How do libertarians differ from constitutional conservatives?

[Peace&Freedom]

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

http://voluntaryist.com/

This definition presumes an approach to 'libertarian principle' that makes it no different than anarchism, in that it recognizes no possible legitimate basis for civil government. The minarchist view holds that the size and scope of government should be limited strictly to that large enough to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and no larger. This is consistent with libertarian principles, because the use of force by such a state would be defensive, thus not an initiation of force or aggression.

If individuals have a right to self-defense use of force with respect to their basic rights, then so does the government they delegate to protect those rights. In fact, one of the reasons the LP's non-initiation of force pledge is written that way was to accomodate both the anarchists and minarchists under the libertarian umbrella, by appealing to both group's opposition to the offensive use of force.

The pledge silently implies the defensive use of force by a minimal state is therefore legitimate, but does not go into it due to the myriad variations of opinion between anarchists and minarchists about applying or delegating this to government. The point being, there can be voluntaryists who are consistent libertarians. The attempt to define libertarianism as being innately opposed to electoral politics is in error, since libertarians support electoral politics to facilitate achieving a minarchist state, which is in fact compatible with voluntaryism.

[TommyJeff]

So what is your background? Where do you fall politically and philosophically?

I am not affiliated with a political party.

[TommyJeff]

Branding. I would suggest that you call yourself a constitutional conservative if you're working through the GOP.

You don't really believe the GOP believes in the constitution do you??

[acesfull]

libertarianism in one sentence: Other people are not your property.

And another sentence... I just want to be left alone...

[Christian Liberty]

This definition presumes an approach to 'libertarian principle' that makes it no different than anarchism, in that it recognizes no possible legitimate basis for civil government. The minarchist view holds that the size and scope of government should be limited strictly to that large enough to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and no larger. This is consistent with libertarian principles, because the use of force by such a state would be defensive, thus not an initiation of force or aggression.

If individuals have a right to self-defense use of force with respect to their basic rights, then so does the government they delegate to protect those rights. In fact, one of the reasons the LP's non-initiation of force pledge is written that way was to accomodate both the anarchists and minarchists under the libertarian umbrella, by appealing to both group's opposition to the offensive use of force.

The pledge silently implies the defensive use of force by a minimal state is therefore legitimate, but does not go into it due to the myriad variations of opinion between anarchists and minarchists about applying or delegating this to government. The point being, there can be voluntaryists who are consistent libertarians. The attempt to define libertarianism as being innately opposed to electoral politics is in error, since libertarians support lectoral politics to facilitate achieving a minarchist state, which is in fact compatible with voluntaryism.

It depends on how broadly you apply the NAP.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I am not affiliated with a political party.

I guessed that you'd say you're not affiliated, but that's not what I was asking. Anyway, you said you're a private person, so no big deal about answering. Just asking.

[Ronin Truth]

This definition presumes an approach to 'libertarian principle' that makes it no different than anarchism, in that it recognizes no possible legitimate basis for civil government. The minarchist view holds that the size and scope of government should be limited strictly to that large enough to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and no larger. This is consistent with libertarian principles, because the use of force by such a state would be defensive, thus not an initiation of force or aggression.

If individuals have a right to self-defense use of force with respect to their basic rights, then so does the government they delegate to protect those rights. In fact, one of the reasons the LP's non-initiation of force pledge is written that way was to accomodate both the anarchists and minarchists under the libertarian umbrella, by appealing to both group's opposition to the offensive use of force.

The pledge silently implies the defensive use of force by a minimal state is therefore legitimate, but does not go into it due to the myriad variations of opinion between anarchists and minarchists about applying or delegating this to government. The point being, there can be voluntaryists who are consistent libertarians. The attempt to define libertarianism as being innately opposed to electoral politics is in error, since libertarians support electoral politics to facilitate achieving a minarchist state, which is in fact compatible with voluntaryism.

Government is a tool. Tools have no rights. Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Libertarians support electoral politics, not libertarians. The LP was originally formed and comprised largely of only disgruntled, frustrated, disenchanted limited government GOP conservatives in the early 70's. Basically they just managed to hijack the name from the real libertarians. Kinda like the socialists hijacked the name 'liberal'.

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head."

[Peace&Freedom]

Government is a tool. Tools have no rights. Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Libertarians support electoral politics, not libertarians. The LP was originally formed and comprised largely of only disgruntled, frustrated, disenchanted limited government GOP conservatives in the early 70's. Basically they just managed to hijack the name from the real libertarians. Kinda like the socialists hijacked the name 'liberal'.

