Conservatism And Libertarianism: No Need For Conflict [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Conservatism And Libertarianism: No Need For Conflict

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 05:55 PM

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 05:59 PM

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 06:04 PM

Ronin Truth

11-09-2013, 06:09 PM

http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2013/11/09/social-conservatism-and-libertarianism-no-need-for-conflict/

I wrote this and am curious if most RPFer's agree. I am sure more on here do than on RS, but I gotta keep working on them.

"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."-- Ronald Reagan

Feeding the Abscess

11-09-2013, 06:11 PM

I'm still reading it, but right off the start, I think you should be careful to call it social conservatism, rather than just conservatism. Because traditional conservatism, paleoconservatism, isn't at all about using government to tell others how to live their lives. If those lives are not infringing on the liberty of another.

It is the paleoconservatives who share a lot with libertarians. Social "conservatives", not so much, as they are apparently quite willing to use government force to cram their own agenda down everyone else's throats. They don't seem to realize that this same government that they are responsible for growing to do their cramming, can then be used by their enemies to cram agendas they hate down THEIR throats. In as much, social "conservatives" do not seem to walk their talk when they say they support the Constitution. Because they appear to not be for states' rights as highlighted in the 10th Amendment; nor do they appear to believe in the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

That, and many aspects of the social conservative agenda lead to growth in the welfare state. So not only does social conservatism fail because it can be swung in the opposite direction by social liberals (it's also wrong to legislate morality), it fails because it directly contradicts their stated positions on the welfare state.

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 06:14 PM

"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."-- Ronald Reagan

At the core, I think I agree. But I feel we have to separate the two before we can put them together, if that makes sense.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-09-2013, 06:20 PM

Sorry, but liberty minded people and conservatives are qualitatively different. I know it about 3 minutes into a conversation.

Guitarzan

11-09-2013, 06:38 PM

Sorry, but liberty minded people and conservatives are qualitatively different. I know it about 3 minutes into a conversation.

I agree. The issues where I disagree with conservatives are just as important to me as where I disagree with liberals. So why associate, politically, with either?

Both groups, in general, disgust me. :D

Origanalist

11-09-2013, 06:40 PM

That, and many aspects of the social conservative agenda lead to growth in the welfare state. So not only does social conservatism fail because it can be swung in the opposite direction by social liberals (it's also wrong to legislate morality), it fails because it directly contradicts their stated positions on the welfare state.

"Compassionate conservatism"

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-09-2013, 07:00 PM

Both groups, in general, disgust me. :D

:D

I like your attitude and tone. I don't know how all this rep stuff works, but anybody who makes me laugh these days is good for a rep.

Voluntarist

11-09-2013, 07:13 PM

xxxxx

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 07:17 PM

Sorry, but liberty minded people and conservatives are qualitatively different. I know it about 3 minutes into a conversation.

Not really. I am a conservative.

Don't forget that Ron Paul has been the poster boy for the JBS since he first went to Congress. They are largely paleocons.

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 07:21 PM

There is a lot of overlap folks, between paleocons and libertarians. As long as we are working to reinstate the Constitution, we should be able to work together.

Ender

11-09-2013, 07:28 PM

Sorry, but liberty minded people and conservatives are qualitatively different. I know it about 3 minutes into a conversation.

As my grandfather was known to say:

Conservative means small government. Be conservative in politics; in all else be liberal.

This was when conservative actually meant small government and liberal meant securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 07:31 PM

As my grandfather was known to say:

Conservative means small government. Be conservative in politics; in all else be liberal.

This was when conservative actually meant small government and liberal meant securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

Your grandfather was a wise man.

tod evans

11-09-2013, 07:36 PM

I refuse to pigeonhole myself into any political organization, no sooner than I agree with one aspect somebody spouts off another I disagree with.

lib3rtarian

11-09-2013, 07:41 PM

Now just called: Conservatism And Libertarianism: No Need For Conflict

http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2013/11/09/social-conservatism-and-libertarianism-no-need-for-conflict/

I wrote this and am curious if most RPFer's agree. I am sure more on here do than on RS, but I gotta keep working on them.

It's very simple. I, as a libertarian, won't tolerate laws which impose someone else's Bible-thumping on me. This includes where they stand on abortion, marriage, drugs, prostitution etc. The so-called "conservatives" want to do exactly that - make laws which impose their Bible-thumping on me, ergo, these two lines cannot meet. If I want to lead a deviant, sinful life, I should be able to do that, as long as I don't hurt others. It's no one elses' business. I do not care about your Bible and I do not care about your Jesus.

Now, if one is super conservative and goody-two shoes in their personal life, but takes no effort to codify any of that into a law, that person is alright with me. But this is not who a conservative is, in today's America. This person would already be what we would call a libertarian.

So please explain to me where you see the overlap between conservatives and libertarians.

Brett85

11-09-2013, 07:43 PM

It is the paleoconservatives who share a lot with libertarians. Social "conservatives", not so much, as they are apparently quite willing to use government force to cram their own agenda down everyone else's throats.

What issues are you talking about, specifically?

ClydeCoulter

11-09-2013, 07:43 PM

I refuse to pigeonhole myself into any political organization, no sooner than I agree with one aspect somebody spouts off another I disagree with.

Oh, so you're a contrarianist :D

Brett85

11-09-2013, 07:44 PM

It's very simple. I, as a libertarian, won't tolerate laws which impose someone else's Bible-thumping on me. This includes where they stand on abortion, marriage, drugs, prostitution etc.

Then why do you support Ron Paul? He's strongly pro life.

Also, aren't liberals/progressives mostly in favor of drug laws and laws against prostitution? It really isn't just social conservatives who are the "Bible thumpers" and support laws against those things. The polls show that only like 5-10% of the American people support legalizing hard drugs, which would include opposition from a lot of liberals and Democrats.

heavenlyboy34

11-09-2013, 07:47 PM

The very concept of human liberty is from the radical left. That's why people have to fight revolutions to get it (usually violently, but sometimes not so much). I generally like American Old Right, though. They borrowed heavily from the Classical Liberals of Olde. One thing I like about a handful of the FFs is they understood the necessity and inevitbility of a new revolution every generation-that the regime will always seek more power at the expense of liberty.

tod evans

11-09-2013, 07:48 PM

Oh, so you're a contrarianist :D

Curmudgeonist...

Henry Rogue

11-09-2013, 07:50 PM

Conservatism: Belief in the preservation of social institutions.

Liberalism: Belief in the change of social institutions.
@ TaftFan, What is your definition of social institutions, just to be clear?

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 07:50 PM

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 07:51 PM

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 07:58 PM

Brett85

11-09-2013, 07:58 PM

I don't agree that paleocons aren't socially conservative. The Constitution Party is a paleo-conservative party, and they're more socially conservative than the Republican Party.

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 07:59 PM

I don't agree that paleocons aren't socially conservative. The Constitution Party is a paleo-conservative party, and they're more socially conservative than the Republican Party.

It depends upon whether they want to legislate their beliefs, in my opinion, and at what level.

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 07:59 PM

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 08:07 PM

@ TaftFan, What is your definition of social institutions, just to be clear?

Values, morals, ethics, customs, religion, etc. You could also expand into entertainment/leisure as well.

I do mention that government (or laws) is one as well, however for my purposes it needed to be separated in order to understand the concept better.

If you think about it, all of the social sciences are interconnected in some way. Sociology, psychology, economics, politics...but they have to be broken down in order to understand each. I would say sociology really encompasses the rest.

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 08:11 PM

It depends upon whether they want to legislate their beliefs, in my opinion, and at what level.

In terms of my (I use that loosely, I'm sure someone else has come up with the same) model, would you view the Constitution Party as more conservative-libertarian or conservative-authoritarian?

lib3rtarian

11-09-2013, 08:12 PM

The people you are describing are, based on the paradigm I made, conservative authoritarians.

This is what most conservatives are. Hence my argument. You make it sound like "conservative authoritarians" are a small group of people who give other conservatives a bad name. That's not true. These conservative authoritarians are 95% of who calls themselves conservatives. For all practical purposes, they are one and the same.

Abortion is harming another. Other than that, I don't think the federal government has any place in the other issues. But, protecting life, yes.

I understand the disagreement on abortion, and I disagree with a lot of libertarians on that. My refusal to stop abortion is not because I like abortion, because I have serious issues with using the force of the State to force a woman and her family to do things they don't want to. I refuse to interfere with the lives of others. So let's leave the abortion discussion at that.

We are going to disagree on this, I'm sure, but I am not against local ordinances against for example, prostitution, within city boundaries. We were intended to have a bunch of mostly independent republics. If you don't like the laws in one, use your feet to move to another.
Do I have an issue if Butthole City, Montana decides to make say, eating salmon illegal? I don't agree with the idea, but I don't care, because that's up to them to decide. Do I have an issue if you are in my city and decide that prostitution is illegal and lobby to make it a law? Of course. You can't call yourself a libertarian then, because you are not honoring contracts between consenting adults.

Paleocons want a limited constitutional government. They want the government out of their lives and for the most part, want nothing to do with it. They want fiscal responsibility in government, they believe in the enumerated powers in the Constitution and believe the federal government should be constrained to that, they believe in a strong national defense (not offense), property rights, personal privacy, capitalism, and individual liberty.

So, pretty much what Ron Paul believes.

Ron Paul's positions gels with mine, almost down to a T. This also includes abortion. While I am generally pro-choice, I also think it's a state issue and so would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, like RP. At the state/local level, I give more weightage to fiscal issues, so unless the candidate is rubbing abortion in my face, I'll support him if everything else is fine. If a candidate makes banning abortions his/her main campaign issue, then I'll likely vote against him/her. I also don't support taxpayer-funded abortions.

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 08:17 PM

This is what most conservatives are. Hence my argument. You make it sound like "conservative authoritarians" are a small group of people who give other conservatives a bad name. That's not true. These conservative authoritarians are 95% of who calls themselves conservatives. For all practical purposes, they are one and the same.

If we define conservative as supporting traditional Christian values/historical European customs, sure there are a lot of conservative-authoritarians but a lot of conservative-libertarians as well, including myself and others on this forum.

lib3rtarian

11-09-2013, 08:29 PM

If we define conservative as supporting traditional Christian values/historical European customs, sure there are a lot of conservative-authoritarians but a lot of conservative-libertarians as well, including myself and others on this forum.

I don't really get your label "conservative-libertarian". Do you think morality should be legislated? Yes or No? If yes, then you are a conservative. If no, you are a libertarian (of course, provided you also satisfy the other fiscal criteria). Why do you say conservative-libertarian? Is it just to indicate that you are conservative in your personal life? Why do I care about it?

Brett85

11-09-2013, 08:30 PM

It depends upon whether they want to legislate their beliefs, in my opinion, and at what level.

Well, it depends on how you define that. Do they want to force everyone to attend a certain church that they support? Absolutely not. But, they're pro life, pro traditional marriage, anti pornography, anti prostitution, etc. Although short of a Constitutional amendment, they would want those issues handled at the state and local levels.

Brett85

11-09-2013, 08:35 PM

I don't really get your label "conservative-libertarian". Do you think morality should be legislated? Yes or No? If yes, then you are a conservative. If no, you are a libertarian (of course, provided you also satisfy the other fiscal criteria). Why do you say conservative-libertarian? Is it just to indicate that you are conservative in your personal life? Why do I care about it?

Answering that question myself, I don't believe that immorality should be criminalized, but I think morality should be promoted. So it's hard for me to label myself as either a libertarian or a conservative, because I really disagree with both groups. Anymore I just call myself a "Constitutionalist" or something similar to that.

lib3rtarian

11-09-2013, 08:42 PM

Answering that question myself, I don't believe that immorality should be criminalized, but I think morality should be promoted. So it's hard for me to label myself as either a libertarian or a conservative, because I really disagree with both groups. Anymore I just call myself a "Constitutionalist" or something similar to that.

Promoted how? Using government force and taxpayer money? If yes, then you are in the earlier group I called conservatives. If you are talking about privately funded awareness campaigns, that's fine with me. Knock yourself out. I think the best way to promote morality is to lead a good moral life yourself and set an example to others. That's what your kids see when they grow up. No amount of laws can replace this.

Brett85

11-09-2013, 08:48 PM

Promoted how? Using government force and taxpayer money? If yes, then you are in the earlier group I called conservatives. If you are talking about privately funded awareness campaigns, that's fine with me. Knock yourself out. I think the best way to promote morality is to lead a good moral life yourself and set an example to others. That's what your kids see when they grow up. No amount of laws can replace this.

Let me explain. I'm opposed to laws that put people in prison for engaging in non violent activities. So I'm not in favor of putting people in prison for things like drug use and prostitution. And when it comes to something like marriage, I wouldn't ever support sending in a SWAT team to break up a marriage ceremony and send two gay people to prison for getting married. At the same time, we have a marriage amendment in my state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and I support that. That law doesn't criminalize immorality in any way. It simply defines marriage as what it is, a union between a man and a woman, thus promoting a moral union between two people. An immoral union like homosexuality shouldn't be criminalized by the government in any way, but it also shouldn't be given any legal recognition at all and given any legitimacy.

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 08:57 PM

I don't really get your label "conservative-libertarian". Do you think morality should be legislated? Yes or No? If yes, then you are a conservative. If no, you are a libertarian (of course, provided you also satisfy the other fiscal criteria). Why do you say conservative-libertarian? Is it just to indicate that you are conservative in your personal life? Why do I care about it?

