Both believe in rights. The main difference is that libertarians believe in minimal coercion
& control of the individual by government. Conservatives generally want more social control.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Libertarian or Conservative... or both?
- Thread starter Luke_17:2
- Start date
Both believe in rights. The main difference is that libertarians believe in minimal coercion
& control of the individual by government. Conservatives generally want more social control.
Coercion is the glue of both aspects of the (one) system; without that they wouldn't work.
Ultimately, it is like the "Have's" and "Have More" perspectives, isn't it?
Careful there....I said "minimal coercion", not just "coercion". It's an important distinction.
That is to misunderstand libertarianism.
dust1n
Zindīq
Which is why it's excluded in my original post. My libertarianism does not mold to the Libertarian Party Platform, it's based largely on classical liberalism.
Interesting....I call myself a classical liberal...or a Jeffersonian liberal when I want to trick the lefties into liking me (while still being accurate).
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This too seems at odds with socialism, which requires big government.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] -Wiki
Like I said, only free markets do I have a problem with. I think a lot of this understanding of free markets is what causes conflict. A truly free market is a delicate thing, but easily exploitable over time, like the barons that operated American post WW2. There was no competition, there was monopoly. And everyone small suffered from it. It is a sad reality. Most people would never do something extremely immoral to another person, personally. But they will in the domain of economics, and to crush someone's livelihood seems to be no problem from upper-class members of society. Regulation of industry should be put in place by those who are affected negatively by an industry. Their are costs of business transactions that aren't nominal, externalities as they referred to, that hurt others beside the business itself. If libertarianism is the idea that only actions that take away from other peoples freedoms should be illegal, than there are plenty of instances where companies, as separate, non-moral entities, have diminished the freedom of individuals, who, after all, are suppose to have the most freedom.
I agree with Russell Kirk that conservatism, or at least traditionalist-conservatism and libertarians are utterly different ideologies with an unbridgeable gap between them. Some other forms of conservatism might have a better relationship with libertarian but a traditionalist is never going to get on with a libertarian.
Crystallas
Active Member
I don't like the outdated graphs for many reasons. Some graphs demonstrate where a person claims to be, however, their individual actions might be elsewhere.
I do believe people have tolerances, and it's more than just a pin-point of who they are or ven think they are. So many of us are raised to be one way or another, but we never fully explore ideology on our own(so not in school, not by conversing in a bar, but actual exploration with an open mind.)
I do believe people have tolerances, and it's more than just a pin-point of who they are or ven think they are. So many of us are raised to be one way or another, but we never fully explore ideology on our own(so not in school, not by conversing in a bar, but actual exploration with an open mind.)
Hah! They exist (both male & female).....I know cuz I know some.
Criminy, Crystallas...yer about as hard core as I am. Ain't many of us here.
Last edited:
It'd be interesting to see happen but I'd like to have Totaltarian Libertarianism...
Populated by tall midgets, short giants, bald guys named "Curly", big guys named "Tiny", & thin fat people too, eh?
Crystallas
Active Member
There is something called a minarchy-monarchist. But the leader would be there for the soul purpose of making sure the government doesn't grow. It's merely a theoretical, and I don't personally support it for the same reasons that Thomas Jefferson once stated, that a person in power changes their vews quickly. AKA the power trip. Only the most consistent of persons have been able to avoid the power trip while getting to office.
Personally, I'm supportive of anything above authoritarian middle, because we at least have some checks and balances, more ideas, and better growth in all aspects of society. I am very anti-authoritarian, and I believe Authoritarian leaning Republicans and Democrats give the rest of their party a bad name.
Crystallas
Active Member
Yeah, I have been a Libertarian for a long time, I did have a phase of being a Democrat, but merely because the base was small at the time, I could not get anywhere with the norm, as far as individual progression.
I would be closer to an anarchist if there were enough individuals to support the ideals. The key to any successful ideology, is the buy in. If people buy into the ideas, they will try to make them work. Which is rather different than what we have today! LOL Now we just have people raised in certain bias, and do everything they can to preserve a never ending battle, like some childish sports rivalry. Ugh... this hurts everyone, and being right or wrong about an idea still means we all lose.
Fortunately for us libertarians, we at least are growing faster than any other group, because most people recognize the corruption in government, and understand that the larger the government gets, the more corruption occurs.
IsmailaGodHasHeard
Well-Known Member
Conservatism and libertarianism are two separate political philosophies. Just choose the one that you agree with the most. That is what I did. I am a conservative.
It couldn't be said more simply or clearly.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
I don't like the outdated graphs for many reasons. Some graphs demonstrate where a person claims to be, however, their individual actions might be elsewhere.
I do believe people have tolerances, and it's more than just a pin-point of who they are or ven think they are. So many of us are raised to be one way or another, but we never fully explore ideology on our own(so not in school, not by conversing in a bar, but actual exploration with an open mind.)
I say, that chart doesn't appear accurate at all. I don't know how well they calculate the scores of people who take the test, but the placement of well known politicians is WAY off. They've got Reagan just barely to the right of the average American and far more libertarian than Bush (when in reality, Bush derived much of his policy from Reagan - while Reagan didn't pull anything like the PATRIOT Act, he did hire terrorists and drastically increase military spending), and Obama's nowhere near being a borderline Marxist in real life. And last I checked, Ralph Nader wasn't a Marxist.
Let's remember, folks, that this is a "Conservative Only" forum.
I even question my own applicability, since I fit in only as an economic conservative.
Oh, and the thread does address their relationship with us libertarians. I saw that as inviting.
I like the chart, but I too wonder how people ended up where they did.
I even question my own applicability, since I fit in only as an economic conservative.
Oh, and the thread does address their relationship with us libertarians. I saw that as inviting.
I like the chart, but I too wonder how people ended up where they did.
Last edited:
IsmailaGodHasHeard
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
