I understand, more or less, what a libertarian is, but is it possible to be a conservative libertarian?
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
The fact is Paul is an avowed Libertarian. He ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. So why is it not relevant to talk about the man's political beliefs? In every debate, he has taken the Libertarian position on the issues. You do know he is running for POTUS? Like it or not, Paul's politics are very relevant to his bid for POTUS.
Well, ok, that is what I have been waiting for, talk about hes political beliefs in this election, so far all the talk has been about Libertarianism.
Sorry, I missed this the other day - too busy meddling in other peoples business
But yeah, I agree totally.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Why not, who defines what is what ?
Tell me, what Democrats or Republicans stand for nowdays ?
You haven't bothered reading this thread through, have you.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
What makes you think like that ?
Seriously, what those two major party stand for ?
And how that shows in practice ?
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Ok, I have read this thread through. There is your answer. Can I now expect same courtesy from you ?
No you haven't, otherwise you would not persist in this vein, and would answer the original question.
Now, please, either answer the question, or stop waisting me time.
I think you need a little information here Trippy . There is no set ideal of Libertarianism. There was a sampling of Libertarian though from a group of Libertarians and the conclusion is they all had different views on what it was to be so . About the only thing they had in common is they believed in live and let live . Other than that it was all over the board and varied widely from Libertarian to Libertarian. Only in very resent times ( Like the last 2 years ) are they starting to define an agenda of like mindedness .
Frag Might argue this as he appears to be an old timer in Libertarian party. Wishful thinking of perhaps a select few that may have thought a like . That is the thing is Libertarians are independent and that is why there mind sets are so far apart. The one thing < Live and Let live
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Again, why not.
Ronald Reagan: ""I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#United_States
Then again, some may disagree that he wasnt conservative, and some may
argue that hes statement isnt true.
Ron Paul about hes conservatism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI6n0v1HPGw
Boxing and labeling, its a slippery slope and waste of time.
Last edited:
Pissin' against the wind
In your opinion, sir, does that not present a problem insofar as it renders the label meaningless?
I wouldn't have any functional objection to so vague a label, except that the differences can have consequences.
To wit, a friend of mine who is a chronic Paul supporter suggests I should be on his side because Ron Paul would legalize pot. And, to be certain, if my specific, immediate, and in the end myopic desires were the only question in who I cast my vote for, he might have a point.
There are others who remind me that, lacking Kucinich in the race, Ron Paul is the only one who would end the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And that, of course, raises all manner of other questions. How would Congress respond? And what could Congress do if the Commander in Chief said, "Enough, it's over."
To that end, we must also consider the question of whether Congress would go along with some of Paul's more extreme positions.
And I've decided that I don't care. I'm not willing to take the risk. That is, I'm not willing to entrust a candidate who, as 786 suggests, would hold that equality under the law is not a right.
We can, in fact, fix the things wrong with the United States of America. But we cannot make those repairs if the agenda is to take everything the nation has built in its two hundred thirty-five years of existence and piss it all away.
As much as I disdain the pissing against the wind we see in the Obama administration's middling approach to the corruption of our financial institutions, or our war on terror, these things can be corrected if only Americans choose to make that a priority. Throwing away the core values of the United States of America in order to gamble on a crazy "libertarian" whose principles are more aesthetic than anything else is not the answer.
If "libertarian" had an identifiable value to fill in the metaphorical variable L, then yes, we could make an argument on its behalf. But, as you point out, there is no identifiable value.
This is problematic.
Me-Ki-Gal said:
In your opinion, sir, does that not present a problem insofar as it renders the label meaningless?
I wouldn't have any functional objection to so vague a label, except that the differences can have consequences.
To wit, a friend of mine who is a chronic Paul supporter suggests I should be on his side because Ron Paul would legalize pot. And, to be certain, if my specific, immediate, and in the end myopic desires were the only question in who I cast my vote for, he might have a point.
