Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians: What’s the Difference?

[mrjarrell]

Jacob Hornberger takes a look at the differences between the 3 political entities. As he notes, there are some deviations between individuals in those camps, but by and large they do manage to fit the mold when we take a look at the big picture. Conservative and Liberals talk up their differences, but in the end, they're not all that different.

Hornberger's Blog - Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians: What’s the Difference?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Wow. A Libtard blogger says everyone is stupid but Libtards. I'm shocked and amazed. Both at the same time. Thank you so much for posting that. I really appreciate it. I would not have gotten my daily dose of Libtards are smarter and superior to the rest of you smackdown wthout it.

How many seats did you win in the last election? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

Your irreverence is surpassed only by your irrelevence. Blog that.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

While we wait for some of our on-staff statists to chime in (Edit: looks like one snuck in while I was on the phone), I'd like to go ahead & admit that some of them may only support ½ or ¾ of the items on the list...that's still ½ or ¾. You'd be hard pressed to find a non-Tea Party (post-hijack) libertarian who supports even ¼ of them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Wow. A Libtard blogger says everyone is stupid but Libtards. I'm shocked and amazed. Both at the same time. Thank you so much for posting that. I really appreciate it. I would not have gotten my daily dose of Libtards are smarter and superior to the rest of you smackdown wthout it.

How many seats did you win in the last election? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

Your irreverence is surpassed only by your irrelevence. Blog that.

*Yawn* Same old story. Address the article or don't, I really don't care. You're irrational hatred is tiresome. Get some Prozac.

 

[Expat]

 

[ATF Consumer]

If you follow a party line...

 

[hoosieridentity]

"Liberals and conservatives believe that the primary purposes of government are to take care of people, to regulate and control people’s activities and to manage the economy, and to police the world through an extensive military empire."

I'd say that's a pretty flawed and misleading statement.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

*Yawn* Same old story. Address the article or don't, I really don't care. You're irrational hatred is tiresome. Get some Prozac.

I did address the blog. I refuse to call it an article as it lacks any journalistic integrity whatsoever. Difficult given today's state of journalism.

I don't have any Prozac. Never needed it. Why don't you bring me some of yours.

"Liberals and conservatives believe that the primary purposes of government are to take care of people, to regulate and control people’s activities and to manage the economy, and to police the world through an extensive military empire."

I'd say that's a pretty flawed and misleading statement.

Shh... don't say that with your outloud voice. You'll be labeled a statist too.

 

[rambone]

"Liberals and conservatives believe that the primary purposes of government are to take care of people, to regulate and control people’s activities and to manage the economy, and to police the world through an extensive military empire."

I'd say that's a pretty flawed and misleading statement.

Can you expand?

 

[MTC]

Libertarian, or libertine?

Mr. Jarrell,

Disagree with the article and chart.
If the chart in that article is taken at face value, it is damning evidence that at least a few of the accusations leveled at Libertarians are true, especially the items on immigration and the Border Patrol. That and a few others could be used to undermine or undercut mutual efforts in other areas of agreement.

Many of the disagreements seen in these forums are (IMO) over the proper role and function of government. It is OK to look at these things from all angles. A further explanation is available, but I doubt you need one.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

If the chart in that article is taken at face value, it is damning evidence that at least a few of the accusations leveled at Libertarians are true, especially the items on immigration and the Border Patrol. That and a few others could be used to undermine or undercut mutual efforts in other areas of agreement.

Why are immigration and border security important enough to warrant restriction of free commerce & free movement of people? Remove all state-welfare & immigration incentives change to a healthy situation. Border security isn't necessary if we stop banning substances & cease foreign occupations which create external enemies.

 

[mrjarrell]

Libertarian, or libertine?

Mr. Jarrell,

Disagree with the article and chart.
If the chart in that article is taken at face value, it is damning evidence that at least a few of the accusations leveled at Libertarians are true, especially the items on immigration and the Border Patrol. That and a few others could be used to undermine or undercut mutual efforts in other areas of agreement.

Many of the disagreements seen in these forums are (IMO) over the proper role and function of government. It is OK to look at these things from all angles. A further explanation is available, but I doubt you need one.

I think the damnation goes more towards the conservatives and liberals than it does towards libertarians. Of the issues listed, can you deny that conservatives and liberals are supportive of the vast majority of them, while libertarians have, for years, spoken out against them? If conservatives and liberals were really what they say they are and, since they are the ones who've been in power for decades and railed against many of these things, then most of the things on that list would now be nothing more than historical footnotes.

