Conservatives Against Liberty

[drbrumley]

Conservatives Against Liberty
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
July 16, 2019

Recently several prominent social and populist conservatives have attacked libertarianism. These conservatives, some of whom are allies in the fight against our hyper-interventionist foreign policy, blame libertarianism for a variety of social and economic ills. The conservative attack on libertarianism — like the attack on the freedom philosophy launched by leftists — is rooted in factual, economic, and philosophical errors. Libertarianism’s right-wing critics claim libertarianism is the dominant ideology of the Republican establishment. This is an odd claim since the Republican leadership embraces anti-libertarian policies like endless wars, restrictions on civil liberties, government interference in our personal lives, and massive spending increases on welfare as well as warfare. Anti-libertarian conservatives confuse libertarianism with the authoritarian “neoliberalism” embraced by both major parties. This confusion may be why these conservatives blame libertarians for the American middle class’s eroding standard of living. Conservatives are correct to be concerned about the economic challenges facing the average American, but they are mistaken to place the blame on the free market. The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system. Instead of fighting to end the welfare-regulatory system that benefits economic and political elites at the expense of average Americans, populist conservatives are promoting increased economic interventionism. For example, many populist conservatives support increased infrastructure spending and tariffs and other forms of protectionism. Like all forms of central planning, these schemes prevent goods and services from being used for the purposes most valued by consumers. This distorts the marketplace and lowers living standards — including of people whose jobs are temporally saved or created by these government interventions. Those workers would be better off in the long term finding new jobs in a free market. Anti-free-market conservatives ignore how their policies harm those they claim to care about. For example, protectionism harms farmers and others working in businesses depending on international trade. The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use. Many libertarians condemn drug use and other destructive behaviors. However, libertarians reject the use of government force to prevent individuals from choosing to engage in these behaviors. Instead, libertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors. Libertarians also support the right of individuals not to associate with, or to subsidize in any way, those whose lifestyles or beliefs they find objectionable. Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good. This is the worst type of statism because it seeks to control our minds and souls. Most people accept the idea that it is wrong to initiate force against those engaging in peaceful behaviors. Libertarians apply this nonaggression principle to government. Making government follow the nonaggression principle would end unjust wars, income and inflation taxes, and the destruction caused by the use of force to control what we do with our property, how we raise our children, who we associate with, and what we put into our bodies. Making governments abide by the nonaggression principle is the only way to restore a society that is free, prosperous, and moral.

Spot on....the reason why conservatives and liberals belong to the same bird of prey....

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Conservatives Against Liberty
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
July 16, 2019

The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use. Many libertarians condemn drug use and other destructive behaviors. However, libertarians reject the use of government force to prevent individuals from choosing to engage in these behaviors. Instead, libertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors.

Isn't it considered anarchy if laws aren't passed that prohibit and hence punish certain immoral behaviors?

Look at the destruction recreational drug use has done to the US, could you imagine how bad it would be if it were legal?

 

[Gary K]

A lot of people take the name conservative who clearly are not. Profession alone does not equal reality. Anyone who claims to be a conservative and blames free markets for poverty is no conservative. They are a closet socialist pretending/professing, for whatever the reason, to be a conservative.

Libertarian economic ideas is something I agree with. I've studied Hayek and von Mises extensively. It's the social side of libertarian thought I disagree with for it and the Bible are clearly at odds. Libertarian social ideas conflate liberty with license and that's a bad error to make. It's fatal to the creation of a long term successful society.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Libertarian economic ideas is something I agree with. I've studied Hayek and von Mises extensively

Laissez-faire (buyer beware) capitalism and unchecked property rights?

 

[Gary K]

Laissez-faire (buyer beware) capitalism and unchecked property rights?

You have a weird, very weird, description of Laissez-faire.

WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) (wn)
laissez-faire
adj 1: with minimally restricted freedom in commerce [syn:
individualistic, laissez-faire(a)]

The only restrictions on commerce should be those associated with dishonesty and fraud. Otherwise, let people make their own choices. The individual knows far better than some government official what his needs and desires are with respect to products, prices, quality, etc.... Government should have no role in that whatsoever. When they get involved all it does is drive prices up and limit choice for government always ends up driving up prices via regulation and inflation, and limiting the availability and choices of goods by the way it picks winners and losers in the marketplace through it's subsidies.

Property rights are tied directly to liberty, for when the government can tell us what we can do and can't do on our own property then we do not own it, the government does.

As no one has ever figured out a way to keep corruption out of government other than God, government should be a small as possible for corruption destroys liberty. History has demonstrated this truth throughout the history of humanity. The more power we give government the more attractive government becomes to the corrupt as it opens more and more avenues to create revenue streams for themselves using government power.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Laissez-faire (buyer beware) capitalism and unchecked property rights?

You have a weird, very weird, description of Laissez-faire.

I used the wrong word, I meant caveat emptor, which if the buyer has to beware of what he's purchasing, "dishonesty and fraud" usually would come into play.

How do promoters of Austrian Economics feel about the buyer having to beware of what he's purchased?

The only restrictions on commerce should be those associated with dishonesty and fraud. Otherwise, let people make their own choices.

Choices on what? Things that are immoral? Things that could instantly kill a human being and if spread, kill thousands of other human beings? Be more specific.

The individual knows far better than some government official what his needs and desires are with respect to products, prices, quality, etc.... Government should have no role in that whatsoever. When they get involved all it does is drive prices up and limit choice for government always ends up driving up prices via regulation and inflation, and limiting the availability and choices of goods by the way it picks winners and losers in the marketplace through it's subsidies.

Subsidizing a private company or industries like Donald Trump has done with soybean farmers, etc. etc. etc. is socialism. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a legitimate role that government has in protecting it's citizens from "dishonesty and fraud" and things that are detrimental to the moral fiber of a country, as well as the overall physical health of individuals and a nation.

Property rights are tied directly to liberty, for when the government can tell us what we can do and can't do on our own property then we do not own it, the government does.

Like opening a nightclub in a residential neighborhood? Are promoters of Austrian Economics against zoning laws?

As no one has ever figured out a way to keep corruption out of government other than God

Actually God created civil government and gives specific instructions as to it's role: "God's servant for your good...They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:4, 1 Peter 2:13-15)

He also gave mankind instructions on what kind of civil leaders should be chosen: "But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens." (Exodus 18:21)
"13Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you." (Deuteronomy 1:13)

Blame the citizens who choose the leaders of their government for the corruption, not the institution of government itself.

government should be a small as possible for corruption destroys liberty. History has demonstrated this truth throughout the history of humanity. The more power we give government the more attractive government becomes to the corrupt as it opens more and more avenues to create revenue streams for themselves using government power

As you said in your earlier post:

It's the social side of libertarian thought I disagree with for it and the Bible are clearly at odds

That is the cause of more government, the immoral actions of it's citizens. It appears that the Bible is clearly at odds with Austrian Economics as well.

 

[Right Divider]

How do promoters of Austrian Economics feel about the buyer having to beware of what he's purchased?

We believe that laws against dishonesty and fraud should be enforced and not that government needs to vet every transaction between two people.

Subsidizing a private company or industries like Donald Trump has done with soybean farmers, etc. etc. etc. is socialism. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a legitimate role that government has in protecting it's citizens from "dishonesty and fraud" and things that are detrimental to the moral fiber of a country, as well as the overall physical health of individuals and a nation.

So you think that there should always be a "benevolent" third party involved in all human interactions and that government fits that role?

That's retarded.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How do promoters of Austrian Economics feel about the buyer having to beware of what he's purchased?

We believe that laws against dishonesty and fraud should be enforced and not that government needs to vet every transaction between two people.

To my knowledge government isn't. Be more specific when talking about "transaction between two people".


