what is the difference between traditional republicans and libertarians?

[garrettwombat]

i can only think of the pro-choice issue.

any others?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

*my topic was meant to read "what is the diffrence..."

i can only think of the pro-choice issue.

any others?

hmm immigration

[garrettwombat]

hmm immigration

explain

[LibertyEagle]

I think you mean, traditional conservatives, maybe. If that's what you mean, traditional conservatives were libertarian-conservatives who believed in:
-limited Constitutional government
-strong national defense
-personal responsibility
-personal privacy
-fiscal responsibility in government
-individual liberty

A good book for you to read would be "The Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, Sr. He was a libertarian-conservative in spades and was credited with reviving traditional conservatism in this country. Also, look on the back of Ron Paul's book at the quote by Barry Goldwater, Jr.

"The real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment. Senator Goldwater would have loved it -- it's The Conscience of a Conservative for the twenty-first century." -- Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.

That should tell you a lot.

Big "L" Libertarians are a bit different than little "l" libertarians.

[TastyWheat]

Illegal drugs, public schools, same-sex marriage are few others. I don't think republicans were ever that keen on a constitutional-sized government though. Have they ever reduced the size of government?

[ARealConservative]

*my topic was meant to read "what is the difference..."

i can only think of the pro-choice issue.

any others?

views on local governance.

[Truth Warrior]

The Reps still believe and think that the "system" can be "fixed". :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think republicans were ever that keen on a constitutional-sized government though. Have they ever reduced the size of government?

That's not true at all. You are grouping Republicans all together. There were always two factions in the Republican party... the Rockefeller-Republicans (pro big government) and traditional conservatives (limited government). The Rockefeller-Republicans had the upper hand until Goldwater came along. He revived traditional conservatism. Reagan ran on that platform. He talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. During that time, neocons were added to the mix, infiltrated and pretty much took over the conservative movement. A whole lot of traditional conservatives left the party; others were propagandized by Hannity and the like; still others remained to try to get the party back to real conservatism.

[LibertyEagle]

The Reps still believe and think that the "system" can be "fixed". :rolleyes:

LOL. If you didn't have some small hope that it could be, what are you doing here, supporting Ron Paul?

[LibertyEagle]

views on local governance.

+1

Also, don't some Libertarians believe in an Open Borders policy and that we shouldn't do anything to stem the tide of illegal immigration. No health checks, no fairness in who we are letting in from where? No worry about whether they will be financial drains?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[AJ Antimony]

I'd say a big difference is party registration.

[Matt Collins]

Look at the Nolan Chart to understand personal freedom vs economic freedom.... See http://www.nolanchart.com/


Some liberals want big government. Some conservatives want big government. Some liberals want small government. Some conservatives want small government. Usually it depends on the issue... a gross generalization would be that conservatives are authoritarian (big government) on personal issues and libertarian on economic issues while liberals are authoritarian on economic issues but libertarian on persona issues.

So don't just think of the political "spectrum" as a 1 dimensional left vs right concept. Think of it as a 2 dimensional left vs right vs big government vs small government.

For instance...



http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/NolanChart.gif

You can take the quiz to find out where you land on the chart here:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html








.

[LibertyEagle]

=Some conservatives want big government.

Sorry, but nope. Traditional conservatives (aka real conservatives) are for small government. The others are fakers. ie. they are not conservatives at all. One cannot be a conservative and be for big government. This is a total dichotomy.

[Kludge]

I think the best example is that conservatives want to eliminate the DoE and move educational matters to the local or state level. libertarians want to totally eliminate public education, and that applies to almost every public service.

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

[Anti Federalist]

+1

Also, don't some Libertarians believe in an Open Borders policy and that we shouldn't do anything to stem the tide of illegal immigration. No health checks, no fairness in who we are letting in from where? No worry about whether they will be financial drains?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, simply because on the matter of trade, tariffs or immigration, the question is one of government control.

If you don't have control over your own person to travel where you wish or trade with whom you want, how much freedom do you really have?

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, simply because on the matter of trade, tariffs or immigration, the question is one of government control.

