Can Tea Party reconcile libertarianism and social conservatism?

[CCTelander]

I'm a longtime Ron Paul supporter and I consider myself a cross between a paleoconservative and a libertarian.

I don't understand why some people here view social conservatism with near contempt.

I'm not saying you're guilty of showing contempt, but I want to highlight something you brought up in the above post. You said: "I think perverted lifestyles are wrong. I think chivalry is good and that gender norms are important. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on other."

What if we were to apply this to other issues ... say, stealing or murder? For example: "I think stealing and murder is wrong. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on others."

Or another example: "I think rape is wrong. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on others."

Now I understand there are philosophical issues involved in the abortion controversy, but the bottom line is social conservatives aren't just foaming at the mouth idiots. They have a legitimate argument -- one, in fact, held by both Ron and his son: they view abortion as being murder since it ends a human life.

Gay marriage is a different issue, one I won't get into here. Suffice to say, I would be happy just to see these issues and most others returned to a state level, and get the federal government out of our lives. But again, I get the impression on here that many simply dismiss social conservatives out of hand, and I think that's doing a disservice to the liberty movement. One can hold a proper view of the U.S. Constitution and the role of government and still be a social conservative.

Stealing, rape and murder are clear and unambiguous violations of the Non-Aggression Principle, and thus are "objectively" wrong.

Having a "perverted lifestyle" (whatever the hell that means) is not, and thus is never a just reason to apply force. "Perversion" is ALWAYS nothing more than a subjective value judgement based upon the individuals preconceived prejudices. It cause no objective harm to anyone save, in a few cases, those who consentually engage in it.

If I choose to have 3 wives, or be a "swinger," or be a stay at home husband while my wife serves as the primary breadwinner, or any other purely consentual behavior, it is, quite simply, none of your business. You're perfectly free to exercise your preference NOT to engage in such activities. You're perfectly free to judge me and my behavior any way you see fit. You are NOT free to use or advocate the use of violence to force me to conform to your own preferences.

I have absolutely no problem with any "social conservative" who's willing to "keep it in their pants," to hold whatever position they care to regarding my non-aggressive behavior and choices, so long as they don't use or attempt to use or advocate the use of violence to force me to do otherwise. The very second they make such an attempt they've earned my utter contempt, and chosen to make themselves my enemy. Period.

 

[Kregisen]

What if we were to apply this to other issues ... say, stealing or murder? For example: "I think stealing and murder is wrong. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on others."

Or another example: "I think rape is wrong. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on others."

Putting it in different words from the last repliers, it's simple...libertarianism is about rights. You can't have freedom without rights.

Killing or raping someone is violating their rights to life.

Your freedom ends where mine begins.

If something infringes on the rights of others, it should be illegal. If it doesn't, there is no victim and hence no crime committed and it should be legal.

This is why I can't stand social conservatism.....it's very big government and makes little sense to me (I grew up in a social conservative family too).

On abortion, libertarians are split almost 50/50. I'm pro-life because I believe the unborn have rights, and believe their right to life is greater than the women's right to her body.

 

[wehrwd]

Putting it in different words from the last repliers, it's simple...libertarianism is about rights. You can't have freedom without rights.

Killing or raping someone is violating their rights to life.

Your freedom ends where mine begins.

If something infringes on the rights of others, it should be illegal. If it doesn't, there is no victim and hence no crime committed and it should be legal.

This is why I can't stand social conservatism.....it's very big government and makes little sense to me (I grew up in a social conservative family too).

On abortion, libertarians are split almost 50/50. I'm pro-life because I believe the unborn have rights, and believe their right to life is greater than the women's right to her body.

Perhaps there needs to be clarification about what issues fall under "social conservatism" and what makes someone a "social conservative." Three issues come to my mind at the moment: abortion, gay rights and drug legalization. By some people's standards, you yourself might be a social conservative because you are pro life.

 

[wehrwd]

If I choose to have 3 wives, or be a "swinger," or be a stay at home husband while my wife serves as the primary breadwinner, or any other purely consentual behavior, it is, quite simply, none of your business. You're perfectly free to exercise your preference NOT to engage in such activities. You're perfectly free to judge me and my behavior any way you see fit. You are NOT free to use or advocate the use of violence to force me to conform to your own preferences.

I apologize for the double post! One more quick point, though. The title of this thread was asking whether the Tea Party could "reconcile" libertarianism and social conservatism. Are the examples you cite really issues that even need to be reconciled, though? I don't think many social conservatives would necessarily disagree with what you just said there, outside of state-sanctioned or state-recognized polygamy. But polygamy is something it seems even most liberals would take issue with yet.

