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

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm not certain what actor is making laws unless you're talking about ol' Arnie out in California. I missed the acting reference somewhere apparently.

And is there really any disconnect from the laws that try to "enforce responsibility," and Nanny State government?

What is this idea that somehow Anarchy is always on our doorstep? Seems to me that there are a few hundred thousand laws standing in the way of anarchy. We are on the verge of full-blown state socialism/fascism and people are worrying about Anarchy. Really? Were the founding fathers Anarchists?

By actor I meant a person performing an action.

I think there are some good laws that enforce responsibility. Drunk driving laws are an example. I will gladly concede there are far more bad laws than good and wish they would go away.

It's not that anarchy is on our doorstep. It's that it is espoused as an alternative.

No, our founders weren't anarchists. Proof: They wrote a Constitution that limited freedoms. They voted for it. Then they wrote more laws that limited freedoms and rights even more. Then they guaranteed rights. Then they passed more laws abridging those guaranteed rights. It's been a downhill spiril ever since.

The Difference is Liberals tell you what you can't do, Conservatives tell you what you can do, Libertarians tell you that you can do anything!

Nope.

Liberals tell you what they want you to do.
Consevatives tell you what you should want to do.
Libertarians do whatever they want to do.

Liberals and conservatives want to use the law to tell you what you can and can't do, they just want to allow and restrict different things.

Libertarians don't care what you do as along as you don't infringe on [strike]someone else's[/strike] their rights.

FIFY

 

[Garb]

No, our founders weren't anarchists. Proof: They wrote a Constitution that limited freedoms. They voted for it. Then they wrote more laws that limited freedoms and rights even more. Then they guaranteed rights. Then they passed more laws abridging those guaranteed rights. It's been a downhill spiril ever since.

FIFY

So if it's been a downhill spiral why should we be continuing in that direction? And I really find it weird that you are assigning motives to libertarians. If EVERYONE is only looking out for themselves, then why vote at all?

 

[dross]

FIFY

Evidence? Most libertarians I know don't use drugs, but that's one of their hot button issues.

 

[mrjarrell]

Evidence? Most libertarians I know don't use drugs, but that's one of their hot button issues.

There's no evidence to support his contention. There is plenty out there to support yours, (and that of every libertarian I know). This is just another of his rants against libertarians. He saw an opportunity again.

 

[rambone]

No, our founders weren't anarchists. Proof: They wrote a Constitution that limited freedoms. They voted for it.

That's an interesting way to look at the Constitution. I always thought it was a set of rules & limitations on the government, essentially.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

That's an interesting way to look at the Constitution. I always thought it was a set of rules & limitations on the government, essentially.

It does both. A couple of examples. What defines a free man more than the right to own property? The Constitution allows the use of eminent domain to take your property away from you for use by the collective. It allows the Congress to raise taxes to support the collective. Eminent domain deprives you of your property. Taxes deprive you of your property. Ergo the Constitution allows the government to deprive you of your property and money in the name and for the purpose of the collective.

There has to be balance on everything. Karma. Ying and Yang. Whatever. Essentially something has to be given in order to be taken. What is taken above is the right to own property.

Evidence? Most libertarians I know don't use drugs, but that's one of their hot button issues.

They are exercising their right to not use drugs, while allowing that others may exercise their right to use them.

As I see it, the rights that define freemen are the right to practice your religion as you see fit; the right to free thought; and the right to own property and do with it as you wish. In that order. Everything else is secondary. No one else's rights should interfere with your exercise of those rights.

I'll point to three issues that popped up for discussion on this board. The minister that allowed homeless people to live in his back yard thread, the should your neighbor be forced to cut his grass thread, and every thread that pops up about taking guns onto your employer's property. In the first thread many, but not all, libertarian-minded posters back the use of the government to prevent the minister from allowing homeless to tent in his yard. His property rights were subordinate to their right to whatever. Most of them don't even live there, but they were happy to come down on the side of the collective.

