!).

I don't have a problem with government and law. When ours starts to resemble either word ...... Again, you are thinking like a Brit. I'm not advocating a Libertarian Party which is what it sounds like you are talking about. You're focusing on a word that doesn't mean the same thing here as it does in GB. Libertarians here are all considered rightwing who won't vote for Republicans. Y'all got too many labels for things. What's a "Reaganite or Thatcherite"? They've been dead since forever. Most people don't even remember them.

Voting libertarian is a vote against both parties. Also, I'm already on record stating I'm voting against the Democrats and I want to win. Don't confuse my ideology with my reality. I'm not throwing away my vote on a non-viable 3rd party.

And back in the day, I was a liberal, not a libertarian. The left has so destroyed the meaning of the word it's ridiculous.

[Drummond]

Quite so.. In my opinion Libertarians only serve to weaken the right--thus they unwittingly are more often that not serving the dem/leftist/socialist party's strategy to divide and conquer..
And I suspect that with far too many of them its not so much --"unwittingly"....
Sad to say...-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Gunny]

Quite so.. In my opinion Libertarians only serve to weaken the right--thus they unwittingly are more often that not serving the dem/leftist/socialist party's strategy to divide and conquer..
And I suspect that with far too many of them its not so much --"unwittingly"....
Sad to say...-Tyr

IMO, libertarians need to organize and dump some their stupider ideals. The GOP doesn't represent conservatives and conservatives have quit supporting the GOP. Time for a change.

FYI, the GOP under Lincoln were the lefties and the Dems were the conservatives. Either side will switch stance to cater to votes depending on which way the wind blows.

[Drummond]

I don't have a problem with government and law. When ours starts to resemble either word ...... Again, you are thinking like a Brit. I'm not advocating a Libertarian Party which is what it sounds like you are talking about. You're focusing on a word that doesn't mean the same thing here as it does in GB. Libertarians here are all considered rightwing who won't vote for Republicans. Y'all got too many labels for things. What's a "Reaganite or Thatcherite"? They've been dead since forever. Most people don't even remember them.

Voting libertarian is a vote against both parties. Also, I'm already on record stating I'm voting against the Democrats and I want to win. Don't confuse my ideology with my reality. I'm not throwing away my vote on a non-viable 3rd party.

And back in the day, I was a liberal, not a libertarian. The left has so destroyed the meaning of the word it's ridiculous.

Oh, I definitely agree with you on your last point. The left have warped the meaning of 'liberal' beyond recognition.

Perhaps I am thinking like a Brit. But I say that Government does have its place. Precisely how big a place in society is the eternal debate, isn't it ? But nonetheless, it DOES have its role, its function. Some (if not most) Libertarians would consider even that open to challenge.

It is the fact of challenge that American Conservatives, believing in individual empowerment, mistake for 'Conservative thinking' in action. In fact, it isn't. Coming from Libertarians, it's just anarchistic.

British Trade Unions can have as 'mission statements' their claims to be working for the empowerment of the British worker, to throw off the shackles of managerial tyranny. They quickly also translate that into outright opposition to Conservative Governments ! We've had instances of direct power-play confrontations. In 1974, Britain was being crippled by Union strikes. The question was directly asked: who governs, Government or Unions ? The answer came back, with a 1974 win (two of them in that year ..) .. the UNIONS do.

Arthur Scargill tried his hand at the same sort of ploy back in 1984 - again, a Leftie, again, one standing up against 'Government tyranny' that just HAPPENED to translate into an effort to cripple Margaret Thatcher's Government. He failed, BUT, he failed in the process of coming across as a Union leader fighting for 'principles' that Libertarians would recognise as their very own. A fight against Governmental power. A fight for 'the rights of the workers'. And it all predictably came down to this .. IMPLACABLE HATRED AND OPPOSITION AGAINST CONSERVATIVES.

Yes, maybe I do think as a Brit. And maybe that's an advantage. I know from certain knowledge that Libertarianism, translated into action, is indistinguishable from Left-wing destructiveness, and that Libertarian thought is all too easily interwoven into Left-wing thought, ambition and action.

Perhaps Americans have yet to learn these lessons. For myself, I learned them long ago. By no stretch of the imagination, IF looked at in any detail, can Libertarianism be mistaken for Conservatism. That, believe me, is utterly perverse.

[fj1200]

There seems to be some blind ignorance about Libertarianism here.

[Gunny]

There seems to be some blind ignorance about Libertarianism here.

No. They have a different definition across the Pond. I understand the full spectrum of liberitarianism in this nation. Drummond makes a good point. Libertarians ARE anarchists, be they right or left. What I'm getting from Drummond's posts is they are lefwing libertarians there.

There is a role for government. Problem is, our current government is more concerned with injecting itself into 10th Amendment issues than it is just doing its job. Not to mention a President who refuses to call a spade a spade; yet, he gets involved in any domestic agenda that suits his agenda. This moron of a President has stuck his nose into every domestic incident in this country that involves a gun; yet, when it's time to condemn radical Islam for murdering 30+ Christians he's AWOL.

Our government isn't going to fix itself. They're fat, dumb and happy collecting more money and bennies than I'd pay a clerk at Wal mart.