The Difference between Libertarian and Conservative.
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Did you also post with the username Nihilo here?
Regarding the law, it's not a matter of whether something is a "light sin" or not. It's a matter of whether it's legal.
Regarding the law, it's not a matter of whether something is a "light sin" or not. It's a matter of whether it's legal.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I used to, but was locked out inadvertently because the site's security software blacklisted my proxy server network, so I took over a dead account with implicit blessings from one of the mods in my final PM as Nihilo. Because of the blacklisting, I cannot anymore access Nihilo, so I can't even produce the PM as proof, but nonetheless I am not lying is what I've said. Nihilo's dead now. It's a shame because I started Nihilo in 1998, and revived him after the great TOL server crash of 2001, he was user number 83. But I started a Twitter account and call it 'Nee_Nihilo,' so Nihilo lives on in another social media world.
That's why I posted the OP, to generate this sort of discussion.
Of course what the law forbids is illegal, that's trivial to say. Libertarians and conservatives have different ideas about what the law ought to forbid though, and I'm putting forth exactly what that difference is in the OP, that conservatives believe that the law ought to somehow penalize grave sins, in some way, while libertarians believe some grave sins ought to be ignored by the law. Such as, for an example, the legalization of marijuana, which I've read recently, according to some Catholic bishops, is and will remain grave sin to use, even if the law ceases to forbid it.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
A germane point from another thread, which bears on this one.
Prohibition was not conservative, nor libertarian, but something else. Laws against drunkenness would be conservative and not libertarian, but laws banning alcohol are penalizing light sin (if it is even sin at all to drink liquor, which I do not believe it is, but some still do), which is neither conservative or libertarian.
'Overzealous,' maybe.
Incidentally, before Prohibition brought about a giant black market with typical black market related violence, Americans could purchase machine guns through the mail, and nobody ever thought to ban or even regulate them.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Prostitution. It's conservative to forbid it, and it's libertarian to permit it.
Barbarian observes:
In the same way that the illegality of alcohol during prohibition was wrong. Laws and policies that harm the nation should be removed, not ignored.
In the same way that the illegality of alcohol during prohibition was wrong. Laws and policies that harm the nation should be removed, not ignored.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That's not how I see conservativism.
Understood, I only meant drunkenness itself, not drinking and driving.
In keeping with the OP, laws against public drunkenness are conservative, and not libertarian.
And so what I said is therefore lacking in sense?
I'm proffering a reason for why conservatives and libertarians are identical and vote in lockstep on almost everything, except for some key areas of disagreement that couldn't be more at odds.
Yeah, the NFA, 1934. Massive infringement of the right of LGBT people to keep and bear arms. And why? Because of killers, who grew up out of the soil that was watered with Prohibition of liquor, which was brought about by 'overzealous' people---not libertarians, and not conservatives. We all at once infringed an inalienable right, and directly contravened the Bill of Rights, in the NFA.
It's how conservatives see themselves. If they don't favor using government to make us good, they are libertarians.
Yes, then it's right. Libertarians wouldn't want to tell someone how much he can drink, if he doesn't endanger or impose on others in doing so.
Many libertarians oppose any immigration laws at all, and certainly don't see Hispanic immigration as a threat. They point to the fact that the United States prospered and grew when there were no immigration laws.
Libertarians oppose dry laws and blue laws, which conservatives support.
Libertarians, even in the South, generally opposed segregation, which conservatives supported.
Libertarians were opposed to McCarthyism, which conservatives supported.
In general, Libertarians opposed conservatives in almost everything conservatives supported that is antiamerican or evil, and supported them in almost everything that was good.
Many, perhaps most, conservatives are not LGBT.
A second sign of the conservative feelings in the nineteen twenties was the nation's effort to ban the sale of alcoholic drinks, or liquor. This policy was known as Prohibition, because it prohibited -- or banned -- alcoholic drinks.
Many of the strongest supporters of Prohibition were conservative Americans living in rural areas. Many of them believed that liquor was evil, the product of the devil.
A number of towns and states passed laws banning alcohol sales during the first years of the twentieth century. And in nineteen nineteen, the nation passed the eighteenth amendment to the federal constitution. This amendment, and the Volstead Act, made it unlawful to make, sell, or transport liquor.
...
By the middle of the nineteen twenties, it was clear to most Americans that Prohibition laws were a failure. But the laws were not changed until the election of President Franklin Roosevelt in nineteen thirty-two.
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/a-23-2006-06-22-voa1-83129627/126079.html
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's not how I see myself, and I identify as conservative and not libertarian.
I guess there is something in that. My thoughts concerning light sins, that they should be forgiven under the law, is geared toward making people better. But grave sins are a different matter, and libertarians don't believe in penalizing some grave sins, while conservatives would tend to want to punish grave sins in some way with the law. I don't know what the difference is between wanting people to be good/better, and wanting a stable society. Are they the same?
Some libertarians even argue that drinking and driving isn't or shouldn't be criminal, and that crime only occurs in the event of a wreck, and that even then, if the driver is intoxicated, it doesn't warrant additional criminal charges, because intoxication itself didn't cause harm to anyone but the drunk, and the only crime is due to any harm done with his vehicle.
It's another point of distinction between conservative and libertarian. Libertarians also prefer what's called 'isolationism,' which entails withdrawing all troops from foreign countries, and abandoning the idea that we should be 'world police,' even in the case of genocide or other systemic war crimes.
I'm conservative, and I don't support such laws. If someone wants to buy and drink liquor on Sundays, I don't take that as any kind of sin, but even if it is, it is light sin.