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Subsidizing a private company or industries like Donald Trump has done with soybean farmers, etc. etc. etc. is socialism. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a legitimate role that government has in protecting it's citizens from "dishonesty and fraud" and things that are detrimental to the moral fiber of a country, as well as the overall physical health of individuals and a nation.

So you think that there should always be a "benevolent" third party involved in all human interactions and that government fits that role?

That's retarded.

God created civil government as one of 3 institutions for the governance of man (the family and Church being the other two). Benevolence (well meaning) automatically comes with the role of civil government. Again, be more specific with your definition of "human interactions".

 

[Right Divider]

To my knowledge government isn't. Be more specific when talking about "transaction between two people".

I was perfectly clear. Try reading it again.

God created civil government as one of 3 institutions for the governance of man (the family and Church being the other two). Benevolence (well meaning) automatically comes with the role of civil government. Again, be more specific with your definition of "human interactions".

The governments of the world to NOT act benevolently.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
To my knowledge government isn't. Be more specific when talking about "transaction between two people".

I was perfectly clear. Try reading it again.

I was hoping that you'd provide some specific examples. Here's one: When I go to the grocery store and purchase items, while government isn't standing there looking over the grocer's shoulder, it's presence is known to both the buyer and the seller. If the grocer sells me some meat that they know had been sitting out and is spoiled, the Health Dept. will be there to punish the grocer and protect the consumer from future incidents.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
God created civil government as one of 3 institutions for the governance of man (the family and Church being the other two). Benevolence (well meaning) automatically comes with the role of civil government. Again, be more specific with your definition of "human interactions".

The governments of the world to NOT act benevolently.

What government's established role as seen in Romans 13:4 is and what it currently is doing are entirely two different things.

BTW, would you ask ffreeloader to return, as I would like my questions from an earlier post answered.

 

[Right Divider]

I was hoping that you'd provide some specific examples. Here's one: When I go to the grocery store and purchase items, while government isn't standing there looking over the grocer's shoulder, it's presence is known to both the buyer and the seller. If the grocer sells me some meat that they know had been sitting out and is spoiled, the Health Dept. will be there to punish the grocer and protect the consumer from future incidents.

So in your opinion, only the government can handle this? Without the "Health Dept." we'd all die. There are SO many other way to handle this without government imposition.

What government's established role as seen in Romans 13:4 is and what it currently is doing are entirely two different things.

That is exactly my POINT!

BTW, would you ask ffreeloader to return, as I would like my questions from an earlier post answered.

Ask him yourself.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I was hoping that you'd provide some specific examples. Here's one: When I go to the grocery store and purchase items, while government isn't standing there looking over the grocer's shoulder, it's presence is known to both the buyer and the seller. If the grocer sells me some meat that they know had been sitting out and is spoiled, the Health Dept. will be there to punish the grocer and protect the consumer from future incidents.

So in your opinion, only the government can handle this?

That's what the role of government is, to protect public safety.

Without the "Health Dept." we'd all die. There are SO many other way to handle this without government imposition.

Again, I'll ask you for an example.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What government's established role as seen in Romans 13:4 is and what it currently is doing are entirely two different things.

That is exactly my POINT!

I'm using your word "benevolent" (i.e. well meaning") in the same way the Apostle Paul does in Romans 13:4: "For the one in authority is God's servant for your good".

Are you as well?


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
BTW, would you ask ffreeloader to return, as I would like my questions from an earlier post answered.

Ask him yourself

And the author of this thread as well. If they are for Austrian Economics, I would think that they'd return to defend it.

 

[Right Divider]

That's what the role of government is, to protect public safety.

So the Bible tells you about the Health Dept?

The role of government is NOT to inspect meat. It is to punish murders and thieves. Going well beyond that gets us the kind of gross and vast corruption that we see today.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

So the Bible tells you about the Health Dept?

