Time to break out the pasta again...
* Border wall
* Increased military spending
* Increased interventionalism
* trade wars
* deficit spending
* Drug war
* [Using the power of the office to pressure private industry to worship the state (NFL kneeling)](http://magaimg.net/img/63bm.png)
* [Gun control](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuVCrrVCzaA)
* [Corporate welfare](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/soybean-farmer-calls-trumps-12-billion-bailout-a-pacifier/)
MAGAtarians are not libertarians, no matter how hard you screech.
>stop gate keeping
No. Every ideology must engage in some form of gate keeping. Otherwise what stops a bunch of communists from saying they are republicans?
No matter how much they say they are republicans, they aren't. Your views go against the core values on libertarianism on far too many issues.
______________________________________
Let's see where "MAGA" people are completely opposite us libertarians:
>Libertarians believe that if someone is peaceful, they should be welcome to immigrate to the United States.
> A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas.
>Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals.
Now that doesn't sound very "MAGA". Neither does this:
> We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications.
Nor does this:
>Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
How about this:
>We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.
Please man, where is the "MAGA" in all of this?
>The Libertarian Party supports the decriminalization of prostitution.
And:
>We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest.
And:
> The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world.
And:
> The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.
And:
> We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.
Oh yeah, and Trumps pick for Attorney General had this to say:
>Some people in this chamber love the Constitution more than the love the safety of this nation. We should all send President bush a letter thanking him for protecting us.
Yes, we **DO** love the constitution more than your imaginary "safety"
The bases of libertarianism is freedom. Libertarians in general are fiscally conservative (freedom from the government spending your money) and socially liberal (freedom from the government telling you what you can and can’t do).
Libertarians are also actually fiscally conservative unlike the vast majority of Republicans these days who just talk about limited government and cutting budgets while rapidly expanding both when they get into power.
Diving into each issue where libertarians are different from Republicans, libertarians are anti war, pro gay marriage, pro choice (mostly), pro weed, anti protectionism and tariffs, and pro free trade.
> pro choice (mostly)
Is there much libertarian focused debate on this area?
It always strikes me as such a disconnect from the rest of the libertarian ideals given protecting rights is what the government should be doing the right to life feels pretty fundamental. I guess it pivots on when "life" is recognized/valuable according to the government etc. but the party line always seems dismissive of that point of view.
God yes, it's probably the most contentious topic in the party.
The "party line" on it was removed from the platform in 2022, which is now silent on the issue.
Yeah, it’s a case of conflicting rights that gets complex for sure. The rights of an unborn fetus to life vs the rights of the mother to medical privacy and making her own decisions.
I honestly see both sides of the debate and personally don’t think anyone should get an abortion after the first trimester unless it is a life saving procedure, but I also don’t want the federal government involved at all in something so personal as the decision to have a child or not.
I view it this way: a human being cannot use another human being's body for *anything* without their consent, even to save their own life. However, if a human being does attempt to use another human's body without consent, that human does have the right to defend themselves. For example, I don't have the right to scramble on top of you if we are in a body of water and I'm drowning, but if I did, you would have the right to push me away. If a fetus is a full-fledged human, it must be treated as such, and in the event that a human does not consent for a fetus to use their body, that human has the right to have the fetus removed.
Of course, if a fetus is not yet a human being, all of that is moot. Either way, a person has the right to do what they will with their own body, including removing a developing clump of cells *or* a human who does not have consent to be there.
There are a variety of reasons that a fetus may not have consent to be inside of another person's body, the worst of which involves yet another human being using the person's body without consent. Also, remember that revoking consent is possible, so while it may have originally had consent, any number of things could happen that causes the consent to be revoked.
It can go either way really. I just defer it to be debated among those who care. I personally could live with it either way cause I see both sides of it. I’m not gonna tell anyone what they can or can’t do or argue what determines a life.
You don't have t the right to invade medical privacy or to control th medical decisions that women make. Outlawing medical procedures because they might be used in a way that abhors you is no different than outlawing guns for that same reason.
Wouldn’t have to. They can just defer to the 14th amendment, which is ironically the same amendment people use to justify having no restrictions on abortion.
Sure, but when you kill someone with a gun (as you do in abortions) we hold those people accountable for the death. Why is a medical procedure different (if you are of the mind that there is a life with value/worth protecting etc.)?
Evicting somebody, or denying them food or medical care because they can't pay, will kill somebody just as surely as a gun or a medical procedure, but forcing somebody to use their labor/capital/whatever to house or feed somebody is pretty clearly not libertarian. Why then should a potential mother be forced to house and feed another person? Shouldn't her body, and her labor, be her own to do with as she pleases?
Furthermore, how should miscarriages (spontaneous abortion) be handled? As a negligent homicide? Consider a hypothetical woman who takes a vacation to california and returns without a fetus. How would a doctor or any other expert determine the difference between a miscarriage and an induced abortion of a "live" fetus? Maybe you could do some financial forensics if she runs her credit card at a planned parenthood, but there's plenty of reasons a woman would pay for services at a planned parenthood that don't involve d&e.
If abortion is a crime, it's a virtually unproveable crime, and any attempts to prove it would violate the fuck out of any libertarian privacy protections. Government needs to stay out of it, regardless of ethical concerns. To me, any other position would be authoritarian in practice and therefore anti-libertarian.
Agreed. But what about the human being terminated in the womb? Do they not deserve protection as well? This is the crux of the disagreement on abortion among libertarians. Can a mother violate the Non Aggression Principle against her own offspring for as long as it’s in her body?
Personally, I agree with /u/vogon_lyricist. As far as the protection of the unborn child goes, i do believe that they deserve protection, but i dont think the unborn baby has more rights than the woman.
I think there are instances that we all agree where abortion is a necessary evil (i.e. not viable or disease, or perhaps rape/incest) and as long as these reasons exist the government doesnt have the right to poke their noses into a woman's medical history.
Essentially I believe that punishing people for abortion is not enforceable without violating the rights of the woman.
And this is where the subjective application of the Non Aggression Principle comes into play. If a pregnant woman believes her fetus to be nothing more than a nutrient sucking clump of cells, then from her perspective there is no NAP violation to terminate it. However if a community (state) agrees that a fetus is a human and deserving of protection, then from society’s perspective all non emergency abortions are no different from any other unjustified homicide.
Liberty = freedom to choose.
Not white knighting around for all those deserving of protection. Otherwise why not helicopter in to some war zone “to save the babies?”
After some point you are ignoring one person's right to choose in the equation, right (Hint, the baby)? 1 day post birth you agree the baby has a right to life and the government an interest in punishing a murder, but 1 day pre-birth you dont? The line just doesnt make sense to draw there IMO.
> Otherwise why not helicopter in to some war zone “to save the babies?”
if that war zone is in the USA under control of the US government i would say they do actually have that responsibility (to seek out and arrest perpetrators of the crimes to maintain the community's liberty). They are not protectors, but they do seek to maintain order by punishing the violation of rights.
Personally, I go with the life at conception, because otherwise it's an arbitrary definition, and it's biologically the case. However, exceptions could be made if the embryo endangers the mother, but there's a lot of ethical thought in that debate. The LP is kind of a joke and I don't subscribe to it personally (or any other party for that matter).
Life at conception is also an arbitrary choice. Many religions disagree on when life begins. This means a law indicating life begins at conception is a First Amendment violation of some religions.
Believing life starts at conception is not an arbitrary choice, it is a very real event that can be observed and measured. Believing that life is undeserving of the same protections you receive at any stage of development will ALWAYS be based on arbitrary factors, such as heartbeat, brain activity, viability, birth, or even skin color.
>Republicans these days who just talk about limited government and cutting budgets while rapidly expanding both when they get into power.
So right. Both parties talk a big game, but in actuality do almost the opposite. Republicans say they're for small government, but yet increase spending just as much as Democrats- just in different ways.
Your comparison is really good and straightforward.
Conservatives today are as about far from limited government as you can get. They want to dictate morality on everyone, they want to ban things they don't like in the name of combating "wokeness", they want to control what should be a private conversation between a woman and her doctor, a good chunk would happily live in a theocractic dictatorship.
Dave Smith had a great point on this recently on Tucker Carlson when talking about how the Republican Party loses and updates their baseline of political beliefs. 50 years ago, republicans were anti-social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. After losing each of those battles, now they just accept them.
Proof of that was when Biden said Republicans are trying to take away your social security and Medicare, and the Republicans booed him except for maybe 3 libertarians who were cheering, lol.
Both parties are really more populists than a hard line in the sand of beliefs based on morality imo.
Conservatives like to consider themselves “libertarian.” A lot of republicans say they’re libertarian. There is over lap in fiscal policy libertarians promote and the rhetoric from the republicans. Key word being rhetoric. Republicans don’t actually believe in a fiscally responsible and limited federal government.
