Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Brainpolice: I fail to see why it would be any more easy to reason with a conservative who has an irrational attachment to the military and nation, who supports economic fascism as if it was a free market, favors a surveillance apparatus and thinks that immigrants should be shot on sight. They'll probably consider you to be a communist for challenging their worldview in any significant way. I am sure this is true of the 'redneck conservative', but the conservatives that actually believe government is not the solution and profess to believe in freefom can be shown their inconsistencies and I think that could make them change thier views. Compare that to the liberal who's knee jerk reaction is for the government to do something to fix the situation, or who believes in 'equality'. I think conservatives are ideologically closer to libertarians than liberals. No they are not, & neither are liberals. Statism is not ideologically "close" to libertarianism at all.
ChaseCola: Brainpolice: I fail to see why it would be any more easy to reason with a conservative who has an irrational attachment to the military and nation, who supports economic fascism as if it was a free market, favors a surveillance apparatus and thinks that immigrants should be shot on sight. They'll probably consider you to be a communist for challenging their worldview in any significant way. I am sure this is true of the 'redneck conservative', but the conservatives that actually believe government is not the solution and profess to believe in freefom can be shown their inconsistencies and I think that could make them change thier views. Compare that to the liberal who's knee jerk reaction is for the government to do something to fix the situation, or who believes in 'equality'. I think conservatives are ideologically closer to libertarians than liberals.
Brainpolice: I fail to see why it would be any more easy to reason with a conservative who has an irrational attachment to the military and nation, who supports economic fascism as if it was a free market, favors a surveillance apparatus and thinks that immigrants should be shot on sight. They'll probably consider you to be a communist for challenging their worldview in any significant way.
I fail to see why it would be any more easy to reason with a conservative who has an irrational attachment to the military and nation, who supports economic fascism as if it was a free market, favors a surveillance apparatus and thinks that immigrants should be shot on sight. They'll probably consider you to be a communist for challenging their worldview in any significant way.
I am sure this is true of the 'redneck conservative', but the conservatives that actually believe government is not the solution and profess to believe in freefom can be shown their inconsistencies and I think that could make them change thier views. Compare that to the liberal who's knee jerk reaction is for the government to do something to fix the situation, or who believes in 'equality'. I think conservatives are ideologically closer to libertarians than liberals.
No they are not, & neither are liberals. Statism is not ideologically "close" to libertarianism at all.
Ok then, they have more libertarian like views than liberals do.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
No, they don't. I find most of them to be highly authoritarian and statist.
ChaseCola: Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Brainpolice: I fail to see why it would be any more easy to reason with a conservative who has an irrational attachment to the military and nation, who supports economic fascism as if it was a free market, favors a surveillance apparatus and thinks that immigrants should be shot on sight. They'll probably consider you to be a communist for challenging their worldview in any significant way. I am sure this is true of the 'redneck conservative', but the conservatives that actually believe government is not the solution and profess to believe in freefom can be shown their inconsistencies and I think that could make them change thier views. Compare that to the liberal who's knee jerk reaction is for the government to do something to fix the situation, or who believes in 'equality'. I think conservatives are ideologically closer to libertarians than liberals. No they are not, & neither are liberals. Statism is not ideologically "close" to libertarianism at all. Ok then, they have more libertarian like views than liberals do.
Conservatism's core ideas are in direct conflict because they hold Statism as legitamite, not to mention as the ultimate authority (or "Country", "uncle same", etc.). The same is for Liberalism, classical liberals included; either by ignorance or incompetance, Liberals view it justified (in some cases, such as the control of guns despite evidence of guns providing the ability to defend one's self, as 'necessary evils') to ultilize coercion to provide for citizens of their country.Actually, as I type this, they are starting to sound the same, again. Nevermind :).
Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Brainpolice: I fail to see why it would be any more easy to reason with a conservative who has an irrational attachment to the military and nation, who supports economic fascism as if it was a free market, favors a surveillance apparatus and thinks that immigrants should be shot on sight. They'll probably consider you to be a communist for challenging their worldview in any significant way. I am sure this is true of the 'redneck conservative', but the conservatives that actually believe government is not the solution and profess to believe in freefom can be shown their inconsistencies and I think that could make them change thier views. Compare that to the liberal who's knee jerk reaction is for the government to do something to fix the situation, or who believes in 'equality'. I think conservatives are ideologically closer to libertarians than liberals. No they are not, & neither are liberals. Statism is not ideologically "close" to libertarianism at all. Ok then, they have more libertarian like views than liberals do. Conservatism's core ideas are in direct conflict because they hold Statism as legitamite, not to mention as the ultimate authority (or "Country", "uncle same", etc.). The same is for Liberalism, classical liberals included; either by ignorance or incompetance, Liberals view it justified (in some cases, such as the control of guns despite evidence of guns providing the ability to defend one's self, as 'necessary evils') to ultilize coercion to provide for citizens of their country.Actually, as I type this, they are starting to sound the same, again. Nevermind :).
