-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In an otherwise thoughtful and insightful post about what he saw on the Mall last weekend, Nick Gillespie makes the odd assertion that, despite being “in some ways… proto-libertarian” “[t]he organizers and the attendees are not part of the Leave Us Alone coalition.”
The term “Leave Us Alone coalition” was coined by Grover Norquist as a discription of the coalitional structure of the right. The idea is that gun owners, economic conservatives, homeschoolers and so forth can support one another’s goals because the common strand is a desire to have less government intervention in their lives, whereas the left is structured around a “Takings coalition” that seeks to divide up government resources amongst themselves.
Norquist has long argued that contemporary social conservatism emerged out of Leave Us Alone instincts:
The pro-family, traditional-values conservatives are an important part of the “Leave Us Alone” coalition. The so-called Religious Right did not organize in the wake-of the Supreme Court decision banning school prayer, or even after Roe v. Wade. The development of a national grassroots conservative activism grew out of a self-defensive response to threats from the Carter Administration to regulate Christian radio stations and remove the tax-exempt status of Christian private schools.
I’ve heard Norquist argue that social conservatism has been most successful when its goals meshed with the Leave Us Alone ethos, for example when objecting to publicly-funded art that is offensive to Christians, and least successful when their goals deviate from it, for example with the push for a school prayer amendment. He argues that the right is divided on issues like immigration or abortion or foreign policy precisely because they don’t fit easily into the Leave Us Alone formula.
Nick seems to assume that a desire for public religiosity necessarily implies government intervention, but that’s far from clear. James Poulos teases this out:
Gillespie goes off track in thinking that religion links up with this basket of broadly shared interests in a self-contradictory way. Beck’s folks, he writes,
worry about an undocumented fall in morals, and they are emphatic that genuine religiosity should be a feature of the public square. Which is to say, like most American voters, they may well want from government precisely the things that it really can’t deliver.
A secular libertarian would confuse a longing for a public air of genuine religiosity with ‘more religion in government’. But this, too, I think, badly misses the mark. The Americans who came out in droves for Beck’s rally don’t think the purpose of government is to hand you the good life. Why would they think the purpose of government is to hand you the right morals? As Gillespie himself puts it :”In some sense, the rally was a giant AA meeting (I don’t mean this snarkily), flush with the notion that whatever else is going on in the world, you can control some portion of your own life.”
The religious convictions of Beck’s fans, and the fact that they’re not calling for explicit government intervention, suggests a reinvigoration the traditionalist-libertarian alliance, which became badly frayed in the past decade as Bush Republicans pushed “Big Government Conservatism” and social conservatism was increasingly driven by the explicit anti-libertarianism of people like Mike Huckabee. In some ways this is a natural consequence of the left taking the reins of government and the prominence of economic policy arguments — it’s easier in many ways to hold a political coalition together in opposition — but it’s a tendency that should be encouraging rather than off-putting to libertarians.
View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/04/glenn-beck-and-the-leave-us-al
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger| 9.4.10 @ 9:41PM
I used to be an actual member of the Libertarian party, until I finally got tired of hearing about nothing other than legalizing marijuana and prostitution. Right or wrong, those aren't going to be issues that will ever land you in office. As for the Tea Party, I've seen more true libertarianism there than I have from professed members of the libertarian party. The Tea Party candidates I've seen so far seem to be mostly pro-life libertarians. What's more, being pro-life IS a true libertarian position. If the government won't protect your life than none of your other liberties matter a whit, and the government has lost its right to claim your allegiance.
Alan Brooks| 9.4.10 @ 11:03PM
You are more overly-optimistic than one might suppose you are, if you think the state will protect unborn life in the future. That's almost like saying "Jesus will return".
Tim*| 9.5.10 @ 11:46AM
Brooks Gotta Jesus Problem , A Southern Men Problem , A Muslim Problem , A Mormon Problem , But NOT An Obama Problem .
Lucy You Got Some 'Splainin' To Do .
