PDA

View Full Version : Would a libertarian society be conservative?




denison
11-10-2010, 09:18 AM
I think so for a number of reasons. Here are my reasons for the previous thread......

"In a society without government coercion and social engineering programs supported with high taxes, natual order would be dominent."

"Traditional family values and patriarchy would be standard. But with the absense of government force people have the option to do what they want. So there would still be people who lived out of the bounds of social norm."

""social liberalism" is supported through big government. you can not have a socially liberal society without massive social engineering by the government. In absense or the government, the concepts of reputation, honor and individual responsibility come into play."

"a productive libertarian society would be socially conservative for survival purposes. there's a reason why we teach manners, respect, and personal responsibilty..........because it leads to a respect for private property."

Sola_Fide
11-10-2010, 09:33 AM
"If a society were truly moral, a written constitution would hardly be neccessary."

-Ron Paul, End The Fed, pg.149

kkassam
11-10-2010, 09:57 AM
I think largely so. Of course, it would also be tolerant of many more alternative lifestyles, but in the main I agree with denison. The traditional societies and the more experimental ones could exist separately, with the former being more dominant. Cities would probably also have more diversity etc than other areas as they always have throughout history.

denison
11-10-2010, 11:59 AM
.........

denison
11-10-2010, 12:08 PM
posted by txaslftist

"Very good point. If welfare didn't make it practical to be a single mother, marriage would be much more the norm, and societal (not governmental) pressures would be much stronger to make marriage enduring and adultery much less tolerated. Who would approve of a father abandoning his kids to starvation and want? But under prevailing conditions, who can blame a mother for getting rid of a mate who "doesn't make her happy" when the survival of her kids doesn't depend on an intact marriage and she's going to get a check anyway?"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2976645&postcount=54

TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-10-2010, 12:16 PM
It will depend. I some areas it might a more liberal. Liberal doesn't have to mean more govt. They might be more libertine. In their area they might not mind people walking around smoking a joint, or having sex clubs, and head shops, where more conservative area might not have that type of stuff.

ChaosControl
11-10-2010, 12:18 PM
Maybe.

The boundary pushers that alter societal values would just do what they wanted to do. No big court battles, no TV nationalizing the news about it and so people just wouldn't pay attention to it.

You'd probably have conservative communities and liberal communities.

pcosmar
11-10-2010, 12:21 PM
I am inclined to say yes.

But,,define "conservative".

It seems to me that the meaning of that word has changed or how it is applied has.
;)

denison
11-10-2010, 12:27 PM
You'd probably have conservative communities and liberal communities.

agreed. i think the conservative ones will be dominant, though.

but in the liberal communities who would be paying for the paternity tests and drug rehab centers and all the other cost associated with social decay?


i think liberal communities, as a whole, would self-destruct faster without a larger pool of people to steal from(through taxation).

Live_Free_Or_Die
11-10-2010, 12:39 PM
"If a society were truly moral, a written constitution would hardly be neccessary."

-Ron Paul, End The Fed, pg.149

Can someone explain how evil souls are created so I can determine whether or not society is moral. Can someone explain if a soul is predetermined to be evil why evil souls be allowed to live for an opportunity of redemption?

If I am pure good and I create artificial intelligence would robots be immoral?
If I am pure good and I create artificial intelligence does that mean a society of robots can never exceed the abilities of their creator?

denison
11-10-2010, 12:40 PM
I am inclined to say yes.

But,,define "conservative".

It seems to me that the meaning of that word has changed or how it is applied has.
;)

conservative in social morals and conduct. the behavior between men and women would be more formal and traditional. social ostracism would have a large part in weeding out degenerates. people would get married and stay married. the concept of "alimony" would be non-existent. men would be responsible for the welfare of their children, not just by providing a check, but raising them. adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality would be looked down on etc....