If you don't have control over your own person to travel where you wish or trade with whom you want, how much freedom do you really have?

I said nothing about controlling where Americans traveled, or with whom they traded. Nor, would I agree with it.

I was talking about aliens who wanted to move to our country.

[Anti Federalist]

I said nothing about controlling where Americans traveled, or with whom they traded. Nor, would I agree with it.

Didn't say you did.

I was just pointing out the "purist's" view of libertarianism when it comes to borders or trade restrictions.

[LibertyEagle]

Didn't say you did.

I was just pointing out the "purist's" view of libertarianism when it comes to borders or trade restrictions.

Okay. So explain to me more about the purists view on allowing aliens to enter our country. See, I agree with the traditional conservative viewpoint that there should be health checks to make sure they don't bring horrible diseases to our country (some that we had eradicated long ago), that we should set limits/year on who can become citizens, so that we don't overwhelm our country with people who have not had time to assimilate (learn about our founding principles and what made this country great) and to become Americans.

What about the above is distasteful to Libertarian purists?

Because what you said about trade is in agreement with the traditional conservative (libertarian-conservative) viewpoint.

[Anti Federalist]

Okay. So explain to me more about the purists view on allowing aliens to enter our country. See, I agree with the traditional conservative viewpoint that there should be health checks to make sure they don't bring horrible diseases to our country (some that we had eradicated long ago), that we should set limits/year on who can become citizens, so that we don't overwhelm our country with people who have not had time to assimilate (learn about our founding principles and what made this country great) and to become Americans.

What about the above is distasteful to Libertarian purists?

Because what you said about trade is in agreement with the traditional conservative (libertarian-conservative) viewpoint.

Big "L" libertarianism takes a more "global" view.

It holds that all of humanity, not just "privileged" Americans, by virtue of being born here, have the inalienable rights we all hold dear.

Therefore, each human being should, by rights, have the ability to freely travel to, or trade with, anybody, anywhere, without government coercion or force used against them.

Not that we, even as Americans, enjoy that right. Try booking a round trip flight from New York to Havana.

Now, let me make something clear: I don't necessarily agree with that view, I'm just explaining it.

[LibertyEagle]

Gotcha.

So from your definition, how are big "L" Libertarians different from the globalists, who don't give a flip about Americans or this country? Or do they seem themselves as "world citizens"?

Are big "L" Libertarians primarily anarchists?

[Anti Federalist]

Gotcha.

So from your definition, how are big "L" Libertarians different from the globalists, who don't give a flip about Americans or this country? Maybe it's just me, but I take issue with letting people into this country who carry diseases that we had long eradicated, or to suck off my bank account, or who have absolutely no clue of what this country was founded upon.

Are big "L" Libertarians primarily anarchists?

Anarchists? No. I wouldn't say so. Volunteerists or market anarchists, perhaps. I consider myself one, within an agreed upon social construct.

This is important, and why I consider the border to be just as important as you do. A totally free market, voluntary society is incompatible with trade and immigration from a corrupt prison state, say, like China. It's apples and bowling balls.

And the difference between a "run of the mill globalist" and a purist libertarian is simple: the globalist has no trouble with or compunction against using government force to meet their goals. They will invade, wage war, sanction, restrict and imprison at will.

The libertarian position is just as simple, it is not the "Rights of Americans" but the rights of man.

[Truth Warrior]

LOL. If you didn't have some small hope that it could be, what are you doing here, supporting Ron Paul?
LewRockwell.com supports Ron too. HINT: "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market"

And Ron supports Lew. It's Ron's homepage. :D For further information, please kindly consult your local copy of Manifesto.

Any other questions? :)

[stewie3128]

*my topic was meant to read "what is the difference..."

i can only think of the pro-choice issue.

any others?

The historical point of departure is when Nixon took the US off the Bretton-Woods semi-gold standard in the early 70s, thus introducing completely fiat money. Party Republicans backed this (because it got us out of our bind with paying off a debt that France was calling in) and libertarians bolted it because it took us completely off a gold standard. After that, there was an actual Libertarian party.

