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

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

richardhutnik on 25 August 2013
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

The difference, i would suspect, is that disputes over personal property tend to directly involve the owner, and so can be hashed out in small-scale arbitration on an individual level, e.g. "my neighbor's new pool runs 20 feet onto my property." As opposed to private property disputes which cannot possibly involve the owner "Dan Jones in Anytown, Maryland pirated Generic Hollywood Blockbuster." How could we guarantee that complex private property issues are being dealt with fairly without a state aparatus to oversee them? Clearly, for instance, we cannot trust the big banks to foreclose on the right home (mistakes have been made), but do you think the wronged homeowner is really going to be able to individually deal with the bank in any enforceable way?

I feel you guys sort of overlook one of the biggest reasons a lot of people are libretarians.

 

I think a lot of people end up being libretarians for a while, espiecally a lot of highschool students... simply because it's the eaisest most inellectually honest position you can have.

It's not so much about the position... so much as it's an easy one to state.


The old  "One man's right to extend his fist ends at another man's nose".   Is by far the eaisest and most clean political belief out there.

No other belief is THAT easy to state.  Sure you can put other beliefs in one sentence, but the sentence you use is full of vagueness.  Like something like "Do no harm" You have to actually define what is harm, or "Help the less fortunate" you have to decide what helps the less fortunate.

 

For Libretarinism that sentence is easy to apply to everything... and small government is often just the side effect of that belief.

 

It's just a very simple and clean position.  I imagine that's why it's so popular with people with Mensa level IQs.  (Something like 80% of Mensa memberse are libretarians if i remember correctly.)

 

Practically every political arguement has an answer alerady provided with a good simple reason.


Compare that to Conservatives or Liberals and you've got different arguements for different things and generally it's all a whole lot of resereach to be informed on any issue.


Libretarianism is just a perfect base for people who don't really care to research every political issue... but want to be intellectually consistant.

 

To hold a general or Conservative ideaology you have to take things "on faith" or become a super poltical wonk who looks up a bunch of stuff about each subject.

 

I imagine that's also why so many atheists and scientists are libretarians.

There is a seductive simplicity to Libertarianism, which generally falls apart in light of the demands of a society, and other practical considerations.  The not wanting to see large numbers of people die either in your society, also plays a part.  And then there is this bit:

Say someone ends up saying they can end up getting issues you want taken care of, that you aren't able to.  Side effects of this would include people getting government handouts to be able to eat, arts getting funded, there being a standing military, and other things.  People put up with these side effects, to get what they want.  And if you were to run against it, you get clobbered by other arguing from practical reality.  A libertarian and anarchist state just isn't seen as viable for people at all, so you don't get it.  



Around the Network
Viper1 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.

Actually, Libertarians expect those in unfortunate situations to be helped by individuals through volunteerism and private sector involement.   Rather than being forced to support others, they want the choice to be theirs.  It doesn't make them greedy or want to punish those of unfortunate circumstances.  You need to understand that it's not that they don't want those that need help to be able to get help, they simply believe that help should come from a different source.

They also believe that their policies would reduce the number of people in those unfortunate situations to begin with.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

richardhutnik on 26 August 2013
Viper1 said:
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.

Actually, Libertarians expect those in unfortunate situations to be helped by individuals through volunteerism and private sector involement.   Rather than being forced to support others, they want the choice to be theirs.  It doesn't make them greedy or want to punish those of unfortunate circumstances.  You need to understand that it's not that they don't want those that need help to be able to get help, they simply believe that help should come from a different source.

They also believe that their policies would reduce the number of people in those unfortunate situations to begin with.

Not all Libertarians do expect this.  Some just don't care if the unfortunate are helped.  You have someone under the influence of Ayn Rand, and it would be preferable that the disadvantaged losers just die off, so the successful can be honored as they should be.

Thing about the disadvantaged is that people don't want to be shown as not caring, and what things to be done to help them, BUT indivduals feel fairly powerless to do anything.  And my take is most people can't really.  Because of this, the government steps in.

And if I am wrong here and people can do things, I definitely would be interested from hearing from anyone who can help me.  I am very much set back.  But, I don't see anyone really stepping forth in a meaningful way.  I mean, seriously, anyone know a real job out there I can do out there?  I would definitely like to hear about it.

I say all this, because you see this as most common to least common in forms of way people will address issues:

* Prayer and advice

* Money

* Thoughts and attention (thinking solutions)

* Working towards solving (putting sweat in)

* Committing one's life towards resolving.

 

Because of this, you see people more inclined to vote for people who do things, and allocate tax dollars, and pay taxes, than will actually go out and do things.  And if I am wrong, and anyone is dead serious about addressing current problems, contact me.  Otherwise, it will show that the libertarian hope for volunteerism, is merely a hope and not reality.  In a world where there are LOTS of people, it is easy for people to presume that people's concerns will get addressed by someone, when such isn't necessarily the case.  In short, the other source, isn't the people who want to the difference who are the difference source, but some sort of magic that it will appear, when it might not.



fighter on 26 August 2013
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.

