Are not Libertarianism and conservatism synonomous? Libertarians want less Govt in your private lives. Smaller Govt... Smaller budget. Libertarians believe charity begins at home. So let's feed our starving kids before giving billions to Pakistan to make their corrupt wealthy and their Military challenge our Soldiers. Ron Paul makes more sense than you might think. Libertarians do not base decissions on personal beliefs. Because someone doesn't believe in Gays or Abortion does not mean he can or would challenge these people nor the laws protecting them. As a libertarian you have to look at the law and say does it protect peoples constitutional rights? Does it infringe on anyone elses? Would it impose on the privacey of ones own home life? And that is where the decissions would come. Motorcycle helmets is a great one, who can suffer the consequences of choosing to wear or not wear a helmet. Only the rider thus it should be their choice. New Hampshire state moto says it well. Live free or die!
Yes indeed Bill. It's this individualism, and personnal responsibility that Libertarians hold so dear. However, there are many that think that "They" know better than "Us" and that we need to be guided on how to live our own lives. Mainly that comes from the left, but guys like R. Santorum show that many Republicans also believe they need to be the hand that guides people's lives. Scary thought, don't you think?
The Libertarian canidate is Garry Johnson, however I will be voting for Dr. Paul. I see every other canidate besides those two continuing the policies of this Administration. They will continue to extended their executive powers. It's the very nature of Govt to grow. Each canidates pays lip service to this, but I beg anyone to show another canidate that will do otherwise, obeying to the constitution.
I understand your point. Alot of the idea right now is that us Paul supports need to "shut up, and get in line." and vote for ABO (anyone but Obama) which is understandable. I do too believe Mr. Paul has a large chance of not winning the nomination. But I believe, the ABO idea is what gets us in worse shape. Maybe my vote for Dr.Paul will be more so that I can sleep soundly at night, so that I know, when we get the next Big R republican in office(more spending, more warfare, etc..), I'll know that I wasn't a part of it.
However, I know that wasn't your point, so please, don't mind my rant. As a true libertarian it might make more sense to vote for Mr. Johnson, but again, I am voting out of my own convictions, and not strategy. But you make a very strong point though.
Mur, for the most part that describes the ideas fairly simple. However, the roots of conservatism and libertarianism are much more rich and intellectually complex than the paragraph described though. Still, its a fairly accurate description.
May I ask though, what exactly is your point by posting and Auburn university description of political stances?
By the way, the link you posted is broken, it went straight to an HTTP 404 error.
Nevermind Mur, I see where you got that impression. It was the first post that asked that question. I should of read it before posting my comment.
You (or should I say the author you reposted) is correct, the two are not synonymous.
Murrelet, not to be mean but I would like to point out.... If you would look under Conservatism... Pay close attention to the "see also notation"... I think that may point out that in some definitions they are infact, synonymous.
Dr Paul should run either independant or as a libertarian and should make that switch soon. I don't feel that this will just affect the republicans. This will give a logical option when you compare the other two options
Mur, you are right. Libertarians stongly believe not imposing ones values upon another by power of the STATE (thats the key word), now that doesn't mean you can't be a Baptist and speak to someone about your faith. The key is it has to be voluntary. If it's not, libertarians are against it.
And yes, there is a sub-category of Libertarians with an anarchists-like feel. Many of the followers of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and Llewellyn Rockwell are considered "anarco-capitalist." Only because they believe the State only hinders the free exchange of capitialism.
Yet most, standard Libertarians (including I) believe in the role of Govt, as it's defined in the Constitution. Many believe the its necessary to assist in third-party issues. Also, to enforce legal contracts and protect private property.
This is a very good blog.
I too will cast my vote for Ron Paul.
I'm tired of these wars in the middle east.
All of our wars or "police actions" beginning with the Korean conflict have been more about keeping Americans employed and allowing defense contractors to make millions of profits (while making foreigners hate us as a country) than they have had to do with protecting anyone from anything.
President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex in his farewell address.
Oh yes we need to legalize marijuana.
Right now the war on drugs is over and drugs won it.
And I will vote for Dr. Paul on the republican ticket.
It is a shame that to run for local office as a Libertarian you have to get on the ballot by petition.
TOT, speaking on defense spending. Here is a cool clip you might like on the subject.
3 Reasons Conservatives Should Cut Defense Spending Now:
I've heard this alot, and as my tag implies; "fighting fallacies with facts.." than I feel I must correct a few misconceptions.
Many people cling to the "Dr. Paul racist" thing. Usually it comes from a lack of understanding, and it's human nature to "fill in the blanks" when one doesn't understand something. Many on the Left use that when they don't understand something. "Well...it must be because he's a racist."
Case in point, Janeane Garofalo made the point on Keith Oberman's show
that the Herman Cain "hides" the racist elements of conservatives. And that Hermain Cain MUST being being "paid" to run by white people.
Again, its a simplistic answer to a problem she couldn't understand. When you are lead to believe, that one group of people must always vote in a certain direction, it rocked her world to see someone that didn't fit her preconceived notion. She than went to the most irrational, unintelligent conclusion she could muster. And if you want to use the definition of racism, than Ms. Garofalo expressed it well. Passing judgement on a person's action or achievments based off the color of skin. You could literally see the steam coming from her ears. "Does not compute...does not compute!" This is why many on the political Left express more racism than any group. They believe in class roles and that everyone needs to be in "their place."