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head."

None of these mis-characterizations speak to the points made above that electoral politics does not conflict with libertarian principles, in the context of libertarians doing so to achieve or restore a minarchist state. Nor does it speak to your conflating libertarianism with anarchism, in order to create a false conflict with libertarians pursuing electoral politics. You have sidestepped argument in order to reassert invective.

[heavenlyboy34]

Government is a tool. Tools have no rights. Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Libertarians support electoral politics, not libertarians. The LP was originally formed and comprised largely of only disgruntled, frustrated, disenchanted limited government GOP conservatives in the early 70's. Basically they just managed to hijack the name from the real libertarians. Kinda like the socialists hijacked the name 'liberal'.

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head."

+rep

[heavenlyboy34]

None of these mis-characterizations speak to the points made above that electoral politics does not conflict with libertarian principles, in the context of libertarians doing so to achieve or restore a minarchist state. Nor does it speak to your conflating libertarianism with anarchism, in order to create a false conflict with libertarians pursuing electoral politics. You have sidestepped argument in order to reassert invective.

Small-l libertarianism (aka "Plumbline libertarianism") is voluntaryist/anarchist in nature.

[Ronin Truth]

None of these mis-characterizations speak to the points made above that electoral politics does not conflict with libertarian principles, in the context of libertarians doing so to achieve or restore a minarchist state. Nor does it speak to your conflating libertarianism with anarchism, in order to create a false conflict with libertarians pursuing electoral politics. You have sidestepped argument in order to reassert invective.

Sorry (not really), non-libertarians never get to redefine "libertarian" to suit their imaginary fantasy electoral preference whims, especially not to any of the real libertarians. Go on back and play your foolish politics games with your LP conservative buddies.

[Peace&Freedom]

Sorry (not really), non-libertarians never get to redefine "libertarian" to suit their imaginary fantasy electoral preference whims, especially not to any of the real libertarians. Go on back and play your foolish politics games with your LP conservative buddies.

In other words, you are ignoring addressing my rebuttal of that false argument, twice. "Libertarianism equals anarchism" is a dogma of anarchism, while the truth remains that libertarianism includes both anarchists and minarchists. Since your whim is to insist on something as self-evident that is the point at issue, I leave you to play your foolish word games with yourself.

[robert68]

...

If individuals have a right to self-defense use of force with respect to their basic rights, then so does the government they delegate to protect those rights...

Your "they delegate" is collectivist, similar to the social contract. A "protective" force imposed on individuals is not defending their rights, it's violating them.

[Ronin Truth]

In other words, you are ignoring addressing my rebuttal of that false argument, twice. "Libertarianism equals anarchism" is a dogma of anarchism, while the truth remains that libertarianism includes both anarchists and minarchists. Since your whim is to insist on something as self-evident that is the point at issue, I leave you to play your foolish word games with yourself.

No, ignoring addressing your rebuttal (so called) was merely a kindness to the error filled silly foolishness.

Leaving is a great idea, if you make the effort to actually learn something.


"An anarchist is anyone that believes in less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, if I thought I was on my way elsewhere, I'd just go ahead and do it

Probably something close to minarchism. I just don't believe the idea that there shouldn't be any civil magistrate with authority at all is very Biblical, and there are too many theological problems.

Seemed to work fine for the ancient Hebrews. They were the ones who gave us the Bible. See the book of Judges for reference. During the period of judges (pre-monarcy period) they seemed, according to history, to function under a kind of kritarchy.

[Ronin Truth]

How do the minarchists ever get to that state?

[fisharmor]

the truth remains that libertarianism includes both anarchists and minarchists.

I think that's a fair assessment, with the caveat that one of those groups thinks the state is more important than liberty, and the other thinks liberty is more important than the state.

[fisharmor]

How do the minarchists ever get to that state?

Well, we're living in it right now, aren't we?

[Christian Liberty]

Seemed to work fine for the ancient Hebrews. They were the ones who gave us the Bible. See the book of Judges for reference. During the period of judges (pre-monarcy period) they seemed, according to history, to function under a kind of kritarchy.

Thing is, the Hebrew society was closer to minarchism than ancap. Which is one of the theological problems I ran into.

I think that's a fair assessment, with the caveat that one of those groups thinks the state is more important than liberty, and the other thinks liberty is more important than the state.

This is wrong. Minarchists think a minimal state can be consistent with liberty, while ancaps believe a lack of any State at all is most consistent with liberty.