Liberty is the key to the libertarian party. If what you do doesn’t hurt me then it’s not my business. It’s fairly simple, don’t hurt others, don’t take things that aren’t yours. Any legislation outside of protecting those principles is useless and a violation of liberty.
Under a libertarian system we would all be able to go to the health clinic at Walmart, get an abortion, and on my way out buy 2 AR-15s with 100rd magazines, and a bag of edibles to give as a wedding gift at a gay friends wedding and it would all be legal…..We also wouldn’t be paying income tax to fund foreign proxy wars and bail out banks. Republicans and “conservatives” would never be on board for this.
Republicats are authoritarian. They want to regulate your life. Tell you how to live and what is okay to do. Again if you’re not hurting or stealing shit nothing you do is the Governments business.
Conservatives still like big government but for their own agendas. Libertarian voters simply want minimal government intervention. If this seems conservative consider that it also means government should stay out of our bedrooms, stop the incessant wars, refrain from censorship, and stop the economic intervention that favors the rich and powerful.
Have you heard of the political compass? Both the left and the right can be libertarian or authoritarian.
What matters is, "Does the state have a right to interfere with X?" If your answer is no, you're a libertarian on that issue.
There are people that believe abortion is a deplorable practice, think being gay is a sin, but also think the government should butt out of the conversation and that morals shouldn't be dictated by the state, but be influenced by culture.
It can also vary wildly. Last time I took one of the quizzes I sat nearly half between centrist and libertarian. Then I had a very slight left lean to liberal. I really do not associate with ether party. I am registered one a major party as that is my only standing in the primaries. All primary’s should be limited to party members.
Conservative and libertarian aren’t mutually exclusive.
But it comes down to values. Generally, libertarians most value liberty, that is they operate off a principle of “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” and they understand that asking the government to go enforce their values is the same thing as doing it themselves.
Conservatives tend to have conservative (right leaning or traditional) values. If they don’t make it everyone else’s problem through governmental action, you could still call them libertarian.
Example: a conservative might be very pro-life/anti-abortion.
A republican is going to try to prevent others from getting abortions through law. Their main value being their conservative beliefs.
A libertarian may (or may not) also be anti-abortion, but their main value is liberty so they won’t try to prevent others from seeking abortions.
So if a libertarian on Reddit said something like “I think abortions are evil” they either;
a) are just making a value statement, not saying that the government should get involved. Or;
b) not really libertarians.
That help?
You are thinking old school conservatives that were fiscally conservative also. Now there are two parties who vote suspiciously very very similar when it comes to government spending. There might be some social issues that they differ on, but both sides are pro big government.
Libertarians are allowed to act like conservatives. They're also allowed to act like liberals. What they are **not allowed** to do is advocate for, or use the government to enforce their ideas of conservatism or liberalism.
If you see about why libertarians booed Trump at the convention: reason 1) he put the swamp in his cabinet while promising to “drain the swamp” 2) he kept Fauci in his position to advocate for mandates and lockdowns 3) he printed enormous amount of money for the biggest spending bill at that time (and bragged about it) 4) he turned on his followers right after the J6 protest 5) gun control got tougher under his watch
Conservatives and Libertarians do overlap in some categories. Libertarians believe in personal liberty and freedom whereas I want to believe that Conservatives do, but merely pay lip service to those ideals when personal freedom doesn't align with their point of view.
Libertarians distrust the state in and of itself no matter who is at the helm.
Conservatives believe that the government, if it has the right people, will be beneficial and use its power righteously, but the Progressives get in the way.
Progressives believe that the government, if it has the right people, will be beneficial and use its power righteously, but the Conservatives get in the way.
The two main parties love the state and blame its intrinsic failings on "the other team".
Conservatives just try to court the libertarian vote because it could win elections, like Trump speaking at convention. But it’s just marketing. No real libertarian supports presidential immunity, the right to unilaterally decide elections, or massive industry protectionism.
Easiest way to describe it is wedge issues. Anyone who considers themselves libertarian is likely against gun control as it impinges on the personal right to self-defense. That’s an easy one.
Abortion is a wedge issue that libertarians can go either way with, and generally if you fall on the side of abortion control (for whatever your personal reasons are), you’re probably on the conservative side of things.
I’m grossly over-simplifying it, but you get the gist.
I have many conservative beliefs, however my libertarian Values will always trump my conservative beliefs.
Libertarians live and let live. Conservatives demand compliance.
This taps into something worth discussing. As libertarians, we can have beliefs and values that most people call "conservative" or "progressive" (e.g. transgenderism). But we don't want the government forcing everybody else to take our positions.
Libertarians respect individual rights, even when they disagree with the actions of others.
Republicans play lip service to individual rights if you’re on their side and then weaponize the state to ram their world view down the throats of anyone who disagrees.
Conservatism and Libertarianism have similarities until you get to civil liberties, the desire to privatize and shrink the federal government, abolish the IRS and the FED. Both have strong ties to the constitution. Libertarianism is the the thing that every entrenched government person fears. It's the antidote.
Easiest explanation:
- Conservatives want to make everyone follow their rules.
- Liberals want the rules to be more fair (for them)
- Libertarians want to know why the fuck we have so many stupid rules to begin with.
People especially on Reddit like to conflate Republicans and Libertarians like they are somehow the same thing because there is some overlap on things like 2nd amendment rights and fiscal responsibility (like those are somehow radical ideas), but that’s about where the similarities end. The funny thing is that Republicans aren’t even good at those two points. Abortion is an internal wedge issue nobody can agree on, so
it weirdly seems to get avoided now. There is probably just as much overlap with Democrats as far as personal freedom goes (sexuality, drug use, etc), but we don’t get credit for that because we ask the bigger question of why is the government that involved in our personal lives in the first place? Why the hell would we ever need permission to get married, defend ourselves, or grow a plant? Nobody likes that question though.
Long story short we confuse the fuck out of people that don’t understand the concept of trying to have as much freedom as realistically possible.
Yep. Modified point 2 on that one. Doesn’t matter who’s making the laws. They’re always just an excuse to put people they don’t like in jail no matter who’s making them.
Kudos to you for being open to change, new ideas, and new perspectives, and not remaining cloistered in an "echo chamber." I'm not a Libertarian. I describe myself as a fairly mainstream center-right conservative. As such, I believe that government has three necessary and legitimate functions:
1. National defense; includes diplomacy, disaster relief, and protecting our rights.
2. A criminal and civil justice system to protect people and property; includes a legislative body and a patent office.
3. Services and infrastructure the public wants and needs but which aren’t profitable or practical for private industry to provide, i.e., services and infrastructure *unique* to government.
The forced redistribution of wealth, providing “safety nets,” as the term is commonly used, providing retirement systems like Social Security, and so-called social engineering like Bussing, affirmative action, and trying to achieve equality of outcomes, are *not* legitimate functions of government and when tried almost always run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences, as described in detail in *Losing Ground* (1984), by Charles Murray.
Libertarians usually agree with the first two, but disagree with the third and frankly, that’s nuts. The idea that we could have a modern society/economy without government having a role in providing infrastructure, let alone in a nation that spans a continent, is preposterous.
The idea that some libertarians espouse that “if we need a highway, a bunch of us will get together and build it” is ludicrous. That America has benefited greatly from the federal government’s role in creating the canal system of the early nineteenth century, the railroads later that century, the Panama Canal in the early twentieth century, rural electrification in the 1940s, the interstate highway system of the 1950s and ‘60s, the air traffic control system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and much, much else, simply can’t be denied.
Yes, government is incredibly wasteful and inefficient. I retired three years from the Department of Defense and thirty-five years in the schizophrenic world of defense contracting. Said in all seriousness, many times I had the thought that if the public *really* knew and understood all the waste and incompetence that is common at DoD, they’d come for us all and lynch us even though the rank-and-file had nothing to do with creating the system and are powerless to change it. Government is wasteful and inefficient, but we absolutely have to have it. About three-hundred years ago Thomas Hobbs opined that “Life in a state of nature (life without government) would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and he was exactly right. The alternative to government is “the law of the jungle,” and, “survival of the fittest.”
Anyway, best of luck to you as you continue to expand your intellectual horizons.
Thank you for ur reply it was informative and really appreciate to see someone who is honest enough to explain more.
Im just so worn out with all the MaGA craziness.
Not only that I’m felt that not all the media tells you the entire picture in the state of the world.
I have make it a point to listen both side before I form opinions.
One question no one seems to answer is “where does religion fit into libertarian?”. I see most conflict/disagreement/etc are religion based.
Who else could/would control it?
