Do Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than they do with Conservatives?

I disagree with you.

Conservatives are the neo-conservative. Are the ones that want to mantain the status quo. And that is conservatism.

Libertarians are the real liberals. Liberals like Jefferson...

 

I would recommend reading what I posted. There is really only a about a dime's worth of difference between conservatives and libertarians even on social issues. True conservatives are very hands-off as well. We want people to have freedom of choice. There are only about two or three places where we differ on where to draw the line with those choices. And they are largely backed up with solid logic but are commonly misportrayed as intrusive moral authoritarianism in an attempt to discredit them. Usually by opponents for political gain.

Beyond that, I agree with most of your post.

 

Speaking as a current Libertarian.....Former Republican.....I disagree with Republicans about 15% of the time.......Democrats 95% of the time.

Do Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than they do with Conservatives? Reply to Thread

Absolutely not.....



Libertarians tend to caucus with Republicans in the Federal Government as well as the the state or municipal level......

........partly because they share a lot of commonality with Republicans, but mainly because Libertarians stand against everything the Democrat party is for.
.
.
.
.

 

I would have to say they disagree with in which the democrats would like to achieve what they are for...socially.

 

Well, I would likely categorize those liberals that favor Socialism as Progressives. The simplest definition of a Progressive is one who favors significant government intervention in economic and social affairs. Pure (or bleeding heart) liberals would disagree with Progressives on government intervention in social issues.

 

Ideologys of the liber-aryans are more of the liberal conservative type. But with more radical ideoloy. Some call it extremist. Sort of like a terrorist way of taking it to the next level.

 

This is obviously just a dogmatic statement. No reasonable analyst of political ideologies would ever make such a statement.

 

Conservatives and liberals are both statists, so I don't think Libertarians are very close to either in principle.

If I had to pick one, it would conservatives; as they at least pay lip service to limited government. In the end, however, both the Republican and Democrat parties are Establishment controlled, and committed to top-down, socialistic, corrupt, big government - I should think that obvious.

Both liberals and conservatives accept the insane interpretations of the Constitution that have paved the way for out of control, big government. No Libertarian would ever concede those points. Some conservatives understand the disaster that was the rewriting of the Constitution back in the 1930's; but usually find a way to sign off on all manner of unconstitutional nonsense. Liberals are clueless about it all - or worse, have nefarious intent.

In short, Libertarians stand firmly on principle, and freedom is always the first consideration; while liberals and conservatives are all about politics and power.

 

Ok, so if regulations don't protect consumers, who will? Our new and improved smaller and weakened Dr. Paul government?

 

I am unsure how many of them actually believe it. But from what they write Libertarians are utopists who really think their system will work out better for everybody willing to put in an honest days work.

The idea on that point is that consumers will protect themselves via market research. If a baby food kills a bunch of babies, then they won't trust that brand and the brand will go out of business. Since the libertarian system is pretty merciless toward an organization going out of business, the reason that the companies would therefore work hard to ensure safety.

In contrast the government regulation can pick the winners and losers and so back door deals with other countries and firms and lawsuit caps or jurisdiction problems may result in babies getting nasty Chinese death food under our current system.

Of course, the Chinese EXECUTED the people behind the various death food scandals, and that doesn't seem to create enough of a disencentive to keep others from cutting corners in order to keep their businesses going...

 

I'd like to add to this because it's pretty on. Use of the court system is another way of ensuring consumer safety. I can't remember the correct term off the top of my head but you have a right to assume you will get what is advertised. For instance if you're buying carrots, you have the right to assume they're not poisonous. If they are, and you were sold and harmed by a defective product, you have a case. Companies already balance their books by the cost of lawsuits vs recalling a defective product so nothing's really changing but it is worth mention.

Of course just because you can sue over an unsafe product doesn't mean you'll always win. Seat belts are an example of an item that increases safety but isn't really something you could sue over (the car is no less dangerous with a seat belt installed; it can still kill). Without regulation there is no guarantee that you would have a seat belt in your new car. It would be entirely possible that companies would just stop selling cars with seat belts, but why would they? Safety is already a selling point and even if they did stop selling cars with seat belts you could get it put on aftermarket. This is another concept; not all regulation is necessary for things to work to a better end.