TheHumblePhysicist
11-10-2010, 12:45 PM
I think that a society without a lot of government intervention requires that people have a certain "goodness" about them, so that most people are virtuous and good to one another, and moral principles are established by a general consensus among the population. People who didn't follow good moral practice would be ostracized or whipped into shape by some salty old war veteran with a badge and a sidearm. People would have a general moral integrity to them, so you could trust somebody if you looked them in the eye and shook their hand.

What does what I just described sound like to you? A religion. Religious communities provide the moral framework in which a free society can exist. So yes, such a society would be socially conservative.

You know, when people swore on the bible, that used to mean something.

denison
11-10-2010, 01:00 PM
I think that a society without a lot of government intervention requires that people have a certain "goodness" about them, so that most people are virtuous and good to one another, and moral principles are established by a general consensus among the population. People who didn't follow good moral practice would be ostracized or whipped into shape by some salty old war veteran with a badge and a sidearm. People would have a general moral integrity to them, so you could trust somebody if you looked them in the eye and shook their hand.

What does what I just described sound like to you? A religion. Religious communities provide the moral framework in which a free society can exist. So yes, such a society would be socially conservative.

You know, when people swore on the bible, that used to mean something.

^^This.

But it's important to realize that religion can be twisted for statist expansion.

But I do think that decentralized religion is good for organizing productive communities.

pcosmar
11-10-2010, 01:29 PM
I think that a society without a lot of government intervention requires that people have a certain "goodness" about them, so that most people are virtuous and good to one another, and moral principles are established by a general consensus among the population.
The Founders believe that Liberty could only be had and maintained by a moral people.
And they they could govern themselves.


People who didn't follow good moral practice would be ostracized or whipped into shape by some salty old war veteran with a badge and a sidearm.
:confused: What if I shoot the armed bastard rather than accept a "wippin'"?
Why would some war veteran be given a badge?
Morality can NOT be enforced or imposed.

What does what I just described sound like to you? A religion. Religious communities provide the moral framework in which a free society can exist. So yes, such a society would be socially conservative.
Sounds like Iran. Or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

This is why the Constitution is important. The Law. Not some nebulous idea of morality.
It protects the rights of all regardless of personal belief.


You know, when people swore on the bible, that used to mean something.
Only to those that had respect for the book in the first place.

I know many honest folks that neither believe or respect the bible. Their word is still good.
I have seen many "swear on the bible" while lying. Washington is full of them.

:(

Fox McCloud
11-10-2010, 01:46 PM
Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote about this in a few books; he tended to think that personal social conservatism would reign supreme, merely because of how society is structured---there would still be the "out there" groups, but they'd tend to be grouped together and "away" from "normal" society.

I'm not sure if that's exactly accurate, but given my experiences with people, I tend to agree.

acptulsa
11-10-2010, 01:48 PM
Maybe.

The boundary pushers that alter societal values would just do what they wanted to do. No big court battles, no TV nationalizing the news about it and so people just wouldn't pay attention to it.

You'd probably have conservative communities and liberal communities.

I agree.

But, progressive or not, it would sure be progress.

denison
11-10-2010, 01:50 PM
Like I said I don't think it needs to be force, just guidance and standards. Social ostacism, reputation, honor, respect, individual responsibility will be enough for most people to do the right thing.

The more freedom a person has the more responsible they become(for the most part). Or atleast they'll have pressure to become responsible in order to preserve those freedoms.

marc1888
11-10-2010, 01:57 PM
No

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

StilesBC
11-10-2010, 01:59 PM
The question doesn't make any sense.

A libertarian society would be... libertarian.

Fox McCloud
11-10-2010, 02:05 PM
The question doesn't make any sense.

A libertarian society would be... libertarian.

a libertarian society is merely one that doesn't use the government to hinder/disallow certain behaviors.


There are plenty of libertarians who have personally socially conservative views.

StilesBC
11-10-2010, 02:10 PM
a libertarian society is merely one that doesn't use the government to hinder/disallow certain behaviors.


There are plenty of libertarians who have personally socially conservative views.