Except even then it is a plead for change, in which there exists no pandering to an elite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

  • A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
It is quite "obivious" that populism is a reactionary philosophy to elitism. Of course, it could make a spectrum of its own, possibly. 


you seem unable to grasp the concept - allow me to illustrate with a little example : Europe

 

So - the European Union is making changes, wether it's the Commissions, the Parliament, the European Council, or the Council of Europe, it is consider the centralized elite that promotes change. Not a populist one. Nor a conservative. But a progressist change.

All populisms in Europe are opposed to the European Union at the moment, wther left wing or right wing.

 

Again and for the last time, where did you get that crap ?

Yet populism doesn't exist without change. There's no such thing as a "traditional populist."  This is not to say that all change is populist, just as not all individualism is anarchism. Look at the graph closely. Populism is right where it belongs. It has tendencies for change from elite-rule to common-rule and it's collectivist in nature. I got it from here, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559440050785797&set=a.136475973082209.25390.100001594221961&type=1&theater .


yet, when the Republican party tells their voters to not overthrow the elites in washington and not believe the media is that not populism ?

Ron Paul himself says he is champion of the constitution [traditionalism], to change all current elites in place starting by all those useless secretary of state and institutions for freedom of the people [populism] - is his programme not [change] ?

That's certainly populism, yes, but the Republican party isn't 100% conservative. A political party, at least historically, never represents solely one political philosophy. Furthermore, ideology is a matter of primacy. A libertarian can use populist messages, for example, but that doesn't make their ideology populism. Most people aren't 100% one thing.  Ron Paul can be a champion of the constitution (a traditionalist in that regard) and still demand change in another (such as say the education system.) I never made the logical statement populism = change, I said that demand for change is a necessary condition for populism because it's defined as such.  As far as sources go, most people still believe in the right-left paradigm, so I don't think political taxonomy is a topic well developed by anybody, not a person on Facebook nor a person educated at Harvard. 


Populism and elitism are not ideologies - there we agree

so they are not attached to any ideology in specific as they basically refer to a method more than an objective, progressist populism just as traditional populism will never be defined that way but instead populist socialists, conservatives



killerzX on 26 August 2013
Viper1 said:
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.

Actually, Libertarians expect those in unfortunate situations to be helped by individuals through volunteerism and private sector involement.   Rather than being forced to support others, they want the choice to be theirs.  It doesn't make them greedy or want to punish those of unfortunate circumstances.  You need to understand that it's not that they don't want those that need help to be able to get help, they simply believe that help should come from a different source.

They also believe that their policies would reduce the number of people in those unfortunate situations to begin with.

this.

which is why conservatives (libertarians aswell) give so much more charity than liberals do. Conservatives believe its the individuals responsibility to help others, liberals believe its governments job to take care of others



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 26 August 2013
killerzX said:
Viper1 said:
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.

Actually, Libertarians expect those in unfortunate situations to be helped by individuals through volunteerism and private sector involement.   Rather than being forced to support others, they want the choice to be theirs.  It doesn't make them greedy or want to punish those of unfortunate circumstances.  You need to understand that it's not that they don't want those that need help to be able to get help, they simply believe that help should come from a different source.

They also believe that their policies would reduce the number of people in those unfortunate situations to begin with.

this.

which is why conservatives (libertarians aswell) give so much more charity than liberals do. Conservatives believe its the individuals responsibility to help others, liberals believe its governments job to take care of others

I believe there is a different focus when it comes to the disadvantaged and poor, between the left and the right.  Left side ends up focusing on the state of the individual and seek so thave it lifted.  They currently will end up viewing it as a collective responsibility.  So long as there is suffering, they see there is a problem.  Whether they do or don't help personally isn't the issue, but the state of the poor is.  Because of this, they are more inclined to push for welfare.

On the other side, the right will view it as a personal responsibility.  So long as people do try to respond, that is sufficient.  And so long as they give, even if people are still suffering and dying, so long as they tried, that is sufficient.  This will go as far as labelling people who are still not making it as having it as their fault.  Personal responsibility goes all the way through it, even to the people who don't make it.

You can see an example, pointed at myself that goes into the mentality of the situation:

http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2010/03/this-is-why-welfare-sucks/

You see an utter complete and total hatred of giving aid to those who didn't earn it.  There is a bit of a civil nod to the situation there, in, "Well some need to be helped".  See, I REFUSED to take a job flipping burgers in the mind of this writer.  Nevermind I had reached out for such jobs, and was turned down.  BUT, because of the mantra of "personal responsibility", they just don't see it.  OBVIOUSLY the problem was my fault.  OBVIOUSLY.  Focus is on the individual, and doing, with nothing bigger picture seen.