Yet another…Why I Am Not A Libertarian
ForumPolitical Conservatives
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.
Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
2lawecon
"Tea Partiers simultaneously promote both a conservatism based upon the principles of the American founding and a libertarianism based on individualism, but the two are ultimately incompatible."
As Deniro has often proclaimed and Kirk agreed, conservatives have no principles. Principles are "ideological abstractions" that detract from the "true complexity" of Man and Human Society. And, of course, Deniro and Kirk are right, their sort of traditionalism has no principles.
The claim that such a view is somehow "based upon the principles of the American founding" is ludicrous. The "American founding" was nothing but "abstract principles" backed up by a willingness to engage in a civil war against the Mother country to protect such principles.
It is amusing that Kirkians are now trying to appropriate the "American founding". No event in American history, other than, perhaps, the War Between The States ("Civil War"), was more profoundly ideological. Indeed, since the Civil War was, from the Union side, initially about Preserving the Union, rather than about "abstract ideals, it was thus probably more Kirkian in its orientation and thus much less ideological.
As Deniro has often proclaimed and Kirk agreed, conservatives have no principles. Principles are "ideological abstractions" that detract from the "true complexity" of Man and Human Society. And, of course, Deniro and Kirk are right, their sort of traditionalism has no principles.
The claim that such a view is somehow "based upon the principles of the American founding" is ludicrous. The "American founding" was nothing but "abstract principles" backed up by a willingness to engage in a civil war against the Mother country to protect such principles.
It is amusing that Kirkians are now trying to appropriate the "American founding". No event in American history, other than, perhaps, the War Between The States ("Civil War"), was more profoundly ideological. Indeed, since the Civil War was, from the Union side, initially about Preserving the Union, rather than about "abstract ideals, it was thus probably more Kirkian in its orientation and thus much less ideological.
5lawecon
Sort of like Kirk tried to have anyone who disagreed with him expelled from NR and whatever other group he had influence in (fewer and fewer as more people got to know him). Got to keep them traditions pure.
7Bretzky1
#6
The real problem with libertarians, and some conservatives, is that they don't believe in original sin. They believe people enter markets as good-natured human beings, and therefore believe a maximum, if unlimited amount of freedom should be allowed. They fail to understand that men are flawed -- "if men were angels no government would be necessary." The thing about original sin is that it is easy to prove: there is so much evidence of it.
Would you be willing to elaborate on this statement a little? From a first read I think that it might perhaps show a misunderstanding of libertarian philosophy, but I'm not entirely sure.
Do you mean to say that libertarians believe in completely and absolutely unregulated markets?
The real problem with libertarians, and some conservatives, is that they don't believe in original sin. They believe people enter markets as good-natured human beings, and therefore believe a maximum, if unlimited amount of freedom should be allowed. They fail to understand that men are flawed -- "if men were angels no government would be necessary." The thing about original sin is that it is easy to prove: there is so much evidence of it.
Would you be willing to elaborate on this statement a little? From a first read I think that it might perhaps show a misunderstanding of libertarian philosophy, but I'm not entirely sure.
Do you mean to say that libertarians believe in completely and absolutely unregulated markets?
10Bretzky1
#8,
The gist of libertarianism is that no one has the right to prohibit another person from doing what they please unless that other person's actions cause harm to someone else or interfere with someone else's inalienable rights, which are generally broadly defined. So, in a broad sense, everyone is a small "l" libertarian. The question to answer as to whether someone is a big "L" Libertarian depends on where you draw the line in terms of when actions cause harm or interfere with another's rights.
Like most people, I come down different ways depending on the issue. But I have noticed that as I've gotten older I tend to draw the line more toward being more likely to say that something is harmful or interfering. In my mid-20s I was a paid-up member of the Libertarian Party. I didn't really leave the LP, though, I just sort of faded from it. There are any number of areas where we could use less intrusion from the government, but in very few of those areas am I prepared anymore to go as far as the LP would.
The gist of libertarianism is that no one has the right to prohibit another person from doing what they please unless that other person's actions cause harm to someone else or interfere with someone else's inalienable rights, which are generally broadly defined. So, in a broad sense, everyone is a small "l" libertarian. The question to answer as to whether someone is a big "L" Libertarian depends on where you draw the line in terms of when actions cause harm or interfere with another's rights.
Like most people, I come down different ways depending on the issue. But I have noticed that as I've gotten older I tend to draw the line more toward being more likely to say that something is harmful or interfering. In my mid-20s I was a paid-up member of the Libertarian Party. I didn't really leave the LP, though, I just sort of faded from it. There are any number of areas where we could use less intrusion from the government, but in very few of those areas am I prepared anymore to go as far as the LP would.
11lawecon
"The gist of libertarianism is that no one has the right to prohibit another person from doing what they please unless that other person's actions cause harm to someone else or interfere with someone else's inalienable rights, which are generally broadly defined. So, in a broad sense, everyone is a small "l" libertarian."
How long have you been reading these boards? What an odd comment on this board.
Have you not seen the posts by "traditionalist conservatives" who believe that reading or buying or selling pornography "hurts society." That illegal drug consumption and distribution is destroying us, just like those hoards of illegals. ("What do you not understand about the term "illegal."")
Those traditionalist conservatives that believe that tattoos are a sure sign of social degeneracy.
Those traditionalist conservatives who still aren't all that sure about interracial marriage, and who know without doubt that public recognition that some people are actually homosexuals who reject one wife and one husband as the foundation stone of our Republic, is repugnant to our deepest social values. (Abominations against the "permanent things," if there ever were such abominations.)
Etc.
All of us are libertarians with a small "l"? What have you been smoking? Many of the posters to this board would consider Barry Goldwater as some sort of pinko liberal baby killing fag lover. (Which, by comparison with them, would be totally accurate.)
How long have you been reading these boards? What an odd comment on this board.
Have you not seen the posts by "traditionalist conservatives" who believe that reading or buying or selling pornography "hurts society." That illegal drug consumption and distribution is destroying us, just like those hoards of illegals. ("What do you not understand about the term "illegal."")
Those traditionalist conservatives that believe that tattoos are a sure sign of social degeneracy.
Those traditionalist conservatives who still aren't all that sure about interracial marriage, and who know without doubt that public recognition that some people are actually homosexuals who reject one wife and one husband as the foundation stone of our Republic, is repugnant to our deepest social values. (Abominations against the "permanent things," if there ever were such abominations.)
Etc.
All of us are libertarians with a small "l"? What have you been smoking? Many of the posters to this board would consider Barry Goldwater as some sort of pinko liberal baby killing fag lover. (Which, by comparison with them, would be totally accurate.)
14lawecon
~12
deniro, get over yourself. I could care less what you believe. You forfeited any entitlement to that esteem some time ago.
However, what I say about the circles in contemporary and NR conservatism with which you sometimes try to associate yourself (albeit I am sure that they don't know of such association and could care less), is completely accurate. As you know it is accurate, I guess we can add hypocrisy to your many other traits.
Incidentally, thanks for reinforcing the accuracy of my point about "certain posters" view of Barry Goldwater. As they say in traditionalist conservative circles "just another old dead white guy."
deniro, get over yourself. I could care less what you believe. You forfeited any entitlement to that esteem some time ago.
However, what I say about the circles in contemporary and NR conservatism with which you sometimes try to associate yourself (albeit I am sure that they don't know of such association and could care less), is completely accurate. As you know it is accurate, I guess we can add hypocrisy to your many other traits.
Incidentally, thanks for reinforcing the accuracy of my point about "certain posters" view of Barry Goldwater. As they say in traditionalist conservative circles "just another old dead white guy."