Alan Brooks| 9.5.10 @ 9:15PM
But not to you, Tim; to someone more educated-- such, merely for instance, as a priest at reconciliation. To get through divinity schools, priests have to possess more erudition, decency, common sense, and higher judgment than you or I possess, Tim.
Tim*| 9.6.10 @ 8:10AM
Looks like Brooks has shifted from his Mr. Agnostic Act .
MerMer| 9.7.10 @ 3:18PM
Someone forgot to tell you and those priests that Jesus tore the veil.
Therefore all your knowledge will only increase your sorrow.
You must like for Christians to defend Him or you would not poke at us.
CONSVLTVS | 9.4.10 @ 10:57PM
I, too, have voted Libertarian (Ron Paul for president in, what, 1988). Since then it's become more and more clear to me that some national consensus in favor of traditional morality is necessary for a free republic. Religion provides such consensus better than any other institution.
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 6:16PM
CONSVLTVS:
I haven't voted "libertarian" ever, but, from 1980 (when I voted for Carter) till 2004, when I held my nose and voted for Kerry, I made a point of NOT voting for any of the "mainstream" candidates because I thought they were all "sellouts." Still think that of Clinton. Beginning to regret my 2008 Obama vote too.
However, I'd submit to you that "traditional morality" via religion is absolutely NOT a good solution. Too much inflexible ideology/theology; not enough good-old-fashioned neighborliness and decency.
AJsDaddie| 9.5.10 @ 7:57PM
Morality via religion might be inflexible if the idea was to promote a SINGLE religion, but I'm pretty sure the TEA Party goes with Beck's "any faith that doesn't involve killing other people" tenet.
The other "AA-like" feature of the TEA Party is that the exact brand of religion isn't as important as the idea that there is something larger than yourself - the "Higher Power" concept.
John Adams said it best: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
retMSgt| 9.6.10 @ 1:02AM
consvltvs - it took guts to admit you voted for those four losers!!
CONSVLTVS | 10.1.10 @ 8:00PM
Ralph Novy: Forgot about this thread, sorry about the hiatus. So, if you're still interested, the way I see it is we are far past the time when our problem was too much inflexibility in morals. We need a little course correction toward the center. Not enough space here, but click my name to check out my logic on my own (brand new!) blog, RESPVBLICA. And I'm not religious myself, just a friend of religion (b/c I get its social utility).
AJsDaddie: You said it. Adams was right.
retMSgt: It's appalling. I'm perpetually dissatisfied with the party in power!
Alan Brooks| 9.4.10 @ 11:07PM
There's something that concerns me about pro-life: if Pol Pot got Susan Atkins or Patricia Krenwinkel pregnant, abortion wouldn't be such a bad idea. And don't write "its not the baby's fault".
If the baby is a bad seed, he or she is a bad seed.
Foster Brooks| 9.5.10 @ 12:02AM
I have only considered this a reasonable thing one time and your mother wouldn't listen to me. I can see that the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
Booger| 9.5.10 @ 1:41AM
You cannot claim a right for yourself which you will not grant to others. ..."ALL men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".... If the right exists, it is universal. If you deny it exists for someone else, then you cannot (logically) assert that it exists for yourself. Fault is not an issue; preservation of individual rights is the issue, elsewise we become like Pol Pot ourselves.
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 6:09PM
Booger:
Agree wholeheartedly, but to what current issues are you suggesting that principle be applied?
Tim*| 9.5.10 @ 11:48AM
Brooks , You're A Bad Seed .
Are Ya Gonna Abort Yourself , Sport ?
Hmmmmm ?
Mimi| 9.5.10 @ 12:55PM
Alan...You just don't get it...Try this on...God made us each different, we all are unique human beings...one -of- a kinders, so to speak, individual souls each with special put together DNA. To kill anyone , you deny the world of..the unique gifts and purpose each one of us has.
WE celebrate "LIFE"... Go take a look in the mirror .....You are you....SPECIAL...
Margie| 9.5.10 @ 11:47PM
Hi Mimi,
Yup, how personal is our God that He made no 2 human beings exactly alike?
And then.. and then to top it all off, He sent His only Son to Earth to die for our sins, in our place. Now that is love.
"Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jn. 15:13
Maybe someday Alan will come to know this Saviour and then he'll understand how precious every single baby's life is in His eyes.
SeaHunter| 9.5.10 @ 7:37AM
I submit that it is not so much "leave me alone" as it is "leave me alone to make my own bad decisions." Freedom, true freedom, is the right to make decisions governing the outcome of your own life without someone telling you, no you can't do that. If I want to eat a hamburger with frys, don't tell me about trans fat, or outlaw hamburgers and frys. Freedom is room to err, to make a fool of yourself, or to own a gun, and munch on this hamburger. The role of Government is to govern, not control. The liberal idea seems to be that Government should do "good" for me. The consertive model is to let me do bad for myself. Given those two choices, I would chose everythime the right to make bad decisions. This does't mean my bad decisions should harm others. The bad decision to drive drunk is not one any government should allow. But the bad decision to get drunk at home, that is ones own. So, I'll sit here and munch on a burger, and shake my head at the liberal do me gooders who tell me how bad it is for me. Oh, and yes, vote them out of office this next time around.
bluegrass | 9.5.10 @ 3:49PM
So I assume that you would be for the full legalization of drugs? Or polygamous marriage? Or build a mosque on my own private property? I mean if your philosophy is that government shouldn't control people . . .
The conservative model seems to be "let me do bad for myself unless it involves something I disapprove of, or something my mystical book disproves of." It's no different than the liberal model of governance, it simply manifests itself differently (however slightly). Liberals don't want you to contribute to the obesity "problem", conservatives to the "downfall of American morality" or some such garbage.
Both models are hogwash, because both involve the use of government force in order to maintain a particular social agenda.
Until conservatives learn to stay out of other people's business, they have no room to blame liberals for doing the same.
Andrew| 9.7.10 @ 10:03AM
Just remember, when people say it's a free country, they mean free for them, not for you.
JimH| 9.5.10 @ 10:13AM
I would consider myself, for lack of a better term a small L libertarian. The Libertarian party has lost any credibility it may have had in the past. That being said, I think conservatives and libertarians have far more in common then they have differences; this despite some comments on this site to the contrary. I agree that they are united in their desire to be free from state interference. The libertarians main concern about some conservatives, particularly social conservatives is their willingness to use the power of the state to impose their sense of morality on others be it via liquor laws, drug laws, store hours, TV regulation, prostitution. Sometimes they will justify it not as a matter of morality but because of the social costs these private decisions impose. This of course is the same argument used by the left to justify their nostrums such as mileage requirements, class sizes, gun restrictions and all kinds of other bunkum. Some libertarians (not all) forget that the world is a dangerous place and some in it will hate us regardless of our policies. They must remember that at a minimum the legitimate function of the government is to provide for the defense of the country. People of good will may differ over how that may be best accomplished. But unless one is truly an anarcho-capitalist type libertarian, it must be recognized that it is a legitimate government function that can not be privatized.
SeaHunter| 9.5.10 @ 11:22AM
Jim; I think you and I are on the same page. Now all we need do is sell the book.
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 6:36PM
JimH:
I've labeled my own political views over the years with various terms ("liberal," "radical," "leftist," "socialist," "communistic," etc.). Wouldn't ever have had a problem with "small L libertarian."
So when you immediately proceeded to say "That being said, I think conservatives and libertarians have far more in common than they have differences" I was consternated.
And THEN you say that despite social conservatives' "willingness to use the power of the state to impose their sense of morality on others be it via liquor laws, drug laws, store hours, TV regulation, prostitution, [etc.] and justify their positions not in terms of morality but the "social costs" involved [read "money costs to the rich].
Then you suggest that the policy objectives of "the left" (mileage requirements, class sizes, etc.) are just as violative of basic freedoms as those of the "conservatives."
Nowadays, I'd call myself a small L liberal. You bet your ass I believe in as much freedom for the individual as possible. I'm an ardent fan of the Ninth Amendment. But, in this world, if you haven't got money, you aren't too friggin' free. And if greedy capitalistic assholes are systematically stealing our money, they're stealing our freedom. That's where I'M coming from. Get me?
