← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales
Thread ID: 19381 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2005-08-01
2005-08-01 22:09 | User Profile
Anyone got a url that points out the differences. Im sure we can all name more than a few. I sometimes find myself agreeing with someone that generally follows the Libertarian philosophy. Its when we get to domestic issues and a few other topics that we part company.
More about each
Libertarianisim
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian[/url]
Paleoconservativeism [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative[/url]
So, has anyone got a url thehat points out most of differences ?
2005-08-01 22:24 | User Profile
I love mixing it up with self-described libertarians on chat boards. They're good material because they're usually pretty bright, understand conservative ideas but fear "social conservatism," and are open to out-there political thinking.
Why won't actual libertarianism ever see fruition?
Because under it, white nationalists would get much of what they want --- the freedom to associate with each other and disassociate with non-whites.
A white nationalist government will spring up before a "libertarian" one ever will.
2005-08-01 22:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]Anyone got a url that points out the differences. Im sure we can all name more than a few. I sometimes find myself agreeing with someone that generally follows the Libertarian philosophy. Its when we get to domestic issues and a few other topics that we part company.
More about each
Libertarianisim
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian[/url]
Paleoconservativeism [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative[/url]
So, has anyone got a url thehat points out most of differences ?[/QUOTE]
This one ain't bad
[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=106891&postcount=1]Libertariamism - Marxism of the Right[/URL]
But this is my favorite
[QUOTE]<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Last updated 03/13/05.
No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's view of the precepts of libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to real libertarianism!
Introduction
One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".
This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
Copyright 2005 by Mike Huben ( [email]mhuben@world.std.com[/email] ).
This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact. [/QUOTE]
2005-08-01 23:29 | User Profile
The Huben site is nice, though it some of its contentes have PC tendencies. I found this there awhile ago
[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=2]Why I am not a libertarian[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=2] Published April 15, 2001
[/size][/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica][size=2] Not only is no man an island, but no man is self-made.I'm going to tell you why I am almost, but not quite, a libertarian.
First, capitalism, unless moderated by Christian virtue or government, is just as brutal and cruel as communism.
I know that's hard for baby boomers to believe. After all, they grew up in the incredibly prosperous post-World War II United States. Most have never experienced really hard times. Most have not bothered to read much history or literature. Many were content to believe the fairy tales woven by Ayn Rand and her cohorts.
Try digging coal for a few pennies a ton in an unsafe mine where you are forced to buy your own tools. Try imagining a disabling injury and, instead of receiving workers' compensation or disability insurance, your broken body is just tossed off the company property.
That's capitalism.
Try a six- or seven-day work week with 12-hour days, a pittance for wages, in a hellish and unhealthy environment and absolutely no benefits.
That's capitalism.
You can still see pure capitalism in places such as Calcutt or Mogadishu. Capitalism is great if you're the capitalist, just as communism is great if you're the commissar or the party bigwig.
I wonder how many Americans would be willing to cut and sew a pair of finished blue jeans for 75 cents in a sweltering, bug-infested building. How many pair do you think you would have to cut and sew in order to feed your family?
Those $30 to $50 pair of jeans we wear were made by what amounts to slave labor in Central America or Asia.
I've never been a union member and don't intend to be one, but I can at least appreciate the struggle that union men undertook to improve the lives of working men and women. I guarantee you that without the "threat" of unionization, most working men and women would see a quite different face on their employers.
And that may not be too far off. Under phony free-trade deals, unions are being broken and pressured by the movement of and the threat to move factories overseas. Anybody who expects real compassion from a corporation would mistake Hannibal Lecter for a vegetarian. Unfortunately, the union leadership is so infected with socialists that they would rather pursue their ideological goals than look out for their members.
So, although I strongly believe in the maximum possible freedom, I also believe in community and in responsibility to that community. Not only is no man an island, but no man is self-made. Some people are just good at forgetting all the people who helped them get where they are.
If you aspire to total freedom and want to be entirely self-made, then go to a deserted island and live entirely off your own labor. If you survive, you can claim to be a self-sufficient person.
But don't live in a community with all its protections and benefits, don't go to public schools, ride on public roads, enjoy the benefits of publicly provided clean water and sanitary sewers and proclaim yourself an individual who owes nobody anything. That's just bravo sierra, and you know it.
Freedom is not a virtue per se. It can mean the freedom of the strong to bully and enslave the weak. It can mean the freedom to exploit the poor, to despoil the land and the water, to turn your back on the oppressed, the sick, the dying.
That's why, instead of a libertarian, I fall in with those old-fashioned conservatives who believe in ordered liberty, strict observances of the Constitution and a mind-our-own-business foreign policy. Don't confuse me with the neo-conservatives who like big government and imperialism as long as they run it. Most of those guys are just ex-Troskyites, anyway. And don't confuse me with chamber-of -commerce conservatives who say that anything good for big business is good for the country. That's horse manure.