Yet, Dr. Paul does not work for "the white people," but rather wishes opportunity for everyone. The best thing you can do to help someone is to give them opportunity. And many Govt policies hinder this, be it dependency on the welfare state or overburdensome regulations that hurts job growth. Both of which HURT more than HELP people. Dr. Paul wishes to abolish these elements so that everyone can prosper.
Lastly, the whole Ayn Rand-Rand Paul thing is, again, another urban myth. To clear up this misconception, I will post a clip of Rand Paul himself debunking this myth.
Murelet, As I stated Libertarians are true conservatives. Your definition is of the current political stance ...not really a definition. Further, Libertarians do not base decissions on personal beliefs, they base it on your rights as long as they do not infringe on others rights. Abortion is a tricky one though... As you are infringing on the new life so I would have to side with pro life. I am not sure I know of any white men getting abortions though!
Bill, the abortion thing is a tricky subject. Even within the whole Libertarian movement, there is division.
I have known many Libertarians who believe in choice thru and thru. However, I am on the other side, which Dr.Paul described very well in the first chapter of his book, "Liberty Defined"
He argued that how can a country wish to up hold "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," if it can't even up hold the very first word.
Here's an audiobook clip from this chapter. Take a listen (15 minutes total)
Ron Paul - Liberty Defined: Abortion
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
"Thou shalt not kill"
"At some point it becomes murder"
Is there in fact any difference between early term abortion and late term abortion??????????????????????????????????
You have to understand, in our system, just because a few believe in a certain way to handle public utilities (in this case, you brought up roads) doesn't mean they get their way. It doesn't compromise their principals about the topic because they were unable to, say, make public roads to private. However, it could also mean something else. Who's to say. Everyone is different. You can't judge a whole political idiology off a select few.
But I'm curious as to this "old social order." Exactly what order do you mean? Can you explain?
sebekm, I am so sorry to see your post above.
You are very good at using this medium.
I saw nothing in the piece you mentioned above which rendered Ron Paul "clueless"
Actually quite the contrary.
In this age we have many stupid people who see hell bent on destroying themselves.
Such as the notable local young man who is dying of aids because of his life style choice.
If and idiot chooses to smoke crack I don't see a whole lot of sense in wasting a lot of money paying enforcers to prevent it.
Seb, the reason why Paul is a supporter for legalizing drugs is that he's consistant with his principals. Where is it found that its the role of the Federal Govt to regulate what people put into their body. His positions come from the constitiution and the powers it is/is not given. He does, however, say that it should be left up to the states, which he draws from the tenth amendement.
See, the constitiution and the proper role of Govt has been so far removed from society, it's almost normal not to do something "outside" the proscribed role.
Here is a good clip on the drug debate. Its from the late economist (and Regan advisor) Milton Friedman. Please take a listen.
Just to clarify, I do not drink, smoke, or do drugs. I think they are bad for your health, but the arguments are hard to go against.
I could go on to clarify how Ron Paul is not a racist, and that it's a fallacies to think otherwise given bad information.
However, Murrlet, I have a feeling it would do no good, because I think you WANT to believe this.
If I am wrong, and you are indeed ARE open-minded to his positions, please let me know, and I'll clarify much of the media spin you are reposting.
One more thing on the clip I posted,Seb.
Milton Friedman makes a good argument that by making drugs illegal, the Govt keeps the prices up and, essentially, props up these drug cartels that fight along our borders. It's very similar to the bootleggers and mob men in the early 20th century.
You don't have to be "into" drugs to realize it's a money pit that has, and will never work.
Sadly, anti-supporters like Mur, find this logic hard to grasp. And in doing so, cling to ANYTHING that helps them understand (except the truth) which is why you hear/see things like what she posted;
"Libertarians are usually just Republicans who want to smoke pot."
The shear logic COMPETELY alludes them.
Seb, it's a much bigger issue to Libertarians than that. The issue lies at the heart of all who wish to be the social engineers of our society. Who's decision is it? Right now, the State keeps a constant reminder that you are not in control of your own body. I will be writing a piece on this to clarify the many misconceptions.
"I understand that the issues are not simple, but on this particular ONE - for me - it knocks Ron Paul out of the running because his stated position IMHO is destructive and possibly disingenuous."
I understand, I once thought like this too. However, what is MORE destructive is proping up a government that is allowed to control every facet in our lives. Constant war, constant spending, constant regulation. Thats what will kill a society more than someone smoking pot. That, my friend, I turn to history to prove my point.
Yet, I find it sad that someone like Dr. Paul, who's whole idea of goverment comes from what the Founder wrote (and what was intended) is now considered "wacky."
Thats a common misconception. The libertarian apprroach is, and has never been "anything goes." Rather we believe in the role of govt as its described by the constitution. Again, a concept far lost on much of America.
I do not believe in an "anything goes" society. Without laws, we can have no protection of private property. There are many other examples I can give, but thats just one. For the record, I, or the Libertarian stance are not infavor of "anything goes."
Fair enough, yet we need to be specific. When I speak of choosing what to put in ones body, I am speaking of substances.
When we say ANYTHING, that means ANYTHING, which is NOT specific. That could include anything from murder, theft, licenses, trading, speech, etc, etc. There are any number of issues we could bring up if we say the words ANYTHING. I, again, am not speaking of that but rather substances put into ones body.
I do respect your opinion though. My stance comes purely out of respect for the individual. I am not in favor of a tyrannical state choosing for people whatever the current flavor of politician is in office.
There are only two ways to choose; either by yourself or forced from someone else.