Correct. Conservative/liberal describes lifestyle, while libertarian/authoritarian describes politics.

I wrote the post because people were objecting to libertarians, asserting they either had no values or liberal values. That is not necessarily the case.

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 09:11 PM

Ron Paul's positions gels with mine, almost down to a T. This also includes abortion. While I am generally pro-choice, I also think it's a state issue and so would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, like RP. At the state/local level, I give more weightage to fiscal issues, so unless the candidate is rubbing abortion in my face, I'll support him if everything else is fine. If a candidate makes banning abortions his/her main campaign issue, then I'll likely vote against him/her. I also don't support taxpayer-funded abortions.

Apparently not.

You don't understand Ron Paul's position. He was for a constitutional amendment to abolish it. Remember he believed that one of the federal government's legitimate roles was to protect life.

But, until that could be done, the best course of action was to first overturn Roe v. Wade and have the states do their thing.

FrankRep

11-09-2013, 09:19 PM

Ron Paul's positions gels with mine, almost down to a T. This also includes abortion. While I am generally pro-choice, I also think it's a state issue and so would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, like RP.

H.R.1096 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1096)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.

===

It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 2&6-7 (http://tinyurl.com/m4c8gmg)

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 09:24 PM

Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

lib3rtarian

11-09-2013, 09:30 PM

Let me explain. I'm opposed to laws that put people in prison for engaging in non violent activities. So I'm not in favor of putting people in prison for things like drug use and prostitution. And when it comes to something like marriage, I wouldn't ever support sending in a SWAT team to break up a marriage ceremony and send two gay people to prison for getting married. At the same time, we have a marriage amendment in my state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and I support that. That law doesn't criminalize immorality in any way. It simply defines marriage as what it is, a union between a man and a woman, thus promoting a moral union between two people. An immoral union like homosexuality shouldn't be criminalized by the government in any way, but it also shouldn't be given any legal recognition at all and given any legitimacy.

OK, so you do advocate for the use of government force and taxpayer resources to enforce your morality on others. Congrats, you are a social conservative.

Correct. Conservative/liberal describes lifestyle, while libertarian/authoritarian describes politics.

I wrote the post because people were objecting to libertarians, asserting they either had no values or liberal values. That is not necessarily the case.

Conservatism, Liberalism & Libertarianism are political philosophies. Any dictionary or encyclopedia will tell you that. To your whole point, very specifically, there is no overlap between the _political_ philosophies of social conservatism and libertarianism. Being conservative/liberal/nice/awesome in your personal life is irrelevant. People who want to legislate morality cannot overlap with people who don't want to legislate morality.

Feeding the Abscess

11-09-2013, 09:31 PM

FrankRep

11-09-2013, 09:35 PM

36:51 mark says he doesn't want a federal law, doesn't want an amendment to the constitution. His constitutional amendment idea was always a proper solution to the issue constitutionally, not necessarily his personal view.

Well yeah, Murder is not a federal issue, it's a state issue. Ron Paul doesn't want murder legalized on a federal level.

lib3rtarian

11-09-2013, 09:37 PM

Apparently not.

You don't understand Ron Paul's position. He was for a constitutional amendment to abolish it. Remember he believed that one of the federal government's legitimate roles was to protect life.

But, until that could be done, the best course of action was to first overturn Roe v. Wade and have the states do their thing.

Really? A constitutional amendment to ban abortions at the federal level? Link me. If he had this position, I oppose it as it usurps states' rights. I was under the impression that he wanted to strip the power of the supreme court over abortions, thus automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and give that decision to the states.

H.R.1096 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1096)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.

===

It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 2&6-7 (http://tinyurl.com/m4c8gmg)

Is this meant to disprove my point or something? This agrees with what I know of his position.

bolil

11-09-2013, 09:41 PM

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 09:42 PM

Conservatism, Liberalism & Libertarianism are political philosophies. Any dictionary or encyclopedia will tell you that. To your whole point, very specifically, there is no overlap between the _political_ philosophies of social conservatism and libertarianism. Being conservative/liberal/nice/awesome in your personal life is irrelevant. People who want to legislate morality cannot overlap with people who don't want to legislate morality.

Right. I am saying there is a labeling problem. People apply these terms so loosely that eventually they have no core meaning that anyone recognizes. The paradigm needs to change.

Feeding the Abscess

11-09-2013, 09:44 PM

Well yeah, Murder is not a federal issue, it's a state issue. Ron Paul doesn't want murder legalized on a federal level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EsMMkiEgQs

He rejects federalization of the issue numerous times in this debate. He even rejected the questioner's suggestion that if a state legalized abortion the federal government should and has the constitutional authority to step in.

FrankRep

11-09-2013, 09:46 PM

He rejects federalization of the issue numerous times in this debate. He even rejected the questioner's suggestion that if a state legalized abortion the federal government should and has the constitutional authority to step in.

I just said that Murder is not a federal issue.

Feeding the Abscess

11-09-2013, 09:49 PM

I just said that Murder is not a federal issue.

I think I meant to post that in response to LE, who was intimating that Ron Paul wanted the federal government to police abortions.

Brett85

11-09-2013, 09:52 PM

OK, so you do advocate for the use of government force and taxpayer resources to enforce your morality on others. Congrats, you are a social conservative.

1) How so? I never advocated using any kind of force on anyone for engaging in any activity.
2) Are social conservatives also in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution, like I am?

Brett85

11-09-2013, 09:56 PM

36:51 mark says he doesn't want a federal law, doesn't want an amendment to the constitution. His constitutional amendment idea was always a proper solution to the issue constitutionally, not necessarily his personal view.

That's contrary to things that he said at other times, pledges he took, and legislation he introduced. He's introduced a human life amendment to the Constitution in the past.

Christian Liberty

11-09-2013, 09:56 PM

It's very simple. I, as a libertarian, won't tolerate laws which impose someone else's Bible-thumping on me. This includes where they stand on abortion, marriage, drugs, prostitution etc. The so-called "conservatives" want to do exactly that - make laws which impose their Bible-thumping on me, ergo, these two lines cannot meet. If I want to lead a deviant, sinful life, I should be able to do that, as long as I don't hurt others. It's no one elses' business. I do not care about your Bible and I do not care about your Jesus.

I agree with that, but I honestly don't see how your pro-choice stance fits with this. Are you denying that life biologically begins at conception, or something else?

And while I despise government as much as anyone (I support replacing all traditional "government" with free market forces because I believe all taxation is theft and to prohibit someone from hiring their own police force would be an act of aggression, etc.) I don't see how fear of government is an argument here. If there was a law proposed to legalize infanticide, would you say that it should be legalized because you "Fear having government involved with parenting decisions" or something like that? Of course not.

As for marriage... I tend to agree that anyone who actually wants traditional marriage codified in any way in their "ideal situation" is a conservative and not a libertarian, at least on that issue (I do think if you deviate from libertarianism on only one or two issues, depending on how major those issues are, it doesn't necessarily make you not libertarian, although I understand that this is subjective to some degree.) So basically, I'd say anyone who does not ultimately support getting the government out of the marriage issue is ultimately being unlibertarian on that issue. But among those who do in fact want government out of the issue, I think its acceptable to debate whether or not expanding marriage to include "gay marriage" is actually a logical step to take in that direction or not while still being within the libertarian tent, if that makes sense.

Now, if one is super conservative and goody-two shoes in their personal life, but takes no effort to codify any of that into a law, that person is alright with me. But this is not who a conservative is, in today's America. This person would already be what we would call a libertarian.

Does it bother you if a person is strongly Christian and tells you that if you don't accept Christ you'll go to Hell, yet makes no effort to outlaw your lifestyle in any way?

So please explain to me where you see the overlap between conservatives and libertarians.

Traditional Conservative is a pretty good example. You see a clear, obvious mix between conservative and libertarian positions. Chuck Baldwin would be another example. Although I wouldn't call either of them "libertarians" in the strictest sense of that word, they aren't red-state fascists either, in fact, they are closer to us than they are to them.

The word "conservative" is used to mean everything under the sun, and "libertarian" is often mistaken to mean pro-choice in certain Christian circles, so I won't use either term without some qualification. But I absolutely would fit as "libertarian" politically if you recognize that some libertarians hold that abortion is an NAP violation. I would probably prefer to identify as anarcho-capitalist though, its more specific.

Also, aren't liberals/progressives mostly in favor of drug laws and laws against prostitution? It really isn't just social conservatives who are the "Bible thumpers" and support laws against those things. The polls show that only like 5-10% of the American people support legalizing hard drugs, which would include opposition from a lot of liberals and Democrats.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "liberal." I've been on forums with hardcore liberals, most of them support legalizing prostitution, although probably with regulations like in some European countries, and they were generally in favor of pot legalization as well. I'd presume most, although not all "liberals" would support that but likely oppose harder drug legalization.

That said, they really only support the "libertine" aspects of libertarianism, they hate the rest of it. Chuck Baldwin and yourself are both far closer to libertarianism than any of them.

Abortion is harming another. Other than that, I don't think the federal government has any place in the other issues. But, protecting life, yes.

I know other people have answered this, but I don't think you have. Why does the Federal govt. have any jurisdiction over abortion? I get the state governments, I can agree with that (At least as long as governments continue to exist, which I would ultimately like to phase out) but I don't see why the Feds would have any jurisdiction there at all.

We are going to disagree on this, I'm sure, but I am not against local ordinances against for example, prostitution, within city boundaries. We were intended to have a bunch of mostly independent republics. If you don't like the laws in one, use your feet to move to another.

It depends on what you mean by "against." If you mean that you wouldn't impose prostitution legalization on a local community through a higher government, than I agree with you on that. Reformation should always be from the ground up, not from the top down. And as you say, if the decisions are left to local communities than its easier to switch communities than to switch countries. So if by "Don't have an issue with" you only mean that you wouldn't impose prostitution legalization from a higher level on a lower level, than I agree with you on that.

On the other hand, if you mean that you are actually OK with outlawing prostitution at the local level or would view the enforcement of such a law as being morally neutral or acceptable, I don't agree with that. Its still wrong to impose such laws, even if the behavior is also wrong (For Christians I would cite 1 Corinthians 5 to prove this point) and even if overturning the law from the top down is the wrong way to fix it.

Personally though, as long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's liberty but your own, I don't care what you do.

Legally I agree with this. Personally I care, but not legally. If someone is engaging in prostitution, if they are "Of the world" (I should note that I include any "Christian" organizations that either teach works-salvation or deny Christ's divinity as being just as of the world as Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) I'll tell them that they are a sinner and to trust in Christ for their salvation. I would not use government force against them, which would be completely unloving. On the other hand, if they were claiming to be Christians, and professing the true gospel at least on a surface level, I'd go through the Matthew 18 procedure as needed.

But in neither case would I ever support government involvement.

Hhmmm.. I've seen libertarians differ quite a lot too. What you aren't acknowledging is that libertarianism is not something that only the people calling themselves libertarian, believe in.

Keep in mind that some of the more radical libertarians, including myself, don't want any central government at all. So while the going back to the constitution is certainly a starting point, and a mighty good starting point at that, its actually the ideal for a paleocon, whereas ancaps would want to keep shrinking the government smaller and smaller, eventually to nothing. Minarchists and paleocons are somewhere between the two.

Mind you, I agree that people like me can work with paleocons, but then, I'm personally a conservative Christian so I don't have the same level of passion for the more "libertine" parts of libertarianism, when compared to the other aspects of libertarianism, when compared to some others.

Paleocons want a limited constitutional government. They want the government out of their lives and for the most part, want nothing to do with it. They want fiscal responsibility in government, they believe in the enumerated powers in the Constitution and believe the federal government should be constrained to that, they believe in a strong national defense (not offense), private property rights, personal privacy, capitalism, and individual liberty.

Just out of curiosity, do you think ALL of the powers given to the Feds in the Constitution (Even ignoring the later amendments) were a good idea? Do you see any reason we need a Federal post office? Do you agree with the necessary and proper clause? That habeus corpus can ever be suspended?

So, pretty much what Ron Paul believes.

Close enough;)

In terms of my (I use that loosely, I'm sure someone else has come up with the same) model, would you view the Constitution Party as more conservative-libertarian or conservative-authoritarian?

I'd certainly view Chuck Baldwin as more of a libertarian conservative, but I don't know about the party in general. I certainly prefer their platform over the GOP platform.

This is what most conservatives are. Hence my argument. You make it sound like "conservative authoritarians" are a small group of people who give other conservatives a bad name. That's not true. These conservative authoritarians are 95% of who calls themselves conservatives. For all practical purposes, they are one and the same.

People don't really fit into those neat little boxes of yours. What do you do with somebody who supports a Federal ban on abortion, and state-level bans on prostitution, and gay marriage, yet also supports legalizing all drugs, opposes the "War on Terror" surveilance, and supports tax rates of under 10%. Authoritarians or libertarians? What do you do with them exactly?

Where would you pigeonhole something like Chuck Baldwin?

Mind you, I happen to agree that the majority of people who call themselves "conservative" (note that I mean this in general, not on this forum) are in fact authoritarian, but this isn't as simple as you make it. There are a couple of complete voluntarists here who still call themselves "Conservative" for rhetorical reasons or whatnot.