They're conflicted. :rolleyes:

Dreamofunity
11-10-2010, 02:17 PM
In certain communities, but I think it will overall be more liberal on social issues.

denison
11-10-2010, 02:27 PM
In certain communities, but I think it will overall be more liberal on social issues.

i think the conservative ones will be dominant.

in the liberal communities who would be paying for the paternity tests and drug rehab centers and all the other cost associated with social decay?


i think liberal communities, as a whole, would self-destruct faster without a larger pool of people to steal from(through taxation).

Fox McCloud
11-10-2010, 03:04 PM
They're conflicted. :rolleyes:

not really; libertarianism is a philosophical and moral view on rights not necessarily personal views.

BuddyRey
11-10-2010, 03:12 PM
I don't think society would be any *one* thing under a libertarian system. That's the beauty of freedom; it allows a rich polyphony of thoughts, opinions, cultures, and values to coexist, even if they don't necessarily like eachother.

ChaosControl
11-10-2010, 03:14 PM
They're conflicted. :rolleyes:

No, I am not.

ChaosControl
11-10-2010, 03:15 PM
conservative in social morals and conduct. the behavior between men and women would be more formal and traditional. social ostracism would have a large part in weeding out degenerates. people would get married and stay married. the concept of "alimony" would be non-existent. men would be responsible for the welfare of their children, not just by providing a check, but raising them. adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality would be looked down on etc....

Can I live in this world? :)

silentshout
11-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Who knows? And what do you mean by conservative? Socially conservative? I don't think so, depending on the region, of course. Would the society require more personal responsibility? Yes. But social conservatism and personal responsibility are not the same things.

denison
11-10-2010, 03:30 PM
Can I live in this world? :)

we'd have to borrow marty's time machine, but i think it's out of gas. :( :p

djdellisanti4
11-10-2010, 03:38 PM
For the most part. There might be some higher drug use and people might be more open, but in general, society would be a lot more curtious and civil.

fisharmor
11-10-2010, 03:54 PM
For the most part. There might be some higher drug use and people might be more open, but in general, society would be a lot more curtious and civil.

Let's look at that drug use thing for a second.
Kids don't do drugs because drugs are some kind of social evil that brainwash our youth.
Kids do drugs because we imprison them for half of their waking hours, and for the other half there's nothing for them to do, unless they're immediately chained to a soccer ball or a cello.
Kids do drugs because their lives suck. Drugs are not the problem. Drugs (and sex) are a symptom.

Also, in a libertarian society people might be able to live in a house half the size of what they live in now, which is actually close to stuff to do (formerly called civilization) - and you might not need a car and half an hour of transit time to get to something more interesting than cable TV or the Xbox.
In a libertarian society, people who currently do drugs would have all sorts of other opportunities that might keep them busy.

Lord knows that if I didn't have my man-cave (shop) and neighbors understanding enough to tolerate my welding, I'd be doing a hell of a lot more drugs.

Dreamofunity
11-10-2010, 03:55 PM
i think the conservative ones will be dominant.

in the liberal communities who would be paying for the paternity tests and drug rehab centers and all the other cost associated with social decay?


i think liberal communities, as a whole, would self-destruct faster without a larger pool of people to steal from(through taxation).

I guess it depends on what we mean by liberal on social issues. I simply mean tolerable to other social opinions, not forcing others to pay for individual actions. For example, a private community with a contract stating you must not be gay, not do drugs, be in a commited monogamous relationship, etc to live there is completely valid, but I don't see how it would be any more dominant than the society which is socially tolerable of these issues, as long as they have the same economic system, and instead I would almost be tempted to say the opposite, given the one society prevents people from going there and associating with it.

I agree if people within the liberal community were forced to pay for other people, then it would decay faster, but only in an economic sense considering it simply wouldn't be that libertarian on the economic side. However, I believe in the absence of government (or at the very most, a government that enforced contracts and that's it) society would be much more liberal, or at least tolerable, on social issues. Look at today's youth, obviously not a good example on all fronts, but they tend to be more tolerable on social issues than previous generations. I don't think this trend would end given a libertarian society. I don't know a single libertarian under 25 that has any issue with gay/race/etc, whereas some older more paleoconservative libertarian types do, even if they wouldn't legislate against it.

