The Difference between Libertarian and Conservative.

[The Barbarian]

To understand the difference between conservatives and liberterians..

Why are conservatives pushing a failed statist policy?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../why-are-conservatives-pushing-a-failed-statist-pol...

 

[Right Divider]

To understand the difference between conservatives and liberterians..

Why are conservatives pushing a failed statist policy?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../why-are-conservatives-pushing-a-failed-statist-pol...

Try again. Your link is broken.

 

[The Barbarian]

There may be new things under the sun, but the recent rise of nativism in the United States is not one of them. The political forces attempting to reduce, revoke, or reject citizenship – and voting power – of naturalized Americans are engaged in a time-(dis)honored American pastime of seeking partisan political advantage over a rival party more popular with immigrants.

As usual, the partisan advantage is camouflaged by questions of loyalty to America and commitment to American values of hard work and self-sufficiency.

The Republican Party that attracted Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s arose as an amalgam of many anti-Democratic (the party) movements. One of those movements – decidedly not endorsed by President Lincoln – was nativism. Though it is hard today to imagine, The New York Times of the 1850s claimed “our adopted citizens” had a duty of “thoroughly Americanizing themselves.” Nativism then was no more fringe than it is today.

In hindsight, Lincoln and other Western Republican leaders seem to have possessed greater than average political savvy or greater than average commitment to democratic ideals, or both. Rejecting the calls of those in their party who wished to reduce, restrain, or reject citizenship – and the right to vote – for anyone not born in the U.S., these forces outlasted those opposing immigration in the struggle for control of the GOP.

One political reality that motivated these urges was the strength of Democrats in large cities and the ease with which the party absorbed immigrant voters. Democratic candidates, buoyed by large numbers of immigrants in Northern cities, reinforced the dominance of the Southern Democratic aristocracy for a period.

Some elements of the Republican Party saw particularly in German and Irish immigrants elements predisposed to drink and to the dole. If this sounds uncomfortably familiar, we should not be surprised. The anti-immigration push of the 1850s was preceded by one in the 1790s and succeeded by another in the 1920s.

So today, we should not let the usualness of nativism numb us to the un-Americanness of it. By American, I mean the America of our aspirations, of our better angels.

Recent immigration policy changes are troubling. Without evidence of any deep policy discussion, the federal government has involuntarily discharged legal, foreign-born military recruits in the MAVNI program that leads to citizenship.

While there is a temporary halt to this policy, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services—an agency of the Department of Homeland Security--has announced a program to denaturalize large numbers of citizens in administrative procedures that, according to a troubled Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, give the government unlimited power to denaturalize anyone it wants.

There is little doubt that immigration policy is being retrenched by the current administration, but can partisan politics help explain this? Both the conservative and liberal media carry stories suggesting there is evidence to support such a hypothesis.

The Washington Examiner cites a 2012 study showing that 62 percent of naturalized immigrants identify as Democrats compared to only 25 percent who identify as Republicans. The New York Times and others published stories of immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, seeking citizenship – and the vote – in an ultimately failed attempt to defeat President Trump’s bid for the White House.

Americans of all political persuasions should defend the rights of all of us. To paraphrase President Kennedy, the rights of everyone are diminished when the rights of one of us are threatened.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._and_the_diminishment_of_american_rights.html

 

[The Barbarian]

Try again. Your link is broken.

Something's wrong. Not sure what happened. I'll see why it's not working.

 

[Idolater]

In a conservative regime, murder is only bad if it's not done to maintain the status quo.

So do you believe that the US is under a conservative regime right now? If not, was the US under a conservative regime at some point in history, and if so when?

As I showed you, libertarians say the state has no right to restrict freedom unless that would lead to abuse of others.

That's like what the Declaration of Independence says too.

This is one of the important differences between libertarians and conservatives.

I'm still trying to figure out how you're seeing the difference.

Which is why libertarians object to murder in any case.

But isn't that just forcing people "to comply with their idea of 'good'" (where it is, according to them, "good" to not murder)?

Yes, because murder is the ultimate denial of freedom.

I think that slavery is tantamount to murder wrt denying freedom.

Conservatives, if killing is done to maintain their notion of morality, don't consider it to be murder.

Could you give an example? Just for context, most people believe certain circumstances render a killing just, and therefore not murder, also; such as self defense or in the defense of others, when imperiled by a credible threat to life or limb.

Only in the sense above. It's an absolute with libertarians, but for conservatives, it's also a matter of who is doing the killing, and who is killed.

I don't think I buy that conservatives ever would permit murder. You've suggested that perhaps conservatives don't define certain killings as murder, where libertarians are more . . . well, 'liberal,' when it comes to what constitutes murder, meaning that they are more willing to call a killing murder regardless of circumstances, than are conservatives. At least, this is what I suppose from what you've written here. But I largely disagree that conservatives and libertarians differ in what they classify as murder, versus justified killing.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think I buy that conservatives ever would permit murder.

For example, conservatives opposed anti-lynching laws.

You've suggested that perhaps conservatives don't define certain killings as murder, where libertarians are more . . . well, 'liberal,' when it comes to what constitutes murder, meaning that they are more willing to call a killing murder[/quote]

Yep. Killing is, after all, the ultimate oppression. So it's not surprising that libertarians are more prone to oppose it than conservatives are.

 

[Idolater]

The difference between Libertarian and Conservative is most pronounced in Conservatives believing that sometimes aggressive war (i.e. not in direct self defense) is right and just, and in Libertarians categorically denying this.

For instance Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just, and that if supported instead of ended, Reconstruction would have stamped and snuffed out every remaining smoldering ember of that fire of slavery that burned in America, until President Lincoln put it out.

 

[northwye]

"For instance Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just, and that if supported instead of ended, Reconstruction would have stamped and snuffed out every remaining smoldering ember of that fire of slavery that burned in America, until President Lincoln put it out."

You have to run pretty far up the ladder of abstraction to make these assertions about the differences between Conservatives and Libertarians - that "Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just."

The difference in attitudes toward the "War of Northern Aggression.....and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South" depends upon when and where such attitudes were expressed. After the era of Political Correctness began and in the northern states who were part of the Federal Union in 1861-65 you get one attitude and before that era began and in states of the former Confederacy you get an opposite attitude.

In addition, history does not support the hypothesis that Lincoln's main goal and purpose in fighting the war of 1861-1865 was to end slavery. Had ending slavery been the primary purpose of the Lincoln Administration, Lincoln should have been much more cautious about making enemies of factions in the South who did not support slavery, such as the Scots-Irish who were part of the warrior class of the South, but who were not necessarily allied with the Southern Ruling Elite, the elite English, who supported slavery. Not all Scots-Irish opposed slavery, but many of them refused to own slaves because of their Christian morals..

 

[Idolater]

"For instance Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just, and that if supported instead of ended, Reconstruction would have stamped and snuffed out every remaining smoldering ember of that fire of slavery that burned in America, until President Lincoln put it out."

You have to run pretty far up the ladder of abstraction to make these assertions about the differences between Conservatives and Libertarians - that "Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just."

I suppose that you yourself identify as a modern libertarian? Do you approve of the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression? Do you identify as Conservative? The difference I'm trying to investigate itt is between modern Conservatives and modern libertarians. Modern Conservatives do approve of the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression. But neither of these are classical liberals in the full sense, but both subscribe to parts of classical liberalism.

The difference in attitudes toward the "War of Northern Aggression.....and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South" depends upon when and where such attitudes were expressed. After the era of Political Correctness began and in the northern states who were part of the Federal Union in 1861-65 you get one attitude and before that era began and in states of the former Confederacy you get an opposite attitude.

I only see, read, and hear modern libertarians condemning the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, as criminal and interventionist, and in violation of modern libertarianism. If you can show some evidence that conflicts with this, please do so.

In addition, history does not support the hypothesis that Lincoln's main goal and purpose in fighting the war of 1861-1865 was to end slavery. Had ending slavery been the primary purpose of the Lincoln Administration, Lincoln should have been much more cautious about making enemies of factions in the South who did not support slavery, such as the Scots-Irish who were part of the warrior class of the South, but who were not necessarily allied with the Southern Ruling Elite, the elite English, who supported slavery.

I feel like this is too fine a point. I admit that Lincoln's most salient reason for waging war was to preserve the Union, but under no circumstances would he upon prevailing permit again Southern slavery, so it seems to me that you're making a distinction without a real difference, or 'vice versa.'

Not all Scots-Irish opposed slavery, but many of them refused to own slaves because of their Christian morals..

And that has always been a right. You have a right to believe according to your religion that slavery is permissible, or that it's wrong according to your religion. But it is wrong according to classical liberalism to practice it regardless, because it harms a party's liberty, which imposes under classical liberalism an obligation upon slaveholders /slaveowners to make restitution to slaves, under classical liberalism, that the classical liberal state is thereby authorized to help enforce on behalf of slaves.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"For instance Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just, and that if supported instead of ended, Reconstruction would have stamped and snuffed out every remaining smoldering ember of that fire of slavery that burned in America, until President Lincoln put it out."

