Would a libertarian society be conservative?

[denison]

I think so for a number of reasons. Here are my reasons for the previous thread......

"In a society without government coercion and social engineering programs supported with high taxes, natual order would be dominent."

"Traditional family values and patriarchy would be standard. But with the absense of government force people have the option to do what they want. So there would still be people who lived out of the bounds of social norm."

""social liberalism" is supported through big government. you can not have a socially liberal society without massive social engineering by the government. In absense or the government, the concepts of reputation, honor and individual responsibility come into play."

"a productive libertarian society would be socially conservative for survival purposes. there's a reason why we teach manners, respect, and personal responsibilty..........because it leads to a respect for private property."

 

[Sola_Fide]

"If a society were truly moral, a written constitution would hardly be neccessary."

-Ron Paul, End The Fed, pg.149

 

[kkassam]

I think largely so. Of course, it would also be tolerant of many more alternative lifestyles, but in the main I agree with denison. The traditional societies and the more experimental ones could exist separately, with the former being more dominant. Cities would probably also have more diversity etc than other areas as they always have throughout history.

 

[denison]

.........

 

[denison]

posted by txaslftist

"Very good point. If welfare didn't make it practical to be a single mother, marriage would be much more the norm, and societal (not governmental) pressures would be much stronger to make marriage enduring and adultery much less tolerated. Who would approve of a father abandoning his kids to starvation and want? But under prevailing conditions, who can blame a mother for getting rid of a mate who "doesn't make her happy" when the survival of her kids doesn't depend on an intact marriage and she's going to get a check anyway?"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2976645&postcount=54

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

It will depend. I some areas it might a more liberal. Liberal doesn't have to mean more govt. They might be more libertine. In their area they might not mind people walking around smoking a joint, or having sex clubs, and head shops, where more conservative area might not have that type of stuff.

 

[ChaosControl]

Maybe.

The boundary pushers that alter societal values would just do what they wanted to do. No big court battles, no TV nationalizing the news about it and so people just wouldn't pay attention to it.

You'd probably have conservative communities and liberal communities.

 

[pcosmar]

I am inclined to say yes.

But,,define "conservative".

It seems to me that the meaning of that word has changed or how it is applied has.

 

[denison]

You'd probably have conservative communities and liberal communities.

agreed. i think the conservative ones will be dominant, though.

but in the liberal communities who would be paying for the paternity tests and drug rehab centers and all the other cost associated with social decay?


i think liberal communities, as a whole, would self-destruct faster without a larger pool of people to steal from(through taxation).

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"If a society were truly moral, a written constitution would hardly be neccessary."

-Ron Paul, End The Fed, pg.149

Can someone explain how evil souls are created so I can determine whether or not society is moral. Can someone explain if a soul is predetermined to be evil why evil souls be allowed to live for an opportunity of redemption?

If I am pure good and I create artificial intelligence would robots be immoral?
If I am pure good and I create artificial intelligence does that mean a society of robots can never exceed the abilities of their creator?

 

[denison]

I am inclined to say yes.

But,,define "conservative".

It seems to me that the meaning of that word has changed or how it is applied has.

conservative in social morals and conduct. the behavior between men and women would be more formal and traditional. social ostracism would have a large part in weeding out degenerates. people would get married and stay married. the concept of "alimony" would be non-existent. men would be responsible for the welfare of their children, not just by providing a check, but raising them. adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality would be looked down on etc....

 

[TheHumblePhysicist]

I think that a society without a lot of government intervention requires that people have a certain "goodness" about them, so that most people are virtuous and good to one another, and moral principles are established by a general consensus among the population. People who didn't follow good moral practice would be ostracized or whipped into shape by some salty old war veteran with a badge and a sidearm. People would have a general moral integrity to them, so you could trust somebody if you looked them in the eye and shook their hand.

What does what I just described sound like to you? A religion. Religious communities provide the moral framework in which a free society can exist. So yes, such a society would be socially conservative.

You know, when people swore on the bible, that used to mean something.

 

[denison]

I think that a society without a lot of government intervention requires that people have a certain "goodness" about them, so that most people are virtuous and good to one another, and moral principles are established by a general consensus among the population. People who didn't follow good moral practice would be ostracized or whipped into shape by some salty old war veteran with a badge and a sidearm. People would have a general moral integrity to them, so you could trust somebody if you looked them in the eye and shook their hand.

What does what I just described sound like to you? A religion. Religious communities provide the moral framework in which a free society can exist. So yes, such a society would be socially conservative.

You know, when people swore on the bible, that used to mean something.

^^This.

But it's important to realize that religion can be twisted for statist expansion.

But I do think that decentralized religion is good for organizing productive communities.

 

[pcosmar]

I think that a society without a lot of government intervention requires that people have a certain "goodness" about them, so that most people are virtuous and good to one another, and moral principles are established by a general consensus among the population.

The Founders believe that Liberty could only be had and maintained by a moral people.
And they they could govern themselves.

People who didn't follow good moral practice would be ostracized or whipped into shape by some salty old war veteran with a badge and a sidearm.

What if I shoot the armed bastard rather than accept a "wippin'"?
Why would some war veteran be given a badge?
Morality can NOT be enforced or imposed.

What does what I just described sound like to you? A religion. Religious communities provide the moral framework in which a free society can exist. So yes, such a society would be socially conservative.

Sounds like Iran. Or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

This is why the Constitution is important. The Law. Not some nebulous idea of morality.
It protects the rights of all regardless of personal belief.

You know, when people swore on the bible, that used to mean something.

Only to those that had respect for the book in the first place.

I know many honest folks that neither believe or respect the bible. Their word is still good.
I have seen many "swear on the bible" while lying. Washington is full of them.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote about this in a few books; he tended to think that personal social conservatism would reign supreme, merely because of how society is structured---there would still be the "out there" groups, but they'd tend to be grouped together and "away" from "normal" society.

I'm not sure if that's exactly accurate, but given my experiences with people, I tend to agree.

 

[acptulsa]

Maybe.

The boundary pushers that alter societal values would just do what they wanted to do. No big court battles, no TV nationalizing the news about it and so people just wouldn't pay attention to it.

You'd probably have conservative communities and liberal communities.

I agree.

But, progressive or not, it would sure be progress.

 

[denison]

Like I said I don't think it needs to be force, just guidance and standards. Social ostacism, reputation, honor, respect, individual responsibility will be enough for most people to do the right thing.

The more freedom a person has the more responsible they become(for the most part). Or atleast they'll have pressure to become responsible in order to preserve those freedoms.

 

[marc1888]

No

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

 

[StilesBC]

The question doesn't make any sense.

A libertarian society would be... libertarian.

 

[Fox McCloud]

The question doesn't make any sense.

A libertarian society would be... libertarian.

a libertarian society is merely one that doesn't use the government to hinder/disallow certain behaviors.


There are plenty of libertarians who have personally socially conservative views.