Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

****************************************************************************************************************
{DISCLAIMER} This thread is specifically for discussion between Libertarians and Social Conservatives, if you are a Liberal, we already know you will not abide by the guidelines and you will interject your worthless and useless opinions. While you are doing so, please try to refrain from diverting the thread into a discussion of George W. Bush, or anything else that happens to be on your pinhead mind. Thank You!
********************************************************************************************************************


Libertarians and Social Conservatives share the same proverbial bed when it comes to Conservatism in general, but there seems to be an irreconcilable difference between the two, and this thread is dedicated to bridging that difference, or at least attempting to better understand one another.

Like any married couple in turmoil, the problems are always found on both sides, and honestly evaluating these problems, is often the key to fostering a healthy and happy relationship. In that spirit, I open this thread for discussion of the problems, in a fair and objective way, to see if there may be some way to bring Libertarians and Social Conservatives back together again.

We must first start by dispelling some myths. All social cons are not religious nuts who want to force their religious dogma on the rest of society, and all libertarians are not free-spirited nincompoops who want full unfettered freedom to do whatever immoral act they please. Some are, the extremes exist for both sides, there is no doubting that, but for the most part, the average libertarian and social conservative, share a remarkable amount of similar viewpoints on government, and our most personal freedoms. There is certainly not enough of a difference in their views as a whole, to justify the hostilities.

In most marriage counseling sessions, the technique centers around getting the individual to think in terms outside of themselves, to examine their own flaws and faults as if they were someone on the outside looking at them. To stop focusing for a moment, on the flaws they find in their partner, and see themselves as others see them first. None of us are so vain as to claim we are perfect, we all have our faults and we know it, even if we don't often admit it, and even if we deny it to ourselves frequently. So in order to get to the bottom of the problems, we must first be willing to self-examine our own flaws and faults, and then we can better understand the complaints which are at the root of the problem itself. Take a moment to do some introspection here....

Okay, let's start the thread by each person listing what you believe to be your biggest flaw or fault, in finding acceptance with "social conservative" or "libertarian" values?
 
The biggest problem with social conservatism is it's insistence that morality is objective, and not subjective, and thus can be regulated by law.
 
The biggest problem with social conservatism is it's insistence that morality is objective, and not subjective, and thus can be regulated by law.

Remember, you are looking at this from the outside, your introspective view...

So you feel that morality is subjective and can't be regulated by law?
 
Social Conservatism is just Government Nannyism for the Soul rather than for the body.

Liberals care about how you treat your body and make stupid laws to take care of you, for instance no salt in NYC, helmet laws, seat belts, cigarettes in the bars...

Social "Conservatives" want to radically change our lifestyle so it suits their religious whimsy, they make laws that attempt to force you to follow their dogma. Such as "Marriage Licenses" that must be reserved for two heteros of the opposite sex who aren't related, or Blue Laws...

Both of these are a form of government force enacted solely so you will behave as each group wants, not because there is some victim to protect.
 
In short, yes.

Okay, but think about the gist of what you are saying, your ideal would be anarchy. No laws or rules of any kind, on anything that pertains to morals. This means age restrictions on when children are considered adults, public obscenity of any kind, sex with minors, animal abuse, even sexual and racial discrimination. It is all rooted in our societal concepts of what is and isn't moral behavior, is it not? If we can't pass laws to govern morality, how can we pass any law?
 
Remember, you are looking at this from the outside, your introspective view...

So you feel that morality is subjective and can't be regulated by law?
I believe that morality is subjective and SHOULD NOT be regulated by the law.
 
Okay, but think about the gist of what you are saying, your ideal would be anarchy. No laws or rules of any kind, on anything that pertains to morals. This means age restrictions on when children are considered adults, public obscenity of any kind, sex with minors, animal abuse, even sexual and racial discrimination. It is all rooted in our societal concepts of what is and isn't moral behavior, is it not? If we can't pass laws to govern morality, how can we pass any law?
Untrue, laws should be enacted to protect the rights of the individual, not morality. Here 1 example:

1. Right to life... <- No murder. That the rule fits with most moral dogmas doesn't change that it isn't enacted because Jeebus said it was wrong, it is enacted to protect the right you have to life.
 