I understand the disagreement on abortion, and I disagree with a lot of libertarians on that. My refusal to stop abortion is not because I like abortion, because I have serious issues with using the force of the State to force a woman and her family to do things they don't want to. I refuse to interfere with the lives of others. So let's leave the abortion discussion at that.

What about infanticide? Are you consistent enough to legalize infanticide?

I don't really get your label "conservative-libertarian". Do you think morality should be legislated? Yes or No? If yes, then you are a conservative. If no, you are a libertarian (of course, provided you also satisfy the other fiscal criteria). Why do you say conservative-libertarian? Is it just to indicate that you are conservative in your personal life? Why do I care about it?

Again, its not always that simple.

Answering that question myself, I don't believe that immorality should be criminalized, but I think morality should be promoted. So it's hard for me to label myself as either a libertarian or a conservative, because I really disagree with both groups. Anymore I just call myself a "Constitutionalist" or something similar to that.

That's fair.

Let me explain. I'm opposed to laws that put people in prison for engaging in non violent activities. So I'm not in favor of putting people in prison for things like drug use and prostitution. And when it comes to something like marriage, I wouldn't ever support sending in a SWAT team to break up a marriage ceremony and send two gay people to prison for getting married. At the same time, we have a marriage amendment in my state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and I support that. That law doesn't criminalize immorality in any way. It simply defines marriage as what it is, a union between a man and a woman, thus promoting a moral union between two people. An immoral union like homosexuality shouldn't be criminalized by the government in any way, but it also shouldn't be given any legal recognition at all and given any legitimacy.

Should a "gay marriage" contract have the same rights as any other contract?

If there was hypothetically a civil union that could be passed that gave gay "couples" those benefits that are compatible with libertarianism (For example, the tax breaks) but not those benefits that were not (Such as extra entitlements) would you have opposed it?

Apparently not.

You don't understand Ron Paul's position. He was for a constitutional amendment to abolish it. Remember he believed that one of the federal government's legitimate roles was to protect life.

But, until that could be done, the best course of action was to first overturn Roe v. Wade and have the states do their thing.

A constitutional amendment is one thing. But some of what Ron did without a constitutional amendment, such as the partial birth abortion ban law, was clearly unconstitutional, and honestly, I don't really see how half-hearted measures like that help much either. Part of me thinks its just a way of making abortion more socially acceptable, which doesn't help.

heavenlyboy34

11-09-2013, 09:57 PM

For your reading/listening pleasure:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
For A New Liberty

The Libertarian Manifesto

Murray N. Rothbard

Skip to Table of Contents (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#contents)
Hyperlink Formatting Information (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#hyperlinking)
Full book in PDF (http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf)
Full book in MP3 (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)
Order from the bookstore (Hardcover) (http://mises.org/store/For-A-New-Liberty-P301.aspx)
Order from the bookstore (MP3 CD) (http://mises.org/store/For-a-New-Liberty-MP3-CD-P432.aspx)
Support Mises.org's online texts (https://mises.org/donate.aspx)

See especially chapter 1:
The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism (http://mises.org/media/1691/1-The-Libertarian-Heritage-The-American-Revolution-and-Classical-Liberalism)

Southron

11-09-2013, 10:01 PM

I like what Russell Kirk had to say about conservatism. It is more to me than mere political ideology.

The conservative is concerned, first of all, with the regeneration of the spirit and character—with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest. - Russell Kirk

Feeding the Abscess

11-09-2013, 10:02 PM

That's contrary to things that he said at other times, pledges he took, and legislation he introduced. He's introduced a human life amendment to the Constitution in the past.

It seems to me that those were instances of him meeting pro-life groups and showing them a constitutional way of moving forward with the issue. For instance, he introduced an anti-flag burning amendment and Iraq war declaration.

Brett85

11-09-2013, 10:04 PM

If there was hypothetically a civil union that could be passed that gave gay "couples" those benefits that are compatible with libertarianism (For example, the tax breaks) but not those benefits that were not (Such as extra entitlements) would you have opposed it?

I'm not sure. I think "civil unions" as they are defined today are basically just marriage without the label, so I don't really see the point of that. But I suppose if two people of the same sex want to enter into a contract to divide up land and other similar things, then that's probably all right with me. That wouldn't necessarily have to be a sexual thing. You could just have two sisters living together who want to enter into a contract to have certain benefits and certain legal arrangements.

heavenlyboy34

11-09-2013, 10:05 PM

I like what Russell Kirk had to say about conservatism. It is more to me than mere political ideology.
Sounds like an outgrowth of classical liberalism, not what conservatism is typically "about".

FrankRep

11-09-2013, 10:06 PM

That's contrary to things that he said at other times, pledges he took, and legislation he introduced. He's introduced a human life amendment to the Constitution in the past.

What's the bill number of the Constitutional Amendment?

I know of the "Sanctity of Life Act" by Ron Paul, but that's not a constitutional Amendment.

Brett85

11-09-2013, 10:12 PM

What's the bill number of the Constitutional Amendment?

I know of the "Sanctity of Life Act" by Ron Paul, but that's not a constitutional Amendment.

I read that he introduced it earlier in his career, and I remember reading emails from Rand that said that Ron had been in favor of such an amendment. I can't find a link for it right now though. But this is the pledge that he signed, which contained language calling for a human life amendment.

"The pledge requires that the candidates “stand…with the Republican Party platform in affirming that [they] “support a human life amendment to the Constitution."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/12/prweb9064707.htm

FrankRep

11-09-2013, 10:13 PM

Sounds like an outgrowth of classical liberalism, not what conservatism is typically "about".

Russell Kirk practically started the Post-WWII traditional Conservative movement.

Russell Kirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk) (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post–World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief proponent of traditionalist conservatism.

Henry Rogue

11-09-2013, 10:14 PM

Values, morals, ethics, customs, religion, etc. You could also expand into entertainment/leisure as well.

I do mention that government (or laws) is one as well, however for my purposes it needed to be separated in order to understand the concept better.

If you think about it, all of the social sciences are interconnected in some way. Sociology, psychology, economics, politics...but they have to be broken down in order to understand each. I would say sociology really encompasses the rest. I guess I would summarize that as culture, maybe I'm using that term incorrectly.

Conservatism: Belief in the preservation of social institutions.

Liberalism: Belief in the change of social institutions.
So, basically your describing Reactionary vs Radical (as I learned it in high school) in your quote. What happens when the radical becomes the Status quo? Doesn't the reactionary become the radical and vice versa? And what if ones concern isn't with social institutions, but rather state institutions, whether it's preservation or change, what are they called?

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 10:17 PM

I guess I would summarize that as culture, maybe I'm using that term incorrectly.

So, basically your describing Reactionary vs Radical (as I learned it in high school) in your quote. What happens when the radical becomes the Status quo? Doesn't the reactionary become the radical and vice versa? And what if ones concern isn't with social institutions, but rather state institutions, whether it's preservation or change, what are they called?

You know, culture is the better term. Good call. I suppose using society kind of messes up my premise if you think about it.

I think the whole reactionary vs. radical aspect all depends on what time frame you are viewing things from.

Henry Rogue

11-09-2013, 10:38 PM

You know, culture is the better term. Good call. I suppose using society kind of messes up my premise if you think about it.

I think the whole reactionary vs. radical aspect all depends on what time frame you are viewing things from.I looked up the definition of institution and the first one I clicked on described it the same way you did.

An institution is any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community — may it be human or a specific animal one. Institutions are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern cooperative living behavior.[1]

The term "institution" is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public services. As structures and mechanisms of social order among certain species, institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences, such as political science, anthropology, economics, and sociology (the latter being described by Durkheim as the "science of institutions, their genesis and their functioning").[2] Institutions are also a central concern for law, the formal mechanism for political rule-making and enforcement.As for the radical vs reactionary, isn't that central to your description of liberal vs conservative? And yes it does depend on the time frame or perhaps who's influence dominates during a given period, that was my point.

TaftFan

11-09-2013, 10:46 PM

I looked up the definition of institution and the first one I clicked on described it the same way you did.
As for the radical vs reactionary, isn't that central to your description of liberal vs conservative? And yes it does depend on the time frame or perhaps who's influence dominates during a given period, that was my point.

Yeah. So in today's terms, the conservatives would be trying to conserve Biblical morality, old Euro-centric culture, etc.

Christian Liberty

11-09-2013, 11:10 PM

I'm not sure. I think "civil unions" as they are defined today are basically just marriage without the label, so I don't really see the point of that. But I suppose if two people of the same sex want to enter into a contract to divide up land and other similar things, then that's probably all right with me. That wouldn't necessarily have to be a sexual thing. You could just have two sisters living together who want to enter into a contract to have certain benefits and certain legal arrangements.

Yeah, I agree with that. "marriage" should have nothing to do with it from the legal standpoint.

I too do not agree with "gay marriage" as its currently understood, although I don't agree with most of the "Marriage protection amendments" either. Its not a hill I'm going to die on, but I generally agree with what Norman Horn says about it here:

http://libertarianchristians.com/2010/07/05/gay-rights-marriage-and-government-intervention/

Henry Rogue

11-09-2013, 11:11 PM

Yeah. So in today's terms, the conservatives would be trying to conserve Biblical morality, old Euro-centric culture, etc.I see, preservation isn't necessarily for the existing cultural norms. I wasn't saying your definition was wrong, in fact that was how it was described by my history teacher and he added the part about the reactionary and radical as part of the description. I don't remember much of any Lectures from high school, but that one stuck in my head. Mainly because I had the same question then as I did in this thread. I thought it implied the current social conditions. In a way I think I am still right. When I was young liberals were not the mainstream and were looked at as extreme, more recently the opposite is true. In other words liberals use to talk about sticking it to the Man, now they are the Man, so to speak.

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 11:24 PM

I think I meant to post that in response to LE, who was intimating that Ron Paul wanted the federal government to police abortions.

I never said that, Abscess. I quoted a response from RP that stated quite clearly that he wanted a federal law that would make murdering the unborn, murder. Now, how it would be prosecuted would be up to the individual states.

Feeding the Abscess

11-09-2013, 11:27 PM

I never said that, Abscess. I quoted a response from RP that stated quite clearly that he wanted a federal law that would make murdering the unborn, murder. Now, how it would be prosecuted would be up to the individual states.

And if the states decided not to prosecute abortion as murder? Ron rejected the feds having a role, and thus the notion of said federal law, in the SC forum debate I posted last page. We have a case of Ron himself saying one thing in person, and a written statement in his name saying something else. I'm going to lean toward what he said himself.

LibertyEagle

11-09-2013, 11:39 PM

FrankRep

11-09-2013, 11:41 PM

And if the states decided not to prosecute abortion as murder? Ron rejected the feds having a role, and thus the notion of said federal law, in the SC forum debate I posted last page. We have a case of Ron himself saying one thing in person, and a written statement in his name saying something else. I'm going to lean toward what he said himself.

Not really true. Ron Paul wanted the Federal Government to declare that life begins at conception. Once that is declared, states are put into a position of what types of murder they will declare legal. States will think twice about "legalizing murder" if life begins at conception.

H.R.1096 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1096)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.

Feeding the Abscess

11-10-2013, 12:06 AM

You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want.

The guy in the video literally asked him about that, pressing him multiple times, and Ron still rejected it. It's not believing whatever I want, it's what he said.

fr33

11-10-2013, 12:16 AM

The author of the column tried to keep social conservatism out of it but the discussion went there anyways. It's inescapable. It always happens.

Even in regards to fiscal issues, you have to ask yourself; what is conservatism? You have multiple generations today that came to exist since the New Deal. What do they wish to conserve? Something they've never lived with? Or parts of what they like about what they've lived with?

I do see social conservatism as the bane of the GOP's existence. When you're having trouble convincing people that there are consequences to them directly from tax & spending policies and with fractional-reserve banking, you're going to have trouble reasoning with them that your policies to protect others are right; like with abortion.

Fixing the monetary system and deficit spending is key. Candidates that get bogged down in social issues are born losers.

Ender

11-10-2013, 12:32 AM

Ron Paul on Abortion:

Federalizing Social Policy

by Ron Paul

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:01 AM

The guy in the video literally asked him about that, pressing him multiple times, and Ron still rejected it. It's not believing whatever I want, it's what he said.

It's also looking at what he DID. Sanctity of Life bill.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:05 AM

The author of the column tried to keep social conservatism out of it but the discussion went there anyways. It's inescapable. It always happens.
It happens because a whole lot of people who are NOT conservatives, started using the label.

Even in regards to fiscal issues, you have to ask yourself; what is conservatism? You have multiple generations today that came to exist since the New Deal. What do they wish to conserve? Something they've never lived with? Or parts of what they like about what they've lived with?
How about conserving the principles upon which this country was founded.

I do see social conservatism as the bane of the GOP's existence. When you're having trouble convincing people that there are consequences to them directly from tax & spending policies and with fractional-reserve banking, you're going to have trouble reasoning with them that your policies to protect others are right; like with abortion.

Fixing the monetary system and deficit spending is key. Candidates that get bogged down in social issues are born losers.

No more than libertarians who get bogged down in kiddie porn, put drug legalization above all else and open borders.

twomp

11-10-2013, 03:15 AM

labels, labels, labels, ... .... more labels, labels, labels....

robert68

11-10-2013, 04:00 AM

"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."-- Ronald Reagan

And unlike many other false things he said, numerous times, he only said that once, when he was planning his challenge to President Ford in 1975.

twomp

11-10-2013, 04:03 AM

And unlike many other false things he said, numerous times, he only said that once, when he was planning his challenge to President Ford in 1975.