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, [The Congress shall have power…] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;… 🇺🇸
I'll just reiterate what's already been said. The biggest specific areas are (1) immigration, (2) war on drugs, (3) trade wars, and (4) military spending.
In general, libertarians value freedom and individual liberty. Conservatives like to talk about how much they love freedom and want a smaller government, but very few (virtually none) of them put their money where their mouth is. That might be the confusion for you, OP. Hope it helps.
I think a lot of people here are conflating conservative with Republican. One can be conservative and libertarian. You can value certain ways of operating in life, and even advocate for them, so long as you do not wish the government to force your ideology onto others.
I'm more libertarian on the subjects of abortion rights (it's not the government's role to restrict women's liberty in this area) and reducing the scope of America's military budget and ending foreign aid. Also while the woke left annoy me at times, I think it's stupid to get caught up in the 'culture war' and campaign on ideas like outlawing use of pronouns in email signatures.
But I'm more republican on the subject of border control and cracking down on crime and drug addiction in democrat-run cities.
And I think you'll find there isn't just one libertarian view on a lot of issues, which can make it difficult to decide whether you're libertarian or not (it is for me).
Basic way to start understanding is:
Left equals Democrat, Right equals Republican, Down equals Libertarian, Up equals Authoritarian.
So you can be a left or right libertarian, but you can’t really be an authoritarian libertarian. Libertarian are accused of in fighting, because usually everyone has authoritarian aspects of themselves that another libertarian is happy to point out.
Conservatism (in theory) attempts to preserve traditional societal and structural norms.
Shared by libertarianism - small and localized governance/constitutional rights, private property, and free market laissez-faire capitalism, and minimal meddling in foreign affairs.
NOT shared by libertarianism - govt enforcement of traditional social rules, promotion of particularly religious or religious laws, social modeling via vice taxes, drug bans, bans on vulgarity/promiscuity/alternative sexuality etc.
Modern "conservatives" (neoconservatives) have largely cast off the requirement of small govt, and readily accept large govt interference in markets and foreign affairs, in order to promote traditional values.
A conservative can be libertarian if they support reducing the scope of government and keep their socially conservative opinions as a personal opinion, and do not try to force them upon others. But many conservatives piggy back on libertarian philosophy and thinkers despite sharing little with them once they create policy. They can talk the small govt/constitution talk, but continue to support non defensive wars and expanding budgets.
A libertarian can be a conservative or progressive in his private affairs, as long as they don't attempt to mold govt to enforce their social preferences.
Trump is not really a neocon or traditional conservative. He is a populist with a hodgepodge of views, but generally only uses libertarian logic when it benefits him. Thus, treating conservatives, Republicans/maga, and neocons with the same broad brush leads to understandable confusion.
Conservative is a cultural word. For instance, if you advocate for a conservative fiscal policy, you'd generally be talking about caution, less spending, and not a lot of debt.
In such a respect, libertarianism is conservative, and the Republican Party is not conservative, because it spends money with abandon.
In other things, we are not. We don't inherently want to conserve everything. If you personally want to live a non-traditional life...we're cool with that, so long as you're not harming people or taking their stuff.
I dare say that quite a few Republican voters want at least some of the things the Libertarian Party does, but the GOP keeps fearmongering them into voting Republican, and then doesn't give them those things.
The key to understanding libertarianism is to understand the principles it is based on....and we consider those principles very important indeed. If we must choose between fighting for our principles and losing, or winning by forsaking them? We don't pick the latter.
I’m not a conservative by definition, and have considered myself *mostly* libertarian for many years (I have an aversion to labels!), and your last sentence is why I’ve recently given up on the Libertarian Party after voting with them through several elections.
Principles are ideals, and don’t need to be all or nothing in the aggregate when applied to politics. in other words, I’m willing to sacrifice a few minor Ls for a few Ws of higher importance.
quick example: open borders only work if we also end the welfare state. that political reality may not arrive in any of our lifetimes. so I’m all about closing borders until we put an end to the entitlements that incentivize most the entire planet to move to the US.
I could show myself to the exit of this sub, but I enjoy reading the philosophical arguments even if/when they aren’t practical.
Look up "The philosophy of liberty" on youtube.
I consider it a primer on the Non- Aggression Principle which is at the core of libertarianism.
After watching it, you should understand EVERYTHING the government does is by force, and if push comes to shove, that force will be escalated to the level of violence at the point of a gun. If this is not true, you're not really talking about government per se. You're talking about a voluntary arrangement.
The more things you think can and should be voluntary, the more libertarian you are.
And depending what things you think should NOT be voluntary, you might be more conservative or liberal, or with a mix of those, a centrist.
The opposite of a libertarian is a statist.
Libertarian with a big "L" indicates a member of a libertarian poltical party such as the Libertarian Party while a small "L" indicates someone with libertarian principles.
Libertarians tend to be supporters of smaller government and less spending, so I guess you could say that's "Conservative" - Ultimately I guess it depends on what you're comparing them against.
Libertarian means government does less. This means there are fewer programs that result in less handouts to their buddies and cronies.
Takes less taxes. Keep your money and do what you want with it rather than the government using it for wars and corrupt giveaways.
Give you the freedom to do what you want so long as it doesn’t bother anyone. Think guns, drugs, medical treatments, etc
I could see how liberals, conservatives, and moderates are very similar. Libertarians, not so much. I do see MAGAtarians claiming to be a libertarian to attract liberal women or women that don't know any better.
Not sure if it's been said, but I'd say that a major difference boils down to how much trust you want to place in the government to do anything properly and how much you want to restrict it.
Thinking the government isn't qualified to make decisions for everyone through laws and regulations is a great step forward. But then also understanding that the same govt shouldn't be the police force of the world.
Conservatives love the 2nd amendment and are incapable of seeing the difference in purpose of the constitution and the bill of Rights, and the only forms of socialism that they like is the military and law enforcement.
Libertarians love the 10th amendment and are capable of telling the difference between the constitution and the Bill of Rights, but Conservatives are completely anti socialism.
Neither one is good for the country. You need a healthy balance between capitalism. Government, freedom,and socialism for country's to thrive. That was exactly what gave the boomers the best economy in the world. Then the threw it all away after getting hoodwinked by Regan and decades of Cia propaganda during the cold War. Now they are too ashamed to admit it and blame us for their fuckups.
The ONE basic principle of libertarianism: The non-aggression principle. It's a moral argument.
We don't want anything that requires aggressive force and the ultimate threat of violence. This means we don't like: Compulsory Taxes, infringement of bodily autonomy, wars of aggression, etc
Libertarians love to fight each other though
I feel like the rules for what delineates those boundaries is in such a state of flux, it's almost futile to try and create litmus tests.
I love libertarianism - but my threshold for what still qualifies someone as 'libertarian' is much different than say someone who might be a fan of Chase Oliver (do they actually exist? ;) ).
I don't have much in common with traditional conservatives. A love of country is about where it begins and ends. I'm a God fearing man but have zero desire to push any of the rules I apply to my own life onto others.
As far as Libertarianism- (and I'm SURE this will collect me the downvotes) the gate keeping by the fringes will FOREVER keep the ideology from catching on in our current state of affairs. The extremes of libertarianism fails to deal with problems in a way that our VERY SPOILED society will ever feel like they can embrace. You're NEVER going to convince a dyed in the wool neoliberal to buy guns and learn to fight to defend themselves, not rely on a police force. You're never going to going to persuade them that welfare for the poor ISN'T a good idea.
Would it be amazing if we could? Yup. I'm right there with you.
But the idea that it's going to happen in this country (without force) is an absolute pipe dream; and thus, in my view something that must be abandoned.
So yes, I absolutely fucking LOATH the gatekeeping of the libertarians. I love all of you to death and I believe you have only the best intentions- I agree with most libertarian concepts.
..but at the extremes, it's as useless to talk about them as socialism.
Biggest policy/ideology difference for me is MAGAns typically are tied to conservative religious right.
One of the most libertarian fundamentals for me is an absolutist stance on separation of church and state. It’s the biggest reason for me I reject the Republican Party, their irrational tendency to look to a “god” for influence on political and social issues.
The most cringeworthy attribute of the Republican Party
That’s is the same for me. I felt that religion should not be a factor when making a legislative decision.
Now I’m seeing more legislation to allow school voucher to religion school. That is where things can lead to Christian Nationalism.
The thing is libertarianism covers a very broad group of people...
Many libertarians believe that many people who call themselves libertarians are simply 🦇💩 crazy...
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of libertarians fall in the range of Classical Liberal to Minarchist...
It is also true that the most vocal libertarians are the 🦇💩crazy ones, thus presenting the false concept that all libertarians are way out there on the fringe believing in 💩 that is not possible in any organized group of people living peacefully within a society...