As of 2008, an easy way to answer your original question is "What's the difference between a Republican and Thomas Jefferson." It's a matter of how large a role government should play in the everyday affairs of man. Party Republicans now believe that there is a larger role for the gov't than Libertarians, and this can be seen in Faith School subsidies, support for the existing welfare state, the War on Drugs/Terror/Poverty/Everything else, Pro-life, support for the existing tax code (more or less), support for existing currency... etc etc.

[Truth Warrior]

Gotcha.

So from your definition, how are big "L" Libertarians different from the globalists, who don't give a flip about Americans or this country? Or do they seem themselves as "world citizens"?

Are big "L" Libertarians primarily anarchists?
Nope, just pissed off Republicans.:rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

The historical point of departure is when Nixon took the US off the Bretton-Woods semi-gold standard in the early 70s, thus introducing completely fiat money. Party Republicans backed this (because it got us out of our bind with paying off a debt that France was calling in) and libertarians bolted it because it took us completely off a gold standard. After that, there was an actual Libertarian party.

As of 2008, an easy way to answer your original question is "What's the difference between a Republican and Thomas Jefferson." It's a matter of how large a role government should play in the everyday affairs of man. Party Republicans now believe that there is a larger role for the gov't than Libertarians, and this can be seen in Faith School subsidies, support for the existing welfare state, the War on Drugs/Terror/Poverty/Everything else, Pro-life, support for the existing tax code (more or less), support for existing currency... etc etc.

The reader should keep in mind that libertarian-conservatives (traditional conservatives) DID NOT SUPPORT Bretton-Woods. Perhaps that is how you are using the term, "libertarian".

Also, please be careful about making generalized statements about Republicans, because it will end up being false.

[Alex Libman]

Republicans are nationalist socialist control freaks who use fear, war, racism, and patriotism to attract voters, in contrast to their conjoined twin the Democrats, who use welfare instead.

Small-l libertarians, on the other hand, believe in the philosophy of individual sovereignty. They see government as cancer - it is never good, but just as you are born with some harmless amount of cancer cells in your body, government may be impossible to get rid of completely. Being a libertarian means more than just what you do politically, it is an ethical standard for a person to live up to. Libertarian values include respect for other people's rights to life, liberty, property, and parents' rights, self-reliance, a win-win mentality, love of free-market capitalism, competition, and helping people by teaching them to fish (possibly on credit rather than for free) rather than making them dependent on free fish with socialist strings attached.

The big-L Libertarian Party (LP) is a big-tent political organization appealing to everyone from 100% principled libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) to people who are just a tad more libertarian than the Reps and Dems. It doesn't always try to destroy all government in all its forms, but rather tries to pull the country in a libertarian direction as much as possible in a given election. Like a healthy immune system keeping cancer in check, libertarian politics exist to keep government in check, and never cease fighting to shrink it as much as possible.

[Truth Warrior]

The "Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron.

For a libertarian example:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

[Kludge]

The "Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron.

For a libertarian example:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

Voluntaryism =/= libertarianism.

;)

[Truth Warrior]

Voluntarism =/= libertarianism.
Correct your spelling. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Correct your spelling. :rolleyes:

I thought Libertarians didn't believe in telling others how to live their lives? :p

[Truth Warrior]

I thought Libertarians didn't believe in telling others how to live their lives? :p The error was a cause of an incorrect understanding. :rolleyes: BTW, Libertarians don't mind at all, they vote too.

[LibertyEagle]

The error was a cause of an incorrect understanding. :rolleyes: BTW, Libertarians don't mind at all, they vote too.

His misspelling wasn't infringing on your liberty, was it? If not, why try to get him to change HIS spelling? :p

If you think that Libertarians believe in dictating to others how to live their lives, I think you might have the wrong idea of Libertarianism.

[Kludge]

His misspelling wasn't infringing on your liberty, was it? If not, why try to get him to change HIS spelling? :p

If you think that Libertarians believe in dictating to others how to live their lives, I think you might have the wrong idea of Libertarianism.