LOL! context... turns out it's pretty important.

Ronin Truth

11-10-2013, 04:49 AM

At the core, I think I agree. But I feel we have to separate the two before we can put them together, if that makes sense.

I don't know if you have read this but you may find it interesting and/or useful in your separation/fusion efforts.

February 16, 2011 Conservatives and Libertarians

By William J. Upton (http://www.americanthinker.com/william_j_upton/)

The consummately rambunctious Young Americans for Freedom, sticking with tradition, have caused another stir at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year. They have seen fit to boot the libertarian-Republican from Texas, Congressman Ron Paul, from their board of advisors.

In removing the controversial Paul, YAF has not just knocked a hornets' nest out of a tree -- YAF has peeled away the weak adhesive that has held two less-than-cordial factions within the Right together for several decades. They have expanded the field of battle in America's war of ideas, and it is about time.

Since the 1950s there has been an awkward alliance of Cold Warriors, traditionalists, libertarians and reformed ex-communists, all of whom came together under the idea of "fusionism" coined by one of the late editors of National Review, Frank Meyer. Fusionism was Meyer's, and the Right's as a whole, solution to forming a broad coalition to defeat the growing threat of Soviet communism both at home and abroad. In the context of the time, it was a necessary alliance.

Even with many on the Right during the 1950s and 1960s accepting the terms of fusionism, the libertarian minded figures on the Right came along with deep reservations. Perhaps the most infamous and titanic figure among libertarians was the radical-individualist and self-described Old-Rightist, Murray Rothbard -- though Rothbard's claim of being Old-Right is entirely questionable.

Rothbard broke with the concept of fusionism, skeptical the implications of allowing an expansion of those considered part of his definition of the Right. A rift broke between the libertarian acolytes of Murray Rothbard and the conservative followers of Russell Kirk and the charismatic William F. Buckley, Jr. At this point it should be noted that Rothbard did become a member of Young Americans for Freedom only to turn on it and the entirety of the conservative movement in 1969.

The year 1969 was the high-water mark of fusionism.

Something happened in Murray Rothbard's mind. He fell to what Tocqueville warned against -- that is unbridled individualism driven by the ultimate utility and quest for pure-unenlightened self-interest. He, like Ayn Rand, rejected virtue for selfish-interest, the economy replaced God, the rule-of-man replaced the rule-of-law, and anarchy replaced limited-government.

In his 1969 letter -- Listen YAF -- to the libertarians who would be attending the Young Americans for Freedom national convention in St. Louis, Missouri, Rothbard spat the un-conservative credo:
I have nothing to say to the so-called "traditionalists" (a misnomer, by the way, for we libertarians have our traditions too, and they are glorious ones. It all depends on which traditions: the libertarian ones of Paine and Price, of Cobden and Thoreau, or the authoritarian ones of Torquemada and Burke and Metternich.) Let us leave the authoritarians to their Edmund Burkes and their Crowns of St. Something-or-other...

In the famous words of Jimmy Durante: "Have ya ever had the feelin' that ya wanted to go, and yet ya had the feelin' that ya wanted to stay?" This letter is a plea that you use the occasion of the public forum of the YAF convention to go, to split, to leave the conservative movement where it belongs: in the hands of the St. Something-or-others, and where it is going to stay regardless of what action you take. Leave the house of your false friends, for they are your enemies.

In his letter, Rothbard continued on to accuse the conservative movement of being something that had been overrun by ex-Communists, monarchists and neo-fascists, stopping just short of calling Buckley and the rest devolved troglodytes.

But why, today, is Murray Rothbard important? What impact does Rothbard -- who died in 1995 -- have on the current state of the American Right?

In a tribute to Rothbard after his death, Congressman Ron Paul wrote:
I loved talking to this down-to-earth genius. And he told me heenjoyed meeting a Congressman who had not only read his books, but used them as a guide in his votes and legislation. A close and lasting friendship was the result, which wasn't hard. Murray was the sweetest, funniest, most generous of men.

A moving tribute to a man who came to hate conservatism; a man who railed against the traditionalist philosophy, the virtues espoused by the father of modern conservatism Edmund Burke, the father of American conservatism Russell Kirk, and the greatest promoter of American conservatism William F. Buckley, Jr.

Upon the death of Murray Rothbard, William F. Buckley had this to write:
Murray Rothbard, age 68, died on January 7. We extend condolences to his family, but not to the movement he inspired....

Murray Rothbard had defective judgment. It pains even to recall it, but in 1959 when Khrushchev arrived in New York, with much of America stunned by the visit of the butcher of Budapest -- the Soviet protege of Stalin who was threatening a world war over Berlin -- Rothbard physically applauded Khrushchev in his limousine as it passed by on the street. He gave as his reason for this that, after all, Krushchev had killed fewer people than General Eisenhower, his host.

It was a great pity, but his problem ought not to be thought of as tracing to the seamless integrity of libertarian principles. In Murray's case, much of what drove him was a contrarian spirit, the deranging scrupulosity that caused him to disdain such as Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and -- yes -- Newt Gingrich, while huffing and puffing in the little cloister whose walls he labored so strenuously to contract, leaving him, in the end, not as the father of a swelling movement that "rous[ed] the masses from their slumber," as he once stated his ambition, but with about as many disciples as David Koresh had in his little redoubt in Waco. Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God.

Buckley did not mince his words. Rothbard had turned his back on the conservative movement, and at times on the idea of America itself. He and his followers were -- and should continue to be -- personae non grata in the conservative movement.

Conservatives should be wary of the influx of young new activists under the banner of Ron Paul. Congressman Paul's support organizations Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty have aligned themselves with the anti-conservative Rothbardian ideology along with the Congressman. On March 30th, 2010 Young Americans for Liberty interviewed the radical-libertarian Walter Block. Block called Rothbard, "... a bad ass." "Murray Rothbard Was A Bad Ass -- An Interview with Walter Block" ran as the headline for the video post. A "bad ass"? Murray Rothbard? Yet, Young Americans for Liberty participates in the Conservative Political Action Conference and claims to be a libertarian and conservative organization. To those conservatives that have drifted to Young Americans for Liberty, come back, do not associate with a movement that has closer ideological ties to radical anarchists than to virtue and tradition.

Campaign for Liberty frequently reprints old Rothbard articles on their website, and yet they still try to claim some lineage to the mantle of conservatism! To those conservatives that have been duped into thinking Campaign for Liberty is on our side, come back to tradition and virtue!

And finally, to come back to Young Americans for Freedom and the purge of Ron Paul from their board of advisors, thank you. Why was a follower of Rothbard ever on the board of advisors in the first place though?

YAF citied Congressman Paul's naïve foreign policy and associations with conspiratorial nuts as a violation of The Sharon Statement's provisions for national defense and national interest. They could have gone further, though. Congressman Paul's -- and the libertarians infecting the conservative movement -- loyalty to the ideals of Murray Rothbard also violate the idea contained in The Sharon Statement of maintaining the internal order. Rothbard criticized the police crackdowns during the riots of the late 1960s, when angry radicals burned entire sections of major American cities to the ground. Rothbard reveled in anarchy.

It is not an easy thing to ask that an entire faction of a political movement be driven into the sunlight and exposed as being antithetical and hence requiring ostracism -- but it must be done. Libertarians, though seemingly at home on the Right, may better be categorized as being of the Left.

Conservatives should applaud Young Americans for Freedom and ask our libertarian colleagues just where their convictions really stand. YAF and others who stand up to the bullying and high screeches of the libertarians who have invaded the conservative movement will experience the meaning of condemnant quod non intellegunt. Take heart, though, in the fact that in time many of the young people who have drifted into the libertarian camp and the alliances it has formed with the Left will return to truth, and the Right can move on from this moment of inevitable schism.

Conservatives, we have long feared insulting and stepping on our once libertarian allies. We should worry about that no more. Those who merely voice their disagreement with someone's actions are labeled an enemy of liberty. As Whittaker Chambers once observed of the more virulent libertarian cult around Ayn Rand -- though she herself hated "libertarians" her "objectivists" really were just a more radicalized form of selfish-libertarians:
From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber -- go!' The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture -- that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house.

This has to be stopped, as it will destroy the conservative movement, they will smash up our house - we will lose tradition, we will lose virtue, we will lose conservatism.

Libertarianism is radical, it is not conservative. Let the libertarians go, they are marginal.

William J. Upton is a conservative activist and works in communications and new media in the Washington, D.C. area. He was also once a libertarian.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/conservatives_and_libertarians_1.html

Enjoy! (of course there are other views too ;) http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-trouble-with-conservatives-3/)

robert68

11-10-2013, 05:02 AM

LOL! context... turns out it's pretty important.

The thing is, he lost the first 6 primaries and caucuses, and was in deep campaign debt and all of his advisors said he needed to pull out. He then changed his campaign message, running to the right of Ford on foreign policy as a cold war hawk, and then won the next primary in North Carolina and the rest is history.

compromise

11-10-2013, 05:39 AM

I'm still reading it, but right off the start, I think you should be careful to call it social conservatism, rather than just conservatism. Because traditional conservatism, paleoconservatism, isn't at all about using government to tell others how to live their lives. If those lives are not infringing on the liberty of another.

It is the paleoconservatives who share a lot with libertarians. Social "conservatives", not so much, as they are apparently quite willing to use government force to cram their own agenda down everyone else's throats. They don't seem to realize that this same government that they are responsible for growing to do their cramming, can then be used by their enemies to cram agendas they hate down THEIR throats. In as much, social "conservatives" do not seem to walk their talk when they say they support the Constitution. Because they appear to not be for states' rights as highlighted in the 10th Amendment; nor do they appear to believe in the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Can you identify the difference between your definition of "paleoconservative" and your definition of "libertarian"?

If someone isn't using government in any way to tell others to live their lives, they sound like a libertarian.

I'm not sure if Pat Buchanan, Samuel Francis, Peter Brimelow, Paul Gottfried or Jared Taylor, who are generally accepted to be prominent paleoconservative intellectuals, would agree with your definition.

Even Kirk maligned fusionists, he believed libertarianism and conservatism were incompatible.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 07:26 AM

I don't know if you have read this but you may find it interesting and/or useful in your separation/fusion efforts.

Enjoy! (of course there are other views too ;) http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-trouble-with-conservatives-3/)

Ya know, it's pretty clear that your goal is to further division between all conservatives and libertarians, after reading this and looking at the other thread you started last night, attempting to claim that anyone who believes in any government at all, is a statist. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432753-Statism-Is-a-Sickness

This runs contrary to what we must do if we have any hope of prevailing. Instead of drawing lines, we need to be highlighting where we agree and work from there. Ron Paul worked with others to accomplish goals and we must too.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 07:30 AM

Can you identify the difference between your definition of "paleoconservative" and your definition of "libertarian"?

If someone isn't using government in any way to tell others to live their lives, they sound like a libertarian.

I'm not sure if Pat Buchanan, Samuel Francis, Peter Brimelow, Paul Gottfried or Jared Taylor, who are generally accepted to be prominent paleoconservative intellectuals, would agree with your definition.

Even Kirk maligned fusionists, he believed libertarianism and conservatism were incompatible.

There is disagreement among Paleocons, just as there is disagreement among libertarians. For example, some libertarians want completely open borders and abortion; others do not.

I do think there is a segment of libertarians who could just as easily call themselves Paleocons. One of those is Ron Paul and he does just that, in fact. He has called himself the most conservative member of Congress and he also speaks of libertarianism. These are not mutually-exclusive.

A Son of Liberty

11-10-2013, 08:06 AM

Ya know, it's pretty clear that your goal is to further division between all conservatives and libertarians, after reading this and looking at the other thread you started last night, attempting to claim that anyone who believes in any government at all, is a statist. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432753-Statism-Is-a-Sickness

Any government at all? No, those folks aren't statist. But, believing in and advocating for any state at all does, by definition, make one a statist.

I'd think that would really go without saying.

This runs contrary to what we must do if we have any hope of prevailing.

"What we must do if we have any hope of prevailing" isn't up to you. Sorry.

Voluntarist

11-10-2013, 08:19 AM

xxxxx

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 08:21 AM

Any government at all? No, those folks aren't statist. But, believing in and advocating for any state at all does, by definition, make one a statist.

I'd think that would really go without saying.
You seem to have contradicted yourself.

"What we must do if we have any hope of prevailing" isn't up to you. Sorry.

You're right, to quote you, it should "really go without saying" that to prevail, we will need to bring others to our side, and work with others who do not agree with 100% of your own personal beliefs.

Ronin Truth

11-10-2013, 08:31 AM

I looked this over again this morning - and took into account the discussion that's been proceeding in this thread. It strikes me that this is another look at the Nolan Chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart) which Davis Nolan came up with in the early Seventies and which has been refined over the decades since.
http://www.nolanchart.com/images/nolan_chart.png

Take a swag at where you fit on the Nolan chart with the 10 question survey here (http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php)

Thanks for posting that. I was just about to do it myself. Great minds DO run in similar channels. ;) :)

compromise

11-10-2013, 08:52 AM

There is disagreement among Paleocons, just as there is disagreement among libertarians. For example, some libertarians want completely open borders and abortion; others do not.

I do think there is a segment of libertarians who could just as easily call themselves Paleocons. One of those is Ron Paul and he does just that, in fact. He has called himself the most conservative member of Congress and he also speaks of libertarianism. These are not mutually-exclusive.