Okay, but think about the gist of what you are saying, your ideal would be anarchy. No laws or rules of any kind, on anything that pertains to morals. This means age restrictions on when children are considered adults, public obscenity of any kind, sex with minors, animal abuse, even sexual and racial discrimination. It is all rooted in our societal concepts of what is and isn't moral behavior, is it not? If we can't pass laws to govern morality, how can we pass any law?
No.... what I'm saying is you cannot make laws that restrict my ability to act however I like, so long as they do not directly screw anyone. Laws against murder, laws dealing with age of adulthood/consent, laws dealing with fair business practices, Etc. do not fall in the category of morality. It may be that your morals, and indeed a vast number of other peoples morals, coincide, but stepped in morality, they are not. Unless you consider freedom morality (which, with morals being subjective, you very well may).
 
Social Conservatism is just Government Nannyism for the Soul rather than for the body.

Liberals care about how you treat your body and make stupid laws to take care of you, for instance no salt in NYC, helmet laws, seat belts, cigarettes in the bars...

Social "Conservatives" want to radically change our lifestyle so it suits their religious whimsy, they make laws that attempt to force you to follow their dogma. Such as "Marriage Licenses" that must be reserved for two heteros of the opposite sex who aren't related, or Blue Laws...

Both of these are a form of government force enacted solely so you will behave as each group wants, not because there is some victim to protect.

Neither Marriage Licensing or Blue Laws could be construed as "radically changing" your lifestyle. Both were initiatives voted on by the people at some point, and codified into law after much deliberation. I don't recall ever seeing the Baptist Prayer Act, where we are all forced to recite a Baptist prayer each day... So, I have to assume you have something to show for all this religious activism, other than what you've presented so far.

As I said in the OP, there are "extremes" on both sides! Some social conservatives are indeed like you describe, but most are simply not. For the most part, the typical social conservative is willing to let these "moral" issues be determined at the ballot box, and they will live with the result of democracy. They do not seek to force their will on the rest of society, they have no tenable purpose or reason to do so. While they are bound by their faith to support and encourage certain things, it doesn't mean they advocate these things being forced on society through a judge in a ruling by fiat.

In the spirit of the proposed question of the thread, I would say your biggest flaw is a gross misunderstanding of where most social conservatives stand on the issues.
 
No.... what I'm saying is you cannot make laws that restrict my ability to act however I like, so long as they do not directly screw anyone. Laws against murder, laws dealing with age of adulthood/consent, laws dealing with fair business practices, Etc. do not fall in the category of morality. It may be that your morals, and indeed a vast number of other peoples morals, coincide, but stepped in morality, they are not. Unless you consider freedom morality (which, with morals being subjective, you very well may).

Okay, so the law that prohibits you from peeking in your neighbor's window and watching his 16-year-old daughter undress, should be struck down! You should be legally able to do that, because it isn't harming (or directly screwing) anyone else, and it is giving you pleasure to act that way... correct?
 
Okay, so the law that prohibits you from peeking in your neighbor's window and watching his 16-year-old daughter undress, should be struck down! You should be legally able to do that, because it isn't harming (or directly screwing) anyone else, and it is giving you pleasure to act that way... correct?
Nope, right to privacy.
 
i really don't understand how social conservatives care if homosexuals marry or not...it is not your business how they live their personal life...homosexual acts are NOT illegal....
 
Nope, right to privacy.

But that is a right which is based and rooted in our sense of morality. What's wrong with me invading your privacy as long as I am not directly screwing you? Why should you deny me the freedom to act as I please, is your moral right more important than mine? When was that determined, and by whom?
 