Same thing with the cut the grass thread. There came a point where many who talk the libertarian talk were happy to walk the other way and use the government to enforce their will. Again, not all, but enough to demonstrate even libertarian-minded individuals have thesholds at which they will demand government intervention to enforce their supposed rights.

The most egregous in my mind is forcing real property owners to submit to government rule allowing you to take a firearm onto their property against their will. This law is an affront to property ownership. I support gun rights. However I am more pro-property owner rights.

What is the difference between the government telling a property owner they must allow guns on their property even if they don't want them there and telling a restaurant owner they cannot allow smoking in the restaurant? Absolutely nothing. They are the same side of the coin. With anti-smoking laws we want to take the high minded view that government shouldn't interfere in how someone controls their property. In the case of guns in your car we take the other high minded view that the government should interfere in how someone controls their property. Proponents of the gun law claim that this law protects their right to have a gun. The fact is it does so at the expense of real property rights. Balance. In order for government to grant one right it must take another.

I despise when government abridges property rights. A man should be secure in his castle. No one should be told what they can and cannot do with property they own, unless what they are doing has a direct and adverse impact on someone else while not on that property. I don't like anti-smoking laws. I don't like the gun in your trunk law. They both degrade property rights. I don't see how anyone can rationally be for one and not the other.

So if it's been a downhill spiral why should we be continuing in that direction? And I really find it weird that you are assigning motives to libertarians. If EVERYONE is only looking out for themselves, then why vote at all?

I don't understand what you're saying at all.

 

[HereNthere]

This is really just too stupid to be worth the effort to comment on....

 

[kingnereli]

The article is just more libertarian propaganda meant to vilify those with a rational sense of american politics. Libertarian ideals are unworkable and idiotic. encouraging a country without borders, promoting rampant drug use and other societal ills, desiring a weak military, etc. are the surest ways to make a country so weak that it won't exist much longer after these things are realized.

The problem is that while libertarians speak highly of liberty they make believe certain rights exist that simply do not. The premise that I accept, as well as the founders of this country, is that rights are given by God and merely protected by the constitution. For a libertarian to make his case he would have to show that God wants to afford us the right to have sex with who or whatever we want, chemically alter our minds no matter the potential for harm and all the other nonsense that libertarians fancy as rights.

It is accurate to charge libertarians as being cowardly anarchists. The result of their policies will be a government that exists in name only. So few americans want these silly policies an libertarians still pretend to represent the best interests of the people. While i abhor liberalism I'm afraid the damage they are doing to is far less than what this country would face if libertarianism where actually given a chance of success.

 

[dross]

They are exercising their right to not use drugs, while allowing that others may exercise their right to use them.

As I see it, the rights that define freemen are the right to practice your religion as you see fit; the right to free thought; and the right to own property and do with it as you wish. In that order. Everything else is secondary. No one else's rights should interfere with your exercise of those rights.

I'll point to three issues that popped up for discussion on this board. The minister that allowed homeless people to live in his back yard thread, the should your neighbor be forced to cut his grass thread, and every thread that pops up about taking guns onto your employer's property. In the first thread many, but not all, libertarian-minded posters back the use of the government to prevent the minister from allowing homeless to tent in his yard. His property rights were subordinate to their right to whatever. Most of them don't even live there, but they were happy to come down on the side of the collective.

Same thing with the cut the grass thread. There came a point where many who talk the libertarian talk were happy to walk the other way and use the government to enforce their will. Again, not all, but enough to demonstrate even libertarian-minded individuals have thesholds at which they will demand government intervention to enforce their supposed rights.

The most egregous in my mind is forcing real property owners to submit to government rule allowing you to take a firearm onto their property against their will. This law is an affront to property ownership. I support gun rights. However I am more pro-property owner rights.

What is the difference between the government telling a property owner they must allow guns on their property even if they don't want them there and telling a restaurant owner they cannot allow smoking in the restaurant? Absolutely nothing. They are the same side of the coin. With anti-smoking laws we want to take the high minded view that government shouldn't interfere in how someone controls their property. In the case of guns in your car we take the other high minded view that the government should interfere in how someone controls their property. Proponents of the gun law claim that this law protects their right to have a gun. The fact is it does so at the expense of real property rights. Balance. In order for government to grant one right it must take another.