Minarchists 'believes statism to be legitamate' so I guess they are just as far away from libertarianism as socialists.
ChaseCola: Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Brainpolice: I fail to see why it would be any more easy to reason with a conservative who has an irrational attachment to the military and nation, who supports economic fascism as if it was a free market, favors a surveillance apparatus and thinks that immigrants should be shot on sight. They'll probably consider you to be a communist for challenging their worldview in any significant way. I am sure this is true of the 'redneck conservative', but the conservatives that actually believe government is not the solution and profess to believe in freefom can be shown their inconsistencies and I think that could make them change thier views. Compare that to the liberal who's knee jerk reaction is for the government to do something to fix the situation, or who believes in 'equality'. I think conservatives are ideologically closer to libertarians than liberals. No they are not, & neither are liberals. Statism is not ideologically "close" to libertarianism at all. Ok then, they have more libertarian like views than liberals do. Conservatism's core ideas are in direct conflict because they hold Statism as legitamite, not to mention as the ultimate authority (or "Country", "uncle same", etc.). The same is for Liberalism, classical liberals included; either by ignorance or incompetance, Liberals view it justified (in some cases, such as the control of guns despite evidence of guns providing the ability to defend one's self, as 'necessary evils') to ultilize coercion to provide for citizens of their country.Actually, as I type this, they are starting to sound the same, again. Nevermind :). Minarchists 'believes statism to be legitamate' so I guess they are just as far away from libertarianism as socialists.
Judging that some take the label "libertarian socialist" (Chomsky) seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if someone eating word soup called themselves a "minarchist socialist" with a straight face. I have nothing to back up such an assumption, however ;).But yes, using a nail filer on a claw does not take away the claw's power. As for "de-clawing", I'd prefer to strike at the root, as it were.I'll leave the vulgar libertarians (who may be minarchist) to be an example of being as far away from libertarianism as socialists (considering apologist, corporatist, & utilitarian tendencies). In principle, though, they do both support the concept of Statism; I'm just not a fan of flavor ice, I guess.
I was at freerepublic.com for years, and left after 9/11 altered the conservative movement beyond repair. The Old Right has been completely marginalized by the Jewish lobby and their Protestant Christian enablers. Anybody who doesn't sign up for the Global Glorious War On Terror is a yellow-bellied coward who wants to let the mighty Iranian army cross the Atlantic and turn the Lincoln Memorial into a mosque. And since you won't defend Israel in the coming Armageddon as it says right there in the book of Revelations, then you've probably got Zyklon-B stockpiled in your garage and a portrait of the Fuhrer above your mantle.
These sites are places to rant and explore ideas.
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
Some thoughts on the liberal/conservative debate above:
Generally speaking, liberals want government to act as a positive agent of redistributive justice in order to enforce equality of outcomes. Conservatives just want government to act negatively, as a protector of property rights. "Neo-conservatives" are actually liberals.
Now, there is a very broad wing of libertarian thought that really likes this idea of redistributive justice. They accept completely the Marxist mantra that equality of inputs will yield equality of outcomes, and insist that it is the State and its co-dependent institutions that must be skewing the results. Of course, the reality is that humans are not equal nor are they born tabula rasa. Human society is naturally social and hierarchical. Even in the absence of the State, there will be leaders, followers, wealthy, poor, dead-weight, the pathological, the theist, the atheist, etc. And as soon as organic society orders itself accordingly, this wing of libertarianism will cry "Statism!" and call for its dismantling.
Thus, these anarchists join their Marxist cousins in the goal of permanently levelling organic society.
Conservatives are less likely to see the creation of political power as the salvation for mankind. They wield power in order to protect their own interests and enrich themselves when possible. That makes them more likely to be attracted to libertarianism than a hardcore socialist, but the basic social-liberal is more like the conservative than the socialist on that aspect, he just has interests different from the right.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
I think we are using words that are untenable and useless to catagorize modern political thought. Conservative, from my knowledge, dates back to the advent of modern democracy, it was applied to the thinkers who wished to keep the monarchs in power, and to prevent the rise of democracy. Liberalism's root, Liberty, has nothing to do with modern liberalism, the words have been so utterly distored and changed to such a degree that to talk about "Conservatives" and "Liberals" seems utterly pointless. There are many individuals of completely different ideological motivations who fall under both catagories. You have Southerners who would probably reform the Confederacy if given the chance, who fly the rebel flag, who advocate the shooting of Illegals on sight, are they our Nation-worshiping conservatives? They also probably don't have much respect for the "Nanny State" and regulations on risky behaviors (Smoking drinking etc.) Yet they are more likely to be in favor of Economic Regulation than the average conservative. The list of sub-catagories could go on forever, and this is the problem in and of itself, that the words, Liberalism, and Conservatism, are only significant in context, their meanings change with the times. It would be better to simply divide individuals into actual traits instead of group catagorizations? Example: Nationalistic individuals have to be approached from X direction to be convenced that Liberty is the correct end to the benefit of nation, or, individuals concerned with Equality need to be approached from X?