 

Congrats, you posted about the most stupid statement in this thread, so far.

 

Depends on what we're talking about. With economics, they are more likely to ally with conservatives. Socially, they are more likely to ally with liberals. I am a social libertarian for the most part. Economically? Certainly not.

 

There is no such thing as a true conservative anymore. The progressives have killed them off or gobbled them up into progressive-lite groups.

Moral authoritarianism and Moral Ambiguity is something that people don't think about too often when they bring up social ssues. If I must make a choice between the two then I go with moral authoritarianism as the lesser of two evils. But that just shows you how much of a twisted path I take.

 

This is a logically flawed question. There are right and left leaning libertarians.

 

Basic consumer protection laws are good and do actually protect people. The laws that do help are fairly simple:

- Products will be what what they are advertised to be and will work as advertised. This includes basic assumptions not specifically listed but that an average consumer would assume, such as that cars won't spontaneously catch fire and a head of lettuce isn't poisoned.

Beyond that, what is needed? Is the "protection" of a law requiring a person to go to school, get certified and apprentice for two years just to braid hair really protecting anyone's safety?

The worst laws are the ones that include grandfather clauses protecting the current businesses. In those cases any new business has to undergo strict and expensive licensing and inspections while existing businesses are exempt. Thus they kill any future competition and protect the current businesses.

Unfortunately, all a big corporation has to do to get legislation passed to protect their interests is to include some mention of protecting consumers and ensuring their safety. Few politicians are willing to stand against anything that claims to protect consumers and most citizens are unwilling to consider the actual bill and will believe whatever the advertising claims that the bill will provide to them.

 

How would be a left leaning libertarian?

Right libertarians defend the state. A left leaning libertarian?

PS: Libertarian in American use.

For me libertarian is a synonym of anarchist.

 

Libertarians, from what I see, are classical republicans at large. As in people like post Revolutionary war republicans who fought long and hard for a pre-civil war America, which greatly separated the National Government from states/individuals/economy. They wanted a federal government who could handle national and international matters, not one who would consume every matter under the federal umbrella, as it has done today. Others like Benjamin Franklin and Chief Justice John Marshall would fall in the "Libertarian" classification of today. Many would also classify them as constitutionalist, but I think its unfair as the constitution can only be interpreted and not defined. Everyone has their own interpretation, and they did as well.

Libertarians are far more conservative than either republicans or democrats. Republicans and Democrats are no more liberal than each other. Thats why most libertarians fall within the independent vote, because neither republican nor democrat are conservative. They are just able to hijack the term "conservative" because they have huge corporate TV propaganda.

 

Well you arent a thesaurus, that being said you and your analysis is purely opinion and a very uninformed one at that.

The world Libertarian describes a person who believes in the classical views of various founding fathers, and essentially how the structure of government was prior to the 1900's. From the early 1900's, the government vastly expanded its reach and greatly altered the structure of government. What we have now is not what we had then, Libertarians view this to be the reason of pain and suffering, the undermining of individual rights, contracts, and law by use of justifications of each political party.

Many classical republicans (Anti-Federalists) disliked the concept of political parties because they felt that political parts tear public officials from distinguishing virtue and vice.

Insane how people were so (*)(*)(*)(*) smart back then without the internet and TV.. more information available than ever before and we probably live in the most misinformed, lame, dumb generation of human existence. (*)(*)(*)(*)ty

 

Libertarians are liberals. The authoritarian leftists who call themselves liberals are actually progressives.

That said, I have much more in common with conservatives and center-right moderates than I do with progressives. An apt parallel would be Romney and Obama. Romney is certainly not my ideal candidate, but I have much more in common with him than Obama, and will vote for him if it comes down to the two of them.

Where I diverge from most mainstream Republicans is their obsession with criminalizing drug use, prostitution, and gambling, but it's not like progressives are any better. Most so-called social "liberals" (i.e. progressives) don't really care about legalizing any of those things. Obama has actually resumed the Federal assault on medical marijuana clinics despite his promise that he wouldn't, yet so-called "liberals" still support him.

 

Point one. I am not misinformed. I've made a distintion in how libertarian is used in USA and how it is used in the rest of the world.