Another example of conservativism evolving over time. You're making a great point as to how libertarianism and conservativism have become confused, since in some cases the libertarian position was more conservative than the positions held by 'conservatives' at the time. In these cases, libertarians helped conservativism to evolve into a more accurate and coherent political position.
Another example where 'conservatives' are not conservative at all, but more 'overzealous.' Another word for it might be 'oppressive.' Prohibition was oppressive.
I think laws against prostitution and drug use are good, but libertarians don't support those laws.
No, but LGBT people and Black people and Latino people are all included in the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms.
Yes, Prohibition was 'overzealous' or 'oppressive,' punishing light sins severely, but of course, many of these 'conservatives' were non-Catholic Christians, and they believed that drinking liquor was grave sin. It was a valuable experiment in punishing light sins as if they were grave, and what can happen when we do that.
Thank you for calling this out, this is why I posted the OP, because 'conservative' and 'libertarian' remain indistinguishable in some ways, and even when they are distinguished, it is not at all clear as to why.
Conservative thought has evolved since Prohibition. Or, what is called conservative, as your quote reflected. While Prohibition wasn't a libertarian law, it also was not a conservative law, by today's notion of conservative, and the OP here attempts to answer the 'why.' It was not conservative, because conservatives do not believe in penalizing light sins with the law, but prefer to 'turn the other cheek,' and that is not because Christ teaches this, but because it works. In forgiving light sins, people have a better chance of changing, than if we punish them for light sins.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
What if murder wasn't against the law? Would you say that those who believe that murder should be outlawed are conservatives, by virtue of that belief, and by what you said here? I could see any who believe that murder shouldn't be outlawed (essentially anarchy) as libertarians (perhaps particularly 'anarcho-libertarians'), but I doubt there are any who identify as libertarians who believe that laws against murder are somehow oppressive.
Also, do you consider the Bill of Rights, or any comparable laws, as "using government to make us good?"
Thanks.
genuineoriginal
New member
It wasn't Nero, it was Caligula, and Caligula did not marry his horse, he loved his sister and was trying to make his horse a consul in the Roman Senate when he was assassinated.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
prohibition didn't occur in a vacuum or primarily because of religious beliefs about drinking - it was a response to the enormous social burden carried by allowing unrestrained public intoxication, especially in the cities, especially among immigrant populations
after prohibition was installed, wife and child beating declined, deaths from drunkenness declined, deaths from drinking related disease declined precipitously
in terms of its intent, it was successful
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Barbarian observes:
In general, Libertarians opposed conservatives in almost everything conservatives supported that is antiamerican or evil...
Segregation.
Rounding up Japanese-Americans in WWII.
The Patriot Act.
Muslim ban.
Restricting Free Trade.
Trump's claim that he can just order an end to birthright citizenship
Trump's belief that it's O.K. to grab guns and worry about due process later.
Nixon's enemies list
How many would you like?
In general, Libertarians opposed conservatives in almost everything conservatives supported that is antiamerican or evil...
Segregation.
Rounding up Japanese-Americans in WWII.
The Patriot Act.
Muslim ban.
Restricting Free Trade.
Trump's claim that he can just order an end to birthright citizenship
Trump's belief that it's O.K. to grab guns and worry about due process later.
Nixon's enemies list
How many would you like?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
just one would be nice
let's pick segregation, since that's the only one that is demonstrably "antiamerican or evil"
and let's limit it to official, governmentally mandated segregation, since i'm of the mind (and i think libertarians would agree) that private individuals should have the right to associate with (or exclude) whoever they wish
can you demonstrate conservative support for governmentally mandated segregation?
can you demonstrate libertarian opposition for governmentally mandated segregation?
take note that the libertarian party didn't get going until after segregation ended
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
Segregation came from the liberals (Democrats) not from the conservatives (Republicans).
| Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican party were suburban, prosperous New South types. The more Republican the South has become, the less racist. |
genuineoriginal
New member
The real difference comes down to Libertarians thinking only about themselves and their own freedoms and Conservatives thinking about preserving a society that provides freedoms for everyone.
| The Key Difference Between Conservatives and Libertarians, and Why It Matters Libertarians offer a reductionist solution that can be appealing in its clarity and in its conformity to liberal cultural norms. Questions over personal character, moral duty, and civic obligations are reduced to the singular doctrine of “live and let live.” For libertarians, this principle can be applied in almost every circumstance, including in ways that many conservatives find socially destructive or morally consequential. For instance, when it comes to prostitution, abortion, illicit drug use, porous borders, etc., conservatives don’t simply think in market terms. We think about the kind of society that will be conducive to preserving liberty and the good life in the long run. Libertarians will respond by simply asking: So what? If an exercise of one’s free will does not materially aggress others, then what’s the concern? The difference here ultimately comes down to what both sides value as the chief political good. Since unrestricted license is the libertarian’s chief good, they see little purpose in extending the debate beyond individual transactions. Conservatives, however, recognize that while personal freedom is a good, it is not the only good. Without the strong mediating institutions that serve as the building blocks of society—whether it is our families, churches, or community centers—the buffer between the government and the individual erodes. Consequently, government intervention inevitably fills this void, which is ironically the very thing libertarians seek to avoid. |
Wrong. Every liberal democrat voted for the civil rights act. Most conservative democrats voted against it. Almost every southern democrat voted against it.
Every liberal republican voted for the civil rights act. Most conservative republicans voted against it. Every southern republican voted against it.
A few genuine libertarians in the republican party, like Goldwater, refused to vote for the act on libertarian principles, at the same time they personally detested segregation.
More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods, and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[
https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/uncategorized/urban-legend-goldwater-against-civil-rights/
You've been played, my gullible friend.