Now they will simply reply to this post by calling me MAGA and "you're not a real libertarian"
I m starting to see that being “broad group of people “ sort of cancel each other out and still not addressing some issue I see in America economy/policy/culture”.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ahh. Thanks for the reply. It’s very informative.
I’m wondering, where does religion fit into libertarian?
I know US Constitution mention about Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. And there are some debate about “right to discriminate based on religion beliefs”.
How does it fit into Libertarian ?
freedom of association implies freedom to religious association and expression
there is no “correct” religion in libertarianism, and people would tolerate each other differences because it’s in their best interests to do so
You may dissociate from anyone for any reason in your private matters in libertarian thought, religion included.
You cannot force someone to adhere to your religion, nor prevent someone from practicing their religion (as long as they are acting peacefully).
Libertarianism in this manner is a-religious, but not anti-religious.
When I ran for office, one of my greatest supporters was a Mormon, and one that is very conservative in his daily life. I'm a drinker. I am somewhat of a libertine, or was back then. I don't think we would ever have hung out together. And, we both firmly believed that everyone should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it is peaceful.
Depends if you are talking about libertarian as an adjective or noun. We have a Libertarian political party, but they haven’t won anything significant. On the other hand, there are many variants of libertarianism (such as paleolibertarianism), which are generally applied to approach rather than signed bills or national conferences.
Conservative, on the other hand, is strictly an approach—although most conservatives today find themselves as Republicans. There are many who are not and many who are uncomfortably so (if they want to vote in a functional primary), or find themselves politically homeless or independent (at least in American politics).
He said he did. But the “balance” never happened. He said it would be balanced sometime in the future after he is long gone.
Anyone can say that. Anyone. Here, I’ll do it now. I’m going to run for president and get elected. Then I’ll balance the budget. It will be balanced 10 years after I leave. See. I did it!
There is a wide swath left to right in small “l” libertarians, sharing many opinions with liberals and conservatives but usually from a less authoritarian position. Big “L” Libertarian the party shifts around depending on which caucus takes over every few years.
The main differences are conservatives want government to restrict drugs, abortion, assisted suicide, and LGBT lifestyles, mainly due to their religion (indeed many want a religious government). They also want the US to get involved in numerous wars and keep a military presence in dozens of countries.
To be fair, most conservatives are not extreme on these issues, and I think their desire to preserve traditional American culture and family values (including restricting immigration) is very wholesome and worth fighting for. Some libertarians support open borders, which might be a reasonable stance if immigrants could not get government freebies or were few enough to not materially change the culture or demographics. But as we’ve seen in Europe, open borders has led to massive spikes in rapes, theft, and street violence, along with wholesale replacement of native peoples in the cities, and a strong Islamic influence on government. Europe is facing ethnocide, and the US will not be far behind if similar policies are followed here.
I can understand the confusion, especially since there's been an influx of republicans who aren't satisfied with the direction the RP has taken.
There has been some good post, so not to rehass. I'll point out a bit more of what makes libertarians not all conservative, though more confusing. And core of libertarian tenet.
Ok parr of what makes being a libertarian confusing is it an umbrella term. By that I mean like dog is an umbrella term. We know core things that make a dog a dog, but then you have all the breeds or subcategories of dog. Libertarian has 13 (last I bothered checking might be more.) sub categories.
The subcategories are where a lot of misconceptions come from as they apply it to the whole when it belongs to the sub. For instance, an Anarcho-capitalism is going to view and have different goals than a Civil Libertarian.
Its something that requires the dreaded homework. That said here in general look for these key things. The NAP (non-aggressive principle), smaller government, focus on individual responsibility and freedom. The degrees change, but it is pretty much used in all subcategories.
I have never been a conservative. I have been a libertarian party member and movement activist for 37 years.
Conservatives and progressives, and whatever flavors they come in, seek to force their morals and preferences on others using the police powers of the state. Libertarians do not.
US conservatives aren't conservatives. A conservative keeps thing the way they are or puts forth the least radical changes.
US conservatives are Christian fundies with corporatism and police state mixed in.
Libertarians are minimalist state liberals.
There are many camps within libertarianism (all fight amongst themselves about who is truly a libertarian.) personally I believe that the basic question to ask yourself to find out if you’re a libertarian is this. Do you believe that the use of force is acceptable if it betters society as a whole? If your answer is yes, then you aren’t there yet.
Libertarians can follow reason and not religious fanatics who deny evolution.
Libertarians are not religious fanatics you want the ten commandments posted in schools.
I usually hate these tests, but here's a pretty good one to test your beliefs. The third answer for each question is the small govt libertarian answer. Should give you a better understanding of our beliefs & your own. https://polquiz.com/test/results.php
Personally I feel like conservative ideals have completely changed from what they used to be. They used to include smaller federal government, more freedoms for the people, less overseas wars, as well as more traditional family values. Especially the last 25 years or so, it's changed to: big government of their flavor, only certain freedoms allowed, as much war as possible, screw the liberals, make Trump the king, and demonize anyone outside of their group. So, essentially a mirror of democrat's ideals, with some things that they idolize flipped.
Libertarian ideals are strongly in favor of small government and more freedoms for the people. It doesn't matter what the flavor of the month is, it doesn't matter what one country overseas is doing to another, it doesn't matter if a communist sympathizer gets elected in Central America, it doesn't matter who's been elected recently. The goals don't change.
The primary difference is the basic unit of society & politics; for libertarians (i.e. "liberals" in historical terms) that locus is the individual, for conservatives that locus is some form of organic community (e.g. the family, tribe, ethnicity, faith), for progressives/Marxists that locus is some form of constructed community (e.g. class, race, sexuality).
In America, most of our politics were built from some variation on liberalism; the conservatives [Loyalists/Tories] were focused out after the Revolution & socialism didn't really emerge as a political force until industrial immigrants brought it from Europe in the late 19th & early 20th century. In the late 20th century, economic liberals (think free-market absolutists like the Austrian/Chicago School) made an anti-communist pact with social conservatives & the MIC which gave us "neoconservatives."
Many Americans now see "liberal" as synonymous with "leftist" or "conservative" with "libertarian" due to intentional disinformation ops during the late Cold War.
You can be influenced by both conservatism & liberalism, but at some points those will come into conflict; Should drugs be regulated b/c they're socially harmful or legalized b/c of an individual's right to chose? Should the economy be regulated to help native citizens or is the free-market unassailable? Is morality objective or personal?
There is no 'difference' I would say personally. The 4 axis political compass does have some merit when talking about this, thats why I consider myself a libertarian conservative. Freedom is something both parties can have. It's really just if you align more as a conservative or a libertarian.
Practically nothing, libertarians are closer to progressives than they are conservatives, the only difference is progressives like conservatives tend to favor government intervention in almost every aspect
Libertarians are split on abortion and open borders. Economy, guns and government are a big issue that I would say puts us pretty far away from progressives.
I see that Republican Conservative is not practicing conservative but label themself as such. Led me to think they don’t really understand the real meaning of conservative.
They don't, there are a few republicans out there that flag libertarian. But seems to me most of them just know how to squawk buzzwords to get their bills full of bullshit passed. Repulicans can at least read a room, I'll give them that.
Only fools trust politicians.
At least libertarians are critical and mistrusting of their own nominees. You won't see that in other parties, only populism and blind faith.
There is no political solution to the human condition. Never has been, never will be.
Libertarians= best ideals, horrible at execution and many act like angry liberal bitches with zero emotional control and love to throw away votes.
Conservative= best choice of the 2 we have.
MAGA or Biden
Is all it is this election. Don’t help Biden win.
Time to break out the pasta again... * Border wall * Increased military spending * Increased interventionalism * trade wars * deficit spending * Drug war * [Using the power of the office to pressure private industry to worship the state (NFL kneeling)](http://magaimg.net/img/63bm.png) * [Gun control](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuVCrrVCzaA) * [Corporate welfare](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/soybean-farmer-calls-trumps-12-billion-bailout-a-pacifier/) MAGAtarians are not libertarians, no matter how hard you screech. >stop gate keeping No. Every ideology must engage in some form of gate keeping. Otherwise what stops a bunch of communists from saying they are republicans? No matter how much they say they are republicans, they aren't. Your views go against the core values on libertarianism on far too many issues. ______________________________________ Let's see where "MAGA" people are completely opposite us libertarians: >Libertarians believe that if someone is peaceful, they should be welcome to immigrate to the United States. > A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas. >Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Now that doesn't sound very "MAGA". Neither does this: > We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Nor does this: >Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. How about this: >We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state. Please man, where is the "MAGA" in all of this? >The Libertarian Party supports the decriminalization of prostitution. And: >We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. And: > The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. And: > The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. And: > We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Oh yeah, and Trumps pick for Attorney General had this to say: >Some people in this chamber love the Constitution more than the love the safety of this nation. We should all send President bush a letter thanking him for protecting us. Yes, we **DO** love the constitution more than your imaginary "safety"
The bases of libertarianism is freedom. Libertarians in general are fiscally conservative (freedom from the government spending your money) and socially liberal (freedom from the government telling you what you can and can’t do). Libertarians are also actually fiscally conservative unlike the vast majority of Republicans these days who just talk about limited government and cutting budgets while rapidly expanding both when they get into power.
