Would a libertarian society be conservative?

Would a libertarian society be conservative?

  • Total voters
    59
Dreamofunity said:
In certain communities, but I think it will overall be more liberal on social issues.
Click to expand...

i think the conservative ones will be dominant.

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).
 
I don't think society would be any *one* thing under a libertarian system. That's the beauty of freedom; it allows a rich polyphony of thoughts, opinions, cultures, and values to coexist, even if they don't necessarily like eachother.
 
denison said:
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....
Click to expand...

Can I live in this world? :)
 
Who knows? And what do you mean by conservative? Socially conservative? I don't think so, depending on the region, of course. Would the society require more personal responsibility? Yes. But social conservatism and personal responsibility are not the same things.
 
For the most part. There might be some higher drug use and people might be more open, but in general, society would be a lot more curtious and civil.
 
djdellisanti4 said:
For the most part. There might be some higher drug use and people might be more open, but in general, society would be a lot more curtious and civil.
Click to expand...

Let's look at that drug use thing for a second.
Kids don't do drugs because drugs are some kind of social evil that brainwash our youth.
Kids do drugs because we imprison them for half of their waking hours, and for the other half there's nothing for them to do, unless they're immediately chained to a soccer ball or a cello.
Kids do drugs because their lives suck. Drugs are not the problem. Drugs (and sex) are a symptom.

Also, in a libertarian society people might be able to live in a house half the size of what they live in now, which is actually close to stuff to do (formerly called civilization) - and you might not need a car and half an hour of transit time to get to something more interesting than cable TV or the Xbox.
In a libertarian society, people who currently do drugs would have all sorts of other opportunities that might keep them busy.

Lord knows that if I didn't have my man-cave (shop) and neighbors understanding enough to tolerate my welding, I'd be doing a hell of a lot more drugs.
 
denison said:
i think the conservative ones will be dominant.

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).
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what we mean by liberal on social issues. I simply mean tolerable to other social opinions, not forcing others to pay for individual actions. For example, a private community with a contract stating you must not be gay, not do drugs, be in a commited monogamous relationship, etc to live there is completely valid, but I don't see how it would be any more dominant than the society which is socially tolerable of these issues, as long as they have the same economic system, and instead I would almost be tempted to say the opposite, given the one society prevents people from going there and associating with it.

I agree if people within the liberal community were forced to pay for other people, then it would decay faster, but only in an economic sense considering it simply wouldn't be that libertarian on the economic side. However, I believe in the absence of government (or at the very most, a government that enforced contracts and that's it) society would be much more liberal, or at least tolerable, on social issues. Look at today's youth, obviously not a good example on all fronts, but they tend to be more tolerable on social issues than previous generations. I don't think this trend would end given a libertarian society. I don't know a single libertarian under 25 that has any issue with gay/race/etc, whereas some older more paleoconservative libertarian types do, even if they wouldn't legislate against it.

So who would pay for costs of 'social decay'? - those individuals who decide to act in such manners.

I don't see how a society that is acceptant and tolerable, even encourages to a certain extent (the same as people encourage heterosexual marriage commitments today) of gay-marriage (or at least commited relationships, given the state would not be involved in marriage) is any worse off, and I would probably state the opposite for those that would condemn those individuals in their society would be less off. It's similar to that with a racist store owner (not that racism is equivilant with being against homosexual marriage but), if you prevent and limit who visits your business/society, you prevent ideas and money from going there.

For drugs, etc, obviously those in addiction are not beneficial for society, but I don't see drugs as a problem in itself, addiction is the problem. But I would say a society that is more tolerable, and accepts it as a medical problem of addiction and not a bad condemable action in itself would be better off. I personally wouldn't want to live in a society where I couldn't do what I pleased with my body on my own property, which if that was within the contract (ie: No drugs in our society), I'd consider it a viable contract if people wanted to live there under those conditions, I just wouldn't move there - and I don't even do drugs (other than alcohol, although that tends to be a conservative-acceptable drug).

I think Hoppe's argument is that conservative plan for long term (ie, drugs are pleasurable, but they're bad for your health in the long term so I don't do them; sex with multiple people/strangers is pleasurable, but bad for your health in the long run) where as liberals don't, which he then relates to economic investment and planning, and states therefore the conservatives would be better off. I haven't actually read his book, so I don't know if that's his actual argument, but I don't think that argument holds. I don't equate a specific social positions with economic ability, however I do equate social freedom to economic freedom. I don't think you can have one without the other. My body, my property, I do with it as I please, and can contract with any consenting adult.

I think this is all irrelevent though if we were given a truely libertarian society. Do what you want on your property and group with whomever you please, and I will do the same. That is the beauty of freedom.
 
It would have to be socially liberal because social conservatives deny evolution and libertarianism is social Darwinism. :D
 
I think it would IN GENERAL be more on the side of STAUNCH fiscal conservatism and very socially adapative (liberal).

Let's not forget that CLASSICAL liberalism is founded on fiscal conservatism and free markets.
 
The fallacy is this idea of societies. If you admit each individual is in fact an individual, this question seems contradictory.

I could write a lot here but the point is simple. If people can get along, each person will be what they choose to be. I don't see people necessarily all shifting to one side. Each individual may choose to socially surround himself with people who are philosophically similar, and he may disregard the personal lives of people he works with, so long as personal life doesn't collide with professional.

How would it be any different than now? Except that now we force by gun, for people to behave certain ways, and people still "misbehave" so we fill prisons and graveyards with people the government disagrees with.

All I can imagine is that people will be happier, when they can take the world off their shoulders, stop voting with the power to ruin lives, stop fearing they'll come for you in the night, shoot your dog, and drag you away because you like to play poker, sniff powder, or to reference a recent event, cut somebody's hair.

Of course there may be changes in behavior or practice that reflect the new liberty, bums and welfare lovers will have to find new teats to suck, get jobs, or die. Hard working and intelligent people will finally be rewarded for their skills in many ways where before they'd be punished. This is what I meant by happier people. A welfare dependent, a non functioning drug addict, a bum, none of these people are "better off" being treated like babies. They might die if they aren't constantly monitored and supported, but they would certainly be happier people if they became self-sufficient. Dependency is a psychological destroyer. It is clearly an imbalance between mental and physical maintenance.
 
Last edited:
It depends on the semantics. I voted yes because of the general perception of conservatives that they say they don't want big government, but it can also be liberal because the idea of limited government has existed for a short period of time in human history and been realized in very few places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Zuckerberg Now Identifies As A Libertarian
2
Replies
24
Views
8K
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
The Biggest Mistake America Has Ever Made
Replies
2
Views
463
WarriorLiberty
W
PAF
The Trump Campaign Tries to Buy Votes by Subsidizing IVF
Replies
3
Views
2K
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
PAF
Defending Individual Liberty
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Anti Federalist
Trump says it would be a ‘great honor’ to be jailed for violating gag order
2 3
Replies
46
Views
5K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top