LE, I feel like I should be citing every PM you've ever sent me. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

His misspelling wasn't infringing on your liberty, was it? If not, why try to get him to change HIS spelling? :p

If you think that Libertarians believe in dictating to others how to live their lives, I think you might have the wrong idea of Libertarianism.
I believe that I explained that. I didn't FORCE him to do anything, now did I?

Did I violate the non-aggression principle? NO!

Do voters? YES!

I thought you were supposed to be some longtime guru in the Freedom Movement. If you have problems with the basic differences between Libertarian and libertarian, it does cause me to think that the wrong idea is not mine. :)

[Black Dude]

The principles are near the same. Unfortunately, the Republicans tend to be less educated. They also have different ideas on how they want their local and State government ran. A libertarian typically would want a hands-off approach at the local level, whereas the Republican wants conservative their conservative way of life protected.
It seems sometimes that Republicans are driven to act because they fear losing their conservative values, or they fear their community/state losing it. Libertarians tend to fear losing liberty.
My biggest concern is what is done at the federal level. The local and State level can decide on their own how they want to live their lives.

Classic Republicans and Libertarians should have nearly identical goals at the federal level. Unless I'm missing something.

[Truth Warrior]

The principles are near the same. Unfortunately, the Republicans tend to be less educated. They also have different ideas on how they want their local and State government ran. A libertarian typically would want a hands-off approach at the local level, whereas the Republican wants conservative their conservative way of life protected.
It seems sometimes that Republicans are driven to act because they fear losing their conservative values, or they fear their community/state losing it. Libertarians tend to fear losing liberty.
My biggest concern is what is done at the federal level. The local and State level can decide on their own how they want to live their lives.

Classic Republicans and Libertarians should have nearly identical goals at the federal level. Unless I'm missing something. I believe that you are on the correct track.

Thanks! :)

[LibertyEagle]

LE, I feel like I should be citing every PM you've ever sent me. :rolleyes:

LOL. I'm not a Libertarian and never said I was. :p Plus, I am a Moderator to carry out the forum guidelines on this PRIVATE PROPERTY called Ron Paul Forums. :)

[LibertyEagle]

The principles are near the same. Unfortunately, the Republicans tend to be less educated. They also have different ideas on how they want their local and State government ran. A libertarian typically would want a hands-off approach at the local level, whereas the Republican wants conservative their conservative way of life protected.
It seems sometimes that Republicans are driven to act because they fear losing their conservative values, or they fear their community/state losing it. Libertarians tend to fear losing liberty.
My biggest concern is what is done at the federal level. The local and State level can decide on their own how they want to live their lives.

Classic Republicans and Libertarians should have nearly identical goals at the federal level. Unless I'm missing something.

I also think this is pretty close.

[LibertyEagle]

I thought you were supposed to be some longtime guru in the Freedom Movement. If you have problems with the basic differences between Libertarian and libertarian, it does cause me to think that the wrong idea is not mine. :)

Noooooooooooo. No guru. In this for a long time, yes. But, we probably have a few differing principles, I'm guessing.

For the most party, I was kidding you though.

Note: Are you telling me that you don't think there is a difference between big "L" Libertarians and little "l" libertarians?

[Truth Warrior]

Noooooooooooo. No guru. In this for a long time, yes. But, we probably have a few differing principles, I'm guessing.

For the most party, I was kidding you though.

Note: Are you telling me that you don't think there is a difference between big "L" Libertarians and little "l" libertarians?
There are BIG differences.<IMHO> Big L is much closer to the Reps. It's just another political party. :p < yawn >

There is NO libertarian party, and never was. BTW, we do want our name back sometime. :D

[LibertyEagle]

There is NO libertarian party, and never was. BTW, we do want our name back sometime. :D

You'd better tell the people at the convention that there is nothing called the Libertarian Party. :rolleyes:

TW, libertarians, or libertarian-conservatives were at their height during the 60's with Goldwater. But, I don't exactly think you can say that they owned the Republican party. There were still plenty of big government Rockefeller-Republicans there.

[Truth Warrior]

You'd better tell the people at the convention that there is nothing called the Libertarian Party. :rolleyes:

TW, libertarians, or libertarian-conservatives were at their height during the 60's with Goldwater. But, I don't exactly think you can say that they owned the Republican party. There were still plenty of big government Rockefeller-Republicans there. Still just don't quite get the whole big "L", little "l" thing, do you?

Disgruntled, frustrated and discouraged limited government Republican conservatives formed another political party in the early 70's. They STOLE the name from the libertarians. Kind of like the socialists STOLE the name liberal from the Classical Liberals. And the leftist Neocons STOLE the name Conservative.

Get's pretty confusing, doesn't it? It's by design and is supposed to be confusing. :p

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -- Ronald Reagan ( 1975 )
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html
Note the small "l" in the above quote. :D

[LibertyEagle]

Still just don't quite get the whole big "L", little "l" thing, do you?



Possibly, but you did nothing to clear it up, either.

[Truth Warrior]

Possibly, but you did nothing to clear it up, either.
Well, actually I did try. :( Can't win 'em all.

"When the student is ready the teacher will appear." I ain't your teacher obviously, nor did I ever seek nor want the job.

Have a good day! :)

[LibertyEagle]

Well, try again if you want. Explain the differences between big "L" Libertarians and small "l" libertarians, from your point of view.

[wgadget]

She looks like she's going to cry...

[Truth Warrior]

Well, try again if you want. Explain the differences between big "L" Libertarians and small "l" libertarians, from your point of view.
Thread post # 43. That's it. You either get it or you don't. There's no shame in don't, BTW. It's not for everyone. :(

[LibertyEagle]

Thread post # 43. That's it. You either get it or you don't. There's no shame in don't, BTW. It's not for everyone. :(

LOL! Don't be so full of yourself. I know all about definitions changing. What you still haven't clarified is YOUR VIEW of how big "L" Libertarians differ from little "l" libertarians.

If you are unable to explain it, well, that's fine. (Two can play your game).

[garrettwombat]

our founding fathers were all traditional republicans... so whats the diffrence between that and libertarians...

the way i see it is that libertarians are republicans.

but im not talking about party here, im talking about ideology labeling..

im a republican but im not in the republican party.

[Truth Warrior]

The "Libertarian Party" just nominated a Republican for POTUS. No surprise there at all.

The libertarians have no political party nor nominate anyone for anything. Organizing libertarians is a lot like herding cats. :D

[Truth Warrior]

LOL! Don't be so full of yourself. I know all about definitions changing. What you still haven't clarified is YOUR VIEW of how big "L" Libertarians differ from little "l" libertarians.

If you are unable to explain it, well, that's fine. (Two can play your game). Big L supports state, and are statists. Little l opposes state and are libertarians.

Nolan chart. Top point in the chart, me, bottom point in the chart, "Big Brother". Diametrical opposites.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/NolanChart.gif

GOT IT? GEEZE. ( to borrow a recent phrase ) :D

[Matt Collins]

Look at the Nolan Chart to understand personal freedom vs economic freedom.... See http://www.nolanchart.com/


Some liberals want big government. Some conservatives want big government. Some liberals want small government. Some conservatives want small government. Usually it depends on the issue... a gross generalization would be that conservatives are authoritarian (big government) on personal issues and libertarian on economic issues while liberals are authoritarian on economic issues but libertarian on persona issues.

So don't just think of the political "spectrum" as a 1 dimensional left vs right concept. Think of it as a 2 dimensional left vs right vs big government vs small government.

For instance...



http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/NolanChart.gif

You can take the quiz to find out where you land on the chart here:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html








.






Sorry, but nope. Traditional conservatives (aka real conservatives) are for small government. The others are fakers. ie. they are not conservatives at all. One cannot be a conservative and be for big government. This is a total dichotomy.While I agree and understand what you are saying, it's kind of inaccurate.


The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are very muddled in their meaning these days. For example a classical liberal is actually libertarian, a far stretch from modern day liberalism.

The point is that you can have big government people on both sides of today's perceived political ideology "spectrum"