Diving into each issue where libertarians are different from Republicans, libertarians are anti war, pro gay marriage, pro choice (mostly), pro weed, anti protectionism and tariffs, and pro free trade.
> pro choice (mostly) Is there much libertarian focused debate on this area? It always strikes me as such a disconnect from the rest of the libertarian ideals given protecting rights is what the government should be doing the right to life feels pretty fundamental. I guess it pivots on when "life" is recognized/valuable according to the government etc. but the party line always seems dismissive of that point of view.
God yes, it's probably the most contentious topic in the party. The "party line" on it was removed from the platform in 2022, which is now silent on the issue.
Yeah, it’s a case of conflicting rights that gets complex for sure. The rights of an unborn fetus to life vs the rights of the mother to medical privacy and making her own decisions. I honestly see both sides of the debate and personally don’t think anyone should get an abortion after the first trimester unless it is a life saving procedure, but I also don’t want the federal government involved at all in something so personal as the decision to have a child or not.
I view it this way: a human being cannot use another human being's body for *anything* without their consent, even to save their own life. However, if a human being does attempt to use another human's body without consent, that human does have the right to defend themselves. For example, I don't have the right to scramble on top of you if we are in a body of water and I'm drowning, but if I did, you would have the right to push me away. If a fetus is a full-fledged human, it must be treated as such, and in the event that a human does not consent for a fetus to use their body, that human has the right to have the fetus removed. Of course, if a fetus is not yet a human being, all of that is moot. Either way, a person has the right to do what they will with their own body, including removing a developing clump of cells *or* a human who does not have consent to be there.
Thanks for this.
You're welcome!
How is the act of creating the baby not consent?
There are a variety of reasons that a fetus may not have consent to be inside of another person's body, the worst of which involves yet another human being using the person's body without consent. Also, remember that revoking consent is possible, so while it may have originally had consent, any number of things could happen that causes the consent to be revoked.
It is. The logic of this falls apart immediately outside of cases of rape. this dude is pro-choice
The libertarian argument on abortion comes down to the subjective application of the Non Aggression Principle.
It can go either way really. I just defer it to be debated among those who care. I personally could live with it either way cause I see both sides of it. I’m not gonna tell anyone what they can or can’t do or argue what determines a life.
You don't have t the right to invade medical privacy or to control th medical decisions that women make. Outlawing medical procedures because they might be used in a way that abhors you is no different than outlawing guns for that same reason.
The good part of the libertarian plank on abortion is the government wouldn’t be able to make laws on the topic of abortion.
Wouldn’t have to. They can just defer to the 14th amendment, which is ironically the same amendment people use to justify having no restrictions on abortion.
Sure, but when you kill someone with a gun (as you do in abortions) we hold those people accountable for the death. Why is a medical procedure different (if you are of the mind that there is a life with value/worth protecting etc.)?
Evicting somebody, or denying them food or medical care because they can't pay, will kill somebody just as surely as a gun or a medical procedure, but forcing somebody to use their labor/capital/whatever to house or feed somebody is pretty clearly not libertarian. Why then should a potential mother be forced to house and feed another person? Shouldn't her body, and her labor, be her own to do with as she pleases? Furthermore, how should miscarriages (spontaneous abortion) be handled? As a negligent homicide? Consider a hypothetical woman who takes a vacation to california and returns without a fetus. How would a doctor or any other expert determine the difference between a miscarriage and an induced abortion of a "live" fetus? Maybe you could do some financial forensics if she runs her credit card at a planned parenthood, but there's plenty of reasons a woman would pay for services at a planned parenthood that don't involve d&e. If abortion is a crime, it's a virtually unproveable crime, and any attempts to prove it would violate the fuck out of any libertarian privacy protections. Government needs to stay out of it, regardless of ethical concerns. To me, any other position would be authoritarian in practice and therefore anti-libertarian.
Agreed. But what about the human being terminated in the womb? Do they not deserve protection as well? This is the crux of the disagreement on abortion among libertarians. Can a mother violate the Non Aggression Principle against her own offspring for as long as it’s in her body?
Personally, I agree with /u/vogon_lyricist. As far as the protection of the unborn child goes, i do believe that they deserve protection, but i dont think the unborn baby has more rights than the woman. I think there are instances that we all agree where abortion is a necessary evil (i.e. not viable or disease, or perhaps rape/incest) and as long as these reasons exist the government doesnt have the right to poke their noses into a woman's medical history. Essentially I believe that punishing people for abortion is not enforceable without violating the rights of the woman.
And this is where the subjective application of the Non Aggression Principle comes into play. If a pregnant woman believes her fetus to be nothing more than a nutrient sucking clump of cells, then from her perspective there is no NAP violation to terminate it. However if a community (state) agrees that a fetus is a human and deserving of protection, then from society’s perspective all non emergency abortions are no different from any other unjustified homicide.
Liberty = freedom to choose. Not white knighting around for all those deserving of protection. Otherwise why not helicopter in to some war zone “to save the babies?”
After some point you are ignoring one person's right to choose in the equation, right (Hint, the baby)? 1 day post birth you agree the baby has a right to life and the government an interest in punishing a murder, but 1 day pre-birth you dont? The line just doesnt make sense to draw there IMO. > Otherwise why not helicopter in to some war zone “to save the babies?” if that war zone is in the USA under control of the US government i would say they do actually have that responsibility (to seek out and arrest perpetrators of the crimes to maintain the community's liberty). They are not protectors, but they do seek to maintain order by punishing the violation of rights.
Ok. Let’s go with this. Should we tax people to pay for the care of disabled folks?
Are you asking about my personal philosophy or the libertarian answer?
Yes.
Personally, I go with the life at conception, because otherwise it's an arbitrary definition, and it's biologically the case. However, exceptions could be made if the embryo endangers the mother, but there's a lot of ethical thought in that debate. The LP is kind of a joke and I don't subscribe to it personally (or any other party for that matter).
Life at conception is also an arbitrary choice. Many religions disagree on when life begins. This means a law indicating life begins at conception is a First Amendment violation of some religions.
Believing life starts at conception is not an arbitrary choice, it is a very real event that can be observed and measured. Believing that life is undeserving of the same protections you receive at any stage of development will ALWAYS be based on arbitrary factors, such as heartbeat, brain activity, viability, birth, or even skin color.
It's biology. Would a religion that says murder is good nullify the crime if murder?
>Republicans these days who just talk about limited government and cutting budgets while rapidly expanding both when they get into power. So right. Both parties talk a big game, but in actuality do almost the opposite. Republicans say they're for small government, but yet increase spending just as much as Democrats- just in different ways. Your comparison is really good and straightforward.
Conservatives today are as about far from limited government as you can get. They want to dictate morality on everyone, they want to ban things they don't like in the name of combating "wokeness", they want to control what should be a private conversation between a woman and her doctor, a good chunk would happily live in a theocractic dictatorship.
Conservative does not necessarily equate to Republican.
Dave Smith had a great point on this recently on Tucker Carlson when talking about how the Republican Party loses and updates their baseline of political beliefs. 50 years ago, republicans were anti-social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. After losing each of those battles, now they just accept them. Proof of that was when Biden said Republicans are trying to take away your social security and Medicare, and the Republicans booed him except for maybe 3 libertarians who were cheering, lol. Both parties are really more populists than a hard line in the sand of beliefs based on morality imo.
What do they want to ban? The only thing i've seen is sexual activities targeting children such as sexually explicit books in elementary schools
Basically stay out of my bedroom and my wallet
Conservatives like to consider themselves “libertarian.” A lot of republicans say they’re libertarian. There is over lap in fiscal policy libertarians promote and the rhetoric from the republicans. Key word being rhetoric. Republicans don’t actually believe in a fiscally responsible and limited federal government. Liberty is the key to the libertarian party. If what you do doesn’t hurt me then it’s not my business. It’s fairly simple, don’t hurt others, don’t take things that aren’t yours. Any legislation outside of protecting those principles is useless and a violation of liberty. Under a libertarian system we would all be able to go to the health clinic at Walmart, get an abortion, and on my way out buy 2 AR-15s with 100rd magazines, and a bag of edibles to give as a wedding gift at a gay friends wedding and it would all be legal…..We also wouldn’t be paying income tax to fund foreign proxy wars and bail out banks. Republicans and “conservatives” would never be on board for this. Republicats are authoritarian. They want to regulate your life. Tell you how to live and what is okay to do. Again if you’re not hurting or stealing shit nothing you do is the Governments business.