I despise when government abridges property rights. A man should be secure in his castle. No one should be told what they can and cannot do with property they own, unless what they are doing has a direct and adverse impact on someone else while not on that property. I don't like anti-smoking laws. I don't like the gun in your trunk law. They both degrade property rights. I don't see how anyone can rationally be for one and not the other.


.

You make good points, but I don't think they apply to the actual libertarians on this board. The issues you bring up separate the libertarian wheat from the chaff, no doubt. The people on this board I consider consistently libertarian, however, fall on the side of the issue that you point out quite correctly as the true libertarian position.

So, for clarification, though I've posted on two of those issues:

You should be able to grow your grass as high as you want, allow homeless folks to live there, and your employer has every right to set whatever conditions he wishes for your employment, including not bringing weapons on this property.

There are side issues that can affect each of these above, but at their core, all of those are property rights.

 

[dross]

This is really just too stupid to be worth the effort to comment on....

Well, thanks for coming down from your lofty perch to let us know how stupid we all are for discussing this. Very helpful. Go post your ad.

The problem is that while libertarians speak highly of liberty they make believe certain rights exist that simply do not. The premise that I accept, as well as the founders of this country, is that rights are given by God and merely protected by the constitution. For a libertarian to make his case he would have to show that God wants to afford us the right to have sex with who or whatever we want, chemically alter our minds no matter the potential for harm and all the other nonsense that libertarians fancy as rights.

It is accurate to charge libertarians as being cowardly anarchists. The result of their policies will be a government that exists in name only. So few americans want these silly policies an libertarians still pretend to represent the best interests of the people. While i abhor liberalism I'm afraid the damage they are doing to is far less than what this country would face if libertarianism where actually given a chance of success.

You don't understand libertarianism at all. It's not a religion based political philosophy as you mistakenly assert. Libertarianism believes that rights are endowed to all humans upon birth - it has nothing to do with religion.

Libertarians are not anarchists. I do not believe in a lack of government, I believe in a much more limited government than we have now.

How did cowardice, a character trait, enter the issue at all?

 

[kingnereli]

Well, thanks for coming down from your lofty perch to let us know how stupid we all are for discussing this. Very helpful. Go post your ad.



You don't understand libertarianism at all. It's not a religion based political philosophy as you mistakenly assert. Libertarianism believes that rights are endowed to all humans upon birth - it has nothing to do with religion.

Libertarians are not anarchists. I do not believe in a lack of government, I believe in a much more limited government than we have now.

How did cowardice, a character trait, enter the issue at all?

Is it that I don't understand libertarianism or that I disagree with you about its merits?

I never said libertarianism was religion based. It's interesting that you try to rebut a point I never made.

Cowardice entered the issue because libertarians are to cowardly to follow their logic down to its natural conclusion. Anarchy.

 

[dross]

I never said libertarianism was religion based. It's interesting that you try to rebut a point I never made..

For a libertarian to make his case he would have to show that God wants to afford us the right to have sex with who or whatever we want, chemically alter our minds no matter the potential for harm and all the other nonsense that libertarians fancy as rights. ry would face if libertarianism where actually given a chance of success.

If I have to show that God must "want" us to do something, I've stepped into religion. You said you didn't make a religious argument, but you did.

Is it that I don't understand libertarianism or that I disagree with you about its merits?.

I wasn't discussing its merits, I was discussing your misrepresentation of it's core.

Cowardice entered the issue because libertarians are to cowardly to follow their logic down to its natural conclusion. Anarchy.

Anarchy is NOT the logical conclusion of libertarianism. That you think so is proof of your lack of understanding.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If I have to show that God must "want" us to do something, I've stepped into religion. You said you didn't make a religious argument, but you did.

I wasn't discussing its merits, I was discussing your misrepresentation of it's core.

Anarchy is NOT the logical conclusion of libertarianism. That you think so is proof of your lack of understanding.

I think it depends on the definition of Anarchy. From the dictionary.

Anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but here goes:

Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.