So....bottom line... I see more common ground betwixt "libertarians" and "liberals" than I do between "libertarians" and "conservatives."
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 6:44PM
JimH:
Big oops. Sorry. Lost my train of thought and fucked up the third paragraph.
SHOULD have read:
And THEN you say that despite social conservatives' "willingness to use the power of the state to impose their sense of morality on others be it via liquor laws, drug laws, store hours, TV regulation, prostitution, [etc.] and justify their positions not in terms of morality but the "social costs" involved [read "money costs to the rich], you feel more in political sympathy with them than with liberals. To be frank, this smacks of "Stockholm Syndrome" to me."
Again.....sorry. It's my birthday and I'm a bit snockered.
Cheers.
JimH| 9.6.10 @ 10:54AM
Happy belated B-day. Sometimes libertarians and what are termed in America liberals can share a common cause. But they fundamentally differ on the nature of rights. libertarians are at home in a 'Leave Us Alone' coalition because that is they view the nature of Human rights. They believe in the right to have their lives an property secure from others. The American liberal or progressive thinks that people have a positive right to be provided with the material goods needed for life and it is OK to take it from some to provide it to others. A libertarian/conservative may feel a personal moral obligation to help those in need. But he does not think it right to coerce that help from others. BTW when I said social costs I did not mean money costs to the rich. I meant the general reduction in the overall quality of life in the society. For libertarians this is a real problem and sometimes viewed as the selecting the lessor of evils. An economist will study these as externalities.
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 4:48PM
John:
"The term "Leave Us Alone coalition" was coined by Grover Norquist as a discription of the coalitional structure of the right. The idea is that gun owners, economic conservatives, homeschoolers and so forth can support one another's goals because the common strand is a desire to have less government intervention in their lives, whereas the left is structured around a "Takings coalition" that seeks to divide up government resources amongst themselves."
False dichotomy, leading to needlessly limited choices.
Don't buy the Codevilla thesis, let alone Jonah Goldberg's "liberal fascists" rubbish. Their positions drip of ignorance and a snottish sense of superiority and privilege. Pots calling kettles black, in a word.
Tom Osterman| 9.6.10 @ 10:14AM
Sorry, but you're wrong and Codevilla, Goldberg et.al. are right. The federal government has become, at best, like the domineering mother-in-law who is constantly finding fault. Bad enough when she has a point, worse when she's wrong, since she won't admit it.
The difference is that the government has real power and will do, and is doing, serious damage.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.5.10 @ 5:25PM
We're buying shrimp, Ralph. Are you a true believer or can I count on you to tell the necessary stories? I went back and looked at some of your past posts and you are just what I need. We on the left in America and Europe have realized well frankly since WWII that the Nazi's and the Italians had it right. Not the race stuff of course unless you want to say bad things about old white people. You can much more effectively get protection money and never take blame if you run the corporatist scam. When I fired the CEO of GM that was a great day. Like all parasites though we can get carried away with ourselves. Nice going on the Jonah Goldberg misdirection. We have been betting that our desire to jump into every aspect of American life and the corporatist stuff would not be connected to our obvious fascist desires. Plus my Mussolini like public poses are no accident. He was a beautiful man. It will take a lot of work on your part to keep that from happening. Watch expressions like "snottish sense of superiority and privilege". This has been focused grouped in front of normal Americans and their first association is me followed by Michelle and then by people with Obama bumper stickers. Well in the spirit of Chicago I need to get back to those limitless choices you inferred. Who will I make payoffs to? Some of my friends will do well and others not so much. Great day of golf today. I never tire in my efforts for the poor.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.5.10 @ 5:31PM
We're buying shrimp, Ralph. One more thing. If you do a good job I can promise you two "Good Life Cards". With your first one you can get the needed 750 calories a day. With the second one you can sell out on the black market. It will be better than food stamps since everyone will need one. Just trying to motivate.
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 6:07PM
The One...
Jeez, One, could/would you write a little less cryptically, please? I'm missing too many of your points. I'm just a simple farmboy with not too much fancy-schmancy edu-macation, after all.