At the same time, I'm definitely not a socialist. An ex-socialist, John Dos Passos, has remarked that the world was becoming a museum of socialist failures. And so it is.
The idea of a mean, something-short-of-pure, unregulated capitalism and pure, over-regulated socialism is what we should strive for.
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20010416233157/http://orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-oped-reese15041501.column[/url] [/size][/font]
2005-08-02 01:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]The Huben site is nice, though it some of its contentes have PC tendencies. I found this there awhile ago [/QUOTE]Yes it is the wit that stands out to me, not necessarily the deep ideology. Libertarians are the most dogmatic ideologues most people hear on mainstream sites, but actually here we've found WN ideologues have pretty much the same tendencies, as are genuinely dedicated ideologues of other stripes.
2005-08-02 01:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I love mixing it up with self-described libertarians on chat boards. They're good material because they're usually pretty bright, understand conservative ideas but fear "social conservatism," and are open to out-there political thinking.
Why won't actual libertarianism ever see fruition?
Because under it, white nationalists would get much of what they want --- the freedom to associate with each other and disassociate with non-whites.
A white nationalist government will spring up before a "libertarian" one ever will.[/QUOTE] Whilst in college I latched onto the libertarian bandwagon. With maturity I learned that although a lot of what libertarianism preaches is good stuff, I soon realized that in order for a true libertarian state to exists, society must be moral. Without a religously moral society, libertarianism will never work. As long as we have to include others in our society that do not believe, think, act, speak or dream in the same philosophy that Utopia will not happen.
2005-08-02 12:17 | User Profile
In my opinion, there are two main points of disagreement between libertarianism and paleoconservatism. There are actually many more, but the rest flow from these two underlying ones.
Libertarianism posits that communities do not exist; only individuals do. Therefore, it is always illegitimate for the group to coerce the individual. Paleoconservatism recognizes the existence and value of both individuals and communities, and strives to balance the welfare of both.
Libertarianism defines morality as 'that which 'the market' has freely chosen.' If the market has chosen an outcome, then that outcome is de facto right. Paleoconservatism defines morality according to the orthodox Christian tradition, and judges outcomes (including economic ones) by that tradition.
2005-08-02 12:19 | User Profile
Rob,
Good find. I subscribe to that. Libertarian.org believes in open borders.
2005-08-02 18:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]Whilst in college I latched onto the libertarian bandwagon. With maturity I learned that although a lot of what libertarianism preaches is good stuff, I soon realized that in order for a true libertarian state to exists, society must be moral.[/QUOTE]
I agree. It shouldn't be all that controversial to suggest that both groups and individuals must be considered. Mistake of communism is to cut out individuals entirely. Mistake of libertarianism is to cut out groups entirely.
Mistake of the U.S. is cut out whites entirely!
2005-08-02 18:38 | User Profile
Libertarianism and Marxism have much in common. Their "great thinkers" are mostly Jews. Ayn Rand is the alter ego of Karl Marx. They are both social experiments rather than just attempts to fix what their followers think is wrong. They are both very compatible with incremental world government. They pretend race, religion, culture, language (differences) and tradition don't exist and/or are not worth saving.
But they have some good ideas and many individual libertarians are pretty good people....in some cases potential converts to "anti-Semitism"....at least the ones who are vigilant to "big brother" issues.
I work 3 Libertarian forums.
2005-08-03 03:51 | User Profile
I think the main problem with libertarians is that they are usually pro-choice and they are usually pro-gay marriage. Other than that, and that's a lot, they are not too bad. I have never heard anyone say that libertarians are against belief in race. Sorry buddy, your comparisons to Marxism just aren't legitimate.
When you think of it both are for small government. It is just the stances on a few wedge issues that make them differ.
If libertarians believe your freedoms end when they hurt other people's freedoms, then why aren't they pro-life? Doesn't make sense to me.
So libertarianism and conservatism are actually quite similar when you get past these wedge issues.
2005-08-03 04:54 | User Profile
I think the comparisons between Libertarianism and Marxism are apt. I like the fact that the Libertarians are against so many of the useless wars our country engages in, but my sympathy stops for them after that.
Libertarianism and Marxism are materialistic idealogies that consider man to be just a unit of economic production and consumption. The CEO is the Libertarian god that stands above all other forms of inferior humanity. Ayn Rand was a piece of crap with eyes!