 

[CCTelander]

I apologize for the double post! One more quick point, though. The title of this thread was asking whether the Tea Party could "reconcile" libertarianism and social conservatism. Are the examples you cite really issues that even need to be reconciled, though? I don't think many social conservatives would necessarily disagree with what you just said there, outside of state-sanctioned or state-recognized polygamy. But polygamy is something it seems even most liberals would take issue with yet.

Well, there are plenty of "social conservatives" on this forum who would see all of those and many more be illegal.

The particular issue is really unimportant anyway. The principle remains the same whether you're talking about polygamy, drug use, or women walking around topless. None are just reasons for the initiation of force.

 

[someperson]

As CCTelander pointed out, I think it would be good if you looked into the Non-Aggression Principle (aka the NAP). After studying it, I believe you'll understand more clearly what the differences are between the various issues that you have posited. I don't have a good link on the topic, at the moment; perhaps, someone else can provide one.

 

[ChaosControl]

I'm a longtime Ron Paul supporter and I consider myself a cross between a paleoconservative and a libertarian.

I don't understand why some people here view social conservatism with near contempt.

I'm not saying you're guilty of showing contempt, but I want to highlight something you brought up in the above post. You said: "I think perverted lifestyles are wrong. I think chivalry is good and that gender norms are important. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on other."

I'm probably one of the most receptive people to social conservatism here, so I find it funny how you address me with this. I specifically refuse to call myself a social liberal / fiscal conservative and instead will say social libertarian since I am personally socially conservative unlike many others. But even though I like the values of it and agree with them doesn't mean it is acceptable for me to force those views on others any more than it is acceptable for other people to force me to associate with people who engage in perverted lifestyles or force me to pay taxes for wars or corporate bailouts.

What if we were to apply this to other issues ... say, stealing or murder? For example: "I think stealing and murder is wrong. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on others."

Or another example: "I think rape is wrong. However, as a libertarian I recognize that these are all just my own personal values and not things to be forced on others."

Unlike the issues I mentioned, stealing and murder harm a person and thus should not be tolerated. The issues I mentioned should be tolerated, but you don't have to accept them.

Now I understand there are philosophical issues involved in the abortion controversy, but the bottom line is social conservatives aren't just foaming at the mouth idiots. They have a legitimate argument -- one, in fact, held by both Ron and his son: they view abortion as being murder since it ends a human life.

I'm pro-life. Abortion is murder and thus I do not think it is acceptable it is specifically harming another person. This isn't about social conservatism, it is about liberty. Anyway, again I never said a social conservative is an idiot, why would I say that when I am personally socially conservative.

Gay marriage is a different issue, one I won't get into here. Suffice to say, I would be happy just to see these issues and most others returned to a state level, and get the federal government out of our lives. But again, I get the impression on here that many simply dismiss social conservatives out of hand, and I think that's doing a disservice to the liberty movement. One can hold a proper view of the U.S. Constitution and the role of government and still be a social conservative.

I don't think government should be involved in marriage, I think government pollutes it. But yeah I suppose it can be a state issue if it must be, although I prefer it to be an individual issue that not even the state is involved in.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Perhaps there needs to be clarification about what issues fall under "social conservatism" and what makes someone a "social conservative." Three issues come to my mind at the moment: abortion, gay rights and drug legalization. By some people's standards, you yourself might be a social conservative because you are pro life.

The disagreement is about the use of force to solve social problems.

Libertarians don't advocate government pointing guns at people who do not initiate aggression.
Conservatives do.

 

[Xenophage]

Stealing, rape and murder are clear and unambiguous violations of the Non-Aggression Principle, and thus are "objectively" wrong.

Having a "perverted lifestyle" (whatever the hell that means) is not, and thus is never a just reason to apply force. "Perversion" is ALWAYS nothing more than a subjective value judgement based upon the individuals preconceived prejudices. It cause no objective harm to anyone save, in a few cases, those who consentually engage in it.

If I choose to have 3 wives, or be a "swinger," or be a stay at home husband while my wife serves as the primary breadwinner, or any other purely consentual behavior, it is, quite simply, none of your business. You're perfectly free to exercise your preference NOT to engage in such activities. You're perfectly free to judge me and my behavior any way you see fit. You are NOT free to use or advocate the use of violence to force me to conform to your own preferences.

I have absolutely no problem with any "social conservative" who's willing to "keep it in their pants," to hold whatever position they care to regarding my non-aggressive behavior and choices, so long as they don't use or attempt to use or advocate the use of violence to force me to do otherwise. The very second they make such an attempt they've earned my utter contempt, and chosen to make themselves my enemy. Period.

+1!