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 6:02PM
The One...:
1. "We're buying shrimp...." Huh? Whoosh, right over my head. Meaning?
2. "Are you a true believe OR [my emphasis] can I count on you to tell the necessary stories?" Another whoosh.
3. "We on the left in America and Europe have realized, well, frankly, since WWII, that the Nazis and the Italians had it right ... old white people" [My added punctuation, of course.] Triple huh/whoosh.
4. "Protection money ... corporatist scam"?
5. "When I fired....."?
6. Jonah Goldberg "misdirection"?
7. "Focus-grouped in front of normal Americans." And how was that "normality" determined, exactly?
8. "Limitless choices"? Nope. Just more than two.
9. As to Obama's golf thing......hey, we finally agree on something. Barely a sport. If you add golf carts, I'd say it's not a sport at all.....except maybe like British fox-hunting, which Oscar Wilde described as "The unspeakable in hot pursuit of the inedible" or the like.
10. Just a kindly word of advice: Break your expressions (sentences and paragraphs, particularly) into more digestible chunks.
Cheers.
Ralph
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.5.10 @ 7:03PM
We're buying shrimp, Ralph. Your concern about normality is noted but I was using it in the sense of typical voters not in terms of trolls like yourself. I am in trouble here and can't have my flacks using pejorative terms that make people think of me. Your intellect is perfect for the troll work you have performed here. Cluelessness is just what the doctor ordered. Just stay on the talking points and there won't be any problems. Talk about the summer of recovery, or wind farms for instance. Maybe squeeze in the Chevy Volt or the great things going on in Venezuela. We are going in the right direction. This is how you can make yourself useful. Meaningless programs that move money to my friends while accomplishing nothing are of course not limitless. But you can do a lot of bribing with a trillion dollars. Thanks for you suggestions but really I went to the best of schools and won't be taking advice from trolls. If you continue to show some promise at punctuating my work I might be able to get you a gig with my teleprompter.
Ralph Novy| 9.5.10 @ 7:13PM
One:
Bye bye. I'll troll elsewhere. I see my efforts were futile.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.6.10 @ 10:24PM
We're buying shrimp, Ralph. I am in a good mood. I shot a 108 today. I should be on the Ryder Cup team. They would never go for an African American. Racists! Anyway I was truly motivated by the rejection of the false dichotomy thing. That was very heavy. I came up with a five year plan, make that a six year plan for spending money on some of my more reliable voters, union saps. We are apparently going to pave a road all the way around the planet. It is only 50 giga-bucks and after you bribe with a tera-buck it is hard to go back but it will have to do. Those Milwaukee guys sure were happy. If I could just come up with 50 tera-bucks I believe I could buy the election. Maybe I could convince the Chinese as an investment in America's foreign policy weakness. Maybe the Iranians and Chinese could come up with the money. I love it when I am cooking in the thinking department. Don't be discouraged. Remember this all started with your idea. I never tire in my efforts for the poor. We are moving in the right direction baby. Woof, woof.
Mary| 9.5.10 @ 7:31PM
My problem with libertarianism is that I haven't met one libertarian who truly grasps the concept of what liberty actually means. They seem to be solely focused on themselves, incapable of understanding the fact that they do so to the exclusion of the rights of others.. it's an immature ideology that perpetuates an indifference, and even a naivete that renders them willing dupes.
Take Grover Norquist, who is cited in this article. Norquist doesn't respect our constitutional liberties. He does believe in exploiting them for his own ends, but his agenda is to the detriment of the constitution and the people of the United States, all our rights and freedoms. Norquist plays the same game, in tandem with George Soros. He's committed himself to the Muslim Brotherhood, through his Saudi connections, he's even converted to Islam, though he won't admit it, after marrying his Muslim wife, who is not only a leader of an organization, that demands sharia be imposed, she's related to people who fund, and participate in terrorism. Norquist cares only for personal profit. He's not a libertarian, or a conservative. He's a fascist.