2005-08-03 06:18 | User Profile
I tend to strongly agree with most libertarian views on personal rights. Just as Jesus himself demonstrated by example when he prevented that woman from being stoned for adultery, there should be no punishment for "victimless crimes." Similarly, no one has the right to punish anyone else for the expression of ideas, for associating or refusing to associate with anyone, for having the "wrong" religious beliefs, for using drugs in private or for otherwise harming their health, or otherwise doing things that are no one's business but their own. And the right to self-defense is the most basic right of all living things, so everyone should be allowed to privately own any weapon he chooses and can afford (or make) as long as its use would not be certain to endanger innocent people.
On the other hand, I have trouble with some aspects of economic libertarianism. Privately-owned highways? I don't think so. And I think a safety net for those who become truly incapacitated and unable to earn a living is very desirable, since nearly anyone can fall victim to such a situation.
Libertarian support for lax immigration policy (though by no means universal among self-described libertarians) is just silly. For one thing, in order to maintain a free society, you need to make sure the society remains composed mostly of people who value freedom. Just letting people in willy-nilly isn't the way to do that. And once a society is formed by people of one race who seek to keep their society racially and/or culturally homogeneous, they have every right to do so.
All in all, I think paleoconservatism with as much personal liberty and as little centralized power as is feasible is the best way to go.
2005-08-03 06:46 | User Profile
That's total crap. Marxism is pro government intervention. Libertarianism is anti government internention. Libertarianism is closer to conservatism than it is to Marxism.
2005-08-03 08:38 | User Profile
I'm called, by SARTRE and his crew, a "paleolibertarian."
I'll take it.
Am:
-Anti-abortion (rape, incest and to save the life of the mother excepted) -Protectionist (tariffs work) -a Flat-taxer (10%, that's it; across the board; no exceptions, no loopholes) -anti-UN
but am also:
-anti-War On [some] drugs (decriminalize 'em all; let persons behavior be the judge) -not averse to prostitution (how is it different from paying for a woman's fine dinner and a hotel afterward and getting laid?)
In a word, I'm sane. :holiday:
2005-08-03 09:13 | User Profile
tbf: "-anti-War On [some] drugs (decriminalize 'em all; let persons behavior be the judge)"
As with most anti-WOD'ers, you have left out eliminating the welfare state before legalising drugs. Most anti-WOD'ers (including libertarians) seem willing to leave the welfare state in place.
I've gone on record as being against the Federal WOD, also. But I stipulate the welfare state goes first. As long as there is socialism to catch the drug fall-out, the fall-out will use those state benefits.
2005-08-03 09:21 | User Profile
Welfare state? Me, a fan? Don't throw the red-herring, mon. :pimp:
As an adult-long drug abuser, I've never taken a thin-dime of U.S. taxpayers' monies. & of the friends I have who are libertarian on the "Drugs"-question, none of them have, either.
No. The two aren't intertwined. Wanting to make it so won't make it so. There are folks who can handle their drugs-of-choice (alcohol included, being "legal"...and which has been my only real problem in life, btw.); and those who can't.
Those who can't and who insist on doing so are disqualified from the human race based upon incompetence-under-the-influence.
So long as one behaves himself within appropriate legal and neighborly standards, it's not the Gubm't's business what one ingests. It just ain't.
2005-08-03 10:36 | User Profile
tbf: Those who can't and who insist on doing so are disqualified from the human race based upon incompetence-under-the-influence.
I don't have a scientific survey, but I suspect the overwhelming number of drug abusers are not libertarians and have no problem using the welfare system to sustain themselves.
From my perspective, the welfare state must go first, before legalising drugs. For one thing, drug use will probably go down once the welfare is cut off.
If the welfare state is not eliminated, then those of us who are sober and work, end up paying for those who have a hard time functioning. (We already are doing that). It's hard enough just keeping sober, lazy people off of welfare, let alone add an addiction to the mix.
BTW, alcohol abuse will kill you. It killed my brother.
2005-08-03 10:41 | User Profile
tbf:
So long as one behaves himself within appropriate legal and neighborly standards, it's not the Gubm't's business what one ingests. It just ain't.
The Fed'ral WOD must be defunded and dismantle. The WOD should be decided as a local and community issue, not a Federal one. Get the Feds out of our local communities, period.
There should be no Constitutional Amendment guarranteeing the "right" to do any substance. This is a state and local matter. The Feds use the WOD as an excuse to abuse the Constitution. If there's to be any enforcement of drugs, it is the sheriff's job, no one elses.
2005-08-03 21:17 | User Profile
Yup.
And where in Nevada prostitution is legal, so will be "legal" in certain regions ones proclivity to smoke dope or drop acid or whatnot.
I agree with regionalism; am in every way opposed to FedGov's supposed "authority" over 96% of what constitutes America. The 10th amendment outlaws FedGov except wherein it is written as being authorized in [whatever] within the Constitution.
So, you and I agree about this aspect. &, sure, alcohol and tobacco are the two biggest killers amongst Drugs. FedGov doesn't seem to mind.
Dig? :beer: