What are the differences between libertarians and conservatives?

[dblack]

But to answer the question, libertarians don't believe in government that seeks to make us "better". We want a government that facilitates civilized society but otherwise stays out of our way lets us live the way we want.

Conservatives value some of the same things as libertarians, but for different reasons. For example, libertarians oppose the welfare state because they see it as a dangerous expansion of government power and an encroachment on liberty, while conservatives tend to oppose it because of their disapproval of "leeching" off society.

These different perspectives ultimately lead to divergent policies, because conservatives are, in general, more willing to use government power to push society toward their vision of the "good life". They're more like traditional liberals in this sense, though they have a different definition of the "good life". This why conservatives will pursue extra-constitutional campaigns like the drug war, or the 'war on terror', even though they'll complain about socializing medicine or regulation of business.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians believe that any Government above the local level is out of touch and unneeded. They believe that criminal laws are wrong, preferring civil laws. Someone wrongs you, sue them. Someone murders you your family sues them for that act.

?????

Where did you get that idea?

 

[Valox]

Buchanan is a conservative, albeit with baggage. I'll take him any day of the week over a Republican.

He is clear, consistent, and has principles, even if I disagree with them. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Republicans.

 

[Foxfyre]

What most of you are describing as libertarians and conservatives is really off the mark.

If we are speaking of modern day libertarians (little "L") and modern Americvan conservatives:

It is as absurd to say that conservatives don't want any regulation of banks or anything else as it absurd to equate libertarians as anarchists.

Both favor the federal government limiting itself to its Constitutionally assigned functions that in a nutshell includes providing the common defense/national security, promoting, not providing, the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and securing our unalienable rights. And then the federal government will leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Conservatives are every much a people of laws as are libertarians and encourage and promote as much regulation as is necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the people.

Where conservatives do vary from libertarianism is in social contract beyond the federal goverment.

Libertarians generally want no restrictions of any kind to be allowed so long as nobody's rights are violated. Libertarians for instance would usually not prohibit or regulate recreational use of drugs, prostitution, adult bookstores, nudie bars, abortion clinics, etc., at the local level.

Conservatives might or might not elect to have such things in their community and the rules and zoning might vary from state to state or county to county or community tio community. In the interest of self governance, Conservatives would want the people to agree on what they did or did not want in their communities.

In other words, Conservatives accept a concept of social contract by which is the people agree on what constitutes a desirable quality of life and that would allow prohibiting or restricting some activities and/or conditions and promoting others while libertarians would more likely see such as restricting unalienable rights and/or freedom.

There are, however, libertarians that are anarchists.

Probably some anarchists call themselves libertarians. But I see those as two different animals because anarchists do not recognize and/or defend unalienable rights. Libertarians do and that does require at least some law.

 

[dblack]

What most of you are describing as libertarians and conservatives is really off the mark.

If we are speaking of modern day libertarians (little "L") and modern Americvan conservatives:

It is as absurd to say that conservatives don't want any regulation of banks or anything else as it absurd to equate libertarians as anarchists.

Both favor the federal government limiting itself to its Constitutionally assigned functions that in a nutshell includes providing the common defense/national security, promoting, not providing, the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and securing our unalienable rights. And then the federal government will leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Conservatives are every much a people of laws as are libertarians and encourage and promote as much regulation as is necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the people.

Where conservatives do vary from libertarianism is in social contract beyond the federal goverment.

Libertarians generally want no restrictions of any kind to be allowed so long as nobody's rights are violated. Libertarians for instance would usually not prohibit or regulate recreational use of drugs, prostitution, adult bookstores, nudie bars, abortion clinics, etc., at the local level.

Conservatives might or might not elect to have such things in their community and the rules and zoning might vary from state to state or county to county or community tio community. In the interest of self governance, Conservatives would want the people to agree on what they did or did not want in their communities.

In other words, Conservatives accept a concept of social contract by which is the people agree on what constitutes a desirable quality of life and that would allow prohibiting or restricting some activities and/or conditions and promoting others while libertarians would more likely see such as restricting unalienable rights and/or freedom.

There are, however, libertarians that are anarchists.

Probably some anarchists call themselves libertarians. But I see those as two different animals because anarchists do not recognize and/or defend unalienable rights. Libertarians do and that does require at least some law.

Then you have European "libertarians" who are essentially socialist/anarchists.

 

[Valox]

Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.

