Would anyone be able to help me from a political (not philosophical) stance, and please tell me how a libertarian differs from a constitutional conservative? I imagine they share many similarities.
Thank you
Not too much. Might support some different policies at a local level, but most of the same at the Federal level. Assuming we mean "constitutional" the same way.Originally Posted by TommyJeff
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
One of the primary difference main ways, the non-aggression principle.
Thanks
Without viewing the videos (but reading the titles), does a libertarian believe there should be NO govt at all?
Depends on the libertarian. Some libertarians believe in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism . I used to as well, and its not really "no govt." as you know it.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Libertarians believe the purpose of government is to protect the Rights of the individual, and that government is invalidated when it fails to do so. Libertarians believe the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the Federal government's ability to violate the individual's Rights (hah). Constitutional conservatives, for the most part. care less about individual Rights than balancing federal power with state's autonomy. The differences become readily apparent when you contrast conservative and libertarian views on topics like gay marriage or Roe v. Wade.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
No. There are always several kinds of government in the life of man. The libertarian seeks arrangements that are non-coercive.
Roe v Wade is the most anti-libertarian piece of legislation (court decision) in US history. Its opened the way to the slaughter of millions. This is the biggest point on which I differ from most libertarians.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
My SWAG is that most of the genuine ones do, though many advocate self-government (autarchy). By and large, there is no one official spokesperson for libertarianism.
Here's another popular flavor.
Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
Wouldn't a constitutional conservative say the fed govt doesn't have power to define marriage?
Thank you
How would the libertarian party define itself? Are they wanting to limit govt to the powers granted in the constitution or beyond that?
Some do,,some do not.
And as to your original question.. some libertarians are constitutional conservatives. Some are not.
Some conservatives are Authoritarians.
but then Socialists are authoritarians,
authoritarians are NOT libertarians,, and libertarians are NOT authoritarians.
that is the only real difference in any philosophies, Authority v Liberty.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
Correct. Constitutional conservatives believe marriage strictures be left to the States. Libertarians believe marriage is up to the individuals involved.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
All constitutional conservatives are constitutional conservatives. Many libertarians were constitutional conservatives.
"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell
"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell
I think the "Libertarian party" is a mix of all kinds of nutty ideas (many of which lead back to statism anyway). I try to stay away from especially the national Libertarian party.
They are explicit in their definition of themselves:
http://www.lp.org/platform
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I think it is important to note also that there are many small "l" libertarians who don't fit into the platform of the national party though. I'm one of those.
I think this ^^ is the best answer so far.
I'm willing to give them a shot before dismissing them as nutty proto-statists.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Agreed; however his OP asked for political, rather than philosophical, differences.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
dup post
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Yeah, but when you have national Libertarian candidates who are radical feminists arguing for all kinds of Communistic ideas, the word "libertarian" loses its meaning. There have been some good local libertarian candidates lately in Ohio and northern Kentucky. I support them.
"Libertarian Party" is just another silly, goofy oxymoron, and always was.
A 'libertarian party' is an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms.
???
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I don't know or really care how the Libertarian party defines itself. Most people here are not a member of that party. And if you are looking for a general stereotype to attach to the 'libertarian' label, good luck. We fight with each other as much as we do with everyone else.
Practically, when it comes to domestic Federal policies, there shouldn't be any difference.
I would agree with this. As a libertarian, all I ask for poltically is government by the consent of the governed. Assuming one can see through the phony consent of democracy, then you end up with government by consensus and without coercion. So any government that ALL of the governed agree to is fine with me.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
Libertarians dont have to be constitutionalists. Many have no problem with Executive orders or unconstitutional laws that favor less government.
If they were consistent, they would.
But they generally do not.
This is what turned me away from constitutional conservatism. It became clear that I could either be the only person in existence who has actually read the US constitution, comprehended the plain English meaning of its words, and determined to live by that,
or I could look for something that actually has a chance of working as advertised.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us