You have to run pretty far up the ladder of abstraction to make these assertions about the differences between Conservatives and Libertarians - that "Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just."

I use a different standard: "Was the Civil War constitutional?"

It was not.

 

[Idolater]

I use a different standard: "Was the Civil War constitutional?"

It was not.

But then, neither was counting poc as full people for purposes of determining how many seats in Congress each state received. "Constitutionally," poc are only three-fifths of a whole person.

 

[genuineoriginal]

But then, neither was counting poc as full people for purposes of determining how many seats in Congress each state received. "Constitutionally," poc are only three-fifths of a whole person.

You seem to be confused.

All of the free "people of color" (what a stupid phrase) were counted as a whole person, and all of the indentured or enslaved people, including white people, were counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of assigning representatives for the individual States and for calculating how much taxes each individual State would pay.

I am sure that all "people of color" would love to pay only three-fifths of the taxes that everyone else is required to pay.

 

[Idolater]

You seem to be confused.

All of the free "people of color" (what a stupid phrase) were counted as a whole person, and all of the indentured or enslaved people, including white people, were counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of assigning representatives for the individual States and for calculating how much taxes each individual State would pay.

Ah. And how many of "the indentured or enslaved people, including white people," actually did include white people, as a proportion, would you guess? 1-to-1? 10-to-1? 100-to-1? More?

I am sure that all "people of color" would love to pay only three-fifths of the taxes that everyone else is required to pay.

Who wouldn't.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ah. And how many of "the indentured or enslaved people, including white people," actually did include white people, as a proportion, would you guess? 1-to-1? 10-to-1? 100-to-1? More?

Your question shows your racism leads you to believe that all the non-whites in the 13 colonies were slaves and nobody else was a slave.

 

[Idolater]

Your question shows your racism leads you to believe that all the non-whites in the 13 colonies were slaves and nobody else was a slave.

lain:

So, no answer. Non-responsive.

 

[The Barbarian]

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?

It's sensible. I was thinking of the various consequences of drunken people. I suppose that's why most jurisdictions allow one to get drunk in one's own home without breaking a law.

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.

Libertarians were more inclined left, years ago, when "liberal" meant "free to do as you like."

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.

Back in the day, the NRA supported gun control laws, arguing that one needed to have training and a sense of responsibility before one could be trusted with firearms. There are certainly societies where adults go about armed pretty much all the time, and they don't have murder rates much different than ours.

 

[Idolater]

This isn't a bad video. He talks about the clear distinction between what he calls liberals and conservatives, which is decided by positions on three moral matters (out of five---on two, liberals and conservatives largely agree).

 

[ok doser]

Ah. And how many of "the indentured or enslaved people, including white people," actually did include white people, as a proportion, would you guess? 1-to-1? 10-to-1? 100-to-1? More?
Who wouldn't.

in British North America (aka Canada), most were indigenous or Métis

very few negroes

 

[Ktoyou]

"For instance Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just, and that if supported instead of ended, Reconstruction would have stamped and snuffed out every remaining smoldering ember of that fire of slavery that burned in America, until President Lincoln put it out."

You have to run pretty far up the ladder of abstraction to make these assertions about the differences between Conservatives and Libertarians - that "Libertarianism considers the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, immoral. Conservatives believe that this, and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South, was right and just."

The difference in attitudes toward the "War of Northern Aggression.....and the subsequent federal Reconstruction /occupation of the surrendered South" depends upon when and where such attitudes were expressed. After the era of Political Correctness began and in the northern states who were part of the Federal Union in 1861-65 you get one attitude and before that era began and in states of the former Confederacy you get an opposite attitude.

In addition, history does not support the hypothesis that Lincoln's main goal and purpose in fighting the war of 1861-1865 was to end slavery. Had ending slavery been the primary purpose of the Lincoln Administration, Lincoln should have been much more cautious about making enemies of factions in the South who did not support slavery, such as the Scots-Irish who were part of the warrior class of the South, but who were not necessarily allied with the Southern Ruling Elite, the elite English, who supported slavery. Not all Scots-Irish opposed slavery, but many of them refused to own slaves because of their Christian morals..

What a hodgepodge of nothing but words. There were many Scots in the old South. Libertarians were not an exceptional group in the War Between the States. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union, and he disliked slavery. Not everyone in the South liked slavery, but felt economically stuck with it. There was something of a northern PC era, but the war brought out a more active inclination to do things, to build and make greatness.
Read "Lincoln Reconsidered."

 

[ok doser]

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union, and he disliked slavery.

almost as much as he disliked africans staying in America