[fisharmor]

TMinarchists think a minimal state can be consistent with liberty, while ancaps believe a lack of any State at all is most consistent with liberty.

And you just totally confirmed what I wrote.
"Can be" translates to "pretty much never is". Yet you hang on to the notion, because you value the state more than liberty.
I'm not saying you don't value liberty as well. But you do value the state more.

[HVACTech]

Well, we're living in it right now, aren't we?

no, it is VERY clear, that what we have today bears little or no resemblance to the Constitution.

we are trying to restore what we have lost.
(or at least I am. )

[Peace&Freedom]

No, ignoring addressing your rebuttal (so called) was merely a kindness to the error filled silly foolishness.

Leaving is a great idea, if you make the effort to actually learn something.

"An anarchist is anyone that believes in less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

You have not demonstrated anything about this, since you did not and cannot respond on the merits. Pat yourself on the back for evasion all you want to, but minarchist libertarians aren't "leaving," or running off from a movement in which they are vital. They simply reject your erroneous constructions and pointless efforts at division.

[fisharmor]

no, it is VERY clear, that what we have today bears little or no resemblance to the Constitution.

we are trying to restore what we have lost.
(or at least I am. )

Everyone who has jumped the minarchism track knows what the goal is.
The question I was suggesting in my post is this:
What specific point in history are you pointing to, that you are trying to restore?

[fisharmor]

You have not demonstrated anything about this, since you did not and cannot respond on the merits. Pat yourself on the back for evasion all you want to, but minarchist libertarians aren't "leaving," or running off from a movement in which they are vital. They simply reject your erroneous constructions and pointless efforts at division.

I'm not dividing anything, and I invite you to answer the question.
What are you restoring?
You obviously have an idea that you want to implement, and this restoration language is used constantly.
So point it out to me.... when was it?

[Peace&Freedom]

Seemed to work fine for the ancient Hebrews. They were the ones who gave us the Bible. See the book of Judges for reference. During the period of judges (pre-monarcy period) they seemed, according to history, to function under a kind of kritarchy.

Neither minarchism nor anarchism is perfect, given human imperfection or sin has messed up both in practice, over the short term or long term, for thousands of years. The Hebrew system worked because God was in charge, through His prophets. The point of world history, biblically speaking, has been to show that mankind ultimately could not successfully maintain just government on its own, no matter how rightly conceived, but only by God Himself doing the governing.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm not dividing anything, and I invite you to answer the question.
What are you restoring?
You obviously have an idea that you want to implement, and this restoration language is used constantly.
So point it out to me.... when was it?

When you casually berate half or most libertarians as not being libertarians, yes, that is dividing. Some (imperfect) examples of minarchist governments were the American government as originally designed, or the original ancient Israeli kingdoms (minarchist in form, to set their people apart from all their oppressive neighbors). Humans messed it up both times, of course, just as they turned away from the biblical anarchism of the time of the judges.

I believe following the second advent, Christ will establish a millenial kingdom that will be either biblically anarchistic or minarchistic in form, restoring the system that existed during the time of Samuel or David. In either case, God is the secret sauce to make a free order work.

[thoughtomator]

"Constitutional conservative" was the code word we used in contexts where saying you supported a member of the Paul family would otherwise get you instantly and permanently marginalized.

[fisharmor]

When you casually berate half or most libertarians as not being libertarians, yes, that is dividing.

I agreed with you that minarchists are essentially libertarian. By "you" do you mean "that collective of anarchists to which I have also consigned fisharmor"?

Some (imperfect) examples of minarchist governments were the American government as originally designed, or the original ancient Israeli kingdoms (minarchist in form, to set their people apart from all their oppressive neighbors). Humans messed it up both times, of course, just as they turned away from the biblical anarchism of the time of the judges.

Now, choose your words carefully. Each one is another shovelful of dirt coming out of the hole you're digging yourself.
What I just got from your response is
1) You are trying to restore us to an imperfect government
2) You are trying to restore a government which you admit got corrupted into something which is not an example of what you're arguing for
3) The other example you give is not taken from historical sources
4) Therefore, based on the history of the example you offered, you are, in fact, arguing in favor of the government we have today.

[erowe1]

Who would qualify as an example of a constitutional conservative?

[erowe1]

no, it is VERY clear, that what we have today bears little or no resemblance to the Constitution.

we are trying to restore what we have lost.
(or at least I am. )

Lost when?

1787 right?