Our constitution provides for individual rights and freedoms, but those are only preserved when citizens embrace the understanding that those rights and freedoms include the obligation of respecting the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens, that we think and act in the best interests of our citizenry and nation. That means open borders and concepts like "trading workers" as Norquist demands be done, be rejected. That we snap out of the delusion that NAFTA and MFN status with China were wrong, because they were written to benefit a select few, and Mexico and China. That our national sovereignty needs to be preserved, and we need to return to common sense laws that denied foreign interests the ability to influence our laws and policies.
People who believe there's some way to preserve our economy, by embracing the neo-cons demand that we outsource our jobs, and displace citizens from jobs, are fools. We need a strong middle class, and secure citizens who can support themselves. To delude yourself into thinking that one can get rich by reducing the majority of your fellow citizens to third world status, is the mark of a diseased, selfish mindset who hasn't thought much beyond him or her self. They are the dupes who like others who fall for the utopia promised by the left.. useful idiots, irregardless of which extreme they've bought into, whether for ego or greed, because they sell their futures out, at the same time they're selling out the futures of their fellow citizens.
JimH| 9.6.10 @ 11:06AM
I've known many libertarians who fit your description. Being a middle of the pack baby boomer I've known people of all ideologies who fit the description. As on aside it has been my experience that many called libertarians who act like this are actually Randians or just being provocative. I will say that many conservatives here seem to regard the Constitution as another book of the Bible and justify their view of rights and obligations from it. Some libertarians, not all, view the Constitution as an illegal imposition on their freedoms. Others view it as a codifying of rights that exist independent of it. Some derive their notion of the basis of rights from various Human Rights philosophers or directly or indirectly from God.
Mary| 9.6.10 @ 2:09PM
I meant to type, "That we snap out of the delusion that we shouldn't or can't force a renegotiation to NAFTA and and other bad trade deals, or that we can't end MFN status with China ,"
What I wanted to get across is that Bill Clinton deliberately pushed through treaties and awarded MFN with China, in ways that allowed our country's wealth to be bled away, and incentivized US corporations and businesses to off shore. When US corporations and businesses stopped viewing themselves as American corporations and businesses, they sold themselves out as lobbyists to foreign powers, as well as being the seeds of their own destruction. They no longer serve themselves and their stock holders, they hold themselves out to ransom, and are taking us along with them.
Long Ben| 9.6.10 @ 12:55AM
In the last days scoffers will come saying , where is the promise of his returning , for things continue as they have been since the fathers fell asleep. Pray for Alan Bloom .
Siegfried X| 9.6.10 @ 9:38AM
Libertarianism is a niave, utopian, and foolish idea. It is INEVITABLE that if we have a government of any size, that it will make decisions, including decisions on moral issues.
This makes most libertarians (unwitting) hypocrities, because even though they don't realize it, they support hundreds of anti-libertarian laws, while at the same time condemning a few others.
The closest thing in today's world to a libertarian paradise is Somalia, and even there libertariasm has mostly morphed into tribalism.
The only real world example of libertarianism would be lone outlaws living in the wild west. And even that is not really libertarian, because those outlaws were really parasites living off an organized, non-libertarian society. Their bullets, clothes, and education all came from a civilization which could only exist because it wasn't libertarian.
The charge that social conservatives are trying to control other people is false. It fails to recognize just how much freedom was lost by left-wing harassment, hate speech, stalking, abuse laws, and lawsuits. The goal of social liberals is to control everyone, not to be free. The goal of the social left-wingers is to be able to sue and put in jail anyone who says homosexuality is a choice, not an inborn trait. Soon all it will take is an anonymous call about "abuse" of gays in order for a police office to be dispatched, just as now happens for other types of abuse.
Tim*| 9.6.10 @ 10:12AM
" Fiscal Libertarianism:
Fiscal libertarians (also referred to as laissez-faire capitalists) believe in free trade, low (or nonexistent) taxes, and minimal (or nonexistent) corporate regulation. Most traditional Republicans are moderate fiscal libertarians."
Siegfried X| 9.6.10 @ 10:39AM
Libertarians believe in financial anarchy, with no rules at all.