In the rest of the world from England to Australia, mentioning English talking countries libertarian is synonym of anarchist. Libertarian in my culture, the Spanish culture, the same; the libertarian were the anarchists, more exactly, the anarchocommunists.

So my question is valid. What is a left libertarian using the American concept of this word?

Ah, and another thing of the misuse of the words: federalism. Federalism means decentralization of the power. That the central power in USA is called the Federal government, does not make that old Republicans be anti-federalism, they were against the Central power. They were pro-federation or cofederations, more the second.

 

I think that we have to differenciate what are the ideas of the people and what is done in the establishment. The politicians whatever their "ideology" when they arrive to the power they do exactly the same. Sustain the status quo.

You won't see any real difference between Obama and Romney if he arrives to power. Seriously, do you see any difference between Obama and Bush? Because for me are the same rubbish. Even I think that Obama is doing good to Bush, and that is a lot to say. Obama is like Zapatero in Spain, a bluff. Someone that promised the moon but gave you the hell.

The establishment ideas are the same. Whatever the member of the establishment says, they will do the same. They serve to the same forces. And as a libertarian as you say that you are, you should see that.

 

Leftists...always looking for some all-powerful nanny-figure to hold their hand and pat their heads.

 

There is no "utopia" and libertarians are the only ones who really recognize it.

There will always be death, misery, disease, and inefficiency. Libertarians simply seek to minimize these things by maximizing individual liberty and decentralizing power. The reason for this is simple: History has PROVEN beyond a shred of a doubt that more liberty invariably leads to more happiness and wealth for the common folk, while less liberty invariably leads to more misery, poverty, and death.

The reason why the phrase "maximizing individual liberty" scares people is because they do not understand what is meant by "liberty". It does not mean "free-for-all". It is actually a nuanced concept that Thomas Jefferson elucidated quite well.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

Understand?

A gross over-simplification. If the baby-food kills babies, the company would be subject to civil sanctions at the very least and could be subject to criminal sanctions depending upon the extent of their contributory negligence.

You, like many others, simply do not understand libertarian philosophy. I'm sure you think you do, but it's quite obvious from your simplistic and naive notions that you do not.

 

I identify myself firmly as a liberal, and certainly find that I have far more in common politically on many issues with libertarians than I do with either socialists (who will always tend towards authoritarianism) or conservatives (who will always favour conformism). The two ideologies of 'modern liberalism' and 'libertarianism' are essentially based in the same ideals of 'classic liberalism', and the importance of 'liberty', so that's no great surprise.

The difference is really in how the two consider that freedom and liberty can best be produced and maintained in practise. As modern liberal, I believe that liberty is something that needs to be protected by having a set of rules which prevent the freedom of some from being used to override and destroy the freedom of others (both socially and economically - applying to individuals in society, and to the business word, to prevent the take-over of capitalism by corporatism). I believe that social and economic 'justice' is a required element to prevent abuse by some, and a loss of effective freedom for others. Freedom should be for everyone, and stop only at the point where it can be used to destroy the freedom of others.

Libertarians are, in effect, 'extremist' liberals who believe in a completely 'hands-off' approach, which (in my opinion) allows for the effective freedom of some (especially the freedom to compete on a level playing field, and succeed according to their own efforts, as both individuals and businesses) to be taken away, as long as it is done 'freely' by others. It is freedom from any form of 'interference' at all costs, even if that cost is ultimately the loss of freedom itself for many people (and businesses) in society. As much as it emphasises complete freedom, in my opinion the result of its application would be the reverse of that, because it doesn't put the social or economic protections in place to ensure that freedom is maintained for everyone (rather than for the few who get ahead, and can manipulated things so thaty they stay ahead at the expense of the rest).

As a liberal, I would say that freedom cannot exist without both tolerance and opportunity. Those who do not have a fair opportunity to succeed by their own efforts cannot be said to truly be 'free' at all. The opportunity gap (which already exists, both for individuals and companies, and needs to be addressed) is where I tend to most disagree with libertarians, but of course I am still essnetically closer to them in ideology than I am to those who believe in the redistribution of wealth (socialists) or the 'freedom' only to conform (conservatives).