The Fundamental Difference Between Libertarians and Conservatives

[CuteOldGuy]

Excellent essay on the right to choose. Not just abortion, but the right to live our lives the way we see fit.

From the article:

Note that Kristol and Wolfson are criticizing not just particular choices but the right to choose itself. It is, of course, entirely reasonable for public-spirited citizens to urge others to make better choices—to practice temperance or even abstinence with regard to drugs and sex, to avoid divorce, to spend more time with their children, to treat employees with respect, to give more to charity. But the distinction between a free and an unfree society is that such advice remains just that, and the adult individual remains free to accept or reject it without legal sanction.


Who is in the best position to make our choices for us? Ourselves, or the government?

http://www.libertarianism.org/public...ays/pro-choice

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Excellent essay on the right to choose. Not just abortion, but the right to live our lives the way we see fit.

From the article:

Note that Kristol and Wolfson are criticizing not just particular choices but the right to choose itself. It is, of course, entirely reasonable for public-spirited citizens to urge others to make better choices—to practice temperance or even abstinence with regard to drugs and sex, to avoid divorce, to spend more time with their children, to treat employees with respect, to give more to charity. But the distinction between a free and an unfree society is that such advice remains just that, and the adult individual remains free to accept or reject it without legal sanction.


Who is in the best position to make our choices for us? Ourselves, or the government?

http://www.libertarianism.org/public...ays/pro-choice

A nice explaination. However I believe that is a reasonable opinion only when coupled with a very callous view that a person is destined to live with the consequences of their poor decision--or their poor luck. And there is a clear and decernable consequence for my liberty injuring someone else.

While I philosophically am attracted to that point of view, there are too many real problems with implementing it anywhere near 100%. We have rules about pilots and paramedics not allowed to exercise their right to drink within so many hours of being on duty. We have speed limits on roads that impinge upon my choice to go 80 mph through a school zone. Implementing it partially leads to all kinds of slippery slopes and people playing god.

Not impossible to pull off, but much harder than it sounds in that excerpt. And, as with any system, it benefits some over others--that can never be completely overcome. It just becomes a question of which people get preferential treatment, and in what areas. "Equal" is not the same as "fair".

[CuteOldGuy]

When someone takes a job, there are restrictions on behavior. That is a contract undertaken voluntarily. When a person decides to be a pilot, s/he takes with it the requirement not fly while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That is not a restriction of liberty forced upon that person, that is a restriction they voluntarily accept.

There is a significant difference between choices imposed on a person by government, and those voluntarily entered into.

If you choose to drive a car, there are restrictions you voluntarily agree to, some of which are to not drive drunk, or drive 80 mph through a school zone. You know that when you decide to drive. It does not apply to you at all if you do not choose to drive.

We have to be careful to not confuse restrictions on behavior which we enter into voluntarily, and those imposed by government. Those restrictions are not always bright line, but we need to examine any restriction proposed by government to determine if we are asking the citizen to voluntarily restrict their actions by virtue of choosing a particular activity, or if we are requiring a certain behavior because we think it is "right".

Many want to outlaw cigarette smoking, because it is better for people to not smoke. However, it is non of the government's business if a person smokes. Now, if a business wants to tell smokers "you can't smoke in here" I voluntarily agree to restrict my freedom if I go in to that business. But if I want to smoke in my own home, what gives the government the right to say I can't? The same holds true of other activities.

Now, like the article says, we can certainly encourage people to not smoke. We can forbid them to smoke in our presence. But are we so righteous that we can tell others "You must not smoke because I think it's bad"? No. I don't think so.

You're right, it's not a simple concept. But we need to begin the discussion with liberty in mind, not restriction.

[JD Barleycorn]

We are talking about the social contract. To live in a peaceful, safe, comfortable society we agree to live by certain rules that protect others from our own foolish actions; speed limits, drug laws, alcohol laws, molestion laws, euthanasia laws, and abortion laws. The last has been horrible tortured. We expect that these laws will target the violators of safety and not just create a new class of criminals. The laws should be effective and not onerous. The laws should have the lightest touch possible on citizens. In practical terms I should be able to buy a drink, a gun, a car, a motel room, or a woman if that is my desire. If I abuse the rights mentioned then I become subject to punishment that will persaude me that my actions were outside the norm and had the effect of hurting someone, ie.; drinking and driving with an accident, public intoxication with negative results on someone else, firing a gun indiscriminately, or abusing a woman that I've hired with physical violence or a health problem.

Libertarians are grand on a small scale but like socialism it fails on a large scale.

[CJ7]

not as " horrible tortured " as you'll be if Olivia decides to follow you around and grade your syntax

roflmao

[Guest123018-4]

I have stated for a number of years that the so called Conservatives and the Libertarians should find common ground and work together to defeat their greatest enemy.

In real life discussions, I find that Conservatives are more ready to accept many of the tenets of Libertarians once they begin to understand that the majority of Libertarians are not anarchists, isolationists, or bent on destroying our military.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We are talking about the social contract. To live in a peaceful, safe, comfortable society we agree to live by certain rules that protect others from our own foolish actions;Who decides what's foolish? speed limits, We voluntarily agree to abide by those when we choose to drive. drug laws,Laws restricting what you do while on drugs are one thing. Preventing you from using is another. Who's business is it what you do on your own, harming no one else? alcohol laws,See previous. molestion laws,Who the hell is in favor of no molestation laws? That falls under the government protecting you from anyone taking your life, liberty or property by force or fraud. euthanasia laws,What right does government have to tell a terminally ill patient how and when they must die? Shouldn't the patient have that choice? and abortion laws.We've seen how well government does regulating this one. The last has been horrible tortured. We expect that these laws will target the violators of safety and not just create a new class of criminals. The laws should be effective and not onerous.But should only be the ones you want. The laws should have the lightest touch possible on citizens. In practical terms I should be able to buy a drink, a gun, a car, a motel room, or a woman if that is my desire. Not only in practical terms, in absolute terms. If I abuse the rights mentioned then I become subject to punishment that will persaude me that my actions were outside the norm and had the effect of hurting someone, ie.; drinking and driving with an accident, public intoxication with negative results on someone else, firing a gun indiscriminately, or abusing a woman that I've hired with physical violence or a health problem.How does that discredit Libertarianism? Sounds like it falls square into it. No libertarian believes that you have a right to drink and drive, abuse others while drunk, shooting firearms in a dangerous or negligent manner (unless you're in danger), or abuse a woman, whether you've paid to be with her or not.

Libertarians are grand on a small scale but like socialism it fails on a large scale.That is a sentence that sounds pretty but means absolutely nothing. C'mon JD, you're better than that.

You are muddying the water, and have no understanding of what Libertarian philosophy is.

[nevergaveitathought]

libertarian ideas in the abstract seem liberating and freedom giving.

if there were few people on this earth, they may even be correct ..where one's actions do not affect another's life

but if you were trying to sleep at 2 a.m. and your next door neighbor had a raucous, head banging, acid rock party going on..well who ya gonna call?

i could go on

its a great philosophy if everyone was like you..only they arent.

if the idea is well this freedom can be limited.....yeah ok you got me, that one too..well then all we are talking about is what law someone does or does not personally agree with

[Whirlaway]

A bold and energizing choice would be Romney picking Gary Johnson to be his VP running mate !

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

libertarian ideas in the abstract seem liberating and freedom giving.

if there were few people on this earth, they may even be correct ..where one's actions do not affect another's life

but if you were trying to sleep at 2 a.m. and your next door neighbor had a raucous, head banging, acid rock party going on..well who ya gonna call?

i could go on

its a great philosophy if everyone was like you..only they arent.

if the idea is well this freedom can be limited.....yeah ok you got me, that one too..well then all we are talking about is what law someone does or does not personally agree with

Why would a Libertarian be opposed to requiring your neighbor to turn down their noise? This is the problem Libertarians face. People think they understand, but they really don't.

Being a Libertarian does NOT give you any more rights than anyone else. Does a person have a right to have a loud party? Does that right extend to interfering with other people's lives at 2:00am? Of course not.

I wish you people would at least try to understand Libertarianism before you discount it.

But to go on. I personally do not agree with using drugs. But who am I to tell someone they can't? It's not my decision. I can tell them they can't drive or engage in other activities while high, but the act of using is their business alone.

I personally don't think people should drink raw milk. It's gross. But I think people have the right to make that choice.

I don't think it is government's business if I choose a 32 ounce soda.

And so on.

Please learn libertarianism. You may already be a libertarian, but the media has convinced you you're not by using these fallacious arguments.

[Whirlaway]

What would be the reasonable LP position on areawide spraying for mosquitoe control as an example ?

[CuteOldGuy]

Good god. "What would libertarians do if there was an athlete's foot outbreak at the Y."

Not spending all my time answering inconsequential question about what a LIbertarian would do if there is a pimple on your ass.

Study it. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Sometimes you just gotta kill the fucking mosquitoes. Jesus.

[Whirlaway]

To treat athlete's feet you don't aerial bomb the entire gym; I think it is a legitmate question because it gets to the core of LP governance - your rights stop where my begin !

How would an LP Mayor handle such an issue as aerial spraying ?

It is a reasonable, everyday question of LP governance..........but if you don't want to engage in the debate, so be it...I thought you were trying to win us over to the LP side.....one among many reasons why voters don't trust, LP isn't willing to tell us how they stand where the rubber meets ther road....the LP platform sounds all utopian and great, but in practical everyday guidenace people have questions, but LP typicaly don't like to get into the weeds of any issue.

Sorry to bother you COG.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Please learn libertarianism. You may already be a libertarian, but the media has convinced you you're not by using these fallacious arguments.

my point was...it all boils down to what law you agree with

i guess the classic proscription libertarians live and die on is drug laws...

perhaps there is a point to relaxing them...but there will always be an envelope to be pushed there....and where does it end? the drug that supposedly caused the homeless guy to bite the face off another? all drugs? some that currently can only be administered by doctors? Micheal Jackson's propofol?

[CuteOldGuy]

You people are using some tiny issues to confuse the bigger picture. I don't even know if there is a liberal, conservative or libertarian controversy over spraying for mosquitoes. I don't think mosquitoes have any fundamental rights, but it is a non-issue as far as partisanship is concerned.

"Oooh! We can't harm mosquitoes. It's not Libertarian!" Are you fucking kidding me? Libertarianism supports limited government, not no government. There will still be the essential function of government to protect the population from outside forces. Who's power of choice is limited if the government sprays for mosquitoes? Good lord. "Well someone may not want the mosquitoes sprayed". Fine. Move to where the mosquitoes are, and enjoy!

If you want to ban a drug because of what someone "might" do, how is that freedom? Someone "might" run into someone with his car, so we should ban cars? Someone "might" stab someone with a chef's knife, should be ban chef's knives?

More people have been hit by cars and killed by chef's knives than have tried to eat someone's face because of a drug they took.

You want to restrict everyone's rights, on the basis of what one person, or a small group of people "might" do. That makes sense? Sounds like thought police to me.

Someone "might" want to break into my house at night. Therefore no one should be allowed on the street at night.

Give me a break.

Learn the philosophy before you start arguing. You're sounding pretty stupid.