When I think of anarchy, these are the definitions I use. Not lawlessness or chaos, but a utopian society based upon collective cooperation.

Based upon your position on the military, you are probably not a purest libertarian, but with some of your positions you are moreso than I. The above definitions sure sounds like libertarianism in its purest form to me.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[dross]

I think it depends on the definition of Anarchy. From the dictionary.

Anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but here goes:

Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.

When I think of anarchy, these are the definitions I use. Not lawlessness or chaos, but a utopian society based upon collective cooperation.

Based upon your position on the military, you are probably not a purest libertarian, but with some of your positions you are moreso than I. The above definitions sure sounds like libertarianism in its purest form to me.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Government exists to prevent or punish the initiation of force. Fraud is included in the definition of force.

All other uses of government are intrusions better handled by the market or private citizens.

That's far from anarchy.

As to a model, I don't have much of a problem with the Constitution as written, excepting of course the deal with the devil that recognized slavery as a legal institution. (Understanding of course, that we wouldn't have a country without that deal with the devil.)

That said, I don't think my libertarian ideal is acheivable at the moment, maybe ever. My political efforts go towards taking us as far in that direction as I can get.

I differ with the anarchist perspective in that I don't have faith that we can cooperatively achieve the discouragement of the use of force without a reasonably strong government.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think it depends on the definition of Anarchy. From the dictionary.

Anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but here goes:

Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.

When I think of anarchy, these are the definitions I use. Not lawlessness or chaos, but a utopian society based upon collective cooperation.

Based upon your position on the military, you are probably not a purest libertarian, but with some of your positions you are moreso than I. The above definitions sure sounds like libertarianism in its purest form to me.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Government exists to prevent or punish the initiation of force. Fraud is included in the definition of force.

All other uses of government are intrusions better handled by the market or private citizens.

That's far from anarchy.

As to a model, I don't have much of a problem with the Constitution as written, excepting of course the deal with the devil that recognized slavery as a legal institution. (Understanding of course, that we wouldn't have a country without that deal with the devil.)

That said, I don't think my libertarian ideal is acheivable at the moment, maybe ever. My political efforts go towards taking us as far in that direction as I can get.

I differ with the anarchist perspective in that I don't have faith that we can cooperatively achieve the discouragement of the use of force without a reasonably strong government.

So then you promote minarchist pholosophy, correct? Isn't minarchism just one or two steps removed from anarchy? In your view how do they differ?

If minarchism is achievable, why not anarchy?

 

[rambone]

The article is just more libertarian propaganda meant to vilify those with a rational sense of american politics.

Are you feeling like a villain for being on the wrong side of liberty? Then maybe you should quit defending everything the State does.

Libertarian ideals are unworkable and idiotic. encouraging a country without borders, promoting rampant drug use and other societal ills, desiring a weak military, etc. are the surest ways to make a country so weak that it won't exist much longer after these things are realized.

Haha. The country is going to collapse itself just fine by having a rampant police state, a liberty-destroying War on Drugs, & a behemoth military. You've got everything you could hope for! And we are on the verge of bankruptcy.

The problem is that while libertarians speak highly of liberty they make believe certain rights exist that simply do not. The premise that I accept, as well as the founders of this country, is that rights are given by God and merely protected by the constitution. For a libertarian to make his case he would have to show that God wants to afford us the right to have sex with who or whatever we want, chemically alter our minds no matter the potential for harm and all the other nonsense that libertarians fancy as rights.

The 9th Amendment to the constitution should clear up your confusion about why people believe they have unenumerated rights. Funny how you frown on people's supposed misconception of having rights but have never criticized the state for its misconception of having unlimited power.

It is accurate to charge libertarians as being cowardly anarchists. The result of their policies will be a government that exists in name only. So few americans want these silly policies an libertarians still pretend to represent the best interests of the people. While i abhor liberalism I'm afraid the damage they are doing to is far less than what this country would face if libertarianism where actually given a chance of success.

Let this quote immortalize your statist position. As long as Big Government of some form is winning over people fighting for their rights, you will be happy. You would rather have full blown Socialism than strictly limited government! WOW!