 

[Foxfyre]

But to answer the question, libertarians don't believe in government that seeks to make us "better". We want a government that facilitates civilized society but otherwise stays out of our way lets us live the way we want.

Conservatives value some of the same things as libertarians, but for different reasons. For example, libertarians oppose the welfare state because they see it as a dangerous expansion of government power and an encroachment on liberty, while conservatives tend to oppose it because of their disapproval of "leeching" off society.

These different perspectives ultimately lead to divergent policies, because conservatives are, in general, more willing to use government power to push society toward their vision of the "good life". They're more like traditional liberals in this sense, though they have a different definition of the "good life". This why conservatives will pursue extra-constitutional campaigns like the drug war, or the 'war on terror', even though they'll complain about socializing medicine or regulation of business.

It is important to keep prejudicial and moralistic judgments out of this if we are going to have a productive discussion. Some of our friends here are incapable of doing that.

Conservatives do not favor a welfare state any more than libertarians do and may not favor it for the same reasons that libertarians do. But it is not because anybody is 'leeching'. Conservatives are aware that it cannot be done by the government without violating unalienable rights and without corrupting both those in the government and beneficiaries of the welfare.

As for using government power to push society toward their vision of the 'good life', that is valid for Conservatives but only in a limited sense at the state level and more commonly at the county or local level. Social contract is essential if you want to live peacefully with your neighbors and efficiently and effectively share services. Otherwise the people would likely be in a constant state of summoning the law and litigation to keep the peace and protect their rights. Thus zoning laws are a social contract so that adult bookstores aren't opened next to the elementary school or property values aren't diminished by an unsightly or unattractive low value structure being built in a neighborhood.

In the republic that the Founders gave us, the people were to be free to form and enforce whatever sort of society they wished to have. They just could not impose their concept of society on the next town or county or whatever.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What most of you are describing as libertarians and conservatives is really off the mark.

If we are speaking of modern day libertarians (little "L") and modern Americvan conservatives:

It is as absurd to say that conservatives don't want any regulation of banks or anything else as it absurd to equate libertarians as anarchists.

Both favor the federal government limiting itself to its Constitutionally assigned functions that in a nutshell includes providing the common defense/national security, promoting, not providing, the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and securing our unalienable rights. And then the federal government will leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Conservatives are every much a people of laws as are libertarians and encourage and promote as much regulation as is necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the people.

Where conservatives do vary from libertarianism is in social contract beyond the federal goverment.

Libertarians generally want no restrictions of any kind to be allowed so long as nobody's rights are violated. Libertarians for instance would usually not prohibit or regulate recreational use of drugs, prostitution, adult bookstores, nudie bars, abortion clinics, etc., at the local level.

Conservatives might or might not elect to have such things in their community and the rules and zoning might vary from state to state or county to county or community tio community. In the interest of self governance, Conservatives would want the people to agree on what they did or did not want in their communities.

In other words, Conservatives accept a concept of social contract by which is the people agree on what constitutes a desirable quality of life and that would allow prohibiting or restricting some activities and/or conditions and promoting others while libertarians would more likely see such as restricting unalienable rights and/or freedom.

There are, however, libertarians that are anarchists.

Probably some anarchists call themselves libertarians. But I see those as two different animals because anarchists do not recognize and/or defend unalienable rights. Libertarians do and that does require at least some law.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarcho-libertarian, and he refers to what he believes in as a "private law society." They believe in laws, they just don't believe in the state as the enforcer of those laws. And they do believe in inalienable natural rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians believe that any Government above the local level is out of touch and unneeded. They believe that criminal laws are wrong, preferring civil laws. Someone wrongs you, sue them. Someone murders you your family sues them for that act.

?????

Where did you get that idea?

He's not wrong. Murray Rothbard was big on this idea. His argument was basically that imprisoning somebody for a crime does nothing for the actual victim of the crime, and the criminal should pay restitution rather than go to prison which actually victimizes the plaintiff once again by forcing them to pay for the criminal's incarceration through taxation.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are, however, libertarians that are anarchists.

Probably some anarchists call themselves libertarians. But I see those as two different animals because anarchists do not recognize and/or defend unalienable rights. Libertarians do and that does require at least some law.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarcho-libertarian, and he refers to what he believes in as a "private law society." They believe in laws, they just don't believe in the state as the enforcer of those laws. And they do believe in inalienable natural rights.

Then he technically isn't an anarchist is he.

Merriam Webster:

Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order.

