if that was jason s two cents worth, i’m afraid the poorboy is owed some change.

What does it mean to say that you are a conservative? A Libertarian. And I mean what do these lables mean in terms of actual policy.

I must confess that I am rather simple minded in this. I am a conservative, because I wish to conserve the best part of America, which is the Constitution, as written, and as it should properly be enforced. When I joined the military (two branches that cover a span of more than 18 years) I pledged defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am, by disposition, training, and experience, a conservator of the American freedoms so eloquently voiced in the Constitution.
Freedom to succeed. Freedom to fail. The right to be considered equal under law, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation. The right to be graded not by an inherited social caste system, but by my merits. The right to have a level playing field, where a fairly grounded rule of law regulates the players so that the game is not rigged unfairly. The right to speak my mind. The liberty to protect the lives of my children and my neighbors with deadly force, if need be. The right to be contrary, to be able to exist as an individual in a sea of mass movement and groupthink. To defy the tryanny of the many, just as I defy the tryanny of the few. To have an elightened social framework that allows for differences between individuals, that gives succor to aged, the weak, the infirm and the helpless. These are the things that America has written into her very fabric, and these things I will defend.
Give me a party that does that, and I will join it. Today. I guarantee it can win the nation in any fair election.

To hit the second point (Latino Blue Collars) you need a high profile convert e.g. a Sanchez sister gone full to the other side. Also, a fourth subgroup may be victims of crime/gang violence; get to them by being a strong 287g and 2nd amendment party. President Nixon’s “split the country – ours will be the far larger share” could be applied to the Latino community as well (well I’d be happy with 51%).

With these three segments, the Republicans might start capturing 40%+ again. Hoping to capture an overwheling majority without juicy handouts will never work, just as it hasn’t worked with other groups who are or hope to be dependent on the state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA

I have no respect for your friends – they obviously have no integrity, nor in my opinion any sense of morals, if they so easily opted to sponge off the efforts of others. They are no advertisement for libertarianism, either way.

Neither do I understand what on Earth makes you believe that libertarians or atheists are trying to “marginalize” you. Are you of the belief that such people wish to stop you from worshiping or practicing your religion in any way? If so, I can correct you – they’re not.

So what do you want from government in terms of religion? The right to practice freely? You have it. What more do you want? A government BASED upon religion? If this IS what you want, then you have a fight on your hands. However, you say that you don’t wish to force religion on anyone else – well that’s great, I think we’re both agreed then that religion should be completely separate from the state. Suits me.

You’re completely at odds with reality. What really bothers me though is that a libertarian society gives you the full freedom, as an individual, to worship however you please – with no interference or coersion from others. In fact your right to do so is protected – as is the right of anyone of any religion, not just Christianity. Yet your idea of conservatism – based on Christianity – does not give me the chance to escape from religion. Under a government of your choosing, I am ruled not according to laws derived from an objective reality which is real, but from laws derived from a spirit world I do not believe in.

YOUR ultimate task may well some fictional “journey back to God” (which exists only in your mind) but it is not mine, nor is it the ultimate task of millions of others who do not share your faith.

You make the ridiculous claim that libertarianism and socialism are just two sides of the same coin – which means, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have no real grasp of the nature of either. They are nothing like each other. They are not symmetrical in any way. In fact, your religious belief has a lot more in common with socialism than libertarianism. You claim that “man” has an ultimate task. A duty, if you will. This is a collectivist belief. It ignores reality: that all individuals are different and have their own dreams, aspirations, goals and priorities. Socialists evade reality in the same way in their insistence that all men have a “common goal.”

To say that libertarianism is just a “right wing version of socialism” is to know neither. I suggest you go back to your learnin’ books and read s’more.

There is no such thing as a “libertarian paradise.” It does not pretend to be Utopia. It just recognizes the inalienable right of every individual to be free to live his life how he pleases, so long as it doesn’t involve abrogating the rights of others to do the same. There is nothing complicated or “fancy” about it. There is no “ultimate goal” to strive toward. Each man is an individual with his own goal. If he wishes to collaborate with others on his goal, he is free to do so. There is nothing unrealistic about it.

What is also apparent is that you have a cartoon stereotype of “libertarianism” in your head, which you refer to in your condemnation of it. Like many others, you confuse libertarianism with anarchy. It is in fact a wide spectrum of belief, from the leftist “hippy” libertarianism to the right-leaning libertarianism in which the rule of law is essential. I do not propose anarchy, since anarchy is not freedom. Without a rule of law to protect the rights of individuals and to prevent the initiation of physical force from one man to another, nobody is free; they are at the mercy of criminals and savages. You would do well in future posts to presume that I don’t propose anarchy – this will save you a lot of time (and hot air). If you wish to argue with anarchists then I suggest you go find an anarchists forum and vent your spleen there.

To answer your question:

“How are the sick, the old, the incapable, the broken hearted, the orphaned innocent – those who cannot fend for themselves – to live in that brave new libertarian world?”