 

[klamath]

The disagreement is about the use of force to solve social problems.

Libertarians don't advocate government pointing guns at people who do not initiate aggression.
Conservatives do.

At least half of Libertarians advocate the right to kill the most innocent in the world. And so they must live with their hyprocrasy like social conservatives must live with theirs in support of religious wars.

 

[Number19]

At least half of Libertarians advocate the right to kill the most innocent in the world. And so they must live with their hyprocrasy like social conservatives must live with theirs in support of religious wars.

The disagreement revolves around what defines a "person". In order to survive as a species, all animal life is dependent upon the death of other living organisms, so "killing" is not at the heart of the issue. But some on this forum maintain that killing a one hour old zygote is taking the life of a "person" and that one hour old zygote - that person - has a right to life. Others disagree. It's an irresolvable conflict.

 

[klamath]

The disagreement revolves around what defines a "person". In order to survive as a species, all animal life is dependent upon the death of other living organisms, so "killing" is not at the heart of the issue. But some on this forum maintain that killing a one hour old zygote is taking the life of a "person" and that one hour old zygote - that person - has a right to life. Others disagree. It's an irresolvable conflict.

What it is called is the dehumanization of those that get in your way, whether they be a muslim's setting on an oil field or an unwanted child. Always make those that you wish to eliminate less than human. Works every time because it is the basic law or the world. Force against force and he with the most force wins and his genes go on. Morals are only man's feeble attempt to tame the real law of the universe.

 

[Smitty]

You are confusing libertarianism with anarchy.


The two are not the same.

Maybe not, but taking into consideration the degredation of liberty in a culture which was "ostensibly" protected from tyranny by the American Constitution, it's arguable that anarchy is the best path to true freedom.

Good read:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sobran-j1.html

An excerpt: (but please read it all)

The Reluctant Anarchist
By Joseph Sobran

Murray's view of politics was shockingly blunt: the state was nothing but a criminal gang writ large. Much as I agreed with him in general, and fascinating though I found his arguments, I resisted this conclusion. I still wanted to believe in constitutional government.

Murray would have none of this. He insisted that the Philadelphia convention at which the Constitution had been drafted was nothing but a "coup d'état," centralizing power and destroying the far more tolerable arrangements of the Articles of Confederation. This was a direct denial of everything I'd been taught. I'd never heard anyone suggest that the Articles had been preferable to the Constitution! But Murray didn't care what anyone thought – or what everyone thought. (He'd been too radical for Ayn Rand.)

Other things have helped change my mind. R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii calculates that in the twentieth century alone, states murdered about 162,000,000 of their own subjects. This figure doesn't include the tens of millions of foreigners they killed in war. How, then, can we speak of states "protecting" their people? No amount of private crime could have claimed such a toll.

 

[Number19]

Anarchic philosophy is irrelevant. It is not a real world scenario.

It's entirely possible that states – organized force – will always rule this world, and that we will have at best a choice among evils.

 

[Smitty]

Anarchic philosophy is irrelevant. It is not a real world scenario.

You very well may be correct.

It could be that tyranny is the only real world scenario.

History shows that it has a damn fine track record.

 

[buffalokid777]

Sales tax is still an income tax on the consumer (directly) and on the producer (indirectly). But yes, I do like it the most of all the other forms of theft.

I'd go with import tariffs, over sales tax. That way you have a choice in many cases though not all, you can import it and pay a the tariff, or produce it here and not pay the tariff.

I think import tariffs are a bad thing when you have a trade surplus, but when you have a trade deficit they can be good for spurring domestic production for domestic consumption

 

[Number19]

You very well may be correct.

It could be that tyranny is the only real world scenario.

History shows that it has a damn fine track record.

It all depends on your definition of "tyranny". If anything short of a true anarchic society is called tyranny, then some forms of tyranny are not so bad.

But I would not call the early 19th century United States a tyranny; and though the Civil War and the 14th Amendment was a severe blow to freedom, I would not call the latter part of the 19th century a tyranny, either.

 

[Smitty]

I would not call the latter part of the 19th century a tyranny, either.

"Reconstruction is your friend", eh?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"Reconstruction is your friend", eh?

In statist society overlooking the blatantly obvious is a mental disorder... except when it's overlooking blatantly obvious facts that contradict statist religion.

R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii calculates that in the twentieth century alone, states murdered about 162,000,000 of their own subjects. This figure doesn't include the tens of millions of foreigners they killed in war. How, then, can we speak of states "protecting" their people? No amount of private crime could have claimed such a toll.

 

[Arion45]

You are confusing libertarianism with anarchy.


The two are not the same.

They are if you take the philosophy to its logical conclusion.