I think it depends on the definition of Anarchy. From the dictionary.

Anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but here goes:

Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.

When I think of anarchy, these are the definitions I use. Not lawlessness or chaos, but a utopian society based upon collective cooperation.

Based upon your position on the military, you are probably not a purest libertarian, but with some of your positions you are moreso than I. The above definitions sure sounds like libertarianism in its purest form to me.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Libertarians defend the bill of rights regularly. Disbanding all forms of government or abolishing the state is not something I can remember seeing. Libertarians favor limited, constitutional government. Not the red herring of Anarchy.
Utopian society based on collective cooperation sounds more like where we are now. You agree to cooperate with your collectivist state masters, and they agree not to lock you up.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Libertarians defend the bill of rights regularly. Disbanding all forms of government or abolishing the state is not something I can remember seeing. Libertarians favor limited, constitutional government. Not the red herring of Anarchy.

Utopian society based on collective cooperation sounds more like where we are now. You agree to cooperate with your collectivist state masters, and they agree not to lock you up.

There very much is an offshoot of extreme libertarianism that promotes anarchy as an ultimate political solution. Perhaps you're not familiar with that group. More prevalent is the libertarian minarchist.

I'd pose the same question about minarchism to you that I asked dross.

 

[rambone]

So then you promote minarchist pholosophy, correct? Isn't minarchism just one or two steps removed from anarchy? In your view how do they differ?

If minarchism is achievable, why not anarchy?

Minarchism. Well what definition are we supposed to be using? The first thing that popped up on google said

Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil.[1][4]

So, is limited-government a few steps from anarchy? I would say hell no.

How are anarchism and minarchism different? One accepts a limited, constitutional government, and the other wants none. I don't think the formation of the Constitution & Bill of Rights were a trivial "one or two steps" for our country to leap across.

Is minarchism achievable? Sure. Is anarchy achievable? Sure. Do we want anarchy? No. Does the Libertarian Party want anarchy? No.

Is calling Libertarians to be "Anarchists" a way to scare people from wanting limited government? Yes.

Is Minarchism supposed to be a bad thing? Apparently???

 

[dross]

So then you promote minarchist pholosophy, correct? Isn't minarchism just one or two steps removed from anarchy? In your view how do they differ?

If minarchism is achievable, why not anarchy?

That's not a widely used term, but from what I can tell, I am far from that as well.

I believe in a standing army.
I believe in a government police force and government prisons.
I believe in a community fire department, though I think some private market innovations could work in that area.
I believe in government involvement in some areas of food and drug processing, though I think it is possible some free market solutions might emerge that should be encouraged.
I believe the government should regulate some environmental issues.
I believe that the government should have the power to enforce our borders, though I would be for less restriction than we have currently.
I believe taxes are necessary, though user fees should be used when possible.

This is not anarchy or any version of it. It's also not at odds much with the Libertarian Party's view, I don't think, though I differ from them on justification for war.

I will point out, however, that according to objectivist philosophy, which in most areas is so closely aligned with libertarian thinking as to be indistinguishable to the outsider, the war in Iraq was quite justified.

Wanting smaller government isn't the same as wanting no government.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

That's not a widely used term, but from what I can tell, I am far from that as well.

I believe in a standing army.
I believe in a government police force and government prisons.
I believe in a community fire department, though I think some private market innovations could work in that area.
I believe in government involvement in some areas of food and drug processing, though I think it is possible some free market solutions might emerge that should be encouraged.
I believe the government should regulate some environmental issues.
I believe that the government should have the power to enforce our borders, though I would be for less restriction than we have currently.
I believe taxes are necessary, though user fees should be used when possible.

This is not anarchy or any version of it. It's also not at odds much with the Libertarian Party's view, I don't think, though I differ from them on justification for war.

I will point out, however, that according to objectivist philosophy, which in most areas is so closely aligned with libertarian thinking as to be indistinguishable to the outsider, the war in Iraq was quite justified.

Wanting smaller government isn't the same as wanting no government.

You got to obey the rules.....Pandora rules....