There are others who remind me that, lacking Kucinich in the race, Ron Paul is the only one who would end the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And that, of course, raises all manner of other questions. How would Congress respond? And what could Congress do if the Commander in Chief said, "Enough, it's over."
To that end, we must also consider the question of whether Congress would go along with some of Paul's more extreme positions.
And I've decided that I don't care. I'm not willing to take the risk. That is, I'm not willing to entrust a candidate who, as 786 suggests, would hold that equality under the law is not a right.
We can, in fact, fix the things wrong with the United States of America. But we cannot make those repairs if the agenda is to take everything the nation has built in its two hundred thirty-five years of existence and piss it all away.
As much as I disdain the pissing against the wind we see in the Obama administration's middling approach to the corruption of our financial institutions, or our war on terror, these things can be corrected if only Americans choose to make that a priority. Throwing away the core values of the United States of America in order to gamble on a crazy "libertarian" whose principles are more aesthetic than anything else is not the answer.
If "libertarian" had an identifiable value to fill in the metaphorical variable L, then yes, we could make an argument on its behalf. But, as you point out, there is no identifiable value.
This is problematic.
Long ago and far away, out on the endless road; town to town, and day after day, talkin' about an overload.
Know we had a job to do, had no time to play. Like a freight train passin' through; coast to coast, a runaway.
Blood and bullets, alright alright alright. Blood and bullets, yeah. We spit blood and bullets, all day and all the night. Blood and bullets; we were pissin' against the wind.
(Widowmaker)
Know we had a job to do, had no time to play. Like a freight train passin' through; coast to coast, a runaway.
Blood and bullets, alright alright alright. Blood and bullets, yeah. We spit blood and bullets, all day and all the night. Blood and bullets; we were pissin' against the wind.
(Widowmaker)
Last edited:
This:
It's like answering "Why is the sky blue" with "why shouldn't it be?"
It's a non-answer, and evasion.
Oh, and maybe if you don't like being labled and boxed, maybe you shouldn't lable people, and put them in boxes.
Is not an answer.
It's like answering "Why is the sky blue" with "why shouldn't it be?"
It's a non-answer, and evasion.
Oh, and maybe if you don't like being labled and boxed, maybe you shouldn't lable people, and put them in boxes.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Ok, if I would said "yes, its possible to be conservative libertarian", would that have been enough ? Or do you want somekind of essey on how it is possible ?
The guestion itself is nearly impossible to answer and that was what I tried to demonstrate in that post.
Times changes and politics and meanings changes along, but if one wants to decide is Ron Pauls politics good or bad based on what political label fits on him rather than actually discussing about hes political points in these elections, I will skip that as a meaningless waste of time.
No, obviously not (really, the answer to that is bordering on tautological, if I'm willing to question someone proclaiming themselves to be libertarian, than what in the world makes you think that "Yes, it is" is going to be anything close to an acceptable answer?)
If answering the question is beyond your capacity, then perhaps you should refrain from inviting yourself into a conversation that was neither about you, nor directed to you in the first place.
You failed, miserably.
Quit the drivel.
Not responding when you have no answer is a nice technique
Learn to read - there's an implication in the fact of asking the question that's bordering on tautological that you two prisses are too busy getting all defensinve to stop and consider.
He can't answer mine, and his misses the point, so remind me again why I should consider myself even remotely obligated to address his question?
Stop wasting my time, if you can't answer the question I asked in the first place, go find someone else to bug.
Addendum:
To whit: If I offered to you "What makes you think they are?" or "Because my understanding suggests they aren't", both of these are on a 'par' with that which you're bleating on about, both are equally devoid of actual content, and I'm fairly sure you wouldn't hesitate to critisize me for responding such, and probably support 'eyeswideshut' for not answering. So why should I accept any less of an answer than I believe that you would?