So who would pay for costs of 'social decay'? - those individuals who decide to act in such manners.

I don't see how a society that is acceptant and tolerable, even encourages to a certain extent (the same as people encourage heterosexual marriage commitments today) of gay-marriage (or at least commited relationships, given the state would not be involved in marriage) is any worse off, and I would probably state the opposite for those that would condemn those individuals in their society would be less off. It's similar to that with a racist store owner (not that racism is equivilant with being against homosexual marriage but), if you prevent and limit who visits your business/society, you prevent ideas and money from going there.

For drugs, etc, obviously those in addiction are not beneficial for society, but I don't see drugs as a problem in itself, addiction is the problem. But I would say a society that is more tolerable, and accepts it as a medical problem of addiction and not a bad condemable action in itself would be better off. I personally wouldn't want to live in a society where I couldn't do what I pleased with my body on my own property, which if that was within the contract (ie: No drugs in our society), I'd consider it a viable contract if people wanted to live there under those conditions, I just wouldn't move there - and I don't even do drugs (other than alcohol, although that tends to be a conservative-acceptable drug).

I think Hoppe's argument is that conservative plan for long term (ie, drugs are pleasurable, but they're bad for your health in the long term so I don't do them; sex with multiple people/strangers is pleasurable, but bad for your health in the long run) where as liberals don't, which he then relates to economic investment and planning, and states therefore the conservatives would be better off. I haven't actually read his book, so I don't know if that's his actual argument, but I don't think that argument holds. I don't equate a specific social positions with economic ability, however I do equate social freedom to economic freedom. I don't think you can have one without the other. My body, my property, I do with it as I please, and can contract with any consenting adult.

I think this is all irrelevent though if we were given a truely libertarian society. Do what you want on your property and group with whomever you please, and I will do the same. That is the beauty of freedom.

EndDaFed
11-10-2010, 04:18 PM
It would have to be socially liberal because social conservatives deny evolution and libertarianism is social Darwinism. :D

Seraphim
11-10-2010, 04:20 PM
I think it would IN GENERAL be more on the side of STAUNCH fiscal conservatism and very socially adapative (liberal).

Let's not forget that CLASSICAL liberalism is founded on fiscal conservatism and free markets.

ChaosControl
11-10-2010, 04:36 PM
It would have to be socially liberal because social conservatives deny evolution and libertarianism is social Darwinism. :D

Not all of us do.

ChaosControl
11-10-2010, 04:37 PM
we'd have to borrow marty's time machine, but i think it's out of gas. :( :p

Well there is plenty of trash lying around, time to fill it up. :D

That or I'll just create my own reality.

Promontorium
11-10-2010, 04:52 PM
The fallacy is this idea of societies. If you admit each individual is in fact an individual, this question seems contradictory.

I could write a lot here but the point is simple. If people can get along, each person will be what they choose to be. I don't see people necessarily all shifting to one side. Each individual may choose to socially surround himself with people who are philosophically similar, and he may disregard the personal lives of people he works with, so long as personal life doesn't collide with professional.

How would it be any different than now? Except that now we force by gun, for people to behave certain ways, and people still "misbehave" so we fill prisons and graveyards with people the government disagrees with.

All I can imagine is that people will be happier, when they can take the world off their shoulders, stop voting with the power to ruin lives, stop fearing they'll come for you in the night, shoot your dog, and drag you away because you like to play poker, sniff powder, or to reference a recent event, cut somebody's hair.