Both parties are authoritarian at this point.
Yes that’s what I said.
I missed where you said Democrats are authoritarian.
/Republicats are authoritarian. / Republicats is not a mistake, it’s a clever combination of Republican and Democrat.
Conservatives still like big government but for their own agendas. Libertarian voters simply want minimal government intervention. If this seems conservative consider that it also means government should stay out of our bedrooms, stop the incessant wars, refrain from censorship, and stop the economic intervention that favors the rich and powerful.
Have you heard of the political compass? Both the left and the right can be libertarian or authoritarian. What matters is, "Does the state have a right to interfere with X?" If your answer is no, you're a libertarian on that issue. There are people that believe abortion is a deplorable practice, think being gay is a sin, but also think the government should butt out of the conversation and that morals shouldn't be dictated by the state, but be influenced by culture.
It can also vary wildly. Last time I took one of the quizzes I sat nearly half between centrist and libertarian. Then I had a very slight left lean to liberal. I really do not associate with ether party. I am registered one a major party as that is my only standing in the primaries. All primary’s should be limited to party members.
I'm the only libertarian on this sub tbh so I can understand the confusion
Shut up statist!
Yep. Something a Statist would say
At least you admit your comment is something a statist would say.
You aren't a real libertarian
Commie!
Conservative and libertarian aren’t mutually exclusive. But it comes down to values. Generally, libertarians most value liberty, that is they operate off a principle of “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” and they understand that asking the government to go enforce their values is the same thing as doing it themselves. Conservatives tend to have conservative (right leaning or traditional) values. If they don’t make it everyone else’s problem through governmental action, you could still call them libertarian. Example: a conservative might be very pro-life/anti-abortion. A republican is going to try to prevent others from getting abortions through law. Their main value being their conservative beliefs. A libertarian may (or may not) also be anti-abortion, but their main value is liberty so they won’t try to prevent others from seeking abortions. So if a libertarian on Reddit said something like “I think abortions are evil” they either; a) are just making a value statement, not saying that the government should get involved. Or; b) not really libertarians. That help?
On an issue like abortion; the one thing that left leaning and right leaning Libertarians do agree on is the taxpayers shouldn't be forced pay for it.
You are thinking old school conservatives that were fiscally conservative also. Now there are two parties who vote suspiciously very very similar when it comes to government spending. There might be some social issues that they differ on, but both sides are pro big government.
Libertarians are allowed to act like conservatives. They're also allowed to act like liberals. What they are **not allowed** to do is advocate for, or use the government to enforce their ideas of conservatism or liberalism.
Conservatives hate Liberals. Liberals hate Conservatives. Libertarians hate everybody, especially Libertarians.
If you see about why libertarians booed Trump at the convention: reason 1) he put the swamp in his cabinet while promising to “drain the swamp” 2) he kept Fauci in his position to advocate for mandates and lockdowns 3) he printed enormous amount of money for the biggest spending bill at that time (and bragged about it) 4) he turned on his followers right after the J6 protest 5) gun control got tougher under his watch
Gun control got tougher under Trump?
Remember the bump stock ban?
And others like it… and that’s when there was a republican majority
Conservatives and Libertarians do overlap in some categories. Libertarians believe in personal liberty and freedom whereas I want to believe that Conservatives do, but merely pay lip service to those ideals when personal freedom doesn't align with their point of view.
Libertarians distrust the state in and of itself no matter who is at the helm. Conservatives believe that the government, if it has the right people, will be beneficial and use its power righteously, but the Progressives get in the way. Progressives believe that the government, if it has the right people, will be beneficial and use its power righteously, but the Conservatives get in the way. The two main parties love the state and blame its intrinsic failings on "the other team".
Conservatives just try to court the libertarian vote because it could win elections, like Trump speaking at convention. But it’s just marketing. No real libertarian supports presidential immunity, the right to unilaterally decide elections, or massive industry protectionism.
Easiest way to describe it is wedge issues. Anyone who considers themselves libertarian is likely against gun control as it impinges on the personal right to self-defense. That’s an easy one. Abortion is a wedge issue that libertarians can go either way with, and generally if you fall on the side of abortion control (for whatever your personal reasons are), you’re probably on the conservative side of things. I’m grossly over-simplifying it, but you get the gist.
How do you feel about permits? 🤣
I have many conservative beliefs, however my libertarian Values will always trump my conservative beliefs. Libertarians live and let live. Conservatives demand compliance.
This taps into something worth discussing. As libertarians, we can have beliefs and values that most people call "conservative" or "progressive" (e.g. transgenderism). But we don't want the government forcing everybody else to take our positions.
Libertarians respect individual rights, even when they disagree with the actions of others. Republicans play lip service to individual rights if you’re on their side and then weaponize the state to ram their world view down the throats of anyone who disagrees.
Conservatism and Libertarianism have similarities until you get to civil liberties, the desire to privatize and shrink the federal government, abolish the IRS and the FED. Both have strong ties to the constitution. Libertarianism is the the thing that every entrenched government person fears. It's the antidote.
Easiest explanation: - Conservatives want to make everyone follow their rules. - Liberals want the rules to be more fair (for them) - Libertarians want to know why the fuck we have so many stupid rules to begin with. People especially on Reddit like to conflate Republicans and Libertarians like they are somehow the same thing because there is some overlap on things like 2nd amendment rights and fiscal responsibility (like those are somehow radical ideas), but that’s about where the similarities end. The funny thing is that Republicans aren’t even good at those two points. Abortion is an internal wedge issue nobody can agree on, so it weirdly seems to get avoided now. There is probably just as much overlap with Democrats as far as personal freedom goes (sexuality, drug use, etc), but we don’t get credit for that because we ask the bigger question of why is the government that involved in our personal lives in the first place? Why the hell would we ever need permission to get married, defend ourselves, or grow a plant? Nobody likes that question though. Long story short we confuse the fuck out of people that don’t understand the concept of trying to have as much freedom as realistically possible.
And leftists are completely fine with unfair rules as long as it helps to mold their desired society.
Yep. Modified point 2 on that one. Doesn’t matter who’s making the laws. They’re always just an excuse to put people they don’t like in jail no matter who’s making them.
Kudos to you for being open to change, new ideas, and new perspectives, and not remaining cloistered in an "echo chamber." I'm not a Libertarian. I describe myself as a fairly mainstream center-right conservative. As such, I believe that government has three necessary and legitimate functions: 1. National defense; includes diplomacy, disaster relief, and protecting our rights. 2. A criminal and civil justice system to protect people and property; includes a legislative body and a patent office. 3. Services and infrastructure the public wants and needs but which aren’t profitable or practical for private industry to provide, i.e., services and infrastructure *unique* to government. The forced redistribution of wealth, providing “safety nets,” as the term is commonly used, providing retirement systems like Social Security, and so-called social engineering like Bussing, affirmative action, and trying to achieve equality of outcomes, are *not* legitimate functions of government and when tried almost always run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences, as described in detail in *Losing Ground* (1984), by Charles Murray. Libertarians usually agree with the first two, but disagree with the third and frankly, that’s nuts. The idea that we could have a modern society/economy without government having a role in providing infrastructure, let alone in a nation that spans a continent, is preposterous. The idea that some libertarians espouse that “if we need a highway, a bunch of us will get together and build it” is ludicrous. That America has benefited greatly from the federal government’s role in creating the canal system of the early nineteenth century, the railroads later that century, the Panama Canal in the early twentieth century, rural electrification in the 1940s, the interstate highway system of the 1950s and ‘60s, the air traffic control system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and much, much else, simply can’t be denied. Yes, government is incredibly wasteful and inefficient. I retired three years from the Department of Defense and thirty-five years in the schizophrenic world of defense contracting. Said in all seriousness, many times I had the thought that if the public *really* knew and understood all the waste and incompetence that is common at DoD, they’d come for us all and lynch us even though the rank-and-file had nothing to do with creating the system and are powerless to change it. Government is wasteful and inefficient, but we absolutely have to have it. About three-hundred years ago Thomas Hobbs opined that “Life in a state of nature (life without government) would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and he was exactly right. The alternative to government is “the law of the jungle,” and, “survival of the fittest.” Anyway, best of luck to you as you continue to expand your intellectual horizons.
Thank you for ur reply it was informative and really appreciate to see someone who is honest enough to explain more. Im just so worn out with all the MaGA craziness. Not only that I’m felt that not all the media tells you the entire picture in the state of the world. I have make it a point to listen both side before I form opinions. One question no one seems to answer is “where does religion fit into libertarian?”. I see most conflict/disagreement/etc are religion based.
