By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Why would conservative and libertarian be considered the same thing?

sc94597 on 25 August 2013
insomniac17 said:
A problem with your example of anarcho-syndicalism is something common to literally every possible option for societal organization. You must use force in order to enforce whatever you want. Even the most extreme form of anarchy does not argue against a need for "personal property," and as such, theft of such property would be wrong. If it is not wrong to own "private property," then theft of such property must also be wrong. Saying that the only force used would be to stop theft is somehow different than enforcing some system of rules and laws is fallacious. It is the exact same. An anarcho-capitalist would say that they do the same thing; they only advocate for using force in order to stop outright theft. Now you have to address the property problem; how much property can be legitimately owned, and why is that answer objectively correct?

I think anarcho-syndicalists believe that the ownership of property is a violation of the NAP and it's justified to enact a legal system (albeit polycentric) to deal with this violation of the NAP. People would probably choose a legal system which supports their philosopical beliefs regarding the NAP. Obviously though, a capitalist system would prevail over a centrally-planned one (syndicalism is still a centrally planned system in the form of a corporation/union) and we'd observe spontaneous-order based capitalism more often than we'd observe syndicalism. If we did observe syndicalism it would be entirely voluntary as one would voluntarily join the unions/corporations who are centrally planning.



Around the Network
killerzX on 25 August 2013
DevilRising said:
killerzX said:
 

anyway the democratic party (including: modern day liberals, progressives, fascists, totalitarians, communists/socialists, and statists)  is a complete lost cause when it comes to liberty and the constitution and are virtual polar oposites from libertarians.


I'm sorry, but it's hilarious (in a bad way) that you actually think all that shit you just typed ("fascists, totalitarians, communists, etc") actually has anything at all to with the modern American Democratic Party. If you earnestly believe that, you're incredibly misinformed. Fox News and talk radio can be very bad for the mind.

i dont have tv service. so i cant watch tv. which means i dont watch fox.

sorry to dissapoint.



Jumpin on 25 August 2013

It's because both Conservatism and Libertarianism are both ideologies which reward the greedy and punish those in unfortunate situations.

The biggest difference between them are that conservatives are more honest to themselves about the consequences of their ideology in that they create a situation where the rich and greedy are awarded with freedom and power. Not too dissimilar from the high class of a fascist society.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

tres on 25 August 2013
Marks said:
killerzX said:
Marks said:
They aren't even remotely the same. Anyone who thinks they are is very very confused, or has been mislead in the past.

Libertarians (as I understand it, and consider myself) are all about freedom/individual rights, minimal taxation, deregulation, privatization, etc. Taxes would be low, marijuana would be legal, abortions/euthanasia would be up to the individual, we would respect (not fear) police...and so on

Conservatives (as I take it) are about lower spending and taxes, supporting business, etc. so fairly similar economically...but are against abortion, drugs, etc. So I can see how they appear similar, but conservatives don't give a shit about personal freedom (except when it comes to firearms maybe).

conservatives and many libertarians would argue that being for abortion is anti-liberty, and is the ultimate form of tyranny as you are denying another person of the fundamental God given right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of hapiness. I consider myself a conservatarian of sorts. pro-limited government, 100000% pro life. pro-low taxes, low regulation, pro-constitution. i view marriage as something the government shouldnt be involved in, but as long as it is involved, marriage should be the same definition as it has been since the country's founding. As it literally makes no sense to arbitrarly expend the the definition of marriage to homosexual monogomous couples while still restricting to leave out other definitions like polygomy and incest.

Conservatives and libertarians are very similar for the most part. which is why most libertarians who want any chance of winning an election run as a republican (which  im not confusing the establishment republican party as actually conservatives, most of the establisment (read" the people in charge of the party) are progressive-lights and or neo-cons.) but there are still many true conservatives that actually stand up for the constitution and liberty in the rupublican party. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz come to mind.

anyway the democratic party (including: modern day liberals, progressives, fascists, totalitarians, communists/socialists, and statists)  is a complete lost cause when it comes to liberty and the constitution and are virtual polar oposites from libertarians.


Ahhh good point on abortion. Yeah I'm pro-life as well, I see what you mean how abortion is denying the right to life. I would definitely agree that denying a woman one of their rights for the sake of an entirely new life is worth it. 


what's worst a woman having an abortion or a man wearing a condom?



sc94597 on 25 August 2013
Jumpin said:
It's because both Conservatism and Libertarianism are both ideologies which reward the greedy and punish those in unfortunate situations.

The biggest difference between them are that conservatives are more honest to themselves about the consequences of their ideology in that they create a situation where the rich and greedy are awarded with freedom and power. Not too dissimilar from the high class of a fascist society.


Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and claimed indisputable power. 

Yep that's quite libertarian. /sarc



Around the Network
sc94597 on 25 August 2013

 

Anarchism and Classical-Liberalism encompass what is "libertarian."  Liberal-conservatism (what is found in the United States) and Traditional Conservativism encompass "conservative. 

I hope that answers the thread quite well. 



fighter on 25 August 2013
sc94597 said:

 

Anarchism and Classical-Liberalism encompass what is "libertarian."  Liberal-conservatism (what is found in the United States) and Traditional Conservativism encompass "conservative. 

I hope that answers the thread quite well. 

While mostof it looks ok the "Change" section is messed up.

Populism is as much a part of fascim than it is of communist socialism.

Also, most socialisms across the world are social-liberal 

 

Where did you get that crap ?



fighter on 25 August 2013
fighter said:
sc94597 said:

 

Anarchism and Classical-Liberalism encompass what is "libertarian."  Liberal-conservatism (what is found in the United States) and Traditional Conservativism encompass "conservative. 

I hope that answers the thread quite well. 

While mostof it looks ok the "Change" section is messed up.

Populism is as much a part of fascim than it is of communist socialism.

Also, most socialisms across the world are social-liberal 

 

Where did you get that crap ?

 



sc94597 on 25 August 2013
fighter said:
sc94597 said:

 

Anarchism and Classical-Liberalism encompass what is "libertarian."  Liberal-conservatism (what is found in the United States) and Traditional Conservativism encompass "conservative. 

I hope that answers the thread quite well. 

While mostof it looks ok the "Change" section is messed up.

Populism is as much a part of fascim than it is of communist socialism.

Also, most socialisms across the world are social-liberal 

 

Where did you get that crap ?

Populism is a political doctrine where one sides with "the people" against "the elites".While for much of the twentieth century, populism was considered to be a political phenomenon mostly of Latin America and India, since the 1980s populist movements and parties have enjoyed degrees of success in First World democracies such as Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries

Sounds like a plead for change to me. Nationalists are more traditional, and fascists are in between. As for socialism vs. social liberalism, the difference is whether the collective is more important than the individual or vice-verse. 



fighter on 25 August 2013

Libertarianism is close to conservatism in the fact that it doesn't require the state to intervene is social issues

Conservatism can be a strong or a small state, as long as it keeps close to tradition and doesn't intervene to much in social equilibrium

Progressism requires a strong state to alter collective patterns