If one believes in law and enforcement of law, then there must be an authority to do the enforcing. So there is social contract and a government formed even if they don't call it that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Probably some anarchists call themselves libertarians. But I see those as two different animals because anarchists do not recognize and/or defend unalienable rights. Libertarians do and that does require at least some law.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarcho-libertarian, and he refers to what he believes in as a "private law society." They believe in laws, they just don't believe in the state as the enforcer of those laws. And they do believe in inalienable natural rights.

Then he technically isn't an anarchist is he.

Merriam Webster:

Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order.

If one believes in law and enforcement of law, then there must be an authority to do the enforcing. So there is social contract and a government formed even if they don't call it that.

Well there has always been the argument, especially from anarcho-collectivists, that anarcho-capitalists, such as Hoppe, aren't real anarchists. The idea is that there is no coercion from a state in an anarcho-capitalist, or private law, society. There would be no government run police force, simply private security forces competing for business; and there would be no public judicial system, simply private arbiters competing for business, and so on and so forth.

Murray Rothbard, "Mr. Libertarian" and anarcho-capitalist, had an interesting article about whether they were really anarchists at all.

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard

He concludes:

We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."

Though throughout the rest of his life I don't believe he ever referred to himself as a "nonarchist," and never shied away from referring to himself as an anarchist.

 

[Valox]

Probably some anarchists call themselves libertarians. But I see those as two different animals because anarchists do not recognize and/or defend unalienable rights. Libertarians do and that does require at least some law.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarcho-libertarian, and he refers to what he believes in as a "private law society." They believe in laws, they just don't believe in the state as the enforcer of those laws. And they do believe in inalienable natural rights.

Then he technically isn't an anarchist is he.

Merriam Webster:

Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order.

If one believes in law and enforcement of law, then there must be an authority to do the enforcing. So there is social contract and a government formed even if they don't call it that.

The dictionary is wrong. Anarchy is absent of a ruler.

Truly free men do not need a ruler.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

Probably some anarchists call themselves libertarians. But I see those as two different animals because anarchists do not recognize and/or defend unalienable rights. Libertarians do and that does require at least some law.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an anarcho-libertarian, and he refers to what he believes in as a "private law society." They believe in laws, they just don't believe in the state as the enforcer of those laws. And they do believe in inalienable natural rights.

Then he technically isn't an anarchist is he.

Merriam Webster:

Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order.

If one believes in law and enforcement of law, then there must be an authority to do the enforcing. So there is social contract and a government formed even if they don't call it that.

Firstly, I agree with the above, but would like to provide some refinement to the definition of anarchy, albeit in a purist form and is hard to find. And, when found, it probably doesn't look a lot like the definition above.

The only anarchy that is not chaos, as described above, is one where everyone a part of it knows everything there is to know about needs, and does not place wants over them.

As far as the various political parties, under an unconstitutional government, they are used against us and the constitution by dividing us. A large number of the framers felt there should be no political parties for this reason.

 

[PredFan]

The difference between Libertarians and conservatives?

(ignoring the fact that Libertarians ARE conservative)

Libertarians love liberty and the Constitution, want fiscal responsibility, and want the government out of our lives.

Republicans only give lip service to those things.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Conservatives believe in the rule of law, with that law being based on the Constitution.

Libertarians think that the answer to any problem is there should be no law. Hence Ron Paul's fantasy world on how things should work.

It's as simple as that.

 

[editec]

If we are having difficulty understanding the real meaning of these labels?

Perhaps the problem is that we feel we need to LABEL people.

Why do we do this?

Because its easier to label a person than it is to listen to his POV.

We see this kind of stupidty playing out daily on this board.

 

[rdean]

One side thinks war will bankrupt this country, the other side sees war as profitable.

 

[dblack]

One side thinks war will bankrupt this country, the other side sees war as profitable.

Yup.. moreover, one see the warfare state as morally corrupt, the other as a moral imperative.

 

[dblack]

If we are having difficulty understanding the real meaning of these labels?

Perhaps the problem is that we feel we need to LABEL people.

Why do we do this?

Because its easier to label a person than it is to listen to his POV.

We see this kind of stupidty playing out daily on this board.

With libertarians, the label actually carries some meaning, because it's consistent ideology. "Conservative", on the other hand is much broader and provides much less information about political views.

 

[Contumacious]

The issue came up in another thread. I thought it deserved it's own.

Libertarians support the Constitution and individual liberty as a matter of PRINCIPLE. We must defend LIBERTY even if doing so makes our candidate unelectable.

.