Last edited:
The Most Useful Uselessness
Wasting time is exactly what seems to be going on. I'm starting to think these aren't really Paul supporters, but provocateurs whose chosen mission is to discredit the Congressman, his campaign, and his supporters.
Meanwhile, of course it's possible to be a conservative libertarian; when the basic term, "libertarian" has no meaning, it doesn't matter what modifiers you staple to it.
Like Ron Paul's anti-abortion position. I can see how that is libertarian: the fetus is what deserves liberty, and the woman is just a vessel otherwise undeserving of any consideration other than what gets the fetus into the world alive. For Paul, as I understand it, the stance is an aesthetic outcome based on his work as an OB/GYN. I have never heard him detail the questions of liberty pertaining to both the fetus and the woman.
Or his position on gay marriage: While the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage—
—he would have voted against the U.S. Constitution if he'd been in Congress at the time.
Being a conservative libertarian, generally, means advocating the liberty to practice homophobia, misogyny, racism, and other bigotries in living effect; the liberty to exploit workers with poor wages and unsafe working conditions; the liberty to strap on whatever lethal weapons one wishes to possess and carry.
It also means pretending that if the government's taxation power was destroyed, and society was maintained through the private sector, that nobody would ever be overcharged for a road toll, or underpaid for teaching children, and so on.
A conservative libertarian generally views society as subordinate to the individual. Unless, of course, you happen to be the wrong color or sex, and then things get aesthetically complicated.
"Libertarian" is meaningless term. For some, it's what they call themselves when they don't want to admit they're a Republican. For others, it's a word to be used instead of "greedy". Or it's what they call themselves when they don't want to admit they're bigots.
And that last is one I really don't get. I mean, if bigotry is good, then people should fight to redefine the value of the word instead of working to avoid the label. Like I tell some people: If you don't like being viewed as a bigot, stop acting like one. Well, the proper "libertarian" solution, it seems, would be to readdress bigotry so that it is a virtue. So if you call someone a bigot, they can say, "And proud of it, you wishy-washy, evil advocate for social justice."
Or greed, either. You know, greed is good. We have to remember that the people who ran the financial system into the ground, conned the government out of a big bailout package, and then took huge bonuses are actually the good people.
"Libertarianism", the most useful meaningless idea of the American twenty-first century.
____________________
Notes:
Harris, Chris. "Ron Paul And Gay Marriage". Charlotte Conservative News. May 19, 2011. CharlotteConservative.com. October 2, 2011. http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2011/05/ron-paul-and-gay-marriage/
Trippy said:
Wasting time is exactly what seems to be going on. I'm starting to think these aren't really Paul supporters, but provocateurs whose chosen mission is to discredit the Congressman, his campaign, and his supporters.
Meanwhile, of course it's possible to be a conservative libertarian; when the basic term, "libertarian" has no meaning, it doesn't matter what modifiers you staple to it.
Like Ron Paul's anti-abortion position. I can see how that is libertarian: the fetus is what deserves liberty, and the woman is just a vessel otherwise undeserving of any consideration other than what gets the fetus into the world alive. For Paul, as I understand it, the stance is an aesthetic outcome based on his work as an OB/GYN. I have never heard him detail the questions of liberty pertaining to both the fetus and the woman.
Or his position on gay marriage: While the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage—
"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a 'same sex' marriage license issued in another state."
(qtd. in Harris)
(qtd. in Harris)
—he would have voted against the U.S. Constitution if he'd been in Congress at the time.
Being a conservative libertarian, generally, means advocating the liberty to practice homophobia, misogyny, racism, and other bigotries in living effect; the liberty to exploit workers with poor wages and unsafe working conditions; the liberty to strap on whatever lethal weapons one wishes to possess and carry.
It also means pretending that if the government's taxation power was destroyed, and society was maintained through the private sector, that nobody would ever be overcharged for a road toll, or underpaid for teaching children, and so on.
A conservative libertarian generally views society as subordinate to the individual. Unless, of course, you happen to be the wrong color or sex, and then things get aesthetically complicated.