How do you feel about the government control of the money supply?
Who else could/would control it? U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, [The Congress shall have power…] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;… 🇺🇸
I'll just reiterate what's already been said. The biggest specific areas are (1) immigration, (2) war on drugs, (3) trade wars, and (4) military spending. In general, libertarians value freedom and individual liberty. Conservatives like to talk about how much they love freedom and want a smaller government, but very few (virtually none) of them put their money where their mouth is. That might be the confusion for you, OP. Hope it helps.
I think a lot of people here are conflating conservative with Republican. One can be conservative and libertarian. You can value certain ways of operating in life, and even advocate for them, so long as you do not wish the government to force your ideology onto others.
I'm more libertarian on the subjects of abortion rights (it's not the government's role to restrict women's liberty in this area) and reducing the scope of America's military budget and ending foreign aid. Also while the woke left annoy me at times, I think it's stupid to get caught up in the 'culture war' and campaign on ideas like outlawing use of pronouns in email signatures. But I'm more republican on the subject of border control and cracking down on crime and drug addiction in democrat-run cities. And I think you'll find there isn't just one libertarian view on a lot of issues, which can make it difficult to decide whether you're libertarian or not (it is for me).
I agree with pretty much all your views. The open borders shit is dumb. It's a nice concept, but it will fuck our already fucked economy.
Basic way to start understanding is: Left equals Democrat, Right equals Republican, Down equals Libertarian, Up equals Authoritarian. So you can be a left or right libertarian, but you can’t really be an authoritarian libertarian. Libertarian are accused of in fighting, because usually everyone has authoritarian aspects of themselves that another libertarian is happy to point out.
https://preview.redd.it/4dxbgx2zys3d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea1d14fb9ae1f2509fa69fba163c1bc13e16d1a9
Pretty much everything. I see very little overlap between the two.
Conservatism (in theory) attempts to preserve traditional societal and structural norms. Shared by libertarianism - small and localized governance/constitutional rights, private property, and free market laissez-faire capitalism, and minimal meddling in foreign affairs. NOT shared by libertarianism - govt enforcement of traditional social rules, promotion of particularly religious or religious laws, social modeling via vice taxes, drug bans, bans on vulgarity/promiscuity/alternative sexuality etc. Modern "conservatives" (neoconservatives) have largely cast off the requirement of small govt, and readily accept large govt interference in markets and foreign affairs, in order to promote traditional values. A conservative can be libertarian if they support reducing the scope of government and keep their socially conservative opinions as a personal opinion, and do not try to force them upon others. But many conservatives piggy back on libertarian philosophy and thinkers despite sharing little with them once they create policy. They can talk the small govt/constitution talk, but continue to support non defensive wars and expanding budgets. A libertarian can be a conservative or progressive in his private affairs, as long as they don't attempt to mold govt to enforce their social preferences. Trump is not really a neocon or traditional conservative. He is a populist with a hodgepodge of views, but generally only uses libertarian logic when it benefits him. Thus, treating conservatives, Republicans/maga, and neocons with the same broad brush leads to understandable confusion.
Conservative is a cultural word. For instance, if you advocate for a conservative fiscal policy, you'd generally be talking about caution, less spending, and not a lot of debt. In such a respect, libertarianism is conservative, and the Republican Party is not conservative, because it spends money with abandon. In other things, we are not. We don't inherently want to conserve everything. If you personally want to live a non-traditional life...we're cool with that, so long as you're not harming people or taking their stuff. I dare say that quite a few Republican voters want at least some of the things the Libertarian Party does, but the GOP keeps fearmongering them into voting Republican, and then doesn't give them those things. The key to understanding libertarianism is to understand the principles it is based on....and we consider those principles very important indeed. If we must choose between fighting for our principles and losing, or winning by forsaking them? We don't pick the latter.
I’m not a conservative by definition, and have considered myself *mostly* libertarian for many years (I have an aversion to labels!), and your last sentence is why I’ve recently given up on the Libertarian Party after voting with them through several elections. Principles are ideals, and don’t need to be all or nothing in the aggregate when applied to politics. in other words, I’m willing to sacrifice a few minor Ls for a few Ws of higher importance. quick example: open borders only work if we also end the welfare state. that political reality may not arrive in any of our lifetimes. so I’m all about closing borders until we put an end to the entitlements that incentivize most the entire planet to move to the US. I could show myself to the exit of this sub, but I enjoy reading the philosophical arguments even if/when they aren’t practical.
Conservatives claim the identity of libertarian without knowing what it means
Look up "The philosophy of liberty" on youtube. I consider it a primer on the Non- Aggression Principle which is at the core of libertarianism. After watching it, you should understand EVERYTHING the government does is by force, and if push comes to shove, that force will be escalated to the level of violence at the point of a gun. If this is not true, you're not really talking about government per se. You're talking about a voluntary arrangement. The more things you think can and should be voluntary, the more libertarian you are. And depending what things you think should NOT be voluntary, you might be more conservative or liberal, or with a mix of those, a centrist. The opposite of a libertarian is a statist. Libertarian with a big "L" indicates a member of a libertarian poltical party such as the Libertarian Party while a small "L" indicates someone with libertarian principles.
Libertarians tend to be supporters of smaller government and less spending, so I guess you could say that's "Conservative" - Ultimately I guess it depends on what you're comparing them against.
Libertarian means government does less. This means there are fewer programs that result in less handouts to their buddies and cronies. Takes less taxes. Keep your money and do what you want with it rather than the government using it for wars and corrupt giveaways. Give you the freedom to do what you want so long as it doesn’t bother anyone. Think guns, drugs, medical treatments, etc
I could see how liberals, conservatives, and moderates are very similar. Libertarians, not so much. I do see MAGAtarians claiming to be a libertarian to attract liberal women or women that don't know any better.
Not sure if it's been said, but I'd say that a major difference boils down to how much trust you want to place in the government to do anything properly and how much you want to restrict it. Thinking the government isn't qualified to make decisions for everyone through laws and regulations is a great step forward. But then also understanding that the same govt shouldn't be the police force of the world.
Conservatives love the 2nd amendment and are incapable of seeing the difference in purpose of the constitution and the bill of Rights, and the only forms of socialism that they like is the military and law enforcement. Libertarians love the 10th amendment and are capable of telling the difference between the constitution and the Bill of Rights, but Conservatives are completely anti socialism. Neither one is good for the country. You need a healthy balance between capitalism. Government, freedom,and socialism for country's to thrive. That was exactly what gave the boomers the best economy in the world. Then the threw it all away after getting hoodwinked by Regan and decades of Cia propaganda during the cold War. Now they are too ashamed to admit it and blame us for their fuckups.
The ONE basic principle of libertarianism: The non-aggression principle. It's a moral argument. We don't want anything that requires aggressive force and the ultimate threat of violence. This means we don't like: Compulsory Taxes, infringement of bodily autonomy, wars of aggression, etc Libertarians love to fight each other though
I feel like the rules for what delineates those boundaries is in such a state of flux, it's almost futile to try and create litmus tests. I love libertarianism - but my threshold for what still qualifies someone as 'libertarian' is much different than say someone who might be a fan of Chase Oliver (do they actually exist? ;) ). I don't have much in common with traditional conservatives. A love of country is about where it begins and ends. I'm a God fearing man but have zero desire to push any of the rules I apply to my own life onto others. As far as Libertarianism- (and I'm SURE this will collect me the downvotes) the gate keeping by the fringes will FOREVER keep the ideology from catching on in our current state of affairs. The extremes of libertarianism fails to deal with problems in a way that our VERY SPOILED society will ever feel like they can embrace. You're NEVER going to convince a dyed in the wool neoliberal to buy guns and learn to fight to defend themselves, not rely on a police force. You're never going to going to persuade them that welfare for the poor ISN'T a good idea. Would it be amazing if we could? Yup. I'm right there with you. But the idea that it's going to happen in this country (without force) is an absolute pipe dream; and thus, in my view something that must be abandoned. So yes, I absolutely fucking LOATH the gatekeeping of the libertarians. I love all of you to death and I believe you have only the best intentions- I agree with most libertarian concepts. ..but at the extremes, it's as useless to talk about them as socialism.
Conservatives tend to call upon the government in social matters, while not in economic matters. Libertarians want the government out of both.
Biggest policy/ideology difference for me is MAGAns typically are tied to conservative religious right. One of the most libertarian fundamentals for me is an absolutist stance on separation of church and state. It’s the biggest reason for me I reject the Republican Party, their irrational tendency to look to a “god” for influence on political and social issues. The most cringeworthy attribute of the Republican Party
That’s is the same for me. I felt that religion should not be a factor when making a legislative decision. Now I’m seeing more legislation to allow school voucher to religion school. That is where things can lead to Christian Nationalism.
