If we create a conservative media that embraces goodness and innocence, then it will be easier for the weak and the downtrodden to climb the ladder since we will all have less distractions of messages of irresponsible sex, rise in STDs, abortion, drug addiction, violence, etc. By embracing goodness and innocence everywhere, then those who seek badness will need to “work hard” to embrace it. People will still have the Freedom to “work hard” to embrace badness, if that’s their choice, but then society can expect them to take personal responsibility for their own free will choices rather than tax those who “work hard” to avoid these tempations. This will emphasize Prevention rather than the current reactionary “but-it’s-everywhere” and “it’s-too-late” reality.
Well, I like the conservative part, but not the libertarian part. But that’s just me. :shrug:
I sympathise with some libertarian postulates, but in general I reject absolute freedom in both social and economic spheres. Conservative - yes, libertarian - no.
I think when people like this say the word “libertarian” they really just mean “radical conservative economics.”
Please, don’t poison the word “libertarian” by making it a synonym for “conservative.” Lots of talk show hosts have been doing this lately and it drives me up a wall.
If I say I’m “libertarian” now they think I’m like Rush Limbaugh or something, can’t stand it.
Libertarians generally accept the non-aggression principle, whereas conservatives reject it.
Nope, it’s not just you. “Conservative” and “Libertarian” are not compatible terms.
Hearing what passes for “conservatism” (e.g. etch-a-sketch ideology) these days, I’m inclined to agree with you.
That’s not what I said.
Indeed, they are not.
However, I pray none here are mixing up the words libertarian and libertine. The difference between a conservative and someone who is libertine would be of quite a separate matter. :eek:
A libertine is a social libertarian and a libertarian is an economic libertine
Oh, they are not mutually exclusive. The Libertarian Party was formed in order to legalize marijuana, remember. Maybe people don’t even know that any more. You’d think that Libertarians are conservative, but they are also pro-choice because they believe in non-interference with personal decisions that don’t affect them directly.
I agree. Libertarians tend to treat freedom as absolute at least in some way, and if freedom is to be absolute in the economic sphere, how can you justify that it should not be so in the moral sphere? Conservative libertarianism is self-contradictory, and is just a stepping stone to the logical conclusion of the premise of absolute freedom, which is non-interference in both social and economic matters.
Oops, I misread your post. Hehe, ugh. :o
It’s kind of like saying liberal fascism…
I know conservatives who sometimes cast an eye at the Libertarians, but they’re just sick of politics. It’s kind of an “a pox on both your houses!!!” reaction to the transparent posing and cynical manuevering of the two “major” parties.
IOW, I think the Libertarians attract many people who really want to say “You people running politics make me want to throw up!”
A libertine is likely libertarian to some degree, but a libertarian is not necessarily a libertine.
Taking the marijuana issue, for example. If our entire basis for deciding how to handle this substance is, “Do I use it?” then we’re ignoring a plethora of moral issues underlying the situation. The idea that there are only two sides, “I use it” or “I do not” is vapid.
Are you talking about the Libertarian party of the United States? If so, you’re way off the mark.
Considering that men such as Murray Rothbard were among the party’s founders, the idea that the party was founded primarily to legalize marijuana is, I’m sorry, quite ignorant.
Some of the issues that the U.S. Libertarian party addressed quickly following its formation were: opposition to the war in Vietnam, opposition to the draft and support of the gold standard.
In fact, the Libertarian party of the United States has always had a robust and vigorous agenda. For example, from the time of its foundation until just recently, the Libertarian Party of the United States required written acceptance of the non-aggression principle as a condition of membership. The statement of belief was, I reject “the initiation of the use of force as a means of achieving political and/or social goals.”
Though simple and concise, that statement is grand and sweeping. It has so many implications that one would hardly know where to begin.
Thus, saying that the Libertarian party was dedicated to one issue couldn’t be further from the truth. It is actually the other way around - there is no party that I’m aware of that adheres to a principle that creates a more robust agenda.
Once one has understood what the non-aggression principle means, one has the ability to predict the “libertarian” stance on any issue imaginable with minimal research and close to 100% certainty.
Whatever you want to tell yourself. I lived in the state where it formed and I remember VERY clearly how it came about. Perhaps there are people who want to go back and re-write history but some of us lived it and know better. The other issues came into play as a branch off the main issue, or a result of the intake of the substance in question. ;)“Leave me alone so I can grow and smoke pot,” pretty much sums up how the philosophy evolved. Everything that would mean government intervention into the individual’s right to grow, consume, and share pot with others, is a bad thing.
Now, I grant you that it’s possible there was a thread of these issues in that group of people all along, but it didn’t COALESCE into a political party until the marijuana issue galvanized them.
The secularists embrace the dream of individual freedom, but they don’t embrace individual paying the consequences. They believe it’s the rest of society’s job to pay more in taxes to pay for the sequelae of their individual freedoms. So, this isn’t really freedom for the masses. It’s a form of “freedom bigotry,” so it’s not really freedom for all. Individual freedom is a glorious dream, as long as they can continue the injustice of raising taxes on the innocent people who who embrace goodness and sacrificed to find a more responsible individualism.
As the king of public perception, the media, continues to drag us into practical atheism, we need to realize that the words of the bible will have less and less affect on human behavior over time. Unless we turn it around, how then can you force people to take responsibility for their own choices?
Because I don’t agree with Libertarianism as a whole. lp.org/platform