re: Conservatives: what's your beef with libertarianism?

quote:

---

Let the individual states govern themselves on what is or is not “socially legal” so long as every citizen is granted the rights to life liberty and property which are basic human rights on lein from God.

---

I would take it a step further and say no government, federal or local, should be enforcing social issues such as marriage, religion, gambling, etc. Thats just me though.

The problem with libertarians is they lose. The problem with libertarianism is that, at its most principled, it is an untenable ideology.

Carried to its logical end it essentially becomes nothing more than anarchy, and anything short of that requires placing arbitrary limits on just how far the ideology can be taken whilst maintaining some semblance of societal structure. At that point it is rendered a rudderless ship devoid of principle.

quote:

---

Carried to its logical end it essentially becomes nothing more than anarchy, and anything short of that requires placing arbitrary limits on just how far the ideology can be taken

---

1. What's wrong with anarchy? Anarchy =/= Chaos. The pioneers and settlers lived in anarchy. There was no law. They didn't go around killing each other.

2. Limits are not arbitrary. Libertarian limits can be reduced to...'you are free do to as you wish until it infringes upon the freedom of another.'

quote:

---

I’m just being edgy. Many Libertarians really grind my gears though with the incessant worship of the individual at the total expense of the community. I did that for a while too before having a family.

I’m beginning to understand just how important culture and community are now, and a lot of libertarian tenets are in direct opposition to that growing realization.

---

Immigration was the biggest driver of this towards my ultimate realization that I'm a paleoconservative.

The gym around the block from me closes early today and I gotta go in a few minutes if I want to get a quality session in for today.

quote:

---

The gym around the block from me closes early today and I gotta go in a few minutes if I want to get a quality session in for today.

---

Don't use a belt on heavy free squats. It will cause lower back fat to replace lean muscle.

quote:

---

2. Limits are not arbitrary. Libertarian limits can be reduced to...'you are free do to as you wish until it infringes upon the freedom of another.'

---

I think this is a great way to describe Libertarianism. It is not anarchy as so many people seem to believe.

quote:

---

Ultimately you are forced to pick and choose which freedoms supercede others.

---

That is called 'politics'.

I am certainly a libertarian thinker. I subscribe to the Austrian school of economic thought.

The LP cannot be taken seriously until they attract more money and more "regular" people and not so many quacks. Most of the time their events are dominated by folks whose biggest issue is dope legalization--an issue that would not even make the top ten of my list of freedoms that needed defending.

I don't have problems with communities making laws for the behavior they expect in their community and feel like the closer to the individual these level of government are the better. For example, I like that Houston has no zoning but the different communities have come up with their own rules on property maintenance and the like. If you don't like the rules of the community move to the next one.

Some, perhaps a majority, of libertarians support abortion. I do not and one of the main reason for my position is that protection from the harmful actions of others is a fundamental role of government and the child should be provided that protection.
Liberty, IMHO, extends to the womb.

Rand and Ron Paul are right on most everything they say. Ron has become somewhat the political profiteer it seems but at least his causes are right.

I agree with the Kochs.

I have posted several times here what I think is a good stance on immigration given the reality of our situation and it is one that both conservatives and libertarians should find sensible.

I think the election of 1964 was the election in which the voters made the biggest mistake of modern time. Had Goldwater gotten elected our world would be much better today in a lot of meaningful ways.

I think the failures of both Reagan and Gingrich under Clinton to pass a balance budget amendment were the greatest opportunities lost in my lifetime.

I think LBJ was the worst President of all time followed closely by FDR. FDR was only better because he went to war to win---his policies were horrible and his cabinet was filled with communist sympathizers like Henry Wallace.

I think Bobby Jindal had the political capital to make much more drastic changes in Louisiana and squandered it.

Economic freedoms---property, commerce, ect. are as important or even more important than civil freedoms.

These are things that describe my political thinking.

quote:

---

Joshjrn

---

If your interested in what the Biblical standards of government look like I can recommend several Bible studies. The debate is not wether or not God has outlines for what governments should do in a general sense, it’s wether or not we can trust God as the standard to appeal to in these matters. The latter is the one you draw into question and one I’d be happy to defend in public or private debate.

To stay somewhat within the bounds of the OP I’ve limited my post to the question of our basic constitutional human rights being on lein from God. Denile of God leads these rights to be absurd and mere opinion. I’d like to know, as you claim to be a professing libertarian, how these human rights are objectively true and justifiable outside of God.