Conservatives Are (Mostly) Not Libertarians

Timshel

New member
IMO, Krugman gets this one (mostly) right. Stopped clock?

Conservatives DO NOT share libertarian ideas on free markets. They only care about privilege and getting handouts from the state for well to do white Christians.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/conservatives-are-mostly-not-libertarians/?_r=1&

...most conservatives are not libertarians, even if they like to use libertarian rhetoric now and then.


Think about it: the modern Republican party may be the party of deregulation and low taxes, but it’s also the party of social illiberalism. Someone like Rick Santorum firmly believes that the government has no right to tell business owners what they can do in the workplace, but has every right to tell ordinary citizens what they can do in the bedroom. William Buckley’s God and Man at Yale was in large part a diatribe against the notion that colleges were teaching students about unemployment and how to fight it; but what Buckley wanted was, in effect, for those colleges to get back to their proper role, which was religious indoctrination. In its heyday National Review was a staunch supporter of free markets; but it was also a staunch supporter of Jim Crow — which wasn’t just about the right of white business owners to discriminate against blacks, it was about a system of laws designed to protect white privilege.


All of this makes no sense if you think of liberalism versus conservatism as a simple argument about the size and role of the state. But it makes perfect sense if you follow Corey Robin, who sees it as being all about the protection of traditional hierarchy:


For that is what conservatism is: a meditation on, and theoretical rendition of, the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.
 
i think this is pretty obvious. Otherwise the libertarian party would have a lot more success.
 
The libertarian cause is killing itself on the drugs issue.

Leave legalizing to the different states and decriminalize drug usage federally. The people in the states should determine drugs being legal or not and using something like pot should be no greater a crime than a nickel card game.
 
The libertarian cause is killing itself on the drugs issue.

Leave legalizing to the different states and decriminalize drug usage federally. The people in the states should determine drugs being legal or not and using something like pot should be no greater a crime than a nickel card game.

That pretty much sums up the libertarian position on the issue. And no matter what the faux libertarian neoconfederates say, it is a very popular issue for libertarians and the LP, just like same sex marriage, which should not be left to the states.
 
Think about it: the modern Republican party may be the party of deregulation and low taxes,


The modern Republican party may be the party of deregulation and low taxes??????

Are you on something dude.

Do you have any facts to back that statement up?
 
That pretty much sums up the libertarian position on the issue. And no matter what the faux libertarian neoconfederates say, it is a very popular issue for libertarians and the LP, just like same sex marriage, which should not be left to the states.

Because of the 14th the states have no more right to tell people which religion's marital practices they must follow than does the federal government.
 
Because of the 14th the states have no more right to tell people which religion's marital practices they must follow than does the federal government.

It's amazing how much we here the word libertarian now days.

10+ years ago, you would hardly ever here it.
 
The 14th amendment was unconstitutional to begin with.

LOL. It's part of the constitution, man. It's what an Amendment does... Hence the root word "Amend" which means "Change"...

Once adopted it is wholly a part of the constitution. Like those first 10 Amendments which also weren't "constitutional" before they were adopted.
 
The modern Republican party may be the party of deregulation and low taxes??????

Are you on something dude.

Do you have any facts to back that statement up?

:rolleyes:

No but, you obviously are or should be. I did not write that. Krugman did.

It is not inaccurate according to the general perception and the way they try to market their party. They do often push for deregulation and lower taxes for their well established white Christian supporters.
 
LOL. It's part of the constitution, man. It's what an Amendment does... Hence the root word "Amend" which means "Change"...

Once adopted it is wholly a part of the constitution. Like those first 10 Amendments which also weren't "constitutional" before they were adopted.

I think, he is probably going to reference the batshit crazy conspiracy theories surrounding the adoption of the 14th.
 
That pretty much sums up the libertarian position on the issue. And no matter what the faux libertarian neoconfederates say, it is a very popular issue for libertarians and the LP, just like same sex marriage, which should not be left to the states.

You don't think anything should be left to the states which is besides the point. I believe (think) the libertarian party wants to legalize heroin. The libertarian party continues to ignore the needs of society in the name of personal freedom which is preventing them from ever entering the national political stage. The key here is to decriminalize drugs federally while maintaining child endangerment laws concerning the heavy drugs and then leaving the entire drug question to the states.