Reagan conservatives believe in having the government as referee, along with a set of rules that ensures we have a real financial marketplace.
Left-wing "progressive" Marxist believe in total government control of the economy, with the government passing out money to its favored groups.
JimH| 9.6.10 @ 11:15AM
What you describe are better termed Anarcho-Capitalists. They believe in the right to private property and that it can be maintained without the existence of the State. They are only one small part of what may be termed libertarian thought. It would not be fair to say that all Conservatives are John Birchers either. Libertarianism is not a set of policies or even generally agreed upon philosophy other then the notion that a persons life and property is their own. What they do with it is no one elses business so long as it does not harm others. People can and do disagree as what harm means here.
Siegfried X| 9.6.10 @ 2:03PM
By that definition, then everyone is a libertarian, and the term becomes meaningless name calling. It's like associating myself with other inherently good words, like saying that _I_ believe in "common sense" and "fair" legislation, legislation which promotes "freedom and liberty".
Those are all, by definition, positive terms. But each of us has our own idea of what promotes freedom, so saying that _I_ support "liberty" is really just a form of name calling.
For example, libertarians make the assumption that all government is bad, with extremely limited exceptions, while almost all non-government action is good or neutral, like no large corporation or group of individuals could every hurt me. That is an area where conservatives might disagree, saying that all the players are bad and can hurt people, so in some cases government involvement to gives people more liberty than letting corporations or non-profit organizations operate without any controls.
Tim*| 9.6.10 @ 3:03PM
Do Your Homework Siegfried .
Ronald Reagan often is quoted as saying: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
Tim*| 9.6.10 @ 12:29PM
There are numerous categories and degrees of Libertarians .
Try to run your " financial anarchy, with no rules at all " complaint past Most Traditional Republicans and Most of Our Founding Fathers .
sao| 10.17.10 @ 2:47AM
tim....
Solo| 9.6.10 @ 3:33PM
Tim Wrote:
"There are numerous categories and degrees of Libertarians .
Try to run your " financial anarchy, with no rules at all " complaint past Most Traditional Republicans and Most of Our Founding Fathers ."
Precisely!
The traditional libertarian reflex is to view Post Offices and Stop Signs as equivalent to a Stalinist purge. More particularly, it is a sophomoric attempt to lend the illusion of objectivity to "I like this, but I don't like that".
As a philosophy (and I gag to even lend legitimacy to the party by using the term "philosophy") its blatant incoherence and propensity towards conspiracism clearly explains its pathetic performance among the body politic.
~They seem to think that most are too stupid to understand the "nuances" of libertarianism. The truth is: The joke is on them! And they still don't get it!~
The hope for the success of the American experience was always predicated on a dependence on an educated and vigilant electorate steeped in the Judeo/Christian ethic.
Make no mistake. Once this goes away, the Republic goes with it. And modern libertarianism (as an "Ideal") is as much to blame for our demise as are the leftists.
Tim*| 9.7.10 @ 7:29AM
Spoken like a typical Neoconservative AgendaBoy , Solo .
Reagan would laugh in your Faux Conservative Face , Sport .
Andrew| 9.7.10 @ 10:07AM
private property is one of the only defenses against the overwhelming power of the state. that is why it is under constant attack.
Solo| 9.7.10 @ 12:27PM
Tim Wrote:
"Spoken like a typical Neoconservative AgendaBoy , Solo .
Reagan would laugh in your Faux Conservative Face , Sport ."
My friend...there is nothing "neoconservative" in my post.
Just because some conservatives (such as Reagan, by the way) don't believe in foreign policy isolationism, the eradication of all Judeo/Christian mores and ethics and a return to the Gold Standard doesn't make them "NeoCons".
Unless, of course, you would count our Founding Fathers as "NeoCons", as well, because they didn't believe in or practice this "philosophy" either. History's a b*tch, isn't it?....Sport!
JimH| 9.7.10 @ 12:45PM
I'd have to say, on the whole, Neocons are not Cons at all. They are more like what used to be known as Scoop Jackson Democrats with a particular interest in Israel.