 

[ATOMonkey]

"Liberals and conservatives believe that the primary purposes of government are to take care of people, to regulate and control people’s activities and to manage the economy, and to police the world through an extensive military empire."

I'd say that's a pretty flawed and misleading statement.

History disagrees with you.

 

[hoosieridentity]

I'd argue(respectfully, of course) that true conservatism, does not espouse any of the above. Neo-conservatism is a totally different story. A platform that proves my point can be found here:

Constitution Party Platform

Again, this is an example of true conservatism, in my opinion

 

[dross]

A couple of points:

The term "conservative" doesn't mean much anymore. It encompasses too many types and ideologies to mean very much. It's basically come to mean, "anyone who tends to vote Republican."

"Liberal" has now come to mean, "some variety of socialist."

Libertarian is probably the most exact term of the three, although there are some divisions within. For instance, my philosophy is mostly libertarian, though I differ from the party on borders and the justification for war. I think the borders should be more open, but I do believe that a nation has the moral right to control its borders as it decides. I differ from current policy, however.

The term, "neocon" has also been misused and misunderstood. I see it used here to mean all kinds of different things, usually bad. The term came into use to describe former lefties who have come over to the conservative side. Many of these folks are jews, so it has also been used by some as a swipe in that direction.

Most neocons lean libertarian on social issues, believe in the recent wars, and want smaller government than most Republicans. They tend to believe less in the free market than I would like.

 

[rambone]

The term, "neocon" has also been misused and misunderstood. I see it used here to mean all kinds of different things, usually bad. The term came into use to describe former lefties who have come over to the conservative side. Many of these folks are jews, so it has also been used by some as a swipe in that direction.

Most neocons lean libertarian on social issues, believe in the recent wars, and want smaller government than most Republicans. They tend to believe less in the free market than I would like.

I can't cite any kind of formal definition on this, but neo-con ideology seems like pretty much full on statism from what I've seen. Big spending, big government, government agencies galore, not much personal freedom, Police State levels of enforcement, etc.

Conservative ideology at its roots (think Barry Goldwater) had some redeeming qualities. But very few people practice what they preach and the word "conservative" has very little practical meaning anymore, as you mentioned. A conservative of today and a conservative of several decades ago hold quite a bit of ideological differences.

 

[hoosieridentity]

dross and rambone,

Some good points. Thanks. It's kinda sad to think that what was once conservative, is to a large extent, no more; but I see what you both are saying.

 

[dross]

I can't cite any kind of formal definition on this, but neo-con ideology seems like pretty much full on statism from what I've seen. Big spending, big government, government agencies galore, not much personal freedom, Police State levels of enforcement, etc.

No one really calls themselves a neocon, it's usually used by others as a perjorative towards someone else. I can think of several prominent people who have been called neocons who are not statists.

It's a less than useful term. Around here, it gets used interchangeably with "poopie-head."

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I'd say the line is not as visible due to RINOs playing the part, and cultural marxist influencing the west with the cancer of they're "feel"/fool goodism logic.

 

[MTC]

The Venn diagram posted by Rambone the other day is a good illustration, in the general sense, of what I was trying to say.
Had some of these conversations (privately) hundreds of times. Variations on total government, limited government, or zero government, and where along that scale things should be, and what it might look like.

Also seen the articles and posts portraying libertarians (large and small 'L') as a bunch of dope smokin', open borders, free-for-all, hippies.
I understand that few people like being broad-brushed or pigeon-holed into a particular category, sometimes leaving no room for mutual interests.

[mostly related to offline conversations]
I know all too well what it's like to have an aquaintance or co-worker come completely unhinged and angrily accuse me of being some kind of radical anarchist, threat to public safety, endangering the lives of police officers, aiding and abetting convicted criminals, etc. - simply for expressing, as calmly as possible, criticism and resentment of the statutes mandating that I apply for a license or authorization of some type to own and/or carry arms.
(The anti-LEO accusations were particularly outrageous and ironic when coming from the same person who, not long before, had all but called me a statist JBT boot-licker when I refused to dogpile onto his tirade over getting a speeding ticket.)

Specifically on the border issue, others here have expressed it better already.
There are differences in policy and level of enforcement, yet...

If you don't have a border, you don't have a country.

Thanks again, to the more eloquent posters.