Queer marriage is also a states issue one way or the other.
 
:rolleyes:

No but, you obviously are or should be. I did not write that. Krugman did.

It is not inaccurate according to the general perception and the way they try to market their party. They do often push for deregulation and lower taxes for their well established white Christian supporters.

Well their white Christian supporters deserve what they get. They would trade liberty in a second.
 
LOL. It's part of the constitution, man. It's what an Amendment does... Hence the root word "Amend" which means "Change"...

Once adopted it is wholly a part of the constitution. Like those first 10 Amendments which also weren't "constitutional" before they were adopted.

Is that so?

Tell me how it was ratified?

How many Democrats were in congress when it was ratified and what was used as a bribe to allow the southern states remittance into the union?

Did it get the necessary majority vote?
 
I think, he is probably going to reference the batshit crazy conspiracy theories surrounding the adoption of the 14th.


Batshit crazy?

Did the 14th amendment get the necessary votes in congress for it to be ratified?

I understand that the 14th trumped amendments 1 through 10 for you lefties over states rights but how was it not unconstitutional?
 
You don't think anything should be left to the states which is besides the point. I believe (think) the libertarian party wants to legalize heroin. The libertarian party continues to ignore the needs of society in the name of personal freedom which is preventing them from ever entering the national political stage. The key here is to decriminalize drugs federally while maintaining child endangerment laws concerning the heavy drugs and then leaving the entire drug question to the states.

Queer marriage is also a states issue one way or the other.

No, it is conservatives who ignore the needs of society in the name of socially conservative cultural dominance.

I do think many things should be left to the states. Your charge is not true. But state's do not have any rights. They have powers that are limited by the Constitution via the 14th. Even where it is in the best interest of liberty to trust the states with power does not mean the states should enact authoritarian laws.

I think we should decriminalize all drugs at the Federal and state level. I can see no argument for a constitutional right to the recreational use of drugs. I wish it were there, but it is not. There may well be an argument for a right to medical use.

So the states should be able to, mostly, make their own choices on how they deal with drugs though I support and would encourage them to decriminalize all drugs and legalize many.
 
Batshit crazy?

Did the 14th amendment get the necessary votes in congress for it to be ratified?

I understand that the 14th trumped amendments 1 through 10 for you lefties over states rights but how was it not unconstitutional?

I have not ventured into the fever swamps on this issue for awhile. But just what are you talking about? Congress does not ratify an amendment but rather they propose. Are you suggesting the proposal did not gain enough votes?
 
I have not ventured into the fever swamps on this issue for awhile. But just what are you talking about? Congress does not ratify an amendment but rather they propose. Are you suggesting the proposal did not gain enough votes?

It didn't get the majority it needed, no.

So if the southern states had to vote for it in order to get back into the union, how does that make it constitutional?

I thought the southern states never left the union in the first place.
 
IMO, Krugman gets this one (mostly) right. Stopped clock?

Conservatives DO NOT share libertarian ideas on free markets. They only care about privilege and getting handouts from the state for well to do white Christians.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/conservatives-are-mostly-not-libertarians/?_r=1&

...most conservatives are not libertarians, even if they like to use libertarian rhetoric now and then.


Think about it: the modern Republican party may be the party of deregulation and low taxes, but it’s also the party of social illiberalism. Someone like Rick Santorum firmly believes that the government has no right to tell business owners what they can do in the workplace, but has every right to tell ordinary citizens what they can do in the bedroom. William Buckley’s God and Man at Yale was in large part a diatribe against the notion that colleges were teaching students about unemployment and how to fight it; but what Buckley wanted was, in effect, for those colleges to get back to their proper role, which was religious indoctrination. In its heyday National Review was a staunch supporter of free markets; but it was also a staunch supporter of Jim Crow — which wasn’t just about the right of white business owners to discriminate against blacks, it was about a system of laws designed to protect white privilege.


All of this makes no sense if you think of liberalism versus conservatism as a simple argument about the size and role of the state. But it makes perfect sense if you follow Corey Robin, who sees it as being all about the protection of traditional hierarchy:


For that is what conservatism is: a meditation on, and theoretical rendition of, the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

There is no such thing as a 'free market' .. it only exists in the libertarian mind.
 
Back
Top