Ron and the other LRC guys used the paleo strategy in the 90s to appeal to those Buchanan and Gottfried types. It was without doubt a failure, as stuff like the survivalist newsletters did more damage than they were worth. The more fusionist strategy utilized in his 2008 & 2012 presidential campaign (and still utilized by Rand Paul) was far more successful. Ron recognized this and so changed his position on the immigration issue.

When he calls himself the most conservative member of Congress, he may well be speaking of fiscal conservatism, not paleoconservatism. Reference to conservatism is not necessarily a reference to paleoconservatism.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 08:53 AM

http://www.nolanchart.com/images/nolan_chart.png

Yeah, great pic, which goes to prove my point about overlapping principles. Notice that the libertarian quadrant is not just a single point; which is what it would have to be for libertarianism to be mutually-exclusive. In fact, people in that quadrant can lean towards liberal, while others have some conservative viewpoints, etc. Same thing with conservatives.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 08:55 AM

Ron and the other LRC guys used the paleo strategy in the 90s to appeal to those Buchanan and Gottfried types. It was without doubt a failure, as stuff like the survivalist newsletters did more damage than they were worth. The more fusionist strategy utilized in his 2008 & 2012 presidential campaign (and still utilized by Rand Paul) was far more successful. Ron recognized this and so changed his position on the immigration issue.
I think you forgot that Ron endorsed and campaigned for Reagan and Rothbard once upon a time had endorsed Bush and had campaigned for Buchanan. They became disgusted, yes, and I don't blame them.

Ron Paul still endorses and campaigns for real conservatives.

When he calls himself the most conservative member of Congress, he may well be speaking of fiscal conservatism, not paleoconservatism. Reference to conservatism is not necessarily a reference to paleoconservatism.

Paleoconservatism IS fiscal conservatism. It is another name for Goldwater-conservatism, which used to be the only conservatism that existed. But, that was before the Trotskyites become Republicans as "neocons" and the religious right got into politics and became the "social cons", with Reagan's presidential campaign.

wgadget

11-10-2013, 08:58 AM

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 08:59 AM

A Son of Liberty

11-10-2013, 09:15 AM

You seem to have contradicted yourself.

How so, LE?

You're right, to quote you, it should "really go without saying" that to prevail, we will need to bring others to our side, and work with others who do not agree with 100% of your own personal beliefs.

What each of us must do, within the context of the liberty movement, is that which we think best advances the cause of liberty.

And what you must learn to do is accept that not every liberty-minded individual is going to agree with what you believe must be done.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 09:19 AM

How so, LE?
Perhaps it would help if you would include your definition of government vs. state.

What each of us must do, within the context of the liberty movement, is that which we think best advances the cause of liberty.

And what you must learn to do is accept that not every liberty-minded individual is going to agree with what you believe must be done.

Oh, I agree with you on that. But, fighting amongst ourselves doesn't appear to be a good strategy for any of us, besides those whose strategy is to divide us.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 09:30 AM

I was looking for Jack Hunter's presentation at Ron Paul's Rally at the RNC where he spoke eloquently about conservatism and I found this instead. I'm still looking for the other.

http://www.randpaulreview.com/2012/06/is-libertarianism-real-conservatism-jack-hunter/

No, I still haven't found it, but here's another good one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TS4KCaoAGM

Jack is trying to remind Paleocons of their conservative roots.

A Son of Liberty

11-10-2013, 09:31 AM

Perhaps it would help if you would include your definition of government vs. state.

Fair enough... I just thought that by now that distinction had been well made around here.

Small 'g' government can be any authority to which an individual voluntarily submits himself. Think: 'family', 'faith', 'self'. 'The state' is that Government which does not accept voluntary accent, but demands submission to its 'authority'.

The distinction between the two - one allows for voluntary accent and the other does not - is stark, and very important.

Oh, I agree with you on that. But, fighting amongst ourselves doesn't appear to be a good strategy for any of us, besides those whose strategy is to divide us.

I take this forum as a meeting place of like-minded people, if not like-purposed (if you will). We're not always going to agree on what must be done, in practical terms... and let's not dance around the topic, not all of us are willing to give Rand the pass that many others are willing to give him. But that does not mean that we aren't a very important part of this movement. And we do not deserve to be treated as red-headed step-children around here just because we're not convinced that Rand is the second coming of Ron.

I say this not because I'm offended by how I and others are treated by you and others... I haven't left, and won't, just because of that. I say it with the intention of hoping the gap can be bridged.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 09:42 AM

Fair enough... I just thought that by now that distinction had been well made around here.

Small 'g' government can be any authority to which an individual voluntarily submits himself. Think: 'family', 'faith', 'self'. 'The state' is that Government which does not accept voluntary accent, but demands submission to its 'authority'.

The distinction between the two - one allows for voluntary accent and the other does not - is stark, and very important.
The point is that not all those calling themselves libertarians on this site, agree with you on this. That's why I asked.

I take this forum as a meeting place of like-minded people, if not like-purposed (if you will). We're not always going to agree on what must be done, in practical terms... and let's not dance around the topic, not all of us are willing to give Rand the pass that many others are willing to give him. But that does not mean that we aren't a very important part of this movement. And we do not deserve to be treated as red-headed step-children around here just because we're not convinced that Rand is the second coming of Ron.

I say this not because I'm offended by how I and others are treated by you and others... I haven't left, and won't, just because of that. I say it with the intention of hoping the gap can be bridged.

I don't care what you personally think of Rand. But, I do care when people try to derail projects to help him and go out of their way to lead a smear campaign against him.

It seems to me that we could make much more progress if we all just focused on whatever projects that we believe will further liberty, without trying to tear down what others have chosen for themselves.

A Son of Liberty

11-10-2013, 09:55 AM

I don't care what you personally think of Rand. But, I do care when people try to derail projects to help him and go out of their way to lead a smear campaign against him.

Here's the thing - many folks have expressed deep concerns that his campaign is going to do more harm to the liberty movement than good. I'm still not sure where I come down on that discussion, at this point. These people are NOT smearing him. They are not infiltrators, or democrat operatives, or whatever (in the aggregate). They just don't agree with you that Rand Paul is the best shot we have at making a difference.

You also tend to lump people who are apparently "leading a smear campaign" in with people who have very real and genuine concerns about Rand Paul. For instance, on more than one occasion I've seen you take shots at Robert Wenzel. You and Wenzel don't agree. That's fine, and I'd be happy to see you make your points. But attacking his credentials, and his character, is out of order.

It seems to me that we could make much more progress if we all just focused on whatever projects that we believe will further liberty, without trying to tear down what others have chosen for themselves.

Speaking one's mind about what is going on in the liberty movement isn't tearing down what others have chosen to do.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 10:09 AM

Rothbardian Girl

11-10-2013, 10:44 AM

Here's the thing - many folks have expressed deep concerns that his campaign is going to do more harm to the liberty movement than good. I'm still not sure where I come down on that discussion, at this point. These people are NOT smearing him. They are not infiltrators, or democrat operatives, or whatever (in the aggregate). They just don't agree with you that Rand Paul is the best shot we have at making a difference.

[...]

Speaking one's mind about what is going on in the liberty movement isn't tearing down what others have chosen to do.

These people have made themselves known over and over again, especially on these forums, and that's fine -- in the proper place. I'm sure people like LibertyEagle and Lou and anyone else who is focused on grassroots efforts backing Rand and others like him are aware of the criticisms that a few have leveled at Rand. But they've made the decision to support him anyway. People who constantly go into topics and derail grassroots threads aren't really doing anything to convince Rand supporters and grassroots operators. The "liberty tent" is only as big as the individual chooses to make it. If one doesn't want Rand to be considered part of the liberty movement, then one should be free to box oneself in as closely as possible (be as "purist" as possible). However, by the same token, why the obsession with trying to convince others to see it their way? Just don't donate your time or energy or money to the project, and move on, and find one that does suit you.

I don't particularly like some of the candidates promoted here, but I don't go out of my way to shame anyone who supports them. I'll voice my concerns privately if asked, maybe I'll even think a little less of the people who support them, but I won't attempt to derail their efforts. I can disagree with someone without apparently feeling the need to poison the well.

I've pretty much accepted that no one else is going to be like Ron Paul was at this point. I go into candidate threads with the expectation that they won't be as pure as Ron, and I adjust my expectations based on that - I try to find the positive, and if the positives outweigh the negatives for me, then I'll like the candidate and consider devoting some of my time. I guess I think that some of these people have unrealistic expectations right now.

Contumacious

11-10-2013, 12:34 PM

Edit-Can a mod remove social from the title?
Now just called: Conservatism And Libertarianism: No Need For Conflict

http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2013/11/09/social-conservatism-and-libertarianism-no-need-for-conflict/

I wrote this and am curious if most RPFer's agree. I am sure more on here do than on RS, but I gotta keep working on them.

HUH?

Libertarians adamantly believe in Capitalism and Free Enterprise, no ifs buts or however.

That means that we will not interfere with those Americans who distribute "drugs", engage in prostitution or sell weapons to Iran. N Korea, etc, etc.

.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 01:25 PM

HUH?

Libertarians adamantly believe in Capitalism and Free Enterprise, no ifs buts or however.

Paleocons are going to have some exceptions, but for the most part, we are on the same side on this. We can look for things we disagree on, or we can join hands to accomplish the things where we agree. And there are a whole lot of things we agree on.

That means that we will not interfere with those Americans who distribute "drugs", engage in prostitution or sell weapons to Iran. N Korea, etc, etc.

.

I surely don't think you speak for all libertarians. Selling our weapon technology to N. Korea would be high on the insanity scale.

TaftFan

11-10-2013, 01:25 PM

Well, I'd like to thank TaftFan for his post at RedState. That site tends to ban anyone who spouts off in a pro-libertarian way, and the first comment is a good example of the hatred. Good luck on not finding yourself banned, TF. But I agree that the two groups has better come together if we ever hope to be relevant again politically. How about an article stating that the now-in-hiding Tea Party in its various and sundry depictions is our best bet? Keep it on the down low, no more big rallies, allowing all those against huge and growing government overreach to simmer in the background, ready to pounce in November 2014...?

I'm actually banned from commenting, but they forgot to ban me from writing. So I changed how my name appears at the top of the diary. Since my original name appears in the URL though, I'm sure I'll eventually get caught.

So basically are you saying don't give the media anything they can put on camera and pounce on, but instead organize out of site? That is a interesting idea for sure.

Feeding the Abscess

11-10-2013, 01:32 PM

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 01:34 PM

Even on immigration, when he was asked this past cycle about a free market in immigration, he would answer that that's the ideal, and that things should move in that direction.

He has also been very clear that he is NOT for this at all while the welfare state is in place. People tend to omit that little tidbit.

Feeding the Abscess

11-10-2013, 01:38 PM

I surely don't think you speak for all libertarians. Selling our weapon technology to N. Korea would be high on the insanity scale.

He was clearly speaking of individuals, the only rightful owners of weapons, drugs, etc.

Contumacious

11-10-2013, 01:45 PM

Paleocons are going to have some exceptions, but for the most part, we are on the same side on this. We can look for things we disagree on, or we can join hands to accomplish the things where we agree. And there are a whole lot of things we agree on.

I surely don't think you speak for all libertarians. Selling our weapon technology to N. Korea would be high on the insanity scale.

Hummmmmmmmmmmm

Did N Korea invade the US or was it vice versa?

Would a Capitalist/Libertarian/Neutral US be a threat to N Korea?

.

compromise

11-10-2013, 01:46 PM

I think you forgot that Ron endorsed and campaigned for Reagan and Rothbard once upon a time had endorsed Bush and had campaigned for Buchanan. They became disgusted, yes, and I don't blame them.

Ron Paul still endorses and campaigns for real conservatives.

Paleoconservatism IS fiscal conservatism. It is another name for Goldwater-conservatism, which used to be the only conservatism that existed. But, that was before the Trotskyites become Republicans as "neocons" and the religious right got into politics and became the "social cons", with Reagan's presidential campaign.

Ronald Reagan was a fusionist, not a paleocon. Bush was a moderate. I'm not against cooperation with mainstream conservative Republicans. I'm against the failed paleo strategy that involved throwing out racialist rhetoric and conspiracy theories in order to gain the support of Montanan militia mountain men and Alabaman neo-confederate rednecks. The people Ron Paul endorses are not paleoconservatives, they're mostly fiscal conservatives and libertarian-leaning Republicans. The only paleocons left in Congress are Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. Jimmy Duncan.

Goldwater was nothing like a paleoconservative. Goldwater favored free trade and major immigration reform, policies that would be anathema to any true paleoconservative. He was also markedly socially liberal. He built bridges with paleocons on states' rights issues when he ran for President, but that's about as far as he went in their direction. Goldwater was an icon of the New Right, while paleoconservatism is most associated with the Old Right. If anything, Goldwater would probably be a Cato/Reason type today.

Fiscal conservatism is not paleoconservatism. It is true many paleoconservatives are also fiscal conservatives, but many of them adopt middle of the road populist economic policies and focus on preserving tradition. As I've said before, you should check out Samuel Francis's criticism of free market capitalism, or the Constitution Party's position on tariffs, or Pat Buchanan's defense of Hamiltonian economics and antitrust laws, or Walter Jones's support for financial regulation.