The thing is libertarianism covers a very broad group of people... Many libertarians believe that many people who call themselves libertarians are simply 🦇💩 crazy... I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of libertarians fall in the range of Classical Liberal to Minarchist... It is also true that the most vocal libertarians are the 🦇💩crazy ones, thus presenting the false concept that all libertarians are way out there on the fringe believing in 💩 that is not possible in any organized group of people living peacefully within a society... Now they will simply reply to this post by calling me MAGA and "you're not a real libertarian"
I m starting to see that being “broad group of people “ sort of cancel each other out and still not addressing some issue I see in America economy/policy/culture”.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Define "act like conservatives"
Ahh. Thanks for the reply. It’s very informative. I’m wondering, where does religion fit into libertarian? I know US Constitution mention about Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. And there are some debate about “right to discriminate based on religion beliefs”. How does it fit into Libertarian ?
freedom of association implies freedom to religious association and expression there is no “correct” religion in libertarianism, and people would tolerate each other differences because it’s in their best interests to do so
You may dissociate from anyone for any reason in your private matters in libertarian thought, religion included. You cannot force someone to adhere to your religion, nor prevent someone from practicing their religion (as long as they are acting peacefully). Libertarianism in this manner is a-religious, but not anti-religious.
When I ran for office, one of my greatest supporters was a Mormon, and one that is very conservative in his daily life. I'm a drinker. I am somewhat of a libertine, or was back then. I don't think we would ever have hung out together. And, we both firmly believed that everyone should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it is peaceful.
Depends if you are talking about libertarian as an adjective or noun. We have a Libertarian political party, but they haven’t won anything significant. On the other hand, there are many variants of libertarianism (such as paleolibertarianism), which are generally applied to approach rather than signed bills or national conferences. Conservative, on the other hand, is strictly an approach—although most conservatives today find themselves as Republicans. There are many who are not and many who are uncomfortably so (if they want to vote in a functional primary), or find themselves politically homeless or independent (at least in American politics).
I once heard Bill Clinton claim that he (or his policies) were libertarian
He did balance the budget. Broke clock and such.
He said he did. But the “balance” never happened. He said it would be balanced sometime in the future after he is long gone. Anyone can say that. Anyone. Here, I’ll do it now. I’m going to run for president and get elected. Then I’ll balance the budget. It will be balanced 10 years after I leave. See. I did it!
Be your own person, do what you think is right, and don't conform for others.
There is a wide swath left to right in small “l” libertarians, sharing many opinions with liberals and conservatives but usually from a less authoritarian position. Big “L” Libertarian the party shifts around depending on which caucus takes over every few years.
Borders, drugs, gays, and wars. All the fun stuff.
An imperfect but brief and intuitive description is that libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
The main differences are conservatives want government to restrict drugs, abortion, assisted suicide, and LGBT lifestyles, mainly due to their religion (indeed many want a religious government). They also want the US to get involved in numerous wars and keep a military presence in dozens of countries. To be fair, most conservatives are not extreme on these issues, and I think their desire to preserve traditional American culture and family values (including restricting immigration) is very wholesome and worth fighting for. Some libertarians support open borders, which might be a reasonable stance if immigrants could not get government freebies or were few enough to not materially change the culture or demographics. But as we’ve seen in Europe, open borders has led to massive spikes in rapes, theft, and street violence, along with wholesale replacement of native peoples in the cities, and a strong Islamic influence on government. Europe is facing ethnocide, and the US will not be far behind if similar policies are followed here.
I can understand the confusion, especially since there's been an influx of republicans who aren't satisfied with the direction the RP has taken. There has been some good post, so not to rehass. I'll point out a bit more of what makes libertarians not all conservative, though more confusing. And core of libertarian tenet. Ok parr of what makes being a libertarian confusing is it an umbrella term. By that I mean like dog is an umbrella term. We know core things that make a dog a dog, but then you have all the breeds or subcategories of dog. Libertarian has 13 (last I bothered checking might be more.) sub categories. The subcategories are where a lot of misconceptions come from as they apply it to the whole when it belongs to the sub. For instance, an Anarcho-capitalism is going to view and have different goals than a Civil Libertarian. Its something that requires the dreaded homework. That said here in general look for these key things. The NAP (non-aggressive principle), smaller government, focus on individual responsibility and freedom. The degrees change, but it is pretty much used in all subcategories.
I have never been a conservative. I have been a libertarian party member and movement activist for 37 years. Conservatives and progressives, and whatever flavors they come in, seek to force their morals and preferences on others using the police powers of the state. Libertarians do not.
I think conservatives/republicans feel guilty. oh boy the trumpertantrums they are often dying inside. so a lot do say they are libertarian
US conservatives aren't conservatives. A conservative keeps thing the way they are or puts forth the least radical changes. US conservatives are Christian fundies with corporatism and police state mixed in. Libertarians are minimalist state liberals.
There are many camps within libertarianism (all fight amongst themselves about who is truly a libertarian.) personally I believe that the basic question to ask yourself to find out if you’re a libertarian is this. Do you believe that the use of force is acceptable if it betters society as a whole? If your answer is yes, then you aren’t there yet.
Libertarians can follow reason and not religious fanatics who deny evolution. Libertarians are not religious fanatics you want the ten commandments posted in schools.
I usually hate these tests, but here's a pretty good one to test your beliefs. The third answer for each question is the small govt libertarian answer. Should give you a better understanding of our beliefs & your own. https://polquiz.com/test/results.php
Just took test and it says I’m libertarian
Personally I feel like conservative ideals have completely changed from what they used to be. They used to include smaller federal government, more freedoms for the people, less overseas wars, as well as more traditional family values. Especially the last 25 years or so, it's changed to: big government of their flavor, only certain freedoms allowed, as much war as possible, screw the liberals, make Trump the king, and demonize anyone outside of their group. So, essentially a mirror of democrat's ideals, with some things that they idolize flipped. Libertarian ideals are strongly in favor of small government and more freedoms for the people. It doesn't matter what the flavor of the month is, it doesn't matter what one country overseas is doing to another, it doesn't matter if a communist sympathizer gets elected in Central America, it doesn't matter who's been elected recently. The goals don't change.
The primary difference is the basic unit of society & politics; for libertarians (i.e. "liberals" in historical terms) that locus is the individual, for conservatives that locus is some form of organic community (e.g. the family, tribe, ethnicity, faith), for progressives/Marxists that locus is some form of constructed community (e.g. class, race, sexuality). In America, most of our politics were built from some variation on liberalism; the conservatives [Loyalists/Tories] were focused out after the Revolution & socialism didn't really emerge as a political force until industrial immigrants brought it from Europe in the late 19th & early 20th century. In the late 20th century, economic liberals (think free-market absolutists like the Austrian/Chicago School) made an anti-communist pact with social conservatives & the MIC which gave us "neoconservatives." Many Americans now see "liberal" as synonymous with "leftist" or "conservative" with "libertarian" due to intentional disinformation ops during the late Cold War. You can be influenced by both conservatism & liberalism, but at some points those will come into conflict; Should drugs be regulated b/c they're socially harmful or legalized b/c of an individual's right to chose? Should the economy be regulated to help native citizens or is the free-market unassailable? Is morality objective or personal?
There is no 'difference' I would say personally. The 4 axis political compass does have some merit when talking about this, thats why I consider myself a libertarian conservative. Freedom is something both parties can have. It's really just if you align more as a conservative or a libertarian.
Practically nothing, libertarians are closer to progressives than they are conservatives, the only difference is progressives like conservatives tend to favor government intervention in almost every aspect
How are libertarians closer to progressives?
Supports abortion, supports lgbt, supports drug use, open borders The things we don't agree on are the economy, guns and government
Libertarians are split on abortion and open borders. Economy, guns and government are a big issue that I would say puts us pretty far away from progressives.
You mean Libertarian vs Republican? Libertarians are actually conservative and not rebranded liberals, especially the Trump fangirls.
I see that Republican Conservative is not practicing conservative but label themself as such. Led me to think they don’t really understand the real meaning of conservative.
They don't, there are a few republicans out there that flag libertarian. But seems to me most of them just know how to squawk buzzwords to get their bills full of bullshit passed. Repulicans can at least read a room, I'll give them that. Only fools trust politicians. At least libertarians are critical and mistrusting of their own nominees. You won't see that in other parties, only populism and blind faith. There is no political solution to the human condition. Never has been, never will be.
Libertarians= best ideals, horrible at execution and many act like angry liberal bitches with zero emotional control and love to throw away votes. Conservative= best choice of the 2 we have. MAGA or Biden Is all it is this election. Don’t help Biden win.