But that is a right which is based and rooted in our sense of morality. What's wrong with me invading your privacy as long as I am not directly screwing you? Why should you deny me the freedom to act as I please, is your moral right more important than mine? When was that determined, and by whom?
Because, by interfering with MY right to privacy, you have ended the extension of your rights.
 
i really don't understand how social conservatives care if homosexuals marry or not...it is not your business how they live their personal life...homosexual acts are NOT illegal....

I think most social conservatives don't care what homosexuals do, they just don't want homosexuals establishing laws based on their sexual lifestyle in an attempt to legitimize their behavior. They also respect the traditional values of marriage, and feel it is important to the 'fabric' of our society to maintain those values. Still.... most of the social conservatives I know, are okay with putting Gay Marriage up to a vote by the people, and letting them decide if that's what they want. ...Democracy!

I've gone on record with this before, I favor comprehensive Civil Unions legislation, and getting government out of the marriage business completely. That's not exactly in line with most Social Conservatives, but it's my personal viewpoint. If there is a such thing, I am a Socially Conservative Libertarian. I find merit in ideas from both camps, as well as inherent flaws, and my personal views are often somewhere in between. This is why I thought the thread would be interesting, but I am a bit disappointed in the answers to my question... it seems you guys just want to rehash the same old tired arguments AGAINST the other side, and you aren't willing to participate in the introspective exercise. That's disappointing to me, I thought Libertarians were intellectual!!
 
Dixie, I understand you must be frustrated by this point that nobody is trying to criticize themselves. Frankly, I was having a hard time doing it, but let me just say what's on my mind and then we can get Socratic about it.

I think social conservatives and libertarians do have more in common than they realize, but the problem is that their understanding about what they want to achieve is completely different. I know there are thoughtful social conservatives who genuinely believe their ideas will better sustain individual freedom, but that's a hard sell to a jaded group of skeptics.

I would like libertarians to come to the table more with social conservatives on areas where there may be agreement or philosophical similarity, but I think in order for that to happen, if in fact social conservatives think they need libertarians in the 21st century, then they are going to have to make some sacrifices, as will libertarians.

I think there are libertarians who will come to the defense of social conservatives on some of their agenda. Certainly there are pro-life libertarians, libertarians who think activist judges have twisted the meaning of the First Amendment, and even some libertarians who are of the position that marriage is a state issue, or who prefer traditional marriage in their states.

But among my generation particularly, you have a lot of people who are totally ready to throw in with the left on pretty much every issue of concern to social conservatives because they don't feel welcome. In fact, they reject ALL social conservative ideas because the few they are familiar with have scared them away.

And I've made this same criticism of libertarians that rigid ideology is not the way to go for a mass movement. Traditions and principles, consistent with the world in which we're living, serve us better. We need more than a base, we need a coalition.

Believe me, I've spent a lot of time trying to teach libertarians to consider themselves part of the conservative movement. And many are unfortunately very resistant because they think you guys don't get them.

They see a group against them and their expression that wants to tell them what to read, what to watch, what they can do with their money, crying to Washington to regulate things that offend them, and that doesn't feel in line with their core beliefs. Frankly, I think too many of you guys have forgotten what your core beliefs about government and liberty are based upon.

Obviously, I think the two groups need each other and I think the left will never be a better ally as some libertarians wish they would be. So, I think it's going to take compromise. Frankly, the two groups were pals during the Cold War, but now that we're in a new era that is more socially libertarian than its predecessor, I think social conservatives have to realize getting married to today's libertarians is kind of a gay marriage to begin with.
 
Because, by interfering with MY right to privacy, you have ended the extension of your rights.

But you are claiming a right based on your moral belief that you have a right to privacy, and I may not share your moral belief that you do. You were the one who stated that you didn't think law should be based on morality, I am just illustrating the extension of your idea. Whether or not you want to acknowledge that your "right to privacy" is a moral establishment, it certainly is.
 
Back
Top