I honestly have never heard anyone define paleoconservatism in the way you do other than yourself. As it stands, paleoconservatism is pretty much dead, aside from a few minor fringe groups and 2 Congressmen. The term has also long been associated with racialism and nativism, so association with it is the wrong move politically for the liberty movement.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 01:59 PM

Sorry, but liberty minded people and conservatives are qualitatively different. I know it about 3 minutes into a conversation.

Not really. I am a conservative.

...but I am not against local ordinances against for example, prostitution, within city boundaries.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:04 PM

Ronald Reagan was a fusionist, not a paleocon.
Nor did I call him a paleocon.

Bush was a moderate.
Bush was a leftist.

I'm not against cooperation with mainstreamconservative Republicans. I'm against the failed paleo strategy that involved throwing out racialist rhetoric and conspiracy theories in order to gain the support of Montanan militia mountain men and Alabaman neo-confederate rednecks.
First of all, conspiracies go on every single day. Ron Paul has spoken of many of them. They aren't theories; they are reality. And pray tell, what's wrong with the militia or rednecks? Personally, I'd rather be around them than any snot-nosed, elitist, compromiser who thinks he is superior to other Americans who work for a living. Present company excepted, of course.

The people Ron Paul endorses are not paleoconservatives, they're mostly fiscal conservatives and libertarian-leaning Republicans. The only paleocons left in Congress are Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. Jimmy Duncan.
Again, fiscal conservatives are paleocons and so are some who are calling themselves "liberty-leaning Republicans".

Goldwater was nothing like a paleoconservative. Goldwater favored free trade and major immigration reform, policies that would be anathema to any true paleoconservative. He was also markedly socially liberal. He built bridges with paleocons on states' rights issues when he ran for President, but that's about as far as he went in their direction. Goldwater was an icon of the New Right, while paleoconservatism is most associated with the Old Right. If anything, Goldwater would probably be a Cato/Reason type today.
I know what Goldwater was. My mother was a delegate for him. He defined conservatism of the day. When the neocons and social cons came on-board, the existing conservatives were slotted as paleocons. The existing conservatives were previously referred to as Goldwater-conservatives.

Fiscal conservatism is not paleoconservatism. It is true many paleoconservatives are also fiscal conservatives, but many of them adopt middle of the road populist economic policies and focus on preserving tradition. As I've said before, you should check out Samuel Francis's criticism of free market capitalism, or the Constitution Party's position on tariffs, or Pat Buchanan's defense of Hamiltonian economics and antitrust laws, or Walter Jones's support for financial regulation.

I honestly have never heard anyone define paleoconservatism in the way you do other than yourself. As it stands, paleoconservatism is pretty much dead, aside from a few minor fringe groups and 2 Congressmen. The term has also long been associated with racialism and nativism, so association with it is politically toxic and is the wrong move for the liberty movement.

We will have to agree to disagree. Paleocon means what once was conservatism. Paleo = older. Conservatives used to be called conservatives. There were not different flavors of them. Not until the neocons and social cons came in with Reagan. That is when the original conservatives were renamed as Paleocons.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 02:07 PM

Well, I'd like to thank TaftFan for his post at RedState. That site tends to ban anyone who spouts off in a pro-libertarian way,...

Another good example of the petty banning mindset among many. If some doofus moderator has to ban somebody for their opinion on a board, then imagine what else they'd like to ban. And before anybody talks about their site--their rules--you can pretty much peg how these people make banning exceptions for the public at large.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:10 PM

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Big whoopee. Don't you think we have plenty we can do together to throw off 98% of the government, before we start having issues?

You know, I don't agree with some libertarians who have posted oh here advocating having sex with minors, either. Nor, do I put legalizing drugs at the forefront, or have a canniption fit about wanting to let a man "who believes he is a girl" go in a women's locker room.

But, I still think there are a whole lot of things we can work on before we need to clash. You seem to want to clash about these more side issues on the front end and not move jack crap forward. It's beyond frustrating and probably speaks a lot to why libertarians never get anywhere. sheesh

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 02:15 PM

Paleocon means what once was conservatism. Paleo = older.

It's more like an entertaining term for cable TV viewers. There are conservatives and there are liberty-minded people. Go back as far as you like because the nostalgia won't matter. It even applies as far back as the founders. Slave owners and Indian-land-thieves were dirtbags who had no balls.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:19 PM

It's more like an entertaining term for cable TV viewers. There are conservatives and there are liberty-minded people. Go back as far as you like because the nostalgia won't matter. It even applies as far back as the founders. Slave owners and Indian-land-thieves were dirtbags who had no balls.

lolol. The Libertarian Party was largely started by disgruntled Paleocons.

Liberty doesn't belong to any one group of people, I hate to tell ya. I have supported Ron Paul since he first went to Congress and so did a whole lot of people like me. So, for you to imply that you have the corner on liberty is laughable.

I suggest you work on your talking points. They won't be effective in winning many people over to our cause.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 02:24 PM

Big whoopee.

Nor, do I put legalizing drugs at the forefront,...

Okay, now you're downplaying the fundamental difference in mindset.

The reason dope advocates have made legalization such an issue is because conservatives made it's banning such an issue. That is binary. It's either legal or isn't. That is a fundamentally, qualitative difference.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:26 PM

Okay, now you're downplaying the fundamental difference in mindset.

The reason dope advocates have made legalization such an issue is because conservatives made it's banning such an issue. That is binary. It's either legal or isn't. That is a fundamentally, qualitative difference.

You are missing the point.

Conservatives and libertarians agree on a great many things. We can sit here and fight with each other, or work together where we agree and we agree on a great many things.

If you will only work with those you agree with 100%, the 5 or 6 of you aren't going to accomplish much.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 02:28 PM

lolol. The Libertarian Party was largely started by disgruntled Paleocons.

I suggest you work on your talking points. They won't be effective in winning many people over to our cause.

The fact that you even use a silly term like "talking points" tells me you're stuck in cable TV land. The only way you'll win there is if you're a guest on some inane "news" show or if you actually work for those dopes.

I'm talking about liberty, not libertarianism and TV.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:30 PM

The fact that you even use a silly term like "talking points" tells me you're stuck in cable TV land. The only way you'll win there is if you're a guest on some inane "news" show or if you actually work for those dopes.

I'm talking about liberty, not libertarianism and TV.

More insults.

You don't own the term, "liberty", or the concepts thereof, in case that is news to you.

If you don't want to work together with anyone who isn't exactly like you, then that is your choice.

See ya.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 02:32 PM

You are missing the point.

Conservatives and libertarians agree on a great many things. We can sit here and fight with each other, or work together where we agree and we agree on a great many things.

If you will only work with those you agree with 100%, the 5 or 6 of you aren't going to accomplish much.

Who said I can't work with people? Do you think you have a monopoly working on group goals?

You act like your views and working with others somehow go hand-in-hand.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 02:36 PM

More insults.

See ya.

Where did I insult you? If you can't even having a trivial conversation on some board, then how will you ever work with people on what really counts?

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 02:38 PM

Who said I can't work with people? Do you think you have a monopoly working on group goals?

You act like your views and working with others somehow go hand-in-hand.

You must be kidding. You insult Paleocons and then you think they'd somehow want to work with the likes of you? lolol

I want nothing to do with you and at this point, I question if we are even on the same side.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 02:42 PM

You must be kidding. You insult Paleocons and then you think they'd somehow want to work with the likes of you? lolol

I want nothing to do with you and at this point, I question if we are even on the same side.

Telling you to turn of the TV is an insult?

Carlybee

11-10-2013, 02:52 PM

http://i.imgur.com/59pj4.gif

Christian Liberty

11-10-2013, 03:07 PM

These people have made themselves known over and over again, especially on these forums, and that's fine -- in the proper place. I'm sure people like LibertyEagle and Lou and anyone else who is focused on grassroots efforts backing Rand and others like him are aware of the criticisms that a few have leveled at Rand. But they've made the decision to support him anyway. People who constantly go into topics and derail grassroots threads aren't really doing anything to convince Rand supporters and grassroots operators. The "liberty tent" is only as big as the individual chooses to make it. If one doesn't want Rand to be considered part of the liberty movement, then one should be free to box oneself in as closely as possible (be as "purist" as possible). However, by the same token, why the obsession with trying to convince others to see it their way? Just don't donate your time or energy or money to the project, and move on, and find one that does suit you.

If someone believes that Rand is bad for the liberty movement (note that I'm not saying I agree) than trying to make sure he is defeated makes sense. Its logical strategy at that point.

Paleocons are going to have some exceptions, but for the most part, we are on the same side on this. We can look for things we disagree on, or we can join hands to accomplish the things where we agree. And there are a whole lot of things we agree on.

I surely don't think you speak for all libertarians. Selling our weapon technology to N. Korea would be high on the insanity scale.

For me it depends on what weapons you're talking about. Nuclear Weapons, as Rothbard points out, are inherently aggressive. So nobody should have them. Its a little hypocritical for the government to prevent civilians from owning them while they have them themselves, but that wouldn't make the action inherently unjustified. Ultimately, however, for the US (Or any other government) to keep its own nukes is ultimately an act of aggression and nuclear weapons should ultimately be dismantled. Every libertarian should see the eventual abolition of nuclear weaponry as a goal.

On the other hand, if a civilian can justifiably own a given weapon, surely he has a right to sell it as well?

Big whoopee. Don't you think we have plenty we can do together to throw off 98% of the government, before we start having issues?

If you're talking about things like local prostitution ordinances, yes. But there are other things that I really can't compromise on on moral grounds. I'd never support anybody who wanted to go to war in Iraq (I'm not talking about people who used to support it and genuinely changed their position here, I'm talking about people who still believe it was a good idea), for example, because that to me shows a blatant disregard for the Constitution, limited government, and basic morality.

You know, I don't agree with some libertarians who have posted oh here advocating having sex with minors, either. Nor, do I put legalizing drugs at the forefront, or have a canniption fit about wanting to let a man "who believes he is a girl" go in a women's locker room.

Has anyone really "advocated" sex with minors? I get this accusation from people who are extremely anti-liberty that libertarians are secretly pedophiles. The absolute worst quote that they have is from Mary Ruwart, and I can't defend everything she's said about this. I'd honestly have a hard time actually voting for her despite how much I agree with her on because of some of the things she's said on that front. But even then she fell way, way short of "Advocating" sex with minors.

I agree that drugs shouldn't be on the forefront, but it is a very important part of the liberty message. Nobody has a right to tell me what I can ingest into my body.

The locker room thing is really stupid, and I think we all know private property could solve those issues.

But, I still think there are a whole lot of things we can work on before we need to clash. You seem to want to clash about these more side issues on the front end and not move jack crap forward. It's beyond frustrating and probably speaks a lot to why libertarians never get anywhere. sheesh

Again, it really depends on the issue. For me, a local prostitution ordinance is nowhere near as serious as mass murder in Iraq, but that's just me.

Southron

11-10-2013, 03:18 PM

As it stands, paleoconservatism is pretty much dead, aside from a few minor fringe groups and 2 Congressmen. The term has also long been associated with racialism and nativism, so association with it is the wrong move politically for the liberty movement.

Paleoconservatism will live on long after libertarianism commits suicide with immigration.

Rothbardian Girl

11-10-2013, 03:30 PM

If someone believes that Rand is bad for the liberty movement (note that I'm not saying I agree) than trying to make sure he is defeated makes sense. Its logical strategy at that point.

That is why I said the "movement" is only as big (or as small) as the individual wishes to make it. People who are intent on donating their resources to a candidate simply aren't likely to be swayed by a few random people telling them why they suck for choosing to support that candidate. All the debaters manage to do is marginalize themselves. There are several places on the forums where people can dissect each candidate to their hearts' contents. The bickering and dissection just doesn't belong in the places where people post their projects.

Overall, it is usually very difficult to change someone's mind by arguing with him or her, and that is even if the debate takes place in the most civil language possible. The probability of any minds being changed when a person decides to be overly negative and/or abusive, then, continues to approach nil.

compromise

11-10-2013, 03:37 PM

First of all, conspiracies go on every single day. Ron Paul has spoken of many of them. They aren't theories; they are reality. And pray tell, what's wrong with the militia or rednecks? Personally, I'd rather be around them than any snot-nosed, elitist, compromiser who thinks he is superior to other Americans who work for a living. Present company excepted, of course.
Enjoy hanging out with Pcosmar. Ron Paul discredited himself greatly by flirting with 9/11 truth and other wacky conspiracies.

I know what Goldwater was. My mother was a delegate for him. He defined conservatism of the day. When the neocons and social cons came on-board, the existing conservatives were slotted as paleocons. The existing conservatives were previously referred to as Goldwater-conservatives.
The problem is that you're not sourcing any of your claims. If Goldwater is a paleocon, then Gary "Smoke Weed Everyday" Johnson must be too. The LRC paleolibertarians frequently disavow Goldwater.

We will have to agree to disagree. Paleocon means what once was conservatism. Paleo = older. Conservatives used to be called conservatives. There were not different flavors of them. Not until the neocons and social cons came in with Reagan. That is when the original conservatives were renamed as Paleocons.
There have always been factions within every political movement. The term paleoconservative was created in the 80s by Gottfried, who is not a fiscal conservative.