My answer is that YOU are free to help them. As am I, or anyone else. But unlike your ideal society, I am not forced to help anybody. I may, if I wish, choose to devote my life to the well being of my own friends and family, as is my right. Those who genuinely cannot fend for themselves can appeal to private charity. Please don’t give me the usual “in a liberatarian world everyone is mean and nobody will care” because that is just pure baloney. Left to their own devices, humans help each other. They do not need a state or some religious dogma to force them to do it. They do not need the threat of jail or Hell. But in a world in which charity is a matter of choice, then someone like me has the option of not donating their money to a charity which helps those whose misfortune is of their own choosing, for instance drug addicts or welfare bums who choose not to work. When giving is a matter of choice, those types of people are far less likely to be able to mooch off the generosity of others and will have no choice but to buck up their ideas and work for a living. In a world of religious altruism, or socialism, there is more incentive to evade responsibility and the requirements and responsibilities of survival. Observe the bloated monstrosity that is the welfare state, the living embodiment of the doctrine of altrusim – wherein the poor are paid to stay poor.

You ask: “How are the wise protected from the stupid?”

They are protected from the stupid because they don’t have to deal with them. If “the stupid” threaten their lives or wish to abrogate their lives, that is what law enforcement is for. In a world of socialism or religious altruism, I am less protected from the stupid in that I am forced to be enslaved to the consequences of their stupidity. If their stupidity compels them to make all the wrong decisions and live the life of a parasite, I am compeled to contribute toward their upkeep.

You speak of civilization as if man has a duty toward it, a duty to “sacrifice.” I think your doctrine of self-sacrifice is evil and I will fight it at every step of the way. Civilization is a society of traders who trade value for value. In a fully moral society, individuals trade of their own volition, of their own will. In such a society, a hierarchy exists. But it is a fluid hierarchy, one in which people can move up if they’re prepared to make the effort – and down if they wish to unfocus their minds.

What is it about libertarianism that you believe will eliminate “collective histories”? I don’t ever recall reading anything which even suggests that history should be eliminated. Likewise, you are free to believe in or worship whatever myth you like. I think you are having trouble even picturing the concept of “freedom.” You’re frightened of libertarianism not because you believe it will take away your freedom to practice religion, but because you rightly think that it will take away the power to force religion down people’s throats. This is why you desire a religious conservative state – you wish to use that state to compel people to practice religion. What is it about “stay out of the minds of me and my family” do you religious fanatics not understand? Who is stopping you from being a Christian? Who WOULD stop you? Maybe in a Marxist society, but not in a libertarian one.

The bottom line is that for all of your rhetoric about liberty being the “path to God,” you don’t want freedom. You’re terrified of it. You hate it. You recoil in disgust from it. Every question mark in your previous post represents a morbid fear of liberty. You do not respect the inalienable right of the individual to live his life as he pleases. Either this, or you really DO think that you’re arguing with an anarchist. I suggest that you have a long hard think about what you ARE fighting against here, because it sure doesn’t sound like the libertarianism that I propose.

Most of your questions are irrelevant and nonsensical. For instance, “How does the libertarian place value – and distribute cost and reward – of inherited civilization (language, modes of knowing, institutions, traditions, etc.)?” What the hell does this even mean? It is up to the individual how much he values “inherited civilization.” It is in his best interest to value language. His modes of knowing are his business. Whether or not he follows traditions is his business. It is certainly none of yours if I choose to ignore tradition. Please stop insinuating that it is. What do you mean by “distribute cost and reward” of these things? People do not need the coersion of the state to: discover knowledge, pass information across generations, maintain language, etc. If people value a subsidized system of research then they are free to contribute toward it. There is no need for a system of taxation to fund it. I don’t even know where you’re coming from when you suggest that “some sort of aristocracy is needed.”

It’s actually getting to the point where it’s impossible to debate with you because very little of what you say makes sense – not in the context of itself, or in the context of this debate, or any proposed libertarian society that I know of. You’re basically arguing against something which libertarian is not. As I suspect, you’re of the impression that libertarianism is anarchy. It is not. If it were, we would just refer to it as “anarchy,” don’t you worry about that.

In a free capitalist system, a libertarian system with the rule of law to protect individual rights, the only taxation needed is to provide: law enforcement, national defense and a court system. There are many viable ways even in which this could be funded without taxes. For instance, whenever a contract is made between two parties, an optional fee – based on a percentage of the value of the contract – could be paid by both parties in order to “insure” the contract, so that if one side were to break the contract the other would have the means to appeal to the law courts. The state would in fact be selling a form of “insurance” for contracts – and like all insurance, this would raise a surplus of funds above what was required to deal with broken contracts in the courts. Given how many financial contracts of one kind or another are entered into each day, the percentage required to fund a basic system of law and defense would be very small.

But aside from ideas like this, even a flat rate tax would be acceptable. Without the bloat of a welfare state which interferes in virtually every aspect of our lives and financial transactions, as we have now, the rate at which we would need to be taxed would be very small, and we would only be paying for things which benefit us – the protection of our rights. We should not have to pay taxes to fund welfare or any other form of involuntary wealth distribution.