Another example are the "Rich Welfare Queen" conservatives, who although are against welfare for the poor, would gladly take advantage of State funds for their own personal gain. The big farmers would be an example of this, they are most likely against economic regulation (Not in our sense), yet insist that the government subsidize certian industires, namely theirs. the list of mutations of this archtype are endless. You can have poor traditional conservatives, who favor enforced morality, economic regulation, "traditional lifestyles", and have a strongly belergent view on foriegn policy.
Oh, and don't forget Log Cabin Republicans
From the Mises.org FAQ:
Aren't you just preaching to the choir?
This would not be such a bad thing if the "choir" was brilliant and forever expanding. It does no good to speak only to people who are not in the "choir" and thus have no knowledge of the theory and history of the Austro-libertarian intellectual apparatus. There is no development if you only repeat the fundamentals. In truth, we make every effort to reach out without giving up principle. In any case, with the web, this criticism concerning internal development has become patently absurd. The reach of the site, conferences, books, and journals is global and stretches to all ages and classes. One of the reasons for this is that we have a good product to offer the world — a direct result of having spent so many years on internal development.
"Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice." — from The Law
Generally speaking, liberals want government to act as a positive agent of redistributive justice in order to enforce equality of outcomes. Conservatives just want government to act negatively, as a protector of property rights.
This is a myth that wrongly accepts the contemporary left-right spectrum. Not only do conservatives not support property rights in any consistant way, they support forced redistribution themselves, only towards different interest groups. They tend to support interventionism at a minimum and a mixed economic system along the lines of the fascist system. One thing that the conservatives will always clamor for more funding for is the military, police and surveillance or intelligence. Conservatives may often favor protectionism, corporate welfare, limited social welfare, prohibitions and loads of social controls. At best, which isn't that great at all in the grand scheme of things, they merely want to transfer many of the bad government functions and interventions to the states. This should be blatanly obvious and I don't understand why libertarians would delude themselves into thinking that this isn't the case.
"Neo-conservatives" are actually liberals.
In my experience, paleoconservatives aren't much of an improvement and are often worse than the neocons on specific issues.
Now, there is a very broad wing of libertarian thought that really likes this idea of redistributive justice. They accept completely the Marxist mantra that equality of inputs will yield equality of outcomes, and insist that it is the State and its co-dependent institutions that must be skewing the results.
This is a straw man. Noone here accepts Marxism. In fact, just yesterday I spent a lot of time debating against a Marxist. It is also blatantly ignorant to act as if the state's intervention doesn't skew the results of the economy. That should be blatantly obvious. Noone here insists on absolute equality in outcomes. The point is that the state's intervention skews the outcomes to concentrate wealth and power into certain hands and all-over *** the average person. Of course, if we accept the mythological worldview that says that state intervention is inherently pro-worker and anti-buisiness, I can easily see how you've been deluded into thinking that state intervention somehow does the opposite, as if the main victims are big buisiness and the rich. But one must buy into a lot of contemporary political bullshit to think that, when quite clearly the people who have the keys to the jeep of the state (a euphamism for patronage and overall access to the institution in any real sense) are a select elite of mostly rich and big buisiness interests.
Of course, the reality is that humans are not equal nor are they born tabula rasa. Human society is naturally social and hierarchical. Even in the absence of the State, there will be leaders, followers, wealthy, poor, dead-weight, the pathological, the theist, the atheist, etc.
I don't disagree with these statements at face value and I don't think you'll find any left-libertarian here who does either.
And as soon as organic society orders itself accordingly, this wing of libertarianism will cry "Statism!" and call for its dismantling
Not really. The problem is that you and other conservatives fail to distinguish between what you call "natural order" and what actually is an artificially created increase in heirarchy and inequality that inevitably results from state intervention. Hence, "natural order" becomes an apologetic device. This is what all conservatives do. They assume that the existing order is natural and then defend it while ignoring any of the external influences of power interests that created or distorted that order. Everything unequal can be brushed off as nature while nurture is completely ignored. While the marxists may make the opposite mistake in overemphasizing nurture, it hardly suffices to emphasize nature at the expense of any institutional analysis of the effects of the state, culture and economic power. Both must be taken into account and I believe that conservatives fail to take the nurture side of the equation into account.
Nice red-baiting, crunchy con. Once again, the problem is that you conflate "organic society" with the effects of state intervention. It is disingenuous to argue as if whatever currently exists is purely "organic" and therefore legitimate. That can be used to justify whatever the status quo is, hence the problem with conservatism as a social and historical view.