Can Tea Party reconcile libertarianism and social conservatism?

[CCTelander]

So how are contracts upheld, justice provided, and individual rights secured without a government?

You already know how. This kind of info has been posted innumerable times on these very forums.

Sales taxes / tariffs are not as bad as property/income taxes. But I never said they wern't theft.

Basically your argument is that it's better to be raped by a rapist with a smaller member than one with a larger member. I agree. But you're still being raped. I'd rather just not be raped.

 

[ClayTrainor]

So how are contracts upheld, justice provided, and individual rights secured without a government?

Do you believe the government is securing your individual rights, providing justice and upholding private contracts, as written?

Sales taxes / tariffs are not as bad as property/income taxes. But I never said they wern't theft.

Sales taxes and tariffs are taxes on property and income. That's why people trade and exchange property! Income!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are confusing libertarianism with anarchy.


The two are not the same.

Mr Libertarian (Rothbard) begs to differ, ya wascaly wepublican!

 

[Matt Collins]

Mr Libertarian (Rothbard) begs to differ, ya wascaly wepublican!

Real simple....


anarchy = no government.
Libertarianism = limited/restrained/minimal government.

Do you believe the government is securing your individual rights, providing justice and upholding private contracts, as written?

Not very well, but explain to me how these ideas will be done without the government?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So how are contracts upheld, justice provided, and individual rights secured without a government?

This already happens without government every day. It also happened in pre-government America. The gun-vernment only provides the illusion of security while robbing you blind.

Learn more here: Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681–1690

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Real simple....


anarchy = no government.
Libertarianism = limited/restrained/minimal government.

Yes, there is a difference between Libertarianism (basically a variant of Republicanism) and libertarianism. This is self-evident. Why did you haggle with me?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do you expect people to water down volumes of literature into short posts just because you don't want to read Anarchist literature? Whenever anarchists do this regarding CONstitutionalism, the minarchists cry "you've oversimplified it!" Hypocrite much, Collins?

 

[ChaosControl]

I'm a social conservative and a libertarian.
That means in my own life I have socially conservative views. As in I don't drink or smoke and think those are wrong. 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. It is better to influence by example than through the law. I can encourage people to live by such values and I can choose to not be associated with those who do not follow those values.

Beyond that one compromise I could possibly see is that you don't make laws against certain behaviors, but you could use the local government to perhaps promote the values. I don't know how exactly, but perhaps by teaching the values in schools or have community events that encourage them and such, all without actually making behavior that doesn't harm a non-consenting party illegal.

 

[CCTelander]

Why do you expect people to water down volumes of literature into short posts just because you don't want to read Anarchist literature? Whenever anarchists do this regarding CONstitutionalism, the minarchists cry "you've oversimplified it!" Hypocrite much, Collins?

Yeah, and they always demand that you provide them with the education they've neglected to provide themselves WITHOUT compensation. As if my time is valuless or something.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Not very well, but explain to me how these ideas will be done without the government?

Free-markets. Don't legalize or permit the initiation of coercion, force and fraud to anyone or any group and allow the market to provide services that government has monopolized. The very thing that allows for the existence of a state is coercive(tax). In other words, you pay them whatever they demand or you get punished. This is in direct opposition to the basic principles of individual liberty and free-markets.

The real question you need to ask yourself is... What reason do you have to trust an organization financed in such a way, with something as precious as your life and liberty???

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Not very well, but explain to me how these ideas will be done without the government?

The scary part is... after three years of brutal threads of statists and libertarians heavily debating which prompted a philosophy subforum... I know you are serious.

 

[Matt Collins]

Also sales taxes and import tariffs are the least damaging taxes (nothing is being extracted from someone) as much as it is something is being skimmed off the top. I don't like either but they are better than property or income taxes.

Upon reflection though after a couple of days I see that this same logic could be used for the death tax

 

[.Tom]

Also sales taxes and import tariffs are the least damaging taxes (nothing is being extracted from someone) as much as it is something is being skimmed off the top. I don't like either but they are better than property or income taxes.

Actually, a sales tax hurts the poor the most, so advocating it in replacement of other taxes is a terrible idea. It's also just as immoral as other taxes, because you're not allowed to trade without paying it. It's still a property and income tax.

 

[wehrwd]

I'm a social conservative and a libertarian.
That means in my own life I have socially conservative views. As in I don't drink or smoke and think those are wrong. 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. It is better to influence by example than through the law. I can encourage people to live by such values and I can choose to not be associated with those who do not follow those values.

Beyond that one compromise I could possibly see is that you don't make laws against certain behaviors, but you could use the local government to perhaps promote the values. I don't know how exactly, but perhaps by teaching the values in schools or have community events that encourage them and such, all without actually making behavior that doesn't harm a non-consenting party illegal.

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.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Actually, a sales tax hurts the poor the most, so advocating it in replacement of other taxes is a terrible idea. It's also just as immoral as other taxes, because you're not allowed to trade without paying it. It's still a property and income tax.

Well said. For some reason, the bold part, is a very hard concept for people to grasp.

 

[celinar]

I guess the bigger problem is foreign policy.. most likely tea party are pro war

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

It's because "social conservatives" have a tendency to favor the brute use of State force to make others conform to their vision. Have a look at Theocrat's agitating for the murder of homosexuals as an example.

 

[anaconda]

No. libertarianism is not compatible with government. I wish tea partiers would quite trying to pervert libertarian philosophy.

A government that is constructed with the sole purpose of never exceeding a small level of authority and scope is a very libertarian notion and a worthy goal. Following the Constitution to the letter would likely result in a highly libertarian society. I think. Maybe.

I would like to know your thoughts.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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."

libertarians advocate the non-aggression principle.

theft is initiating aggression.
murder is initiating aggression.
rape is initiating aggression.

conservatives advocate telling other people how to live using force if necessary.

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.

libertarians are split on abortion just like everyone else. when does life begin?

libertarians who advocate the non-aggression principle value protecting life.

however there is no right to life or right to stay alive as long as you want.

personally i like the eviction argument. it is ok to eject, not ok to murder and technology will eventually catch up with the debate on when does life begin.

i can understand the disagreements libertarians have on abortion and i am of the opinion they are sensible disagreements. unfortunately once people choose a side they don't necessarily consider the opposing view sensible.

libertarians who advocate the non-aggression principle split hairs on when does self awareness begin? when can a younger individual actually consent to something? again a sensible disagreement in my opinion.

If we eliminate coercion and stop forcing each other to accept the minor sensible disagreements there is a lot of consensus on the non-aggression principle.

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 am a hard core voluntaryist but personally I hold more social conservative views. I have no desire to force other people to accept my beliefs or live how I want them to live and am only offended by people who initiate aggression. I will exercise a socially conservative preference more often than not in the market.

 

[anaconda]

Rand Paul is a perfect example of someone who is phrasing the libertarian philosophy in a way that it is palatable to social conservatives. I think it is very possible. I think the real hurdle is to push just far enough so that the social conservatives begin to clearly see that their patriotism is not to be found in allegiance to their federal government. They need to connect the dots that war is not necessarily patriotic. And just because we "legalize" something we are not condoning it. But rather, taking stock in our individual and community values so that we do not empower a menacing government.

Both Ron and Rand never capitalized on the opportunity to talk about how much more military might and national security we could have by eliminating our wasteful interventionism. They booth needed to have lengthy consultations with West Point academics about such an approach. The libertarians could by now have been seen as the people that could maximally provide for our national security.