Of course there may be changes in behavior or practice that reflect the new liberty, bums and welfare lovers will have to find new teats to suck, get jobs, or die. Hard working and intelligent people will finally be rewarded for their skills in many ways where before they'd be punished. This is what I meant by happier people. A welfare dependent, a non functioning drug addict, a bum, none of these people are "better off" being treated like babies. They might die if they aren't constantly monitored and supported, but they would certainly be happier people if they became self-sufficient. Dependency is a psychological destroyer. It is clearly an imbalance between mental and physical maintenance.

denison
11-10-2010, 06:18 PM
damn the score is almost even. :eek:

libertythor
11-10-2010, 06:20 PM
It depends on the semantics. I voted yes because of the general perception of conservatives that they say they don't want big government, but it can also be liberal because the idea of limited government has existed for a short period of time in human history and been realized in very few places.

tremendoustie
11-10-2010, 06:20 PM
"If a society were truly moral, a written constitution would hardly be neccessary."

-Ron Paul, End The Fed, pg.149

And if a society is not moral, a written constitution is ineffective.

tremendoustie
11-10-2010, 06:21 PM
The question is based on the flawed assumption that all of society must be homogenized. The answer is that some societies in the US would be conservative, and some would not.

Imaginos
11-10-2010, 06:26 PM
Who cares?
As long as they don't interrupt my privacy, I don't care whether its conservative or liberal.
I don't care about other people's life style.
Just leave me alone and that's all I want.

libertythor
11-10-2010, 06:29 PM
The question is based on the flawed assumption that all of society must be homogenized. The answer is that some societies in the US would be conservative, and some would not.

Under the states rights model "Federal Libertarianism" all political persuasions would be accommodated. Some states would be more like Europe's Socialist-leaning market economies and others would be freer ranging from "the way things are now" to places like Montana where libertarianism would also reign on the local level.

tremendoustie
11-10-2010, 06:40 PM
Under the states rights model "Federal Libertarianism" all political persuasions would be accommodated. Some states would be more like Europe's Socialist-leaning market economies and others would be freer ranging from "the way things are now" to places like Montana where libertarianism would also reign on the local level.

I wasn't thinking of government -- just culture, which is what I assumed the original question was addressing. Some cultures in some areas would have very strong religious elements, socially conservative conventions, generally strong heterosexual monogamous family units, etc. Others no doubt would not.

denison
11-10-2010, 06:50 PM
The question is based on the flawed assumption that all of society must be homogenized. The answer is that some societies in the US would be conservative, and some would not.

I'm talking about communities and even in the OP I acknowledged that both would exist.

I just think conservative communities would be more prevalent minus government coercion and social engineering.

tremendoustie
11-10-2010, 06:53 PM
I'm talking about communities and even in the OP I acknowledged that both would exist.

I just think conservative communities would be more prevalent minus government coercion and social engineering.

Just look at the total ratios of people in the country now, and there's your answer. Religious, socially conservative people aren't going to cease to be so. The only difference is that small communities full of mostly similar people would likely develop -- those with socially conservative preferences would be able to have the kind of society they want, and "anything goes" folks would likely form communities as well.

oyarde
11-10-2010, 07:04 PM
I think it would IN GENERAL be more on the side of STAUNCH fiscal conservatism and very socially adapative (liberal).

Let's not forget that CLASSICAL liberalism is founded on fiscal conservatism and free markets.

Pretty much my guess as well .

denison
11-10-2010, 07:30 PM
I think "anything goes" communities would self-destruct pretty quickly without government spoon feeding them money from productive members of society and shielding them from the consequence of their irresponsible behavior. Social darwinism at it's finest.

farrar
11-10-2010, 08:29 PM
I said yes, but it does depend on what some of you mean by community. Do you mean community like a town? or community like the Christian community, or the Muslim community, etc. Is it an idealistic/cultural community or a geographical one?

I would argue that while there maybe geographical communities... they would be very very small. Otherwise I take it to mean cultural. I think that social conservatism would dominate, but it would be met with smaller factions that all together would almost equal the socially conservative.

Your neighbors and bosses and friends and family could be socially liberal or conservative, or possibly some middle ground. It would all be rather mixed.

However there would still be separation in social circles, but not in day to day business or in a physical sense of separation.