I will repeat this one more time, so that it sinks in. I am not religious. I do not have any spiritual beliefs at all. This is none of your business – nor is it of any concern of mine what you think of me in consequence. I do not care if you believe I am a sinner who is going to “hell.” I believe in neither heaven or hell. You do not have the right to force any of your beliefs on me and therefore I will fight any attempt by you or anyone else to rule me by laws derived from a mythical fantasy of spirits from beyond the grave. If you wish to occupy your mind with this irrational bunkum, then knock yourself out! In my proposed libertarian society, I will even protect your right to do so.

Brilliant post by Voice of reason #59

I know a couple who now are firmly rooted in socialist politics who, years ago, were on the Right and were Libertarians. They were that way when they were making a lot of money, but they are down on their luck and are down with government freebies. Firmly rooted in materialism, both are atheists who deny the spiritual nature of the human being. It saddens me to see people in the throes of these heresies, but we cannot compel them to recant their errors.

I am against recasting the conservative movement in strictly libertarian terms. But I am for having libertarians in the tent. I don’t want to push my Christian views on them, but I will not tolerate militant atheism trying to marginalize us. My experience with most atheists runs this way: I respect them, even if I disagree with them. Many, maybe most, neither respect me nor my views. Somehow we Christians are a threat to them, without us even opening our mouths. I would prefer a respectful truce.

Libertarianism is just another Christian heresy like Socialism. It is still pure materialistic and economic determinism. It is, in fact, a sort of right wing version of Socialism, and just about as unrealistic and as utopia as is Socialism. It, like Socialism, is an abstract, sterile ideology at odds with the true nature of man, the world and civilization. When it collides with these realities all of the problems of ideological collectivism will reemerge.

Man’s ultimate task is the journey back to God, and that is what liberty is for.

“Libertarian Man” is as mythical of a beast as “Socialist Man”. He will never come to be; he will never arrive.

Try as we might, we will never arrive at that libertarian paradise, the depraved and sinful nature of Mankind will derail us long before the promised land is ever reached.
Trying to get there, however, might just cause as much damage as the Socialist’s “experiment with reality”. What do we do while we are waiting for the “libertarian paradise” to arrive? I’d bet most of us would get enslaved by the more brutal and ambitious of “libertarian avant garde”.

And how are the sick, the old, the incapable, the broken-hearted, the orphaned innocent — those that cannot fend for themselves — to live in that brave new libertarian world? How is the necessary vulnerability of fatuous fledgling youth? How are the wise protected from the stupid? The visionaries from the mob? Do we just step over them in the street? License seems to be the religion. Are there holy men there? Is God there? If he is, do we obey him?

Libertarianism at once assumes too much of mankind and too little.

It has a naive (and parasitic) view of history, what it deep value is, how civilizations comes to be, how they maintains themselves and how they decay and die. But most importantly, Libertarianism has childish view of mankind’s relationships to civilization and it to them.

For all but a few men, In all of his social forms, the individual, in a group, in the crowded mass, man is more shaped by civilization than man gives shapes to it. Duty and sacrifice are more pressing than desire often enough. Some will follow nobler men’s examples, but other will resist, what then? War? Self-absorption is not freedom nor is license liberty.

We cannot have civilization without hierarchy, nor without collective histories, myths and reflection on the value and meaning of things past present an future, and all of this take place in time itself too, sometimes across generations. It is much more than the sum of individual actors and their desires and qualities.

How will the mere intersection of all individual desires that do not impinge on another create a truly worthy civilization? How are we assured that these are the best values to have? Will we not end up with the most trivial? Is the common denominator of the satiation of inoffensive appetites liberty, or merely license for the most banal?

How does the libertarian place value — and distribute cost amd reward — of inherited civilization (language, modes of knowing,institutions, traditions, etc.)? How does he maintain one, build anew on it and transmit it across generations? What about its institutions? For example: How is a someone like Einstein and his work (and the facilities for it) subsidized? Valued accurately? Seems like there is some sort of taxation, some sort of collective resource allocation, some sort of suspension of judgment and then a later evaluation. It is starting to sound like sort of aristocracy is needed for all of this. Are libertarians concerned with civilization at all? They seem pretty solipsistic to me. I am not sure that selfishness is the the basis of a civilization, which after God and family is the highest calling. Libertarianism inverts the true longings of man. The superior man seeks to transcend himself, not indulge himself.

Even so:

How are rights claimed? Adjudicated? Enforced? Who decides? Who pays for the judges, the cops? Who are the judges, the cops? Who watches the watchers? Libertarian ethics are hardly tested by the real world, they are little more than wishful thinking at the moment. How do we start? Do we start with the Judeo-christian heritage or start from scratch? If the former, how does that work and make sense? What happens when some decides that might make right? Are rights given by God or man? If that later, then wy respect them?

I am never satisfied with the answers I get to these questions from libertarians.

There is an inherit solipsism and narcissism in the notion that the full gamut of the human is only accommodated by satiation of human desire, of the fulfillment of selfishness. Man does not live by bread alone.

No, sooner or later we are back where we started, and the solution is good old pragmatic American Conservatism as a refinement of the spiritual, practical, social, intellectual and political experiences and lessons of Western Civilization.

We live in a world not of our own making, and have to try to find our way as best we can. Best hold on to what works.