"Libertarian" is meaningless term. For some, it's what they call themselves when they don't want to admit they're a Republican. For others, it's a word to be used instead of "greedy". Or it's what they call themselves when they don't want to admit they're bigots.
And that last is one I really don't get. I mean, if bigotry is good, then people should fight to redefine the value of the word instead of working to avoid the label. Like I tell some people: If you don't like being viewed as a bigot, stop acting like one. Well, the proper "libertarian" solution, it seems, would be to readdress bigotry so that it is a virtue. So if you call someone a bigot, they can say, "And proud of it, you wishy-washy, evil advocate for social justice."
Or greed, either. You know, greed is good. We have to remember that the people who ran the financial system into the ground, conned the government out of a big bailout package, and then took huge bonuses are actually the good people.
"Libertarianism", the most useful meaningless idea of the American twenty-first century.
____________________
Notes:
Harris, Chris. "Ron Paul And Gay Marriage". Charlotte Conservative News. May 19, 2011. CharlotteConservative.com. October 2, 2011. http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2011/05/ron-paul-and-gay-marriage/
Playing the role of a Ron Paul supporting Simplicio, perhaps?
Somehow I don't doubt that, it is, after all, when all is said and done, a piece of federal legislation.
Being a conservative libertarian, generally, means advocating the liberty to practice homophobia, misogyny, racism, and other bigotries in living effect; the liberty to exploit workers with poor wages and unsafe working conditions; the liberty to strap on whatever lethal weapons one wishes to possess and carry.
This brings a Bill Maher quote to mind.
"We have this fantasy that our interests and the interests of the super rich are the same. Like somehow the rich will eventually get so full that they’ll explode. And the candy will rain down on the rest of us. Like there’s some kind of pinata of benevolence. But here’s the thing about a pinata: it doesn’t open on it’s own. You have to beat it with a stick."
I mean, I've always found it, to some degree, amusing that the ultimate expression of American conservatism is supposedly in opposition to the European take on conservatism, in that it's supposedly about the conservation of individual liberties, and it's supposed to be 'better' for everyone, because everyone is free to make as much as they want, and rise to the level of their value and so on and so forth, all without anyone paying taxes, and without government intervention. But we tried that approach already, in feudal europe, it didn't work.The ultimate expression of libertarinism is a social anarchy, with no centralized power structure, but the thing about a social anarchy is that in order for it to work effectively, each individual has to recognize that every other individual has the same rights as they do, which confers a degree of responsibility, in that it suggests that for a social anarchy to be lasting it requires a degree of altruism, in that - like with the mental health example I previously mentioned, it requires the recognition that those around you have the same rights as you do, and that having the right to do as you please, doesn't neccessarily confer the right to do as you please at the expense of others. This is where the responsibility comes into it.
And that's one of the places I think we've gone off the rails as a society, we've gotten so focused on the concept of protecting individual rights that we've lost sight of the implications of that ideal around altruism and personal responsibility that we've come full circle, and now we're (well, some of us anyway) using it as a jsutification to condem laws whos ultimate aim was altruistic, in that it enabled the personal rights of groups of people whos personal rights were being forcibly repressed by others who considered themselves to be exercising their personal rights.
I could probably right a not insubstantial essay illustrating how, in my opinion this derailment stems from the european focus on the nuclear family, as opposed to say the focus that other societies have on community values, and extended family, but eh... That seems overly intellectual for this thread, don't you think?
Which is where my cognitive dissonance starts when considering the idea, which is one of the things that lead me to ask the question in the first place, because that stance strikes me as being almost antithetical to the cores of libertarian values.
Quite, I have a close (female) friend who is working to reclaim the word 'cunt' in this sense. And I can kind of see where she's coming from. What's wrong with being a cunt? Personally, I've always found them enjoyable, you know?
I agree, in so much as it seems to have lost its meaning.