Which falls under the role of civil government. Here, ffreelaoder will explain it to you:

The only restrictions on commerce should be those associated with dishonesty and fraud.

I look forward to his return so that the two of you can battle this out.

The role of government is NOT to inspect meat. It is to punish murders and thieves. Going well beyond that gets us the kind of gross and vast corruption that we see today.

Would you not agree that false advertising and selling tainted meat is dishonesty, i.e. "fraud", which is a form of "thievery"?

 

[Right Divider]

Which falls under the role of civil government.

So your idea of "public safety" means that the government should run every aspect of our lives?

Would you not agree that false advertising and selling tainted meat is dishonesty, i.e. "fraud", which is a form of "thievery"?

A nice smoke screen to guard your idea that the government should run every aspect of our lives.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Which falls under the role of civil government.

So your idea of "public safety" means that the government should run every aspect of our lives?

Government has it's role as seen in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter: 2: 13-15. I'd ask for an example of what you mean by "every aspect of our lives", but my requests for examples haven't been fruitful thus far.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Would you not agree that false advertising and selling tainted meat is dishonesty, i.e. "fraud", which is a form of "thievery"?

A nice smoke screen to guard your idea that the government should run every aspect of our lives.

Fraud:

NOUN
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Sounds like thievery to me, which you stated in your earlier post government has a role in punishing those who do so.

The role of government is NOT to inspect meat. It is to punish murders and thieves

 

[Right Divider]

Government has it's role as seen in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter: 2: 13-15.

Romans 13:4 is clearly NOT about such things as meat inspection. It is clearly about capital crimes. Unless you think that bad meat sellers should fall under the SWORD!

Peter is speaking to Israelite's scattered into foreign (gentile) lands. Not quite the context for a general discussion of government.

You are a religious zealot that cannot see the truth even if stares you in the face.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

[The fraudulent selling of goods passing them off as something else, in this case tainted meat stating that it's good meat] Sounds like thievery to me, which you stated in your earlier post government has a role in punishing those who do so.

Romans 13:4 is clearly NOT about such things as meat inspection. It is clearly about capital crimes. Unless you think that bad meat sellers should fall under the SWORD!

Commentaries on Romans 13:4
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/13-4.htm

I've read the Libertarian "solution" to violations of health codes and it goes something like this:

"The word will get around after 30 or 40 people die at Joe's Restaurant because he sold products that were tainted and brought on diseases like E.coli, etc., and hence Joe, due to lack of patronage, will be forced to go out of business."

Sound about right?

Peter is speaking to Israelite's scattered into foreign (gentile) lands. Not quite the context for a general discussion of government.

Commentaries on 1 Peter 2: 13-15
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/2-13.htm

You are a religious zealot that cannot see the true even if stares you in the face.

Play nice (pssssst, the word you're looking for is "statist").

 

[Right Divider]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

[The fraudulent selling of goods passing them off as something else, in this case tainted meat stating that it's good meat] Sounds like thievery to me, which you stated in your earlier post government has a role in punishing those who do so.

Punishing.... not monitoring the free exchange between two people that agree on that exchange.

Commentaries on Romans 13:4
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/13-4.htm

It's amazing how you've turned one verse into this monstrosity that we see today. You seem to think that freedom itself is a great evil.

I've read the Libertarian "solution" to violations of health codes and it goes something like this:

"The word will get around after 30 or 40 people die at Joe's Restaurant because he sold products that were tainted and brought on diseases like E.coli, etc., and hence Joe, due to lack of patronage, will be forced to go out of business."

Sound about right?

Pretty hilarious when you need to use silly "examples" that would never exist in a free market without excessive government regulation.

Commentaries on 1 Peter 2: 13-15
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/2-13.htm

You and the "commentaries", like that means anything. Nobody cares about your "commentaries".

Play nice (pssssst, the word you're looking for is "statist").

Indeed you are.

 

[annabenedetti]

Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good.

That's really what it all comes down to.