I think we disagree because you, being a paleoconservative, see paleoconservatives as the successor to the founders of modern conservatism. The neoconservatives feel much the same, they too claim Buckley and Goldwater as their own. Social conservatism has existed in the United States in both parties long before the 80s, see the Anti-Saloon League and William Jennings Bryan.

compromise

11-10-2013, 03:38 PM

Paleoconservatism will live on long after libertarianism commits suicide with immigration.

Due to the existence of a welfare state, unrestricted immigration isn't really possible, but common sense immigration reform, such as that proposed by Rand Paul, can and will widen the liberty movement's support base.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 03:55 PM

compromise

11-10-2013, 03:59 PM

Well, you can talk about working with rednecks and whatever, but there is still a fundamental difference in thinking. I live around a lot of rednecks. A lot of them just don't have pattern recognition. They'll empower government by supporting drug laws and such, but then are baffled as to how and why that same government curbs their 2A rights.

Most of the rednecks I know are against drug laws because they use meth.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:00 PM

Due to the existence of a welfare state, unrestricted immigration isn't really possible, but common sense immigration reform, such as that proposed by Rand Paul, can and will widen the liberty movement's support base.

I don't think you have been listening closely enough to what he has said.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:06 PM

Enjoy hanging out with Pcosmar. Ron Paul discredited himself greatly by flirting with 9/11 truth and other wacky conspiracies.
Ok. I like Pete and I consider him a friend. I'd be happy to hang out with him.

I'm not a Truther, so go bark up another tree. Clearly, you need to look up the word "conspiracy" in the dictionary, because you are misusing it.

The problem is that you're not sourcing any of your claims. If Goldwater is a paleocon, then Gary "Smoke Weed Everyday" Johnson must be too. The LRC paleolibertarians frequently disavow Goldwater.

I don't need to source them. I was there. Plus, what I said makes common sense. There used to be only one type of conservative and there was until after the neocons and social cons came on the picture. Paleo=old. The legacy conservatives were renamed, Paleocons.

There have always been factions within every political movement. The term paleoconservative was created in the 80s by Gottfried, who is not a fiscal conservative.

I think we disagree because you, being a paleoconservative, see paleoconservatives as the successor to the founders of modern conservatism. The neoconservatives feel much the same, they too claim Buckley and Goldwater as their own. Social conservatism has existed in the United States in both parties long before the 80s, see the Anti-Saloon League and William Jennings Bryan.

Oh, bullcrap. The neocons don't claim Goldwater and I didn't care for Buckley at all.

Personally, I don't really care what label for those who want liberty, wins out in the end. But, for now, perhaps you should stop poking Paleocons in the eye. They are not the enemies of this movement.

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 04:06 PM

Paleoconservatism will live on long after libertarianism commits suicide with immigration.

Nope. Liberty in general is not that popular with the "problem immigrants" (those that don't respect private property boundaries). Liberty is popular with a number of immigrants from other places in teh world. :) By the time libertarianism "commits suicide" ( :rolleyes: ) the paleocon movement will be vastly outnumbered and outvoted (irrelevant in any practical matter)...and eventually die :) .

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:09 PM

Well, you can talk about working with rednecks and whatever, but there is still a fundamental difference in thinking. I live around a lot of rednecks. A lot of them just don't have pattern recognition. They'll empower government by supporting drug laws and such, but then are baffled as to how and why that same government curbs their 2A rights.

That same type of thing is true with a lot of people. Libertarians aren't going to like world government, yet some support many of the actions that are being used to usher it in.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:15 PM

Nope. Liberty in general is not that popular with the "problem immigrants" (those that don't respect private property boundaries). Liberty is popular with a number of immigrants from other places in teh world. :) By the time libertarianism "commits suicide" ( :rolleyes: ) the paleocon movement will be vastly outnumbered and outvoted (irrelevant in any practical matter)...and eventually die :) .

And you're happy about that, I take it, from your obnoxious smiley face. The traditional conservatives are largely who funded Ron Paul's campaigns all these years. They are also the people who have kept us from going into full-fledged world government. From fighting the Law of the Sea Treaty, the UN education programs forced on our schools, to the disarmament of America. Without them, your ass would already be in a gulag.

After you are all gone, you will be free to elect more people like Sarvis to office. :p

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 04:21 PM

Thread: Conservatism And Libertarianism: No Need For Conflict (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432882-Conservatism-And-Libertarianism-No-Need-For-Conflict&p=5303840#post5303840)

You and I are NOT on the same side.

You need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:24 PM

You need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

Oh, you think it is agreeable to wish that all paleocons die and smile about it? :mad:

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 04:25 PM

And you're happy about that, I take it, from your obnoxious smiley face. The traditional conservatives are largely who funded Ron Paul's campaigns all these years. They are also the people who have kept us from going into full-fledged world government. From fighting the Law of the Sea Treaty, the UN education programs forced on our schools, to the disarmament of America. Without them, your ass would already be in a gulag.

After you are all gone, you will be free to elect more people like Sarvis to office. :p
No, without them (remember, I don't include the Old Right in this) I would never have been in threat of being put in a gulag to begin with. :P Conseratives' war zeal made the world safe for communism and the gulags for most of their existence. :P

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:26 PM

No, without them (remember, I don't include the Old Right in this) I would never have been in threat of being put in a gulag to begin with. :P Conseratives' war zeal made the world safe for communism and the gulags for most of their existence. :P

You really are clueless, hb.

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 04:27 PM

Oh, you think it is agreeable to wish that all paleocons die and smile about it? :mad:

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. Let me quote it so you can read it a few more times and realize why you're wrong:

the paleocon movement will be vastly outnumbered and outvoted (irrelevant in any practical matter)...and eventually die

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 04:28 PM

You really are clueless, hb.

You really are incorrect, LE.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 04:28 PM

Most of the rednecks I know are against drug laws because they use meth.

Well, I don't know about your circles, but most rednecks I know don't use "meth." Most people have probably never even seen that drug.

This is another fundamental and mathematical difference. If one watches all the local news, you'd think this was some kind of great problem spinning out of control. Most people are not even doing such things.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 04:31 PM

Oh yeah, "immigration reform." I've been hearing this since caveman days. Talk about paleo.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:33 PM

Oh yeah, "immigration reform." I've been hearing this since caveman days. Talk about paleo.

No, Paleos do NOT want more illegal aliens coming into our country.

compromise

11-10-2013, 04:33 PM

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:34 PM

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. Let me quote it so you can read it a few more times and realize why you're wrong:

I read it just fine. I also saw your smiley face at the end, highlighting your joy that the Paleocons would be dead. :mad:

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:35 PM

Did I say you were a truther?

Yes, you implied it when you said:

Ron Paul discredited himself greatly by flirting with 9/11 truth and other wacky conspiracies.

There are conspiracies going on every day. Some are theories and some are not. By the same token, some are real/proven and some are not. Take the Federal Reserve, for example. Or the UN's Agenda 21, for another. They are very real things.

What does old even mean? There's a sea of difference between Jefferson and Hamilton and many paleocons draw ideological inspiration from both. Who renamed these legacy conservatives paleocons? Numerous sources claim Gottfried coined the phrase.
Perhaps you run in different circles than I do. For example, I don't think I'm superior to rednecks. But I have never met a Paleocon who thought Hamilton was worth a crap.

Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg have often praised Goldwater and his foreign policy.

Yeah, and they quote and twist the words of our founding fathers too. They have about as much in common with Goldwater as the man in the moon.

phill4paul

11-10-2013, 04:36 PM

Well, I don't know about your circles, but most rednecks I know don't use "meth." Most people have probably never even seen that drug.

This is another fundamental and mathematical difference. If one watches all the local news, you'd think this was some kind of great problem spinning out of control. Most people are not even doing such things.

I AM a redneck and neither myself or any others that I know like myself smoke meth.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:40 PM

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 04:42 PM

Thread: Conservatism And Libertarianism: No Need For Conflict
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432882-Conservatism-And-Libertarianism-No-Need-For-Conflict&p=5303840#post5303840)You and I are NOT on the same side.
I'm surprised anyone is on your side-especially considering how nasty you've been to almost everyone the last few weeks/months.

fr33

11-10-2013, 04:42 PM

Most of the rednecks I know are against drug laws because they use meth.

How many rednecks do you know?

compromise

11-10-2013, 04:43 PM

How many rednecks do you know?

1.

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 04:44 PM

I read it just fine. I also saw your smiley face at the end, highlighting your joy that the Paleocons would be dead. :mad:
It said paleoconservatism. You clearly didn't read it "just fine". I very much hope that current paleocons live long, repent, and become libertarians. :) Paleocons tend to be older and somewhat more resourceful than the younger libertarians.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 04:59 PM

I'm surprised anyone is on your side-especially considering how nasty you've been to almost everyone the last few weeks/months.

Certainly not the ones who are spewing neverending hatred towards paleocons or have made it their "liberty project" to derail Ron or Rand Paul's efforts. Let me tell you how much I care.

wgadget

11-10-2013, 04:59 PM

You libertarians/conservatives fighting over labels are making us look bad.

As for me, I'm for the Constitution. The only question we should be asking candidates in the future is what their stand is on the Constitution, IMO.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 05:06 PM

No, Paleos do NOT want more illegal aliens coming into our country.

I'm just talking about the terminology. "Immigration reform." This term has been used forever. It's a silly term.

If you're going to talk about one group getting hung up on drug laws, then I'd put the immigration issue in the same category for the paleo diet people--or whatever you call them. Conserve-tards beat the immigration issue to death. I know quite a few immigrants from remote areas. The liberty mindset is totally different with these people because they live it. The difference is night and day.

Feeding the Abscess

11-10-2013, 05:57 PM

Ok. I like Pete and I consider him a friend. I'd be happy to hang out with him.

I'm not a Truther, so go bark up another tree. Clearly, you need to look up the word "conspiracy" in the dictionary, because you are misusing it.

I don't need to source them. I was there. Plus, what I said makes common sense. There used to be only one type of conservative and there was until after the neocons and social cons came on the picture. Paleo=old. The legacy conservatives were renamed, Paleocons.

Oh, bullcrap. The neocons don't claim Goldwater and I didn't care for Buckley at all.

Personally, I don't really care what label for those who want liberty, wins out in the end. But, for now, perhaps you should stop poking Paleocons in the eye. They are not the enemies of this movement.

The 'paleocons' you speak of, the Old Right, never really existed. There were a few guys, like Howard Buffett, who believed it, but the establishment GOP was much more Hoover/interventionist/conservative than it was the liberals/free marketeers of the Old Right. In the 1950s, the conservatives, led by Buckley, put forward 'fusionism,' which essentially was 'bring the Old Right and libertarians into the fold and make them support us and our giant leviathan state, and if they don't like it, boot them out.'

Conservatism has always been a dead ideology, one of preserving the State. Any attempts to brand oneself as one should be merely rhetorical.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 06:18 PM

The 'paleocons' you speak of, the Old Right, never really existed. There were a few guys, like Howard Buffett, who believed it, but the establishment GOP was much more Hoover/interventionist/conservative than it was the liberals/free marketeers of the Old Right. In the 1950s, the conservatives, led by Buckley, put forward 'fusionism,' which essentially was 'bring the Old Right and libertarians into the fold and make them support us and our giant leviathan state, and if they don't like it, boot them out.'

That's quaint, but I grew up in it. My parents couldn't stand Buckley, read Mises, campaigned for Goldwater, liked the Anti-federalists more than the Federalists, supported Ron Paul from his very first run in Congress and at least my Mother was a member of the JBS. They considered themselves Goldwater-Conservatives.

Conservatism has always been a dead ideology, one of preserving the State. Any attempts to brand oneself as one should be merely rhetorical.

Not if you want to get back to a limited constitutional republic. But, of course, if that is not what you want, I can understand the dismay.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 06:20 PM

I'm just talking about the terminology. "Immigration reform." This term has been used forever. It's a silly term.
I agree, which is why Paleocons didn't invent the term. A pack of leftists did, who wanted to understate what it really was they wanted to do.

If you're going to talk about one group getting hung up on drug laws, then I'd put the immigration issue in the same category for the paleo diet people--or whatever you call them. Conserve-tards beat the immigration issue to death. I know quite a few immigrants from remote areas. The liberty mindset is totally different with these people because they live it. The difference is night and day.

How about you stop this crap. :mad: Because what it's going to lead to is each of us attacking a stupid label that each of us seems to believe most closely defines our beliefs. I can't see how that is going to further liberty, but if that is what you want, keep it up.

Feeding the Abscess

11-10-2013, 06:32 PM

That's quaint, but I grew up in it. My parents couldn't stand Buckley, read Mises, campaigned for Goldwater, liked the Anti-federalists more than the Federalists, supported Ron Paul from his very first run in Congress and at least my Mother was a member of the JBS. They considered themselves Goldwater-Conservatives.

Not if you want to get back to a limited constitutional republic. But, of course, if that is not what you want, I can understand the dismay.

You may have lived it, and your parents, too. But that doesn't change the fact that said faction never carried the argument or won the day politically. Goldwater, even, was abandoned by the establishment and was creamed because of it.

LibertyEagle

11-10-2013, 06:38 PM

You may have lived it, and your parents, too. But that doesn't change the fact that said faction never carried the argument or won the day politically. Goldwater, even, was abandoned by the establishment and was creamed because of it.

Of course they didn't. Any more than Ron Paul did. But, Goldwater revived the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson and that did not die with Goldwater's campaign. Those are exactly the people that Ronald Reagan tailored his message to when he ran for President. Too bad he didn't walk his talk, but his talk was great. If you remember, Ron Paul liked it too.

It's pretty laughable that you are pushing this point, considering that the Libertarians haven't won jack over all these years they have been trying. I do think "libertarianism", which isn't owned by any particular label, is gaining a bit of ground now and that is thanks to Ron, Rand and Justin's being able to awaken the remnant. As much as you seem to hate it, a good part of that remnant supported Goldwater and considered themselves to be conservatives.

Now, do you really want to continue this divide and conquer bullshit any further?

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 06:59 PM

I agree, which is why Paleocons didn't invent the term. A pack of leftists did, who wanted to understate what it really was they wanted to do.

Well, I don't follow this a lot, but it seems to me that both libtards and conservetards use the term regularly. I also understand that libtards don't seem to be bothered nearly as much as conservetards when discussing people from Tacoville.

How about you stop this crap. :mad:

Hey man, I'm just trying to use the hip language of forums and cable TV.

Feeding the Abscess

11-10-2013, 07:05 PM

Well, I don't follow this a lot, but it seems to me that both libtards and conservetards use the term regularly. I also understand that libtards don't seem to be bothered nearly as much as conservetards when discussing people from Tacoville.

Hey man, I'm just trying to use the hip language of forums and cable TV.

The working-middle class, white, union democratic voters tend to be incredibly racist and anti-immigrant.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 07:38 PM

The working-middle class, white, union democratic voters tend to be incredibly racist and anti-immigrant.

I would agree. Maybe I'm just limiting to politicians and those TV debaters.

I lived in New York, NC, and a few other places. I'd say the prejudice is the same level everywhere, but it take different formats. And I would just call it prejudice because it's a more useful term. The coloreds seem to think they have a monopoly by just calling it all racism.

Story: My wife works in a medical facility. She is from an Asian country. You know, one of those "Asian-Americans." The hick patients out here can't figure out where she is from. One of them calls her a ******. Well, later on, this patient must have been--uh--a little active--because they tied him to the bed. He then pleads with my wife to untie him. She says, "No, the ****** will not untie you." Heh heh.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 07:43 PM

Well, I don't follow this a lot, but it seems to me that both libtards and conservetards use the term regularly. I also understand that libtards don't seem to be bothered nearly as much as conservetards when discussing people from Tacoville.

Hey man, I'm just trying to use the hip language of forums and cable TV.

Ha ha, Liberty Eagle just gave me a neg rep for this. Come on dude, I'm just trying to be egalitarian in my intelleckual analyses.

Please don't call one of those anti-defamer groups on me.

RDM

11-10-2013, 07:57 PM

Ha ha, Liberty Eagle just gave me a neg rep for this. Come on dude, I'm just trying to be egalitarian in my intelleckual analyses.

Please don't call one of those anti-defamer groups on me.
She's been handing them out today like left over Halloween candy.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 08:02 PM

She's been handing them out today like left over Halloween candy.

Oh, I thought Liberty Eagle was a dude.

I thought Ender was a woman because of that woman in his avatar. That's not implying that his posts are feminine or anything because I have not really looked at this posts that closely.

Neil Desmond

11-10-2013, 08:34 PM

Libertarianism: Belief in the sovereignty of the individual over the government.
This doesn't make any sense to me; how can the individual have sovereignty over the government, unless there's only one individual? If you would have said sovereignty of the collective over the government, maybe that would make a little more sense. I also don't get the use of the word "belief" rather than the use of the word "advocate."

If you use the word "belief", then there's a right or wrong answer depending on the existing conditions of how the government operates. If the government is authoriatarian and you're a libertarian (by this definition, meaning you believe that the individual has sovereignty over the government), then your "belief" is incorrect. If you use "proponent" rather than "belief", then it's a statement about what you desire or advocate, and it's independent of the existing conditions of how the government operates. Let's try making this adjustment:

Authoritarianism: The sovereignty of the government over the individual.

Authoritarian: A proponent of authoritarianism.

How about something like this instead:

Libertarianism: The absence or lack of sovereignty of the government over the individual.

Libertarian: A proponent of libertarianism.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 08:44 PM

I'm getting dizzy with all this terminology. I just call it leave-me-the-fuck-alone-ism.

Neil Desmond

11-10-2013, 08:46 PM

Oh, I thought Liberty Eagle was a dude.

I thought Ender was a woman because of that woman in his avatar. That's not implying that his posts are feminine or anything because I have not really looked at this posts that closely.
LOL!

I think ClydeCoulter's a puppy; heavenlyboy34 is a cross between a cuttlefish, mantis shrimp, and sideways jellyfish; Rifleman's a flag, A Son of Liberty is beer, Voluntarist is a slogan, Rothbardian Girl's a bunny, Contumacious is a bird, and you and Originalist are a couple of kool kats.

Ender

11-10-2013, 09:19 PM

Oh, I thought Liberty Eagle was a dude.

I thought Ender was a woman because of that woman in his avatar. That's not implying that his posts are feminine or anything because I have not really looked at this posts that closely.

Woman in my avatar?

That's Legalos, the great warrior elf from Lord of the Rings. :D

And, I'm told that I'm almost as pretty as he is. ;)

heavenlyboy34

11-10-2013, 09:42 PM

LOL!

I think ClydeCoulter's a puppy; heavenlyboy34 is a cross between a cuttlefish, mantis shrimp, and sideways jellyfish; Rifleman's a flag, A Son of Liberty is beer, Voluntarist is a slogan, Rothbardian Girl's a bunny, Contumacious is a bird, and you and Originalist are a couple of kool kats.
I'm a collection of seashells-turned into vectors and fancied up in adobe CS3. :cool:

TaftFan

11-10-2013, 09:48 PM

Not to divert too much from my own thread, but for all the paleocons out there, we have one running for Governor in Texas in Tom Pauken. From a paleocon standpoint, he is the real deal.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-10-2013, 09:54 PM

WTF? Oops. :D

FrankRep

11-10-2013, 10:05 PM

Not to divert too much from my own thread, but for all the paleocons out there, we have one running for Governor in Texas in Tom Pauken. From a paleocon standpoint, he is the real deal.

Greg Abbott looks really good too. Check them both out.

Greg Abbott (Attorney General of Texas) For Texas Governor (R)
http://www.gregabbott.com/

Tom Pauken (former Texas Workforce Commissioner and former Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas) For Texas Governor (R)
http://www.tompaukenfortexas.com/

Rick Perry has announced that he will not run for a fourth full term as Governor.

TaftFan

11-10-2013, 10:15 PM

Greg Abbott looks really good too. Check them both out.

Greg Abbott (Attorney General of Texas) For Texas Governor (R)
http://www.gregabbott.com/

Tom Pauken (former Texas Workforce Commissioner and former Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas) For Texas Governor (R)
http://www.tompaukenfortexas.com/

Rick Perry has announced that he will not run for a fourth full term as Governor.

Not a fan of Abbott. I brought this up because I wrote this diary a few minutes ago... http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2013/11/10/tom-pauken-for-governor-of-texas/

FrankRep

11-10-2013, 10:18 PM

Not a fan of Abbott. I brought this up because I wrote this diary a few minutes ago... http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2013/11/10/tom-pauken-for-governor-of-texas/

Oh cool. Reading the article now.

TaftFan

11-10-2013, 10:21 PM

And Frank, I know you will like reading this review of Pauken's book. :)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/6423-bringing-america-home

FrankRep

11-10-2013, 10:25 PM

And Frank, I know you will like reading this review of Pauken's book. :)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/6423-bringing-america-home

Found another one:

Book Reveals Neo-Con Influence in GOP (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/6421-book-reveals-neo-con-influence-in-gop)

The New American | 07 July 2010

Tom Pauken, a lawyer and conservative political activist hailing from Texas, wrote Bringing Home America: How America Lost Her Way and How We Can Find Our Way Back (http://tinyurl.com/m2axmwc) for the stated purpose of critiquing how the George W. Bush administration squandered the political capital that Goldwater/Reagan conservatives had built over three decades. Pauken served as chairman of the Republican Party of Texas from 1994 to 1997, which was both before and after George W. Bush became Governor of Texas. Years earlier, he served on the transition team of President-elect Ronald Reagan and was appointed by President Reagan to head ACTION, where he worked to rein in the agency.

Pauken is obviously more than an observer regarding the impact Reagan or the Bushes have had on the conservative movement. However, his book is not a political tell-all, and those who read it with that assumption in mind will be disappointed.

Pauken is an outspoken critic of the neo-conservative movement and a respected traditional Republican. Yet, ironically, in the first chapter of his book, he credits not just traditionally minded conservatives (e.g., Barry Goldwater) but neo-conservatives (e.g., William F. Buckley) for helping to shape his political philosophy.
...

Full Article:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/6421-book-reveals-neo-con-influence-in-gop

bolil

11-11-2013, 01:12 AM

For practical reasons I agree that paleoconservatives and classical liberals (now libertarians?) should present a united front. Concentrate on common issues: End the drug war, end the war on indirect exchange, and end the war on terror, fuck it end all wars and act locally. Me, I think I am an anarchist that is not completely reconciled to his own philosophy. Still, I am willing to get on board with anything I feel just. I laugh when I see people bemoan the devolution of RPF from a center for activist concentration into a broad zone for debate? Why? Cause when I first came around I asked many times, "What can I do?" I never received an answer. I guess I did, if "Donate to such and suches campaign for liberty" qualifies as an answer. Me? I prefer to act. Time for this fucker to get busy getting busy. Campaign season for liberty in Chicago. Reach out and PM me if you feel like brainstorming and are in the area.

AuH20

11-11-2013, 09:35 AM

Paleoconservatism will live on long after libertarianism commits suicide with immigration.

Paleoconservatism isn't glamorous but it's predicated on stability deducted from generational experience. That's why it will outlive the more abstract theories of both pure libertarianism and state socialism in the end. Both of those applications are somewhat detached from the humanity factor as I put it. Paleoconservatism recognizes who man is, as opposed to what others falsely want him to be.

fr33

11-11-2013, 11:51 PM

Greg Abbott looks really good too. Check them both out.

Greg Abbott (Attorney General of Texas) For Texas Governor (R)
http://www.gregabbott.com/

Tom Pauken (former Texas Workforce Commissioner and former Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas) For Texas Governor (R)
http://www.tompaukenfortexas.com/

Rick Perry has announced that he will not run for a fourth full term as Governor.

Abbot thinks it's fine to take my tax dollars in order to propagandize for his religion on state property (otherwise known as property stolen from the people).

FrankRep

11-11-2013, 11:53 PM

Abbot thinks it's fine to take my tax dollars in order to propagandize for his religion on state property (otherwise known as property stolen from the people).
Can you give me a news article about?

fr33

11-11-2013, 11:57 PM

Can you give me a news article about?

http://ballotpedia.org/Greg_Abbott
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1500

FrankRep

11-12-2013, 12:04 AM

http://ballotpedia.org/Greg_Abbott
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1500

I can see why "Do Not Murder," "Do Not Steal," and other such statements may offend you.

fr33

11-12-2013, 12:26 AM

I can see why "Do Not Murder," "Do Not Steal," and other such statements may offend you.

I can see that you are being disingenuous by focusing on 2 while ignoring the others.

heavenlyboy34

11-12-2013, 12:37 AM

Paleoconservatism isn't glamorous but it's predicated on stability deducted from generational experience. That's why it will outlive the more abstract theories of both pure libertarianism and state socialism in the end. Both of those applications are somewhat detached from the humanity factor as I put it. Paleoconservatism recognizes who man is, as opposed to what others falsely want him to be.
Paleocon methodology is traditionally inductive, not deductive. IOW, always fallacious and logically unsound, though occasionally correct.

Classical liberals and certain strains of libertarians, however, generally use deduction. Theories of of libertarianism (like the classical liberalism that conservatives try to borrow from) are abstract because theory in general is abstract. The more specific you try to get the further you get into the central planning quasi-religions like fascism (a 3rd cousin or so of conservatism)

btw, what is this "stability" you speak of? There is no "stability" in reality. (google "Chaos Theory" and "entropy") Change is the only constant. This is one of the reasons conservatives always fail-lack of understanding the dynamism of reality and praxaeology.

Ronin Truth

11-12-2013, 01:13 AM

"Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized." — Terry Pratchett

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-12-2013, 02:05 AM

AuH20

11-12-2013, 10:01 AM

Paleocon methodology is traditionally inductive, not deductive. IOW, always fallacious and logically unsound, though occasionally correct.

Classical liberals and certain strains of libertarians, however, generally use deduction. Theories of of libertarianism (like the classical liberalism that conservatives try to borrow from) are abstract because theory in general is abstract. The more specific you try to get the further you get into the central planning quasi-religions like fascism (a 3rd cousin or so of conservatism)

btw, what is this "stability" you speak of? There is no "stability" in reality. (google "Chaos Theory" and "entropy") Change is the only constant. This is one of the reasons conservatives always fail-lack of understanding the dynamism of reality and praxaeology.

Paleoconservative thought is completely deductive based off past human interaction. That which does not work has been filtered out over time, hence the aversion to foreign relations as well as mindless consumerism. It's essentially a survival blueprint for the chaos that typifies this planet. To use a Star Trek metaphor, Paleoconservatism is very Vulcan like, in that it predicates itself on three key principles: permanence, prudence and adaptive change when necessary. Most importantly, prudence (Lat. prudentia, contracted from providentia, seeing ahead) is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason.